811–820 of 890 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So bank regulation worked in 2008, is was just a human failure? Communism works, it's just human failures? The measure of whether something works is whether it prevents human failure.
Socialism to some extent has been successful in some countries. Sweden is a good example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've heard this, but seen no real evidence. As of right now it's hearsay
More hearsay, but it seems to be increasing. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRxcP6dx/ Mostly posting it for later, in case it turns out to be true. There was also a tweet trying to pin it on a specific coworker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So… we will solve global warming by running a network of computers with custom ASICs at 100% utilization, cooling them as necessary, performing useless computation, so a cabal of technobros can move imaginary internet money around 10 times per second? Oh and increasing the power usage of this fire pile will, as you say, “improve the current situation”? Your point is that the only way we can avoid burning methane is t…
No, I've never claimed that. Regardless of what you think about Bitcoin, if it's useless or not, don't you agree that net negative is better than zero? Burning methane (flaring) is most definitely an improvement over not doing it. That's just a fact. It accounts for about 20% of global emissions and is 25 times as potent as CO2. https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane You would use Bitcoin mining as a monetary inc…
Regardless of whether you are pro- or anti- crypto, the collapse of FTX, SBF's bubble bursting in a rather extreme fashion, and now this hack are more nails in the coffin for mainstream support. I am no fan of crypto myself, but it's interesting to think what would have to happen for crypto to burnish its image. Would key people have to voluntarily form some sort of coordinating council and self-regulate? Would they…
Is it? Maybe this is part of the hardening of these systems? Part of the evolution which grows a thicker skin? What about all the trials of traditional currencies we all know and love? Not really a crypto fanboy, but I'm not sure this means the end of anything.
"John Law - The First Financial Engineer - A History of Paper Money and The Mississippi Bubble" :
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't this make all forms of bureaucracy (and hence, civilization) parasitic ? (Or are you just supposed to regularly "drain the swamp" ?)
No. Seems like a non sequitur to me.
"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." from (supposedly) Oscar Wilde
+
Survival of the fittest to survive, from Charles Darwin
?
(This is a serious question, I have been pondering it for years now...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>people on HN hate on cryptocurrencies for no good reason. Traditional bankers have spent an incredible amount of time and taken huge political risks to gain hold over the US money supply. They and people in the wall street sphere have a very good reason to hate on crypto, they just dont have any convincing arguments for people like us who dont want them controlling the money supply.
Crypto doesn't need Wall Street types to give it a bad name. It does that just fine on its own...
Somehow Satoshi and Andreessen managed to not start a ponzi scheme and this guy did.
Still waiting for your argument on why the big 7 wall street banks should be involved in the money supply instead of democratically elected leaders, which was my primary point.
This last week has been a rollercoaster. I've been in crypto since a long time ago and have seen quite a bit, but this FTX implosion takes the crown. And to be honest, I don't think its over.
If you believe there is more to come and this isn’t over, are you still holding crypto?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crypto doesn't need Wall Street types to give it a bad name. It does that just fine on its own...
> In the summer of 2013, Bankman-Fried began working at Jane Street Capital, a proprietary trading firm,[2] trading international ETFs. Somehow Satoshi and Andreessen managed to not start a ponzi scheme and this guy did. Still waiting for your argument on why the big 7 wall street banks should be involved in the money supply instead of democratically elected leaders, which was my primary point.
Are you replying to the right post? I don't see any mention of that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wall Street doesn't rug pull people. It sells them bad bets and takes the opposite side of those bets. There is a massive difference.
It’s not a massive difference just a rug pull at a higher conceptual level (informational) because the obvious financial rug pull was done a hundred years ago and has since been regulated.
Almost everyone who has lost their shirt in financial derivatives in the past 50 years could have learned about the risks they were taking from some text in a prospectus somewhere, but chose not to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it doesn't increase the money supply because the FDIC has a pre-existing fund for it. They're not funded by the Treasury and when they are they pay it back. Though the US could've used more inflation at any point up to 2021 considering our inability to ever get unemployment low enough. (since they're theoretically more or less directly related)
Pre-existing Funds that are just sitting waiting around to be put into depositor accounts once a bank fails have low to no velocity. Giving them to money-spending depositors is inflationary by virtue of increasing the velocity of that money that was previously just sitting on the sideline. Even in the scenario you present is inflationary.
What matters is where the old funds went. The bank might’ve been spending it out the back, but in that case the inflationary actions already happened.