Slashdot Mirror


Bitcoin Price Jumps 21% Over 4 Days, Reaching a 21-Month High (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader shares a TechCrunch report: Bitcoin is back! Or at least, there are positive signs indicating that bitcoin might not be as dead as everybody thought. Bitcoins are now trading at $547.40 on Bitfinex (the largest USD/bitcoin exchange according to Bitcoinity). And it represents a big 21.4 percent price jump over just four days. Today's price represents a 21-month high. Surprisingly, bitcoin prices had been relatively stable for the last two months before this weekend's jump. What's the reason behind this jump? It's hard to say. Huobi and OKCoin, the two dominant Chinese exchanges, have seen many new sign-ups, as well as many buy orders. Increasingly, bitcoin's price variations are correlated with macroeconomic trends in China. These trends tell us that China still fears a deflation.

106 comments

  1. If you read The Wall Street Journal... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Feds are planning to raise interest rates at their next meeting in June.

    1. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      The Fed is not saying that, the Fed is posturing, pretending to be 'data dependent'. Well, the data today is worse than it was 8 years ago. Thus by the standard set by the Fed there cannot be an interest rate hike. There should be a hike to start restructurinf the debts honestly but its probability is extremely low. The Fed is dead blind and stupid as it is always.

    2. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well, the data today is worse than it was 8 years ago.

      Really?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Really. All of the economic indicators are worse today, real indicators that deal with sales, production, trade deficit and balance, dollar debt bubble. Retail sales, stock to sales ratio, actual vs posted employment, wage levels. Everything that matters is worse today, the economy has been in a recession, probably a depression all this time. The Fed is as deaf blind and stupid as it was then, same with most of the rest of the populace. When the Fed says they are 'data dependent' what they should preface that with is that the only data they care about is relative stock and housing prices, which are inflation related, not economy related.

    4. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Well, the data today is worse than it was 8 years ago.

      Fox News is not an accurate source of economic information.

    5. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Everything that matters is worse today, the economy has been in a recession, probably a depression all this time.

      Uh, no. The recovery has been flat but that's expected. It took 25 years for the economy to recover from the Great Depression. The economy after the Great Recession will take less time than that to return to normal, but it will probably be another decade or so. Eight years is too short for a recovery of this scale.

    6. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Ah the no true Scotsman fallacy. If the indicator is up, then it is not real.

      You killed your own argument by your hyperbole. If you had claimed that the recovery is not as strong as it might seem, this is clearly a point for debate. However you went for the "cows fly while playing the violin" which is so blatantly false that is not worth debating.

      Go back to the data and have a look at it with a clear cool head (somehow I doubt you are capable on this) and then we can talk.

    7. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox News is not an accurate source of information.

      FTFY.

    8. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Tuesday, December 8, 2015
      Labour force participation rate 62.5, which was 1/10 of a percent from the lowest level since mid 70s.
      Biggest surge, 300,000 part time jobs created rather than full time jobs
      Janet Yellen 'was looking for improvement of the job market'. How is that an improvement.
      Manufacturing ISM number on that day was at a 6 year low
      Service sector ISM number was below estimates
      Retail sales were abysmal
      Consumer confidence was falling
      everything was pointing to a slowing economy

      Then on the 16th of December the Fed raised the interest rates by 0.25 percentage points. Then in January of 2016 the market had the biggest decline since 2009 responding to a mere 0.25% rate 'hike' (which wasn't even a hike, it was a move in 'range', which actually moved the interest rate by about 0.15 since the previous range was 0-0.25, the new range is 0.25-0.5, the actual number in the old range was about 0.11-0.18 or so).

      The Fed is not looking at the economic data at all, the reason they raised the interest last December had nothing to do with the economy, it was pure politics. The Fed was promising a rate hike for such a long time it had to save face. Yellen floated the idea of a rate hike for about a month or so before they raised it, the markets didn't move much, so they raised it just to make it look like they can reduce the Fed's balance sheet. Reducing the Fed's balance sheet is impossible without a massive interest rate hike, which will hit should the Fed start selling the long term bonds they are holding, especially after the operation 'twist' (selling short term bonds and buying long term bonds from the sellers, effectively switching a large portion of the Treasury debt to a short term, variable rate mortgage).

      Basically the Fed is in a box, it wants to look like it can get out of it but in reality if it does try it will annihilate the ability of the USA Treasury to pay even the interest on the debt, never mind the principal.

      AFAIC you are an ignorant fool, not any different from all the ignorant fools who didn't understand the economy before 2008 and thus couldn't see the clear signs of a bubble that was about to burst. The next one is in the USA debt, which will lead to a currency crisis. Enjoy your blissful ignorance before the reality hits.

    9. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Tuesday, December 8, 2015
      Labour force participation rate 62.5, which was 1/10 of a percent from the lowest level since mid 70s.
      Biggest surge, 300,000 part time jobs created rather than full time jobs
      Janet Yellen 'was looking for improvement of the job market'. How is that an improvement.
      Manufacturing ISM number on that day was at a 6 year low
      Service sector ISM number was below estimates
      Retail sales were abysmal
      Consumer confidence was falling
      everything was pointing to a slowing economy

      First, labor force participation rate is a total bullshit statistic. During the country's biggest periods of sustained growth, the labor force participation rate was at its lowest. It's a BS statistic because nobody knows what it's supposed to be or if it's supposed to be 59% or 83%. Higher workforce participation does not indicate a strong economy.

      And maybe you don't remember what was going on in 2008, when in one year we lost 2.6 million jobs.

      http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/0...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      You know, before you open your mouth you should truly stop once in a while and think what it is that you are trying to say in the first place. What 'sustained growth' are you talking about? Where is this supposed 'sustained growth', 'sustained growth' in what? In debt? Sure. In inflation (money printing)? Sure. In bubble formation? Ok.

      Sustained growth in production, which is what economy is? No. There is no growth in productive output, which is clear from the bloody yearly trade deficits that USA has been running for over two decades now. USA least productive in its recorded history today, only surviving on the welfare provided by the Chinese and the like, who are feeding, clothing the country as well as providing it with almost every other modern manufactured good. It is China that is sustaining economic growth, America is sustaining growth of debt, inflation and misery, not productivity.

    11. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Then on the 16th of December the Fed raised the interest rates by 0.25 percentage points. Then in January of 2016 the market had the biggest decline since 2009 responding to a mere 0.25% rate 'hike' [...]

      That's expected. Wall Street has been addicted to easy money for the last two decades. You can thank Alan Greenspan for that. When the feds raise interest rates in June, expect another stock market correction to take place. When that happens, I'll be buying up my favorite stocks at lower prices in my retirement accounts.

      AFAIC you are an ignorant fool, not any different from all the ignorant fools who didn't understand the economy before 2008 and thus couldn't see the clear signs of a bubble that was about to burst.

      The gloom-and-doom stories sells The Wall Street Journal, but I based my financial decisions on facts and not emotions. If that makes me an ignorant fool, so be it.

    12. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by roman_mir · · Score: 0
    13. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You know, before you open your mouth you should truly stop once in a while and think what it is that you are trying to say in the first place. What 'sustained growth' are you talking about?

      I'm talking about the post-war period, when the labor participation rate was much lower than it is now.

      What time did you start drinking today? I'm a let this one go because you're doubling down on the ridiculous notion that things are worse today than they were in 2008. I'll chalk it up to too much holiday for you.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by Alomex · · Score: 1

      I won't waste my time debunking each of your incorrect points individually, but here's one as a sample.

      Consumer confidence was falling

      US Consumer Confidence Index is at 94.2 up from a historical low of 25 eight years ago.

      U of Michigan Consumer sentiment is at 94 up from a low of 55 eight years ago.

      Those are facts in direct contradiction that we are worse than eight years ago, which was your initial claim.

      But you are right about one thing. I was too generous in describing your claims as hyperbole.

    15. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      That's expected. Wall Street has been addicted to easy money for the last two decades. You can thank Alan Greenspan for that.

      - why should "I" thank him? He is the worst excuse for a banker there was.. before Bernanke and then before Yellen.

      When the feds raise interest rates in June, expect another stock market correction to take place. When that happens, I'll be buying up my favorite stocks at lower prices in my retirement accounts.

      - right, you think there will be an interest rate hike, we'll see, I don't think there will be one but if this one happens it will be reversed quickly since the Fed is not data dependent, they are stock market dependent.

      The gloom-and-doom stories sells The Wall Street Journal, but I based my financial decisions on facts and not emotions. If that makes me an ignorant fool, so be it.

      - who exactly at the WSJ was actually on top of the housing bubble? Sure, sure, facts and emotions, did you short the tech market before the 2000 crash? the housing before 2008? Are you short the USA dollar and bonds today (at least by not being in them)? Your so called facts and emotions are based on government propaganda or are you actually looking at economic data? The answer is obvious.

    16. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The answer is obvious.

      It's obvious that you're wrong.

    17. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a currency crisis is inevitable. What should I do about it? Stock up on bullets and heirloom seeds?

    18. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using the term 'hyperbole' was the *polite* way of describing your argument. (BTW, posting a link to another copy of your copy-pasta claims does not support your claims in any manner.)

    19. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      No News is an accurate source of information. Only source of information is raw data that is unfiltered by biased people, allowing me to apply my own filters as I see fit. Raw unfiltered data is accurate, and meaning is applied only after we put our own bias on it.

      Once you realize this, then you can actually expand your worldview in such a way to minimize your own bias, and stop seeing things in binary (R) vs (D), Conservative vs Liberal, MSM vs Faux News.

      Take the Gorilla story (not right vs left), I didn't hear about it until well afterwards. And the initial reports I heard was that a busy mom lost sight of her kid for just a moment, who crawled over a fence and fell down into the cage. And the heartbreak of a dead Gorilla. Then I saw the various "Should have saved the Gorilla" and "Mom wasn't at fault" to "irresponsible zoo" to "irresponsible mom". And having all that "filtered" by media, and people with agenda's I came to an early conclusion. That being said, the more I've looked into (not much, but a little), I heard that there were three barriers between the public, and the Gorilla (don't know if that is true), I've heard it happened very quickly. Now, those two things are not related (IMHO, my bias) so, something isn't fitting here.

      I've heard Gorilla experts say, that the Gorilla was a "wild creature and dangerous, needing to be killed to save the kid" and "Gorilla was protecting the scared child in a Gorilla sort of way". Again, two opposite things. I am 100% sure that both opinions are of pure intention, but only one of them can be right, and both can be wrong.

      I don't know gorillas, and I don't know the kid or the parents. The only conclusion I can come to, is that it was a tragedy. It could have ended in another kind of tragedy or in a way that everyone would be "happier" about. Any "opinion" I might have is actually irrelevant.

      And you know what? My view would have pulled the story from the airwaves about 30 minutes after it hit. But that doesn't drive ratings! MUST DIVIDE AND CREATE CONTROVERSY!!!!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    20. Re:If you read The Wall Street Journal... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      You can thank Alan Greenspan for that.

      - why should "I" thank him?

      "Nothing goes over my head! My reflexes are too fast, I would catch it."

  2. Bitcoin was not dead, nor is it "back" by gox · · Score: 1

    The rationale behind Bitcoin is to ensure that everyone/everything, regardless of jurisdiction or position, have access to a common economy. What matters is its penetration to everyday lives.

    Market price is irrelevant. It could go sky high and still fail in its mission.

    1. Re:Bitcoin was not dead, nor is it "back" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with Bitcoin has nothing to do with its exchange rate (per se). The problem is the limitation of the blockchain. Transactions are getting slowwwwwwwwww. It's probably time to migrate to a different cryptocurrency, such as Ether.

    2. Re:Bitcoin was not dead, nor is it "back" by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      It could go sky high and still fail in its mission.

      Indeed, it couldn't go sky high and not fail in its mission. With those kinds of rapid value changes and deflationary tendency, it would, under those circumstances, prove itself to be a valuable commodity, but it would be a very poor choice for a currency. Alas, goldbugs usually don't understand the difference...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:Bitcoin was not dead, nor is it "back" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why - when lightning networks solves the problem on the existing Blockchain?

      (And especially since Ether doesn't know how to solve the PoW/PoS issue)

    4. Re:Bitcoin was not dead, nor is it "back" by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      As a deflationary currency, we wouldn't need social Security or other "retirement" programs. The people who work earn currency, and save it, deflation rate becomes a savings incentive, and wealth building. The down side, is that accumulated wealth of deflationary currency tends to not work (velocity of currency) where debt based currency does.

      My view, is that it is much easier to control debt riddled people than those that own their own wealth.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re: Bitcoin was not dead, nor is it "back" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lightning network doesn't exist.

  3. Spike is caused by Ransomware Extortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We've seen a uptick in ransomware infections over the same time frame. Coincidence? I don't think so....

    1. Re: Spike is caused by Ransomware Extortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think this is a big factor - watching realtime transactions at bitcoin exchanges, there are lots for ~1.5 BTC which is how much cryptolocker is charging

    2. Re: Spike is caused by Ransomware Extortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Morons.

    3. Re: Spike is caused by Ransomware Extortion by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I'm in IT, and people often ask me about CryptoViruses, I basically tell them, use GoogleDrive, OneDrive, Box, DropBox or any number of other "cloud" based systems, and back their important shit up. Also, get a External Drive and back up (and take offline) their shit to that too. I tell them, if your computer Hard Drive died tomorrow, what would you lose? The same is true for CryptoVirusus, only that is more likely these days.

      The fact is, too many people don't want the inconvenience of backing their shit up, or doesn't even know to do it.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  4. Dead? No way. BitCoin spending has been increasing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While there are lots of places to spend BitCoin more and more local businesses are accepting BitCoin than ever before. In Keene, NH we've got a bunch. Maybe New Hampshire is different, but I don't even have a phone capable of spending BitCoin yet. I'm a bit of an oddball in that the majority of my BitCoin activity has been on my computer. My company has been accepting BitCoin for a while now and we've gone from depositing funds into our bank account to simply spending them. That's a dramatic change. We have employees who want to be paid in BitCoin too! It's not dead and we're not even to the stage where its ramping up. There are no businesses as far as I'm aware that are even targeting merchants in the physical world. There are potential business models and people that are beginning to move from helping businesses get setup with BitCoin to making money off it. Once we see that there is profit to be had in spreading BitCoin at a local level then you'll see it increase much more rapidly.

  5. Chinese Devaluation by Koby77 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not hard to say, over there weekend there was a currency devaluation in China.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

    If you knew that the cash that you saved will buy less than it does right now, how would you protect it? Buying bitcoin is one possible answer. By the way, the fear is not deflation. Deflation would mean that your cash can buy MORE in the future. This is a devaluation, where your currency will buy less. China fears that they will need to print up large amounts of cash to bail out several bankrupt industries, and is attempting to devalue now to prevent a massive crash.

    1. Re:Chinese Devaluation by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Devaluation isn't possible in deflationary currency. Devaluation only occurs in inflationary currency.

      The reason why BitCoin is working in China is because people don't want to be beholden to externally manipulated currencies and rapid devaluation. By moving their wealth to deflationary currency, they are taking a buy/hold approach to wealth accumulation. And wealthy people cannot be controlled.

      Guess what my prediction is for China? It tries to ban (make illegal) and confiscates BitCoin (and other Crypto Currencies) from its people.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  6. China's currency falters so they invest in BITCOIN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol? This can only end well for them.

  7. New batch of ransomware trojans hit the street? by Opportunist · · Score: 0

    Or why else?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:New batch of ransomware trojans hit the street? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. We saw a big uptick in infections last week...

  8. Bitcoin's designed for transactions not investment by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin isn't really designed for investment, in the buy-and-hold sense where you hope the value goes up.
    What it's designed for is making transactions, so you can buy and sell regular goods over the internet with lower transaction costs than credit cards or PayPal, and so you can buy and sell (ahem) less regular goods over the internet with much less traceability than credit cards or PayPal, even though you don't get the advantage of being able to cancel the payment or limit it to $50 if the seller defaults.

    Of course, what it's really not designed for is storing in a bank where somebody you don't 100% trust is holding it for you, because it's also an extremely convenient transaction methods for embezzlement, either by the bank's managers or employees or other insiders, and digital safecracking lets you become an insider without all the noise and dust of using dynamite or the risks of using guns.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  9. Great News! by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because let's be honest--who doesn't want a currency whose value is 20% different than it was last week?

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:Great News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      At least Russians, Japaneses, Argentinians

    2. Re:Great News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2008-09-25 $1 CAD = $0.9711 USD
      2008-10-28 $1 CAD = $0.7695 USD

      26% volatility in just one month for a major currency from a country that is generally considered economically stable, and, at that point, was considered one of the few countries whose economy would weather the global economic depression (okay, "recession") well.

      Because, let's be honest, this happens all the time to real money as well. You just pretend that it can only happen to bitcoin.

    3. Re:Great News! by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1

      I mean, can you think of any, I dunno, unusual things that happened to the global economy between 9/25/2008 and 10/28/2008?

      Or would you call this specific period on our world's financial history just another typical 30-day window, where 20% fluctuations in major global currencies are a totally normal and commonplace and not at all hugely rare and alarming thing?

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    4. Re:Great News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is it's unfair of me to compare unusual events in typically stable fiat currencies to unusual events for bitcoin. Gotcha. I won't bother playing that game, but thanks for letting me know how you think!

    5. Re:Great News! by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1

      Would you bother playing the "how do they compare over the past 1- or 2- year period" game, then? In the name of fairness, of course--neither one of us cherry-picking a particularly good or bad 30-day window for either currency, no?

      CDN-USD 1 yr: low 1.22, high 1.45

      BTC-USD 1 yr: low $209, high $537

      CDN-USD 2 yr: low 1.06, high 1.45

      BTC-USD 2 yr: low $177, high $665

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    6. Re:Great News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who are very risk averse, and who don't see any other qualities which matter besides this week's stability.

  10. This will piss off Trump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    after all of his irrational attacks on it.

    1. Re: This will piss off Trump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'll be as successful banning BitCoin as he was with alcohol. He wants to bring Prohibition back.

    2. Re: This will piss off Trump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He, like the rest of the republicans, hate things they don't understand.

    3. Re: This will piss off Trump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great. More of that moral majority crap from the 1980s.

    4. Re: This will piss off Trump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'll be as successful banning BitCoin as he was with alcohol. He wants to bring Prohibition back.

      Liberals are delusional.

    5. Re: This will piss off Trump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you like beer, don't vote for tRump.

  11. Re:Dead? No way. BitCoin spending has been increas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tl;dr Please buy bitcoin. I refuse to count the sunken cost.

    (said every Ponzi scheme investor ever, alas)

  12. Two quick questions by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Feds are planning to raise interest rates at their next meeting in June.

    From a previous post, you seem to be in touch with economics and financial matters. Here's a question for you, and I'm not trying to be snarky.

    The fed lent out money at 0% interest for the last 7 years or so, in an attempt to kickstart the economy.

    The loans went out to big banks, and I remember at the time that a lot of the loans were going to foreign banks, especially in Germany.

    Question 1:

    Many of those banks turned the money around and lent it back to the US at higher interest. This just about doubled the national debt over that period.

    If we were giving out 0% loans, why couldn't we have repurchased our own debt with 0% loans? The amount of money would have been the same, but instead of profits going to the banks, we could have reduced our debt burden and increased net revenue for government spending.

    Question 2:

    We're told that social security will go bankrupt in a few years, in our own lifetime, due to a temporary glut of baby boomers retiring. We have to adjust by accepting smaller payouts and working longer.

    Why can't we just give the SSA a 0% interest loan to cover the shortfall for a few years? Social Security has almost always taken in more than it spends yearly, and if it can work through the glut it would become solvent a few years later.

    I'm trying to understand economics, but I don't have the benefit of the standard curriculum.

    Can you tell me why these things aren't just that simple?

    1. Re:Two quick questions by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The amount of money would have been the same, but instead of profits going to the banks, we could have reduced our debt burden and increased net revenue for government spending.

      The reason why the federal government has budget deficits is because Congress authorizes more spending that exceeds the amount of tax revenue coming in. The Treasury issues bonds to cover the difference. This problem could be fixed by raising taxes and cutting spending. Of course, that's not a popular position with voters. They want it both ways — less taxes, more spending, and let tomorrow's generation pick up the tab.

      We're told that social security will go bankrupt in a few years, in our own lifetime, due to a temporary glut of baby boomers retiring. We have to adjust by accepting smaller payouts and working longer.

      It's a lot worse than that. In 2030, all the Baby Boomer will be retired, retirees will outnumber workers, and two-thirds of the federal budget will go to Medicare/Social Security. Taxes will have to go way, way up to pay for everything else. It's better to be poor or rich, but not middle class as they will have to pay for everything.

      I'm trying to understand economics, but I don't have the benefit of the standard curriculum.

      Get a subscription to The Wall Street Journal.

