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

[JayJuanGee]

I

For the last three days in fact ...

You were participating in some of them as well...   

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[threecats]

I

For the last three days in fact ...

You were participating in some of them as well...   

Nuh-nuh-nuh nope. Not this endless 'let's argue the fundemental nature of man' subject. Just a little rear guard action with Khasper : -)

[JayJuanGee]

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.   

Yeah, that would be even worse.

[billyjoeallen]

Frankly I would not want those people working for me.  I think everyone is better off if they are bribed into staying out of the workforce.  The reason is the same as the reason why the argument that market-based minimum wage is better than mandated is so bogus:  Lots of people have negative productivity.  No matter how hard they try, they will do more damage than good.  GHWBush, and BObama for example.  Would you want either of them making you a coffee?  Blech.

Problem is, if you pay them not to work, all there is to do is stay home and breed. And now you have five people to take care of instead of two.

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.

I don't have to have a disdain for the poor to understand that vilifying capitalists is not the way to gain/retain the capital needed for economic growth. The labor theory of value has been discredited. The subjective theory of value and marginal utility have much more explanatory and predictive power. Update your economic model.

[threecats]

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.

gotta say i am impressed with our forum though, it has been about ten pages of this argument and Hitler has not been mention yet, correct? what's that fundemental rule of internet forums, all arguments eventually devolve into invoking of hitler?  but not here. : -)

[Dragonkiller]

Frankly I would not want those people working for me.  I think everyone is better off if they are bribed into staying out of the workforce.  The reason is the same as the reason why the argument that market-based minimum wage is better than mandated is so bogus:  Lots of people have negative productivity.  No matter how hard they try, they will do more damage than good.  GHWBush, and BObama for example.  Would you want either of them making you a coffee?  Blech.

Problem is, if you pay them not to work, all there is to do is stay home and breed. And now you have five people to take care of instead of two.

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.

I don't have to have a disdain for the poor to understand that vilifying capitalists is not the way to gain/retain the capital needed for economic growth. The labor theory of value has been discredited. The subjective theory of value and marginal utility have much more explanatory and predictive power. Update your economic model.

billy, i must say, your posts have come a long way from talking about having sex with seleme's mum  

[cdooer]

   Does anyone have a recent ETA for a Bitstamp account verification? 

Mine was approved yesterday, after being submitted on March 6th.

[686f646c]

Mobile Ad Platform Vungle Offers Publishers Payouts in Bitcoin

bitcoin this week
https://i.imgur.com/Z9NrGMb.jpg

CCMF

[JayJuanGee]

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.

To me, it appears as if you were misreading my earlier post and my use of the word capitalist.   I used the word capitalist to refer to persons holding capital.  My comment was concerning technology, and the history of recent technological innovations in the USA has disproportionately rewarded the capitalists and NOT workers and NOT other segments of society.  This is a dynamic in germany as well, but in germany, labor and the people in general have been more successful to allow for the taking advantage of the technological innovations in order to spread out work and to work less and the rewards of the technological innovations are spread across the people and the society. 

So I was NOT specifically criticizing capitalism with my employment of the term capitalist and my description of what seems to have been a major problem in the united states's allowances regarding the capitalists.   Also, NOT all capitalists have been able to suck all the surplus value - such as the smaller businesses are stuck attempting to compete and putting up their capital and their risk and then getting screwed by the overall poor business and poor humanity infrastructure in the USA. 

IN the USA, you tend to make more money by being a dickhead, rather than by being responsible - even though there are some examples of responsible companies, such as Costco, who treat their workers relatively well, and Costco still is rewarded in the market place.  Wallmart is rewarded in the market place, but treat their workers like shit, and deserve to be regulated into a better state of business, humanity and state of responsibility.

[Adrian-x]

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.

OK can a Canadian tell me where do I find this free money you talk about in Canada?

[KeyserSoze]

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.

No secret, just lucky so far. I design/build mostly corporate Drupal web sites.

[billyjoeallen]

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.

gotta say i am impressed with our forum though, it has been about ten pages of this argument and Hitler has not been mention yet, correct? what's that fundemental rule of internet forums, all arguments eventually devolve into invoking of hitler?  but not here. : -)

Aminorex mentioned the encirclement and rapprochement with Switzerland by the Nazis. Godwin's Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law remains intact!

[octaft]

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.

You say monopoly government, do you mean, for example, the federal government of the US specifically? Would you consider it an improvement if we were more heavily state-run?

My negative view does extend to politicians, you got me there. I've always thought the solution to our problems was getting the money out of politics. It might seem ridiculous to you, but I see no problem with having the government allot a certain amount of funding money for everyone running (not a large amount or else it ruins the whole point). This idea definitely doesn't float well with the "keep the debt down" crowd, but I consider it an investment in corruption reduction. If you really can't get past the debt thing, allow contributions, but significantly limit the amount one can spend on their campaign, and return the rest based on how much was donated. All you have to do is get enough to hit the limit. Now maybe they don't have to spend 4 hours of their working day sucking dick for fundraising. Could you imagine, you get paid a pretty damn good salary, and 4 hours of your day is essentially begging for money? The fact that a presidental candidate can spend a billion dollars campaigning blows my mind. Barack Obama spent 985.7 million, and Mitt Romney spent 992 million to lose the fucking election. Could you imagine if that went to charity?

So sure, you got me on the politicians, no doubt.

Anyway, my idea significantly reduces the level of corruption...theoretically.

The problem with my idea is there's always flat-out under the table bribes, and the people who are necessary to put this idea into motion -- the politicians -- are never going to let it pass. And government waste is always going to be a thing, regardless. I'm not kidding myself, my idea is dead in the water. I'm sure you and everyone else can probably throw about 2-4 more nails into that coffin. I'm not deluded. The US has become decadent, and I'm not sure there's much we can do about it.

As for taxes, I don't mind them too much. What I mind is, again, how they waste it. That 30% "charitable" (yes I know it's not technically charity) buyout? I would take it in a second, because then I know a good amount more is going to things that I care about. I would probably be willing to go up to 40%, actually. I've been called a sucker for that, among other things. Do your worst if you must, I will be unaffected. I'd rather feed starving kids and help cancer patients than pay for some assholes to fly first class (or in some cases, private) when a large portion of their constituents fly coach.

I know it's a misnomer, but I like the idea of mandatory charity. It's chipping in, and I respect that you disagree with that. We'll have to agree to disagree there.

[KeyserSoze]

gotta say i am impressed with our forum though, it has been about ten pages of this argument and Hitler has not been mention yet, correct? what's that fundemental rule of internet forums, all arguments eventually devolve into invoking of hitler?

Very true. I came close but pulled back. He's just so tempting to end an absurd argument with.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

I would hate to live in the experimental society that you would design after the supposed revolution....

From my reading your various posts on the topic of your vision of what society should be, your society would likely be a very dog eat dog world with a lot of holes and loop holes that do NOT provide for the public to benefit from the public goods.. and probably would NOT adequately protect public goods.... unless of course, after the revolution, your side is able to slim the population down by 80% or more. 

[threecats]

Aminorex mentioned the encirclement and rapprochement with Switzerland by the Nazis. Godwin's Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law remains intact!

Yea, i kinda had the feeling someone had mentioned the Nazis. Just didn't feel like doublechecking 12 pages  : -)

[Richy_T]

To me, it appears as if you were misreading my earlier post and my use of the word capitalist.   I used the word capitalist to refer to persons holding capital.

Yes. But a person holding capital might also be a machinist putting money into a pension for his later years.

So I was NOT specifically criticizing capitalism with my employment of the term capitalist and my description of what seems to have been a major problem in the united states's allowances regarding the capitalists.   Also, NOT all capitalists have been able to suck all the surplus value - such as the smaller businesses are stuck attempting to compete and putting up their capital and their risk and then getting screwed by the overall poor business and poor humanity infrastructure in the USA. 

IN the USA, you tend to make more money by being a dickhead, rather than by being responsible - even though there are some examples of responsible companies, such as Costco, who treat their workers relatively well, and Costco still is rewarded in the market place.  Wallmart is rewarded in the market place, but treat their workers like shit, and deserve to be regulated into a better state of business, humanity and state of responsibility.

So again, it's not really capitalism per se. Just clarifying because I feel it's important.

[686f646c]

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.

OK can a Canadian tell me where do I find this free money you talk about in Canada?

Besides welfare, the only thing i'm aware of is child tax benefit which you probably already get.

[Adrian-x]

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.

OK can a Canadian tell me where do I find this free money you talk about in Canada?

Besides welfare, the only thing i'm aware of is child tax benefit which you probably already get.

What I thought, I dough people are having babies to get free money.

Edit: they are buying Bitcoin