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.

Comments

If you read The Wall Street Journal...

[__aaclcg7560]

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

Chinese Devaluation

[Koby77]

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.

Two quick questions

[Okian Warrior]

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?

Re:Two quick questions

[__aaclcg7560]

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.

A 21% jump should worry people

[mhkohne]

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.