pull down to refresh
tbh, I didn't know this is a day bitcoiners celebrate
I thought it was just white paper day and bitcoin pizza day
This was the best human answer. If you attach a receive wallet I'll pay you the bounty!
Anyway, the honeypot seemed to work, but I'm getting tired of all the notifications. Hopefully paying the bounty will make them stop, but I'm not sure if the bots are paying attention to whether it's been paid or not, ~lol
This is one of the arguments that a mainstream economist brought up against me when I was explaining bitcoin (#998456)
To be honest, I think the concern is probably overblown.
As with anything in economics, there are two sides to the coin.
Currently, employees bear the risk of inflation through nominally rigid wage contracts. In fact, a large part of the anxiety the regular person feels is their need to constantly fight for wage increases to keep up with inflation. In this world, employees fight for wage increases, and firms either give it to them, or employees stay and fall behind, or they leave.
Would it really be so bad if employers bore the risk of deflation through nominally rigid wage contracts instead? It's hard for us to envision because it's not the norm, but I don't know if there's anything fundamental that says it couldn't be the norm. In this world, firms fight for wage decreases, and employees either accept them or not, and if they don't accept them they leave. Or the firm just gives in and keeps wages rigid while accepting less profit or making other adjustments on the margin.
They were already taking huge writedowns anyway, due to the homes being underwater and the mortgages not being repaid / entering foreclosure.
Question: Has the National Debt become so large that citizens care less about it now vs when it was smaller and more reasonable?
I think so. I think the zeitgeist is that fiscal responsibility doesn't pay, isn't worth it, and that the money is all fake and should be treated as such. The real constraint isn't how much money you do or don't have, how much you can and can't raise, or how much you do or don't owe. The only thing that matters is how long you can keep bootstrapping your debt forward by convincing others to give you resources in return for vague future promises.
tsk tsk tsk
you like that hat so much yet you can't even keep it on for more than a few days at a time!
(not that i'm any better)
I was trying to parse through whether it makes sense to say that the cost of mining a block is about equal to the block reward, regardless of how long it took to mine.
I think more or less this is correct, at least until the next difficulty adjustment (or protocol change) for the BIP-chain
Is this project related to https://pig.gy?
I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who even marginally follows this stuff that AOC is nothing but an opportunist and a grifter
I think the classical expectation here would be that poor people would keep paying low prices and rich people would see the higher prices, to the extent that willingness to pay corresponds to budgets.
Right but I think part of my point is that the classical expectation might not be accurate. There are plenty of products where the poor end up subsidizing the rich for whatever reason, like credit cards. It's not obvious to me that poor peoples' demand curves (for the things they actually buy) are more elastic than the rich, as they may have less time or ability to shop around for the best deals or otherwise optimize their way around the system
The thesis itself is pretty straightforward. What if the predominant type of mortgage had been a shared appreciation mortgage (SAM)---mortgages whose balance is indexed to the price of the home?
The motivation was that the GFC precipitated by foreclosures, which generally require two things to be true: 1. inability/unwillingness to pay, and 2. underwater on the loan. If borrowers weren't underwater, there wouldn't be as many value-destroying foreclosures.
What if the mortgages had been indexed to house prices? Then, house prices going down wouldn't trigger the underwater condition and there wouldn't have been a wave of foreclosures. Moreover, when house prices were expected to appreciate, the lender can make the SAM at very favorable terms because they expect to receive some of that appreciation. Many borrowers who are liquidity constrained would presumably be willing to trade some of the house price upside for more favorable terms upfront, like lower payments or lower LTV requirements.
The paper built a quantitative model to simulate outcomes had this been the case and do welfare calculations.
I don't think banning personalized pricing is very practical to enforce.
That being said, I don't really want society to move in the direction of greater complexity. I'd be pretty happy if things had one sticker price, not dependent on anything, and I could just choose to take the price or not.
Complexity, in general, is pretty regressive, tending to hurt the poor in favor of the already rich.
I'm almost certain that under a frictionless competitive model you'd be able to derive some kind of equivalence result, similar to equivalence of tax incidence in competitive markets.