Who is rioting over speech they disagree with? It isn't Trump supporters. (And by the way I didn't vote for him - but this hysteria on the left is simply too pathetic to ignore.)
As a side f**king note by making me defend the oompa lumpa so often from this BS you're making me (and others like me) more sympathetic to the oompa lumpa side.
Another poster mentioned the Medieval Warm Period.
As temperatures warmed farmers could sow crops on higher and higher elevations. As temperatures dropped the reverse was true.
We have tax records of farm lands that showed people abandoning farm lands as the temperature dropped. We see a drastic reduction of available farm land - followed by ever worse famines in a 40 year period (1280 to 1320). The cold, wet, harsher, environment brought with it a recurrence of plagues.
Europe had plagues every generation from roughly 200AD to 700AD. There then were basically no plagues for 600+ years until 1347 and then there were plagues every generation until roughly 1700.
Will you accept gold? (Assuming you are absolutely positive it is gold?)
BTC is a technology. It's value is based on the fact that you can send money from place A to place B using a P2P network and without a central authority. In the very near future this technology will be used to facilitate real estate transactions, authenticate ownership of intellectual property and much, much more. The more this technology is used the greater the value of BTC.
You're focused on the speculation over the immediate value of BTC - you should be interested in the technology and its potential for growth. It the technology isn't adopted then BTC will not have utility and the price will plummet to zero. If the technology is adopted the price will sky rocket.
I think the price is going to drop in the short term but long term I think BTC is just scratching the surface of where it will end up. (And I'm using BTC as a catch-all for crypto-currencies. BTC may not end up surviving. It may be another currency that hasn't been created yet.)
Of course I don't know for sure. Obviously it's not going to keep going up. It will come down in price - but to what. When Japan made it a legitimate commodity to hold, buy and sell BTC entered a new stage in its development. It was no longer a store of value, or a means of transferring funds for places like Greece or Venezuela.
The latest rise from 1200 - 2700 is from China removing restrictions. There most certainly is a bubble but I don't think my buy orders at 990 are ever going to be met. I would be ecstatic if they do though.
No. Not yet. BTC volume is low compared to the equity trading. BTC volume is generally in the range of 50K - 200K BTC / day. And spiking much higher the last few few days.
At $1000 per BTC that's a volume of 50-200 million dollars per day. Low in one respect. But it is respectable.
You can clearly see that it will be a billion/dollar a day market pretty soon.
BTC at $2,500 and trading volume of 400K would make it a billion dollar market.
Anybody that jumps in now is a speculator and not an investor. It will drop. But to what? I don't think it's going below $1000 again and certainly won't hit 500.
If you told me a year ago that BTC would be at $1000 today I would have nodded and have been happy.
It spiked up because Japan legitimized it a couple of months ago and shot up 1500 over the last week because China took away some of their restrictions.
It's not a semantic game. You and I can discuss an issue and be at odds about it. The FBI director is not a peon and secondly has a legal obligation to notify the Justice Department in writing that an attempt was made to sway his investigation. It's his legal obligation, under penalty of law (disbarment, removal from office) to report said offense. Not only did Comey not send the notice but he declared, under oath, to a Congressional Panel that he was not pressure....
So. What do we get from the above facts?
My conclusion is that there is a lot of BS and no substance.
The Constitution enumerates the powers delegated to the Federal Government. If not enumerated the US Government does not have the authority (according to the US Constitution) to act. The Government can, under due process, deny you access to air but it does not grant you the right. The right is yours as a human being (or from God if you're so inclined).
1. Show evidence that the election was hacked. It wasn't. Podesta got caught in a phishing attack. We're not even sure that was the source of the emails.
2. There hasn't been any pay-for-play charges. They've been accusations of what "may" happen but zip for charges.
You mention gifts. What gifts?
I had an argument with a lunatic who felt that the secret service renting rooms from a Trump property constituted a gift.
No. Those rooms would have been rented anyway. If Trump moved to a failed property for the express purpose of housing secret service then you would have a point. But the Trump Towers in NYC and Margo a Lago are booked constantly.
Then there was a fool on Slashdot saying that because a Trump owned project was shopping around for investors that this was an example of funneling money to Trump. What!?! WTF type of reasoning is that.
And no I did not vote for the oompa lumpa but that doesn't mean that I should swallow the BS that is being tossed around.
So, according to you real fascists promote individual gun rights and free speech? Hmmm. That's a new one. Mussolini confiscated guns; restricted free speech and used mobs to shut people down.
So, is the the Dems or the Reps who want to confiscate guns? Who are happily rioting in attempt to restrict speech?
OK. Looks like you don't know nothing 'bout nothing.
No. The Federal Government has the authority as regards borders. Federal statutes have been passed and it's the Executive Branch's responsibility to execute them. States and cities do not have the authority to write their own laws regarding this issue.
If you think the Federal government does not have the authority to enforce borders please explain the existence of all these agencies that have been signed into law, and budgets allocated for. And the INS has been around since before WWII.
Obviously it's the purview of the Federal government to make and enforce immigration law.
I would not rely on reputation alone. But reputation is important. The key aspect here is company A saying this product will do "x". It better do "x".
I would go so far as to say that if your commercial goes "5 out of 6 dentists approve". You better have surveys that show that (and not a survey o 6 dentists).
The IRS looks at his taxes every year. So, unless you're saying that the IRS has not done its job his taxes have been checked.
All this is supposition upon supposition. If true he gets funds from others (pay for play) then he deserves to go to be disgraced, impeached and go to jail.
Now, that applies to all politicians, including those with charities pressuring others to "contribute."
We're pretty positive the Clintons have done that for years. We have NO evidence of that for Trump. (Yet) Nonetheless you call him Herr Donald. Do you go Herr Bill as well? (There's a pun there somewhere.)
Re the election. GTFOH. There was no hack of an election. This is a tech site, remember? Wikileaks has been more honest than the NYTs and they've been insisting that it was leak.
Of course. If you raise taxes there will not change in economic activity. Right.
so if a bar wants to make more money they can just start charging $50 dollars for a pint and, according to big-brains like you, people won't change their activity.
You'll be surprised that revenue "unexpectedly" drops, then when the price goes back to normal (whatever that is in your area) you'll then be bi7ching about the lost revenue that you would have gotten at $50.00 a pint.
Fair enough. But I wouldn't consider Rothbard an anarchist any more than I would consider Ayn Rand. The key phrase is "just the absence of rulers empowered to act without regard for the universal rules grounded in reciprocation which apply to everyone else."
That being the case - there are rules. The rules may be simple. Red light means stop. Green light means go. Or much more complex scenarios such as the use of courts to adjudicate contract disputes. This is not anarchy. This is a proper function of government.
It's the attempt to equalize results of outcome (not to mention personal enrichment through gov't largess) that things fall apart.
Re von Mises. He was more of a number crunching economist than a philosopher. He was combating the labor theory of wealth, and intent on showing that proper pricing cannot take place absent a free market.
That wasn't the point I was talking about in the original post. Again - not one free market advocate. Not Menger, not von Mises, not Rothbard, not Friedman is for anarchy. Each says there is a strong and valuable roll for government in the market place.
Don't take my word for it. The easiest way to see this for yourself is to watch some Milton Friedman videos on youtube.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Projecting much.
Who is rioting over speech they disagree with? It isn't Trump supporters. (And by the way I didn't vote for him - but this hysteria on the left is simply too pathetic to ignore.)
As a side f**king note by making me defend the oompa lumpa so often from this BS you're making me (and others like me) more sympathetic to the oompa lumpa side.
Another poster mentioned the Medieval Warm Period.
As temperatures warmed farmers could sow crops on higher and higher elevations. As temperatures dropped the reverse was true.
We have tax records of farm lands that showed people abandoning farm lands as the temperature dropped. We see a drastic reduction of available farm land - followed by ever worse famines in a 40 year period (1280 to 1320). The cold, wet, harsher, environment brought with it a recurrence of plagues.
Europe had plagues every generation from roughly 200AD to 700AD. There then were basically no plagues for 600+ years until 1347 and then there were plagues every generation until roughly 1700.
Really now? And here I thought the fossil record was accurate to +- 4000 years.
But our great AGW promoters are comparing year over year records. Hmmm. What stock chart shows more volatility the minute chart or the year chart?
Will you accept gold? (Assuming you are absolutely positive it is gold?)
BTC is a technology. It's value is based on the fact that you can send money from place A to place B using a P2P network and without a central authority. In the very near future this technology will be used to facilitate real estate transactions, authenticate ownership of intellectual property and much, much more. The more this technology is used the greater the value of BTC.
You're focused on the speculation over the immediate value of BTC - you should be interested in the technology and its potential for growth. It the technology isn't adopted then BTC will not have utility and the price will plummet to zero. If the technology is adopted the price will sky rocket.
I think the price is going to drop in the short term but long term I think BTC is just scratching the surface of where it will end up. (And I'm using BTC as a catch-all for crypto-currencies. BTC may not end up surviving. It may be another currency that hasn't been created yet.)
Ha!!!!
Of course I don't know for sure. Obviously it's not going to keep going up. It will come down in price - but to what. When Japan made it a legitimate commodity to hold, buy and sell BTC entered a new stage in its development. It was no longer a store of value, or a means of transferring funds for places like Greece or Venezuela.
The latest rise from 1200 - 2700 is from China removing restrictions. There most certainly is a bubble but I don't think my buy orders at 990 are ever going to be met. I would be ecstatic if they do though.
No. Not yet. BTC volume is low compared to the equity trading. BTC volume is generally in the range of 50K - 200K BTC / day. And spiking much higher the last few few days.
At $1000 per BTC that's a volume of 50-200 million dollars per day. Low in one respect. But it is respectable.
You can clearly see that it will be a billion/dollar a day market pretty soon.
BTC at $2,500 and trading volume of 400K would make it a billion dollar market.
Anybody that jumps in now is a speculator and not an investor. It will drop. But to what? I don't think it's going below $1000 again and certainly won't hit 500.
If you told me a year ago that BTC would be at $1000 today I would have nodded and have been happy.
It spiked up because Japan legitimized it a couple of months ago and shot up 1500 over the last week because China took away some of their restrictions.
BTC is here to stay. As is Eth.
Misappropriation of charity funds - namely funneling them to private use - is a big f**king deal to the IRS.
It's not a semantic game. You and I can discuss an issue and be at odds about it. The FBI director is not a peon and secondly has a legal obligation to notify the Justice Department in writing that an attempt was made to sway his investigation. It's his legal obligation, under penalty of law (disbarment, removal from office) to report said offense. Not only did Comey not send the notice but he declared, under oath, to a Congressional Panel that he was not pressure....
So. What do we get from the above facts?
My conclusion is that there is a lot of BS and no substance.
The Constitution enumerates the powers delegated to the Federal Government. If not enumerated the US Government does not have the authority (according to the US Constitution) to act. The Government can, under due process, deny you access to air but it does not grant you the right. The right is yours as a human being (or from God if you're so inclined).
Yes.
1. Show evidence that the election was hacked. It wasn't. Podesta got caught in a phishing attack. We're not even sure that was the source of the emails.
2. There hasn't been any pay-for-play charges. They've been accusations of what "may" happen but zip for charges.
You mention gifts. What gifts?
I had an argument with a lunatic who felt that the secret service renting rooms from a Trump property constituted a gift.
No. Those rooms would have been rented anyway. If Trump moved to a failed property for the express purpose of housing secret service then you would have a point. But the Trump Towers in NYC and Margo a Lago are booked constantly.
Then there was a fool on Slashdot saying that because a Trump owned project was shopping around for investors that this was an example of funneling money to Trump. What!?! WTF type of reasoning is that.
And no I did not vote for the oompa lumpa but that doesn't mean that I should swallow the BS that is being tossed around.
So, according to you real fascists promote individual gun rights and free speech? Hmmm. That's a new one. Mussolini confiscated guns; restricted free speech and used mobs to shut people down.
So, is the the Dems or the Reps who want to confiscate guns? Who are happily rioting in attempt to restrict speech?
OK. Looks like you don't know nothing 'bout nothing.
I'm not arguing in favor of no government authority. I responded to the statement that there is no such thing as a free market. Obviously there is.
Government does have a role.
No. The Federal Government has the authority as regards borders. Federal statutes have been passed and it's the Executive Branch's responsibility to execute them. States and cities do not have the authority to write their own laws regarding this issue.
If you think the Federal government does not have the authority to enforce borders please explain the existence of all these agencies that have been signed into law, and budgets allocated for. And the INS has been around since before WWII.
Obviously it's the purview of the Federal government to make and enforce immigration law.
You make a claim without proof. Your claim is based on your fear of what may be, not what has happened.
And, in case it matters I did not vote for Trump. Opposition to Trump doesn't mean I have to swallow BS.
I would not rely on reputation alone. But reputation is important. The key aspect here is company A saying this product will do "x". It better do "x".
I would go so far as to say that if your commercial goes "5 out of 6 dentists approve". You better have surveys that show that (and not a survey o 6 dentists).
The IRS looks at his taxes every year. So, unless you're saying that the IRS has not done its job his taxes have been checked.
All this is supposition upon supposition. If true he gets funds from others (pay for play) then he deserves to go to be disgraced, impeached and go to jail. Now, that applies to all politicians, including those with charities pressuring others to "contribute."
We're pretty positive the Clintons have done that for years. We have NO evidence of that for Trump. (Yet) Nonetheless you call him Herr Donald. Do you go Herr Bill as well? (There's a pun there somewhere.)
Re the election. GTFOH. There was no hack of an election. This is a tech site, remember?
Wikileaks has been more honest than the NYTs and they've been insisting that it was leak.
Of course. If you raise taxes there will not change in economic activity. Right.
so if a bar wants to make more money they can just start charging $50 dollars for a pint and, according to big-brains like you, people won't change their activity. You'll be surprised that revenue "unexpectedly" drops, then when the price goes back to normal (whatever that is in your area) you'll then be bi7ching about the lost revenue that you would have gotten at $50.00 a pint.
Stop BSing yourself. We don't have a functioning democracy?
Like sanctuary cities that think they're above the law?
Like the federal government under Obama not enforcing immigration laws on the books.
These things are dangerous - and I'm a proponent of immigration - but make it legal and on the f**king books.
The Trump administration has done nothing counter to Constitution.
And in case it matters I didn't vote for the orange oompa lumpa.
Funny. As a libertarian I get that all the time. I bring up reasonable objections to a post and get down-modded as a Troll.
So, down voting people with a different opinion is not simply the province of the "right-wing."
Hey,
Fair enough. But I wouldn't consider Rothbard an anarchist any more than I would consider Ayn Rand. The key phrase is "just the absence of rulers empowered to act without regard for the universal rules grounded in reciprocation which apply to everyone else."
That being the case - there are rules. The rules may be simple. Red light means stop. Green light means go. Or much more complex scenarios such as the use of courts to adjudicate contract disputes. This is not anarchy. This is a proper function of government.
It's the attempt to equalize results of outcome (not to mention personal enrichment through gov't largess) that things fall apart.
Re von Mises. He was more of a number crunching economist than a philosopher. He was combating the labor theory of wealth, and intent on showing that proper pricing cannot take place absent a free market.
This would be something that people could join. Would you contribute 5 dollars for such a project? There are venues for such things.
That wasn't the point I was talking about in the original post. Again - not one free market advocate. Not Menger, not von Mises, not Rothbard, not Friedman is for anarchy. Each says there is a strong and valuable roll for government in the market place.
Don't take my word for it. The easiest way to see this for yourself is to watch some Milton Friedman videos on youtube.
sad. just sad. OK. You're correct. Socialism works.
SMH