Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20588. (Read 26607114 times)

It doesn't look like a top, yet. Big money may push until their is no more resistance before dumping. This usually means a sharp spike or a high volume double top. The key is not to go margin short until AFTER the top. Sure you may miss a good trade, but you don't want to risk getting squeezed. If you wanna short before then, keep it small and set your asks higher that you think will get filled.

Wile E., how could you be so right, all the time? It's positively uncanny!

Coin

Explanation

well, prepare for the friday purge ... ?  perhaps ...

The only cause I've found for concern is the following inaccuracy: while Messrs. Rothbard and Marx were, in fact, Jews, Mme Rand was a Jewess. A Jewess.

One thing I learnt about this thread is this

* When price is going up and everybody is like "BITCOIN IS GOING TO THE MOON" or "Here $10,000 we come" it means its time to sell or go short.

* When price is crashing and everybody is like "BITCOIN IS A SCAM" or "BITCOIN IS GOING TO $1" it means its time to buy or cover.

No worries, Man. I've been called far worse.  I couldn't very well advocate radical free speech without having thick skin.

I'm sorry. Bad humour. I actually consider myself a social liberalist, but in your eyes it would probably look like socialism anyways. I don't think I've written anything I don't believe in. Sorry for calling you a retard though. Sometimes the setup is just too good to pass. 

I demand nothing. I cannot use force or threat of force to impose my ideas. I simply think the State will destroy itself and I will try to help provide an alternative.

The only thing you could say I demand is a sincere or at least entertaining discussion or I will not participate. Not a big loss if you don't value my contribution.

I think there will always be a few Statist around and that will be useful to remind us why we abandoned Statism.

Not really. I'll tell you a little secret: I'm not even a socialist.

"Conservative" generally means "resistant to change". In Russia the conservatives are communists. In America, they are free market protestants.  It's not a good thing or a bad thing. In fact, conservatism is doomed to failure eventually because the only constant in the universe is change. With no change, time stops.

I'm bored with this hypersensitivity to even the faintest whiff of perceived racism. This is not the place for such discussions. I regret even mentioning Rothbard, Rand and Marx were Jews.  I merely meant to point out that my hero Murray Rothbard was absolutely not an elitist like Rand.  I forgot how easily children get distracted by things that don't matter.

I'm culturally conservative and that's both good and bad. I say it not to boast or confess. It shouldn't matter. Intellectually I'm a free market individualist. Economically I'm an Austrian. Google that shit if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Now, can we get back to talking about something other than me, such as whether or not the Chinese are going to continue the European pump?  I think $300 is the level to watch, but there are till too many longs and not enough shorts to ensure a bottom is in.

You're making the same mistake the communists made. You demand that there be no plurality of political conviction. Your "system" will fail if there's a group of "statists" among you, so you'll have to keep an eye out for "statist sentiments". And so on...

And don't forget the most important rule of all: You just have to believe in yourself!

Coin

Explanation

Read it out loud, it usually helps me.

A system where the State violates the very rules in enforces on others (especially re the initiation of force and coercion) is not Rule of Law. it is Rule of Man.  A government that selectively interprets and enforces the very Constitution that supposedly limits its power is not limited.

The government cannot provide anything that it does not forcibly take away in the first place (by taxing) or by borrowing (promising to tax in the future). The State cannot credibly protect rights when it is dependent on violating rights (extortion-taxes, potato-spud) just to exist.

Anarcho-capitalism is the only system that consistently applies the only three rules society needs: don't  hurt or threaten people. Don't take or mess with their property. Keep your promises. That is Rule of Law.

You want to help people in need. Good. Most people do or we wouldn't have subsidized healthcare, etc. But you want other people to pay their "fair share" even if they don't want to. There's no such thing as a "fair share" taken by force.  Forced contribution is as close to charity as rape is to love. In other words, you're monsters masquerading as philanthropists. Fuck you. My money is my money and nobody should tell me what to do with it, least of all some economically illiterate morons with good intentions.

Subsidize poverty, you get more poverty. Tax wealth and you get less wealth. Regulate innovation and you get less innovation. 

You do realize that you're no longer arguing with an American fireman, but with a Russian-born children's books writer, from whom his independent ideas are borrowed verbatim.
Think of this as having a political discussion with someone passionately quoting Babar the Elephant or Go, Dog. Go!

This whole thing started when I said that the U.S.A. was the world's largest economy. You brought up Europe as a counterclaim and now you are saying it's not an economic entity. What the fuck, Man?



You won't catch me defending that idiot Bush.  He himself said he had to "sacrifice his free market principles in order to save the free market" meaning of course he had no free market principles. It could be argued that is was a Republican congress who gave us the budget surplus under Clinton, but I won't. It was additional tax revenues from the loose money boom and stock bubble caused by Fed Chair Alan Greenspan.
Also from low oil prices when the U.S. was a net importer.

I'm not a conservative but get your facts strait. Bush was not right wing. He's the son of Rockefeller Republican GHW Bush. He federalized education (no child left behind), appointed exclusively Catholics and Jews to the supreme court (not wrong, but not conservative either), and increased immigration from Latin countries. Again, I am not criticizing those policies here, but bush was an establishment warmonger, not even a conservative socially. Absolutely, incontrovertibly not a fiscal conservative. 


 

No, we're not. That's the point. You're not allowing your brain to process what I'm saying because your conformist mind won't allow you to agree with any socialist ideas. So you throw every extreme example of socialist (and for some reason, fascist) tyranny in my face to shut me up and convince yourself that you won't have to break out of your conformist world view.


I do. And I want that individual to be protected by a welfare state which has complete monopoly of violence and works according to the rule of law.

To be that clever...