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

[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

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?

in the interim, he enjoys lower or negative profits and the consumers enjoy lower costs. After he jacks the prices, competitors move in again. A smart competitor will buy up the monopolists product at the low price and resell it to consumers. This actually happens. I know a guy who owns a lumber yard. His competitor was selling plywood below his wholesale cost. He bought his competitors entire inventory and resold it!

[arepo]

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.

let's move this away from generalities, which are all well-hashed arguments on both sides, and focus on the specifics that we see in the global market today.

for instance, how is the poverty trap created by Walmart-esque wage suppression coupled with high unemployment rates attributable to governments? how is the large environmental externality of shipping and manufacturing attributable to governments?

the short answer is: they're not. but i'm sure you'll give me a longer answer

[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.

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. 

We are on the same page. Ayn Rand had some good ideas, but she seems to have forgotten sometimes that humans are social animals.

[Adrian-x]

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.

It is not failing at efficiently distributing resources, it is moving them up the pyramid with great efficiency as it was design to do.
It is so efficient TPTB are looking for ways to preserve it so there labour doesn't abandon it.

[Adrian-x]

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.

let's move this away from generalities, which are all well-hashed arguments on both sides, and focus on the specifics that we see in the global market today.

for instance, how is the poverty trap created by Walmart-esque wage suppression coupled with high unemployment rates attributable to governments? how is the large environmental externality of shipping and manufacturing attributable to governments?

the short answer is: they're not. but i'm sure you'll give me a longer answer

I can attribute those problems to a growing money supply, it is the single biggest cause for labour inequality and disregard for the environment. While governments allow fraction reserve banking and control it through a central bank they they are in all reality controlling it.

I'd argue nature does a better job at finding Homeostasis than ignorant power hungry egos of men.

[byronbb]

[billyjoeallen]

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.

let's move this away from generalities, which are all well-hashed arguments on both sides, and focus on the specifics that we see in the global market today.

for instance, how is the poverty trap created by Walmart-esque wage suppression coupled with high unemployment rates attributable to governments?

High unemployment rates are solely the result of minimum wage laws and other government intervention. Every job hunter could get a job if he was willing to accept a wage that would allow his employer to profitably employ him, given his productivity level. Walmart wage suppression allows Walmart to pass the cost saving onto customers. There is no net harm to society. Some win. Some lose. Thems the breaks.

How is the large environmental externality of shipping and manufacturing attributable to governments?

We all either directly or indirectly benefit from these externalities. I once lived in a town with a pulp mill. We called that smog from the smokestacks the smell of money. When the mill closed down, 300 workers lost their jobs at the mill, another two thousand lost work because businesses closed that were supported by mill workers and I got to breath cleaner air and live in a ghost town. You may value clean air more than me and the enjoyment of neighbors less than me, but on average (judging by the way property values plummeted) most people don't.

[JayJuanGee]

Not sure what this conversation has to do with Bitcoin Bid Walls, but it sure is damn interesting.

It seems that this particular quasi-side track began with comments about Mt. Gox, and thereby accusing and alleging that Mt. Gox had been engaged in thievery and/or fraud. 

Thereafter, the comment that thievery is the same no matter who is taking the money, and another suggestion that government taxation was the same as thievery...   

The conversation devolved from there into various assertions about the role of government.     

Actually, nearly any conversation can devolve comparing and contrasting visions concerning the role of government and inspire the setting forth ideas about the past, present and future.

[billyjoeallen]

The price has barely moved in nine hours. We have to talk about something.

[JayJuanGee]

if robots are the foundation of society, then we should all benefit equally from them.

Says who? We didn't all benefit equally from the domestication of cows. Some people are lactose intolerant. I really don't understand this obsession with equality that is unheard of in nature. It's completely subjective. Equality in outcomes or equality in opportunity? Equal rewards for effort or for productivity? The former produce what economists call "perverse incentives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

You really should read this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

ok, personally I dont like the word 'should' either. but you are proposing a system that must both destroy work (innovation) and create work (capitalism) at the same time. that is not an answer.

either we share work and hoard money, or we share money and hoard work. they work equally.

what doesnt work is when you hoard work and money - then the french revolution happens all over again and the skilled and educated lose.

Technology doesn't destroy work! Displaced autoworkers become robot builders and technicians and the pool boys at the gated communities of the wealthier GM executives and stockholders! That extra margin that automakers gain by automation is spent back into the economy. That provides jobs for service industry workers, etc. Would you rather be an assembly line worker with repetitive stress injuries or a golf caddy? I honestly don't think that you've thought this through.

..... technologies sole purpose is to destroy work.

I do NOT agree that technology is a sole purpose to destroy work.  We should NOT necessarily be hostile to technology. 

One of the central problems with technology, though is that frequently it is used to distract labor from unionization and solidarity and thereby the capitalists frequently become able to use and abuse technology in such a way that they extract nearly all of the surplus for themselves and use technology to divide and conquer, workers, labor and community.  In the end, workers become more and more exploited by this b/c frequently if there are NOT strong governments and/or strong unions, they are NOT allowed to reap(enjoy) the benefits of the technological innovations.

People who believe in no government and/or no unions also seem to believe in trickle down economics, as if giving the money to the capitalists and the rich, that some how, miraculously, that money will trickle down to the people and somehow suggesting that the capitalists deserve to take all the surplus value.. so they can be rainmakers.  Frequently, however, we have seen that trickle down does NOT work and there are failures to invest in infrastructure, and running away with the capital and even capitalists who engage in behavior to accumulate much more capital than they need or want... and the situation with these filthy rich is NO longer about the accumulation of capital but a form of keeping the capital away from the masses b/c they want to control and exploit the masses and they want to insist that capital is NOT distributed to regular people... b/c of desires to keep an exploitable group willing to work for anything..

[JorgeStolfi]

It is 2pm in China already, and if trading keep going like it has been going all morning, the daily volume at Huobi and OKCoin will be a record low. 

[JorgeStolfi]

So here is a stupid question to kill time: Suppose the Evil Lords decide to use the bitcoins seized from Silk Road and other places to kill bitcoin by spamming it with billions of tiny transactions, as fast as they can.  How would the network defend itself from that attack?

[JayJuanGee]

..... technologies sole purpose is to destroy work.

Close. Technology's sole purpose is to save energy. That computer you are typing on saves you the trouble of coming to my house and arguing your fallacies in person.

 Very Funny.... and witty, Billyjoeallen... even though you are missing the point about how the capitalist is able to take all the surplus value from the increased benefits and to put them into his pocket.

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"?

Seems as if you are attempting to define some world that does NOT exist if you are suggesting that all market exchanges are voluntary.  In the real world, actions and reactions of people fall into a broad array of categories, and these kinds of interactions need to be accounted for when we are attempting to organize a society.  From my understanding, most people would prefer NOT to live in a society in which they fear for their lives b/c they are walking down the street wearing a $100 watch.

[FullLife]

The price has barely moved in nine hours. We have to talk about something.

Actually no, you don't.

[notme]

So here is a stupid question to kill time: Suppose the Evil Lords decide to use the bitcoins seized from Silk Road and other places to kill bitcoin by spamming it with billions of tiny transactions, as fast as they can.  How would the network defend itself from that attack?

To stop legitimate transactions, they have to be willing to pay more in fees than the legitimate transaction senders.  If they are willing to pay more, there isn't much we can do but wait for them to run out of coins.

[billyjoeallen]

if robots are the foundation of society, then we should all benefit equally from them.

Says who? We didn't all benefit equally from the domestication of cows. Some people are lactose intolerant. I really don't understand this obsession with equality that is unheard of in nature. It's completely subjective. Equality in outcomes or equality in opportunity? Equal rewards for effort or for productivity? The former produce what economists call "perverse incentives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

You really should read this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

ok, personally I dont like the word 'should' either. but you are proposing a system that must both destroy work (innovation) and create work (capitalism) at the same time. that is not an answer.

either we share work and hoard money, or we share money and hoard work. they work equally.

what doesnt work is when you hoard work and money - then the french revolution happens all over again and the skilled and educated lose.

Technology doesn't destroy work! Displaced autoworkers become robot builders and technicians and the pool boys at the gated communities of the wealthier GM executives and stockholders! That extra margin that automakers gain by automation is spent back into the economy. That provides jobs for service industry workers, etc. Would you rather be an assembly line worker with repetitive stress injuries or a golf caddy? I honestly don't think that you've thought this through.

..... technologies sole purpose is to destroy work.

I do NOT agree that technology is a sole purpose to destroy work.  We should NOT necessarily be hostile to technology. 

One of the central problems with technology, though is that frequently it is used to distract labor from unionization and solidarity and thereby the capitalists frequently become able to use and abuse technology in such a way that they extract nearly all of the surplus for themselves and use technology to divide and conquer, workers, labor and community.  In the end, workers become more and more exploited by this b/c frequently if there are NOT strong governments and/or strong unions, they are NOT allowed to reap(enjoy) the benefits of the technological innovations.

People who believe in no government and/or no unions also seem to believe in trickle down economics, as if giving the money to the capitalists and the rich, that some how, miraculously, that money will trickle down to the people and somehow suggesting that the capitalists deserve to take all the surplus value.. so they can be rainmakers.  Frequently, however, we have seen that trickle down does NOT work and there are failures to invest in infrastructure, and running away with the capital and even capitalists who engage in behavior to accumulate much more capital than they need or want... and the situation with these filthy rich is NO longer about the accumulation of capital but a form of keeping the capital away from the masses b/c they want to control and exploit the masses and they want to insist that capital is NOT distributed to regular people... b/c of desires to keep an exploitable group willing to work for anything..

Capitalists are savers. that's how they get capital. They should get rewards for delayed gratification and risk-taking. If they judge wrong and the market (which is society) doesn't value their goods or services at a price they can sustainably charge, then they lose money no matter how hard they worked. Entrepreneurs only get paid for results, not effort. They only get paid when they contribute. They are heroes.

Now in our modern system, entrepreneurs may not be savers. They may just have access to credit for arbitrary reasons. They may use the political system to shield themselves from competition. This is a total distortion of the free market and is not capitalism. You socialists like to use the political system to exploit capitalists, but that is not a better outcome. Consumers (and we are all consumers) get harmed because businesses must either charge higher prices to offset higher input costs or go out of business.

The only way to prevent either group from harming or exploiting the other is to remove the political factor and take the gun out of the room. When anything becomes mandatory or banned, somebody loses. When exchange of labor, money, goods or services is voluntary, both parties win. If they didn't, there would be no exchange.

[Hypnoise]

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?

Competitors then go to wash dishes in Chinese restaurants.

[billyjoeallen]

So here is a stupid question to kill time: Suppose the Evil Lords decide to use the bitcoins seized from Silk Road and other places to kill bitcoin by spamming it with billions of tiny transactions, as fast as they can.  How would the network defend itself from that attack?

To stop legitimate transactions, they have to be willing to pay more in fees than the legitimate transaction senders.  If they are willing to pay more, there isn't much we can do but wait for them to run out of coins.

The harm to the network would be less than the cost to the spammers. It would be like fighting you by punching your fist with my face.

[JayJuanGee]

So here is a stupid question to kill time: Suppose the Evil Lords decide to use the bitcoins seized from Silk Road and other places to kill bitcoin by spamming it with billions of tiny transactions, as fast as they can.  How would the network defend itself from that attack?

I am guessing, but I thought that the network just processes transactions in the order received, and if there is a fee attached, then those transactions are processed first. 

Billions is a lot... and I suppose that the problem could be made worse by creating some repetition of the transactions - after the first ones are processed, they are put back into the cue.

 If there are so many transactions that the network is overwhelmed... the network may go down for a period of time. and then maybe a fork in the code to restart?  YES>... I am continuing to guess.

[JayJuanGee]

if robots are the foundation of society, then we should all benefit equally from them.

Says who? We didn't all benefit equally from the domestication of cows. Some people are lactose intolerant. I really don't understand this obsession with equality that is unheard of in nature. It's completely subjective. Equality in outcomes or equality in opportunity? Equal rewards for effort or for productivity? The former produce what economists call "perverse incentives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

You really should read this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

ok, personally I dont like the word 'should' either. but you are proposing a system that must both destroy work (innovation) and create work (capitalism) at the same time. that is not an answer.

either we share work and hoard money, or we share money and hoard work. they work equally.

what doesnt work is when you hoard work and money - then the french revolution happens all over again and the skilled and educated lose.

Technology doesn't destroy work! Displaced autoworkers become robot builders and technicians and the pool boys at the gated communities of the wealthier GM executives and stockholders! That extra margin that automakers gain by automation is spent back into the economy. That provides jobs for service industry workers, etc. Would you rather be an assembly line worker with repetitive stress injuries or a golf caddy? I honestly don't think that you've thought this through.

..... technologies sole purpose is to destroy work.

I do NOT agree that technology is a sole purpose to destroy work.  We should NOT necessarily be hostile to technology. 

One of the central problems with technology, though is that frequently it is used to distract labor from unionization and solidarity and thereby the capitalists frequently become able to use and abuse technology in such a way that they extract nearly all of the surplus for themselves and use technology to divide and conquer, workers, labor and community.  In the end, workers become more and more exploited by this b/c frequently if there are NOT strong governments and/or strong unions, they are NOT allowed to reap(enjoy) the benefits of the technological innovations.

People who believe in no government and/or no unions also seem to believe in trickle down economics, as if giving the money to the capitalists and the rich, that some how, miraculously, that money will trickle down to the people and somehow suggesting that the capitalists deserve to take all the surplus value.. so they can be rainmakers.  Frequently, however, we have seen that trickle down does NOT work and there are failures to invest in infrastructure, and running away with the capital and even capitalists who engage in behavior to accumulate much more capital than they need or want... and the situation with these filthy rich is NO longer about the accumulation of capital but a form of keeping the capital away from the masses b/c they want to control and exploit the masses and they want to insist that capital is NOT distributed to regular people... b/c of desires to keep an exploitable group willing to work for anything..

Capitalists are savers. that's how they get capital. They should get rewards for delayed gratification and risk-taking. If they judge wrong and the market (which is society) doesn't value their goods or services at a price they can sustainably charge, then they lose money no matter how hard they worked. Entrepreneurs only get paid for results, not effort. They only get paid when they contribute. They are heroes.

Now in our modern system, entrepreneurs may not be savers. They may just have access to credit for arbitrary reasons. They may use the political system to shield themselves from competition. This is a total distortion of the free market and is not capitalism. You socialists like to use the political system to exploit capitalists, but that is not a better outcome. Consumers (and we are all consumers) get harmed because businesses must either charge higher prices to offset higher input costs or go out of business.

The only way to prevent either group from harming or exploiting the other is to remove the political factor and take the gun out of the room. When anything becomes mandatory or banned, somebody loses. When exchange of labor, money, goods or services is voluntary, both parties win. If they didn't, there would be no exchange.

You have too many presumptions in your descriptions of events... and you are talking gobbledy gook.  First you praise and generalize about capitalists and then you suggest that the solution is to take away regulation.  That is all bullshit.  The problems that we have been having in recent times can be attributed too much liberty being given to capitalists and labor and government has been either too weak or too chickenshit to challenge the exploitation being carried out by capitalist.  Look at the situation created as recently as since 2008 whereby jobs have been removed to bust unions and to make people unemployed and to reintroduce jobs at fractions of the previous rates.  It was already bad before 2008, but got worse b/c capitalists (especially the filthy rich ones  - NOT talking about the mom and pop capitalists, here) were given too much freedom and NOT taxed and allowed to remove jobs and capital and NOT to reinvest.