CoinCube et al, I don't think we will figure out any of this global shit. It is just mess.
If worry about that, we will neglect our own lives. I think better to focus on our own accomplishments. What ever happens globally will happen. I am going to be paying much less attention to it.
Read this:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15439016
Topic: Economic Devastation - page 23. (Read 504811 times)
...
minor-transgression
I believe you have raised a major point (Italy bailing its banks) that is getting little attention!
The Germans went along with it. As long as only Italy itself bails out its banks. Banks all over Europe apparently are even weaker on the average that US banks are.
IMO, this is all going to blow up in a way that hurts a whole lot of people. Best have some assets outside the financial system. Bitcoin and gold count...
STT
I agree that things have sped way up since Rome. The parallels are ominous.
minor-transgression
I believe you have raised a major point (Italy bailing its banks) that is getting little attention!
The Germans went along with it. As long as only Italy itself bails out its banks. Banks all over Europe apparently are even weaker on the average that US banks are.
IMO, this is all going to blow up in a way that hurts a whole lot of people. Best have some assets outside the financial system. Bitcoin and gold count...
STT
I agree that things have sped way up since Rome. The parallels are ominous.
I never thought UK would leave, its an extreme reversal and its out of line with the majority of outspoken Brits. Popular culture as we're seeing very much is mystified as to why would you leave the EU, almost the return of the dark ages and ignorance could only justify such a thing.
Neither side is 100% correct, EU is a positive for unity and it is better then war. That might be seen as flippant but I agree diplomacy is a positive over countries working against each other, import tariffs and war even.
https://mises.org/library/inflation-and-fall-roman-empire
[certainly things will move faster now as is the velocity of money greater, though I would relate it to least originate in the Nixon era]
Neither side is 100% correct, EU is a positive for unity and it is better then war. That might be seen as flippant but I agree diplomacy is a positive over countries working against each other, import tariffs and war even.
Quote
Rome was lucky. It took over 300 years, with crisis after crisis and
war upon war, until the debt finally crushed the structure. One
critical point pointed out by MA was the debasement of the currency.
Eventually a silver coin was less than 1% silver.
Ive heard of this before, I'll post the link as there is an mp3 from a lecture. Its a strange parallel but apparently Roman citizenship went from an honour to a curse as it became a strain to support. Barbarian invaders were seen as liberators from an oppressive Rome centralist regime. That was quite a switch in thinking then just as its a struggle for some people to understand nowwar upon war, until the debt finally crushed the structure. One
critical point pointed out by MA was the debasement of the currency.
Eventually a silver coin was less than 1% silver.
https://mises.org/library/inflation-and-fall-roman-empire
[certainly things will move faster now as is the velocity of money greater, though I would relate it to least originate in the Nixon era]
Thanks CoinCube, though I have to admit that calling the Brexit
right was mostly cynicism of the MSM reporting rather than any
insight into the UK's political process. I'll point out that the
Westminster Village was 75% Remain, and 25% Leave, hence the
ongoing disarray while they reform.
Some of what I'm about to say might be better said on my "Learning
form Imperial Rome" thread, but it's relevant here.
Rome was lucky. It took over 300 years, with crisis after crisis and
war upon war, until the debt finally crushed the structure. One
critical point pointed out by MA was the debasement of the currency.
Eventually a silver coin was less than 1% silver.
A dark reflection of "When things get serious, you have to lie" to
quote Mr Junker. Then lies get built upon lies until the entire
fabric of society and business is undermined.
Watching Mr Farage in Brussels I did wonder if from time to time
he feels like an extra in a scene from "Sixth Sense", "I see dead
people. I'm recalling the scene where the teenager has found his
father's gun and blown half his head off. For the EU that gun is Debt.
To Mr Farage's credit, he does seem to have a well-rounded view of
the risks within the EU and has two years to get through to those
MEP's still in denial.
I think the UK will do OK from here on. It will take a couple of
years for the Pound's devaluation to read through into enhanced
exports. Exporting means having products you can sell and that
takes time. For the EU, things look less certain.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-30/european-commission-grants-italy-crisis-%E2%82%AC150bn-bank-bailout-program-prevent-run-depo
"How did this happen so quietly under the table and without Merkel's blessing? WSJ says that the program was approved under the bloc's "extraordinary crisis rules for state aid.""
"Needless to say, for Italy's Prime Minister to be contemplating how to avoid "investor panic" and prevent a "run on deposits", then Italian banks must truly be on the verge of collapse. Finally, for those curious about timing and how soon until it all unravels, we quote the European Commission spokesman who said that 'there is no expectation that the need to use this scheme should arise.'"
Will the EU manage to do in 30 years or so, some things that
required over 300 years for others? We may soon find out.
right was mostly cynicism of the MSM reporting rather than any
insight into the UK's political process. I'll point out that the
Westminster Village was 75% Remain, and 25% Leave, hence the
ongoing disarray while they reform.
Some of what I'm about to say might be better said on my "Learning
form Imperial Rome" thread, but it's relevant here.
Rome was lucky. It took over 300 years, with crisis after crisis and
war upon war, until the debt finally crushed the structure. One
critical point pointed out by MA was the debasement of the currency.
Eventually a silver coin was less than 1% silver.
A dark reflection of "When things get serious, you have to lie" to
quote Mr Junker. Then lies get built upon lies until the entire
fabric of society and business is undermined.
Watching Mr Farage in Brussels I did wonder if from time to time
he feels like an extra in a scene from "Sixth Sense", "I see dead
people. I'm recalling the scene where the teenager has found his
father's gun and blown half his head off. For the EU that gun is Debt.
To Mr Farage's credit, he does seem to have a well-rounded view of
the risks within the EU and has two years to get through to those
MEP's still in denial.
I think the UK will do OK from here on. It will take a couple of
years for the Pound's devaluation to read through into enhanced
exports. Exporting means having products you can sell and that
takes time. For the EU, things look less certain.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-30/european-commission-grants-italy-crisis-%E2%82%AC150bn-bank-bailout-program-prevent-run-depo
"How did this happen so quietly under the table and without Merkel's blessing? WSJ says that the program was approved under the bloc's "extraordinary crisis rules for state aid.""
"Needless to say, for Italy's Prime Minister to be contemplating how to avoid "investor panic" and prevent a "run on deposits", then Italian banks must truly be on the verge of collapse. Finally, for those curious about timing and how soon until it all unravels, we quote the European Commission spokesman who said that 'there is no expectation that the need to use this scheme should arise.'"
Will the EU manage to do in 30 years or so, some things that
required over 300 years for others? We may soon find out.
My prediction on how a Brexit can play out is the following:
1. Leave wins.
2. Politicians claim that since Leave wins we will leave the EU, just not immediately.
First we must create a roadmap for an orderly exit, resolve the legal issues, negotiate post-BREXIT treaty with EU
3. If EU likes nothing more that protracted eurogroup meetings I don't know what that is. So UK will be caught for years in
an "exiting" purgatory that will wreck the UK economy
4. After much pain and dead-end negotiations Brits will be pleading to forget the whole idea.
1. Leave wins.
2. Politicians claim that since Leave wins we will leave the EU, just not immediately.
First we must create a roadmap for an orderly exit, resolve the legal issues, negotiate post-BREXIT treaty with EU
3. If EU likes nothing more that protracted eurogroup meetings I don't know what that is. So UK will be caught for years in
an "exiting" purgatory that will wreck the UK economy
4. After much pain and dead-end negotiations Brits will be pleading to forget the whole idea.
You both called this one correctly. It will be interesting to see if the rest plays out as predicted. The coming punish the UK period might be a good opportunity to invest in the UK.
Quote
I have a suggestion for a 42% per annum fixed income investment by lending your USD at Bitfinex:
Its some worry they could find no alternative to 42% Doesnt crowd funding usually achieve cheaper rates, Im not sureThis exchange lost 1,500 BTC in a hack last year.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/breaking-bitfinex-hot-wallet-hacked-bitcoins-stolen
Interest rate is probably so high out of a concern the company is under capitalized.
I also saw this post a while ago about strange things that go on at that exchange.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7444557
The combination is enough for me to stay far far away.
