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

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[seleme]

Damn, all this philosophy in last 10-15 pages makes this thread boring 

I could start talking about religion if you are tired of philosophy.   

I'm religious but thanks, this is not the place I'd read about it 

[San1ty]

Damn, all this philosophy in last 10-15 pages makes this thread boring 

I could start talking about religion if you are tired of philosophy.   

I'm religious but thanks, this is not the place I'd read about it 

Philosophy okay, but religion ugh no!

[seleme]

Damn, all this philosophy in last 10-15 pages makes this thread boring  

I'm now all in, I guess so are most other so until more disposable fiat shows up at the door, we'll pump the philosophical principles.

I'm buying alts, shares etc. like a boss... got tired of anticipating Bitcoin moves. Can't catch all bottoms and alts prices are overall pretty good and most probably would bring better gains at some time than Bitcoin could fail down at this moment.

[octaft]

People that say stuff like this sound like they subscribe to the Just World fallacy, for this case specifically that every problem someone has stems from themselves, and that you can't possibly be struggling if you're working hard. It's a lie some people tell themselves to make them feel better, usually out of either a fear of it happening to them, believing that it cannot happen to them, or believing that since it has never happened to them, the poor must be doing something wrong. Every ex-CEO probably subscribed to that theory until they had to start delivering pizzas.

Either that, or you have a heavy and unwarranted disdain for poor people, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

You don't need to subscribe to the just world fallacy, nor have a disdain for poor people to want to abolish government involvement in social security. You might be of the opinion (as I am), that social security would probably better be handled if the government wasn't involved. Private individuals would have more disposable wealth to share with others, if the government would refrain from taking half of their income for starters.

Like you describe the just world fallacy as an attempt to come to terms with ones own (presumably comparatively well-off) situation compared to the situation lots of poor people find themselves in. The same thing can be said about wanting the government to take care of social security. That way when you walk down the street and see a beggar in torn clothes you can think to yourself that it is none of your business. It's the job of somebody else to take care of this problem - we have experts for that. Relying on government (or other institutions for that matter) to take care of the poor shows more disdain for them than advocating the stance that we are all responsible on an individual level. And if you are OK with living in a world with lots of poor people - fine then. But if you're not, don't stand around crying for somebody to do something. Inevitably some politician will hear your cry and do "something" and we all find ourselves wishing he hadn't done anything At least give that beggar a dollar yourself or treat him to lunch or a haircut or whatever. Give him the feeling that he is a human being, too! That's what people need the most anyway. A bureaucrat won't give him that.

I think we've determined already that you have far more faith in humanity than I do, and it shows. Yes, private individuals would have more wealth to share, but would they? I am of the opinion that it's human nature to horde and be greedy, and from the tone of your post and others, I'm sure you disagree. You sound like a really nice guy, but take care not to too readily project that onto others. As for WHO takes care of social security and welfare, I don't care who it is, as long as it's done. The government sucks and is probably quite inefficient, but how else are we going to do it? You can't take away something without offering either a reason for why it shouldn't be done (which some of you have. I disagree with most of those reasons, but some of you have), or with a suitable replacement.

The Just World fallacy is not an attempt to "come to terms" with anything, really. It is primarily a state of denial and emotional self-protection. It hurts us to see people suffer, so if we can convince ourselves that it was their fault, and that it can't happen to us because we work hard or whatever, it somehow makes it feel better, or just. If you wanted to make a proper analogy, if I were to see that homeless man and say "get a fucking job, you bum, if you had any skills or cared about yourself, you wouldn't need to mooch" without ever stopping to consider how he got into that situation, that would be a much better example of the Just World fallacy. Based on what I've argued so far, does this sound like anything I would ever say about someone in need?

As for giving him the feeling that he is a human being, too, man you are a really nice guy (no sarcasm). It is true that good feelings help people get through the tough times, but all the goodwill in the world won't feed you. I never give money, they get food or nothing. I have no idea what they will spend my money on. After all, I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone in hard times got there despite hard work, some people really are just incorrigible fuckups, just not as many as you might be led to believe. When I give food, unless they can find someone who wants to buy a sandwich from a homeless man, all he can do is eat it.

For the record, maybe you're just pulling the wool over my eyes, but you don't seem to be anywhere near the "disdain" category. I do think a lot of you are in the "misconception" category, though.

[octaft]

This is Canada, eh. With a brief search, I couldn't find data on more than 1-2 children. I'm not saying they live like kings, but first hand accounts tell me that (2 cases) 3 and 4 kids total subsidies added up to much more than $10/hr.  Both of these women deliberately spawned more societal leeches in order to receive the benefits, as holding a job was too difficult.  I cannot condone this.

Oh, Canada. You guys are way more liberal than US, aren't you? Do you still collect decent benefits if you work? If you don't collect anything simply for having a job and your numbers are accurate, then yes that system is terrible and totally rewards not working.

[Richy_T]

I have NO problem with people making profits... there is a difference between a form of regulated capitalism and forms of vulture capitalism whereby the rrich exploit and pretty much steal from the people in various ways and make their money using trickery and such leverage.  small honest businesses are out gunned when these kinds of vulture capitalists are allowed to run free and unfettered.

Yeah, that's more or less my point. Often when people criticize "capitalism", they are actually criticizing something else like corporatism. This leads to incorrect conclusions as to how to deal with these problems. Capitalism really isn't an "ism", it just describes the way that civilization has found efficient to trade. To be anti-capitalist is to be anti-civilization at base.

[Richy_T]

Damn, all this philosophy in last 10-15 pages makes this thread boring 

I could make ChartBuddy repost "Favourite charts from the booms and busts of 2013" if you'd like

[Richy_T]

The Bank of England have released a quarterly bulletin which is mainly about the definition of money, and its role in a modern economy. It (of course) includes some stuff on Bitcoin and digital currencies, as well as local currencies - Coin Desk have an overview here, or you can read the PDF directly here.

It's getting like when the web started to enter the mainstream and you'd get people on TV saying "Visit our website on the internet at aitch-tee-tee-pee colon backslash backslash doubleyew doubleyew doubleyew..."

Exciting times.

[Richy_T]

This is Canada, eh. With a brief search, I couldn't find data on more than 1-2 children. I'm not saying they live like kings, but first hand accounts tell me that (2 cases) 3 and 4 kids total subsidies added up to much more than $10/hr.  Both of these women deliberately spawned more societal leeches in order to receive the benefits, as holding a job was too difficult.  I cannot condone this.

I didn't see any mention of housing benefit either which can be a goodly portion of a working person's wage. Then of course, there is also the cost of working itself, the car, the insurance, the clothing, food, childcare. And of course, if you're not at work, there's always the chance to pick up a bit of money on the sly. Tax free, of course.

[billyjoeallen]

A voluntary society cannot be designed at all. It will be emergent. When a critical mass of people realize that the rules we tell children to live by (namely don't hurt people, don't mess with their stuff, and keep your promises) should be applied across the board, and that no other general rules are necessary, then such a society will form.

There can be no formula for dealing with people in need. As soon as such a formula is known, most of the marginally needy and some of the non-needy attempt to game the system. Subsidizing poverty creates more poverty. The best way to deal with those in need is on an individual case-by-case basis. It's too important of a problem to be left to monopolists. Concrete answers are wrong answers.

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.

Actual good rebuttal, but this assumes all will be rational and well-adjusted. The killers and stealers won't think like this (or won't care/won't have the skills needed to make it in the world), and people who refuse to live by the sword will not be able to allow themselves to starve if they can help it. If we both turn out to be right, you about killing and stealing losing efficacy over time, and me about killers and stealers doing killing and stealing anyway, that's a potential huge blow for your ideal. Having your reasonable people inevitably starved to death at the hand of greedy murderers and thieves is a likely death knell.

Personally, I'd rather people game the system by collecting more food stamps than they are legally allowed, rather then having them just straight up try to blow my brains out and take all my stuff. While I wish we could deal with them on a case by case basis, under the current system I think that would cost more than the money saved by catching fraud. If you think the ability and cost-effectiveness of doing this would be improved in your ideal world, or even if you think there is a way to improve it under the current system, I'd be very interested in hearing about that.

Unfortunately I don't think meaningful improvement is possible under the current system. This is one reason why I am a revolutionary. I see a fundamental weakness in monopoly government that cannot be corrected without allowing distributed competitive governance.

There is no easy solution to the problems in South Africa. I see the best case scenario a hopefully temporary reversion to tribalism. If I lived there, I would leave if I could and retreat to an area controlled by my tribe if I couldn't, hunker down and ride out the storm. It is likely to get much much worse before it gets better.

[KeyserSoze]

Counterpoint: Volkswagen in Germany has an organized labor rate of about 98%, workers have 32hour work weeks and 6 weeks (IIRC) of  holiday per year. And half of the seats in the board of advisories are represantatives of the workers*. Yet, they are quite profitable.

America has an odd work ethic. There's some sort of bravado attached to it, along with this unquenchable thirst for money. If you don't work 40 hours a week (instead of, say, spending that valuable time with your family) then you are a leech, a drain, a loser, etc. Business owners have come to expect you answer your cell phone at night and weekends. One is deemed more of a "real man" if he slaves away at overtime, filling up the weekend with more work. All the rats in the race end up similarly however. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have begun working from home @2007 and so far managed to pay the rent with low hours and no boss.

[derpinheimer]

WTF guys, a legit 2k wall appeared at $630 and no one comments?

This is the first time in a long while (relatively) that $600 had more bid support than there was resistance to $700.

[Richy_T]

The Just World fallacy is not an attempt to "come to terms" with anything, really.

Discordianism is about as far from "Just world" as you can get. With that said, if you subsidise something, you tend to get more of it.

[billyjoeallen]

People that say stuff like this sound like they subscribe to the Just World fallacy, for this case specifically that every problem someone has stems from themselves, and that you can't possibly be struggling if you're working hard. It's a lie some people tell themselves to make them feel better, usually out of either a fear of it happening to them, believing that it cannot happen to them, or believing that since it has never happened to them, the poor must be doing something wrong. Every ex-CEO probably subscribed to that theory until they had to start delivering pizzas.

Either that, or you have a heavy and unwarranted disdain for poor people, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

You don't need to subscribe to the just world fallacy, nor have a disdain for poor people to want to abolish government involvement in social security. You might be of the opinion (as I am), that social security would probably better be handled if the government wasn't involved. Private individuals would have more disposable wealth to share with others, if the government would refrain from taking half of their income for starters.

Like you describe the just world fallacy as an attempt to come to terms with ones own (presumably comparatively well-off) situation compared to the situation lots of poor people find themselves in. The same thing can be said about wanting the government to take care of social security. That way when you walk down the street and see a beggar in torn clothes you can think to yourself that it is none of your business. It's the job of somebody else to take care of this problem - we have experts for that. Relying on government (or other institutions for that matter) to take care of the poor shows more disdain for them than advocating the stance that we are all responsible on an individual level. And if you are OK with living in a world with lots of poor people - fine then. But if you're not, don't stand around crying for somebody to do something. Inevitably some politician will hear your cry and do "something" and we all find ourselves wishing he hadn't done anything At least give that beggar a dollar yourself or treat him to lunch or a haircut or whatever. Give him the feeling that he is a human being, too! That's what people need the most anyway. A bureaucrat won't give him that.

I think we've determined already that you have far more faith in humanity than I do, and it shows. Yes, private individuals would have more wealth to share, but would they? I am of the opinion that it's human nature to horde and be greedy, and from the tone of your post and others, I'm sure you disagree. You sound like a really nice guy, but take care not to too readily project that onto others. As for WHO takes care of social security and welfare, I don't care who it is, as long as it's done. The government sucks and is probably quite inefficient, but how else are we going to do it? You can't take away something without offering either a reason for why it shouldn't be done (which some of you have. I disagree with most of those reasons, but some of you have), or with a suitable replacement.

The Just World fallacy is not an attempt to "come to terms" with anything, really. It is primarily a state of denial and emotional self-protection. It hurts us to see people suffer, so if we can convince ourselves that it was their fault, and that it can't happen to us because we work hard or whatever, it somehow makes it feel better, or just. If you wanted to make a proper analogy, if I were to see that homeless man and say "get a fucking job, you bum, if you had any skills or cared about yourself, you wouldn't need to mooch" without ever stopping to consider how he got into that situation, that would be a much better example of the Just World fallacy. Based on what I've argued so far, does this sound like anything I would ever say about someone in need?

As for giving him the feeling that he is a human being, too, man you are a really nice guy (no sarcasm). It is true that good feelings help people get through the tough times, but all the goodwill in the world won't feed you. I never give money, they get food or nothing. I have no idea what they will spend my money on. After all, I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone in hard times got there despite hard work, some people really are just incorrigible fuckups, just not as many as you might be led to believe. When I give food, unless they can find someone who wants to buy a sandwich from a homeless man, all he can do is eat it.

For the record, maybe you're just pulling the wool over my eyes, but you don't seem to be anywhere near the "disdain" category. I do think a lot of you are in the "misconception" category, though.

If your negative view of human nature extends to politicians and bureaucrats, then you should logically be as opposed to monopoly government as I am.

[Richy_T]

America has an odd work ethic. There's some sort of bravado attached to it, along with this unquenchable thirst for money. If you don't work 40 hours a week (instead of, say, spending that valuable time with your family) then you are a leech, a drain, a loser, etc. Business owners have come to expect you answer your cell phone at night and weekends. One is deemed more of a "real man" if he slaves away at overtime, filling up the weekend with more work. All the rats in the race end up similarly however. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have begun working from home @2007 and so far managed to pay the rent with low hours and no boss.

What is your secret, o wise one? Seriously, that is totally where I want to be. I could even afford to take a substantial pay cut to do so.

[686f646c]

WTF guys, a legit 2k wall appeared at $630 and no one comments?

This is the first time in a long while (relatively) that $600 had more bid support than there was resistance to $700.

Unfortunately the bears are missing, so we won't find out how "legit" it is

[KeyserSoze]

Damn, all this philosophy in last 10-15 pages makes this thread boring 

I could start talking about religion if you are tired of philosophy.   

Why rehash when you've already been roundly thumped in this thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211865.0

[oda.krell]

WTF guys, a legit 2k wall appeared at $630 and no one comments?

This is the first time in a long while (relatively) that $600 had more bid support than there was resistance to $700.

Jup. Nice jump in bids, finally. Maybe we finally manage to break through 650 after all. And stay above it, I mean

[bassclef]

Damn, all this philosophy in last 10-15 pages makes this thread boring  

I could make ChartBuddy repost "Favourite charts from the booms and busts of 2013" if you'd like

Chartbuddy's Greatest Hits. I like it.

Beats recent discussion on issue number one that never goes anywhere on public forums: political philosophy. Number two is religion.