allanos

American humour for sure, and not to everyone's taste. Barry is

playing to a large audience so no particular surprise that he

has successfully pandered to it.

What will the judge say when handing down the Ozzy's sentence?

"Oh! And . . . before I forget  . . . . Merry Christmas!"

21 hours ago, lkn said:

Sure, you can dream up some dystopia, but try actually read what the various working groups have said about the topic, and you will find that mostly they are puzzled as to why people keep bringing it up, as they see CBDCs as a solution in search of a problem.

 

The most concrete “problem” I have seen described is the reliance on private money, which to some extend could be eliminated by giving people direct access to central banks’ balance sheets, but I am not sure how credit would work in such system, and I have a hard time seeing it as dystopian to try and reduce people’s reliance on banks.

 

I see the insidious potential for even further government control of their populace.

The "problem" has already been determined by governments, especially by

left of centre or communist ones, which are working on the solutions as we write.

It will be interesting to see what major banking institutions will have to say if and

when they are cut out of ongoing profit-making potential.

On 12/17/2022 at 1:19 PM, eisfeld said:

Did you mean "CBDCs" (no apostrophe)? Let's not play stupid games.

 

Going a bit too much off topic imho. OP is asking what he should invest in.

 

Given that he is an unsophisticated investor (not using that as a negative term) I would suggest he invest in something easier to understand and with relatively low risk, something passive which in the long term will likely result in decent gains. Maybe OP can also state what the groups appetite for risk is. The Youtube option doesn't sound great because they probably would have to actively be involved in the business and it didn't sound like it has growth ("steady base"). Plus 50k users is not that much on social media.

You take yourself far too seriously. You should get out more!

19 hours ago, eisfeld said:

Don't think the institutionals expect to make profits during that time. But they pulled out before the worst hit and pretty much all the stuff you listed would have far out performed ARK, including sitting on cash and just eating the inflation.

 

I don't think the right crypto currency has arrived yet. But Bitcoin doesn't even try to be a replacement for money at this point. Deflationary, slow and inefficient/expensive. Just. Can't. Work. They had no meaningful developments in the past 10 years to fix it. They clearly have settled trying to be a store of value. The billions of dollars invested in miners will do their best to keep it that way.  And if it were a replacement for money then it would by definition be a <deleted>ty investment because it would be like sitting on cash...

 

Do you meaby mean CBDCs? You are aware that the vast majority of the currency transactions nowerdays already are digital, yes?

Did you mean nowadays?

I did, indeed, mean to write CBDC's; thank you for pointing out the error.

Yes, I am aware that currency transactions are digital. However, there is a

world of difference between that and what CBDC's will be capable of in the

future. If you think 1984, you ain't seen nothin', yet!

21 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

Sure everything got a beating recently but these are actively managed funds and got a much harder beating than the general market while not showing more upside before that. Her firms AUM went from over $50B to $12.6B in something like 1.5 years. Big Investors have pulled out and I can understand why.

Show me exactly why people should listen to her when it comes to predicting the price of Bitcoin. It's marketing, let's not kid ourselves.

 

No, certainly not.

I suppose the question which follows, then, is where did these savvy "big investors" put

their money for an above-average return and to recoup losses? Gold is going nowhere,

and fiat, given the high-inflation environment, is a total loss-maker. Good yields anywhere

are difficult, if not impossible, to find. Even the housing market has taken a knock, so

property is not the answer, either.

As to the future of money, the world is changing - and quickly. If not Bitcoin, (which

both the SEC and the CME say is a commodity, and rightly so), which other crypto,

which you say you favour, is the answer? Pretty much all of the 20 000+ altcoins out

there are securities with absolutely no future whatsoever.

All-controlling CFTC's are in the pipeline from the Fed, the Bank of England, the 

European Central Bank, and already trialed in China. What then? I shall prefer to

keep most of my cash in Bitcoin and take my chances.

1 hour ago, eisfeld said:

So far her funds have performed remarkably badly with most of them losing money over the past 4+ years.

When one is backward-looking, it is hard to have a vision for the future. Pretty much all

investments have taken a knock in recent times, with the exception of the bond market,

perhaps. Check all the indexes and  the DXY - even the high-flying dollar is down.

Ark Invest is positioned mainly in technology stocks, one might say stocks which will

have enormous growth in the future, like AI, robotics, etc., and Bitcoin, which is the

future of money.

Sure, investors have taken some pain, but losses are only realised when one sells. The

smart money has stayed invested, and added to positions as the stock price has

fallen. Their faith will be rewarded as day follows night.

1 hour ago, eisfeld said:

 

 

 

It is interesting that even the most banal of questions has

to have a "never-Trumper" response. So be it!

However, on to the topic. 

Ten years is a good investment horizon for Bitcoin if one is

prepared to ride the volatility. $17 000.00 or so represents

good value, currently. 

Cathie Wood, CEO of Ark Invest, believes Bitcoin will trade

at one million dollars per BTC by 2030. So what if they are

fifty percent wrong in their forecast?

Like all things, do your due diligence. Perhaps split your

investment between Bitcoin, which has unlimited upside

potential, and the online media offering you are looking at.

Make sure you understand what Bitcoin is all about, and

don't listen to the FUD which is out there from people who

don't know their a$ses from a hole in the ground.

It is true that the price of Bitcoin can go down from here,

but the downside is limited. It is possible that the bottom

is already in.

Timing is everything. Although the gold price is

volatile, to make meaningful profits one needs

to buy the dips. Essentially, the gold price today

is where it was ten years ago, so not much of an

investment return for someone who bought in

2012.

There is an argument that it is a store of value.

This may be true, but there's an opportunity cost

from holding it, which tends to be forgotten about.

There is no coupon on gold.

Undoubtedly, there will be a price spike at some

stage in the future. Best to be holding shares, in

that case, which are highly leveraged to the gold

price, and where the real money is made.

19 minutes ago, Letseng said:

This is Standard Bank South Africa. Yes, they are based in South Africa. Put my money there? Never.

If anybody thinks Thai banks are a nightmare, wait for S.A. banks to cause one. 

The link appears to be the London branch of Standard Bank of South Africa - a very reputable and well-capitalised operation. Among other banks where I have accounts, I also bank with SBSA. They are first-class, in my opinion. Have you had dealings with them and can you share your experience?

Horses for courses!

There's no one size fits all.

And constantly sitting in judgement of others

is mentally unhealthy.

Cherchez la femme!

He could always go "commando" and spend the money saved

on Christmas booze!

First, congratulations to the OP for having such a talented

daughter and who, no doubt, brings much joy and pride to the

family for her abilities.

Second, and more importantly, perhaps, is, and given her age,

will the company ensure that a chaperone is always present,

in the future, should her father not be able to be with her on such

occasions.

I think there may be another caveat.

The father may be British, but there are different kinds of British 

(such as British Overseas Citizen) which do not confer an automatic

right upon a child who was fathered by such a person.

Moreover, the father may be British, but not himself born in the

United Kingdom. I think that might also obviate the child's claim

to British citizenship.

Caffeine irritates the bladder, so, on doctor's orders I abstained

from coffee, (including "caffeine-free", which nevertheless contains

a small amount of caffeine), for a period of eight weeks. Instead,

I drank rooibos tea, which has no caffeine.

Initially, when cutting the coffee/caffeine,  I suffered from intense

headache, which lessened over the next 7-10 days, and which I attributed

to "withdrawal symptoms".

Did I feel any improvement during my period of abstinence? Nope, and

I missed my morning cuppa Joe (usually 2-4 cups with a small amount

of fresh milk added; def no sugar).

I have returned to drinking my habitual French roast arabica, brewed using

a cafetiere, and life is good once more.

24 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You're ignoring the problem of having to keep nuclear waste safe forever.

 

There is never going to be a world shortage of uranium.

There are creative answers with nuclear waste disposal.

There is already a shortage of uranium, and fast-growing!

Are you aware of just how long it takes to bring a new

mining project of sufficient magnitude to production?

I think not.

Nuclear is safe, clean and cheap when costs are amortised over a 

project's life, with none of the problems associated with renewables,

like lack of wind for turbine generation, or lack of sunlight for solar.

This is being recognised the world over. Germany is bringing some

shuttered plants back online, (partly through need, it is true)  and

the majority of Japanese people are again in favour of nuclear

energy, despite the Fukushima catastrophe of eleven years ago.

Hence, the price of uranium, where stockpiles are diminishing and

demand is outstripping supply, is rocketing. 

I am visiting the United Kingdom currently and have been exposed

to the country's television broadcasts for several weeks.

Black people seem to feature on screen or in commercial advertisements,

or in background voice-overs, out of all proportion to the percentage they

hold in the population at large. 

Asians (especially those of Indian or Pakistan origin), despite being a

larger ethnic proportion of the whole population (I believe), only seem

to figure marginally in the set up. My remarks also apply to the BBC

website, which is left-biased, and woke, and subscribes to this "new

normal".

I remarked to my daughter that, based on what one sees on television,

if I were a visitor from outer space, I would believe that Britain was an

African country rather than a largely caucasian one.

And whilst certain apologists, or "wokists",  might deem this post to be

"racist", in its orientation,  it is simply my observation and is not intended

to confront or offend.

8 hours ago, Non Immigrant said:

What are you on about??

 

If they are from upcountry, they have homes, lands, and vehicles. 

 

Such utter tripe! Do we understand you to be saying that ALL Thais who are from "upcountry"

have homes, lands and vehicles? It is such a sweeping generalisation as to be laughable, and does you no credit!