Good morning Bitcoinland.
Still going east at $440. Calm before the storm?
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19772. (Read 26623464 times)
December 23, 2015, 12:04:16 PM
December 23, 2015, 12:00:54 PM
Shorted
December 23, 2015, 12:00:28 PM
December 23, 2015, 11:48:31 AM
The "invisible hand" as commonly misunderstood would only work if there weren't asymmetric information nor externalities.
Furthermore in the past, when capitalists would observe "God, Fatherland, Family", laissez-faire capitalism had natural boundaries which are absent today and the tragedy of the commons is a reminder of the need for limits.
The market clears information asymmetries and externalities. You are confusing neoclassical economics with real economics. Furthermore in the past, when capitalists would observe "God, Fatherland, Family", laissez-faire capitalism had natural boundaries which are absent today and the tragedy of the commons is a reminder of the need for limits.
Oh my god you just can't say this it's too stupid
You're whether trolling or plain stupid. As if all actors had all the same information and there was no externalities xD
And I am not saying what you think I am saying.
Externalities and informational asymmetry only exist regarding an abstract world of market perfection. They are the by-product of an abstract and irrealistic theory. The real market (as opposed to the perfect one, which is a misguided mental construction) handle those two "problems" better than any other mechanism.
In the most renowned European languages the concrete meaning of "to produce" is to make, manufacture, fabricate things and it is a concept which evolved from agriculture: plants pro-duce, bring forth, bear fruit.
It's best to talk about economics by using the meaning of words which pertains to this discipline.
We mean that the word production leads to something that actualy produce something and not just arbitrary value creation such as what you're reffering to
On the other hand value creation is not arbitrary. It's something revealed by the market mechanism. Either you can sell the product of your effort and then you have created value (ie. you have been useful to somebody else), either you can't and therefore you have not created value (ie. you have not been useful to anybody).
December 23, 2015, 11:36:24 AM
The "invisible hand" as commonly misunderstood would only work if there weren't asymmetric information nor externalities.
Furthermore in the past, when capitalists would observe "God, Fatherland, Family", laissez-faire capitalism had natural boundaries which are absent today and the tragedy of the commons is a reminder of the need for limits.
The market clears information asymmetries and externalities. You are confusing neoclassical economics with real economics. Furthermore in the past, when capitalists would observe "God, Fatherland, Family", laissez-faire capitalism had natural boundaries which are absent today and the tragedy of the commons is a reminder of the need for limits.
Oh my god you just can't say this it's too stupid
You're whether trolling or plain stupid. As if all actors had all the same information and there was no externalities xD
And I am not saying what you think I am saying.
Externalities and informational asymmetry only exist regarding an abstract world of market perfection. They are the by-product of an abstract and irrealistic theory. The real market (as opposed to the perfect one, which is a misguided mental construction) handle those two "problems" better than any other mechanism.
In the most renowned European languages the concrete meaning of "to produce" is to make, manufacture, fabricate things and it is a concept which evolved from agriculture: plants pro-duce, bring forth, bear fruit.
It's best to talk about economics by using the meaning of words which pertains to this discipline.
We mean that the word production leads to something that actualy produce something and not just arbitrary value creation such as what you're reffering to
December 23, 2015, 11:34:57 AM
Say what you want about the morality of traders. If Robinhood tax passes, it'll result in less tax revenue and btc will go sub 200 because it's mostly held up by traders riding the choo choo train, plus the rest of the economy would be dropping around it. I really don't think it would get through congress though.
That's sure it won't. I mean why would a law made to make it less easy for big companies to take the money from people pass in the USA? This is america after all, USA have the same inequality in wealth than the Quatar, the first developed country in term of repartition of wealth.
But hey, why doing anything about it?
December 23, 2015, 11:14:28 AM
Say what you want about the morality of traders. If Robinhood tax passes, it'll result in less tax revenue and btc will go sub 200 because it's mostly held up by traders riding the choo choo train, plus the rest of the economy would be dropping around it. I really don't think it would get through congress though.
December 23, 2015, 11:04:24 AM
(sorry, saw "The Force Awakens" last night)
how did you like it?
December 23, 2015, 11:02:09 AM
The "invisible hand" as commonly misunderstood would only work if there weren't asymmetric information nor externalities.
Furthermore in the past, when capitalists would observe "God, Fatherland, Family", laissez-faire capitalism had natural boundaries which are absent today and the tragedy of the commons is a reminder of the need for limits.
The market clears information asymmetries and externalities. You are confusing neoclassical economics with real economics. Furthermore in the past, when capitalists would observe "God, Fatherland, Family", laissez-faire capitalism had natural boundaries which are absent today and the tragedy of the commons is a reminder of the need for limits.
Oh my god you just can't say this it's too stupid
You're whether trolling or plain stupid. As if all actors had all the same information and there was no externalities xD
And I am not saying what you think I am saying.
Externalities and informational asymmetry only exist regarding an abstract world of market perfection. They are the by-product of an abstract and irrealistic theory. The real market (as opposed to the perfect one, which is a misguided mental construction) handle those two "problems" better than any other mechanism.
In the most renowned European languages the concrete meaning of "to produce" is to make, manufacture, fabricate things and it is a concept which evolved from agriculture: plants pro-duce, bring forth, bear fruit.
It's best to talk about economics by using the meaning of words which pertains to this discipline.
December 23, 2015, 11:00:26 AM
December 23, 2015, 10:59:43 AM
Maybe the word "produce" is not the same for you than for me, but for the Oxford dictionnary it is: Make or manufacture from components or raw materials.
So teachers, singers, writers and developpers don't produce anything?The definition of the Oxford dictionnary is Marxist (I am serious, Marx thought that production implies a kind of physicality, which every body nowadays -except you and the Oxford dictionary guys- knows is a totally backward way of seeing things).
Quite. There's a reason for the phrase "goods and services"
December 23, 2015, 10:58:03 AM
If you can't understand that then I can do nothing for you. Go buy your bread that's made from flour exchanged in average 30 times before reaching your baker, and that would certainly be much cheaper without all those exchanges.
What about the futures market where the baker can buy his flour for next year for $50 and if the market price rises to $60 the trader eats the loss?
December 23, 2015, 10:52:27 AM
And when the total number of cars in the world is 1000 and the total number of cars sold by traders in the world is 46 000 what it the use of the vast majority of traders and trades?
Cause that's exactly what happens with lot's of ressources.
Cause that's exactly what happens with lot's of ressources.
My friend, I think you are seeking deep illumination when you seem to lack some of the tools for understanding where people are coming from. Not that that is a failing but it is something that should be corrected. There are many great writers on this subject worth reading, I'd probably suggest Hayek. Some might like to suggest others.
To be sure, there are many aspects of trading that are on the "dark side" (sorry, saw "The Force Awakens" last night) but in and of itself, it is a net good.
Car traders do often sell and buy cars from other traders FWIW. A car might have more value in one market than another.
December 23, 2015, 10:52:19 AM
The "invisible hand" as commonly misunderstood would only work if there weren't asymmetric information nor externalities.
Furthermore in the past, when capitalists would observe "God, Fatherland, Family", laissez-faire capitalism had natural boundaries which are absent today and the tragedy of the commons is a reminder of the need for limits.
The market clears information asymmetries and externalities. You are confusing neoclassical economics with real economics. Furthermore in the past, when capitalists would observe "God, Fatherland, Family", laissez-faire capitalism had natural boundaries which are absent today and the tragedy of the commons is a reminder of the need for limits.
Oh my god you just can't say this it's too stupid
You're whether trolling or plain stupid. As if all actors had all the same information and there was no externalities xD
And I am not saying what you think I am saying.
Externalities and informational asymmetry only exist regarding an abstract world of market perfection. They are the by-product of an abstract and irrealistic theory. The real market (as opposed to the perfect one, which is a misguided mental construction) handle those two "problems" better than any other mechanism.
In the most renowned European languages the concrete meaning of "to produce" is to make, manufacture, fabricate things and it is a concept which evolved from agriculture: plants pro-duce, bring forth, bear fruit.
December 23, 2015, 10:48:09 AM
The market clears information asymmetries and externalities.
Would you care to provide evidence?
You just need to understand that nobody has the same information, it's a fact of life and whatever amount of centralisation you introduce in the production system will not change this fact. The best way to handle this is to allow information to circulate freely across the economy and the best way do to that is to let the price system convey them (it doesn't mean every body will have the same information, but it means it's the best way to distribute information). You can read the seminal paper The Use Of Knowledge in Society, written by Hayek if you want a more formal explanation.
Regarding externalities, you can read The Theory of the Firm, written by Coase. This paper explains that the more property rights are enforced the more tend to diminish the so called externalities (ie. externalities are no the consequence of the functionning of a market, but the consequences of a lack of thereof).
December 23, 2015, 10:36:41 AM
Maybe the word "produce" is not the same for you than for me, but for the Oxford dictionnary it is: Make or manufacture from components or raw materials.
So teachers, singers and developpers don't produce anything?The definition of the Oxford dictionnary is Marxist (I am serious, Marx thought that production implies a kind of physicality, which every body nowadays -except you and the Oxford dictionary guys- knows is a totally backward way of seeing things).
Oh sorry. I'm really sorry I used precise words to talk about precise things.
My apologies I'll stop talking.
I bid you all a goodnight
I bet such a precise guy as you will have no problem answering that question.
I said I wouldn't answer but I have 3 minutes last so I'll correct your lack of vocabulary and logical reasoning.
No teachers don't produce anything. A baker produce something, teachers don't. They have an influence on the development of individuals, I see no concept of production here. Otherwise the word is perfectly useless! We're all producing things you know with your approximate definition?
Production means transforming physical goods in order to create another one (normally) of higher value.
It doesn't mean teachers are useless but it does mean it's incredibly hard to evaluate their impact and their performance. Whereas it's rather easy to measure to quantity and quality of bread the baker produced.
So no I'm not the one who "doesn't even know what i don't know" sir.
December 23, 2015, 10:31:00 AM
The market clears information asymmetries and externalities.
Would you care to provide evidence?
December 23, 2015, 10:26:47 AM
Maybe the word "produce" is not the same for you than for me, but for the Oxford dictionnary it is: Make or manufacture from components or raw materials.
So teachers, singers and developpers don't produce anything?The definition of the Oxford dictionnary is Marxist (I am serious, Marx thought that production implies a kind of physicality, which every body nowadays -except you and the Oxford dictionary guys- knows is a totally backward way of seeing things).
Oh sorry. I'm really sorry I used precise words to talk about precise things.
My apologies I'll stop talking.
I bid you all a goodnight
I bet such a precise guy as you will have no problem answering that question.
December 23, 2015, 10:25:22 AM
"The big picture"...
Best argument ever.
Best argument ever.
TBH you used the same argument here:
Just open your eyes and look at the world and what liberalism and capitalism without control has brought us in the last decade.
As soon as someone starts talking about "the real world" and possibly even "cold hard facts" I stop listening and start laughing.
Our own resident JarJarWallsoftext used to do that a lot back in the day, we had a lot of fun
EDIT: seems we have created a disturbance in the force. Newbie accounts have morphed from bear-trolls to philosoraptors.
December 23, 2015, 10:20:15 AM
Maybe the word "produce" is not the same for you than for me, but for the Oxford dictionnary it is: Make or manufacture from components or raw materials.
So teachers, singers and developpers don't produce anything?The definition of the Oxford dictionnary is Marxist (I am serious, Marx thought that production implies a kind of physicality, which every body nowadays -except you and the Oxford dictionary guys- knows is a totally backward way of seeing things).
Oh sorry. I'm really sorry I used precise words to talk about precise things.
My apologies I'll stop talking.
I bid you all a goodnight
Jump to: