Who is they? I am telling you that someone needed something, i was able to provide it. In my opinion, the cheapest, easiest way to receive payment was via bitcoin. This has nothing to do with investment, it is a way of transferring wealth. Who is the they involved in this transaction?
Your description doesn't fit with reality. If bitcoin has no value then why has silk road, etc been so successful? It has allowed me to make money off small graphics design projects without needing to trust anyone with my personal information, no risk of chargeback, etc. I was never able to do that before bitcoin. It really allows the average person to do the equivalent of accepting credit cards with very low fees.
Bitcoin also allows the average person to act as their own bank. This is valuable, or at least could be in the future. I wouldn't really recommend storing large amounts of wealth in bitcoin right now since the market value is highly speculative and fluctuates wildly. The best way to use it right now is to transfer wealth. Get paid a USD equivalent in bitcoin, then immediately sell before the market value changes. As you can see, this has nothing to do with investment. Bitcoin is a currency that some people may choose to invest in. As with any other investment, early adopters are rewarded for hoarding if there are many later adopters.
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation
It is a currency, not an investment operation. Although, as mentioned above, this does not stop people from "investing" in bitcoins. It's deflationary nature was designed to reward early adopters until critical mass is reached rather than rely on government aggression to force people to use it. One outcome of this is that many people believe bitcoins will be worth much more in the future. This is highly speculative, and is not promised by anyone. I have personally come to believe that an inflationary fiat currency accelerates the transfer of wealth from poor to rich, as well as encourages unsustainable business practices. So the deflationary model appeals to me. That is a different argument though.
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors
Who is promising or paying these returns? There is no central agency, just people speculating on exchanges.
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.
There is no individual or organization running the operation. All profit by early adopters is made via market speculation. It is completely valid to speculate on the future price of bitcoin. If you think it will be more valuable in the future (due to adoption), buy some and hoard them. If not (as you probably think) then don't. No one is promising returns on any investment into bitcoin.
How is that different from any kind of venture capital investment? If people eventually find bitcoin to be useful as a currency, your investment will make you money. If people do not start using it, you will lose your money. It is more like a commodity than a company, and more like a fiat currency than a commodity, but you know what I mean.
My understanding is that only the long term capital gains tax is low. So you consider someone who holds a stock for 1 year to be a speculator? What is the cut off? Also I may be misunderstanding something. Also on the face of it I think that capital gains should be treated exactly like income.
Looking it up I saw that speculators have been there from the beginning. Do you have a source that quantifies the number of long term investors vs short term speculators over time?
Do you have any examples of someone burning down the company building or firing all the employees followed by a stock price increase?
Telcos usually have a government granted monopoly, so it is hard for me to attribute their crappy behavior to stock market speculation, at least on the face of it. No doubt people game this system.
HFT requires a huge upfront investment to get equipment nearby the exchange. Once there though, they have a huge advantage, provided their algorithms work consistently. Really the root of this problem is normal people are forced to invest (due to inflation) in a market they are at a disadvantage in rather than save. If your money would retain value or become more valuable over time normal people would just save and this wouldn't be an issue. The speculators wouldn't have any schmucks to rip off.
Scary stuff. I'd like to read a followup, I saw a powerpoint saying some Chinese official got put to death for it. This is total know your dealer stuff on an industrial level.
Well I didn't look past the Wikipedia article, that said there was a product bought from china labeled TD Glycerine. Apparently TD stood for "substitute" and the glycerine was actually diethylene glycol. So while that is confusing labeling practices the company that mixed the final drug in Panama holds most of the blame for not testing their product.
Look what happened when we cut back on government regulation -- by not having enough FDA inspectors to inspect Chinese manufacturers. We got contaminated heparin. Most manufacturers would rather have FDA inspectors than have their business destroyed by a scandal like that.
Right, so lets talk concretely. How many inspectors are needed? How much will this cost? What are the expected improvements in false positive and false negative rates compared to now, etc? Everything is cost benefit.
Most importantly, I am interested in how these models work but can't get access to an online copy of the book. I can't imagine how any model could generalize to account for the precise uses and regulations surrounding any specific chemical.
I can't think of any place in the world that has a pure free market. If you went to Somalia, where there is no effective government, the warlords would want a cut of your business. The government regulates everything to some degree, the only question is how much. The chemical processing industry has a lot of externalities, so they should be regulating it. You don't have a right to put your chlorinated hydrocarbons and dioxins in my drinking water.
Well, modern somolia is also the product of a recently failed state, so it would really only be proper to compare it to other recently failed states. But I agree, there are little to no current or historical examples of free markets. Everyone agrees that profit-seeking organizations suck at externalities, the real question is whether some private watchdog group would be more or less efficient than government at suing companies for dumping chemicals, etc.
I realize that there are a lot of people who think that the problem is that the market isn't free enough; if only we could get rid of all those government controls, the free market would give us the best of all possible worlds. In my observation of the real world, it doesn't work that way. The Chinese chemical manufacturers cheerfully sold children's cough syrup poisoned with glycerol, and when the children died, the Chinese were protected from tort liability. People support government regulation, because without it, their children die.
Are you referring to this story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_cough_syrup ??? If so you kind of mischaracterized what happened. I don't mean the part that glycerol is the poison. Also, the point is not whether or not regulation would prevent these types of errors. It is to compare the cost of government regulation, as well as false positive and false negative rates, to that of other options. Assuming government regulation is the best solution is common, but not necessarily true.
True, methotrexate has some horrible side effects, particularly the destruction of short-term memory. I knew somebody who was taking methotrexate for brain cancer, and by the time she got to the end of the conversation, she couldn't remember what I said at the beginning of the conversation. However it's great when you want to selectively destroy B cells and T cells. Oncologists love to run randomized controlled studies, and if there was anything better than methotrexate, they would use it. For several cancers, such as childhood leukemia, there isn't. When something better comes up, they'll phase it out fast. How many parents do you know who want their children to grow up with cognitive defects? Why would an oncologist use it if there were something better?
I have no idea how common it is to use methotrexate. I just meant it is old school, and most likely no drug company would look to develop it and get it approved today. The drug sort of got grandfathered in to our post-thalidomide pharmacopoeia. This is a possible factor not included in the textbook models. I also have no idea what other trials have been done for childhood leukemia... just because a drug is the best option doesn't mean it can't still be crappy.
Well you are redefining free market to mean regulated market. Then you are saying that a third supplier should be stepping in to sell methotrexate according to the textbooks. Which textbook and what model? Does this model account for government interference (licensing, etc)?
Also, methotrexate is a pretty crappy drug in terms of side effects and therapeutic window. I am not up to date on cancer research but last I checked everyone was looking for specific biomarkers (e.g. EGFR) to neutralize. It is likely the pharm companies and FDA would want to phase out this drug eventually anyway.
If government spending isn't cut, in the future there will be NO government or safety net. Would a poor republican who thinks this be voting against his/her own interest?
What free market are you talking about? Reread your post. There is no free market here. I am not saying GMP rules are bad, just that there is no way for people to buy "less trustworthy" drugs for less. This is the cause of the shortage, government regulation... love it or hate it.
I need to look into the numbers further, but yea government cuts should be part of the solution. The analysis should also include capital gain and corporate taxes.
Extra cost due to economies of scale as well as the cost due to complying with regulations (however great the reasons behind the regulations are) both contribute to the barrier to entry that a would be competitor needs to overcome. I see no reason we can't compare the two by quantifying the costs (for some specific example). Subsidies and exclusive government contracts given to existing monopolies are also often contributors to this barrier to entry.
I was looking for some example of the above, or some example of how a "public utility" was provided before a monopoly was granted by government.
The latter example is somewhat different from the former, since it deals with a market before it is monopolized.
Well they are saying that this chronic pain (ie no longer serving as part of the alert system) is due to aberrant growth (sort of like the short circuit mentioned above). The way they treated it was a very local injection of some peptides that inhibit the stabilization of the new growth. You wouldn't want to give this as a pill unless you could attach the peptide to something that binds a biomarker specific to new growth, in a certain type of neuron in the spinal cord, and then you would have to get that around the blood brain barrier... so yea, this is theoretically possible but not really feasible right now. Plus remember this is just one study on a couple of rats. Best way to localize the treatment is just inject it near where you want the effect, even then you are risking destabilizing good growth going on elsewhere in the brain and spinal cord.
Hypnotherapy would be trying to alter the circuits upstream the pain signal in your brain to make them less sensitive to it so it would be a different type of strategy. I am not sure how effective it is.
Right, so what do you attribute the stabilization to? I was looking for some comparison of the effects of government regulation and subsidies vs economies of scale.
Slashdot Mirror
Who is they? I am telling you that someone needed something, i was able to provide it. In my opinion, the cheapest, easiest way to receive payment was via bitcoin. This has nothing to do with investment, it is a way of transferring wealth. Who is the they involved in this transaction?
Actually I should say, if you really think it is a ponzi scheme that will collapse eventually... why not short sell: https://bitcoinica.com/
You won't find any laws propping up the value. Maybe some manipulators with much more money than you though.
Your description doesn't fit with reality. If bitcoin has no value then why has silk road, etc been so successful? It has allowed me to make money off small graphics design projects without needing to trust anyone with my personal information, no risk of chargeback, etc. I was never able to do that before bitcoin. It really allows the average person to do the equivalent of accepting credit cards with very low fees.
Bitcoin also allows the average person to act as their own bank. This is valuable, or at least could be in the future. I wouldn't really recommend storing large amounts of wealth in bitcoin right now since the market value is highly speculative and fluctuates wildly. The best way to use it right now is to transfer wealth. Get paid a USD equivalent in bitcoin, then immediately sell before the market value changes. As you can see, this has nothing to do with investment. Bitcoin is a currency that some people may choose to invest in. As with any other investment, early adopters are rewarded for hoarding if there are many later adopters.
It is a currency, not an investment operation. Although, as mentioned above, this does not stop people from "investing" in bitcoins. It's deflationary nature was designed to reward early adopters until critical mass is reached rather than rely on government aggression to force people to use it. One outcome of this is that many people believe bitcoins will be worth much more in the future. This is highly speculative, and is not promised by anyone. I have personally come to believe that an inflationary fiat currency accelerates the transfer of wealth from poor to rich, as well as encourages unsustainable business practices. So the deflationary model appeals to me. That is a different argument though.
Who is promising or paying these returns? There is no central agency, just people speculating on exchanges.
There is no individual or organization running the operation. All profit by early adopters is made via market speculation. It is completely valid to speculate on the future price of bitcoin. If you think it will be more valuable in the future (due to adoption), buy some and hoard them. If not (as you probably think) then don't. No one is promising returns on any investment into bitcoin.
Well, more like a fiat currency than a commodity in some ways, more like a commodity than a fiat currency in others.
How is that different from any kind of venture capital investment? If people eventually find bitcoin to be useful as a currency, your investment will make you money. If people do not start using it, you will lose your money. It is more like a commodity than a company, and more like a fiat currency than a commodity, but you know what I mean.
huh?
Agreed completely, it is odd. Now that we recognize this oddness, how could you and I benefit?
What is your definition of "economy performing well"?
What is stopping them from being held responsible?
My understanding is that only the long term capital gains tax is low. So you consider someone who holds a stock for 1 year to be a speculator? What is the cut off? Also I may be misunderstanding something. Also on the face of it I think that capital gains should be treated exactly like income.
Looking it up I saw that speculators have been there from the beginning. Do you have a source that quantifies the number of long term investors vs short term speculators over time?
Do you have any examples of someone burning down the company building or firing all the employees followed by a stock price increase?
Telcos usually have a government granted monopoly, so it is hard for me to attribute their crappy behavior to stock market speculation, at least on the face of it. No doubt people game this system.
HFT requires a huge upfront investment to get equipment nearby the exchange. Once there though, they have a huge advantage, provided their algorithms work consistently. Really the root of this problem is normal people are forced to invest (due to inflation) in a market they are at a disadvantage in rather than save. If your money would retain value or become more valuable over time normal people would just save and this wouldn't be an issue. The speculators wouldn't have any schmucks to rip off.
Scary stuff. I'd like to read a followup, I saw a powerpoint saying some Chinese official got put to death for it. This is total know your dealer stuff on an industrial level.
Well I didn't look past the Wikipedia article, that said there was a product bought from china labeled TD Glycerine. Apparently TD stood for "substitute" and the glycerine was actually diethylene glycol. So while that is confusing labeling practices the company that mixed the final drug in Panama holds most of the blame for not testing their product.
Right, so lets talk concretely. How many inspectors are needed? How much will this cost? What are the expected improvements in false positive and false negative rates compared to now, etc? Everything is cost benefit.
Most importantly, I am interested in how these models work but can't get access to an online copy of the book. I can't imagine how any model could generalize to account for the precise uses and regulations surrounding any specific chemical.
Well, modern somolia is also the product of a recently failed state, so it would really only be proper to compare it to other recently failed states. But I agree, there are little to no current or historical examples of free markets. Everyone agrees that profit-seeking organizations suck at externalities, the real question is whether some private watchdog group would be more or less efficient than government at suing companies for dumping chemicals, etc.
Are you referring to this story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_cough_syrup ??? If so you kind of mischaracterized what happened. I don't mean the part that glycerol is the poison. Also, the point is not whether or not regulation would prevent these types of errors. It is to compare the cost of government regulation, as well as false positive and false negative rates, to that of other options. Assuming government regulation is the best solution is common, but not necessarily true.
I have no idea how common it is to use methotrexate. I just meant it is old school, and most likely no drug company would look to develop it and get it approved today. The drug sort of got grandfathered in to our post-thalidomide pharmacopoeia. This is a possible factor not included in the textbook models. I also have no idea what other trials have been done for childhood leukemia... just because a drug is the best option doesn't mean it can't still be crappy.
Well you are redefining free market to mean regulated market. Then you are saying that a third supplier should be stepping in to sell methotrexate according to the textbooks. Which textbook and what model? Does this model account for government interference (licensing, etc)?
Also, methotrexate is a pretty crappy drug in terms of side effects and therapeutic window. I am not up to date on cancer research but last I checked everyone was looking for specific biomarkers (e.g. EGFR) to neutralize. It is likely the pharm companies and FDA would want to phase out this drug eventually anyway.
If government spending isn't cut, in the future there will be NO government or safety net. Would a poor republican who thinks this be voting against his/her own interest?
You described a perfect market. This is not the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
When was wall street not gambling?
What free market are you talking about? Reread your post. There is no free market here. I am not saying GMP rules are bad, just that there is no way for people to buy "less trustworthy" drugs for less. This is the cause of the shortage, government regulation... love it or hate it.
Ah, the good old fat tail risks rears its ugly head. I bet they assumed normal distribution as well.
I need to look into the numbers further, but yea government cuts should be part of the solution. The analysis should also include capital gain and corporate taxes.
Extra cost due to economies of scale as well as the cost due to complying with regulations (however great the reasons behind the regulations are) both contribute to the barrier to entry that a would be competitor needs to overcome. I see no reason we can't compare the two by quantifying the costs (for some specific example). Subsidies and exclusive government contracts given to existing monopolies are also often contributors to this barrier to entry.
I was looking for some example of the above, or some example of how a "public utility" was provided before a monopoly was granted by government.
The latter example is somewhat different from the former, since it deals with a market before it is monopolized.
Here is one example of deregulation of a monopolized industry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staggers_Rail_Act
Well they are saying that this chronic pain (ie no longer serving as part of the alert system) is due to aberrant growth (sort of like the short circuit mentioned above). The way they treated it was a very local injection of some peptides that inhibit the stabilization of the new growth. You wouldn't want to give this as a pill unless you could attach the peptide to something that binds a biomarker specific to new growth, in a certain type of neuron in the spinal cord, and then you would have to get that around the blood brain barrier... so yea, this is theoretically possible but not really feasible right now. Plus remember this is just one study on a couple of rats. Best way to localize the treatment is just inject it near where you want the effect, even then you are risking destabilizing good growth going on elsewhere in the brain and spinal cord.
Hypnotherapy would be trying to alter the circuits upstream the pain signal in your brain to make them less sensitive to it so it would be a different type of strategy. I am not sure how effective it is.
Well it's vice versa for me... so my analogy might kind of suck.
Right, so what do you attribute the stabilization to? I was looking for some comparison of the effects of government regulation and subsidies vs economies of scale.