Coin
Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19528. (Read 26610041 times)
January 22, 2016, 02:02:26 AM
January 22, 2016, 01:55:53 AM
Capitalism (as a political term) basically says that whatever you can grab by following the rules of the game, you can keep. In particular, it sees no difference between gains from speculative trading, monopolistic and abusive pricing, deceitful marketing, exploitation of cheap labor, activities that damage the envirnment or public health, etc.; and the state should not try to hamper such activities. In Capitalism, poverty and inequality are non-problems.
That's such a bag of wrong, I don't know where to start. Speculation is a legitimate market activity. Good speculators provide liquidity when it is needed and bad speculators pay the good speculators. No one needs to be coerced out of their earnings for this service, unlike government-provided services.
Quote
Quote
Free markets by definition are free from State interference. Monopolies are only possible with state help. Cartels don't work, witness OPEC.
That is a serious distortion of the term "free market" that Libertarians and Anarchists have invented. Sorry, a free market is totally not a market that is free from regulation and control.
Basically, it is a market where consumers are free to chose among suppliers, suppliers are free to set their prices as they like, there are no artificial production quotas, and -- most important -- there is no spurious barrier to the entry of new suppliers. In a free market, theory says that prices will adjust to be the cost of production plus a profit that is about just enough to make that market as profitable as any other activity.
The opposite of a free market is an oligopoly (including monopoly), where there are few suppliers and new ones are prevented from entry (even if they have the capital and capability to do so). Then the suppliers can conspire to raise their prices to the level that maximizes their net revenue, which can be much higher than the free market price.
Left to themselves, markets often degenerate into oligopolies or monopolies, because of the same factors that led to concentration of bitcoin mining. Many countries have antitrust and competition laws to prevent that from happening and keep the markets free.
This is why I said you don't know anything about economics. Monopolies originated as companies granted specifically by the government an exclusive charter to do business in a given area or industry. These were companies like the Hudson Bay Company or the East India company. Modern monopolies are more subtle about how they rely on the State to maintain dominant market share. Microsoft externalizes the costs of patent and trademark enforcement. Others use copyright law to do the same. Still others use regulatory capture.
Yes, capital-intensive industries give advantages to businesses with more capital. That's why it's called "capitalism", but that should be the only barrier to entry and it almost never is. Why should poor women need a license to cut hair or do manicures? It's protectionism by incumbent players to limit competition, although they always claim it's about quality.
Yet in spite of its advantages Microsoft STILL lost market share to apple, android etc because contrary to your claim, the natural tendency for large corporations is to get complacent and too conservative, and therefor less competitive. Look at the formulaic crap pumped out by major motion picture studios. It's the small independents at Sundance that make all the interesting stuff.
Or take your field: Universities have a near monopoly on post secondary credentialing, but you haven't done anything exiting and new in centuries. Judging by your product (college grads) you are overcharging. Those surveys that test graduates basic knowledge of history or government should be embarrassing to you. Silicone valley doesn't even give a shit if a prospective employee has a degree. They just want to see what you've made. Your projects are your resume.
January 22, 2016, 01:14:50 AM
...
The thing that should worry you all is that the Classic team is not much better qualified, although it seems to have better goals (like BitcoinXT had). fat is, control over the future evolution of your precious coin is being disputed by two bands of amateur hackers. ...
There are times when a talented amateur...The thing that should worry you all is that the Classic team is not much better qualified, although it seems to have better goals (like BitcoinXT had). fat is, control over the future evolution of your precious coin is being disputed by two bands of amateur hackers. ...
jk, they're pretty much forked.
But this pic rocks (?? middle panel, "Also, everything is totally real."
), and not shitty faux-naif but really some kid learning to draw.I don't play it but apparently some reference to metal gear solid.
January 22, 2016, 01:02:24 AM
January 22, 2016, 12:56:27 AM
We might be in for an ugly weekend 'price-wise.' As a distraction, I thought it might be nice to take some time to appreciate eachother's contributions to the Bitcoin space.
I'll go first.
I'll go first.
Define ugly.....
I appreciate Jorge and BJA.....
NOT.....
January 22, 2016, 12:43:09 AM
The key thing the Stolfinator doesn't understand about being a socialist is, one man's free stuff is another man's indentured servitude. He keeps preaching this "more just society" nonsense while supporting a pro-slavery ideology.
January 22, 2016, 12:42:17 AM
(1) each individual should be rewarded by society in proportion to what he does for society, rather than by his possestions, descent, titles, intelligence, shrewdness, etc.;
That's what capitalism does. If you make a profit, it's because you utilized your capital in a way that society a.k.a. the market values. You get market share by giving customers what they want. You make profits by doing so efficiently.
Not at all! Capitalism (as a political term) basically says that whatever you can grab by following the rules of the game, you can keep. In particular, it sees no difference between gains from speculative trading, monopolistic and abusive pricing, deceitful marketing, exploitation of cheap labor, activities that damage the envirnment or public health, etc.; and the state should not try to hamper such activities. In Capitalism, poverty and inequality are non-problems.
Quote
Quote
(3) the state is supposed to provide public services like health care, education, social security, transportation infrastructure, emergency and security services, etc.;
and the State gets the resources to do this how exactly? By running a bake sale? If a private organization takes things involuntarily, it's robbery. Just because the State calls it "taxation" doesn't mean it's any more moral. ...
By taxes, of course. Socialism generally implies higher taxes, and progressive income taxes -- to counter the "rich get richer" consequence of capitalism.
But hey: I am not trying to convince anyone here that socialsm is good. Just trying to explain what "socialism" means.
Quote
Free markets by definition are free from State interference. Monopolies are only possible with state help. Cartels don't work, witness OPEC.
That is a serious distortion of the term "free market" that Libertarians and Anarchists have invented. Sorry, a free market is totally not a market that is free from regulation and control.
Basically, it is a market where consumers are free to chose among suppliers, suppliers are free to set their prices as they like, there are no artificial production quotas, and -- most important -- there is no spurious barrier to the entry of new suppliers. In a free market, theory says that prices will adjust to be the cost of production plus a profit that is about just enough to make that market as profitable as any other activity.
The opposite of a free market is an oligopoly (including monopoly), where there are few suppliers and new ones are prevented from entry (even if they have the capital and capability to do so). Then the suppliers can conspire to raise their prices to the level that maximizes their net revenue, which can be much higher than the free market price.
Left to themselves, markets often degenerate into oligopolies or monopolies, because of the same factors that led to concentration of bitcoin mining. Many countries have antitrust and competition laws to prevent that from happening and keep the markets free.
January 22, 2016, 12:37:58 AM
We might be in for an ugly weekend 'price-wise.' As a distraction, I thought it might be nice to take some time to appreciate eachother's contributions to the Bitcoin space.
I'll go first.
I'll go first.
January 22, 2016, 12:26:58 AM
...
That is from the English Wikipedia. Since your quote comes from a bitcoin site, I suppose that both were written by Libertarians, who obviously thought that they knew all about politics and economics.
Until I get around to fixing that Wikipedia article, let me quote another paragraph from it, that is somewhat less wrong:
But the Frenck Wikipedia has a better explanation:
By the way, in the English Wikipedia it also says that anarchism and Libertarianism are flavors of Socialism! So Anarchists are in favor of "social democratic ownership and control of the means of production"? 
Again, you're dead wrong. cite your sources. I'll cite mine: Socialism is a political ideology and movement[1] which has proposed a set of social and economic measures, policies[2] and systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production
That is from the English Wikipedia. Since your quote comes from a bitcoin site, I suppose that both were written by Libertarians, who obviously thought that they knew all about politics and economics.
Until I get around to fixing that Wikipedia article, let me quote another paragraph from it, that is somewhat less wrong:
Quote
The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies that originated amid the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 1700s out of general concern for the social problems that were associated with capitalism.[10] In addition to the debate over the degree to which to rely on markets versus planning, the varieties of socialism differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, how management is to be organized within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4][10]
But the Frenck Wikipedia has a better explanation:
Quote
Le mot socialisme recouvre un ensemble très divers de courants de pensée et de mouvances politiques1, dont le point commun est de rechercher une organisation sociale et économique plus juste. Le but originel du socialisme est d'obtenir l'égalité sociale, ou du moins une réduction des inégalités2. Plus largement, le socialisme peut être défini comme une tendance politique, historiquement marquée à gauche, dont le principe de base est l'aspiration à un monde meilleur, fondé sur une organisation sociale harmonieuse et sur la lutte contre les injustices. Selon les contextes, le mot socialisme ou l'adjectif socialiste peuvent qualifier une idéologie, un parti politique, un régime politique ou une organisation sociale. Le mot socialisme lui-même entre dans le langage courant à partir des années 1820, dans le contexte de la révolution industrielle et de l'urbanisation qui l'accompagne : il désigne alors un ensemble de revendications et d'idées visant à améliorer le sort des ouvriers, et plus largement de la population, via le remplacement du capitalisme par une société supposée plus juste. L'idée socialiste, sous de multiples formes, se développe au long du XIXe siècle et donne naissance dans le monde entier à des partis politiques s'en réclamant sous diverses dénominations (socialiste, mais également social-démocrate, travailliste, etc.)3.
Quote
The word socialism covers a very diverse set of intellectual currents and political movements, whose common point is to seek a more just social and economic organization. The original goal of socialism was to obtain social equality, or at least a reduction of inequalities. More broadly, socialism can be defined as a political tendency, historically labeled leftist, whose basic principle is the desire for a better world, founded on a harmonious social organization and the fight against injustices. Depending on the context, the word socialism or the adjective socialist may designate an ideology, a political party, or a social organization. The word itself became current in the [ French ] language starting in the 1820s, in the context of the industrial revolution and of the urbanization that it entailed: at the time, in signified a collection of revindications and ideas directed towards improving the life of workers, and more broadly of the population, through the replacement of capitalism by a societly supposedly more just. The idea of socialism, in multiple forms, was developed through the 19th century, and gave birth through the world to political parties that claimed to share it under various names (socialist, but also social-democratic, labor, etc.)
By the way, in the English Wikipedia it also says that anarchism and Libertarianism are flavors of Socialism! So Anarchists are in favor of "social democratic ownership and control of the means of production"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Anarchism to get you started. Trotsky was too anarchist-flavored.
Quote
Quote
Original research: Brought up in USSR. The second S is for "SOCIALIST."
Yes, communism is a sub-species of socialism, like Mussolini's fascism and Hitler's version. But socialism is a much wider term than those cases. Sweden, for example, was widely called a socialist country until some decades ago.
(Another socialist idea that capitalists and neocons hate is the progressive income tax, that in Sweden, IIRC, reched 60% or more for the upper brackets.)
Moreover, just because a country puts "Socialist" in its name, it does not mean that they are really socialist. Ditto for "Democratic", "Free", etc.
So let me get this straight:
English Wikip is wrong,
USSR mistakenly called itself Socialist,
English dictionaries are wrong,
but you, Jorge, while offering no citations, are right?
And you're gonna go and play wikipedo and fix up pages so that they say what you think they should say?
You gonna edit dictionaries, too?
Lawdy, anywhere you step, there's crazy
Merriam-Webster on Socialism:
"a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism on Socialism:
"1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.
At times when reality, shamelessly, lies, I turn to Jorge. For He is definitive.
January 22, 2016, 12:17:50 AM
^The professor is here. This telling gif should convince him.
January 22, 2016, 12:08:28 AM
But in that case the laws and contracts are useless, because the dispute will be decided by the expected costs and benefits of each action (e.g., the party with the machine guns gets his way), and not by any laws or contracts.
as opposed to being decided by who has the best political connections or the most expensive lawyers?
Throughout history, societies have found that method much better than the alternative of "who has the biggest guns". In fact, societies often opted for very stupid divination methods to decide disputes, because even a judicial system with 50% error rate is better than the Far West system.
Only a minority of voters are socially intelligent, and I include you in that group and you know almost nothing about economics.
Well, thanks for the first part, but I would quite dispute the second one. I admit that, like most computer nerds, my knowledge of economics was actally negative, only two years ago; but I think that I learned quite a bit watching bitcoin.
And I have also lived under a right-wing military dictatorship, various populist presidents, an earnestly neo-con president, a Keynesian-socialist president, not to mention 13 years of neo-con goverments in the US. I think that those experiences entitle me to have my own opinion on such things...
Again, you're dead wrong. cite your sources. I'll cite mine: Socialism is a political ideology and movement[1] which has proposed a set of social and economic measures, policies[2] and systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production
That is from the English Wikipedia. Since your quote comes from a bitcoin site, I suppose that both were written by Libertarians, who obviously thought that they knew all about politics and economics.
Until I get around to fixing that Wikipedia article, let me quote another paragraph from it, that is somewhat less wrong:
Quote
The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies that originated amid the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 1700s out of general concern for the social problems that were associated with capitalism.[10] In addition to the debate over the degree to which to rely on markets versus planning, the varieties of socialism differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, how management is to be organized within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4][10]
But the Frenck Wikipedia has a better explanation:
Quote
Le mot socialisme recouvre un ensemble très divers de courants de pensée et de mouvances politiques1, dont le point commun est de rechercher une organisation sociale et économique plus juste. Le but originel du socialisme est d'obtenir l'égalité sociale, ou du moins une réduction des inégalités2. Plus largement, le socialisme peut être défini comme une tendance politique, historiquement marquée à gauche, dont le principe de base est l'aspiration à un monde meilleur, fondé sur une organisation sociale harmonieuse et sur la lutte contre les injustices. Selon les contextes, le mot socialisme ou l'adjectif socialiste peuvent qualifier une idéologie, un parti politique, un régime politique ou une organisation sociale. Le mot socialisme lui-même entre dans le langage courant à partir des années 1820, dans le contexte de la révolution industrielle et de l'urbanisation qui l'accompagne : il désigne alors un ensemble de revendications et d'idées visant à améliorer le sort des ouvriers, et plus largement de la population, via le remplacement du capitalisme par une société supposée plus juste. L'idée socialiste, sous de multiples formes, se développe au long du XIXe siècle et donne naissance dans le monde entier à des partis politiques s'en réclamant sous diverses dénominations (socialiste, mais également social-démocrate, travailliste, etc.)3.
Quote
The word socialism covers a very diverse set of intellectual currents and political movements, whose common point is to seek a more just social and economic organization. The original goal of socialism was to obtain social equality, or at least a reduction of inequalities. More broadly, socialism can be defined as a political tendency, historically labeled leftist, whose basic principle is the desire for a better world, founded on a harmonious social organization and the fight against injustices. Depending on the context, the word socialism or the adjective socialist may designate an ideology, a political party, or a social organization. The word itself became current in the [ French ] language starting in the 1820s, in the context of the industrial revolution and of the urbanization that it entailed: at the time, in signified a collection of revindications and ideas directed towards improving the life of workers, and more broadly of the population, through the replacement of capitalism by a societly supposedly more just. The idea of socialism, in multiple forms, was developed through the 19th century, and gave birth through the world to political parties that claimed to share it under various names (socialist, but also social-democratic, labor, etc.)
By the way, in the English Wikipedia it also says that anarchism and Libertarianism are flavors of Socialism! So Anarchists are in favor of "social democratic ownership and control of the means of production"?
Quote
Original research: Brought up in USSR. The second S is for "SOCIALIST."
Yes, communism is a sub-species of socialism, like Mussolini's fascism and Hitler's version. But socialism is a much wider term than those cases. Sweden, for example, was widely called a socialist country until some decades ago.
(Another socialist idea that capitalists and neocons hate is the progressive income tax, that in Sweden, IIRC, reched 60% or more for the upper brackets.)
Moreover, just because a country puts "Socialist" in its name, it does not mean that they are really socialist. Ditto for "Democratic", "Free", etc.
January 22, 2016, 12:02:26 AM
January 21, 2016, 11:59:49 PM
Does a transaction fee market exist Without A Block Size Limit? Yes, according to a paper presented at the 2015 Scaling Bitcoin Workshop in Montreal.
No gifs tho.
No gifs tho.
January 21, 2016, 11:55:15 PM
(2) property and economical rights of the individual are not absolute but are subordinate to the interests of society as a whole
So you are a communist...
(3) the state is supposed to provide public services like health care, education, social security, transportation infrastructure, emergency and security services, etc.;
So you are a communist...
(4) the state should try to ensure equal opportunities to everybody and ensure that everybody has a decent minimal living conditions.
So you are a communist...
January 21, 2016, 11:53:40 PM
Oy vey...
January 21, 2016, 11:40:20 PM
The wall has been breached! REPEAT: THE WALL HAS BEEN BREACHED!
January 21, 2016, 11:20:39 PM
...
The thing that should worry you all is that the Classic team is not much better qualified, although it seems to have better goals (like BitcoinXT had). fat is, control over the future evolution of your precious coin is being disputed by two bands of amateur hackers. ...
There are times when a talented amateur...The thing that should worry you all is that the Classic team is not much better qualified, although it seems to have better goals (like BitcoinXT had). fat is, control over the future evolution of your precious coin is being disputed by two bands of amateur hackers. ...
http://s28.postimg.org/ncujhw4fx/you_just_gotta_believe_me_by_mrboltitude_d5bm78o.png
jk, they're pretty much forked.
But this pic rocks (?? middle panel, "Also, everything is totally real."
), and not shitty faux-naif but really some kid learning to draw. January 21, 2016, 11:19:48 PM
Will I / Wont I troll the Core PR7833 
Aw heck, I think I just did.
Reader Exercise: Identify the rogue PR's in COre....
PR #### Change constant 'COIN' to 1 Bong
PR #### FULL RBF activation date change to Ratember TonTi
Aw heck, I think I just did.
Reader Exercise: Identify the rogue PR's in COre....
PR #### Change constant 'COIN' to 1 Bong
PR #### FULL RBF activation date change to Ratember TonTi
I love it when 4Chan meets Wall Street.
Eesh. I'm so evil.
January 21, 2016, 11:04:41 PM
the order book is looking very lopsided. a bounce could come at any time. Maybe $415 before going back down.
January 21, 2016, 11:02:26 PM
Jump to: