Fuck everyone that spreads FUD. You could have made great profits while helping stabilising bitcoin price. Now back to scammers at 2% a week and great volatility that make bitcoin look like a laughing stocks.

Fuck you. At least now you'll look ridiculous, that's my only pleasure.

Now you have me thinking more about the Catiline fiasco. Cicero has been my favorite politician of the ancient world. But I think he mishandled the Catiline conspiracy. After the conspirators were arrested, he had them executed without trials. That caused a huge controversy and the debate continued for decades.

Cicero was a lawyer and he made a fancy legal argument that, as consul, he had authority to execute without trials during an emergency. When the conspirators were arrested, people were afraid that there could be more conspirators, or that the arrested conspirators would be rescued by a mob that would succeed with the coup. But Romans regarded each citizen's right to a trial as fundamental, and the executions caused a lot of blowback.

I think Cicero weakened the Roman constitution with those executions. That added to the slippery slope of the Roman republic.

If we think about it, suspending a constitutional right during an emergency set a dangerous precedent. Now we have prisoners in Guantanamo held indefinitely without trial. Now the US government executes its citizens without trial by blowing them up with drones. Do you see what Cicero started?

Cicero really screwed up another situation years later. Caesar and Pompey invited him to join them in a triumvirate to govern Rome. Cicero declined. If he had accepted, he was the perfect guy to mediate the conflicts between Caesar and Pompey. That's why they wanted him. If he had joined the triumvirate, Cicero could have prevented the civil war, and maybe helped to reform the republic, at least for another while.

So I'm mad at Cicero. But he spent his life trying to preserve the republic.

There is a topic related to Imperial Rome that I still puzzle
over. Now, within the US Presidential campaigns, I may have found
a new perspective on the outcomes. The two quotes below are
enlightening:

Short on policy, long on Entertainment. Imperial Rome was famous
for its "Bread and Circuses" - just the sort of nebulous concept
that defies the ability to attach numbers. This made the true
importance and impact of this policy difficult to grasp, and
allowed it to escape its proper inspection.

I would say that a cryptocurrency that resets itself is probably rather counter-productive, and in my opinion a terrible idea if you want it to go on for more than a generation. The crypto could never have any considerable value because it would all get wiped in the future, and thus investing large amounts or placing the value at greater than $1/coin would be completely useless and just be looking for a lot of lost wealth.

It is a good concept for an authoritarian government that should never expect for their currency to have any value in the international stage, but it sucks as a free market idea.

Yes I would like to see the proofs of these statements.

Also, when you really think off it, this wouldn't be so surprising to do. I mean he didn't have any other way of doing the distribution when he was pretty much mining all by himself in the beginning. Him and maybe 1 or 2 more people.

Do you have any proof that Satoshi said this? There are a lot of people that pretend to be Satoshi you know. I am pretty sure that there is a max of 21 mil, not 20 mil, Bitcoin to be mined.

Could you please quote where did he say this ?

Thanks for the info.  That's pretty crazy for government bonds lol.  So for people already holding bonds, with that type of increase to yields, the price would have already dropped significantly.  New bondholders should understand the risk and be compensated with a higher yield.

Any insight into who the main bondholders are that would suffer from a default?  Greek citizens or foreign investment?

Its a macro concept not micro

This is also such a crazy statement that comes back very often: one should pay its employees a lot of money, so that they can pay a lot of money for your products

The secret is that you don't want MONEY from your consumers, you want to get *goods and services* from others.  Money is just an intermediate thing.  You produce, because you want to get production from others, not money.  If you can get the production from your labourers for less, then by all means, that's what you should do.  

Imagine: I have material costs of 100.-, I pay 100.- wages, and I have then produced 100 products which I sell for 3.- each, so I make 100.- benefit.

What advantage would I have, by paying 160.- wages, and sell now 20 products more (namely, the 20 products that my employees can buy with their extra salary) ?  Because now, in fact, I have a cost also of 120.

In the end, I will now sell 120 products at 3 each, have a material cost of 120, and pay 160 wages.  My benefit is now 360 - 160 - 120 = 80.

I LOWERED my profit from 100 earlier on to only 80, by paying my workers more so that they come and consume my products and by selling more.

There is nothing to be won by increasing wages for people to consume more.  Because you have to pay the other production factors too (in our case, the "material costs")

China got where it got today after they essentially allowed private capital ownership in the late '70s when Deng Xiaoping took power and began carrying out significant economic reforms. They switched from a planned economy to a mixed economy with an open market. In short, "Communist" China is as Communist as any other Capitalist country out there...