Dakardii's topic

As requested, this sub-forum is for partying, fun, gossip, conundrums, flirting, comedy, tragedy, or whatever.
Higgenbotham
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:28 pm

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by Higgenbotham »

Cool Breeze wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:35 pm
More ad hominem, yawn. He's so smart he can't even tell me what the properties of money are. Talk about getting an education. If you consider maligning other people on topics you know less about, that's a great education. And if he did know more, he would have shown that he knows more. Any honest outside or objective reader knows already that I've posted more in my last 3 responses than both of yours combined, which are just attacks and emotional paragraphs, both.
There's a reason I don't answer 95% of what you write, and it's not for the reason you think. It's because you are delusional and only answer with even more delusion.

Let's just take one example.
Cool Breeze wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 10:38 pm
By the way Higgy, peak SMV is 16-23 females, 32-42 males. And if in shape, males can last much longer. It's just biology, shelf life, and the idea that the earlier you peak, the faster and quicker you poop out. A universal truth.
Similar to your claims about what money is, you must think this is true just because you say it is.

Let's take the midpoint of your ranges (and I'll round up for females), which is 20 for females and 37 for males.

Seriously, how many 20 year old females do you see walking around with 37 year old males?

Finding the actual facts on the matter turned out to be easy, and they are right in line with what I told you they are - the age difference turns out to be 5 years, and probably less. At age 30, marriage rates for females rapidly drop off and it's age 35 for males. In fact, extrapolating the slopes of the lines, marriage rates drop off faster for males after age 35 than they do for females after age 30.

This is really easy to understand. Money is quite a bit harder. Are you sure you want to tackle that, because I'm not. You couldn't even respond rationally to the tippy tip of the iceberg.

Image

Image
While the periphery breaks down rather slowly at first, the capital cities of the hegemon should collapse suddenly and violently.

Higgenbotham
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:28 pm

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by Higgenbotham »

Cool Breeze wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 3:23 pm
John wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:45 am
** 23-Jan-2021 World View: Schooling
Higgenbotham wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 5:06 pm
> You are an embarrassment to yourself. You have no idea what money
> is because if you did you wouldn't be suckered into this crap.
> Bitcoin is crap or, as Charlie Munger says, rat poison. It's about
> as hard as Warren Buffet when his viagra prescription ran out. It
> will go to zero. The CME, the Wall Street money machine, and the
> billionaire speculators have already targeted bitcoin and they
> will pulverize you to dust.
Great schooling! You're so much better at it than I am.
I hope you are mocking him, since irrational ad hominem is the furthest thing possible from "schooling."
You hope? Hope's all you've got to hang onto, both with this and bitcoin.

And everything I learned about ad hominem I learned from you. It's the only thing you're the expert on.
While the periphery breaks down rather slowly at first, the capital cities of the hegemon should collapse suddenly and violently.

John
Posts: 9938
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by John »

** 24-Jan-2021 World View: Tulipomania versus Bitcoinomaina

This argument over whether Bitcoin is a bubble is very familiar to me,
because it's very similar to what I saw with the housing bubble in the
2000s decade.

I just don't understand why people couldn't see that there was a
housing bubble. It was obvious to Alan Greenspan, and I quoted
several speeches by Greenspan where he talked about it. It was
obvious to financial commentator Mish Shedlock, and I quoted some of
his sarcastic columns about people ignoring the housing bubbles. It
was obvious to me and I became so panicked about it that I sold my
condo -- at the height of the bubble, which was good for me.

But here's what the élite were saying at the time: "Housing prices
can't go down -- people have to live somewhere," and "Banks won't
foreclose -- it's not in their interest to do so" and "These housing
construction firms know what they're doing, and they wouldn't be
building houses if it were just a bubble."

These are the same kinds of reasons that are used today to justify the
bitcoin bubble.

In the 2007 time frame, I had a couple of friends who were buying
homes. I begged them not to do it. I told them they would lose a lot
of money. But they didn't believe me. One of them got very angry
with me, the same kind of anger that we're seeing in this forum over
bitcoin. Of course they both lost a great deal of money, which was
very sad for me because, as I said, they were my friends.

