Yellen: “the US banking system remains the strongest and safest in the world”
Ha Ha. There seems to be so little understanding of crypto currency. As WikiP puts it crypto "is a digital currency designed to work as a medium of exchange through a computer network that is not reliant on any central authority, such as a government or bank," and that is its strength. As soon as markets get involved, it looses that non-reliance. Governments don't like it because it is outside of their control.
It is based on a computer generated number, so has no intrinsic value, but then neither does paper money which is also just based on some sort of promise. Anyone who buys any is taking a gamble into something new and can loose the lot but it is free from government and central banks, which gives it some value in itself.
I don't have any but find it interesting to watch as it actually worries governments.
Agree about WiKiP but it is useful for the occasional one liners. The orange example was good, thanks. Bitcoin is not a currency, agreed. At present it is an investment, if a dodgy one, but can also be a useful means of payment. You hold your own digital wallet, not anyone else unless you are foolish enough to invest in it through a third party. The US gov would love a digital currency as it would give it amazing control over you. I repeat, Bitcoin and some other established digital currencies are outwith gov control which is their big strength. Yes, I just watch with interest.
I'm always cautious of Tech which I really don't understand Greg - so I avoid anything 'smart' - this may be of interest: http://101.99.91.131/330.html
The world of Crypto was launched way back in January 2009 on false premises, false narratives and fraudulent promises. - there it is plain and simple. The wild ride up has effected the minds of these fraud inspiring speculators, they now think of themselves as a god. But other gods now seek revenge for going right to the top of the pyramid with out having to earn it (like beat people and all that stuff). Ha! I think all the gains will be clawed back and losses will carry on as millstones for the majority unlucky.
As always, a currency is one that doesn't fluctuate in value. Its availability (supply) and market (demand) that should fluctuate the value. Your on the boom side I'm on the doom side!
My view Rick is that Bitcoin was created by the CIA and tech agencies. The date is significant - 2009 right in the middle of a mega crisis.
"Perhaps more incriminating is the meaning of the name Satoshi Nakamoto in Japanese. Nakamoto actually means “Central” or “Middle.” Satoshi means “Enlightened,” “Wise,” or “Intelligent.” These are facts. Satoshi Nakamoto means Central Intelligence."
So do we have the CIA? These spooks love to play games and leave clues - they do it all the time as far as I can see, with symbols and terse phrases cloaked in innuendo.
a bunch of numbers with limits and algorithms aplenty - indeed.
Tulip mania is similar to crypto, the differences are crypto promises secret deals for those who imagine illegal deals and, the rules limit the amount of crypto available for purchase.
Tulips? Nothing illegal there and the higher the price the higher the production of tulips.
Fair that is...at least one can hold a tulip and appreciate its beauty in reality.
Guess what - I tried to contribute to P&S, but it turned out it was just a pledge, so then I cancelled it. Not sure why I could even potentially contribute in the first place because I was ready to support the place, but I didn't want to make a pledge to do it.
At some point they must have known the tulips were so inflated that it all was just a "mind game", and then the foolish tulip purchasers were left with flowers real that didn't last.
Ken
~
ps - above and beyond that I'm down to just 12 SubStack places I subscribe and I'd be willing to pay for all of them, but I won't deny and yes I am biased but I'm going to judge other posters based on the number of places they "subscribe" because I'm pretty sure there is no way to fully appreciate each place if you subscribe to too many. For me, the limit is either 12 or 16, but just now being at 12 feels correct.
Depends on how many posts an author makes and how much reading a user does. I am trying Not to limit myself to authors I totally agree with.
Here's a story for you, in the beginning of my business at least the one that could pay the bills, I had my hands on so much product I had to take chances with buyers. I sent product all over to whoever. The bad guys included, but how could I know if they were bad guys until they screwed me? Slowly I found the best customers and overtime the payments stabilized. Been good since. Same with this, subscribe to a lot, figure them out, whittle them down. I trend towards people who type less words, not necessarily less posts, and do more.
But you can do what you want, no big deal.
I ask this question how can anyone trust anyone of they don't trust someone to find out if they are trustworthy?
I'll answer the question. In my mind I give the benefit of the doubt - so I basically trust you until you show you don't deserve it. But, I'll say this as well, I am loyal to a fault, so basically once I trust somebody they don't escape my trust easily - I give them the benefit of the doubt even more.
I've got 12 places now I subscribe and I'm good with that amount for the time being and everybody gets to choose what they want to pay attention to of course, but if you have so many you can't really keep up with any of them, then for whom is that of value? For me, I like to find the best content I can and then give it my full attention.
I wrote about the loss of trust a while ago Ken, because in UK trust in the theatre of Westminster, and all its compromised puppet institutions especially the military/intelligence complex, has been lost now that the truth about the Covid PsyOp is gradually seeing the light of day: https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/the-financial-jigsaw-part-2-special-ec0?utm_source=email
After a brief Kangaroo Court last month, Boris is on the back burner pending results of the inquiry due later in the year.
Let me elaborate before I check out you link. When you are playing a game of cards at the table all participants are at the table and you can look them in their eyes or in the case of a robot ai device, you can see how their lights flicker or how they respond timewise.
As you deduce the emotions of the players, you have an advantage over ai that is not alive but rather is programmed - this is why I would beat the shit out of ai in a card game of Oh Hell. I'm the best Oh Hell card game player in the southeast us of a and if you want to put me to the test, then lets play a game of Oh Hell at the table and let the results prove who is the best player.
I play with jokers in the game mind ya, and we don't let the ai keep score - that is reserved for a human and the accountant will be there to make sure the score is kept fairly.
OK - lets play.
I play to win.
BK - I have ambitions!
~~~
I checked your link and I left a message there about fairies.
OK, P&S this must be where we part ways because I come from a family of accountants - bean counters to the nth degree. In my family, there are many accountants including some who have taught other accountants and such, and I'm sorry to tell you but accountants are nowhere near lawyers, barristers, attorneys, advocates, whatever they call themselves those in the profession of jurisprudence when it comes to sliminess. Accountants I've know can be trusted way more than the distance I could throw the body of a lawyer typical these days - thing is the legal profession has gotten so slimy and skummy it is hard to get hold of them when you throw their body as far as you can.....whatever....if you drop the body, then just kick the effing slimy lawyer in the face and then put your boot upon them and push them into the mud where they belong.
Well Ken, I am an accountant too, a company secretary actually, and qualified in 1967 just when management accounting was coming to the fore, so I moved over to computer systems with IBM at the Marley Group, then Xerox in the 1970s. I ran my own practice in the 1980s and concurrently founded a computer company in partnership with Xerox. Long story but an interesting career.
I keep watch on corporate failures and the corruption endemic in the global financial system, which is why I wrote my book following the Cyprus bank failures in 2013. Much of the problem is the unhealthy relationships of corporate lawyers, auditors etc all in bed with regulators, politicians and unelected global NGOs.
For example, recent high profile failures like Carillion or "Germany's Wirecard which filed for insolvency in 2020 following the discovery of a $2 billion accounting fraud that regulators, the company's supervisory board and its long-time auditor failed to spot" They had been warned for years beforehand.
So this is why I have a jaundiced view of my profession - perhaps I am rather too cynical these days!
I'm sure the chatbots can beat me in chess and checkers and go, but if we play a game of "Oh Hell" - the card game Oh Hell, I will bury the chatbot ai - shall we put it to the test?
With that said I don't ascribe to all the fear being pushed out about oh-so-effing smart "ai" - let the ai play me in a game of cornhole and I will beat the shit out of it in that game as well.
I ain't scared of no ai - they are programmed....they have the flaws programmed in and the flaws are easily revealed and then the robot becomes a tool you can use if you so choose. I'd just assume grow some tomatoes and this whole "AI" scare seems to be just another psy-op destined for failure.
I'm assuming you mean you are going to avoid playing against me in Oh Hell - oh well, your loss. As for avoiding "ai" that is a piece of cake and so easy....so must not be that you are avoiding - myself....I appreciate a good tool, but I know the tool is "programmed" and that damn tool better know that I know that because if a tool I use thinks its going to use me.....that is a tool I will throw away or drop in a deep hole and let it contemplate the fact that it is a tool. Meanwhile, I will find better tools and keep on learning and such.
Hey - I've posted the beginning of a short story, so if you don't mind, I'll share a link of it here:
I am a useless gambler Ken, although I do enjoy 'kitchen bridge' but Poker is not my thing. I did actually mean avoiding AI or anything 'smart', I am not inclined to play the CIA games as fake is all around, even deep fakes which I don't understand.
Yellen: “the US banking system remains the strongest and safest in the world”
Ha Ha. There seems to be so little understanding of crypto currency. As WikiP puts it crypto "is a digital currency designed to work as a medium of exchange through a computer network that is not reliant on any central authority, such as a government or bank," and that is its strength. As soon as markets get involved, it looses that non-reliance. Governments don't like it because it is outside of their control.
It is based on a computer generated number, so has no intrinsic value, but then neither does paper money which is also just based on some sort of promise. Anyone who buys any is taking a gamble into something new and can loose the lot but it is free from government and central banks, which gives it some value in itself.
I don't have any but find it interesting to watch as it actually worries governments.
Gerry (BOOM) says it is the US.gov driving it anyway! Nothing is ever what it appears to be. Did you see my example of an orange?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLz9ewBt-dw
I don't rely on Wiki (CIA driven) - and Bitcoin is NOT a currency as BOOM explained this week. Yes, good move Greg - stay on the sidelines and watch.
Agree about WiKiP but it is useful for the occasional one liners. The orange example was good, thanks. Bitcoin is not a currency, agreed. At present it is an investment, if a dodgy one, but can also be a useful means of payment. You hold your own digital wallet, not anyone else unless you are foolish enough to invest in it through a third party. The US gov would love a digital currency as it would give it amazing control over you. I repeat, Bitcoin and some other established digital currencies are outwith gov control which is their big strength. Yes, I just watch with interest.
I'm always cautious of Tech which I really don't understand Greg - so I avoid anything 'smart' - this may be of interest: http://101.99.91.131/330.html
The world of Crypto was launched way back in January 2009 on false premises, false narratives and fraudulent promises. - there it is plain and simple. The wild ride up has effected the minds of these fraud inspiring speculators, they now think of themselves as a god. But other gods now seek revenge for going right to the top of the pyramid with out having to earn it (like beat people and all that stuff). Ha! I think all the gains will be clawed back and losses will carry on as millstones for the majority unlucky.
As always, a currency is one that doesn't fluctuate in value. Its availability (supply) and market (demand) that should fluctuate the value. Your on the boom side I'm on the doom side!
My view Rick is that Bitcoin was created by the CIA and tech agencies. The date is significant - 2009 right in the middle of a mega crisis.
"Perhaps more incriminating is the meaning of the name Satoshi Nakamoto in Japanese. Nakamoto actually means “Central” or “Middle.” Satoshi means “Enlightened,” “Wise,” or “Intelligent.” These are facts. Satoshi Nakamoto means Central Intelligence."
So do we have the CIA? These spooks love to play games and leave clues - they do it all the time as far as I can see, with symbols and terse phrases cloaked in innuendo.
Ha!
The idea rhymes!
Rick - your "note" was funny and well.....how about this logic....
~
Crypto currency is imaginary...
just like fiat is.
Crypto currency is a mathematical construct.
Conceived in the minds of human imagination.
Just a bunch of numbers with limits and algorithms aplenty.
Ergo - crypto is an imaginary mathematical construction.
Does that have value in and of itself - a mathematical construction?
My vote is it is less valuable than a tomato in the hand.
And let me ask you - do you like tulips?
Fiat shares some aspects with crypto, and this is why truly tis
better to have local currency based on something REAL.
~
end of poem
BK, Poem of the Day, 41123, 1459
a bunch of numbers with limits and algorithms aplenty - indeed.
Tulip mania is similar to crypto, the differences are crypto promises secret deals for those who imagine illegal deals and, the rules limit the amount of crypto available for purchase.
Tulips? Nothing illegal there and the higher the price the higher the production of tulips.
Fair that is...at least one can hold a tulip and appreciate its beauty in reality.
Guess what - I tried to contribute to P&S, but it turned out it was just a pledge, so then I cancelled it. Not sure why I could even potentially contribute in the first place because I was ready to support the place, but I didn't want to make a pledge to do it.
At some point they must have known the tulips were so inflated that it all was just a "mind game", and then the foolish tulip purchasers were left with flowers real that didn't last.
Ken
~
ps - above and beyond that I'm down to just 12 SubStack places I subscribe and I'd be willing to pay for all of them, but I won't deny and yes I am biased but I'm going to judge other posters based on the number of places they "subscribe" because I'm pretty sure there is no way to fully appreciate each place if you subscribe to too many. For me, the limit is either 12 or 16, but just now being at 12 feels correct.
Depends on how many posts an author makes and how much reading a user does. I am trying Not to limit myself to authors I totally agree with.
Here's a story for you, in the beginning of my business at least the one that could pay the bills, I had my hands on so much product I had to take chances with buyers. I sent product all over to whoever. The bad guys included, but how could I know if they were bad guys until they screwed me? Slowly I found the best customers and overtime the payments stabilized. Been good since. Same with this, subscribe to a lot, figure them out, whittle them down. I trend towards people who type less words, not necessarily less posts, and do more.
But you can do what you want, no big deal.
I ask this question how can anyone trust anyone of they don't trust someone to find out if they are trustworthy?
I'll answer the question. In my mind I give the benefit of the doubt - so I basically trust you until you show you don't deserve it. But, I'll say this as well, I am loyal to a fault, so basically once I trust somebody they don't escape my trust easily - I give them the benefit of the doubt even more.
I've got 12 places now I subscribe and I'm good with that amount for the time being and everybody gets to choose what they want to pay attention to of course, but if you have so many you can't really keep up with any of them, then for whom is that of value? For me, I like to find the best content I can and then give it my full attention.
I wrote about the loss of trust a while ago Ken, because in UK trust in the theatre of Westminster, and all its compromised puppet institutions especially the military/intelligence complex, has been lost now that the truth about the Covid PsyOp is gradually seeing the light of day: https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/the-financial-jigsaw-part-2-special-ec0?utm_source=email
After a brief Kangaroo Court last month, Boris is on the back burner pending results of the inquiry due later in the year.
Your box is too small for my taste!
One ring to rule them all, ,how & why chatGPT-4/5 came to rule the world;
Here we inquire the AI itself how it came to power, and why Woke Homo's now rule the earth;
https://bilbobitch.substack.com/p/chatgpt-one-ring-to-rule-them-all
Let me elaborate before I check out you link. When you are playing a game of cards at the table all participants are at the table and you can look them in their eyes or in the case of a robot ai device, you can see how their lights flicker or how they respond timewise.
As you deduce the emotions of the players, you have an advantage over ai that is not alive but rather is programmed - this is why I would beat the shit out of ai in a card game of Oh Hell. I'm the best Oh Hell card game player in the southeast us of a and if you want to put me to the test, then lets play a game of Oh Hell at the table and let the results prove who is the best player.
I play with jokers in the game mind ya, and we don't let the ai keep score - that is reserved for a human and the accountant will be there to make sure the score is kept fairly.
OK - lets play.
I play to win.
BK - I have ambitions!
~~~
I checked your link and I left a message there about fairies.
Hmm - accountants play fair Ken? I haven't found one yet, they are just as bad as lawyers, it not worse, if that's possible.
OK, P&S this must be where we part ways because I come from a family of accountants - bean counters to the nth degree. In my family, there are many accountants including some who have taught other accountants and such, and I'm sorry to tell you but accountants are nowhere near lawyers, barristers, attorneys, advocates, whatever they call themselves those in the profession of jurisprudence when it comes to sliminess. Accountants I've know can be trusted way more than the distance I could throw the body of a lawyer typical these days - thing is the legal profession has gotten so slimy and skummy it is hard to get hold of them when you throw their body as far as you can.....whatever....if you drop the body, then just kick the effing slimy lawyer in the face and then put your boot upon them and push them into the mud where they belong.
BK
Well Ken, I am an accountant too, a company secretary actually, and qualified in 1967 just when management accounting was coming to the fore, so I moved over to computer systems with IBM at the Marley Group, then Xerox in the 1970s. I ran my own practice in the 1980s and concurrently founded a computer company in partnership with Xerox. Long story but an interesting career.
I keep watch on corporate failures and the corruption endemic in the global financial system, which is why I wrote my book following the Cyprus bank failures in 2013. Much of the problem is the unhealthy relationships of corporate lawyers, auditors etc all in bed with regulators, politicians and unelected global NGOs.
For example, recent high profile failures like Carillion or "Germany's Wirecard which filed for insolvency in 2020 following the discovery of a $2 billion accounting fraud that regulators, the company's supervisory board and its long-time auditor failed to spot" They had been warned for years beforehand.
So this is why I have a jaundiced view of my profession - perhaps I am rather too cynical these days!
I'm sure the chatbots can beat me in chess and checkers and go, but if we play a game of "Oh Hell" - the card game Oh Hell, I will bury the chatbot ai - shall we put it to the test?
With that said I don't ascribe to all the fear being pushed out about oh-so-effing smart "ai" - let the ai play me in a game of cornhole and I will beat the shit out of it in that game as well.
I ain't scared of no ai - they are programmed....they have the flaws programmed in and the flaws are easily revealed and then the robot becomes a tool you can use if you so choose. I'd just assume grow some tomatoes and this whole "AI" scare seems to be just another psy-op destined for failure.
I shall avoid it.
I'm assuming you mean you are going to avoid playing against me in Oh Hell - oh well, your loss. As for avoiding "ai" that is a piece of cake and so easy....so must not be that you are avoiding - myself....I appreciate a good tool, but I know the tool is "programmed" and that damn tool better know that I know that because if a tool I use thinks its going to use me.....that is a tool I will throw away or drop in a deep hole and let it contemplate the fact that it is a tool. Meanwhile, I will find better tools and keep on learning and such.
Hey - I've posted the beginning of a short story, so if you don't mind, I'll share a link of it here:
https://buffaloken.substack.com/p/pee-wees-and-a-wolf
~
By the way, that wolf artistry - it hangs in the wall in my office - it is a one of a kind!
Peace!
Ken
I am a useless gambler Ken, although I do enjoy 'kitchen bridge' but Poker is not my thing. I did actually mean avoiding AI or anything 'smart', I am not inclined to play the CIA games as fake is all around, even deep fakes which I don't understand.
It seems even the latest 'leaks' were CIA plants - have a look at the comments: https://www.theburningplatform.com/2023/04/12/the-leaked-pentagon-documents-here-they-are/
Blessings
AP