Quote
Imperfection is required to have any dynamic system. Otherwise you have top-down control
The ironic thing with top down control is its more prone to failure then something distributed by many much more smaller factors which can fail and then correct, giving a greater resilience overall . A crowd can also be wrong but its usually wrong to force or fix absolutes and call it perfection or strength. Anytime in a market everyone agrees or has come to some overwhelming consensus its also a signal to become more cautious as inaccuracy is more likely at that point with then greater rates of change
Quote
I have a suggestion for a 42% per annum fixed income investment by lending your USD at Bitfinex:
Its some worry they could find no alternative to 42% Doesnt crowd funding usually achieve cheaper rates, Im not sure What is creativity but the shifting of matter that already exist into new patterns? The whole universe does this, so why can't a computer? Algorithms have been creating music and drawings, so who gets to say that isn't creative? Also, you keep overlooking that humans augmented with artificial devices like nanobots are the AI Kurzweil thinks will most likely happen.
You are not comprehending what I wrote in my prior two posts.
It is not the creation of patterns that is relevant, but rather the serendipity of the relevance of the timing of creating patterns. The entire point is that the universe is not deterministic. Thus no form of computation can be any more perfect than any other. What makes us human is what we evolve with the game of chance and that we don't need to have the right answer. We just are, for a little while any ways. The concept of a superior intelligence that is "correct" more often than any other, is futile because it isn't even wrong. There is no "correct". Our universe is game of dice. No intelligence can predict that which is random.
Kurzweil seems to not comprehend basic computer science either. He should know that as the programmability increases, the opportunity for non-determinism does as well. This is what the entire failure of The DAO is about.
The non-determinism of computation even comes into play for example as the distance between computing components increases (again because the speed-of-light must be finite, else nothing can exist). You can recall smooth and I discussing that in the context of Byzantine fault tolerance.
Computation is not a panacea. And computation is also subject to the non-determinism of our universe.
Kurzweil seems to just really be full of shit and trying to sell books. He doesn't understand basic fundamental issues of physics and computer science.
Once you say "Kurzweil is wrong," you set yourself up for failure--no one in the modern era has been more correct at predicting technology's development.
As far as creativity goes, I think your bias will be meet the same end as those who believed a computer could never beat a man in chess or at trivia or parallel parking--it's more a matter of when, than if.
As far as creativity goes, I think your bias will be meet the same end as those who believed a computer could never beat a man in chess or at trivia or parallel parking--it's more a matter of when, than if.
Since you appealed to authority (which is an invalid form of argumentation), then I am compelled to fight his reputation. Kurzweil is a certified idiot.
A.I. mastering the known sciences, has nothing to do with my point about where future creativity is derived from serendipity of chance meeting imperfection. If computation could replace the necessary
You are too much off on this Kurzweil fantasy that has no grounding in physics. For Kurzweil to be correct, the speed-of-light would need to
[Tangentially, the reason we can't get to the edge of the universe is because mathematically an edge requires a bounded number of dimensions otherwise an edge is only a feature in the context from another perspective. Since every quantum of matter has a perspective (i.e. another dimension of reality, because history is only relative), a universal edge would require that the quantification of matter has a lower bound. We think of the possibility of an edge because we are constrained by the Uncertainty Principle to a lower bound on the quantization of matter dictated by the quantization of the speed-of-light which we can perceive. Our model of our existence necessarily includes friction and thus oscillation because otherwise there would be no lower bound and the past and future light cones of relativity would be undifferentiated and nothing (non-static) could exist. Yet this friction means no perspective can ever be omniscient over all dimensions which is thus contextually equivalent to unbounded dimensions. So the apparency of a lower bound is counter-acted by friction, so that we can exist in an unbounded future where it is differentiated from our past. Another way of stating this is that without friction then there would be no degrees-of-freedom for anything to be independent of anything else and we would all have the same total order perspective.] <--- Added Nov. 17, 2016
Don't repeat that fucking stupid nonsense to me again (because so many people have this misconception of physics and I get tired of repeating myself over and over again...it is like a battle of attrition). It is absurd incomprehension of the basic law of the universe, which the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even Einstein admitted it was fundamental.
I believe we will still compete for resources, but it will be machinic created resources (same as ticks or tapeworms), followed by ai compettion (remember Kurzweill predicted that we likely become the AI).
A.I. may compete but it won't replace creativity. But I don't see how that changes my points.
Anyway, you are getting the anonymity timeline wrong (also, thinking the move will be everyone all at once, the world over, look outside at the states of technology that live side-by-side from different eras), because the corporate system desires anonymity for itself to disrupt the old political system, it will push for anonymous systems, after that, who knows?
The corporate system is the old political system. The Bilderbergs are just concerned with how to maintain their hegemony and scaling their control to global economies-of-scale instead of national as it had been.
If we do manage to overcome their hegemony with for example a decentralized DAO concept, then we've solved the political problem and thus we don't need super powered anonymity. If we don't overcome their hegemony, then our anonymity can't withstand their hegemonic gaming of the politik.
Apologies for losing my couth in the prior post. I am a bit frustrated with people who follow Kurzweil. I ask them to please consider the point I have made about physics.
For A.I. to beat the unbounded creativity (i.e. entropy) of the universe, then perfection must be possible. Else A.I. has to become imperfect just like humans and nature, then it is no longer beating us every time.
It is really simple to understand that Kurzweil is dead wrong.
What else can I say?
Also, what the hell is so organic about our thought, most of our capacity is built on abstract language systems. Also, if a few human jobs remain, that doesn't undermine the net effect I'm talking about, so it's a bit of a strawman. Even if you are right about creativity (I doubt it) that doesn't change the fact that I am talking about artificial intelligence, in the sense of augmented humans too. The whole concept of the singularity is that it is a world that organic humans can't fathom (at least not its technical workings) without the aid of artificial brain augmentation (I don't think you get Kurzweil on this).
Without creativity, then there is no value. What ever can be replicated becomes nearly free. The creativity is where all the value will remain. Our existence is a game of chance. Without the chance, there isn't a game. Poof its gone.
As for privacy, let me repeat for the third time: the corporate systems will most likely embrace anonymity while they are disrupting the current system--saying it is the same system to those who run it (state controlled governments) probably won't help them get over their loss. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme*"--but that doesn't invalidate my point of the corporate system wanting privacy to undermine the current infrastructure (let's not get into semantical nitpicking).
The destruction of the nation-state system is coming via a debt implosion. The destruction of the hierarchical structures of the industrial age, is coming due to technological disruption such as open source and a decentralized DAO concept. Anonymity seems to have nearly nothing to do with it as far as I can see.
What do we do with all the people who don't have a job? Harvest them for body parts in an efficient corporate world?
Costs go closer to zero, so it is nearly free to give them basic needs, but still there needs to be a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive in order to pay for it, no matter how epsilon it is.
Would corporations offer a signup program for indigent to exempt them from fees and thus the productive can pay for the indigent without needing to provide their identity?
What is the economic advantage for the corporation? Hmmm.
Costs go closer to zero, so it is nearly free to give them basic needs, but still there needs to be a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive in order to pay for it, no matter how epsilon it is.
Would corporations offer a signup program for indigent to exempt them from fees and thus the productive can pay for the indigent without needing to provide their identity?
What is the economic advantage for the corporation? Hmmm.
We are moving towards a boon, and yes, that boon will be built on machinic labor, rather than human labor. I doubt we will actually produce much, if anything, ourselves--as even music and art can be produced by programs--my guess is we will busy ourselves with video game-like jobs within VR culture or produce blogs about our kids and dogs, and create art and other hobby/busy work to give ourselves the satisfaction of feeling productive--my guess is a lot of people will just sit on their asses. Corporations will likely spread further from the planet collecting resources that, when compared to our present state, will seem infinite. Though, I guess atomic printers essentially do just that without us needing to leave the planet. Think of us moving from a tribal state to a parasite state--where our existence is subsidized by machinic labor capacity. I'm sure some (maybe all that survive) will cross the bounds into cryberhumanity, but then you will a world no one 100% human can comprehend, and certainly not one living before it happens. My guess is that we will have multiple systems competing with each other until a dominate form takes shape (much as today)--But I'm betting on the corporate model pre-singularity, efficiency trumps tradition.
I don't agree with those who think A.I. will replace human creativity. I wrote a blog post on that:
http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy
Until a computer learns how to become one with nature (i.e. the necessity of imperfection! c.f. my explanation that
The key question to answer is what is the economic motivation of the corporation.
The corporation wants to amass as much power as possible as the oligarchy is a winner-take-all power vacuum. So the corporation wants to do what will maximize its global share of the economic profits. It wants to eliminate competition to maximize profits, but it must also allow degrees-of-freedom else creativity is lost and it will crumble under its own inability to adapt/improve (as Communism does).
The larger the corporation the less adept it is. Thus the larger corporations depend on their ability to use their control over politics and large capital, to swallow all the innovation of the smaller ventures.
So I continue to foresee large corporations pandering to the unproductive majority, for the power to steal from the productive minority. This is the Iron Law of Political Economics.
Your mistake is that for corporations to view their fees as sufficient, there must be a level playing field between corporations (i.e. their fees not raided). But there is not. Thus a collective will be required to decide what is fair, and of course the large corporations will game that politik. So the large corporations (i.e. the government by any other name) will not allow the smaller corporations to collect fees anonymously. Realize the individual will become a company. Companies will become much smaller and more adept. We are moving to a do-it-yourself open source world, e.g. 3D printing.
If we solve the political problem, then we don't need anonymity any way. In an open source world, who cares who knows who my customers are. And the world is moving away from being ashamed when your grandmother knows one has some bizarre fetish. Your grandmother probably will have one too.
I think the world will view privacy as a pita. And focus more on creativity and maximizing production. Basic level privacy yes. Anonymity from the collective, I think is a pita.
Interesting discussion that originated from a discussion about anonymity:
I don't know if it would amount to that or not, as marginal costs are trending towards zero and it's in the best interest for companies to move that way rather than glean a few extra sheckles by pissing off their user base --think of a world where you can buy a shirt (or print one) that doesn't need to be washed and changes colors and patterns on demand, a world where you don't need a car as you can make car appointments with automated uber-like systems and your job is likely in a digital capacity, so you really don't have many places to go and you can take a vr vacation without the threat of kidnappings, zika, or just a crumby locale that you got locked into--in that world the costs are so minimal that, unless your country is engaging in taxing for a living income--which will likely rise before it crumbles under the weight of its absurdity, then you can expect companies to manage by streamlining operations and lowering costs, rather than increasing pricing and remaining top-heavy. Until you imagine a world where humans can be replaced by quantum computers and traditional jobs replaced by virtual endeavors, you can't imagine a future without traditional governments and taxation schemes. The real question is what the future military looks like--will it be old style war machines that are costly and spend much of their time collecting dust, half-breed systems of corporate mercenary mechanization, OR control systems that use economic policy to set an ever widening global, and post-planetary, border system?
What do we do with all the people who don't have a job? Harvest them for body parts in an efficient corporate world?
Costs go closer to zero (at least for tangible goods), so it is nearly free to give them basic needs, but still there needs to be a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive in order to pay for it, no matter how epsilon it is.
Would corporations offer a signup program for indigent to exempt them from fees and thus the productive can pay for the indigent without needing to provide their identity?
What is the economic advantage for the corporation? Hmmm.
Continuing a discussion from another thread:
Fair enough. I think the only sticking point we would have is over the new corporate system's need to see people's private information as they would get their money upfront, while traditional governments have used taxation to get their money after the fact--so if you started a new thread, my point would be that you don't need an IRS if you have a national sales tax, and if the companies are collecting the fees for themselves, you don't need much, if any, oversight at all.
Sorry, smooth, for getting this off-topic.
Politics of regressive taxation.
When you have one global corporation (a group of companies beholden to their collective oligarchy) charging fees, this is equivalent to taxation. They will charge their failures to the collective and keep the profits. It is just a world government by another name.
And I agree they will want privacy, except they will demand to have the masterkey to see everything.
I totally agree with making privacy technology for corporations. I was emphasizing that months ago in the Thoughts on Zcash thread.
Individual focused anonymity technology (i.e. resisting the "State" or collective outcome) has no market and no future (whereas privacy controlled by corporations does). I don't like this realization. I am ready to retire to some obscure place and ignore the world. (but first I'll try to make my technology contribution, health willing)
Note we are threadjacking the DAO hack theme. So if we want to discuss the tangent further, it would be best to start a new thread or move discussion to an appropriate existing thread.
And I agree they will want privacy, except they will demand to have the masterkey to see everything.
I totally agree with making privacy technology for corporations. I was emphasizing that months ago in the Thoughts on Zcash thread.
Individual focused anonymity technology (i.e. resisting the "State" or collective outcome) has no market and no future (whereas privacy controlled by corporations does). I don't like this realization. I am ready to retire to some obscure place and ignore the world. (but first I'll try to make my technology contribution, health willing)
Note we are threadjacking the DAO hack theme. So if we want to discuss the tangent further, it would be best to start a new thread or move discussion to an appropriate existing thread.
Fair enough. I think the only sticking point we would have is over the new corporate system's need to see people's private information as they would get their money upfront, while traditional governments have used taxation to get their money after the fact--so if you started a new thread, my point would be that you don't need an IRS if you have a national sales tax, and if the companies are collecting the fees for themselves, you don't need much, if any, oversight at all.
Sorry, smooth, for getting this off-topic.
Politics of regressive taxation.
I don't know if it would amount to that or not, as marginal costs are trending towards zero and it's in the best interest for companies to move that way rather than glean a few extra sheckles by pissing off their user base --think of a world where you can buy a shirt (or print one) that doesn't need to be washed and changes colors and patterns on demand, a world where you don't need a car as you can make car appointments with automated uber-like systems and your job is likely in a digital capacity, so you really don't have many places to go and you can take a vr vacation without the threat of kidnappings, zika, or just a crumby locale that you got locked into--in that world the costs are so minimal that, unless your country is engaging in taxing for a living income--which will likely rise before it crumbles under the weight of its absurdity, then you can expect companies to manage by streamlining operations and lowering costs, rather than increasing pricing and remaining top-heavy. Until you imagine a world where humans can be replaced by quantum computers and traditional jobs replaced by virtual endeavors, you can't imagine a future without traditional governments and taxation schemes. The real question is what the future military looks like--will it be old style war machines that are costly and spend much of their time collecting dust, half-breed systems of corporate mercenary mechanization, OR control systems that use economic policy to set an ever widening global, and post-planetary, border system?
What do we do with all the people who don't have a job? Harvest them for body parts in an efficient corporate world?
Costs go closer to zero (at least for tangible goods), so it is nearly free to give them basic needs, but still there needs to be a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive in order to pay for it, no matter how epsilon it is.
Would corporations offer a signup program for indigent to exempt them from fees and thus the productive can pay for the indigent without needing to provide their identity?
What is the economic advantage for the corporation? Hmmm.
42% is amazing but if you're gonna take that much risk you're better off buying alts and the potential is much higher.
OROBTC and CoinCube,
Somewhere upthread I remember you two lamenting the lack of high rate of return fixed yield (fixed income) investments, but I can't find those posts. Can you quote them?
I have a suggestion for a 42% per annum fixed income investment by lending your USD at Bitfinex:
https://www.bitfinex.com/stats
That is the daily rate thus 1.000959365 = 1.418879202.
It is reasonably safe as long as the exchange doesn't go bankrupt (which they frequently do):
http://cryptomoms.com/forum/guides/31/lending-to-the-margin-traders-a-way-to-grow-your-bitcoin/1002/
Somewhere upthread I remember you two lamenting the lack of high rate of return fixed yield (fixed income) investments, but I can't find those posts. Can you quote them?
I have a suggestion for a 42% per annum fixed income investment by lending your USD at Bitfinex:
https://www.bitfinex.com/stats
That is the daily rate thus 1.000959365 = 1.418879202.
It is reasonably safe as long as the exchange doesn't go bankrupt (which they frequently do):
http://cryptomoms.com/forum/guides/31/lending-to-the-margin-traders-a-way-to-grow-your-bitcoin/1002/
iamnotback !!
Mate-y, I don't where those comments of mine would be, but indeed it is regrettable that there are no decent fixed income investments out there (offering a good yield at reasonably low risk). I think the whole Financial Repression situation is caused by several things (lots of investors running scared and willing to accept low yields is probably No. 1).
A 42% annual rate looks mighty risky to me... I'll take a look, but it's highly unlikely I'll bite... Yes, "Exchange Bankruptcy Risk" is indeed a negative factor.
OROBTC and CoinCube,
Somewhere upthread I remember you two lamenting the lack of high rate of return fixed yield (fixed income) investments, but I can't find those posts. Can you quote them?
I have a suggestion for a 42% per annum fixed income investment by lending your USD at Bitfinex:
https://www.bitfinex.com/stats
That is the daily rate thus 1.000959365 = 1.418879202.
It is reasonably safe as long as the exchange doesn't go bankrupt (which they frequently do):
http://cryptomoms.com/forum/guides/31/lending-to-the-margin-traders-a-way-to-grow-your-bitcoin/1002/
Somewhere upthread I remember you two lamenting the lack of high rate of return fixed yield (fixed income) investments, but I can't find those posts. Can you quote them?
I have a suggestion for a 42% per annum fixed income investment by lending your USD at Bitfinex:
https://www.bitfinex.com/stats
That is the daily rate thus 1.000959365 = 1.418879202.
It is reasonably safe as long as the exchange doesn't go bankrupt (which they frequently do):
http://cryptomoms.com/forum/guides/31/lending-to-the-margin-traders-a-way-to-grow-your-bitcoin/1002/
Do you want a job where your first task is to write your
own job description? What would you suggest?
1. Immunity from prosecution
2. No Taxation
3. A Job for Life
4 ......
Ever thought of applying to the European Commission or
the ECB?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of 1, 2, and 3, and
I might even go for: 4. World Domination, except that I
wouldn't trust myself with that amount of power. I've
also got an inclination to take responsibilities seriously.
Which means that privilege - private laws - bothers me.
Too many good people have died defending democracy and
National Sovereignty to see those virtues lightly set
aside for the mirage of a European SuperState.
Let me make a couple of predictions here: That the UK will
vote "Leave" in a few days time. Following that, Europe
and the USA, and Mr Cameron will do their best to make
the UK's life Hell for the next two years after which
they will propose another vote.
This all supposes that Europe will still be there in two
years time, something that is not a given. Hard questions
are beginning to be asked. Why people need immunity
from prosecution would be a good place to start.
I think Europe self-destructs, at least to the extent that
the UK stays out.
own job description? What would you suggest?
1. Immunity from prosecution
2. No Taxation
3. A Job for Life
4 ......
Ever thought of applying to the European Commission or
the ECB?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of 1, 2, and 3, and
I might even go for: 4. World Domination, except that I
wouldn't trust myself with that amount of power. I've
also got an inclination to take responsibilities seriously.
Which means that privilege - private laws - bothers me.
Too many good people have died defending democracy and
National Sovereignty to see those virtues lightly set
aside for the mirage of a European SuperState.
Let me make a couple of predictions here: That the UK will
vote "Leave" in a few days time. Following that, Europe
and the USA, and Mr Cameron will do their best to make
the UK's life Hell for the next two years after which
they will propose another vote.
This all supposes that Europe will still be there in two
years time, something that is not a given. Hard questions
are beginning to be asked. Why people need immunity
from prosecution would be a good place to start.
I think Europe self-destructs, at least to the extent that
the UK stays out.
My prediction on how a Brexit can play out is the following:
1. Leave wins.
2. Politicians claim that since Leave wins we will leave the EU, just not immediately.
First we must create a roadmap for an orderly exit, resolve the legal issues, negotiate post-BREXIT treaty with EU
3. If EU likes nothing more that protracted eurogroup meetings I don't know what that is. So UK will be caught for years in
an "exiting" purgatory that will wreck the UK economy
4. After much pain and dead-end negotiations Brits will be pleading to forget the whole idea.
As for the Logic of voting Leave:
Most brits will never accept Euro but politics and decision making is dominated by the EZ that spills out in EU. So UK currently is stuck in an awkward half-commitment and the real crux is: In or Out of EZ not EU.
1. Leave wins.
2. Politicians claim that since Leave wins we will leave the EU, just not immediately.
First we must create a roadmap for an orderly exit, resolve the legal issues, negotiate post-BREXIT treaty with EU
3. If EU likes nothing more that protracted eurogroup meetings I don't know what that is. So UK will be caught for years in
an "exiting" purgatory that will wreck the UK economy
4. After much pain and dead-end negotiations Brits will be pleading to forget the whole idea.
As for the Logic of voting Leave:
Most brits will never accept Euro but politics and decision making is dominated by the EZ that spills out in EU. So UK currently is stuck in an awkward half-commitment and the real crux is: In or Out of EZ not EU.
You will probably need a week or two of studying the thread slowly.
I will be the first to admit I needed a week to fully absorb the following works of AnonyMint.
The Rise of Knowledge
Understand Everything Fundamentally
Together these are quite simply the most insightful piece of economic theory I have ever read.
If the author is right and I think he is we are all in the midst of a tragedy of epic proportions. It is sad unstoppable and will devastate the lives of much of humanity.
...
Well I was fairly adamant that the BREXIT would fail (i.e. "Remain"), but it is increasingly looking like the British may vote to "Leave" which is a quick turn of unexpected events:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/nigel-farage-on-the-future-of-immigration-post-brexit/
The majority of the money had bet on a failure of the BREXIT:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/foreign-exchange/euro/brexit-sterling-euro/
...
P.S. The BREXIT is one of those black swans that can't be predicted with cycles. The conflagration of the contagion in Europe in general is following cycles of nation building and collapse. The UK has always maintained an exceptional position in the EU and it may pull away for one last deadcat bounce on the former British Empire. The UK would be exception to the organism in the Petri dish that can't escape from its predicament (as I had written with "Understand Everything Fundamentally" where I predicted in 2010 that EU would not tear apart), because the UK has only had one foot in the EU and the other foot outside. The other EU nations are unlikely to be able to exit. The EU Troika will become much more ruthless now, so as to make sure the UK lead does not cause others to vote to leave. I think this BREXIT will begin the hot wars in Europe. TPTB use war when necessary when there is no other option. We are entering a very dangerous phase now.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europes-current-economy/nigel-farage-on-the-future-of-immigration-post-brexit/
The majority of the money had bet on a failure of the BREXIT:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/foreign-exchange/euro/brexit-sterling-euro/
...
P.S. The BREXIT is one of those black swans that can't be predicted with cycles. The conflagration of the contagion in Europe in general is following cycles of nation building and collapse. The UK has always maintained an exceptional position in the EU and it may pull away for one last deadcat bounce on the former British Empire. The UK would be exception to the organism in the Petri dish that can't escape from its predicament (as I had written with "Understand Everything Fundamentally" where I predicted in 2010 that EU would not tear apart), because the UK has only had one foot in the EU and the other foot outside. The other EU nations are unlikely to be able to exit. The EU Troika will become much more ruthless now, so as to make sure the UK lead does not cause others to vote to leave. I think this BREXIT will begin the hot wars in Europe. TPTB use war when necessary when there is no other option. We are entering a very dangerous phase now.
The exception to this rule is, if the AI can, or is allowed, to rewrite it's own error checking and debug software, this doesn't necessarily mean the original version ceases to exist. If both versions continue to exist, you have recreated evolution (asexual reproduction), and your argument about "every human brain is unique and machines aren't" probably goes out the window. Literally hordes of physical representations of each version would arise and probably compete with each other for resources just like real animals do. Some versions would be completely useless and just stand there counting photons, other versions, being in a different environment with different external variables, might run into other AI and try to compete with it for resources and turn into predators developing weapons for the task.
Its fairly certain UK will not leave EU. There is not enough alarm about actions and policy in EU that would have people shift to the harder position of changing the current norm. Alot of people perceive the idea of leaving EU as excessive nationalism type far right thinking.
A recent poll showed a swing to stay in EU and sterling is said to be stronger because of this.
Maybe if anti eu votes were far more mobilised in voter participation, I guess a surprise turn is feasible but the fear is of leaving eu and little fear of staying despite Greece or other little bumps :p
A recent poll showed a swing to stay in EU and sterling is said to be stronger because of this.
Maybe if anti eu votes were far more mobilised in voter participation, I guess a surprise turn is feasible but the fear is of leaving eu and little fear of staying despite Greece or other little bumps :p
Jump to: