wachtwoord

Thanks for posting this!

Hillary not winning would be good for coal I expect and bad for solar power.

Apologies for responding but: if you hold on to your own Bitcoin there is no 3rd party risk. If you do there is, like with any asset in the world.

Because digitally you're only exchanging tokens which represent gold aka paper gold. You cannot be certain the gold is actually there. With Bitcoin you can transfer the actual asset digitally (instead of tokens). How do you know your Bitcoins will be there when you want to spend them? Because you're the only one with the private key and you made sure not to give this to anyone. You're right. I apologize and will withdraw from this thread (and feel free to delete posts).

Because digitally you're only exchanging tokens which represent gold aka paper gold. You cannot be certain the gold is actually there. With Bitcoin you can transfer the actual asset digitally (instead of tokens). Regarding the other critique by RichardGibbons. You're right, I responded too impatient, irritated and cynical. Luckyly for me Jurgis comes to the rescue to show why I'm getting tired of (what appeared to me) another person wroshipping Keynsianism blindly. Look at his post: Any proof for this? Let's see: People are happy and yet somehow everyone is worse off for it? And BTW before you go on your gold bug bandwagon, maybe you should explain why the last 50 years of fiat money was one of the best times of the history of our civilization. For businesses and entrepreneurism too. Or will you claim that it made everyone worse off and it would have been so much better on gold standard? Edit: it's also rather funny seeing people railing for gold standard at the time when there is no inflation, no inflation on horizon and there might be deflation because of a number of reasons. So you want to go back to gold standard why? BTW both gold standard and bitcoin are bad because they encourage spending resources on unproductive endeavors: gold mining and fruitless computations. There's already way more gold in the world than there's need for it. If you're so smart, at least tie your bitcoin computations to finding cure for cancer. I'd vote for "cancer-cure-coin" maybe. ::) Last 50 years the best? Wow amazing, after WW2 the world was shot to bits. We started from the bottom. Even a retarded methodology will lead to improvement. And the US? Any economy will do well if you win two world wars in a century. Mostly your second statement: Fruitless computations? This is the most secure payment network ever devised by several orders of magnitude. That is what the computations are for, to solve the Byzantine Generals Problem (for which Satoshi Nakamoto should have received the Nobel prizes or math, economics and peace). Then you end your statement by showing your complete and utter ignorance. The cure for cancer coin had nothing to do with crypto currency and was just a bunch of people trying to jump on the crypto band-wagon because it was getting media attention (good for them btw). It has absolutely nothing to do with the concepts behind crypto-currency. I'm just so disappointed in (otherwise intelligent) people being so utterly ignorant about something but still pretending to be completely competent. There is zero logical reasoning behind the Keynsianism. Even Keynes knew that. It's not even internally consistent. It's not science, it's religion.

You're honestly telling me that you are criticizing someone about Bitcoin without realizing that, in terms of growth, its properties are similar to gold with respect to supply? Worse, actually, since there is a finite supply. Or are you just ignorant about how Bitcoin actually works? Umm, I was asking a question because I was curious about the pro-deflation reasoning and how people account for the fall in demand. Petec's response was very useful in explaining it to me, much more so than "Wrong! Stupid! blah blah religious dogma! blah blah not science! blah Keynesian!" His response has persuaded me that there's something to be said for not discarding the idea just because it leads to deflation. Yours has persuaded me that many people are religious zealots when it comes to this topic, and, even if the idea might be right, they harm the credibility of the idea by being unable to communicate anything beyond their fervour. Thanks for trying. (And thanks for succeeding, petec--you've enlightened me and I'm coming around to that point of view.) Petec still has some more patience. I lost most of mine with people that start with the unfunded premise that deflation is bad and inflation is not only good is necessary. You attack me for not using proper argumentation for my statements yet did the same. If you don't feel like you need to, I don't need to either. Anyway: to react to your post: yes, Bitcoin is improved gold and it solves all the issues of fiat currency you mentioned. If there were no Bitcoin I'd be advocating gold or a gold backed currency as gold has the huge problem that it's not digital and therefore payments (transfers of ownership) with it are local or slow. Bitcoin is the first valuable asset that is digital itself and therefore can be transferred nearly instantly. Thus far we have only been trading tokens representing assets, not the assets them-self (with all the associated weaknesses).

And a child could see #1 is foolish. Just because your money will buy you more today than tomorrow doesn't mean you'll postpone purchases indefinitely. This is true for purchases of any kind (including frivolous spending) but particularly obvious for the primary survival needs such as food and shelter.

You're honestly telling me you never heard of Bitcoin? And why do you believe money supply should expand? You read it in text book or something? ::) All the currebt fiscal policies are not just wrong but stupid. It's Keynesian and it's no science but religion/dogma that has been going rampant for way too long.

They'll just buy equity like in Japan. Look at Japan and see the future.

Your comment hints at some of the criticisms of fiat currency that have been around for many decades (centuries?). Ultimately the success of a given fiat currency is dependent on people's confidence in it. This psychological underpinning makes some people very nervous. Centuries? Nixon removed the gold standard in 1971 so 45 years. Or do you mean when they started reducing the gold peg to USD in 1930s? Ultimately fiat currency cannot be successful because it is a government mandated ponzi schema which gets forced on a population by enforcing the payment of taxes in fiat currency.

I cannot attend, however am really interested in seeing the presentations. Will you be recording these and posting them online? (preferably with contact details of the speakers and downloadable Powerpoint slides). Thanks a lot for organizing this! I have ideas about companies I would like to see but I assume you have companies in mind already :)

I'm convinced the student loan bubble in the US will trigger a bear market some day (a large part of the loans will need to be written off fully). I just don't think that will be in the near future. What government wants to take the fall? Exactly, none, so the can will be kicked along the road for quite a while more I believe.

So the young man in the quote should be read as naive ;)

I agree. Good to put an end to it though. These discussions can start dragging otherwise. Thanks! :)

No ethical problems (with the concept itself, deprnding on the context and amount of force used I could) although it's kind of a poor man's version of direct genetic improvement. If done well it can speed up human evolution. I'm not sure whether humans are able to do this well though as we're full of prejudices and pre-conceived beliefs and are way too emotional. The natural evolutionary process will get there in the end but it will take a very long time and require some large nigh-exrinction events. I won't live to see any of this though.

What I mean your counter examples are not counter examples to my arguments. They are counter examples to complete misinterpretations of my arguments. So your either doing this on purpose (to "win" in a political fashion; basically all the retards think you're winning but you're really not) or you truly do not comprehend what I'm saying. Either way we're talking past each other. You're very likely just a sheep who is mentally unable to think outside of the box of social norms in today's society. It makes sense, most people are as our biological bodies are still too close evolutionary to living in small tribes where being accepted as part of the group was the most important thing. Regarding the evidence, yes I've seen this but I haven't have any direct evidence readily available. (Let's place this in perspective though as you haven't provided a shred of evidence for your ridiculous claims either.)

RichardGibbons: Do you truly not understand my points or do you like playing politics and trying to twist my words? Of course it would have been better for society if these things would not have been funded. Just because you found some example that accidentally turned out ok does not mean that this type of investment overall has a positive ROI. If you wouldnt invest as an individual investor neither should government on your behalf. In the end we can cut this whole discussion short though: hands off stuff that isnt your or that hand is coming off. Sys: Interesting question. It could be your explanation but perhaps the market is just slow with reaching equilibrium. It often is.

1) No? I'm do not follow the retarded school of Keynesian 2) I'm pretty sure there are already laws and punishments for terrorists

No, overtime is part of the voluntary contract between employee and employer. I have no interest in what most people believe. Most people are incredibly stupid, close minded, weak sheep. They are paraditic by definition. Taking from the system while not contributing anything of value. This as opposed to a symbiotic relationship where you both contribute and take. They have zero value to society so every bit of wealth spend on them is wasted. I understand this is al very devoid of emotiom but you must admit it's factual. Working a high paying job is also voluntary. Most high earners have a rough idea that they're going to pay more in taxes before they take a position. Further, how about those that subtract from society yet still earn a high salary. Sure, they pay taxes, but the harm they do to society is much worse than the taxes they pay. Are they not worse than your "parasites?" 1. You want to stimulate people to strive for average jobs? That's what you'll do by not rewarding them. I personally don't take positions which require more work from me unless they represent an a very high increase in wages as more than half of the extra income will go to income taxes alone. You really believe that's best for society? I'm quite certain I won't live in my country of birth in ten years. 2. Yes they might be worse? I high paid individual who commits a terrorist attack for instance is net detrimental to society and likely worse than any individual parasite (probably not as a group though). Isn't this obvious though?

Parasite definition: person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return. The problem is that you aren't talking about edge cases. Poor people aren't edge cases--most of the poor are working or contributing to society. You really think that a bunch of poor people are sitting around home, watching TV? Almost everyone's trying to get ahead--the edge case is the person who isn't. To me, if you're raising kids well, you're certainly contributing a lot to society. Most of the poor have jobs. So I think maybe you consider poor people parasites not because they aren't contributing to society, but rather because they get support. The vast majority of the social safety net money goes to people who contribute zero (at best) to society. So no they don't have jobs. Ever. I agree that well-raised kids are better than badly raised kids. But why have the kids at all if you clearly can't afford them? Also, most badly raised kids are from the bottom of society. At least here. If you aren't motivated to do so, why would you? People do what you reward them for. The "social" system rewards people for "bad" behavior so they will behave badly. I don't even blame them (for taking the money, I do blame them for being unthankful and entitled). I blame the system. I did pay (some token amount). Couldn't post if I didn't. (although Sanjeev doesn't see the money as payment but more a filter for spammers). I consider starving someone to death torture. I guess you just consider it murder? I consider it neither. I (or society) wouldn't be killing them, simply not feeding them. They should feed themselves. Not helping someone is not the same as actively hurting them. I'm not evil (I don't get joy out of people being in pain) I simply do not wish to give up my property to alleviate their pain. Simply because it won't work and it's also unfair. There's limited resources on this planet and too many people to share it among. Do you know the quality of life in most of the poorer parts of the world? It's completely dreadful (I doubt there's words to describe how dreadful). But you want extra money for the poor in the rich countries to buy a TV set or go on holiday? (in my country you are officially below the poverty line if you cannot go on holiday at least once a year). If we would redistribute wealth in the world among everyone in the word equally you wouldn't have 1% of what you have now. Do you want that? No? So you only want to help those in your country? Why? Why are they so more deserving? Even the poorest of the poor in my country are better of than the vast majority of the population in most. There is just not enough wealth to go around. So you think your decision of redistributing wealth is so much better than the natural distribution created by distribution by skill (yes unequal)? Which by the way has the added benefit that enriching the world is directly rewarded with financial gain (and therefore accomplished by more people) meaning faster growth of scientific advancement which will bring us closer to your unrealistic utopia where everyone has a worthy life. Right now the vast vast majority does not. TLDR; Again, I am not evil. You are simply naive and your decisions are unfair. Why do you force me to invest in your future returns (which are far from certain) while I will hardly benefit from and won't even have equity in? Would you invest in such a business proposition? Cause I certainly wouldn't (voluntarily).

LOL, by definition? Earning money is the only definition of contributing? So, for instance, you'd view a stay at home mom raising a family as a parasite? A Walmart employee living below the poverty line isn't contributing? A doctor volunteering for Doctors without Borders is a parasite? So no, I don't admit this is factual. Kind of twisted, I think. That said, you've also said that we should torture thieves to death. So, I guess your view of the world is pretty skewed. The most amusing thing in this discussion is that StahleyP, Jurgis and I almost don't need to say anything to refute your reasoning. You almost do it yourself. I think perhaps your next argument should be that we should exterminate all kids because they're nothing but leeches. Yes by definition maybe look it up? Your examples are context specific. A stay at home mom who cannot afford to raise her kid without government support is indeed a leech. One that can is not, but it likely depends on the cost involved and the potential future worth of the kids. The doctors without borders is really impossible to determine. I was thinking of the many many obvious examples. Why discuss the edge cases when we can discuss the 95% within 2 standard deviations? I said thieves "should be" tortured to death? Did you dream that? It seems like you think you don't need arguments as you are dodging the arguments. Ever thought of a career in politics? I think we should stop this argument (which I shouldn't have started, but entitlement really pisses me off) as it will not lead to anything. I repeat, before you portray me as rich, I'm middle class, not even upper middle class. And yes that is something I am looking to change (and will) but the "social" net is designed to keep people down. Hard to swim with a ball around your ankle.

No, overtime is part of the voluntary contract between employee and employer. I have no interest in what most people believe. Most people are incredibly stupid, close minded, weak sheep. They are paraditic by definition. Taking from the system while not contributing anything of value. This as opposed to a symbiotic relationship where you both contribute and take. They have zero value to society so every bit of wealth spend on them is wasted. I understand this is al very devoid of emotiom but you must admit it's factual.

"We're not stealing from you cause back in the day we used to steal less! You should be happy!" Brilliant argumentation. Really impressive. If you take someone's belongings with force or under threat of force, it's theft. Being insulting doesn't really strengthen your argument. You've failed to say why paying taxes is theft. You've also failed to say why if who has substantial wealth has less why they it would hurt them. I did not fail to say why paying taxes is theft: "If you take someone's belongings with force or under threat of force, it's theft." How is that not taxation? Regarding your second question. There's no need to prove that as it's not your right to decide how someone else his wealth gets utilized. With all the entitlement going around I'm really at a point where I would rather burn money than give it to some entitled pricks. Parasites are detrimental to society. Why should anyone want to pay for their continued existence? They aren't really providing a service. BTW: Note I'm not wealthy. I have nowhere near enough wealth to be directly impacted much by the direct consequences of antisocial (aka progressive) taxation that's been going on. Indirectly I am hurt though cause it hurts the progress of society tremendously. On top of that it builds pressure like a volcano that will erupt someday (large scale wars about food, water and other resources are coming with the growing number of non-contributing members in society).

"We're not stealing from you cause back in the day we used to steal less! You should be happy!" Brilliant argumentation. Really impressive. If you take someone's belongings with force or under threat of force, it's theft.

So you take it upon yourself to steal it from others? Yes then you surely don't deserve food.