There's no implication that stimulus-fueled retail investors somehow single-handedly lifted the U.S. stock market. I think the basic point was to just say they ploughed a decent amount of their stimmie checks into it is all. . .I think.BWV said:
It's still pretty doggone annoying. I found a GreaseMonkey script which makes it a little less intolerable. It at least allows logins with a password manager.BWV said:
Stock market looks to be headed for a terrible day on top of a terrible couple of days ending last week. Right now DIA implies that the DJIA will open down 500 and the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ are looking to do even worse percentage-wise.kyphysics said:
It's interesting that people think "up is good, down is bad", but it depends on whether you are buying or selling, doesn't it? And based on comments in this thread, it appears we have more buyers than sellers.phinds said:
It's interesting that Bitcoin had a remarkably stable May, hovering around $30,000 almost the entire month. Sure, it had lots of $1,000+ swings, but it just went back and forth around $30k. It did something similar at $40k in April (the drop from $40k to $30k happened over just a few days in the first week in May). It looks like people are setting buying price targets at $10k increments, which hold it at that level until the buying runs-out. If that's the trend it could be dropping to $20k and then holding for the rest of the month...kyphysics said:
I've heard crypto advocates argue the opposite, that other cryptos have features that address flaws in Bitcoin and so are "better". But none as far as I can tell address their schizophrenic nature and lack of reason for existing (not that I'm a general expert in crypto).kyphysics said:
Celsius, and other platforms (such as popular exchanges), are indeed doing similar shady things than banks (no need to go back to the 1800's, just what is going on now). That's not cryptocurrencies though.BWV said:
fluidistic said:
In the words of Ralph Wiggum, "That's unpossible!" Isn't crypto supposed to be a stable store of value?BWV said:
If diablo immortal needs eight different in-game currencies to manage their freemium offerings, why shouldn't the world writ large have 8,000 of them?Vanadium 50 said:
russ_watters said:
kyphysics said:
Did you mean incapable of managing money instead for bolded part?Office_Shredder said:
I doubt it would as well. We have people who think they understand ginance based on raeding a few tweets and listening to a couple of podcasts.Office_Shredder said:
kyphysics said:
Office_Shredder said:
I don't know, it might. To me it is more basic/broad than learning stablecoins specifically. And even such basic things as "don't be stupid", "don't be gullible", "if it sounds too good to be true it probably is" and "you're an adult now, start acting like it" are things a lot of people need to hear/get.Vanadium 50 said:
Gym? Art? Put the "economics" back in "home economics"?Vanadium 50 said:
I could see a history/lesson(s) in the following being helpful:russ_watters said:
First investment book I bought, at age 22. Dated now of course, but still readable and the mindset is timeless.russ_watters said:
kyphysics said:
Sure, but by same token they can "invest" in horse racing, lottery tickets and roulette.fluidistic said:
fluidistic said:
I agree. There are nuances though, between horse racing, lottery and cryptocurrencies in general. With lottery, it's easier to figure out your chances of winning (and how much you'll more likely lose if you "invest" in lottery tickets over the years), in horse racings you may gain knowledge and have a higher chances of winning than others, whereas with crypto, you have to either bet it's useless/useful and/or worthless/worth of something.Vanadium 50 said:
But it can be neither.Vanadium 50 said:
I didn't study economics, so the following may be wrong (correct me if necessary), but the more a cryptocurrency is used as a currency, the more stable it becomes. Regarding, say bitcoin to pick one, why wouldn't it be possible for it to be a currency, assuming that it's deflationary and is regarded as an investment, because it presumably didn't reach enough popularity?Vanadium 50 said:
I think the cause-effect relationship goes the other way: stability and security (reliability) are traits of a good gurrency, so they cause people to adopt it. For example, USD or Euros instead of Mexican Pesos for international trade. I don't see why adoption should cause stability except due to inertia(and then only a limited amount). And since the actual use is tiny compared to the investment holding, what happens if people stop buying it.fluidistic said:
I hold investments, but buy and sell stuff with money. They're fundamentally different. I don't expect or want massive deflation in my checking account and I can't and won't buy a soda by feeding a stock certificate into the machine.