I was actually shocked in late 2008 or 2009, the FIRST TIME that I
heard an economist or "expert" on tv refer to the housing bubble. I
couldn't believe my ears that I was hearing about a housing bubble on
tv. Of course, that was in the PAST TENSE, as in "when the housing
bubble occurred, blah, blah." These so-called "experts" never said
anything like that during the ACTUAL housing bubble.

The comparison between Bitcoinomania and Tulipomania is very relevant,
though not for the obvious reason. It's not because of an equivalence
between bitcoins and tulips.

The tulip market began to take off in 1634 with rising prices for
tulips. It led to a tulip craze, as tulip prices began to soar.

However, the worst of the bubble did not occur because tulips
themselves were being traded at high prices. The worst occurred when
TULIP FUTURES were being traded.

Here's an excerpt that I've quoted in the past from the description
given in Edward Chancellor's 1999 book, Devil Take the Hindmost, a
history of financial speculation:

"No actual delivery of tulips took place during the
height of the boom in late 1636 and early 1637 as the bulbs
remained snug in the ground. A market in tulip futures appeared,
known as the windhandel (the wind trade): sellers promised
to deliver a bulb of a certain type and weight the following
spring, buyers took the right to delivery -- in the meantime, cash
settlement could be made for any difference in market price. Most
transactions were expedited with personal credit notes which also
fell due in the spring when the bulbs would be dug up and
delivered. Gaergoedt boasts of having made 60,000 guilders from
his tulip speculations but admits that he has only received "other
people's writing." By the later stages of the mania, the fusion
of the windhandel with paper credit created a perfect
symmetry of insubstantiality: most transactions were for tulip
bulbs that could never be delivered because they didn't exist and
were paid for with credit notes that could never be honoured
because the money wasn't there." (pp. 16-18)
So the explosive growth of the tulip market was not caused by trading
in tulips themselves, but in trading in the futures market for tulips
-- known as the Dutch word "windhandel," literally "trading in the
wind." Bitcoin trading today is exactly the same -- trading in the
wind.

At some point in the future, so-called "experts" will talk about the
"bitcoin bubble," but it will be in the past, after a lot of people
have lost a lot of money, and will be destitute because they went into
debt to invest in bitcoins, like the Dutch in 1636 went into debt to
invest in windhandel.

Image
  • Soooo pretty -- Tulips and Bitcoins


Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Cool Breeze
Posts: 381
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by Cool Breeze »

Again, for all of the others that are reading them (and for whom I'm trying to do service), notice how they still haven't identified what money is. That's because if you understand what it is, you can see the value, among other things that it possesses (which is much more), that BTC has.

Also, if they actually defined what it is (either they don't know or don't want to further embarrass themselves), they'd realize just how stupid the tulip comparison is.

He who he has eyes to read and ears to ear, let him hear.

ps - Higgy, you can't even craft a good argument for the SMV example, which isn't even a comparison on anything. Culture impacts age of marriage. But I know you haven't read history or you would know better. Biology changes though, right? LOL

Cool Breeze
Posts: 381
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: DaKardii's Topic

Post by Cool Breeze »

I wonder what Higster will say when BTC is 100k

Oh it's a bubble!

Then like Schiff for Brains, he'll keep claiming it's a bubble as it gains more and more value

and then gold does OK, but still "gets manipulated" whine whine whine

I'll send you some cheese.

Higgenbotham
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:28 pm

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by Higgenbotham »

Cool Breeze wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:47 pm
I wonder what Higster will say when BTC is 100k

Oh it's a bubble!

Then like Schiff for Brains, he'll keep claiming it's a bubble as it gains more and more value

and then gold does OK, but still "gets manipulated" whine whine whine

I'll send you some cheese.

You took the bait, just like you did with bitcoin.

You had 3 thoughtful posts to respond to (John's, Richard's and Aedens') and you did what you always do - drifted to the lowest common denominator, which is at your mental level.

I predicted that was exactly what you would do and I was right.


Here you go, respond to this:
richard5za wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 7:20 am
Bitcoin is a 100% digital asset. There is no underlying asset, not derivatively, not at all. You are buying a digital expression or algorithm which is believed cannot be copied and therefore can be trusted as a store of value. (value fluctuations aside)
It is largely unregulated in so many parts of the globe that it can aid criminal and terrorist activities and is a good vehicle for tax evasion. For these reasons alone digital assets must have a good very long term future but this may or may not include Bitcoin. So there is no reason for the authorities to support Bitcoin, rather I suspect the opposite may be true.
Currently Bitcoin is trusted as a store of value but there is a very short history, with AI on the we don't know for sure that it cannot be copied and looking to the long term past for reassurance is not there.
So how do we read the signs of the times?
Firstly experts cannot be trusted as a group. There are studies showing that more than 80% of financial, political and economic experts are less accurate on a three year forecast than a dart throwing chimp! A small percentage of experts are accurate in their forecasts but who are they? Who can be trusted for an accurate reading of the signs of the times?
So, the first point in searching the signs of the times is the PE ratio of stocks against history. Its very and untenably high and history has shown that crashes happen in this situation.
So what is likely to crash with the stocks, and where will the safe havens be? I can't answer this question but if I was in charge of the economy and finances of any Western country I would want digital assets completely squashed with the stock crash. Lets get rid of this terrorist, tax and criminal evasion; it will be a long time before digital assets are rebuilt and provide us with a breathing space!
As I'm sure you can imagine, I am not seeing a happy ending for digital assets and have never owned any.

If that's too difficult for you, you can start here:
Higgenbotham wrote:
Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:51 pm
The "hook" that is typically used to promote land bubbles is, "They're not making any more of it." But most land has some productive value for growing crops, etc., so there is a floor under the bubble price.

If you prefer something from outside the forum, you can rebut this line by line:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/439606 ... -inflation

In this article, you may want to start here rather than at the beginning:
The Ponzi angle of the bubble comes from any newcomer becoming itself a new promoter of the great advantages of bitcoin. Not only they can feel more modern and involved in bringing the future into their lives, but they also make more money the more they preach on it. Its advantages are quickly summarized in one single phrase: buy this because it goes up.
While the periphery breaks down rather slowly at first, the capital cities of the hegemon should collapse suddenly and violently.

Higgenbotham
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:28 pm

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by Higgenbotham »

John wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 12:00 pm
** 24-Jan-2021 World View: Tulipomania versus Bitcoinomaina

This argument over whether Bitcoin is a bubble is very familiar to me,
because it's very similar to what I saw with the housing bubble in the
2000s decade.

I just don't understand why people couldn't see that there was a
housing bubble. It was obvious to Alan Greenspan, and I quoted
several speeches by Greenspan where he talked about it. It was
obvious to financial commentator Mish Shedlock, and I quoted some of
his sarcastic columns about people ignoring the housing bubbles. It
was obvious to me and I became so panicked about it that I sold my
condo -- at the height of the bubble, which was good for me.

But here's what the élite were saying at the time: "Housing prices
can't go down -- people have to live somewhere," and "Banks won't
foreclose -- it's not in their interest to do so" and "These housing
construction firms know what they're doing, and they wouldn't be
building houses if it were just a bubble."

These are the same kinds of reasons that are used today to justify the
bitcoin bubble.

In the 2007 time frame, I had a couple of friends who were buying
homes. I begged them not to do it. I told them they would lose a lot
of money. But they didn't believe me. One of them got very angry
with me, the same kind of anger that we're seeing in this forum over
bitcoin. Of course they both lost a great deal of money, which was
very sad for me because, as I said, they were my friends.

I was actually shocked in late 2008 or 2009, the FIRST TIME that I
heard an economist or "expert" on tv refer to the housing bubble. I
couldn't believe my ears that I was hearing about a housing bubble on
tv. Of course, that was in the PAST TENSE, as in "when the housing
bubble occurred, blah, blah." These so-called "experts" never said
anything like that during the ACTUAL housing bubble.

The comparison between Bitcoinomania and Tulipomania is very relevant,
though not for the obvious reason. It's not because of an equivalence
between bitcoins and tulips.

The tulip market began to take off in 1634 with rising prices for
tulips. It led to a tulip craze, as tulip prices began to soar.

However, the worst of the bubble did not occur because tulips
themselves were being traded at high prices. The worst occurred when
TULIP FUTURES were being traded.

Here's an excerpt that I've quoted in the past from the description
given in Edward Chancellor's 1999 book, Devil Take the Hindmost, a
history of financial speculation:

"No actual delivery of tulips took place during the
height of the boom in late 1636 and early 1637 as the bulbs
remained snug in the ground. A market in tulip futures appeared,
known as the windhandel (the wind trade): sellers promised
to deliver a bulb of a certain type and weight the following
spring, buyers took the right to delivery -- in the meantime, cash
settlement could be made for any difference in market price. Most
transactions were expedited with personal credit notes which also
fell due in the spring when the bulbs would be dug up and
delivered. Gaergoedt boasts of having made 60,000 guilders from
his tulip speculations but admits that he has only received "other
people's writing." By the later stages of the mania, the fusion
of the windhandel with paper credit created a perfect
symmetry of insubstantiality: most transactions were for tulip
bulbs that could never be delivered because they didn't exist and
were paid for with credit notes that could never be honoured
because the money wasn't there." (pp. 16-18)
So the explosive growth of the tulip market was not caused by trading
in tulips themselves, but in trading in the futures market for tulips
-- known as the Dutch word "windhandel," literally "trading in the
wind." Bitcoin trading today is exactly the same -- trading in the
wind.

At some point in the future, so-called "experts" will talk about the
"bitcoin bubble," but it will be in the past, after a lot of people
have lost a lot of money, and will be destitute because they went into
debt to invest in bitcoins, like the Dutch in 1636 went into debt to
invest in windhandel.

Image
  • Soooo pretty -- Tulips and Bitcoins


Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

aedens posted the link below in the Financial Topics thread.
The epiphany

I was catching up with my friend Bob (pseudonym) over video chat. I’d just sold my Bitcoin position and was nervously awaiting confirmation from my bank that my USD wire transfer out of the exchange had cleared. Crypto was on my mind, so I asked Bob about it.
The conversation went something like this:

Me: You don’t own any crypto do you? I’m concerned some of the exchanges in the ecosystem might be fraudulent.
Bob: I actually have a whole bunch of crypto on this exchange called Bybit. Do you know if that’s one of the risky ones?
Me: I’m not sure. Does it let you trade in USD?
Bob: No, but a lot of other exchanges don’t either. In fact, you can’t even deposit USD directly into a Bybit account.
Me: Really? But then how do you get your money onto their exchange at all if they don’t accept USD deposits?
Bob: You send your USD to Coinbase and buy Bitcoin with it. Then you move your Bitcoin onto Bybit and trade with it there.
Me: Hang on. If that’s the case, then why would anybody ever use an unbanked offshore exchange that trades purely in crypto? What does Bybit offer you that Coinbase doesn’t?
Bob: Leverage. I personally only use 2–3X leverage, but they let you leverage your positions up to 100X if you want. You can’t do that on Coinbase.
Me: *Gasps audibly*
Bob: They also do a ton of promotions. They’ve got a bunch of timed missions where you can earn Tethers for doing stuff like inviting friends onto the exchange, joining their Telegram group, or trading on their platform.
Me: HOLY $#!@
Bob: But thanks for the warning! I’ll pull my crypto out as quick as I can. It might take me a few minutes though, I’ll need to fire up my VPN first.
Me: A VPN? But why, for the love of God?
Bob: Because I need to spoof a Bolivian ISP to access the exchange. They’re illegal to use if you’re based in America.
Me: *Head explodes*

There’s a scene in The Big Short where Mike Baum meets a stripper who’s taken out mortgages on five properties. The stripper doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with doing that, because her mortgage broker told her she could always refinance her mortgages when the prices of her houses went up. And housing prices would always go up.

Up to that point in the movie, Mike’s investigation had revolved around bonds, mortgage rates, and CDOs. But meeting that stripper personalizes the market for him: for the first time, Mike sees one of the human beings who’s on the other side of his mortgage trade. And that’s what finally convinces him to short the housing market.

For me, that’s what talking to Bob represented: for the first time, I’d seen what it felt like to be on the receiving end of crypto’s doomsday machine.
https://crypto-anonymous-2021.medium.co ... dcf78a64d3
While the periphery breaks down rather slowly at first, the capital cities of the hegemon should collapse suddenly and violently.

Higgenbotham
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:28 pm

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by Higgenbotham »

Cool Breeze wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:46 pm
ps - Higgy, you can't even craft a good argument for the SMV example, which isn't even a comparison on anything. Culture impacts age of marriage. But I know you haven't read history or you would know better. Biology changes though, right? LOL
One thing I know for sure is that a woman didn't write this.

Because no 20 year old woman anywhere in the world at any time in history would say that the ideal age for her mate is 37.

Geez, Nigerian Muslims don't even meet your 17 year age gap.
Large age gaps are especially common in sub-Saharan Africa, including in Gambia (14.5 years between men and their wives or partners), Guinea (13.5) and Mali (12.9). There are much narrower gaps in European countries such as the Czech Republic (2.0), Slovakia (2.1) and Estonia (2.2) – though the United States and China (both 2.2) also are notable examples of small gaps.

Within individual countries, the size of the spousal age gap can vary by religion. For example, Christian men in Nigeria are 9.2 years older than their female partners, on average, while Muslim men are 13.0 years older. Nigeria’s population is about half Christian and half Muslim.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/ ... l-age-gap/

Are you planning a move to sub-Saharan Africa?
While the periphery breaks down rather slowly at first, the capital cities of the hegemon should collapse suddenly and violently.

Higgenbotham
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:28 pm

Re: DaKardii's Topic

Post by Higgenbotham »

Cool Breeze wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:47 pm
I wonder what Higster will say when BTC is 100k
Well, I know what you've been saying since January 10 when we started discussing bitcoin right at the top, and it's been going down ever since.

How could my performance be any more pathetic than what yours has been the past 2 weeks?

I think it'll go back up, but what if it doesn't?

Are you feelin' a little shaky? Getting that nervous feeling in the pit of your tummy?

Hey, don't take it out on me, I tried to warn you.

Cool Breeze wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 12:08 pm
Higgenbotham wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 1:52 pm
This graphic, which I made, summarizes why I believe bitcoin is part of the "all one market" bubble and is not acting as a currency, doesn't have the properties of a currency, etc. Like other assets, it's acting as an alternative to the dollar, but when things get scary, bitcoin doesn't act as a safe haven, but rather goes down with other assets. For bitcoin to act like a real currency, it would need to be an alternative to stocks, etc. People would sell stocks and hold bitcoin as cash and so on, and the value of bitcoin would go down as stocks go up and vice versa.
And it will. It is an asset, just like gold is an asset. These two double as money, though. This is what you are missing. The legacy and pricing (volatility) isn't settled yet for BTC, thats why you are confused. As a proof to this recently, at least, gold ALSO went down when the market did. Why? You know why.

Image
While the periphery breaks down rather slowly at first, the capital cities of the hegemon should collapse suddenly and violently.

Higgenbotham
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:28 pm

Re: Dakardii's topic

Post by Higgenbotham »

Cool Breeze wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:46 pm
Again, for all of the others that are reading them (and for whom I'm trying to do service), notice how they still haven't identified what money is. That's because if you understand what it is, you can see the value, among other things that it possesses (which is much more), that BTC has.

Also, if they actually defined what it is (either they don't know or don't want to further embarrass themselves), they'd realize just how stupid the tulip comparison is.

He who he has eyes to read and ears to ear, let him hear.

As far as what money is, I'll discuss that further with you after bitcoin collapses to zero. I know you'll be eager to have that discussion at that time.

I wish you all the luck you deserve.
While the periphery breaks down rather slowly at first, the capital cities of the hegemon should collapse suddenly and violently.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests