Alan Greenspan: another unconscious quote on bitcoin.
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. […] This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard. – Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve (1966) EDIT: Full text: http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html
[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] CNBC just had Alan Greenspan on...
The following post by TheRealMickey is being replicated because the post has been silently removed. The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link: np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7hyru1 The original post's content was as follows:
Asking him what he think of bitcoin is like asking my 72 yr old father to opine on Skrillex
THE POST-CORONAVIRUS ECONOMY 02/04/2020 I like to approach looking at economics like a physicist. There are very few maybes in physics. They mention and value going back to first principles when things go wrong. So does architecture, if you find the central idea of your design is lost. That's my background. If you understand game theory, it's quite apparent that so much of social structure is based on the Prisoner's Dilemma. This mindset seems prevalent also in many philosophical discussions, ancient and modern, such as Nietzsche and Diogenes, framing the human condition / human nature (HN) as being a weakness to overcome. I presume this comes from a mindset to overcome scarcity through dominion and therefore, cultures that reinforce our familiarity with that. However, despite our capacity for creativity and imagination and the absolute evidence that we have been able to overcome nature itself, we still create artificial, synthetic systems that are based on this old framework. We have stepped beyond overcoming natural systems and now play the game of overcoming systems themselves. The trouble is those systems are inherently disempowering because they are still built on fear based game theory that waste the most resources: war, politics, and finance are the most wasteful of all. Ideas for solutions and the present day, magic bullet or not, are still built on those same fear-based frameworks: to overcome HN. Despite so many people wanting empowered change, we think this is the exception, not the hope of the norm. Such a framework is also familiar to us so it's easy to find solutions within a comfort zone that doesn't really change very much and we may be waiting for a personality to lead us to that change without losing that comfort. Experience from previous and even current political and religious leaders has not led to empowered change. But it is not just large-scale problems. It's also small-scale where businesses are in perpetual debt. These dichotomies make great stories to trickle down for people to tell and write books about, but that doesn't resolve the problems. Many don't want those problems to be solved because there's no money in it. If we are to be leaders for the world to be a better place, then we must look at practical empowered systems that all people can use with little need for hierarchical goverance or fear. One of the best engineering companies, Arup, are renowned for their 2-level company structure and are renowned for some of the greatest engineering feats globally. We need to find trust-based systems built on the abundance of our creativity and imagination that includes all things. If you listen to people discussing authenticity and trust, there is a strong dividing line between someone is being sponsored or the product was bought with their own money. This already shows how powerful exchange really is in driving trust between people, or not. Look at how many YouTubers with their promotions stipulate where the product was given by a company or they bought it from their own money to preempt whether they are being honest or not. It's interesting to find that in so many solutions put forward for empowered change, the design frameworks of currency are seldom looked into. People may offer new processes for currency and exchange but they are still built on the same usury frameworks that incentivizes people to quantify wealth in terms of money with little regard of what created that money. My objective here is to offer you a model that incentivises and empowers all people to look at profit and wealth on qualitative frameworks that build trust, in both competitive and collaborative relationships, to value sustainable synergy in creating experiences to empower the most people for all. During this time with the coronavirus, with this mass devolution of economic empowerment, timed or opportunistic, it's essential to find solutions that don't revolve around panics like this again and be left to still more messengers wanting your sacrifice, confinement and/or self immolation to support the rest. So, let's get back to first principles. Let's look at the physics of humanity's identity and its relationship with nature, and discover the exchange model framework that supports the sustainable synergy of that to the greatest empowerment possible. . . . . . THE FUNDAMENTALS The objective here is to present a logic and the framework which empowers all people and has no need to compromise. This must be on qualitative terms where there is a dynamic empowered synergy that is adaptable and diverse dependent on location and capacity. I would find it hard to argue that the most self-actualised empowered people measure their highest wealth is ultimately how we create to empower the most people in the most sustainable way possible, to redundancy. Anything we do, has to support this absolute. It must be structured on the strongest people that possess and act in distributing empowerment to the rest of their community. From this central idea, we must build a adaptive social framework that incentivises such empowerment in the most constructive way possible. Let's look at the basic fundamentals to work with: Human Nature (HN): Adapts to it's environment. This is the beginning of how we build culture. In scarcity or abundance, we are valued by the excellence of what we create. Highest excellence empowers the most people to survive. Loves something to strive for. Is the only species that has overcome natures limitations. Thrives on creative capacity and imagination. Wants to be remembered. We want to trust more than fear others. Children are an excellent example of presenting this. Even as adults, we want to trust if we can, particularly government and authority. It's easier. Wants to be as lazy as it can possibly be to achieve the greatest gain. we always pick the easiest path to get something if it is possible. Whether that is through taking advantage of people, taking the past of least resistance, or being able to create something to make things easier for others, is dependent on the framework that creates the most status and wealth. When we govern such capacity with frameworks of disempowerment, it divides creative capacity, regardless of whether resources are scarce or abundant. This dissuades logic to empower cohesively and devolved to weakness being prioritised in decision making. We have built a model of exchange and social structures that promote weakness. Fundamentally, however, all people want to achieve excellence. How we design the framework defines whether that's against other people or with other people. If you define something about human nature on a negative framework, then it is more important to look at yourself and ask what is lacking in yourself to think such a thing. Environment (E): Resources are always scarce, but our creative capacity is limitless. Resources only those that are useful to the central idea. For resources to be their most plentiful, natural symbioses between them must be maintained and regenerative. Any adaptive social framework must support this. Social Frameworks (SF) How we value wealth define status. How we govern defines status. It doesn't matter whether it's from a disempowered or empowered framework, all that matters is how well we do that to achieve status with our greatest self-security in mind. If a framework is built around scarcity, then mainstream status will always be based on the success of overcoming this. If it is based on abundance, then mainstream status will be based on the best to cultivate that. Fear drives separation. Joy drives integration. We are also more likely to trust someone who offers an opportunity to overcome fear. This is most apparent in times of desperation. This usually doesn't end well. if social frameworks are built around fear, then it only establishes the fear. It does not overcome it. Money/Currency/Exchange (M) Money doesn't exist unless we create something and somebody wants it. If there is nothing to buy, money is meaningless. People's capacity to create is the real money. If we do nothing, there is no economy. Therefore, money must be directly based on the work people do. Basing money on something outside of that disconnects that basic fundamental. Wealth is not money if there is nothing to buy. Therefore, money is always servant to peoples' capacities to create. There are only three money structures to define and work with: usury (positive cost), demarrage (negative cost) and neutral (no cost). What defines which are empowering or not are dependent on how much is available, how it's distributed, I know if it is based on the work of people or something else. Usury does not mean exorbitant cost. If this was the case, then there is an undefined band of money which is little cost. This seems to be conveniently swept under the carpet. It also implies that it cost on currency is fundamental. It isn't. Anyone that promotes such a definition of exorbitant cost and/or interest is not interested in sustainable synergy solutions. Basing currency on something outside of work incentivises using it as a commodity of its own value. Basing it on work makes this impossible with the right parameters. Cryptocurrencies are not different to any other mainstream currency if it follows the same frameworks as usury currency. it is just the same thing delivered a different way. Bitcoin is quite different to every other alternate currency due to specific parameters that made it difficult to continue as an exchange mechanism versus a store of value that many people have tried to overcome. This brought on ICO commodity boom that was purely fictitious, totally missing the larger picture that Bitcoin wanted to present. That again shows how powerful changing currency can be for sustainable empowered change. Here are the parameters to scrutinise: What is it based on? Is the volume infinite or finite? How is that volume distributed? Is there a cost? There are also only three frameworks of currency cost: Usury (any interest or fee) Demurrage No cost (neutral). Unfortunately, we have been dealing with usury currency as a commodity for as long as humanity can remember and built our understanding of human nature from that. It is built on the framework of disempowering social structures that Prisoner's Dilemma game theory succinctly presents. It defines HN as a prisoner by default. Why? Money has almost always been created from violence and disempowerment to gain dominion to combat scarcity. David Graeber's book Debt: The First 5000 Years, establishes this. Usury currency has always been connected to political power disempowering people, regardless of whether it's capitalist or communist or anything in between. The only difference has been from the people who choose to have status to empower or disempower. As most democracies separate currency from governance, politics will not change anything unless you change fundamental frameworks to incentivize leadership to support people by default. What usury currency and the Prisoner's Dilemma really demonstrate is that we trust what people tell us to overcome our fears and we try and trust what they say because we're told we cannot trust ourselves. So we choose to accept fighting disempowerment rather than leveraging empowerment because we are led to believe it's easier to follow then be an independent peer competing and collaborating for the greater good. It seems the human condition is that a gravitates to fear and not trust itself instead of the opposite. That's quite different to defining human nature that objectifies humanity to be perpetually bad and need to be saved from itself. This is beyond ethics and virtue to be prevalent in creating empowering frameworks. It is more relevant to incentivise the ethics of excellence in empowering frameworks. It seems some people mistake the word excellence to mean self against others. No one achieves excellence without the help of others and so in-kind excellence supports excellence. That is the highest ethic. . . . . . BUXB It is here that I will present the parameters of the buxbi model and how it languages and incentivises people to want to be sustainable in the creativity regardless of their personality. It takes out the argument of whether humanity needs to be saved or not. It takes out objectifying people being good or bad, true or not. What they create and why will define whether they are worth your time. If they're not doing their best to create experience is to empower the most people, including yourself, in the most sustainable way possible to redundancy, then they are not going to be efficient with your time to warrant it. BUXB means Be yoU eXchange Bank. The denomination of currency is 'bux'. The parameters of bux are as such: It is created by the exchange of work between at least two people. If nothing is done there are no bux. As a result, no money is created independently of work done. BUXB is not able to be bought by other currencies. Total exchanges balance to zero, except in regards to education. In such a case, all people participating in an education platform are paid by the bank. The bank's deficit is the positive of education that is happening in the community. The volume and type of transactions recorded by the bank, irrespective of the amount, will show what interests the community or communities involved. This is transparent for everyone to see to know where to best use their energy, to the individual's greatest interest. No one is forced to exchange with another person if they choose not to. What people choose to create to exchange is transparent to everyone else in the community. again, this is to inform not just the community what has the greatest benefit to create but also the interest of the person in wanting to create it. It will also establish how good day are at it which only promotes them more. People are free to give what they wish and record it in the bank if they want to. If someone chooses to keep a transaction a secret, for whatever reason, they are welcome. the bank exists simply as a ledger of exchange and amount of what people choose to create. It cannot create any currency whatsoever. Anyone working for the bank is paid by the bank. There are no taxes taxes from the community to run it. Community projects are mandated by direct democracy which people at BUXB manage. The only advantage 4 people both at the bank and the community Ark pick the projects that best support empowering the most people in the most sustainable way possible to redundancy. Since this is the case, there is no compromise between self interest and the community. On a project being decided on, the best people who can do that most efficiently will be the people that will be paid. Such civil or community costs will be covered by the bank. the bank is not a separate entity or corporation or business that requires profit. It is simply a quantitative record of exchange between people in the community and communities that use the same currency. To overcome any misconceptions that charging more would mean more wealth, no one can be paid more than 60bux an hour. As prices of products are based on the amount of work that people do, there is a natural incentive of the price mechanism to fall for everything while quality increases. This establishes that products and services of higher quality cost less. There is no loss of a free-market. The natural consequence of presenting ideas to the community to use their time in the most efficient way possible to effectively empower others in the most sustainable possible to no longer at needing to be required is the incentive for people to give their time to such ideas. Competing ideas will be based on those parameters. If there is a conflict of which idea is better, the natural consequence of this is either consensus to follow one project or for both projects to work concurrently to find out which is best. This is still the most efficient means of using resources instead of conflict in resolving who is better without actually have any experience to know and learn from doing what the idea of say they were going to. Resources that people own using BUXB are not taking away from them. they only become available as they see fit while they become more comfortable and empowered using a model that has more options. It will become plain to realise that trying to find ways to look after properties you own when people are more independent is more difficult but you gain more connecting with people with what they make and don't lose your comfort for your security a,d experience; you gain it a different way Any business built by many people will have a part of the business in some way to attain part of that future profit. But as the price mechanism is quite different in BUXB, participants would game or by selling products at the price that it took to make it. Ask the price will be quite different to what it would be in usery currency, the real value is that quality increases ice prices fall. The true currency really is people's status in creating quality. The price is simply a transition mechanism as people become more comfortable to qualitative framework to value status. Controversially, an example of how BUXB would work in the community is the intentional community mentioned and discussed in the end of Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged. Entrepreneurs in her book get a bad rap but, as usual, we trust the messenger that delivers fear instead of logic. To say that entrepreneurs are bad because they are self-interested egoists is saying to love and improve yourself is bad.there should be no difference between an entrepreneur and a person. I must stipulate that saying an entrepreneur is an opportunist is incorrect. Whether we are people alone or together creating, the objectives of creating experience it's to empower the most people in the most stainboy possible to redundancy is the absolute objective to warrant any idea, and the work to do it, to be valued in its highest esteem. It is plainly clear that her hero entrepreneurs create the best for the least price. all value the quality of their work, and the people that do it not just for but with them. They are not just the entrepreneurs but the politicians we would like to see. They respect everyone who respects themselves in being their best. This is priceless. It is only in that intentional community where they can negate the disempowerment of compromised social structures and usury currency for the greater good. In this intentional community, we can focus purely on what her hero entrepreneur is a truly like. They are mindful empowered selfish creators self aware enough to create their best for the greater good. Any bastardisation of that interpretation has been made rampant by the wannabes. Alan Greenspan, a frequent guest at Ayn Rand's social events, is the epitome of the second-handers she despises. All her heroes are interested in education first, to offer the opportunity for everyone to be their best at what interests them. Hank Reardon makes the best alloy at the cheapest price than his competitors. Dagny runs the best railroad. Hiring a vehicle for $0.05 for the day. Who has the car is not important. All her hero entrepreneurs value creating the highest quality for the best price they can. All got their hands dirty being on the ground to experience the knowledge to be their best for those that will know better. In a commodity-driven world of wealth, there will always be the compromise between what to pay oneself vs the people under you doing the work. And the absolute genius to present how different this is in Ayn Rand's intentional community is the bank. Midas turned everything into gold. In business, everyone he backed succeeded. When he leaves to join the intentional community, he balanced his books to zero. Rand's subjective in pointing this out is Midas left without owing or being owed anything. That in itself is an extraordinary feat in a usury world. Arguably, if that were truly possible, this could only happen in a currency with no cost. It would be interesting to analyse that. But in the microcosm of the intentional community, Midas is picking the best in a barrel. They're all good. They all want to be better. Interestingly, the means of exchange is in gold. This can bring up whether people a mining for gold for currency or as a resource. What's more important is that the main purpose of Midas in the intentional community is simply being the creator of the means of exchange. There is no possible need or means or requirement to add any cost to the currency in such a community. It would be absolutely pointless. His objective is to create enough velocity of exchange as required. It is just he would, but he can only, only, give money to those who are the best at perpetuating empowerment. No one else is living there. Further, it is not required to compete with whom may have a car to lend or not as there is no need to create more cars if none are really required. There will be enough business for everyone until more cars required; then the best most sustainable people will make it, customised on demand. No one in the community would be bothered to make them if they are not needed. The ultimate empowerment in such an intentional community is no one is owned by anybody else and doesn't do anything for anybody unless they want to. Consequently they all do their very best for self and all because there's no better option. That is what selfish really means. Many say these ideas of economies will not work at scale but understand we are in economic models that create so much for nothing. There is so much waste that is not sold. That's not efficient or useful or sustainable or empowering for anybody. So what is created is dependent on the creativity also of the means of production but not for the sake of the economy, but the community. It is easy to create a Tesla production line that can be powered on demand if another vehicle is required and then turn it off again. Cars need not be bought but rented as needed. Any alternative to sharing resources is far more efficient than the waste usury currency economies create. People will assume and say that such ideas can only work in small communities. but the whole global market is a series of small communities connected together. What matters more are how sustainably they connect for the greatest benefit of all that lived there. I'm not just talking about humanity. Any human would know that if they want to at least survive, they must respect the environment. When a person says human nature or the human condition is inherently bad; when they say it cannot work at scale, they are only presenting the weakness in themselves. And this brings up the alignment of ethics and excellence. If we go back to first principles, this sphere of .ethics is very much built around the game theory of the prisoner's dilemma: people are not to be trusted and there will always be compromise. There will always be compromise if solution is not possible but to mitigate that is not built on rights or privilege or social standing in themselves. It is built on excellence. That is the highest ethic. What do we create to empower people and the environment without compromise for the greater good without self-immolation? You do want to live, right? The idea of self immolation as many religions value as a way to relinquish the weakness of human capacity is the largest most init oxymoron of human identity I could possibly imagine. The final book to establish the ultimate empowerment of excellence is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. This is, incredibly, a seriously underrated book. it overcomes the duality and weakness we are presented with over and over again in being human and presents a simple monoism without making it a religion or a deity to follow. What Robert Pirsig makes abundantly clear with his first hand experience teaching his classes in Bozeman, Montana, is quantifying results disempowers people to create excellence and leverage empowerment. It is only when he conceals the marks that he must give because of the system he lives in that the students do their best independent work. Quality may be compared but it has no price. When quality is based on creating empowerment, there is no price-to-value such status. There is no greater wealth. We tell stories about people who have overcome the system. But why do we enforce a disempowering system to overcome? Do you think we will have no story to tell past the point of fear? Look at the work you are doing an ask yourself if it can attain the absolute of empowering the most people in the most sustainable way possible to redundancy. Ask yourself if you are attached to the object of the work you were doing as the status in itself, or it is truly a trajectory to reach that ultimate goal of self and community empowerment. If your work is based on the mindset of believes that the bigger picture is full of bad people to overcome, if it is based on absolute scarcity, if it is based on the character for people to follow and not the idea itself that can be given freely to empower, then you're not being honest and it won't work and it isn't worth doing. Who is it that said doing the same thing the same way leads the same results? While you argue for empowerment and freedom on frameworks of weakness, this reinforces itself. If you really want to do something different, you must change the way you value yourself. It's got nothing to do with commodity currencies. BUXB itself would become redundant in the same way that currency almost is in Ayn Rand's intentional community (ARIC?). Other pioneers believe completely moving forward past quantified exchange would be impossible. But it is certainly achievable. Look at Trekonomics. No one buys the Replicator. It replicates for free, on demand. Wealth is in the discovery of empowering all people to do the same. We are not all heroes, but in BUXB, you are fully supported to be the creator you want to explore. A master does not hide his evolution of being. He welcomes your interest, but what you do with it is your opportunity to be your own master. Not in ritual, not in obedience, but in creating to empower the most people the best way you can. And if you prefer to follow the master, that's fine, too. However, the fear of fearing people for their objective in connecting with you is allayed in every transaction. There is no need to swindle anyone participating in the BUXB. that would be the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. Instead that could alienate you. more likely, he would would look at you strangely saying 'You can be paid to be educated. What on earth are you thinking?' If you are absolutely dogmatic to want resolution to the object of renewable eenegy, climate change, overpopulation, modern monetary theory, steady state economies, degrowth, sustainability/regeneration, environmental/ecological/resource-based economics, discrimination, crime, slavery, famine, without looking at revaluing wealth on qualitative frameworks, then you are playing the object of being a changemaker, an activist, an icon for something better without actually changing anything. There's a long list of that. Another story to tell doing the same thing the same way and not getting any results. If you feel I have an attachment to 'BUXB', then you're looking at me, not the model. Wrong target. It is a tool for you, not against you. And it's free. It has the means to achieve whatever empowered endgame you want. All I have done is change the currency model framework and revalue wealth for what it really is. Not that complicated. In this short time during the coronavirus, it's clear we can act fast globally if we want to. Let's try to do it with something empowering instead of disempowering as a means towards identity. Frederick Malouf
I can't decide how to respond to the next bull run.
Buy low, sell high. Yeah, that's simple and has served people well during the previous bull runs. But what if it's different this time. Consider Venezuela, for example. Over the last several years, it's a mistake to have traded in your bitcoin for bolivars. Yes, you would have realized many more bolivars than before but so what if the value of bolivars keeps falling. The US is at 22 trillion debt and I just saw Alan Greenspan explain that they'll just keep printing money to get out of debt. You mean like Venezuela does? Like Zimbabwe has? Like every other government around the world that's rekt because of it? When Tim Draper was asked when will he sell his bitcoin, he responded by rhetorically asking "sell it for what?" His point is the same I'm making here. If the Dollar tanks, it's still not a great deal to have a million of them just like people don't care about a million bolivars now. The IMF and other institutions have been wearing it more openly on their sleeve recently that the world economy has an overdue appointment with hard times. The worst of times some people say when comparing how over leveraged we are to previous times. So, when the next bull run happens, is bailing back to the US Dollar the right play again or will people agree in hindsight that bitcoin is the new, real money and we should not have traded it away for fiat again?
Hi Bitcoiners! I’m back with the 27th monthly Bitcoin news recap. For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month. A recap of Bitcoin in March 2019 Adoption
AMA with Bill Tai, legendary VC and AirSwap YODA - March 20, 2018!
Second installment of the Advisory AMA series is now open. This time we have Bill Tai in the house, with his bio below: Bill Tai is a venture capitalist and a leading figure in the Blockchain segment. He holds the unusual title of "YODA" for [AirSwap](airswap.io), and is a Board Director of BitFury, where he Chairs the Strategy Committee of the Board, and Board Chairman of Hut8. He created the annual Blockchain Summit on Necker Island in 2014, and is a lead Board Advisor to P2P Energy Company Power Ledger, the first ever Australian company to hold an ICO. His interest in crypto currency predates Bitcoin as a contributor to the creation of the currency in SecondLife as "Alan Greenspan Golum" in 2001 and accelerated shortly after Bitcoin's launch. His opinions on Blockchain as a TCP/IP for Assets, ICOs as value exchanges, Crypto vs Petrodollar, and Electricity in Mining may be of interest. Originally trained as a chip designer, he joined LSI Logic, a seminal Silicon Valley startup formed by the CEO of Fairchild Semiconductor after earning a BSEE with Honors from University of Illinois. He was issued an early badge at TSMC where he helped create a spreadsheet model of what would become the company's first manufacturing facility. As a semiconductor analyst at Alex. Brown and Sons he positioned IPOs for chip companies Adaptec, Atmel, Cirrus Logic, Dallas Semiconductor, Exar, and Zilog. He has been a venture capitalist since 1991 and today is co-founder Chairman of Treasure Data; Board Member of BitFury, Hut8, and Voxer and a lead seed investor in Canva, Color Genomics, Tweetdeck/Twitter, Wish.com and Zoom Video. He was Founding Chairman & CEO of iAsiaWorks (IPO via Goldman Sachs & Morgan Stanley) and Founding Chairman of IPinfusion (Tokyo:4813). He has served as Board Director of 8 publicly listed companies (Hut8, AWRD EGHT IAWK NPIX TMTA TUNE and IMGO) that grew from startups he funded at their formative stages. He serves on the World Economic Forum's Technology Pioneer Committee and is an Adjunct Professor of Innovation at Curtin University in Perth, Australia. Bill Tai in action:
By Avi Gilburt If you have followed us since December 2018, then you know we were expecting a major bottom in the cryptocurrency market, and expecting 2019 to be very bullish. In February we wrote an article suggesting an imminent wave two bottom, which proved correct, holding support by $10 on some exchanges. We suggested then that a third wave would commence, thrusting Bitcoin prices much higher. The only part we got wrong was that our targets were exceeded in the third wave. That happens in strong bull markets. So in May we updated our target for Bitcoin to exceed $10,000 before it completed this rally. But we were 100% right about a bullish 2019 so far. Now that we are over $10,000 we must provide readers a warning. We have five waves complete off our December low, so a correction should start imminently. While it is still possible Bitcoin can push up as high as $13,000, a correction is overdue. Few are bearish, and suggestions that this parabolic rise have just begun to fill the news. So, are you ready for $0 Bitcoin? Well, isn’t that what we were hearing from so many back at the end of 2018? And isn’t it amazing that when the calls for Bitcoin blowing up get the loudest, the market finds a bottom? That is just the way markets work. When sentiment becomes too bearish, then there is not likely much downside left, and the market often finds a bottom. As Alan Greenspan once noted:
It's only when the markets are perceived to have exhausted themselves on the downside that they turn.
But the bears will be given a second chance now. Once this five-wave rally finally completes, we will see a retracement of this rally in a second-wave pullback. This is how it is described in The Elliott Wave Principle:
Second waves often retrace so much of wave one that most of the profits gained up to that time are eroded away by the time it ends. . . At this point, investors are thoroughly convinced that the bear market is back to stay.
So it is likely that those bearish on Bitcoin will tell us once again that Bitcoin is worthless, as it is backed by nothing. They will also remind us that it is the investment fad of millennials and that it will soon fade. Or they will simply call it a scam once again. But we will likely see them reappearing over the next few months. We don’t know how long this wave two will last. With wave one off the December low now six months into its rise, we could see wave two take anywhere from three to six months. However, we have support currently at roughly $4,300 and we can fine-tune our support once we confirm a top has been struck. Our assumption is that Bitcoin will hold the support we identify and set us up for the next major rally in the complex. And, yes, we believe that next rally will take us to our ideal target in the $65,000 region. However, based upon the size of this rally off the December lows, I cannot rule out the potential that Bitcoin can extend as high as $100,000 over the coming several years. So, are you ready for a correction in Bitcoin? Are you ready for renewed calls for $0 Bitcoin across social media? Will you hang on through this wave two, or run for the hills? With Elliott Wave as our guide we are preparing for the next great rally for the crypto market as we look towards 2020-2021.
08-29 23:53 - 'The false idea that those in charge of monetary and economic policy have a sound knowledge of the system over which they preside and a clear idea of what they are doing. When events, such as the financial...' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/MakeTotalDestr0i removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-7min
''' One of the fictions most assiduously promoted by the ideological representatives of the capitalist economy is that those in charge of monetary and economic policy have a sound knowledge of the system over which they preside and a clear idea of what they are doing. Such operations assume great importance when events, such as the financial crash of 2008, reveal to masses of working people that this is not the case. The collapse eleven years ago was preceded by assertions as to the “efficiency” of the market. A “great moderation” had been established in which the evils of the past had been finally conquered, with anyone who dared to differ being declared guilty of blasphemy against gods such as Fed chairman Alan Greenspan. So when it was revealed that the financial system was in reality a snake pit of corruption and conflicts of interest, it was a case of all hands on deck to provide the justification for the trillions of dollars made available to the very banks and financial institutions whose activities had sparked the crisis, while hundreds of millions of workers the world over were made to pay through wage cuts and austerity measures. The bailouts may have been regrettable, it was argued, but these measures were necessary to prevent something even worse. New regulations were being put in place to prevent a recurrence and after a period of “unconventional” measures—essentially the handout of virtually free money to the “malefactors of great wealth”—things would return to “normal.” This piece of fiction was exposed at the conference of central bankers and financial experts held at Boson Hole, in the city of Boson, Massachusetts last week. Reporting on the meeting, the Financial Times noted “there was a sense that things would never be the same again.” In an interview with the newspaper the president of the St Louis Federal Reserve, James Bullard said there had been a “regime shift” in economic conditions. Its manifestations are all too apparent. The supply of ultra-cheap money, either through interest rate cuts or the purchases of financial assets by central banks, so-called “quantitative easing,” has failed to provide any significant stimulus to the real economy, inflation continues to remain below the target rate set by central banks of 2 percent and interest rates remain at historic lows. So persistent is this phenomenon that the financial system has entered a kind of Alice in Wonderland world where some $16 trillion worth of bonds are trading at negative yields, meaning that an investor holding them to maturity would suffer a loss. “Something is going on,” Bullard told the Financial Times, “and that’s causing a total rethink of central banking and all our cherished notions about what we think we’re doing. We just have to stop thinking that next year things are going back to normal.” However much they seek to promote the illusion that they are in control, those in charge of the financial system do have to engage in a discussion over the mounting problems they confront and what might be done to alleviate them. And a couple of papers presented at the meeting were significant from that standpoint. Over the past months, the realisation has begun to grow that trade war is not a passing phase but is now a permanent feature of economic and political life. This is coupled with the recognition that the role of the US dollar as the basis of stability for the financial system is now increasingly being called into question. Mark Carney, the retiring governor of the Bank of England, told the conference the present international monetary system based on the US “won’t hold” and that a new international monetary system had to be constructed. He noted that the US accounted for only 10 percent of global trade and 15 percent of global GDP but the dollar formed the basis for half of world trade invoices and two-thirds of global securities issuances. Movements in the dollar, therefore, were of fundamental importance to other economies even if they had few trade links with the US. They were forced to hoard dollars in order to guard against capital flight. The dollar was just as important as in 1971 when US President Nixon removed it gold backing and ended the Bretton Woods system of fixed currency relations anchored by gold. At that time US Treasury Secretary John Connally dismissed the concerns of other countries with the dictum “our dollar, your problem.” This had now broadened, Carney said, to “any of our problems is your problem.” For decades the mainstream view had been that countries could achieve price stability and regulate economic growth by targeting inflation and adopting floating exchanges rates. This consensus was now “increasingly untenable.” This was because US developments now had “significant spillovers onto both the trade performance and the financial conditions of countries even with relatively limited direct exposure to the US economy.” He said there was little that could be done in the short term and central bankers had to “play the cards they have been dealt as best they can.” However, in the longer term “we need to change the game.” The international monetary system could not be reformed overnight but equally “blithe acceptance of the status quo is misguided.” “Risks are building, and they are structural. As [the late economist] Rudi Dornbusch warned, ‘In economics, things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.’” In the medium term he called for the International Monetary Fund to increase its resources and set up a global fund to deal with capital flight. In the longer term there needed to be multipolar global economy and consideration should be given to the establishment of a “synthetic hegemonic currency.” possibly through a network of central bank digital currencies, in order to “dampen the domineering influence of the US dollar on global trade” so that US shocks would not reverberate around the world as they do now. In essence this is a modern-day version of the proposal advanced by the British representative John Maynard Keynes at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944 for the establishment of a global currency, bancor. At that time, the US asserted its power and insisted that the dollar, backed by gold, had to be the international currency. But since the removal of the gold backing in 1971 as a stable anchor, the global financial system has become increasingly impacted by movements in the US dollar. “The deficiencies of the international monetary and financial system have become increasingly potent,” Carney concluded and that “even a passing acquaintance with monetary history suggests that this centre won’t hold.” Similar warnings of financial instability were given in another paper presented by Stanford University economists Arvind Krishnamurthy and Hanno Lustig who pointed to the role played by dollar-denominated investments in providing global investors with safe assets. They recalled the warnings by economist Robert Triffin in 1960 about the essential contradiction at the heart of the Bretton Woods system. Triffin pointed out that the expansion of global trade and finance depended on the continual outflow of US dollars. But this meant that this pool of dollars would outgrow the gold backing that was its anchor, leading to a crisis. That crisis erupted when Nixon ended dollar-gold convertibility. The authors noted that Triffin’s logic could be extended to the current situation. “The supply of safe dollar assets is no longer backed by gold; however, the supply is fueled by increases in public and private leverage. Will dollar leverage be supplied in a manner consistent with financial stability? The events of the last 15 years suggest that policy makers should pay close attention to this question.” [link]1 ''' The false idea that those in charge of monetary and economic policy have a sound knowledge of the system over which they preside and a clear idea of what they are doing. When events, such as the financial crash of 2008, reveal to masses of working people that this is not the case. Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: MakeTotalDestr0i 1: bo*onm*ssa*h***tts.blogspot*c**/201*/08/gov*rno*-of-*a*k-of*engla**-at*boso*.*tml Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
An Analysis of Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger Gripe With Bitcoin
There are heavy hitters on both sides of the isle when it comes to bitcoin:
Peter Thiel, Jack Dorsey, Mike Novogratz, Lloyd Blankfein and Alan Greenspan (to a conservative extent) see the use case for Bitcoin
....while Charlie Munger, Warren Buffet and Jamie Dimon are not fans.
With reference to the latter 3, I have listened to their arguments individually and the crux of their Bitcoin issue is that it is a "non cash generating asset". This as Warren Buffet explains is why he "doesnt consider it an investment but rather a speculation". Warren Buffet says that its "perfectly ok to speculate, but don't call it an "investment"". Charlie Munger stressed that it is a greater fools theory exercise and "rat poison squared". He describes Bitcoin as "immoral".
They are absolutely correct about Bitcoin being a non-cash generating asset. There are no dividends or internal cash accumulation. However, is Bitcoin the only asset that takes this form? Copper, oil, corn, gold, silver - these are all non cash generating assets and all of them have a valuable use case. Most are consumed as commodities which admittedly differs from Bitcoin, while others hold value. Warren Buffet is no fool. He understands that commodities with no cash flow have value. His issue seems to be that one cannot reliably predict the directionality of price movement in commodities. For instance he would never consider oil an "investment". And hes right. He says the same about gold regularly (and is mostly right except in select time periods).
But there is an issue to his logic and that of Charlie Munger when it comes to Bitcoin specifically. They are no macro /commodity traders, nor are they tech speculators. Their grounding is in Benjamin Graham style equity investments. Clearly this has worked out quite well for them.
So why are they incorrect in my assessment of their view towards Bitcoin as an investment? There are 3 reasons: 1) This is a parcing of words. As discussed above, cash flow = investment to Buffet and Munger. If an asset does not fit this mold, its not an investment to them. I admit this is true 99% of the time. 2) Bitcoin price is not "baked". Copper, Gold, Oil - these have been known to man and traded for hundreds of years. The price directionality over multiple year time frames is roughly 50/50 in the up or down direction (there is more analysis than this but for the sake of time lets leave it there). Bitcoin on the other hand is going up consistently in boom and bust fractal patterns and has a 10 year history of doing so with constant increasing adoption. In other words, price discovery is still in play which make the price directionality predictable in theory over a long enough time horizon. 3) The use cases are not registering with them but they are real and they have value. Buffet and Munger are not engaged on their cellphones/computers let alone the digital economy where micropayments and decentralized control and stores of wealth now exist. To demonstrate this point, the new blood they brought into Berkshire Hathaway have made many tech investments that they admit they would have never made on their own from lack of understanding but in hindsight have been wise. Being able to store your wealth on a thumb drive, be your own bank, and not have a single institution or country tell you what you can and cannot do with your property is valuable in itself. There is no storage fee, there is no physical burden. there is no middle man, there is no counterpary risk. Bitcoin is the most perfect store of value that has ever been invented...and you can increasingly use it in commerce as a bonus. Many consider this valuable and if the trend holds true, this will be reflected in the price.
In conclusion, this is why I take the words of skepticism lightly in context. These are brilliant men, but I reject their current assessment of Bitcoin and have a feeling that with time their sediment will shift in a softer direction as we have already seen with Jamie Dimon to some extent.
Dear Erik, I would like to respond to your letter titled "Some words for my friends". It's been almost 10 months since we filmed you for our production of The Bitcoin Phenomenon. You were very gracious in taking the time to sit with us. Thank you again. We are getting ready to release our documentary along with full-length interviews in a couple of weeks. I wanted to address a couple of issues. I specifically recall questioning you on how decentralized Bitcoin really is considering that exchanges served as central points of liquidity. In my view, this imposed a systemic risk to Bitcoin. In your response to the question, you countered this notion by stating that market-based centralization is nothing to worry about as market actors that abuse their position will quickly find their business erode. Here is the clip pulled by our editor: https://vimeo.com/87747572 Based on Mt. Gox, it seems that certain markets do not respond that quickly or efficiently. Mt. Gox had substantial issues at the time of our interview back in May 2013. Yet, consumers didn't leave; you didn't either. Natural monopolies when combined with network effects, as exchanges are, have market power and a gravitational pull that is very difficult to erode organically. Based on the reaction, it seems that the majority of Bitcoiners did not sufficiently understand or know the risks of doing business with Mt. Gox. Another example: As the founding publisher of ALL IN Magazine between 2003-2006, I had a front row seat to the poker boom. Several years ago, a few big poker players at Absolute Poker and UltimateBet suspected certain other players of being able to see the cards held by opposing players. These big players kept losing money in highly improbable ways to the same players. When the players that felt cheated raised the issue in the community, the poker community laughed away these notions of cheating at major poker rooms. Not only did the customers not leave in droves at the allegations of cheating, they laughed at the whistle-blowers instead. Then there was a smoking gun that proved cheating by certain owners on a scale of tens of millions of dollars. And guess what? Most people still did not close their accounts. Even with the ease of the Internet, even with low switching costs of going to another vendor, people generally stayed. Markets are not nearly as responsive nor as efficient as you think even when confronted with a fraudulent operator. When it comes to money, consumers need protection. Consumers are not sophisticated enough to assess the strength of balance sheets or the veracity of representations made by financial operators. As a result, modern societies have developed regulatory safeguards around financial services. How many people lost money with bank deposits during the financial crisis? Zero. In fact, in my view, consumer protection means less friction in the marketplace, not more. It means more efficiency, not less. If I had to read the full car rental contract every time I rented a car, it would not be more efficient for the market. If I had to read a terms of service or every return policy or the fine print of every account I opened, it would not make commerce more efficient. Instead, I rely on basic government safeguards to ensure fairness and standardization. In exchange, market operators get the benefit of the doubt from most consumers as a result of regulation. I know that my liability with credit cards is almost nil based on regulation. As such, online commerce and electronic payments are ubiquitous. If I cannot be liable for credit card fraud, I can be freer in my habits and purchases than being continually paranoid. I can trust vendors that I otherwise would not trust. Regulation is justified when the following condition is met: The value gained from increased trust in the marketplace is greater than the cost imposed by regulation. Complicated contracts and risks are better socialized rather than individually assumed and monitored. One way to socialize risk is through regulation. In a regulated financial marketplace, a consumer does not need to be that careful. I don't have to judge the safety of my local bank as it is FDIC-insured. A simple rule is that the more math it involves and the less hard goods are given in exchange, the more it needs to be regulated. (Like life insurance.) The other aspect is that consumers are horrible at assessing the fair value costs of deferred or unseen risks. People cannot properly compute the odds and costs of unlikely events in the future. If they could, the car rental counter would not try to sell comprehensive insurance at the counter to people who already have insurance. I might not need as much consumer protection in finance, but I may need more protection in healthcare or in building codes than a doctor or an engineer respectively would. The vast majority of people cannot assess every risk in every complicated area of their lives, myself included. It is not efficient for the market either. Certain things need to be standardized through regulation. As such, as the old saying goes that there are no atheists in foxholes, there are few libertarians when defrauded. In fact, I would be willing to wager that 80-90% of Mt. Gox customers would welcome a Japanese government bailout if it means a full return of their coins. Your ideology is lost on the majority of today's Bitcoiners. Most people that own Bitcoin want to get rich or make their lives financially easier. That's it. The pursuit of principal is their guiding principle. Now, people love the idea of getting rich and doing good at the same time, but given the choice of only one or the other, the former will suffice for most. And there is nothing wrong with wanting to make some money. There is nothing wrong with speculating. The prospect of making money is fun, exciting, and thrilling. It's fine to enjoy it. For some reason, your argument seems to be that there has to be a greater purpose for Bitcoiners other than just the prospect of making money. Why require this? This should be legitimate enough of a purpose and goal. Ironically, you're the one playing into the hands that being mission-driven is what legitimizes money-making and Bitcoin. Lastly, I cannot help notice your reference to Mt. Gox account holders as "brothers" in your note "Some words for friends". (The other day, Defcon at Silk Road 2 referred to his community as "comrades" in his note.) Calling for shared sacrifice among the recently devastated for the benefit of the greater good has a certain collective ring to it. Asking people to suffer from "falling towers" and repeated devastation wreaks of calling for martyrdom (of a dot-com variety.) If the Bitcoin movement actually requires enormous sacrifice, of the devastating variety no less, merely for the future benefit of humanity, one may counter that the ongoing minor tragedy of one's annual tax bill seems like far less of a sacrifice. This is also a sacrifice that many times accrues to the benefit of others. What's the difference? I am more confused by the philosophical tenets of the Bitcoin movement than ever. Does it require shared sacrifice for the collective good or is it to enable the present, profitable pursuit of self-interest? Either way, the fact remains that Mt. Gox is a failure of a private company. It's not the fault of the government's, nor the media's, nor the banker's, nor Bitcoin naysayer's, but of a for-profit company with a once dominant market position. Yet, you offer not one word against the perpetrators of a possible loss of $300+ million, 6%+ of all outstanding Bitcoins. Even Alan Greenspan, a personal friend of Ayn Rand, came to terms with the limitations of an absolutist ideology post-financial crisis. I'm surprised by the vehemence of your position because you are both brilliant and eloquent. Sincerely, Bhu Srinivasan Producer, The Bitcoin Phenomenon for SQ1.tv P.S. - Some aspects of the reaction to Mt. Gox remind me of the episode of the Wire when one of Marlo's crew blames Omar, NASDAQ, 9/11, and the government for why he can't pay Marlo. Marlo responds: "Omar ain't no terrorist. And you ain't no Delta Airlines neither. You are just another n----- that got his shit took." Classic. Marlo on Mt. Gox: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTIlZUOu0Rc
Bitcoin is here to stay. Detractors will be proven wrong, no matter how many Nobel-prizes they won. There's enough detractors. "It is a bubble" (Jamie Dimon, Alan Greenspan, Robert Shiller). "It offers people places to hide" (Jack Lew), "Bitcoin is Evil" (Paul Krugman), "it's too volatile".... To be sure, some of these detractors are undoubtly very smart, but still it seems that they Just Don't Get It. And that's what I don't get. It is crystal clear that bitcoin is not just a fancy technology, but a new paradigm that will change the world. For starters, for the first time in human history, it is possible to store wealth such that it is private and secure. In other words, bitcoin offers the possibility to store wealth such that it can not be stolen or confiscated. This on its very own is an important raison d'etre for bitcoin. Plus that you can transfer value as easily as sending an e-mail, without needing anyones permission, at virtually no cost and without having to trust or rely on a third party. This is unprecedented in human history. This has enormous utility, as Wikileaks can attest. Ultimately, bitcoin is the enemy of every government in the world. I find it unsurprising that its inventor choses to remain anonymous for the time being. It is strangely amusing to see Jack Lew brushing off bitcoin as "offering a place to hide" and at the same time calling for a raise of the US debt ceiling. It can be disturbing to see Nobel laureates trolling bitcoin. And that is just the start of it. What will happen next, is a full-on attack on bitcoin by governments worldwide, under the guise of money laundering, terrorism, drugs, child porn, organ trading, you name it. I also expect the US government to become a lot less welcoming to bitcoin rather sooner than later. What can they do? Well, for instance, the US could declare it to be illegal for businesses to accept bitcoin as a payment. Obviously this will cause the value of bitcoin to plummet. But, to paraphrase Jamie Dimon, that will not "be the end of it". For starters, such draconic measure will raise a lot of hard questions, because then just as well outlaw cash payments. But that's not even the point. Because - you might as well outlaw bad weather. It is pointless. Bitcoin is designed to be fully resilient against governmental hostility. And it better be. It must be resilient, and it is, making it unstoppable, just as free speech is unstoppable. There is no way the government can prevent from two people meeting up and exchanging bitcoin and cash or goods. There is no way a government can force to keep wealth in a way that it can be confiscated. And that is what governments historically do: confiscate wealth, through inflation, through confiscation, through force. Governments are important, but unfortunately: power corrupts. Bitcoin has the ability to give back many of the powers of government to the people. This is also a history-first. In the future, it will force governments to serve the community. Bitcoin has the potential for people to tolerate governments, instead of the current situation in which governments are endured. Perhaps you find that the last paragraph sounds too far-fetched. It is not. Perhaps bitcoin will be not bitcoin but a different, improved crypto-currency. That's very unlikely, but most importantly - even if bitcoin would be replaced by a superior crypto-currency, this story would remain exactly the same except for the word 'bitcoin'. What I want to achieve with this post is to give some historical perspective. There is a large group of people either dismissing bitcoin as a fad, or even be hostile. This is fully understandable, because it is not that easy grasp the potential, or to have an opinion differing from that of various Nobelprize laureates. To bitcoin adopters I'd like this to say if you allow me. Be patient and try to explain the concept to people who are critical towards bitcoin. Don't attack them when they understandably dismiss bitcoin. Don't troll them back when they troll you. Defend bitcoin on its merits, that's plenty enough. Stick to facts. What must be avoided is polarisation between those who have bitcoin and those who don't. Right now such polarisation doesn't matter much. But it must be avoided. There is no point in rubbing in that the other person is stupid because you bought bitcoin for a tenth of the current price. All it will do is create envy and hostility. Instead, explain why bitcoin might be useful, on its merits.
On January 3, 2009, Satoshi was busy from afternoon to dusk, creating, compiling and packaging the first open source code in a small server in Helsinki, Finland. After running SH A 256 operation, RIPEM D-160 operation, and writing version type, Base 58 coding, the first BLOCK of the BTC world was created at 18:15 on January 3, 2009. This day was called “Creation Day” by BTC believers, and this BLOCK is also called “Creation block." On this day, Bitcoin (hereinafter referred to as "BTC") was born. In the past five years, BTC has experienced a lot of things. First, it was accepted by programmers and password punks in the geek circle. In their view, BTC provided a new perspective, when the cryptographic algorithm holds the open source program as weapon running on the P2P network, this is a fantasy world like "The Matrix". They quickly accepted BTC and spread its ideas. Some programmers developed third-party applications based on source code, which is also the prototype of the current BTC industry chain. Overall, this is a very legendary start. This circle is also a pure, professional group in highly ideal color. There is no power to roll, no money to chase, no speculation, and everything is only related to technology and hobbies. So, that programmer who bought a $25 pizza with 10,000 BTC in 2010 was asked if he regretted it. He replied: Pizza is delicious. But then, all of this changed slowly. In July 2010, the Mt. Gox platform was established. People in the gray economic circle began to move toward the “Silk Road”; in November of the same year, the price of BTC reached 0.5 US dollars and the BTC economy reached 1 million, which attracted the attention of the profit-seekers; in April 2011, the well-known American financial magazine "Times" and "Forbes" published reports on BTC one by one. Humanistic technologists become interested; on December 6, 2012, the first officially recognized bitcoin exchange was born in France, and the visionary government began to think... Since 2013, as the market value has risen rapidly, the debate has become more and more fierce. Former US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that BTC is a bubble with no intrinsic value. Nobel economist Krugman called BTC a historical retrogression. Whether it is in politics, economics, sociology, or even science, there are strong opposition voice. No matter how many people are hostile to Bitcoin, the answer given in the book Bitcoin is: I have no enemies - I am just an open source program, a cryptographic algorithm, a new technology, a P2P electronic payment system, a good idea... Although the liberals in the technical world will give me great ideals, the anarchists in geeks even regard me as a modern belief, I just want to solve practical problems through technology and make human feel convenient in actual interaction. In 2011, he began to contact BTC. Chang Jia, the author with genius mathematical thinking, who stepped into BTC world in 2011, said that for liberals, Bitcoin is Noah’s Ark, which can carry them to a free paradise; for the Silk Road, Bitcoin is snow job; for organizations like the Bitcoin Foundation, the Bitcoin community needs to actively engage with regulators to avoid potential policy reefs. The book "Bitcoin" is mainly about "I am solving problems, not making trouble": For the government, BTC is not an enemy. As long as the nation-state still exists, the legal currency will exist; as long as the government itself respects the marketization of the legal currency, then BTC can only become a supplement. For financial capital, large financial companies such as Visa, MasterCard, and Morgan can learn from the BTC's moveable value mechanism and parasitize on the BTC node. In a further step, they can introduce third-party agreements from banks, which can promote modern finance to a full Information height. For the economics community, many economists, especially Keynesianism, feel that BTC subverts traditional economic theory, natural deflationary attributes will only encourage speculation and ignore value, but in fact BTC will eventually belong to the essence value holders and the whole society. For the media, BTC not only provides free faith, but also provides an economic self-reliance. BTC and media are inherently natural alliances. For individuals, BTC is not an enemy. Money indiscriminate causes inflation to exploit people's wealth all the time. BTC offers the possibility of additional wealth preservation. At the very least, because BTC competes with fiats, the central bank will not be too unscrupulous. In the future, the BTC world should pay more attention to the time stamp service and integrate more information into the encryption protocol not just currency; design a BTC third-party protocol access mechanism to complement and intersect with more traditional industries; strengthen decentralized Dropbox and its other extensible services. The core idea of Bitcoin is not to misunderstand the emergence of BTC, which is just to make human life better, like the Internet. The Internet doesn’t have enemies, nor does BTC.
Our area has been a hot market, growing for the last 6-7 years, but it’s slowed down significantly this summer. Last summer, houses had several offers the day they went up for sale, but this summer there’s not much movement. We’re either in a bubble or just reached the max price in my area. Still, our house “value” (theoretical until someone actually forks over the money) is 43% higher than when we bought it 5 years ago. Can’t say we would fork over that kinda cash if we were just buying now.
No my friend, there isn’t. Eventually global wages will reach an equilibrium point. It may take 50 years to happen, but if businesses are shopping for the cheapest combination of labor and production costs, their tendency to minimize costs will force wages lower. Compare this to workers seeking better wages with limited mobility (i.e. they may or may not be able to travel for better pay) and you can see pressure to keep wages higher. The interplay of these two forces will always mean that eventually wages will be similar everywhere.
That assumes social factors won't interfere. Inefficiencies in the economic development of some countries will negatively affect wages, wars will change the economic standing of some countries and facilitate migration, someone in a particular country will develop technology that drives their economy, etc. Economies are not static, and there will always be outside forces that prevent an equilibrium from forming naturally. On its own, the ocean would eventually stop making waves: but external forces like the tide or geothermal vents will continue influencing it for the foreseeable future. Same thing with economics.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin; Former Chairman of the Presidential Council of Economic Advisors (Bush) & Former Director of the Congressional Budget Office (Republican Congress) said in 2014 that income inequality needed to be addressed at the national level but it wouldn't happen because it had become a partisan political issue - making compromise impossible. In 2014 Alan Greenspan (Former Chairman of Fed Reserve) & Christine Lagarde (Director of the International Monetary Fund) both addressed income inequality at the National Association for Business Economists. Greenspan called income inequality "the most dangerous trend affecting the US", and Legarde said "rising inequality and economic exclusion can have pernicious effects" The NABE's own membership have called for government economic policy to address income inequality because several large businesses refused to acknowledge its existence and were spending more money trying to fight it than a solution would cost. They aren't "just now realizing" it, they just know that it's political suicide to bring it up while Republicans are in charge - even if they are Republicans.
Today is the 100th anniversary of the logical outcome of extreme income disparity: a small number of people shot and thrown down a mineshaft. I'm not saying that's an ethical or good way of responding to this problem, but it's certainly one standard outcome when it's allowed to go on too long and to a great extent.
Wow. Does the federal reserve chair have any thoughts on massively devaluing our currency, bailing out big banks, or fucking with the US economy over and over again with decisions made from unelected officials?
I hate long-run equilibrium arguments for two reason:
Perot makes a good point that I think many people would miss. In 15-20 years, wages would equalize. But in the meantime, you've "wrecked the country" (his words, not mine). If harm is done to the country in that 15-20 year period, it's possible that the short-term harm is actually greater than the long-term gain. This is not NAFTA-specific. It applies to a lot of cases.
By the time equilibrium would have been reached after one particular adjustment to some part of the system, many other adjustments, shocks, and changes will have occurred. Therefore, unless equilibrium will be reached quickly (my guess is less than 1 year is probably safe) then you run the risk of the equilibrium you planned for never materializing at all, and something else taking its place. The global economy is a big, chaotic, dynamical system. Shit happens outside of the one particular market you happen to be looking at.
LOL Federal Reserve chair comments about ANYTHING regarding the state of the USA is ridiculous. -98% value of the dollar since the fed was established to add debt to every dollar printed. But its okay cuz no one is paid in USA currency, right?
Don’t suck Bilderberg, Rothschild and Soros dick then. These guys own most of the money in the world and just want to build a global government, single market, and take 100%. Federal reserve serves the Rothschild, the Rockefellers, not the people.
According to the article, LG's retail price went up by ~11% and Samsung's ~18%, while Whirlpool's prices shot up by 30% at Lowes. Consumers are looking at the higher prices and are opting to just not buy washing machines rather than buying Whirlpool's, so yeah, I think they're sick of winning, especially if additional tariffs on components continue to raise the MSRP.
The COL of rural America is low. Its a lot lower than you think. A dollar goes so much further in rural America than it does in San Francisco. My grandparents are almost 90 and they live very comfortably on Social Security alone. Just Social Security and nothing else. They recently bought a house. A very lovely home with a nice yard and garden. They're able to do that because rural Oregon is a very cheap place to live.
Social Security is a question of votes, not economics. Old people get Social Security. They would like to continue receiving Social Security. Old people all vote. Any politician who wants to win an election (which is every politician) needs to pander to that voting block. This means don't touch Social Security. Its called the third rail of American politics for a reason. Touch it and die.
https://www.nirsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Millennials-Report-1.pdf From the report itself, 8.8% of Asian millennials have > $100k saved for retirement. Far more than other racial groups. I guess doing your homework and listening to your parents about what to major in does pay off*. *Even though college acceptance boards discriminate against you, the odds are good you had to learn to speak English late in life, and your parents probably aren't college educated.
But it's going insolvent by 2030-2040, right after the average Boomer being statistically dead. It's a problem, but they're literally fighting to the death to keep unfunded entitlements that their children both have to pay for and likely won't see.
Funny enough, this likely plays into why rural areas tend to be more conservative (as well as the educational differences). That being said, I absolutely would ditch large urban metros when retirement age rolled around. Save for a Manhattan/Hawaii retirement, then move to rural Idaho or something when the day comes. Live like relative royalty.
I started saving at 25, wish I had started at 18, only one other person in my friend group is saving, a lot of them see it as something they don't have to worry about till they're older, I keep trying to tell them the earlier you start the easier it is, put away what you can afford to now so you're not playing catch up in the future but many people are more interested in spending now and saving later.
Not a fair comparison. Asian millennials are still from a demographic that was pre-selected coming to the USA from already well off families. Thats like saying nigerian americans are better off because they are "Better". No, they come from families that are already doctors engineers and lawyers to get to the USA anyway
Basically this. I’m a millennial. Born late 80s. Most people I know eat out almost every meal, go out drinking a lot, and travel internationally once or twice a year. I think retirement is the last thing on their mind. Most of these people don’t really understand the effects of compound interest. 6% a year ain’t no joke.
That's a well known cognitive bias - we all think that our future self is much more virtuous and will have much more willpower (and money) to save. Of course, fast forward 10 years, and you are still the same old you, still no money, but less time to save.
No, just pointing out the fact that personal choices make a huge difference where one ends up in life. And that it's not boomers, the rich or fill in the blank _________ scheming to impoverish millenials.
Lol no one can “buy dips strategically” repeatedly. Your overall returns will drop because your capital is underutilized (holding too much cash to wait for the dips), even if it appears your stock portfolio itself is doing 8-9%.
I've been fighting this battle since I was 22 making $40,000. I contributed from my first eligible paycheck and never stopped. I certainly do well now but I'm not making crazy money. But I'll hit $100k in retirement savings next month. I also never contributed a double digit percentage of my income. I've been preaching for 9 working years now. Pale just don't get it. Many of my peers say "I can't afford to contribute." No you don't choose to. There's a big difference. It's pre tax money that you're getting taxed on. More importantly, it's almost always eligible to be doubled (or more) by their employer.
Wrong. My mother and her 6 siblings came here with less than $500 each (they were capped at that amount I believe). The 7 kids and my grandmother lived in name one room house in Taiwan. They worked hard and built their wealth. They all emphasized education in their kids. Almost all of the second gen went to good schools and made good careers. It's a culture thing. When your family immigrates for economic opportunity, they don't easily take for granted their roots. It's not that "all Asians are good at math" as much as "Asians do math so they don't have to work in a Chinese restaurant like their first gen parents."
I sold most of my portfolio early 2017 to position myself to “buy the inevitable dip”. Instead, I missed an amazing year. I’m mostly all invested again, and who knows? Maybe now the dip comes and I get double whammied. As they say, time in the market beats timing the market.
On January 3, 2009, Satoshi was busy from afternoon to dusk, creating, compiling and packaging the first open source code in a small server in Helsinki, Finland. After running SH A 256 operation, RIPEM D-160 operation, and writing version type, Base 58 coding, the first BLOCK of the BTC world was created at 18:15 on January 3, 2009. This day was called “Creation Day” by BTC believers, and this BLOCK is also called “Creation block." On this day, Bitcoin (hereinafter referred to as "BTC") was born. www.fmz.com www.fmz.com
In the past five years, BTC has experienced a lot of things. First, it was accepted by programmers and password punks in the geek circle. In their view, BTC provided a new perspective, when the cryptographic algorithm holds the open source program as weapon running on the P2P network, this is a fantasy world like "The Matrix". They quickly accepted BTC and spread its ideas. Some programmers developed third-party applications based on source code, which is also the prototype of the current BTC industry chain. Overall, this is a very legendary start. This circle is also a pure, professional group in highly ideal color. There is no power to roll, no money to chase, no speculation, and everything is only related to technology and hobbies. So, that programmer who bought a $25 pizza with 10,000 BTC in 2010 was asked if he regretted it. He replied: Pizza is delicious.
But then, all of this changed slowly. In July 2010, the Mt. Gox platform was established. People in the gray economic circle began to move toward the “Silk Road”; in November of the same year, the price of BTC reached 0.5 US dollars and the BTC economy reached 1 million, which attracted the attention of the profit-seekers; in April 2011, the well-known American financial magazine "Times" and "Forbes" published reports on BTC one by one. www.fmz.com
Humanistic technologists become interested; on December 6, 2012, the first officially recognized bitcoin exchange was born in France, and the visionary government began to think... Since 2013, as the market value has risen rapidly, the debate has become more and more fierce. Former US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that BTC is a bubble with no intrinsic value. Nobel economist Krugman called BTC a historical retrogression. Whether it is in politics, economics, sociology, or even science, there are strong opposition voice.
No matter how many people are hostile to Bitcoin, the answer given in the book Bitcoin is: I have no enemies - I am just an open source program, a cryptographic algorithm, a new technology, a P2P electronic payment system, a good idea... Although the liberals in the technical world will give me great ideals, the anarchists in geeks even regard me as a modern belief, I just want to solve practical problems through technology and make human feel convenient in actual interaction. In 2011, he began to contact BTC. Chang Jia, the author with genius mathematical thinking, who stepped into BTC world in 2011, said that for liberals, Bitcoin is Noah’s Ark, which can carry them to a free paradise; for the Silk Road, Bitcoin is snow job; for organizations like the Bitcoin Foundation, the Bitcoin community needs to actively engage with regulators to avoid potential policy reefs. www.fmz.com
The book "Bitcoin" is mainly about "I am solving problems, not making trouble": For the government, BTC is not an enemy. As long as the nation-state still exists, the legal currency will exist; as long as the government itself respects the marketization of the legal currency, then BTC can only become a supplement. For financial capital, large financial companies such as Visa, MasterCard, and Morgan can learn from the BTC's moveable value mechanism and parasitize on the BTC node. In a further step, they can introduce third-party agreements from banks, which can promote modern finance to a full Information height. For the economics community, many economists, especially Keynesianism, feel that BTC subverts traditional economic theory, natural deflationary attributes will only encourage speculation and ignore value, but in fact BTC will eventually belong to the essence value holders and the whole society. For the media, BTC not only provides free faith, but also provides an economic self-reliance. BTC and media are inherently natural alliances. For individuals, BTC is not an enemy. Money indiscriminate causes inflation to exploit people's wealth all the time. BTC offers the possibility of additional wealth preservation. At the very least, because BTC competes with fiats, the central bank will not be too unscrupulous.
In the future, the BTC world should pay more attention to the time stamp service and integrate more information into the encryption protocol not just currency; design a BTC third-party protocol access mechanism to complement and intersect with more traditional industries; strengthen decentralized Dropbox and its other extensible services. The core idea of Bitcoin is not to misunderstand the emergence of BTC, which is just to make human life better, like the Internet. The Internet doesn’t have enemies, nor does BTC. www.fmz.com
Alan Greenspan who served as the Federal Reserve’s Chairman from 1987 to 2006 explains on the Fox broadcast “Mornings With Maria” that “bitcoin is what used to be called fiat money ... Former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, created quite a media stir this past week when he joined a growing chorus of financial traditionalists in criticizing bitcoin’s credibility. In an interview with CNBC, Greenspan likened bitcoin to an early American form of money known as "Continental currency" which… Former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan’s policies were instrumental to one of the worst ever economic meltdowns. Today, he errs once again. He views gold as the ultimate currency and scorns Bitcoin. He argues that “Bitcoin is not rational,” and compares it with a fiat currency that the U.S. Continental Congress issued in 1775. Alan Greenspan, der frühere Vorsitzende der amerikanischen Notenbank Federal Reserve, fühlt sich vom Bitcoin an die Währung erinnert, die in den Vereinigten Staaten während der Kolonialzeit ins Leben gerufen wurde. According to Alan Greenspan, bitcoin is 'not a rational currency' Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan compares bitcoin to gambling in Las Vegas. 00:56. Wed, Dec 6 2017 12:34 PM EST ...
Alan Greenspan KBE is an American economist who served as Chair of the Federal Reserve of the United States from 1987 to 2006. He currently works as a privat... 50+ videos Play all Mix - Greenspan on Bitcoin, Gold, Weimar & Crypto YouTube Alan Greenspan on Central Banks, Stagnation, and Gold - Duration: 53:23. Council on Foreign Relations 65,618 views This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue In this video we talk about Crypto Kitties, Bitcoin Bonds, the price of Bitcoin and the rise to $13k per coin. Along with a special buy opportunity with Mone... The Road to Roota Analysis of the daily news is something you need to follow....CUZ IT'S FUN!! Hit the Like Button and Subscribe today so you don't miss anyt...