You previously brought up El Salvador’s murder rate as though that has anything to do with or diminishes their Bitcoin experiment.
It is really odd until you reveal below that you have a pretty clear bias against Bitcoin because you personally worked on some traditional payment processing software.
I mentioned El Salvador's murder rate because it is a very broken country. Literally the worst in the world. What El Salvador does isn't convincing. I'm not the one who brought up El Salvador as a model to justify something.
As to the "clear bias", I literally laughed out loud at that hilarious claim. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about this entire discussion.
Firstly, I don't work in that realm anymore, but secondly it's _irrelevant_ because the product that I worked on could as easily be "backed" by BTC (in fact it is used in multiple jurisdictions backed by various currencies. The net is that something of value can be transmitted between users). None of these payment systems -- including "Bitcoin Beach" -- actually operate off of the BTC blockchain (you know, because it's completely broken trash).
My bias against Bitcoin is that it is a garbage solution that solves literally nothing -- it is one of the worst solutions in every single claimed use -- but that we have to constantly hear a million pathetic salespeople for it because they've "invested" in it. If there were a thousand pet rock HN commentators pitching pet rocks in every discussion I'd shit on that too.
The biggest problem with BTC is the fools turning it into gambling, making 100x leveraged trades on it.
But, looking at the fundamental properties of BTC, it does have better properties than USD. It’s just not adopted enough to be stable…but you at least gotta admit that, over time, can change
> Google added flights, but Booking Holdings (aka Priceline) continued to grow each year to 15B in revenue for 2019. (Huge drop for 2020 obviously.)
But did advertising on Google become more expensive for competitors once Google entered the market (e.g. did Google Flights also bid on Google Ads) and were those additional costs passed along to customers?
So while your example shows a competitor survived, it over looks the many start ups that did not, it overlooks the increased advertising costs, it over looks the increased cost to consumers and the chilling effect on potential new startups that might have been able to enter the market.
We do not even need to question any of this because before Google acquired the startup which became Google Flights the acquisition was reviewed and only approved under very strict Chinese firewalls between Google flights and Google search…but those restrictions only sought to restrict Google flight’s complete takeover of the market and ignored how it is being used to increase ad costs to the remaining market competitors.
The same has been seen with Google shopping, where Google essentially acquired a startup, it flopped, then Google positioned itself ahead of organic results and began systematically burying competition in the Google results. The fact you can’t name any of the travel or shopping startups that had thriving businesses that fell once Google entered the market is more telling of how Google has dominated the market rather than evidence Google hasn’t actually put anyone out of business.
Though to correct myself I just used Google Flights for the first time in over a year and they do in fact list intermediaries in a price comparison list.
For the specific flight I searched for, the 3rd parties were listed as having cheaper prices than the airline itself, but upon visiting the sites and going through the optionals etc those prices turned out to be misleading, and eventually it was cheaper to book directly through the airline.
> Suppose that Fauci had known for a fact in May 2020 that SARS-COV-2 originated in that lab. How would that have changed the advice he (attempted to) offer regarding public health and safety?
If he had known the virus was being researched and escaped the lab, certainly his recommendation should have included requests for any and all research and records related to the virus research. As such records have been very pertinent to public health guidelines and guidance, if not potentially toward treatments and future vaccines.
Also there is the very real financial and legal component if that were the case. On a much smaller scale it would be on par with destroying video evidence of a slip and fall, denying it ever existed, then when caught claiming it’s immaterial to the medical treatment of the injured…that’s still fraud and at minimum a clear attempt to escape legal and financial liability.
Trillions were not distributed to the populace, trillions were distributed to businesses and the Fed to leverage even further to prop up the stock market. The “populace” got billions.
The printing isn’t really the problem either, it’s a symptom of policies from both parties for 50-60 years resulting in a nation that functions purely on debt from individual households, small businesses, publicly traded businesses, to the government itself.
Before the pandemic the majority of households couldn’t cover a $400 emergency. But the truth is businesses and governments were in the same position, and even in “the greatest economy the world has ever seen” the majority of them live the equivalent of paycheck to paycheck just servicing their debts.
Except Crypto isn’t regulated like stocks, so what your likely seeing is the exchange themselves shutting off service to lock in their customers while the exchange liquidates its positions.
Except that most of the time that means nothing in practice.
Just look at the GME saga and you have customers liquidated, customers not being able to buy, some not even able to sell. And on top of that the CEO of Interactive Brokers setting a target price for the stock.
All this so that few highly leveraged hedge funds can get away from the short squeeze cheaper along with their lender/broker.
Except it doesn’t mean nothing because there are a bunch of lawsuits against Robinhood, because the law provides a remedy for the bullshit they pulled.
Right! Let me know when they get their money back. I thought that when bad stuff happens on regulated markets at this level(i.e congresional probe etc) the DA, SEC, FCA or whatever agency is in charge is supposed to intervene and make it right. And btw it wasn't just RobinHood. At some point all the retail brokers(i.e Interactive Brokers) decided to hold various positions(buy/sell).
People can sue coinbase and any other shady broker as well. If you've lost 10K I doubt you are willing to spend even more to get it back in court be it coinbase, RobinHood or any other exchanger/broker with an army of lawyers.
Look I’m as jaded as the rest, like everyone. I’ve seen mass manipulation to promote bullshit wars. I graduated in 2008 and I am still told to shut up and say thank you to the banks for paying back taxpayer loans with interest that bailed them out of their own fraud and let them consolidate the market. I saw the CDC initially lie about masks to allegedly preserve supplies for healthcare providers. I saw the government take trillions in future taxes and mostly give it to businesses and for the FED to leverage into even more money to prop up the stock market (hey, all time highs again mid pandemic).
Still, for all the BS lawyers get, much of it deserving, for every lawyer behind the brokers/investors/funds there are others representing the victims. These are the types of lawsuits that include egos so big that sometimes discovery of emails/communications and the prospects of sitting for depositions result in a resolution, and even change.
It’s funny you mention the army of lawyers, because many of these cases have been consolidated and one 1 Zoom hearing were 141 lawyers…they represented the plaintiffs.
It's not about lawyers being good or not. What we currently have in financial markets is far from a lawful or just system. Just look how Musk manipulated TSLA and got away with a slap on the wrist $20 Million fine. He openly mocked it on twitter afterwards. And that's just a blatant example from someone who doesn't even care to hide it. That recent GME manipulation wasn't an exception, it's the norm. There are a ton of hedge funds engaged in "technically" illegal trades worth billions of dollars. But who's going to stop them when they're in uncovered short positions, which happens all the time. There is no higher power. The SEC is a paper tiger. If you want to sue Citadel, be their guest. The lawyer's fees and occasional fines they pay are already taken into account. Not that someone like you and me could even afford to bring a case against them.
The customers that were liquidated were trading on margin (aka with borrowed money.) When you accept that borrowed money, you also agree that the broker’s risk department can liquidate your positions to ensure they get their money back.
I have not heard any anecdotes about US exchanges not allowing selling/exiting existing positions. In fact, on of the arguments from GMEanon is that disabling buying and keeping selling open drove the price down. There is nothing illegal about a broker disabling entering a new position (buying stock).
I mean, maybe? If crypto is not bound by legal frameworks that govern traditional banks, what law would the exchanges have broken? The worst I could see happening is class action lawsuits, but not any kind of federal action.
You seem to be sarcastic but in fact yes the Robinhood/GameStop BS resulted in both a congressional probe and it skipped the FBI and went straight to the prosecutors at the Department of Justice.
And it's not only Robinhood. Citadel, the market maker seems to be the brain behind all this price manipulation and media attacks on AMC and GME and selling a whole lot of synthetic shares on the market which when retail investors buy do not affect the price. I've been following this saga closely and am beyond horrified of how corrupt our free market is. It is not free at all and heavily manipulated.
Looks like very serious stuff happened indeed. I'm not sure about why I forgot about the congressional probe. Perhaps it's because for the people who lost or made money out of this nothing changed.
It's good to know that when bad stuffs happens on regulated markets there will be a congressional probe while on the crypto market you have no prime BS on tv.
These companies are backed by VC money, they can just drag out any court cases for years or decades until they have managed to buy themselves legal immunity. We saw it with Uber, Lyft, AirBNB, etc.
It’s the same company that attempted to keep its customers Bitcoin cash when Bitcoin forked right? Then only backed down after consumer backlash? Same company that tipped off its employees to buy Bitcoin cash to pump it before it was listed and then it was dumped on day 1?
For a little background on the movie industry and antitrust law, the Hollywood studios once upon owned everything from the way movies were produced, distributed and exhibited.
The monopoly held by the studios was effectively broken up following WWII. Yes, there were multiple studios competing but individually they were engaging in antitrust behavior.
This acquisition is essentially a waiving of the white flag and passing the torch. It will be allowed because big tech/Hollywood own politicians.
However, and I think to your point, it is impossible to reconcile that Netflix is engaging in the same behavior (producing, distributing and exhibiting) as the Hollywood studios when the courts broke up the industry to allow fair competition.
Distribution was physical back in the day, your choice of cinema was dictated by location. Locking specific movies to specific cinemas was a detriment to the public for that reason. Does that matter when the alternative is via distribution by internet? Honestly, you can sub to netflix for one month, watch everything you want and then unsub, same with all the other services. Has there ever been a point in history where there's more content available for cheaper than right now?
Location isn’t the legal standard…it would essentially be like saying customers can watch all Studio A movies at Theater A and then watch all Studio B movies at Theater B.
Sure it’s more convenient online, competition being 1 click away, but antitrust still applies to online content creators/distribution businesses.
So it’s more important to ask if you wanted to watch Netflix created content can you watch it outside Netflix? It’s not a simple yes or no, black/white kind of analysis though. You also have to look at the whole of the industry and when you do you will begin to see how the sausage is made and the antitrust nastiness.
Say you want to create a movie/show you contact film company A, Director B, actor C. Turns out you can’t hire any of them because they have contracts with Netflix. New content creators can no longer compete or even enter the market to compete and new distributors will not have any content to distribute so they won’t be able to compete or enter the market.
Even if it results in more/cheaper content, which may or may not be something to brag about, ultimately a competition is harmed and lack of competition is what harms the consumer.
How? So long as there are multiple competitors after the same customers I don't really see how this happens. Hell, we only really have 3 major cloud computing platforms (along with some minor ones), but consistently the prices of everything they offer goes down.
Netflix has over 208 Million subscribers each paying a monthly fee. They are taking in multiple BILLIONS every month in revenue.
They are also in complete control of their expenditures. They don't rely on commodities or regulations. If that isn't making money then I don't know what is.
The mmm.pages post yesterday was really refreshing positive, until a comment floating to the top ranted about geocities style/gifs being schizophrenic, nostalgia being toxic, and real creativity = having the same cookie cutter modern web design as everyone else (now that’s irony).
But based on your comment, you either: a) were inspired by the post itself and decided to have a little fun roasting this comment; or b) need to take a vacation.
By considering employers spend billions of dollars a year lobbying to keep the power imbalances.
Think about the efforts Amazon and Walmart go to keep their employees from unionizing.
Consider how Uber misclassified workers as contractors to avoid providing legal benefits.
Or how every year before the pandemic there was push back on not just raising minimum wage laws but efforts to completely repeal them.
This goes back in history to unsafe working environments, overtime, health insurance, workers comp, etc…
Stock markets are at record highs, companies have record profits, economic inequality is at all time highs…yet businesses continue to push the narrative they pay to much to workers and the would rather strip all Americans of benefits, who really need them, just so they can fill a handful of jobs at below market rates and below living wages.
It is really odd until you reveal below that you have a pretty clear bias against Bitcoin because you personally worked on some traditional payment processing software.