Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[chessnut]

Im from South Africa, I know if try and tell a guy on the street that, he will kill you take your every belonging to buy food and survive another day. there is no money there, there is no work, they are all slaves to capitalism. and I love those people, they are good people.

and killing and stealing is another free market system that really works.....

Killing and stealing only works until the productive people stop producing, and then everybody starves. The productive people started leaving South Africa in droves when the anti-capitalist Nelson Mendela took over. There's no place on earth with more natural resources per acre than South Africa. If people are starving there, then it's because the government killers and thieves created an environment hostile to peaceful trade.

 

of coarse Nelson Mandela was anti capitalistic, look how it ruined the country. 'The roads of the british empire are paved with the gold from Africa.'

"all the productive people" includes only rich white boys such as myself. I cant say that I was nearly as productive as those people on the street who have to break any number of laws and endure terrible fighting to gather those natural resources. they wouldn't call it capitalism them selves.

The reason why SA is very unproductive is because when the capitalists in America (that own most of the mining shares) hear complaints about wages in the coal and gold mines, they dont mind if the workers get shot when they protest. and that is the biggest export of SA.

those miners earn something like $1 per hour, and the mining debree is killing them.

[Wary]

Perfect equality of opportunity can never exist, but it is very much in everyone's interest to seek to achieve a condition in which most gross inequities are removed, where possible, because this means fewer people want to cut your throat badly enough to actually do something about it.

The biggest inequity between girls is that some are beautiful and some are ugly. The happy few can marry billionaires, while their hapless systers don't have a slightest chance. Some small and painless surgery can easy remove this inequity. Cut her nose off and the former beauty will not be a subject of envy and anger of less privileged girls anymore.

A lot of such inequalities can be fixed just as easy. Say, some guys are too smart for the common good. They can become billionaires by 30. And if even they won't, they will still be subject of envy and frustration. A lot of guys will feel miserable after quick conversation with some smart snappy genius. Again, little brain surgery and another source of social tension is removed. Why not?

[billyjoeallen]

Perfect equality of opportunity can never exist, but it is very much in everyone's interest to seek to achieve a condition in which most gross inequities are removed, where possible, because this means fewer people want to cut your throat badly enough to actually do something about it.

I think I understand what you are saying, but I believe it is my duty as a father to giver my daughter every advantage possible, which is the opposite of equality of opportunity. But it's also my duty to ensure that she doesn't end up in the position of Anastasia Romanov.

[aminorex]

Perfect equality of opportunity can never exist, but it is very much in everyone's interest to seek to achieve a condition in which most gross inequities are removed, where possible, because this means fewer people want to cut your throat badly enough to actually do something about it.

The biggest inequity between girls is that some are beautiful and some are ugly. The happy few can marry billionaires, while their hapless systers don't have a slightest chance. Some small and painless surgery can easy remove this inequity. Cut her nose off and the former beauty will not be a subject of envy and anger of less privileged girls anymore.

A lot of such inequalities can be fixed just as easy. Say, some guys are too smart for the common good. They can become billionaires by 30. And if even they won't, they will still be subject of envy and frustration. A lot of guys will feel miserable after quick conversation with some smart snappy genius. Again, little brain surgery and another source of social tension is removed. Why not?

That's the reductio argument implicit in the Vonnegut story we all know and love from high school.  The alternative is of course to not do anything terribly stupid because of pathological monomania.  I like the alternative better.

[aminorex]

Perfect equality of opportunity can never exist, but it is very much in everyone's interest to seek to achieve a condition in which most gross inequities are removed, where possible, because this means fewer people want to cut your throat badly enough to actually do something about it.

I think I understand what you are saying, but I believe it is my duty as a father to giver my daughter every advantage possible, which is the opposite of equality of opportunity. But it's also my duty to ensure that she doesn't end up in the position of Anastasia Romanov.

And yes, that's very much what I did mean:  A rationally self-interested sort and degree of egalitarianism which anyone with adaptive cognitive traits adequate to survival can find some way to rationalize within their ideology.   Certainly equalizers which involve lifting all boats are much more in the vein of win-win than are equalizers which involve sinking all boats.

I might even go further personally, although I won't ask anyone else to do so:   I too try to give my daughter every reasonable advantage which will not corrupt her or rob someone else.  One of those advantages is the advantage of an example of -- dare I say it?  will the spectre of ayn rand come and suck all the green ink from my veins? -- altruistic behaviour, and its rewards in life.  By altruistic behaviour I do not mean pathological monomania. 

[arepo]

so what ultimately determines wages is productivity

unfortunately, the data has shown that this is not true anymore, and hasn't been for more than 4 decades.

i agree that government and bureaucracy is in a large part obstructing some of the natural restructuring that would otherwise occur in the free market in today's stratified society. however, it is obvious that a paradigm shift occurred around 1970 when productivity, employment rates, and wages decoupled. i don't think it is a coincidence that this lines up with a shift towards automative replacement of many jobs, in both unskilled and skilled labor.

There's another explanation. "On 15 August 1971, the United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of the US$ to gold." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

can you demonstrate how the Bretton Woods System would have the aforementioned effect on productivity and wages? cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.

"this coupled with the severe contraction of the economy in 2008 and the jobless recovery since has produced and maintained feedback loops manifesting themselves as rapid stratification in both income and wealth distribution in the US and the world: wage suppression, natural monopolization and other effects of economies of scale, globalization of economies corresponding to globalization of inequality, and large profits for the business and financial elite corresponding to large negative externalities for everyone else. each of these items could be expanded into an entire thesis, but i won't go into more detail. the point is that each of these things are independent feedback loops that support and accelerate wealth inequality."

There is no such thing as "natural monopolization". Governments create monopolies. The free market resists them as mass resists acceleration. The only business model that can't be copied is government-mandated exclusivity. Bitcoin is probably the best example of free market dominance and even it faces hundreds of competitors eating into it's market share.

there is very much so such a thing as a natural monopoly and if you disagree you are at odds with basic economics. you also conveniently forgot to address every other item on that list. there is no "free market" ideal, there is only the apparatus that exists, and the present apparatus rewards huge negative externalities and is perpetuating and accelerating wealth inequality, both things which render it unsustainable in the long term. high rates of unemployment coupled with wage suppression creates poverty traps worse than the welfare state. we're not talking about "Capitalism" or "The Free Market", we're talking about global capitalism as it exists today, and the global market. the ills are most certainly not the sole fault of governments, and scapegoating them in this way is a dangerous misdirection away from the real issues endemic in the apparatus that are contributing to the suffering of millions...

in other words, i don't care about your lofty Randian free market ideals. while capitalism may be "the best solution we can aspire to", and that would be hard to disagree with, it is also clear that our present form of global capitalism is suffering from a huge amount of inefficiencies, many of which cannot be attributed to meddling governments. how can we reconcile these two things? i have no clue, but we've first got to get our heads out of our asses and stop worshipping the sacred cow long enough to think critically about why the apparatus is failing at efficiently distributing resources.

--arepo

[JorgeStolfi]

In the late night hours when Huobi's trade volume is nearly zero, OKCoin has a very steady traffic (almost constant in the 5-min charts) averaging 12 BTC/minute.  In 24 hours that would be about 17 kBTC, more than the difference between Huobi and OKCoin. 

[surfer43]

OP: please rename topic to
General Discussion of Human Society
Thanks

[billyjoeallen]

Im from South Africa, I know if try and tell a guy on the street that, he will kill you take your every belonging to buy food and survive another day. there is no money there, there is no work, they are all slaves to capitalism. and I love those people, they are good people.

and killing and stealing is another free market system that really works.....

Killing and stealing only works until the productive people stop producing, and then everybody starves. The productive people started leaving South Africa in droves when the anti-capitalist Nelson Mendela took over. There's no place on earth with more natural resources per acre than South Africa. If people are starving there, then it's because the government killers and thieves created an environment hostile to peaceful trade.

 

of coarse Nelson Mandela was anti capitalistic, look how it ruined the country. 'The roads of the british empire are paved with the gold from Africa.'

"all the productive people" includes only rich white boys such as myself. I cant say that I was nearly as productive as those people on the street who have to break any number of laws and endure terrible fighting to gather those natural resources. they wouldn't call it capitalism them selves.

The reason why SA is very unproductive is because when the capitalists in America (that own most of the mining shares) hear complaints about wages in the coal and gold mines, they dont mind if the workers get shot when they protest. and that is the biggest export of SA.

those miners earn something like $1 per hour, and the mining debree is killing them.

South Africa was NEVER capitalist. Imperialism and colonialism is not capitalism. Capitalism is voluntary trade in a system that respects private property rights. What we have is the RELATIVELY capitalist apartheid system under P.W. Botha and the relatively less capitalist system that has been in place since then. Under most metrics, life for the average South African was better under apartheid, even with the gross injustices and racism.  Using South Africa as an example of failure of capitalism is like using alchemy as an example of failure of chemistry. It simply doesn't apply. Calling colonialism "capitalism" and then criticism colonialism is straw man argument at its finest.

There are lessons to be learns from South Africa, but no agreement is possible if we can't agree on the definitions of the terms we use.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[chessnut]

actually it was capitalism before Mandela, in a democracy where black people couldnt vote.

you see, capitalism is vulnerable to psychopathic traits, it's not a strawman argument.

[surfer43]

so what ultimately determines wages is productivity

unfortunately, the data has shown that this is not true anymore, and hasn't been for more than 4 decades.

---

there is very much so such a thing as a natural monopoly and if you disagree you are at odds with basic economics. you also conveniently forgot to address every other item on that list. there is no "free market" ideal, there is only the apparatus that exists, and the present apparatus rewards huge negative externalities and is perpetuating and accelerating wealth inequality, both things which render it unsustainable in the long term. high rates of unemployment coupled with wage suppression creates poverty traps worse than the welfare state. we're not talking about "Capitalism" or "The Free Market", we're talking about global capitalism as it exists today, and the global market. the ills are most certainly not the sole fault of governments, and scapegoating them in this way is a dangerous misdirection away from the real issues endemic in the apparatus that are contributing to the suffering of millions...

in other words, i don't care about your lofty Randian free market ideals. while capitalism may be "the best solution we can aspire to", and that would be hard to disagree with, it is also clear that our present form of global capitalism is suffering from a huge amount of inefficiencies, many of which cannot be attributed to meddling governments. how can we reconcile these two things? i have no clue, but we've first got to get our heads out of our asses and stop worshipping the sacred cow long enough to think critically about why the apparatus is failing at efficiently distributing resources.

--arepo

+1
The fundamental issue with capitalism is property rights, which are always involuntary.

[aminorex]

There's another explanation. "On 15 August 1971, the United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of the US$ to gold." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

can you demonstrate how the Bretton Woods System would have the aforementioned effect on productivity and wages? cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.

Here's my quick and facile go at it:  Stagflation was the direct and immediate result.  The mechanism for that should be obvious.  The consequences to the livelihoods of the proles likewise.

[aminorex]

Im from South Africa, I know if try and tell a guy on the street that, he will kill you take your every belonging to buy food and survive another day. there is no money there, there is no work, they are all slaves to capitalism. and I love those people, they are good people.

and killing and stealing is another free market system that really works.....

Brilliant point.  Very reality based.

Not really. Market, by definition, is based on voluntary exchange. If you broad it's definition to include involuntary exchanges, it will include all human activity and therefore will lose any useful meaning. What you can say about "thing" if everything is a "thing"?

I meant the first part, about the lovable guy who will kill you as necessary to survive.  I resemble that remark.

The other part I just write off as rhetoric.

[chessnut]

Im from South Africa, I know if try and tell a guy on the street that, he will kill you take your every belonging to buy food and survive another day. there is no money there, there is no work, they are all slaves to capitalism. and I love those people, they are good people.

and killing and stealing is another free market system that really works.....

Brilliant point.  Very reality based.

Not really. Market, by definition, is based on voluntary exchange. If you broad it's definition to include involuntary exchanges, it will include all human activity and therefore will lose any useful meaning. What you can say about "thing" if everything is a "thing"?

I meant the first part, about the lovable guy who will kill you as necessary to survive.  I resemble that remark.

The other part I just write off as rhetoric.

dont be obsurd. killing is a part of our nature, so is love. you have it in you, but your character has never been tested so much.

[billyjoeallen]

can you demonstrate how the Bretton Woods System would have the aforementioned effect on productivity and wages? cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.

The Bretton Woods pseudo-gold standard provided some check on inflation. When it ended, inflation allowed employers to effectively reduce the wages of workers in terms of purchasing power without nominally reducing them. Wage competition did drive wages up, but at a lower rate than asset appreciation. As wealthy people saw their assets appreciate, poor people saw stagnant or reduced income and therefor a reduced ability to accumulate assets. Poor people attempted to compensate by borrowing which of course had the effect of increasing rather than decreasing wealth transfer to the wealthy. Banksters and their ilk got interest payments on top of profits and asset appreciation.

 I fear the situation is even worse than you suggest because the statistics are subtly altered to stave off social unrest.

[arepo]

There's another explanation. "On 15 August 1971, the United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of the US$ to gold." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

can you demonstrate how the Bretton Woods System would have the aforementioned effect on productivity and wages? cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.

Here's my quick and facile go at it:  Stagflation was the direct and immediate result.  The mechanism for that should be obvious.  The consequences to the livelihoods of the proles likewise.

yes, i can understand how the effects on the purchasing power of the dollar drove the real value of wages down, but does that explain the decoupling of productivity and employment rates, as well?

[billyjoeallen]

re: "natural monopolies"

examples include public utilities such as water services and electricity

o rly? So  the power company doesn't have to compete with solar, wind, gas and oil heat, etc?
The water company doesn't have to compete with private wells, water trucks, desalinization plants, and the f@#!ing rain?

Competition includes potential competitors and the providers of equivalent products. In the free market, any dominant company would soon face competition if they attempted to extract excessive rent (profits over and above normal profits) due to their dominant position. OR they would face reduced consumption of their product or service that would negate their dominant market position advantage.

http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf

[billyjoeallen]

in other words, i don't care about your lofty Randian free market ideals. while capitalism may be "the best solution we can aspire to", and that would be hard to disagree with, it is also clear that our present form of global capitalism is suffering from a huge amount of inefficiencies, many of which cannot be attributed to meddling governments. how can we reconcile these two things? i have no clue, but we've first got to get our heads out of our asses and stop worshipping the sacred cow long enough to think critically about why the apparatus is failing at efficiently distributing resources.

We could start by understanding the differences between capitalism and corporatism.

I honestly and truly believe that almost all the inefficiencies can be attributed to meddling governments and political entrepreneurship of anti-competitive companies. I recognize this is a minority view, but I am prepared to argue it.

The global trade system we have today is not capitalism or free market. It is a hybrid system that gives us many of the worst features of corporatism, neo-colonialism and socialism. It has evolved and mutated over centuries but took its current form after WWII when the U.S. dollar became the world's reserve currency and just as importantly when all major currencies went off of the gold standard.

B

[donut]

re: "natural monopolies"

examples include public utilities such as water services and electricity

o rly? So  the power company doesn't have to compete with solar, wind, gas and oil heat, etc?
The water company doesn't have to compete with private wells, water trucks, desalinization plants, and the f@#!ing rain?

Competition includes potential competitors and the providers of equivalent products. In the free market, any dominant company would soon face competition if they attempted to extract excessive rent (profits over and above normal profits) due to their dominant position. OR they would face reduced consumption of their product or service that would negate their dominant market position advantage.

http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf

A question for you kind sir:

What happens when a rich guy comes in and lowers his prices enough to squeeze out competitors until he's a monopolist again, at which point he may jack the prices up?