How? My checking account statement proves I own the money in it, but the statements usefulness has nothing to do with the value in it. I don't see why bitcoin advocates see value in the features of bitcoin.
Agreed. And that's a great feature for a scam.
Inflation transfers welath from creditors to debtors. In principle, if you are a debtor you want inflation, and if you're a creditor, you want deflation. Too much of either, of course, causes other, deeper problems.russ_watters said:
If that were strictly true, Bitcoin heists would be impossible. And, in principle, I suppose one could photograph every dollar one ever had and get at least as good results.fluidistic said:
I have a personal theory that the real point of inflation, or at least one point, is to give everyone a pay cut. Over time there are jobs that are relatively less valuable, and either the pay for those people needs to be cut, or everyone else needs to be paid more. I think psychologically people are very adverse to pay cuts so a small amount of inflation is necessary if we want jobs to fade away in the economy.Vanadium 50 said:
What I meant is that as long as you have the private key of a particular address, you can prove it, for example by transfering funds out of the address (but I'm sure there are other ways too). If someone have access to the key, he gains ownership of that address, and this may happen by scammer/gunpoint/drug/whatever else way.Vanadium 50 said:If that were strictly true, Bitcoin heists would be impossible. And, in principle, I suppose one could photograph every dollar one ever had and get at least as good results.
US dollars have a unique aspect: US taxes must be paid in US dollars = not euros, yen, pesos, loonies or bitcoins. The US spends $6T a year in federal spending, and states about $2T on a GDP of about $25T. So about a third of the US economy must be on dollars.
Given that, what does Bitcoin buy you?
Neither seems a compelling reason to switch away from dollar when buying a gallon of milk. In the US, crime is a few percent of the economy, so there is little use of Bitcoin day-to-day. Only when you want someone whacked.
- The ability to buy things you don't want the government knowing about.
- Stonks only go up! Bitcoin too!
That leaves "stonks always go up" - with no underlying asset and limited purchsing ability,. the only point is the Greater Fool Theory. Get in now, and sell it later to someone else. Historically this has not ended well. You won't want to be the one standing up when the music stops.
Not allowed on PF! Mods! Mods!Office_Shredder said:
Except the law.fluidistic said:
I don't think you do. I certainly don't own the money in my bank account. For instance, when I tried to perform a wire transfer to a cryptocurrency exchange, my bank refused, even though what I wanted to do isn't illegal. I asked why and they replied they do not want to deal with these kinds of business, although they suggested me to use a debit card to purchase crypto (but they charge around 2 percent instead of zero!). If I were to gamble in a casino or buy a weapon, I guess my bank wouldn't prevent me from doing it, but eventually it's up to my bank to decide what I cannot do with ''my'' money, not me. They can also freeze my account for any reason.russ_watters said:
That's nonsense. Not only is it yours, but it is federally insured against loss.fluidistic said:
Owning the money doesn't mean you get every account feature/term you want, and because you are lending them your money but it is protected, it is in both their interest and the government's that they don't do stupid or illegal things for you just because you ask them to.
But few people actually hold their own keys. That's why they use shadier banks (exchanges) to hold their money and help them do dumb/illegal things with it.
I still want to do what I wish with my money. "Investing" in cryptos shouldn't be forbidden by banks, even in the worst (legal) case that the cryptos goes to 0 in value. Buying cryptos isn't forbidden by the law.russ_watters said:
fluidistic said:
fluidistic said:
"Place your bets, you can't win without a ticket..."kyphysics said:
$GME/$AMC are "bubbles" only in that the value of their stock is too high for the underlying value of the companies. They are NOT without ANY underlying value so the thought of their going all the way to zero is pretty much a non-starter. Crypto coins on they other hand generally have NO underlying value so it is not at all unthinkable that their value could go to zero.kyphysics said:
