Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[molecular]

Gold and BTC have one hell of a relationship..  It's like freaking clock work.. BTC up gold down..  Gold up BTC down.

I wait the time when they will both shoot up to new highs unbelievable now

Sadly a lot of bad news will happen soon for the western financial sectors; the States and some European Countries keep having a public deficit, a commercial deficit and increasing unfunded liabilities

Through most of history there's only been one true form of money, gold. Occasionally, we've had short periods of bi-metallism.

To think it will be any different with Bitcoin and gold, or Bitcoin and altcoins is to defy history.

Bi-metallism refers to a setup where the exchange rate between two metals is fixed (by govt. or king or whatever).

Noone (except Max Keiser, lol) suggest to fix the price of bitcoin to fiat, for example. We full well know what happens then (greshams laws).

I'm sure there have been periods where gold and silver were used as money alongside each other (without any price fixing). There was also a period in england where copper miners (for lack of silver coinage), minted their own copper coins to pay workers. This copper money existed happily alongside the "official" silver and gold coins. (Albeit the exchange rate was fixed afaik by the copper coin issuers by promise of exchange at certain rate).

I'm not sure what will happen, but a world in which many forms of money coexist is not out of the question in my mind.

[1713941462]

1713941462

[cypherdoc]

Push!

[cypherdoc]

TeeBone, you in trouble boy:

http://www.panture.com/are-investors-moving-money-from-gold-to-bitcoin/

[El Cabron]

Tatiana Moroz

Been in my Lambo. Nice artist.

[justusranvier]

Economists on the other hand works for institutions that are largely government-funded, and that means that money flows in regardless of the quality of their work (and that's an understatement).

It's not a matter of quality as it is a matter of not understanding the actual job of economists.

The job of economist is to produce convincing ex post facto justifications for government policies. This is what they get paid for, and that's what they do.

The public's incorrect assumption that their job has anything to do with objective truth makes their job easier, so it's not a mistake they are interested in correcting.

[El Cabron]

Economists on the other hand works for institutions that are largely government-funded, and that means that money flows in regardless of the quality of their work (and that's an understatement).

It's not a matter of quality as it is a matter of not understanding the actual job of economists.

The job of economist is to produce convincing ex post facto justifications for government policies. This is what they get paid for, and that's what they do.

The public's incorrect assumption that their job has anything to do with objective truth makes their job easier, so it's not a mistake they are interested in correcting.

I have to agree. I almost went with undergrad in Econ. Meet the guys teaching and was like WTF.

[cypherdoc]

Push!

[ErisDiscordia]

Economists on the other hand works for institutions that are largely government-funded, and that means that money flows in regardless of the quality of their work (and that's an understatement).

It's not a matter of quality as it is a matter of not understanding the actual job of economists.

The job of economist is to produce convincing ex post facto justifications for government policies. This is what they get paid for, and that's what they do.

The public's incorrect assumption that their job has anything to do with objective truth makes their job easier, so it's not a mistake they are interested in correcting.

Once upon a time there was a strain of thinking in economics which thought of the job of an economist to be just an observer of the complex social phenomenon we call "economy" while trying to figure out if there are any regularities. That line of thinking is all but dead today, killed by Keynesians insisting that economists need to centrally plan and control the economy.

[Dusty]

Economists on the other hand works for institutions that are largely government-funded, and that means that money flows in regardless of the quality of their work (and that's an understatement).

It's not a matter of quality as it is a matter of not understanding the actual job of economists.

The job of economist is to produce convincing ex post facto justifications for government policies. This is what they get paid for, and that's what they do.

The public's incorrect assumption that their job has anything to do with objective truth makes their job easier, so it's not a mistake they are interested in correcting.

While I tend to agree, not all economists are the same.

I can cite for example Bastiat, Menger, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and probably many others: most of them did a great job.

They are mostly unknown to the bigger public though, since they are not functional to elite plans.

[Melbustus]

Economists on the other hand works for institutions that are largely government-funded, and that means that money flows in regardless of the quality of their work (and that's an understatement).

It's not a matter of quality as it is a matter of not understanding the actual job of economists.

The job of economist is to produce convincing ex post facto justifications for government policies. This is what they get paid for, and that's what they do.

The public's incorrect assumption that their job has anything to do with objective truth makes their job easier, so it's not a mistake they are interested in correcting.

Once upon a time there was a strain of thinking in economics which thought of the job of an economist to be just an observer of the complex social phenomenon we call "economy" while trying to figure out if there are any regularities. That line of thinking is all but dead today, killed by Keynesians insisting that economists need to centrally plan and control the economy.

I think these conclusions are a bit unfair. I have an econ degree from a top school, so I'm one counterexample at the very least. Further, I'd argue that many of my peers were mainly attracted to the elegance of the math and really believe that monetary and fiscal policy can optimally tune an economy for the betterment of all.

And to the extent that their assumptions and inputs are right, their conclusions are indeed right. What I think they miss is two-fold:
1) The models cannot possibly incorporate all variables. Economics tries to model the sum of human interaction. That's literally a chaotic system. Such modeling work great until all of a sudden it doesn't work at all.
2) The human element. Political incentives, individuals' career and legacy incentives, etc, are extremely dangerous motivators if you've allowed a system to exist whereby a small number of people have tremendous control over key variables. Unfortunately that's what we have, and it's proving to be a problem. A fairly obvious problem if you take a high-level long-term view and have some appreciation for the muddiness of it all, but that doesn't fit elegantly with the pretty equations economists love.


tl;dr: Most of them really do mean well. But what's that saying about a certain road and good intentions?

[Spaceman_Spiff]

1) The models cannot possibly incorporate all variables. Economics tries to model the sum of human interaction. That's literally a chaotic system. Such modeling work great until all of a sudden it doesn't work at all.
2) The human element. Political incentives, individuals' career and legacy incentives, etc, are extremely dangerous motivators if you've allowed a system to exist whereby a small number of people have tremendous control over key variables. Unfortunately that's what we have, and it's proving to be a problem. A fairly obvious problem if you take a high-level long-term view and have some appreciation for the muddiness of it all, but that doesn't fit elegantly with the pretty equations economists love.

<off topic>
Yes, one day I believe economics and social sciences could be studied as a "real science", but the underlying system is too complex for present day models to provide detailed predictive power.  That's not to say it's all randomness, there are definitely principles at play here, many of whom we are aware of, but the interplay is too complex and chaotic.  Simple equations that provide adequate explanation for the underlying system are still reserved for the fields of physics and chemistry (although undoubtedly I am ignoring some really complex subfields).  Biology is at the border between "hard science" and "too complex" imho.
</off topic>

[cypherdoc]

Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[rpietila]

Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Is it intentional that you say so always when the daily charts say the opposite?

[ErisDiscordia]

Economists on the other hand works for institutions that are largely government-funded, and that means that money flows in regardless of the quality of their work (and that's an understatement).

It's not a matter of quality as it is a matter of not understanding the actual job of economists.

The job of economist is to produce convincing ex post facto justifications for government policies. This is what they get paid for, and that's what they do.

The public's incorrect assumption that their job has anything to do with objective truth makes their job easier, so it's not a mistake they are interested in correcting.

Once upon a time there was a strain of thinking in economics which thought of the job of an economist to be just an observer of the complex social phenomenon we call "economy" while trying to figure out if there are any regularities. That line of thinking is all but dead today, killed by Keynesians insisting that economists need to centrally plan and control the economy.

I think these conclusions are a bit unfair. I have an econ degree from a top school, so I'm one counterexample at the very least. Further, I'd argue that many of my peers were mainly attracted to the elegance of the math and really believe that monetary and fiscal policy can optimally tune an economy for the betterment of all.

And to the extent that their assumptions and inputs are right, their conclusions are indeed right. What I think they miss is two-fold:
1) The models cannot possibly incorporate all variables. Economics tries to model the sum of human interaction. That's literally a chaotic system. Such modeling work great until all of a sudden it doesn't work at all.
2) The human element. Political incentives, individuals' career and legacy incentives, etc, are extremely dangerous motivators if you've allowed a system to exist whereby a small number of people have tremendous control over key variables. Unfortunately that's what we have, and it's proving to be a problem. A fairly obvious problem if you take a high-level long-term view and have some appreciation for the muddiness of it all, but that doesn't fit elegantly with the pretty equations economists love.


tl;dr: Most of them really do mean well. But what's that saying about a certain road and good intentions?

Look, I went to study economics at a university as well. After a couple of semesters (more of them than I'd care to admit...) I had to quit because the bullshit they were teaching there was just too infuriating. I could feel myself growing dumber at that school.

Where I am from a degree, ANY degree, is the holy grail of the generation equivalent to the Baby Boomers in the US. A degree, because that is supposed to guarantee you a "secure job". This mentality is much worse in the countries which used to be to the east of the iron curtain, than in those to the west - there people have generations long memories of people making it through entrepreneurship and hard/clever work with or without a degree.

Anyway, most people studying at that school were there for one reason only: they wanted a degree and this was supposed to be one of the easiest schools to finish and get one. And it's true, it was easy. I was there for the reason that I am actually interested in economics. But all their microeconomic modelling of demand and supply functions and macroeconomic keynesian statist propaganda was just too ridiculous for me so I figured I'd learn more on my own and quit.

I went to work in financial consulting and by Eris I swear the last people to get any sort of concept I explained to them were people with a degree in economics. Closely followed by lawyers and psychologists. What they thought they knew just interfered too heavily with what was being explained.

George Carlin knew that the state sponsored school system is all about creating obedient workers, interchangeable and redundant parts of a machine. In few areas of study is this more painfully obvious than in economics.

I am ranting about this because I feel sad about all the bright minds I have seen corrupted and turned into humorless zombies at that school

EDIT: about the well-meaning economists: I place such individuals a step above the pragmatic cheat/thief and below the full blown sociopath on a scale of destructiveness in public functions.

[El Cabron]

Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Is it intentional that you say so always when the daily charts say the opposite?

I have noticed this too. He might be looking at 5 min charts? Clearly not 3 month or even 6 month charts.

[sidhujag]

its all good id rather trade btc all day then pad the pockets of crims like JPM which make the PMs market

[Torque]

http://www.kitco.com/finance/bitcoin/

Not sure if old news, but this seems like a big deal.  Kitco has been around since the 70's.

Also, did anyone notice on the CNY page/tab that at the bottom, btcc is listed along with bter and btc38, but no OKCoin or Huobi?

[Melbustus]

http://www.kitco.com/finance/bitcoin/

Not sure if old news, but this seems like a big deal.  Kitco has been around since the 70's.
...

Yeah, Kitco added bitcoin a couple months ago. Just one more point of adoption/infrastructure-build-out that was happening while everyone was freaking out about China/Gox/Whatever.

[zeetubes]

its all good id rather trade btc all day then pad the pockets of crims like JPM which make the PMs market

+1 on that. But at the same time, for a cool $50B or so, the Fed aka JPM could easily buy out the whole existing BTC market a la Hunt Bros and then do what they want with it. The Fed prints more than that every week in order to keep the various markets afloat.

[Melbustus]

its all good id rather trade btc all day then pad the pockets of crims like JPM which make the PMs market

...for a cool $50B or so.... The Fed prints more than that every week in order to keep the various markets afloat.

No, they print a mere $45B per month.

For now.