    2. Re:Two quick questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cremier is an idiot. An example of what you are talking about is The Bank of North Dakota. It works great. But the federal government doesn't really have to balance its budget, nor should it. A big reason boils down to inflation. As a society, we want to encourage people with money to invest it, so inflation isn't a problem in the first place. Nor is deficit spending.

      But to answer your actual questions:

      1: This reason for this is as political as it is economic. If we borrow money from Germany, Germany will have a vested interest in our success. Just like in the Federalist Papers.

      2: Social Security isn't going anywhere. By 2030 millennials will save us all by entering the workforce. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/11/millennials-surpass-gen-xers-as-the-largest-generation-in-u-s-labor-force/

      Also don't be like creimer and learn economics from the WSJ.

    3. Re:Two quick questions by mmortal03 · · Score: 1

      Your first question reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    4. Re:Two quick questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly because politicians aren't economists.

      Congress makes the budget based on politics which often superficially cloaks itself in economics (along with science) but ultimately the decisions are not being made for optimal resource utilization, but rather by each member of congress optimizing their own political gain. The only reason it even comes close to working is that the whole jenga tower falling down is a loss for everyone involved so we generally get moderately stupid economic policy rather than completely stupid policy.

    5. Re:Two quick questions by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      Question 1:

      Many of those banks turned the money around and lent it back to the US at higher interest. This just about doubled the national debt over that period.

      If we were giving out 0% loans, why couldn't we have repurchased our own debt with 0% loans? The amount of money would have been the same, but instead of profits going to the banks, we could have reduced our debt burden and increased net revenue for government spending.

      We didn't issue credit (loans) at 0%, we sold our debt. Congress authorized bonds to be sold, the Treasury printed dollars to match and the Federal Reserve bought the debt. The Federal Reserve then turned around and re-sold the debt to other large banks who sold to smaller banks, etc.

      The idea was to increase the amount of money in circulation, not pay down the National Debt. The concern at the time was that the credit markets had frozen and businesses could not get (borrow) the capital they needed.

    6. Re:Two quick questions by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The Fed is not the Federal Government. It is a private banking system. This is a common misunderstanding.

      The Debt (Federal) is a function of spending and taxes. Increasing the debt is a function of the House of Representatives and the President, with the Senate in a consent role. These debts are covered by bonds issued to private people.

      What is really happening (IMHO) is that The Fed loans money out at 0% (or near that) and those people buy up the Federal Debt Bonds at whatever the going rate is. It doesn't matter how much debt is issued, if you can borrow money to buy it, and you'll always be making a profit, even if it is very small. The Fed can't raise Interest, without exposing this problem, and so we're stuck in this cycle.

      Yes, the debt has doubled under Obama and the Republicans, and is more than likely to double again in the next 8 years (Clinton/Sanders/Trump). It doesn't matter which of the two irresponsible parties are in office, which is why it isn't a real campaign issue. Remember, Obama call the Bush Debt, "unpatriotic", which IMHO was one of the few things he said that was correct. The debt more than doubled under his watch, and perhaps he meant it was unpatriotic that it was so low (who knows??)

      The SSA is a different problem all together. The wealth that has been taken and put in a "lock box" is all a nice shell game. There is no lock box, its just a shoebox full of IOUs. The congress, has already spent that money elsewhere on other things. It is just an accounting gimmick. There is no surplus, it has been repurposed.

      The reason all of this works, is because the American people are willingly ignorant, and trust our leaders to do the right thing. The American people have abdicated their role as leaders, and handed it over to our public servants, because we can't be bothered (as a whole) to pay attention. And the few of us that are paying attention are called "kooks" and "nutjobs" and "extremists" and .... precisely because it marginalizes us.

      And people want to know why Trump, Sanders, and Hillary are our "Best" candidates? It is simply a reflection of how little our citizens care about what our country is doing.

      Hey look, Kim Kardashian is naked .... again!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:Two quick questions by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The capital is being sucked up by financial institutions, and accumulating there. It is also being held captive overseas. The problem isn't the supply, it is velocity. And until people realize that when the government is confiscating wealth (via taxes), the situation isn't going to change.

      I have a solution that would greatly increase velocity, but conservatives wouldn't like it, and liberal/socialist would hate it, because it would require actual responsibility and not kicking the can down the road to the next President/Congress is elected.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:Two quick questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Question 1 deals with 3 separate concepts that you (and the majority of people) lump together. "Government debt" has at least two types. The first type is congress and the president spending money that they do not have. Government spending essentially works like a person living off of a credit card and assuming that their next paycheck will cover the loan/charges. It is a matter of poor money management, plain and simple.

      Debt created by the Federal Reserve is different. First off, the Federal Reserve ("the Fed") is not a part of the government. It is a separate entity (like a corporation) created by the government (sort of like the Post Office) for the purpose of making the economy run smoother. It is supposed to provide oversight to banks and manage the amount of US dollars (physical and electronic) flowing around the planet. When the Fed incurs debt, it is the process of injecting money into the economy. The "incurring debt" part is largely a balance sheet trick.

      The Fed follows a philosophy called Monetary Theory (largely attributed to Milton Friedman). Basically, that means that inflation and deflation are caused by the amount of money in circulation. In the theory, inflation is caused by too much money in circulation, and deflation is caused by too little. An example of deflation is the Fed's reaction to economic issues in the late 1920s that turned a mild recession into the Great Depression (or more accurately kick it off) when the Fed reduced the amount of US dollars flowing around the world in response to a tariff war between the US and European countries. An example of inflation is when Paul Volker increased the monetary supply to force the US economy into a mild recession to get it out of stagflation in the early 1980s.

      As to why money was given to the banks... Procedurally, that is the mechanism that the Fed has at its disposal. Part of its oversight of the banks includes lending money to them in order to increase the money supply. Normally, this money only goes to US banks, but they made an exception of German banks because it indirectly affected the US. To understand this, go back to inflation/deflation. In Monetary theory, if money is removed from the economy, it causes deflation. How was money removed you ask? Remember what you have heard about fractional banking. When a depositor deposits $10 in a savings account at a bank, the bank lends out $9 and keeps $1 in reserve. In this process, the bank is actually creating money. It is created by issuing debt. So in this case, the $10 becomes $19. You own $10 of it (physical money), and the person borrowing the $9 now has $9 (electronic money). When the real estate mortgage crisis hit in 2008, the debt (backing the $9 lent out in our example from fractional banking) dissolved almost overnight. This caused the money supply to sharply decrease, which the Fed expected to lead to deflation. The German banks were holding a lot of that debt, and their deflation would have hurt the US, so the Fed gave them the loans.

  13. Negative interest rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a time when negative interest rates are becoming more common, going to cash would be a rational choice. Given how difficult getting and holding lots of cash is, perhaps bitcoin is the next best thing.

  14. A 21% jump should worry people by mhkohne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Volatile currencies are only good for people who trade currency. People who are trying to get things done want a nice stable currency so they don't have to play day-trader on the side while running their business.

    --
    A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
    1. Re:A 21% jump should worry people by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hu?

      You don't grasp the concept of Bitcoin.

      If I sell on my website a car for 1.5 Bitcoins, you only need to consider what Bitcoins cost right now, decide if it is worth it. If so, buy the 1.5 Bitcoins and then conduct the transaction.

      Tomorrow the same car might cost 1.4 or 1.6 Bitcoins. Proceed as above, no risk involved for you.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:A 21% jump should worry people by heteromonomer · · Score: 0

      Mod up please

    3. Re:A 21% jump should worry people by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      If I'm using Bitcoin merely as a payment mechanism, e.g. I hold my cash in a "proper" currency and only convert it to Bitcoin in order to make the transaction for the car, then sure, I don't need to worry too much about wild fluctuations in its value - the spot price is good enough. It's worth pointing out that unless you adjusted the price of the hypothetical car in the interim it's now going to be 21% more expensive than it was when you listed it compared to that "proper" currency, so unlikely to be attacting many potential buyers in the first place.

      OP, however, was talking about actual currencies - e.g. buying into the whole "Bitcoin as a currency alternative" idea and actually keeping some liquid assets in Bitcoin. In that case, I'd be very alarmed about a 21% fluctuation - in either direction - in such a short timescale, because that kind of volatility in an actual currency never a good sign and usually indicates some severe financial problems, or even an impending collapse. Quite how that kind of traditional currency market problem translates across to Bitcoin is still a matter of some conjecture, but I think it's *far* too soon to be making predictions about how this is going to turn out; yes, it could be the start of a price rally as TFA suggests, in which case now would be a good time to buy some Bitcoin, if it's just people using it as a hedge in case their own currency devalues (see post about China, above) then they'll be cashing out again fairly soon and the price of Bitcoin will likely drop again.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    4. Re:A 21% jump should worry people by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

      Bitcoin was only launched in 2009, so it's a little young for a currency. If you want to wait for a century before using it like old-world money, be my guest. In the meantime, I'll be enjoying all the technical and societal benefits of a truly distributed payment system.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    5. Re:A 21% jump should worry people by Kjella · · Score: 1

      In that case, I'd be very alarmed about a 21% fluctuation - in either direction - in such a short timescale, because that kind of volatility in an actual currency never a good sign and usually indicates some severe financial problems, or even an impending collapse.

      Most of it is just the same boom-bust cycles as in the stock market, everybody wants to get in when it goes up and everybody wants to get out when it goes down. Central banks actually do quite a bit to stabilize the currency, with nobody to do that and very few having any kind of commitments in Bitcoins it will be volatile. For moderate amounts that is of course annoying but not deal breaking in that it's "win some, lose some". There's of course the chance of a death spiral since there's no real floor for how low it can go, but as long as there are enough people who will to buy on the belief it'll bounce back - and there's many believers - it doesn't seem much of a real risk.

      Cash is really not a good investment vehicle anyway, for most people cash is what bridges you from the paycheck to paying rent and groceries. The holding of currency is mostly just because the transaction cost of buying and selling something more durable like valuable metals or speculating in stocks isn't worth it. I'd use Bitcoin much the same, enough to pay this month's bills and the savings in something else. Sure losing 21% of my paycheck in a weekend would suck - though a 21% gain would be great, but it's not really going to shake my net worth in its foundations. I still don't see the great case for Bitcoin, but it certainly beats bartering.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:A 21% jump should worry people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given there aren't any technical or societal benefits to Bitcoin, your enjoyment will be quite short lived.

    7. Re:A 21% jump should worry people by Lennie · · Score: 1

      The problem is: Bitcoin is still a pretty small economy. So when something happens it will be reflected in the value in a big way.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    8. Re:A 21% jump should worry people by mmortal03 · · Score: 1

      Immutability and censorship resistance come to mind.

