Looks like the manipulator is failing you guys, muahahahaha

[old_engineer]

I'm on the side of people trying to work hard and earn money through their efforts, and I'm doing my best to succeed in life. So far, things are going all right. If you want to handicap the 1% to give to the 99%, you're looking at a system doomed to fail. What happens when we take enough from the wealthy that there's no benefit to becoming wealthy? Then who do we tax next to support all the supplicants, beggars, and sycophants? Eventually, the path of taxing the wealthy and giving to the poor leads to failure.

Congrats that things are going for well, and I hope you recognize that there are many things that could have happened that would have kept you from doing well: getting sick and unable to work for a stretch, an ailing parent or child that needs hours of care every day, not having money to buy a car that's necessary to get to work, etc.  Statistically speaking, _most_ people have challenges, and it's hard to understand that, for most, it wasn't a choice.  A study of bankruptcy filings shows that over half were for health care-related issues, which are almost 100% not their fault in any way.  You didn't get leukemia as a child

Government is basically a huge insurance company that also has an army.  Sounds like you're one of those that hasn't needed an insurance policy, whether private, or public.  Good for you, and hope that keeps up.  But I don't think you should begrudge your fellow humans that have been less fortunate, through no fault of their own, and need medicare or medicaid, which are the biggest US government programs.  It's intellectually lazy to think that those that have had problems are "supplicants, beggars, and sycophants".

Also, no one is asking for a system with equal income quintiles and no motivation to work.  They just want a level playing field, not one where rich kids are 7 times more likely to become rich themselves - that's called oligarchy.

[1714582869]

1714582869

[1714582869]

1714582869

[Crypt_Current]

I'm on the side of people trying to work hard and earn money through their efforts, and I'm doing my best to succeed in life. So far, things are going all right. If you want to handicap the 1% to give to the 99%, you're looking at a system doomed to fail. What happens when we take enough from the wealthy that there's no benefit to becoming wealthy? Then who do we tax next to support all the supplicants, beggars, and sycophants? Eventually, the path of taxing the wealthy and giving to the poor leads to failure.

Congrats that things are going for well, and I hope you recognize that there are many things that could have happened that would have kept you from doing well: getting sick and unable to work for a stretch, an ailing parent or child that needs hours of care every day, not having money to buy a car that's necessary to get to work, etc.  Statistically speaking, _most_ people have challenges, and it's hard to understand that, for most, it wasn't a choice.  A study of bankruptcy filings shows that over half were for health care-related issues, which are almost 100% not their fault in any way.  You didn't get leukemia as a child

Government is basically a huge insurance company that also has an army.  Sounds like you're one of those that hasn't needed an insurance policy, whether private, or public.  Good for you, and hope that keeps up.  But I don't think you should begrudge your fellow humans that have been less fortunate, through no fault of their own, and need medicare or medicaid, which are the biggest US government programs.  It's intellectually lazy to think that those that have had problems are "supplicants, beggars, and sycophants".

Also, no one is asking for a system with equal income quintiles and no motivation to work.  They just want a level playing field, not one where rich kids are 7 times more likely to become rich themselves - that's called oligarchy.

Word.

[ineededausername]

They just want a level playing field, not one where rich kids are 7 times more likely to become rich themselves - that's called oligarchy.

THIS
edit: mods, split this thread and move half of it to p&s?

[trogdorjw73]

I'm on the side of people trying to work hard and earn money through their efforts, and I'm doing my best to succeed in life. So far, things are going all right. If you want to handicap the 1% to give to the 99%, you're looking at a system doomed to fail. What happens when we take enough from the wealthy that there's no benefit to becoming wealthy? Then who do we tax next to support all the supplicants, beggars, and sycophants? Eventually, the path of taxing the wealthy and giving to the poor leads to failure.

Congrats that things are going for well, and I hope you recognize that there are many things that could have happened that would have kept you from doing well: getting sick and unable to work for a stretch, an ailing parent or child that needs hours of care every day, not having money to buy a car that's necessary to get to work, etc.  Statistically speaking, _most_ people have challenges, and it's hard to understand that, for most, it wasn't a choice.  A study of bankruptcy filings shows that over half were for health care-related issues, which are almost 100% not their fault in any way.  You didn't get leukemia as a child

Government is basically a huge insurance company that also has an army.  Sounds like you're one of those that hasn't needed an insurance policy, whether private, or public.  Good for you, and hope that keeps up.  But I don't think you should begrudge your fellow humans that have been less fortunate, through no fault of their own, and need medicare or medicaid, which are the biggest US government programs.  It's intellectually lazy to think that those that have had problems are "supplicants, beggars, and sycophants".

Also, no one is asking for a system with equal income quintiles and no motivation to work.  They just want a level playing field, not one where rich kids are 7 times more likely to become rich themselves - that's called oligarchy.

I've done bankruptcy, done divorce, been laid off from several jobs, and had plenty else go wrong. I'm still paying off student loans as well, but then if I hadn't been stupid about taking out more loans than I needed I wouldn't have nearly as much to pay back. Children of rich people are more likely to become rich (often just by inheriting it). Big freaking deal. How many people are we talking about that are truly wealthy, and how many of us are truly poor? I'm middle class, and according to the system probably bordering on being poor, but I don't feel poor and I'm sure as hell not going to ask the government for a handout. When I say I'm "doing okay", it's that I'm paying down debts, living within my means, and trying to make sure I act responsibly. Another five years and I should be debt free (other than a mortgage).

I'm currently paying over $400 per month to get insurance for my wife and child, with another child on the way, and since the passing of Obamacare our costs have gone up 35% in less than two years. Strange that something like government health care would cause prices on normal health insurance to go up, isn't it? Almost like we're being forced to turn to the government even more, but why would the people in power want us even more dependent than ever on them? Oh, wait: "In power." 'Nuf said.

The system is very broken right now, but not because we're avoiding taxing the rich. The system is broken because government is too big and is trying to control too many things. There are too many hands in the kitchen, and the food is coming out a disaster. We've got lawers passing laws that require lawyers to interpret the laws, and they're paid more than just about any profession. Once you get to be a judge, watch out: you get appointed and you have a life long position of power and influence, with no way to get voted out. I'd say more than anything we're becoming a society ruled by the courts. Beyond that we have politicians taking kickbacks and pretending to look out for the needs of the poor and downtrodden when what they're really doing is creating dependency.

I have no illusions that one party is better than the other here either, as both are horribly corrupt. Every time I vote for high ranking officials it's a matter of determining who will be less "evil". I'd fire the whole lot of them if I could, but then we'd just get replacements that are doing the same things. What's the solution? It sure as hell isn't Robin Hood, free health care and college for all, or Bitcoin. More likely than not the "solution" will be a complete collapse and failure of the system, years of chaos and perhaps even anarchy, and eventually we might get back to a better class of government. We're still better of than people were 100 years ago, but I think we've hit the peak in many areas and are in decline, so it's just a question of how far we'll fall before we stop giving away our rights and agency in the hope of more government programs to "protect" us.

[Qoheleth]

like he probably did when he pushed it to $30.00.

Man what? I thought the $30 was your run-of-the-mill hype bubble.

I mean, I totally agree that Bitcoin's only going to succeed long-term if we can establish an economy with it - an ecosystem of goods and services using Bitcoin as the currency of exchange. And the manipulator running around is making it hard to tell what the coins are actually worth in the context of that theoretical economy. But neither of those things mean that every positive motion of the BTC/USD exchange rate was deliberate market manipulation by persons unknown.

And all I have to say about the political derail is:

America became great by allowing people to succeed and realize the American Dream. Today, we now have millions of people feeling entitled to the American Dream, and the only way they can see to get there is to tax those who have already accomplished this.

Then the real fact under debate is: is the lack of social mobility in this day and age a matter of laziness, or a matter of genuine stratification?

(That's not a question that's easy to answer! Anecdotes won't cut it!)

[trogdorjw73]

QFT, Qoheleth. My vote is obviously for laziness as the primary factor, but certainly stratification exists. How much of either one is to blame? I have a great idea: let's have the government spend billions of dollars researching this for us! They can just tax the top 1% more to pay for it.... ;-)

[Jointops420]

America has nothing to do with me or its national narcissism. Step away from the mirror and gently look around.

[old_engineer]

I've done bankruptcy, done divorce, been laid off from several jobs, and had plenty else go wrong. I'm still paying off student loans as well, but then if I hadn't been stupid about taking out more loans than I needed I wouldn't have nearly as much to pay back.

If you hadn't needed to take out loans to go to school in the first place, don't you think things might have been easier?  The effective taxation rate of the top 1% of the country was 27% in 2007, and they pulled in a combined $2 trillion. Raising their effective taxation rate by 10%, to 37% - which is what it was in 1970 - would raise an additional $186 billion dollars.  Students take out $100 billion in loans every year.  Might it best for everyone - including the richest - if more people were happy instead of living in austerity?  And it's not like the top 1% is going to suffer, or that they won't be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor.  Yes, they'll take home a bit less income, but the top 1% might come out ahead overall because any business(es) they run (if any) would have a larger pool of educated people to draw from if money weren't an obstacle to anyone's education.  And they don't have to pay employees as much because employees won't be having to pay off student loan debt, so the overall cost is actually a wash.  It's just a matter of distribution.

Children of rich people are more likely to become rich (often just by inheriting it). Big freaking deal. How many people are we talking about that are truly wealthy, and how many of us are truly poor? I'm middle class, and according to the system probably bordering on being poor, but I don't feel poor and I'm sure as hell not going to ask the government for a handout. When I say I'm "doing okay", it's that I'm paying down debts, living within my means, and trying to make sure I act responsibly. Another five years and I should be debt free (other than a mortgage).

I appreciate the desire to live within the system, and how much of a challenge it is.  It's not easy.  But it wasn't always this way: people didn't used to have a huge debt burden just to be a productive member of society.  And if they every have to take a year off - for health issues, job retraining, school, a sabbatical, or just to wander the world - they fall seriously behind on payments and are hit with punitive fees.  There are serious overtones of indentured servitude if you think about it.

I'm currently paying over $400 per month to get insurance for my wife and child, with another child on the way, and since the passing of Obamacare our costs have gone up 35% in less than two years. Strange that something like government health care would cause prices on normal health insurance to go up, isn't it? Almost like we're being forced to turn to the government even more, but why would the people in power want us even more dependent than ever on them? Oh, wait: "In power." 'Nuf said.

Yesterday was when the provision that required insurance companies to spend 80% of their money on providing health services took effect.  Next year, your insurance costs are likely to go down or stay the same.

The system is very broken right now, but not because we're avoiding taxing the rich. The system is broken because government is too big and is trying to control too many things. There are too many hands in the kitchen, and the food is coming out a disaster. We've got lawers passing laws that require lawyers to interpret the laws, and they're paid more than just about any profession.

Actually, hedge fund managers are the best paid right now, $880 million _average_ for the top 25 hedge fund managers, who combined pull in 4 times what all Fortune 500 company CEOs pull in ($8M each, in case you were wondering).  Taxing hedge fund manager's earnings at 50% instead of the current 15% capital gains tax would raise an extra $7.7 billion, which is almost half the NASA budget right there for those 25 people.  You don't think that's broken?  I think it's representative of a systemic problem.  No matter how smart they are, the efforts of those 25 people aren't worth the same as 440,000 teachers at $50k/year, and their worth to society is far lower.  And they definitely aren't any smarter or harder working than their predecessors 30 years ago, who were in the same offices doing the same kinds of work, but yet only took home a tenth that much money.  No, there have been enormous systemic change over the past 30 years in favor of those with large amounts of capital, and it's created an unfair system with disproportionate incomes.  Hint: computers are a big reason it's easier than ever to concentrate wealth.

Once you get to be a judge, watch out: you get appointed and you have a life long position of power and influence, with no way to get voted out. I'd say more than anything we're becoming a society ruled by the courts. Beyond that we have politicians taking kickbacks and pretending to look out for the needs of the poor and downtrodden when what they're really doing is creating dependency.

Blame the Founding Fathers, who wrote that into the constitution.  The federal judiciary was designed to change very slowly with lifetime appointments, "'Til death do us part.", so that they aren't influenced by the need to get re-elected.  Which seems like a good idea to me given how politicians are required to behave to get re-elected. Do you really want to see everyone on the supreme court beholden to public opinion when making rulings?

For what it's worth, I think the end game of the Occupy Wall Street movement is a new amendment to the constitution that overturns Citizens United, and I'd like to see the US also spend $5 billion a year and provide public financing of all elections to federal office.  We, as a society, already pay the $5 billion, but right now politicians owe favors to specific high-wealth individuals in return for their donations.  It doesn't have to be this way.

I have no illusions that one party is better than the other here either, as both are horribly corrupt. Every time I vote for high ranking officials it's a matter of determining who will be less "evil". I'd fire the whole lot of them if I could, but then we'd just get replacements that are doing the same things. What's the solution? It sure as hell isn't Robin Hood, free health care and college for all, or Bitcoin. More likely than not the "solution" will be a complete collapse and failure of the system, years of chaos and perhaps even anarchy, and eventually we might get back to a better class of government. We're still better of than people were 100 years ago, but I think we've hit the peak in many areas and are in decline, so it's just a question of how far we'll fall before we stop giving away our rights and agency in the hope of more government programs to "protect" us.

Wow, I'm far more optimistic.  Free health care and free college seems to work for Germany, which has one of the strongest economies in the world.  And if politicians weren't beholden to special interests in order to get re-elected, they might vote differently while in office (it's been shown in academic studies that House members tend to vote based on how much money they get from each industry).  Address those 3 issues, and I think even you might be hopeful that the world might seem a bit less brutal, and a bit less look-out-for-number-1.  Money is just a tool - it's not a measure of honor, it's not a measure of individual worth, and it's not a measure of morality - and right now,  money in our society is being used like using fine china to open a beer bottle.  Whatever that means.  When I think of money as a tool, and I think of most poor people as being like me but unlucky for some reason or another, it's far easier to have some empathy for them, even though I'm a part of the 1%.

[old_engineer]

Then the real fact under debate is: is the lack of social mobility in this day and age a matter of laziness, or a matter of genuine stratification?

(That's not a question that's easy to answer! Anecdotes won't cut it!)

There's data out there that give strong hints, though they aren't (and can't be) conclusive.  Compare the top 1% now, to the top 1% from 40 years ago.  It's easy: just look at federal income tax data, which shows the top 1% has 2.5 times higher annual gross income.  You'd have a hard time convincing the top 1% from 40 years ago that they worked 2.5 times less, or are 2.5 times dumber than today's 1%: they'd say you're full of shit from their rocking chair in the nursing home, and you might even get punched for calling them lazy.  The go-getters today are not significantly different from the go-getters 40 years ago, yet they're taking home an additional 1.5 trillion dollars compared to the 1970 go-getters.  That's enough for a pay raise of $12,500 per household in America, and they're getting that additional money not because they are harder working, or because the bottom 150 million Americans are lazy, but because there have been structural changes that make it possible to concentrate wealth, both in terms of pay-to-play politics with tax cuts for the richest members of society, and technological changes like, I dunno, software "manufacturing", where the billionaires that came out of Microsoft and Google only had to make a good product once, and then replicate it almost cost-free so that hundreds of millions of people could use the identical product.  That whole industry didn't used to exist, and it's a good example of technological change that has made wealth concentration easier.

As far as laziness of the other 99%: the 82 million full-time employed people in the US work an average of 8.17 hours per day (I just looked it up here), yet tens of million of them are broke, and millions declare bankruptcy.  How can this possibly be because the full-time employed are lazy? I know it's a popular talking point, but it doesn't make sense, and it strikes me as just a convenient way to dismiss anyone that's not rich.

And apologies to all for the US-centric tangent.

[Raoul Duke]

Holly SHIT! OBAMA IS THE MANIPULATOR!
That or this thread went completely off-topic...

[ineededausername]

Holly SHIT! OBAMA IS THE MANIPULATOR!
That or this thread went completely off-topic...

yeah I just reported it. maybe a mod will split it soon

[Otoh]

the manipulator listing on eBay, naturally he hides his icy image

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170740576988

[Edward50]

Looks like the manipualtor stopped using his 50K bidwall,. he is trying to push the market but using much smaller bid walls. I think after his last wall got sold into, he doesn't want to make his bidwall an easy place for early adapters to cash their coins out into.

[zby]

Do you really think there is just one person with over $100K on MtGox?

[julz]

Looks like the manipualtor stopped using his 50K bidwall,. he is trying to push the market but using much smaller bid walls. I think after his last wall got sold into, he doesn't want to make his bidwall an easy place for early adapters to cash their coins out into.

I think we're seeing the healthy jagged lines of genuine multi-party buyer support at these price levels.

[Vandroiy]

Do you really think there is just one person with over $100K on MtGox?

There is at least one. We had orders worth over 200k USD placed in seconds; if that trader is a professional, we should assume he doesn't move with all at once and should have had more than 500k available at some point.

[barbarousrelic]

If there is a manipulator trying to profit by putting in enormous sell orders ( like on November 14th) and then buying back at a lower price (like on November 29) I don't think this strategy will work for him very long. As the market matures, people will see this and stop panic selling at low prices because they know there will be a huge buy order coming in later on (as there must be if this manipulator continues manipulating)

[phorensic]

Looks like the manipualtor stopped using his 50K bidwall,. he is trying to push the market but using much smaller bid walls. I think after his last wall got sold into, he doesn't want to make his bidwall an easy place for early adapters to cash their coins out into.

I think we're seeing the healthy jagged lines of genuine multi-party buyer support at these price levels.

this

[Raize]

Real simple solution. Do what I do, put in a buy order just before the bid wall then put in a sell order 10% higher than the bid wall. You'll always make 10%.

What I think happened is knightmb or another large coin holder sold or lent a significant amount of coin in June to a professional market maker who has been trading the price of Bitcoin down. They were doing buy walls to support their sells, but lost control when another large holder of coin sold into the wall. Now they can't do the buy walls anymore and we're seeing healthier bids.

There did appear to be some arbitrage bots/holders appropriately operating again that were not while the person with the large bidwalls was operating. My guess is one of the arbitrage bots got burned on this most recent uptick from $2 while the other one made off really really well.

[Stevenrm87]

OP still here trying to get those $2 Bitcoins. Lesson learned for the newcomers. Don't be that guy in 3 years.