cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 13, 2012, 05:21:38 PM |
|
Gold down; Bitcoin up.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 13, 2012, 06:07:18 PM |
|
here's yet another way to look at the deflation/inflation debate. no doubt all of you inflationists have noted all the debt downgrades that have been going on for years. it's tempting to just overlook this and become numb to it all. well, as the downgrades mount it decreases the value of the underlying debt instruments but the payment burden remains. thus deflation of the money supply. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-13/sp-cuts-uk-outlook-negativein other words, you don't have to have defaults on the debt to have contraction of the money supply.
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4662
Merit: 1276
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 13, 2012, 07:05:30 PM |
|
here's yet another way to look at the deflation/inflation debate. no doubt all of you inflationists have noted all the debt downgrades that have been going on for years. it's tempting to just overlook this and become numb to it all. well, as the downgrades mount it decreases the value of the underlying debt instruments but the payment burden remains. thus deflation of the money supply. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-13/sp-cuts-uk-outlook-negativein other words, you don't have to have defaults on the debt to have contraction of the money supply. The article seems lite on detail of the mechanism you propose. I would say that the primary effect contributing to deflation (except for outright default of course) would be that entities burdened with decreasingly valued assets are less well positioned to take on more debt as their collateral is diminished. Nothing a few accounting rule tweaks cannot deal with though. I think it was on zerohedge that I read about the US having no plans to implement the Basel-II accords...and we still operated under significantly lightened FASB rules interpretations in terms of mark-to-market as I understand it. I bet that 'doing right' on either of these away would snap the system like a pretzel. Bet using PM's and Bitcoin that is.
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 13, 2012, 07:14:36 PM |
|
here's yet another way to look at the deflation/inflation debate. no doubt all of you inflationists have noted all the debt downgrades that have been going on for years. it's tempting to just overlook this and become numb to it all. well, as the downgrades mount it decreases the value of the underlying debt instruments but the payment burden remains. thus deflation of the money supply. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-13/sp-cuts-uk-outlook-negativein other words, you don't have to have defaults on the debt to have contraction of the money supply. The article seems lite on detail of the mechanism you propose. its more than light; its non-existent on the mechanism b/c very few, like me, realize what's happening. but think about it; all these downgrades are decreasing the amount/value/availability of good collateral. miscreanity constantly talks about the "moneyness" of these instruments as they are traded back and forth as collateral for further debt buildup. well, if the collateral is now worth less, then the debt buildup slows, plateaus, or even decreases. that's exactly what we've seen since i've been calling for a top in risk assets.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 13, 2012, 07:24:24 PM |
|
hey silverbox. wanna bet me 10 BTC that Apple won't break $500 again?
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4662
Merit: 1276
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 13, 2012, 07:33:24 PM |
|
here's yet another way to look at the deflation/inflation debate. no doubt all of you inflationists have noted all the debt downgrades that have been going on for years. it's tempting to just overlook this and become numb to it all. well, as the downgrades mount it decreases the value of the underlying debt instruments but the payment burden remains. thus deflation of the money supply. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-13/sp-cuts-uk-outlook-negativein other words, you don't have to have defaults on the debt to have contraction of the money supply. The article seems lite on detail of the mechanism you propose. its more than light; its non-existent on the mechanism b/c very few, like me, realize what's happening. I think I've demonstrated some understanding of the mechanism as you describe it, and do not disagree with your interpretation. but think about it; all these downgrades are decreasing the amount/value/availability of good collateral. miscreanity constantly talks about the "moneyness" of these instruments as they are traded back and forth as collateral for further debt buildup. well, if the collateral is now worth less, then the debt buildup slows, plateaus, or even decreases. that's exactly what we've seen since i've been calling for a top in risk assets.
It's tricky when the 'worth' is a nebulous term. The toxic paper is 'worth' quite a lot as the fed will spend up to $40,000,000,000/mo to take it off one's books and put it on their own and will continue to do so indefinitely (if I remember the details of QE3 correctly.) As long as $40x10^9 is considered a fair chunk of change, that paper is as good a collateral as any. The 40-billion can be deployed to obtain more broadly values collateral (than toxic paper) and the game continues. I would not doubt that the game could continue for many years if management is particularly adroit, but the whole thing 'feels' to me like there is a lot of internal stress and a structural failure (should someone drop the ball) could very well be fairly catastrophic.
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 13, 2012, 07:41:41 PM |
|
here's yet another way to look at the deflation/inflation debate. no doubt all of you inflationists have noted all the debt downgrades that have been going on for years. it's tempting to just overlook this and become numb to it all. well, as the downgrades mount it decreases the value of the underlying debt instruments but the payment burden remains. thus deflation of the money supply. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-13/sp-cuts-uk-outlook-negativein other words, you don't have to have defaults on the debt to have contraction of the money supply. The article seems lite on detail of the mechanism you propose. its more than light; its non-existent on the mechanism b/c very few, like me, realize what's happening. I think I've demonstrated some understanding of the mechanism as you describe it, and do not disagree with your interpretation. no doubt you're smart enough to understand the mechanism i've proposed. but since you yourself have freely admitted that you are not actively involved in trading the markets or perhaps following the financial news as much as i do, there's a few things you might miss. ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) but think about it; all these downgrades are decreasing the amount/value/availability of good collateral. miscreanity constantly talks about the "moneyness" of these instruments as they are traded back and forth as collateral for further debt buildup. well, if the collateral is now worth less, then the debt buildup slows, plateaus, or even decreases. that's exactly what we've seen since i've been calling for a top in risk assets.
It's tricky when the 'worth' is a nebulous term. The toxic paper is 'worth' quite a lot as the fed will spend up to $40,000,000,000/mo to take it off one's books and put it on their own and will continue to do so indefinitely (if I remember the details of QE3 correctly.) As long as $40x10^9 is considered a fair chunk of change, that paper is as good a collateral as any. The 40-billion can be deployed to obtain more broadly values collateral (than toxic paper) and the game continues. I would not doubt that the game could continue for many years if management is particularly adroit, but the whole thing 'feels' to me like there is a lot of internal stress and a structural failure (should someone drop the ball) could very well be fairly catastrophic. its actually $85B/mo and counting. Ben has also promised to keep rates at 0% (only for his buddies mind you in the hopes of trickle down ![Roll Eyes](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif) ) until unemployment drops below 6%. but that's really not alot of money when you compare it to the amount of combined private and public debt out there along with the quadrillion or so of shadow banking debt. as i've shown in the previous posts those debt mountains have shrunk, plateaued, and by my estimation are rolling over. that's trouble. when you combine that with Steve Keen's theory of the necessity for an ever accelerating amount debt to keep the ponzi going, you know we're in trouble. now.
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4662
Merit: 1276
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 13, 2012, 09:02:34 PM |
|
its more than light; its non-existent on the mechanism b/c very few, like me, realize what's happening.
I think I've demonstrated some understanding of the mechanism as you describe it, and do not disagree with your interpretation. no doubt you're smart enough to understand the mechanism i've proposed. but since you yourself have freely admitted that you are not actively involved in trading the markets or perhaps following the financial news as much as i do, there's a few things you might miss. ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) For the record, I don't trade for a bunch of reasons, several of the primary ones being: 1) Expense. It costs money to third parties to exchange almost anything, and it complicates tax considerations as well. Of course if one is in the business to capitalize on other people's trading it's a different story, but that's a pretty big commitment. 2) Disadvantageous asymmetries in: information, regulatory preference, legal protection, etc. 3) Counter-party risk is inherent in most trading adventures, and I try to avoid it as a matter of principle. You are right that I don't follow the 'news' as much as you, and when I do follow it it is never really mainstream sources that I pay attention to. In any event, it is 'theory' that interests me more than 'news', and news is mostly just a way to build up or knock down various hypotheses of mine. I've a short attention span and a fairly broad range of interests. By investing/speculating almost completely on fundamentals I can completely neglect any news or research for months long periods without any impact on my financial affairs.
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
S3052
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2100
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 13, 2012, 09:51:51 PM |
|
hey silverbox. wanna bet me 10 BTC that Apple won't break $500 again?
+1 I am short apple since 545 $ the second time after the nice move from 700 to 530...
|
|
|
|
lebing
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000
Enabling the maximal migration
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 13, 2012, 10:04:47 PM |
|
hey silverbox. wanna bet me 10 BTC that Apple won't break $500 again?
+1 I am short apple since 545 $ the second time after the nice move from 700 to 530... dude! you are holding out on your subscribers! ![Tongue](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
|
Bro, do you even blockchain? -E Voorhees
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 14, 2012, 04:32:53 PM Last edit: December 14, 2012, 04:52:59 PM by cypherdoc |
|
closed out my GG and SLW shorts for big gains. just in case silverbox wants to try and hammer me make up something later about this. moved them over to juicier targets.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 14, 2012, 07:59:02 PM Last edit: December 14, 2012, 08:12:07 PM by cypherdoc |
|
are you ready for the KaBoom?!
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 14, 2012, 08:49:36 PM |
|
The Thunderclap to be heard when Apple violates $500 will be deafening. We may have to move up the Mayan Calendar date.
|
|
|
|
adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 15, 2012, 12:51:58 AM |
|
its almost overless then 5 years left i think...
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 15, 2012, 01:27:51 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 15, 2012, 01:31:58 AM |
|
oh, btw, this is just another example of DEFLATION coming to Apple prices.
|
|
|
|
Dusty
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 15, 2012, 08:16:12 AM |
|
in other words, you don't have to have defaults on the debt to have contraction of the money supply.
I would like to bring this topic up again b/c I feel it's not clear enough (for me, at least). What I would like to assert, and understand if it's correct, is that a default imply a contraction of the money supply only if the creditor is not the central bank. So, for example: if Alice has a loan on bank B and she defaults, the money supply is debased. But if Bank B has an even enormous loan with the central bank and it defaults no contraction of the money supply occurs. Does everyone agree on that? Thanks for any insight on the subject.
|
|
|
|
molecular
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 15, 2012, 02:39:22 PM |
|
pfff. That's not "a third off". You'd have to add the subsidy from carrier. It's more like 7% off or something. No big deal. But anyway, I love to bash apple as much as anyone: fuck them for making closed products that lock consumers in and force them to buy more crap from them (or windows to use iTunes). They deserve a share price below $100 if you ask me, just for being snobbish assholes.
|
PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0 3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 15, 2012, 04:40:39 PM Last edit: December 15, 2012, 04:54:54 PM by cypherdoc |
|
oh, btw, this is just another example of DEFLATION coming to Apple prices.
Maybe. I prefer to hope that people are just realizing that Apple sucks as a company and their products suck as well. I have no idea how they got as big as they are selling such horrible crap. I guess there is a huge market of idiots that pay too much for inferior products. ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif) its not really a maybe. the stock price IS 30% down from the peak. yes, i suppose it could go back up but the fundamentals really suck in that regard and i think it's rolled for good. just like the beginning of the Microsoft decline. this happens to all huge companies eventually with time as they get too big, fat, bulky to keep up with the smaller upcoming competition like Android its also a fact that the $127 sale price at Walmart is 37% off what you can get at a carrier even with the upgrade cost. i just checked my bill from Verizon for my wife's iphone 5 that we bought 2 weeks ago ![Angry](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/angry.gif) . it sold for $199.99 with a $30 upgrade fee (can you believe that crap?). no one will buy from them anymore as long as that $127 price is out there. Apple comprising almost 20% of the NASDAQ (approx) at its peak WAS the stock market. its decline is foretelling some serious deflation on the horizon. the way to think of this is that your beloved USD's are buying MORE now than before. gas has dropped to the mid $3 range from over $4 in my region. everything is rolling over. its plain as day (at least to me). could you elaborate on what you don't like about their products? i actually love their laptops. the smoothness of the MagicPad is exquisite and i like the keyboard layout with the command key just to the left of the space key making the command strokes much easier compared to a windows keyboard.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
December 15, 2012, 04:43:55 PM |
|
pfff. That's not "a third off". You'd have to add the subsidy from carrier. It's more like 7% off or something. No big deal. But anyway, I love to bash apple as much as anyone: fuck them for making closed products that lock consumers in and force them to buy more crap from them (or windows to use iTunes). They deserve a share price below $100 if you ask me, just for being snobbish assholes. ummm, not sure what you mean. $127 is 37% off from the subsidized upgrade price of $199.
|
|
|
|
|