    9. Re:A 21% jump should worry people by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      In which case Bitcoin is like paypal without fees, and no its own "currency".

      Whenever you talk in terms of a currency you have to talk in terms of that currency being fixed in some form. I.e. like right now when I get paid in Euros but have a mortgage in dollars. That's that what it means to have a usable currency rather than just a payment service. When a true currency becomes that volatile you typically witness the wholesale exit of that currency, like in Iraq when people were basically doing anything in their power to get their hands on US Dollars to bring stability to their lives.

    10. Re:A 21% jump should worry people by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      What do you mean, without fees? I would have to pay a fee to transform dollars into bitcoins, pay the miner to put my transaction in a block today, and then whoever I am buying it from will take the money out of bitcoin and into dollars again: There's plenty of fees and delays in there. Given how much it costs to mine, I'd not be surprised if credit cards ended up being both cheaper and faster.

      So Bitcoin becomes a mix between a volatile currency and an expensive payment system: It's biggest selling point is that it makes illegal transactions easier than the regulated banking system.

    11. Re:A 21% jump should worry people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the stock market were to fluctuate by 20%+ in a single day that would be a worrying thing indeed...

  15. Re: Dead? No way. BitCoin spending has been increa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most operations with bitcoins are just exchanges from/to other currencies, not to exchange goods. Bitcoin is not a currency, it's a commodity that is bought and sold with different currencies, or kept. As shares or any other financial product.

    Like many products that are not consumed or worn out, they are object os speculation, with bubbles and crashes. As the intrinsic value is zero, any value is overpriced, so it's always a bubble.

  16. That's even worse by dugancent · · Score: 0

    There is no chance in hell I'm every using a currency that jumps 21% in 4 days, or even 21% in 4 months. Stability triumphs.

    --
    SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    1. Re:That's even worse by ledow · · Score: 1

      USD against EUR changed 10% in the last 6 months, and nothing particularly unusual is changing in either currency at this moment.

      https://www.oanda.com/solution...

      20% in 4 days is rapid, sure, but fuck - an iPhone can change in price that much if there's enough demand, and it's still up in the air whether Bitcoin is a currency or a commodity like that.

    2. Re:That's even worse by dugancent · · Score: 1

      10% is less than half of this change, and that was over half a year. I stand by what I said.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    3. Re:That's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think the question is what is: A 21% change compared to what?

      Take, for example, Canada's dollar. It fell about 25% in around three months at the start of 2016 compared to the US dollar. But the US dollar was going up while Canada's dollar was dipping a little. Nothing really changed in Canada. Prices stayed the same, the job market was about level, there was no social change happening. It's just a fluxuation that happens about once a decade here when currencies travel in opposite directions (value-wise).

      Canada's dollar is now clmbing (slowly) against the US dollar and the economy is still stable. A 20% fluxuation really is not all that unusual, when compared against other currencies.

    4. Re:That's even worse by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      The value that a USD will buy inside the US has moved less than 2% in the past year. One buys most of their stuff from within their own country. Suppose your mortgage fluctuated by 21% in four days. Would you be happy with that? What if it fluctuated the "wrong" way? Would you be donating your house to your bank?

  17. There's a sucker born, every day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Repeat: There's a sucker born, every day! Apply to bitcoin.

  18. That wasn't the question by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    The reason why the federal government has budget deficits is [...]

    That wasn't the question.

    1. Re:That wasn't the question by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The reason why the federal government has budget deficits is [...]

      That wasn't the question.

      No, that was the answer. ;)

    2. Re: That wasn't the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He doesn't want to answer the question because it would require thinking outside the his little bubble. Its absurd that we as society allow the big banks to continue to exits. They borrow at next to nothing and loan the money right back to "us" at a much higher interest rate, make the spread and if they ever get into trouble with too many bad loans, well, uncle Sam to the rescue. They are a wealth transfer mechanism from the working class to the ultra rich...

    3. Re: That wasn't the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW... I have strong libertarian leanings and am very much pro capitalism but that requires everyone to play by the same rules. If these fcks are gonna cheat and transfer billions into their pockets through theft, then bring on Bernie and steal it right back from them.

    4. Re: That wasn't the question by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      He doesn't want to answer the question because it would require thinking outside the his little bubble.

      Nope. The question was nonsensical as far as it concerns the national debt.

      They borrow at next to nothing and loan the money right back to "us" at a much higher interest rate, make the spread and if they ever get into trouble with too many bad loans, well, uncle Sam to the rescue.

      That's the fractional reserve banking system. Deposit a dollar into your savings account, the bank can lend out $10 by making a book entry. Where banks get into trouble is lending out too much money ($30 per every $1) and don't have enough money in the safe to cover a bank run. Hence, Uncle Sam has to periodically step in to keep the system liquid. Otherwise, we would have a depression every 25 years or so as we did during the 19th century.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

      They are a wealth transfer mechanism from the working class to the ultra rich.

      That's the nature of economic transactions. If you position yourself on the right side of a transaction, say, buy low and sell high, wealth will transfer to you. If not, wealth will transfer away from you. Anyone can do this.

    5. Re: That wasn't the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its absurd that we as society allow the big banks to continue to exits.

      Sentences like this make me wonder if your understanding of Economics is any better than your (mis)use of grammar.

    6. Re: That wasn't the question by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      So, instead of having depression (correction) every 25 years, we have a banking system bailout by the Federal Government every ... 25 ... years.

      The only difference is, those responsible don't lose money now. And you seem to think this is better.

      I have seen three such "corrections" in my 52 years on this planet. This last one, has lasted nearly 14 years (started after 9/11) by my reckoning. The economy is stagnate, and unresponsive.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re: That wasn't the question by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I have seen three such "corrections" in my 52 years on this planet.

      Statistically, an average person will experience two recessions and a depression in their lifetime.

  19. Imagine if it was worth something... by gavron · · Score: 1, Interesting

    When the music stops the people left holding the bitcoin will be the losers because Bitcoin is the pay-to-play version of musical chairs.

    It's never been worth anything and still isn't worth anything let alone $545, $525, or even $500.

    It's a VERY-TEMPORARY right-to-sell that keeps getting transferred from last week's sucker to next week's sucker.

    This is "timely /. news" in the same sense that Prince's hard drive may be auctioned off at some price.

    E

    1. Re:Imagine if it was worth something... by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      Amazon should create their own block chain currency tied to some metric like the net value of their warehouse inventory. It'd be some modern consumerist gold standard. Giving someone "Amazon Bucks" or whatever stupid term they'd market it as would have value anywhere in the world. It would directly translate to purchasing power within Amazon's inventory and translates to something tangible. This holds even more true if they continue into fresh food.

    2. Re:Imagine if it was worth something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While both "bitcoin" and "blockchain" start and end with the same letters they are fundamentally different.

      Blockchain = decentralized method of authentication and verification (and no not anonymization).
      Bitcoin = fool's gold. Idiot bait. Moron fodder. You get the idea.

      If AMZ wanted to use blockchain-authenticated currency backed by actual goods, the US Federal
      Government would stop them PDQ.

      Government doesn't like competition. If Bitcoin ever became viable they'd stop it. That's how you
      know it's not.

      Best

      E

    3. Re:Imagine if it was worth something... by mmortal03 · · Score: 1

      No need to create their own blockchain, though -- they could simply build it on top of the Bitcoin blockchain if it offers an efficiency for this purpose. See here for an example of that sort of thing: http://insidebitcoins.com/news...

      There's also Tether USD: https://tether.to/why-use-teth...

    4. Re:Imagine if it was worth something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're arguing with a brick wall, this guy won't understand the value of trust until his fiat currency goes the same way as every other fiat currency in history.

    5. Re:Imagine if it was worth something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yea just like the US Dollar, or the Euro, or the British Pound - they are all *gasp* just paper, and not worth anything *shock!* *faints!* - they'll disappear anyday now...

  20. Drugs ban in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A couple of days ago the UK passed into effect some extremely draconian anti-drugs laws that banned "anything that can change your mood" to capture analogous substances to actual restricted drugs. I suspect the spike is due to that whole market now immediately begin pushed onto the dark web.

  21. 2015 rise: Russian Ponzi sheme by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin was only way to buy in. A bunch of eager Chinese bid price up. I suspect something similar.

  22. Re:Bitcoin's designed for transactions not investm by Lennie · · Score: 1

    "what it's really not designed for is storing in a bank"

    Actually, a lot of people with more than just a little bit of Bitcoin print out an encrypted private key on paper and get a lock box at a regular bank. That does work.

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
  23. Bitcoin dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Or at least, there are positive signs indicating that bitcoin might not be as dead as everybody thought.
    There has been a campaign from some guys who disagree with strategy that the bitcoin codebase is taking. They are producing a stream of "bitcoin is dead" and "the fall of bitcoin" articles and publications.

    This has nothing to do with reality. They have their right to their opinion. They have the right to try to inform the public of their opinion. But their "mud-throwing" in an attempt to destroy bitcoin is uncalled for IMHO.

    1. Re:Bitcoin dead? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin is dead. The Chinese control the majority of power and network.

      There is now a central majority holder. You people fucked your currency up, big time.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  24. Re:Bitcoin's designed for transactions not investm by Lennie · · Score: 1

    "Bitcoin isn't really designed for investment, in the buy-and-hold sense where you hope the value goes up."

    Just like any other currency, but they also get traded. Probably more than Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is still a small economy.

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
  25. A cartoon to explain it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modern time economy
    (search images for "Just a normal day at the nation's most important financial institution")

  26. Should have, would have, could have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should have setup a solar powered BC mining operation sooner.

  27. Actual bitcoin value: negative $50 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice, a bitcoin is 'worth' $547.40 today.
    But it costs $597.23 to 'mine' one, and that assumes that you're set up to mine them as efficiently as possible, rather than mining them on the side. [1]

    [1] http://www.coindesk.com/microscope-economic-environmental-costs-bitcoin-mining/

    1. Re:Actual bitcoin value: negative $50 by grnbrg · · Score: 1

      So.... Since gold costs $1,000-$1,200 per ounce to mine, the actual value of gold is $0 to $200?

  28. Re:Bitcoin's designed for transactions not investm by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    BitCoin is, by definition, deflationary currency. Because MOST people, including economists have no working knowledge of a deflationary currency, most people don't understand the value in human liberty. By working hard, accumulating currency that grows in value over time (rather than lose value) it allows people to be free from government manipulation of nominal fiat currency. And that is what you are seeing in China, and why you are seeing it.

    You can have a Yuan that can buy an egg today, but require two Yuan's tomorrow, or you can get BitCoin, and buy two eggs for a BitCoin tomorrow. Which one do you choose?

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.