471–480 of 493 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of good technical boards out there, but there are few good startup communities. I'd rather have the startup discussions over everything else.
> There are plenty of good technical boards out there Do you have any recommendations?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has the amount that it pays when it reaches maturity changed? The yield curve has gone negative - the shorter term bonds are worth more than the longer term ones (and certainly the longer term ones bought back in 2021). And if you were trying to sell me a 10 year note at 0.6% I'd want a serious discount because even your 7 year note at 3.86%, I can do better with a 3 month note at 4.794% or a 6 month note at 5.086%.…
> The amount it will pay at maturity remains unchanged and in 10 years it will be worth exactly the same no matter what the financial history that brought it to that point was. Wrong. You're forgetting about inflation. Interest rates increased because inflation spiked. In 2022 alone, that nominal payout at maturity has lost 8% of its real value.
However, it will still pay out exactly what it said it would pay out when it was purchased. Compare this to buying a stock in say... RBCN (went bankrupt and delisted in December) where any of the stock you had is worth nothing.
There is no risk that a bond won't pay out the amount that it says (other than the government really messing up and defaulting).
I will certainly be willing to say "a purchase of 10 year bonds would be short sighted and failed to account for possible risks from changing cash flow or increased rates over the next 10 years."
And yet a bond is still going to pay out what it says on the label when it was purchased when it pays out.
Now, if its not a hold to maturity type portfolio and you want to trade them, then its a whole 'nother ball game where prices will go up and down as it becomes easier or harder to make money in various markets. And whoever holds a $100 ten year note at ten years time will get paid exactly that amount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An actual libertarian I would point out that HSBC is only buying the UK branch of SV Bank and the line about no taxpayer funds is evasive language and a borderline lie. No tax revenue is being used to bail out the depositors, but every American with a bank account is paying for it. They're just applying a new fee to every Bank in the country to cover the losses It is still socialized losses.
Hmmm… I guess I didn’t read those article closely enough. Re: the fee, where do you see that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Startups were in fact able to withdraw large amounts of money from SVB. That's why it collapsed, they did this to the tune of 42 billion, and lots of the pending transfers completed.
In my book, having your bank fail when you withdraw large amounts of money is an equivalent statement to 'you cannot withdraw large amounts of money from your bank'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Libertarianism isn't the same as anarcho-capitalism. If some people are claiming they're the same thing then, well, see above.
FWIW, the book synopsis that you quoted does not say that libertarians built a tent city, it says that freedom-loving citizens built a tent city. New Hampshire’s state motto is “live free or die”, and that value of freedom is one of the reasons that NH was chosen by the libertarians to build their utopia. It’s a very rich and complex story about many different people, and arguing with a handful of sentence fragments…
It’s a very rich and complex story about many different people
It's about "a barely populated settlement with one paved road" that was taken over by anarchists. Not surprisingly they ended up living in tents, as anarchists are wont to do.
I edited out a comment in my original post asking why some people insist on lying about libertarianism but then took it out, thinking it was overly harsh. Now I wish I'd left it back in. I don't believe you're arguing in good faith, the misrepresentations in that post are just so blatant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that might (or might not) be arguable from a moral viewpoint, but it definitely isn’t arguable from the actual statistics. about half of the US state prison population is there for non-violent crimes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...
Those mostly wouldn't be errors in judgement but people who knew they were doing something wrong, like shoplifting.
or like being in possession of a gram of meth for personal use: something a person might legitimately believe isn’t “wrong”. the meth user didn’t get into jail for violating his own moral code: he’s there for an error in judgement, this error being that he didn’t understand how strongly the people around him would react to actions he thought were not that big of a deal.
sibling comment does good by calling attention to driving: enough people text while drive that it can be considered normal behavior, that people who do this don’t actively think they’re doing wrong. but that doesn’t save them from culpability when they roll the dice poorly and hit a pedestrian.
what’s the difference between “manslaughter” and “murder”: it’s intent. our justice system does consider intent, but it doesn’t require it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my book, having your bank fail when you withdraw large amounts of money is an equivalent statement to 'you cannot withdraw large amounts of money from your bank'.
Sure, but at the end of the day, a bunch of these startups withdrew large amounts of money successfully. Claims that you can't do that are simply false, at best conditionally true.
> You are believing a lie if you think a ten million dollar deposit can be immediately withdrawn anywhere in its entirety.
This is true, by your own admission. A bunch of startups did; some did not. Thus, it is empirically true, by your own reckoning that you cannot withdraw large deposit accounts in their entirety. To say 'you CAN do X' means that your ability to do X is not conditioned on some probability. For example, when I say I can walk, I mean I certainly can walk; not that I can walk with 20% probability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, but US style right-libertarianism is also known as anarcho-capitalism [0], and the line between that and anarchy - which resists hierarchy, not organisation - is pretty thin. The main difference is that anarcho-capitalism, unsurprisingly, deeply favours those who own property. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Libertarianism isn't the same as anarcho-capitalism. If some people are claiming they're the same thing then, well, see above.
While there may be differences between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, I've struggled to see them in practice, and in my experience the definition of these terms can be varied depending on who you talk to.
In any case, the two systems are birds of a feather, and neither of them are appealing unless one already holds substantial material wealth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The anti-libertarian arguments generally consist of these strawman caricatures, to avoid dealing with pretty much unassailable mainstream libertarian criticisms of major contemporary government policies, like socializing deposit losses with taxpayer-funded FDIC insurance, guaranteeing $1.5 trillion worth of mortgage backed securities every year through the GSEs, and bailing out banks that engage in high-risk lending…
The boring non-libertarian (political realist, non-radical) arguments about those are that doing the bailout is still better than the other possibilities. Also note that the bailouts tend to have positive financial returns to the government (because they get a lot of financial instruments at a very low cost, and then either sell them when they turn a profit or hold them to maturity, which again tend to be profitable…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dave Troy is a fascist.
I have no idea who that is, but based on what? Can you please provide some support for that claim?
https://twitter.com/davetroy/status/1478017765927788555?s=20
Less extreme and more subtle expressions of his fascist agenda are revealed here, where he employs the administrative state's euphemisms, to advocate for a surveillance state along the lines of what the PRC is instituting:
https://twitter.com/davetroy/status/1458537983649333252?s=20
The euphemisms in question are "demand transparency" and "KYC", which in practice mean imprisoning any one who don't give up their privacy.
His strategy for cloaking his fascistic aims is to accuse those he wants to subject to state violence of being the fascists. It's a preemptive deflection tactic.
That's why in the above tweet he makes the vague but emotionally charged accusation that "distributed zero-trust databases" are being "co-opted for historically fascist aims" by some nebulous set of parties within the crypto sector.