Next Major Bitcoin Drop Could Fall to as Low as $1,800 ...

Bitcoin Has First Downward Difficulty Adjustment Since June 2015 as Hashrate Stabilizes and Price Falls to 2650 CNY

Bitcoin Has First Downward Difficulty Adjustment Since June 2015 as Hashrate Stabilizes and Price Falls to 2650 CNY submitted by Bitcoin_Markets to btc [link] [comments]

/r/bitcoin thread 1zh4gr ("What will the price of Bitcoin be on January 1st, 2015?") prediction threshold reached for post cftllr8. The predicted value of 1 BTC "some thing like $3200-$6400 by July" falls wildly short of estimate. This is good news for Bitcoin.

/bitcoin thread 1zh4gr ( submitted by Jackpot777 to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

11/11/2015: Bitcoin Price Falls Sharply

11/11/2015: Bitcoin Price Falls Sharply submitted by NinaLyon to btc [link] [comments]

Historically bitcoin has higher lows. Keep cam and buy bitcoin.

Historically bitcoin has higher lows. Keep cam and buy bitcoin. submitted by jmmbrito to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Don’t ask when OXT will pump next, ask when Bitcoin will pump next

Because as Bitcoin goes, so does Orchid go...except Orchid will go a lot further when BTC goes. Nobody pays attention to a dead market. When BTC is alive and kicking, that has been a catalyst for altcoins like OXT. iOS official version for OXT got released recently yet no price action in OXT. And that’s because even development has little influence on price action. If BTC surges to $15K this year, then sky’s the limit for Orchid. This is the trickle down effect.
submitted by truth_revealled to OXTBETS [link] [comments]

[H] +300 Steam Games (Special discount) [W] Paypal (from 0.75$ each)

   
One free game of your choice for each purchase (only first list games)
      REP
Steam profile
IGSRep +84 trades confirmed
SGS Flair +220 trades confirmed
GameTradeREP +24 trades confirmed
       
Payment through Paypal (USD) using Good & Services option. Not accepting other type of payment (bitcoin, Venmo, etc). If you want to pay using F&F option fees are on your side. (I'm from EU).
   
Recently added. New games weekly Press Ctrl + F to search games in the list
   
   
   
0.75$ (OFFER 4x2: choose 4 games and pay only 2.5$ fees included)
   
3$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 4.75$ instead of 6$)
   
4.5$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 7$ instead of 9$)
   
submitted by SparkyNest to SteamGameSwap [link] [comments]

Tesla Beats

For Trading October 22nd
WHR HOME RUN NUMBERS
CMG, TSLA, LVS All Beat
Today’s market was another back and forth without much net change. I know that many think that 100 or 200-point moves look like a lot but on a percentage basis it’s less than 1%. With “algo’s” and buy and sell programs, that’s not overwhelming. At the end of the day the DJIA was -97.97 (.35%), NASDAQ -31.80 (.28%), S&P 500 -7.56 (.22%), the Russell -13.93 (.86%) and the biggest loser was DJ Transports -135.28 (1.14%). Market internals were 2:1 down on both NYSE and NASDAQ. Only 7 stocks were up out of the DJIA with the big winner TRV adding 45 DP’s and the loser was GS -33 DP’s. The rest were all up or down less than 20. The lack of progress on any stimulus plans seems to be the main issue, and it concerns me greatly. I’m not so much concerned with poor holiday sales, but they clearly will suffer, but the jackasses in Washington have no idea what it means to be concerned with the rent, or food, or heat, and assuming that Biden gets elected, I wouldn’t expect any action until mid-winter. #TERMLIMITS.
Our “open forum” on Discord, which allows you to interact with subscribers and others to allow direct questions and chart opinions on just about any stock, continues to grow with more participants every day. It is informative and allows me to share insights as the market is open and moving. The link is: https://discord.gg/ATvC7YZ and I will be there and active from before the open and all day. It’s a great place to share ideas and gain some insights, and we’ve grown to almost 3000 members. I also returned to my radio show today with a great live interview with the Chief Medical Officer of JANONE (JAN) and it was a great show. This is the link to the audio recording including my discussion of the market and the very exciting story of JAN’s phenomenal NON-OPIOID Pain Med! This is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCFCxnijFO4 Enjoy!!
Yesterday’s interview with Joe Moscato, CEO of GNBT is available today at https://youtu.be/rJBtqC75g3A It’s a great story and this stock (I believe) won’t stay at these levels once there is a wider understanding of what this company actually has going for it!!
Tonight’s closing comment video: https://youtu.be/g-gP65lp96E
SECTORS: Earnings were the big movers again today with some big names putting out some big numbers. The biggest winner that I keyed in upon was Whirlpool (WHR). I should have seen that coming with all of the home repairs and upgrades, great housing numbers and easy credit terms. They beat top and bottom lines and the stock had closed $196.83 -3.10 (1.55%) but after the numbers traded up to $216 and the last is $205.75 +5.82 (2.91%). They had great metrics for their own brand as well as private label lines. The all-time high of $217.00 was way back in early 2015. Tesla beat and although their call hasn’t taken place yet, the stock had a pretty calm day (for TSLA), finishing $422.64 +.70 but after the beat the stock traded to $442.00 and the last is $436.95 +15.01 (3.5%). We’ll have to see if Elon has “one more thing” to announce! SNAP had great metrics and while it was $34.95 +6.50 this morning, it traded to $38.89 and finished $36.23 +7.78 (27.35%). CHIPOTLE (CMG) was a loser, although their numbers were good, with major continuing growth in digital and opening new stores. I personally order from there and get it delivered within 25-30 minutes (for free) and love it. After closing just under the all-time high at $1366.66 +18.19 it fell to $1250, before turning back up. I had a few members buying small odd-lots between -68 and -47, and the last is $1311.90 -36.47 (2.78%).
New Group: AIR & CRUISE LINES were LOWER with CCL -.18, RCL -.89, NCHL -.18, AAL -.13, DAL -.58, LUV -.50, UAL -.51, HA -.20, ALK -.24 and XTN $61.04-.64 (1.04%).
FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN was HIGHER with TSN +1.31, BOS +.07, FLO -.22, CPB +.08, CAG -.03, MDLZ -.16, KHC -.55, CALM +.30, JJSF +1.89, SAFM +3.67, HRL +.69, SJM +.28, PPC +.17, KR unchanged, and a new addition ACI -.20, and PBJ $34.13 -.05 (.14%).
BIOPHARMA was LOWER with BIIB +1.25, ABBV -.85, REGN -6.63, ISRG -3.85, GILD -.34, MYL -.17, TEVA +.34, VRTX -2.63, BHC +.78, INCY -.47, ICPT -1.37, LABU -3.91, and IBB $134.19 -2.34 (1.71%).
CANNABIS: was HIGHER with TLRY +.16, CGC +.62, CRON +.15, GWPH +1.15, ACB +.25, CURLF +.25, KERN -.03, and MJ $11.55 +.21 (1.85%).
DEFENSE was LOWER with LMT -4.71, GD -1.85, TXT -.45, NOC -.,05, BWXT -.39, TDY -10.86, RTX -.74, and ITA $160.79 -2.54 (1.56%).
RETAIL: was HIGHER with M +.15, JWN +.14, KSS +1.31, DDS -.49, WMT +.60, TGT -1.72, TJX +.05, RL +1.50, and a new addition GPS -.42, and XRT $53.44 -.35 (.65%).
MEGA-CAPS & FAANG were LOWER with GOOGL +39.88, AMZN -29.51, AAPL -.91, FB +10.91, NFLX 35.44, NVDA -4.20, TSLA +14.86, BABA -1.91, BIDU +5.02, CMG -34.47, CRM -1.57, BA -3.05, CAT -1.53, DIS +1.79 and XLK $119.10 -.21 (.18%). PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THESE PRICES ARE LATE MARKET QUOTES AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE 4:00 CLOSES.
FINANCIALS were LOWER with GS -5.15, JPM -1.06, BAC -.11, MS -1.17, C -.57, PNC -1.38, AIG +1.02, TRV +6.94, V +1.15, and XLF $24.60 -.21 (.85%).
OIL, $40.03 -1.67, Oil has been locked into the current range and tried to break in either direction without success. Last night I said, “While I think it may resolve to the downside, I am not taking any new positions.” The stocks were lower today and there has been a pickup in M&A activity in the group. XLE finished $29.41 -.49 (1.64%).
GOLD $1,929.50 +14.10 opened HIGHER and made a higher into the falling 50-day MA and a higher low, closing near the highs of the day. There were several “unusual options action” looking for another 10-12% on the upside before year end.
BITCOIN: closed $12,755 +785. After breaking out over $10,000 we have had a “running correction” pushing prices toward $12,000, reaching a recovery high of $12220 Thursday, and after a day of rest in between, we resumed the rally touching $12,635, but have sold off back to support. We had 750 shares of GBTC and sold off 250 last week at $13.93 and 250 today @$14.19, and we still have 250 with a cost of $8.45. GBTC closed $14.29 +.99 today.
Tomorrow is another day.
CAM
submitted by Dashover to OptionsOnly [link] [comments]

[H] +300 Steam Games (Special discount) [W] Paypal (from 0.75$ each)

   
      REP
Steam profile
IGSRep +86 trades confirmed
SGS Flair +222 trades confirmed
GameTradeREP +24 trades confirmed
       
Payment through Paypal (USD) using Good & Services option. Not accepting other type of payment (bitcoin, Venmo, etc). If you want to pay using F&F option fees are on your side. (I'm from EU).
   
Recently added. New games weekly Press Ctrl + F to search games in the list
   
   
   
0.75$ (OFFER 4x2: choose 4 games and pay only 2.5$ fees included)
   
3.40$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 5$ instead of 6.80$)
   
5$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 7.5$ instead of 10$)
   
12$
submitted by SparkyNest to SteamGameSwap [link] [comments]

[H] +300 Steam Games (Special discount) [W] Paypal (from 0.75$ each)

   
One free game of your choice for each purchase (only first list games)
      REP
Steam profile
IGSRep +82 trades confirmed
SGS Flair +214 trades confirmed
GameTradeREP +24 trades confirmed
       
Payment through Paypal (USD) using Good & Services option. Not accepting other type of payment (bitcoin, Venmo, etc). If you want to pay using F&F option fees are on your side. (I'm from EU).
   
Recently added. New games weekly Press Ctrl + F to search games in the list
   
   
   
0.75$ (OFFER 4x2: choose 4 games and pay only 2.5$ fees included)
   
3$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 4.75$ instead of 6$)
   
4.5$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 7$ instead of 9$)
   
submitted by SparkyNest to SteamGameSwap [link] [comments]

[H] +300 Steam Games (Special discount) [W] Paypal (from 0.75$ each)

   
One free game of your choice for each purchase (only first list games)
      REP
Steam profile
IGSRep +82 trades confirmed
SGS Flair +215 trades confirmed
GameTradeREP +24 trades confirmed
       
Payment through Paypal (USD) using Good & Services option. Not accepting other type of payment (bitcoin, Venmo, etc). If you want to pay using F&F option fees are on your side. (I'm from EU).
   
Recently added. New games weekly Press Ctrl + F to search games in the list
   
   
   
0.75$ (OFFER 4x2: choose 4 games and pay only 2.5$ fees included)
   
3$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 4.75$ instead of 6$)
   
4.5$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 7$ instead of 9$)
   
submitted by SparkyNest to SteamGameSwap [link] [comments]

Is Bitcoin a leading indicator for stocks? (plot attached)

I read an article that claimed that Bitcoin tended to lead stocks market changes, but this was the usual tea leaf reading and chart-staring.
So I decided to compute the cross-correlation function of daily bitcoin percentage changes with SP500 daily percentage changes, from 2015 to today.
Plot here: https://i.imgur.com/zNHSzZK.png
The big white peak shows that bitcoin and stocks move in parallel on the same day (zero time lag).
But the broad bump in the red boxcar-smoothed correlation function suggests that bitcoin prices changes today are correlated with SP500 changes over the upcoming week.
However the SP500 seems to have little or no predictive power for Bitcoin, because there's no peak to the left of zero.
NOTE: the cross-correlation function is defined as
c(t) = ∫ 𝝙BTC(𝜏 )/BTC((𝜏 ) ⨉ 𝝙SP500(𝜏 +t)/SP500(𝜏 +t)d𝜏
so that if BTC(𝜏 ) tends move the same as SP500(𝜏+t) for many 𝜏 then c(t) should have a peak at t.
edit - a simple hypothesis: The zero-lag (white) correlation is obviously just normal correlated markets. The longer (red) correlation represents an internal lag time to the stock market in responding to events. For example a negative event causes a crash in both BTC and SP500. The Bitcoin falls fast, and stops, but SP500 reacts slowly and the sell-off takes a few days to complete.
As an analogy, an earthquake knocks down a building (BTC), and also sets off a huge landslide (SP500), but the big landslide tends to be followed by a series of smaller landslides. The building's fall "predicted" the multi-day landslide, but it's not a useful prediction, because you could have looked at the initial landslide and known that more landslides tend to follow.
edit 2: a technical way of saying this is that the SP500 might have a longer impulse response to external events than BTC.
submitted by VeryStableGenius to investing [link] [comments]

A criticism of the article "Six monetarist errors: why emission won't feed inflation"

(be gentle, it's my first RI attempt, :P; I hope I can make justice to the subject, this is my layman understanding of many macro subjects which may be flawed...I hope you can illuminate me if I have fallen short of a good RI)
Introduction
So, today a heterodox leaning Argentinian newspaper, Ambito Financiero, published an article criticizing monetarism called "Six monetarist errors: why emission won't feed inflation". I find it doesn't properly address monetarism, confuses it with other "economic schools" for whatever the term is worth today and it may be misleading, so I was inspired to write a refutation and share it with all of you.
In some ways criticizing monetarism is more of a historical discussion given the mainstream has changed since then. Stuff like New Keynesian models are the bleeding edge, not Milton Friedman style monetarism. It's more of a symptom that Argentinian political culture is kind of stuck in the 70s on economics that this things keep being discussed.
Before getting to the meat of the argument, it's good to have in mind some common definitions about money supply measures (specifically, MB, M1 and M2). These definitions apply to US but one can find analogous stuff for other countries.
Argentina, for the lack of access to credit given its economic mismanagement and a government income decrease because of the recession, is monetizing deficits way more than before (like half of the budget, apparently, it's money financed) yet we have seen some disinflation (worth mentioning there are widespread price freezes since a few months ago). The author reasons that monetary phenomena cannot explain inflation properly and that other explanations are needed and condemns monetarism. Here are the six points he makes:
1.Is it a mechanical rule?
This way, we can ask by symmetry: if a certainty exists that when emission increases, inflation increases, the reverse should happen when emission becomes negative, obtaining negative inflation. Nonetheless, we know this happens: prices have an easier time increasing and a lot of rigidity decreasing. So the identity between emission and inflation is not like that, deflation almost never exists and the price movement rhythm cannot be controlled remotely only with money quantity. There is no mechanical relationship between one thing and the other.
First, the low hanging fruit: deflation is not that uncommon, for those of you that live in US and Europe it should be obvious given the difficulties central banks had to achieve their targets, but even Argentina has seen deflation during its depression 20 years ago.
Second, we have to be careful with what we mean by emission. A statement of quantity theory of money (extracted from "Money Growth and Inflation: How Long is the Long-Run?") would say:
Inflation occurs when the average level of prices increases. Individual price increases in and of themselves do not equal inflation, but an overall pattern of price increases does. The price level observed in the economy is that which leads the quantity of money supplied to equal the quantity of money demanded. The quantity of money supplied is largely controlled by the [central bank]. When the supply of money increases or decreases, the price level must adjust to equate the quantity of money demanded throughout the economy with the quantity of money supplied. The quantity of money demanded depends not only on the price level but also on the level of real income, as measured by real gross domestic product (GDP), and a variety of other factors including the level of interest rates and technological advances such as the invention of automated teller machines. Money demand is widely thought to increase roughly proportionally with the price level and with real income. That is, if prices go up by 10 percent, or if real income increases by 10 percent, empirical evidence suggests people want to hold 10 percent more money. When the money supply grows faster than the money demand associated with rising real incomes and other factors, the price level must rise to equate supply and demand. That is, inflation occurs. This situation is often referred to as too many dollars chasing too few goods. Note that this theory does not predict that any money-supply growth will lead to inflation—only that part of money supply growth that exceeds the increase in money demand associated with rising real GDP (holding the other factors constant).
So it's not mere emission, but money supply growing faster than money demand which we should consider. So negative emission is not necessary condition for deflation in this theory.
It's worth mentioning that the relationship with prices is observed for a broad measure of money (M2) and after a lag. From the same source of this excerpt one can observe in Fig. 3a the correlation between inflation and money growth for US becomes stronger the longer data is averaged. Price rigidities don't have to change this long term relationship per se.
But what about causality and Argentina? This neat paper shows regressions in two historical periods: 1976-1989 and 1991-2001. The same relationship between M2 and inflation is observed, stronger in the first, highly inflationary period and weaker in the second, more stable, period. The regressions a 1-1 relationship in the high inflation period but deviates a bit in the low inflation period (yet the relationship is still there). Granger causality, as interpreted in the paper, shows prices caused money growth in the high inflation period (arguably because spending was monetized) while the reverse was true for the more stable period.
So one can argue that there is a mechanical relationship, albeit one that is more complicated than simple QTOM theory. The relationship is complicated too for low inflation economies, it gets more relevant the higher inflation is.
Another point the author makes is that liquidity trap is often ignored. I'll ignore the fact that you need specific conditions for the liquidity trap to be relevant to Argentina and address the point. Worth noting that while market monetarists (not exactly old fashioned monetarists) prefer alternative explanations for monetary policy with very low interest rates, this phenomena has a good monetary basis, as explained by Krugman in his famous japanese liquidity trap paper and his NYT blog (See this and this for some relevant articles). The simplified version is that while inflation may follow M2 growth with all the qualifiers needed, central banks may find difficulties targeting inflation when interest rates are low and agents are used to credible inflation targets. Central banks can change MB, not M2 and in normal times is good enough, but at those times M2 is out of control and "credibly irresponsible" policies are needed to return to normal (a more detailed explanation can be found in that paper I just linked, go for it if you are still curious).
It's not like monetary policy is not good, it's that central banks have to do very unconventional stuff to achieve in a low interest rate environment. It's still an open problem but given symmetric inflation targeting policies are becoming more popular I'm optimistic.
2 - Has inflation one or many causes?
In Argentina we know that the main determinant of inflation is dollar price increases. On that, economic concentration of key markets, utility price adjustments, fuel prices, distributive struggles, external commodity values, expectatives, productive disequilibrium, world interest rates, the economic cycle, stationality and external sector restrictions act on it too.
Let's see a simple example: during Macri's government since mid 2017 to 2019 emission was practically null, but when in 2018 the dollar value doubled, inflation doubled too (it went from 24% to 48% in 2018) and it went up again a year later. We see here that the empirical validity of monetarist theory was absent.
For the first paragraph, one could try to run econometric tests for all those variables, at least from my layman perspective. But given that it doesn't pass the smell test (has any country used that in its favor ignoring monetary policy? Also, I have shown there is at least some evidence for the money-price relationship before), I'll try to address what happened in Macri's government and if monetarism (or at least some reasonable extension of it) cannot account for it.
For a complete description of macroeconomic policy on that period, Sturzenegger account is a good one (even if a bit unreliable given he was the central banker for that government and he is considered to have been a failure). The short version is that central banks uses bonds to manage monetary policy and absorb money; given the history of defaults for the country, the Argentinian Central Bank (BCRA) uses its own peso denominated bonds instead of using treasury bonds. At that time period, the BCRA still financed the treasury but the amount got reduced. Also, it emitted pesos to buy dollar reserves, then sterilized them, maybe risking credibility further.
Near the end of 2017 it was evident the government had limited appetite for budget cuts, it had kind of abandoned its inflation target regime and the classic problem of fiscal dominance emerged, as it's shown in the classic "Unpleasant monetarist arithmetic" paper by Wallace and Sargent. Monetary policy gets less effective when the real value of bonds falls, and raising interest rates may be counterproductive in that environment. Rational expectations are needed to complement QTOM.
So, given that Argentina promised to go nowhere with reform, it was expected that money financing would increase at some point in the future and BCRA bonds were dumped in 2018 and 2019 as their value was perceived to have decreased, and so peso demand decreased. It's not that the dollar value increased and inflation followed, but instead that peso demand fell suddenly!
The IMF deal asked for MB growth to be null or almost null but that doesn't say a lot about M2 (which it's the relevant variable here). Without credible policies, the peso demand keeps falling because bonds are dumped even more (see 2019 for a hilariously brutal example of that).
It's not emission per se, but rather that it doesn't adjust properly to peso demand (which is falling). That doesn't mean increasing interest rates is enough to achieve it, following Wallace and Sargent model.
This is less a strict proof that a monetary phenomenon is involved and more stating that the author hasn't shown any problem with that, there are reasonable models for this situation. It doesn't look like an clear empirical failure to me yet.
3 - Of what we are talking about when we talk about emission?
The author mentions many money measures (M0, M1, M2) but it doesn't address it meaningfully as I tried to do above. It feels more like a rhetorical device because there is no point here except "this stuff exists".
Also, it's worth pointing that there are actual criticisms to make to Friedman on those grounds. He failed to forecast US inflation at some points when he switched to M1 instead of using M2, although he later reverted that. Monetarism kind of "failed" there (it also "failed" in the sense that modern central banks don't use money, but instead interest rates as their main tool; "failed" because despite being outdated, it was influential to modern central banking). This is often brought to this kind of discussions like if economics hasn't moved beyond that. For an account of Friedman thoughts on monetary policies and his failures, see this.
4 - Why do many countries print and inflation doesn't increase there?
There is a mention about the japanese situation in the 90s (the liquidity trap) which I have addressed.
The author mentions that many countries "printed" like crazy during the pandemic, and he says:
Monetarism apologists answer, when confronted with those grave empirical problems that happen in "serious countries", that the population "trusts" their monetary authorities, even increasing the money demand in those place despite the emission. Curious, though, it's an appeal to "trust" implying that the relationship between emission and inflation is not objective, but subjective and cultural: an appreciation that abandons mechanicism and the basic certainty of monetarism, because evaluations and diagnostics, many times ideologic, contextual or historical intervene..
That's just a restatement of applying rational expectations to central bank operations. I don't see a problem with that. Rational expectations is not magic, it's an assessment of future earnings by economic actors. Humans may not 100% rational but central banking somehow works on many countries. You cannot just say that people are ideologues and let it at that. What's your model?
Worth noting the author shills for bitcoin a bit in this section, for more cringe.
5 - Are we talking of a physical science or a social science?
Again, a vague mention of rational expectations ("populists and pro market politicians could do the same policies with different results because of how agents respond ideologically and expectatives") without handling the subject meaningfully. It criticizes universal macroeconomic rules that apply everywhere (this is often used to dismiss evidence from other countries uncritically more than as a meaningful point).
6 - How limits work?
The last question to monetarism allows to recognize it something: effectively we can think on a type of vinculation between emission and inflation in extreme conditions. That means, with no monetary rule, no government has the need of taxes but instead can emit and spend all it needs without consequence. We know it's not like that: no government can print infinitely without undesirable effects.
Ok, good disclaimer, but given what he wrote before, what's the mechanism which causes money printing to be inflationary at some point? It was rejected before but now it seems that it exists. What was even the point of the article?
Now, the problem is thinking monetarism on its extremes: without emission we have inflation sometimes, on others we have no inflation with emission, we know that if we have negative emission that doesn't guarantees us negative inflation, but that if emission is radically uncontrolled there will economic effects.
As I wrote above, that's not what monetarism (even on it's simpler form) says, nor a consequence of it. You can see some deviations in low inflation environment but it's not really Argentina's current situation.
Let's add other problems: the elastic question between money and prices is not evident. Neither is time lags in which can work or be neutral. So the question is the limit cases for monetarism which has some reason but some difficulty in explaining them: by which and it what moments rules work and in which it doesn't.
I find the time lag thing to be a red herring. You can observe empirically and not having a proper short/middle run model doesn't invalidate QTOM in the long run. While it may be that increasing interest rates or freezing MB is not effective, that's less a problem of the theory and more a problem of policy implementation.
Conclusion:
I find that the article doesn't truly get monetarism to begin with (see the points it makes about emission and money demand), neither how it's implemented in practice, nor seems to be aware of more modern theories that, while put money on the background, don't necessarily invalidate it (rational expectation ideas, and eventually New Keynesian stuff which addresses stuff like liquidity traps properly).
There are proper criticisms to be made to Friedman old ideas but he still was a relevant man in his time and the economic community has moved on to new, better theories that have some debt to it. I feel most economic discussion about monetarism in Argentina is a strawman of mainstream economics or an attack on Austrians more than genuine points ("monetarism" is used as a shorthand for those who think inflation is a monetary phenomenon more than referring to Friedman and his disciples per se).
submitted by Neronoah to badeconomics [link] [comments]

[H] +300 Steam Games (Special discount) [W] Paypal (from 0.75$ each)

   
One free game of your choice for each purchase (only first list games)
      REP
Steam profile
IGSRep +82 trades confirmed
SGS Flair +217 trades confirmed
GameTradeREP +24 trades confirmed
       
Payment through Paypal (USD) using Good & Services option. Not accepting other type of payment (bitcoin, Venmo, etc). If you want to pay using F&F option fees are on your side. (I'm from EU).
   
Recently added. New games weekly Press Ctrl + F to search games in the list
   
   
   
0.75$ (OFFER 4x2: choose 4 games and pay only 2.5$ fees included)
   
3$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 4.75$ instead of 6$)
   
4.5$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 7$ instead of 9$)
   
submitted by SparkyNest to indiegameswap [link] [comments]

[H] +300 Steam Games (Special discount) [W] Paypal (from 0.75$ each)

   
      REP
Steam profile
IGSRep +84 trades confirmed
SGS Flair +222 trades confirmed
GameTradeREP +24 trades confirmed
       
Payment through Paypal (USD) using Good & Services option. Not accepting other type of payment (bitcoin, Venmo, etc). If you want to pay using F&F option fees are on your side. (I'm from EU).
   
Recently added. New games weekly Press Ctrl + F to search games in the list
   
   
   
0.75$ (OFFER 4x2: choose 4 games and pay only 2.5$ fees included)
   
3.40$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 5$ instead of 6.80$)
   
5$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 7.5$ instead of 10$)
   
submitted by SparkyNest to indiegameswap [link] [comments]

[H] +300 Steam Games (Special discount) [W] Paypal (from 0.75$ each)

   
One free game of your choice for each purchase (only first list games)
      REP
Steam profile
IGSRep +82 trades confirmed
SGS Flair +217 trades confirmed
GameTradeREP +24 trades confirmed
       
Payment through Paypal (USD) using Good & Services option. Not accepting other type of payment (bitcoin, Venmo, etc). If you want to pay using F&F option fees are on your side. (I'm from EU).
   
Recently added. New games weekly Press Ctrl + F to search games in the list
   
   
   
0.75$ (OFFER 4x2: choose 4 games and pay only 2.5$ fees included)
   
3$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 4.75$ instead of 6$)
   
4.5$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 7$ instead of 9$)
   
submitted by SparkyNest to SteamGameSwap [link] [comments]

[H] +300 Steam Games (Special discount) [W] Paypal (from 0.75$ each)

   
      REP
Steam profile
IGSRep +84 trades confirmed
SGS Flair +222 trades confirmed
GameTradeREP +24 trades confirmed
       
Payment through Paypal (USD) using Good & Services option. Not accepting other type of payment (bitcoin, Venmo, etc). If you want to pay using F&F option fees are on your side. (I'm from EU).
   
Recently added. New games weekly Press Ctrl + F to search games in the list
   
   
   
0.75$ (OFFER 4x2: choose 4 games and pay only 2.5$ fees included)
   
3.40$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 5$ instead of 6.80$)
   
5$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 7.5$ instead of 10$)
   
submitted by SparkyNest to SteamGameSwap [link] [comments]

Meet Brock Pierce, the Presidential Candidate With Ties to Pedophiles Who Wants to End Human Trafficking

thedailybeast.com | Sep. 20, 2020.
The “Mighty Ducks” actor is running for president. He clears the air (sort of) to Tarpley Hitt about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein and more.
In the trailer for First Kid, the forgettable 1996 comedy about a Secret Service agent assigned to protect the president’s son, the title character, played by a teenage Brock Pierce, describes himself as “definitely the most powerful kid in the universe.” Now, the former child star is running to be the most powerful man in the world, as an Independent candidate for President of the United States.
Before First Kid, the Minnesota-born actor secured roles in a series of PG-rated comedies, playing a young Emilio Estevez in The Mighty Ducks, before graduating to smaller parts in movies like Problem Child 3: Junior in Love. When his screen time shrunk, Pierce retired from acting for a real executive role: co-founding the video production start-up Digital Entertainment Network (DEN) alongside businessman Marc Collins-Rector. At age 17, Pierce served as its vice president, taking in a base salary of $250,000.
DEN became “the poster child for dot-com excesses,” raising more than $60 million in seed investments and plotting a $75 million IPO. But it turned into a shorthand for something else when, in October of 1999, the three co-founders suddenly resigned. That month, a New Jersey man filed a lawsuit alleging Collins-Rector had molested him for three years beginning when he was 13 years old. The following summer, three teens filed a sexual-abuse lawsuit against Pierce, Collins-Rector, and their third co-founder, Chad Shackley. The plaintiffs later dropped their case against Pierce (he made a payment of $21,600 to one of their lawyers) and Shackley. But after a federal grand jury indicted Collins-Rector on criminal charges in 2000, the DEN founders left the country. When Interpol arrested them in 2002, they said they had confiscated “guns, machetes, and child pornography” from the trio’s beach villa in Spain.
While abroad, Pierce had pivoted to a new venture: Internet Gaming Entertainment, which sold virtual accessories in multiplayer online role-playing games to those desperate to pay, as one Wired reporter put it, “as much as $1,800 for an eight-piece suit of Skyshatter chain mail” rather than earn it in the games themselves. In 2005, a 25-year-old Pierce hired then-Goldman Sachs banker Steve Bannon—just before he would co-found Breitbart News. Two years later, after a World of Warcraft player sued the company for “diminishing” the fun of the game, Steve Bannon replaced Pierce as CEO.
Collins-Rector eventually pleaded guilty to eight charges of child enticement and registered as a sex offender. In the years that followed, Pierce waded into the gonzo economy of cryptocurrencies, where he overlapped more than once with Jeffrey Epstein, and counseled him on crypto. In that world, he founded Tether, a cryptocurrency that bills itself as a “stablecoin,” because its value is allegedly tied to the U.S. dollar, and the blockchain software company Block.one. Like his earlier businesses, Pierce’s crypto projects see-sawed between massive investments and curious deals. When Block.one announced a smart contract software called EOS.IO, the company raised $4 billion almost overnight, setting an all-time record before the product even launched. The Securities and Exchange Commission later fined the company $24 million for violating federal securities law. After John Oliver mocked the ordeal, calling Pierce a “sleepy, creepy cowboy,” Block.one fired him. Tether, meanwhile, is currently under investigation by the New York Attorney General for possible fraud.
On July 4, Pierce announced his candidacy for president. His campaign surrogates include a former Cambridge Analytica director and the singer Akon, who recently doubled down on developing an anonymously funded, $6 billion “Wakanda-like” metropolis in Senegal called Akon City. Pierce claims to be bipartisan, and from the 11 paragraphs on the “Policy” section of his website it can be hard to determine where he falls on the political spectrum. He supports legalizing marijuana and abolishing private prisons, but avoids the phrase “climate change.” He wants to end “human trafficking.” His proposal to end police brutality: body cams.
His political contributions tell a more one-sided story. Pierce’s sole Democratic contribution went to the short-lived congressional run of crypto candidate Brian Forde. The rest went to Republican campaigns like Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, John McCain, and the National Right to Life Political Action Committee. Last year alone, Pierce gave over $44,000 to the Republican National Committee and more than $55,000 to Trump’s re-election fund.
Pierce spoke to The Daily Beast from his tour bus and again over email. Those conversations have been combined and edited for clarity.
You’re announcing your presidential candidacy somewhat late, and historically, third-party candidates haven’t had the best luck with the executive office. If you don’t have a strong path to the White House, what do you want out of the race?
I announced on July 4, which I think is quite an auspicious date for an Independent candidate, hoping to bring independence to this country. There’s a lot of things that I can do. One is: I’m 39 years old. I turn 40 in November. So I’ve got time on my side. Whatever happens in this election cycle, I’m laying the groundwork for the future. The overall mission is to create a third major party—not another third party—a third major party in this country. I think that is what America needs most. George Washington in his closing address warned us about the threat of political parties. John Adams and the other founding fathers—their fear for our future was two political parties becoming dominant. And look at where we are. We were warned.
I believe, having studied systems, any time you have a system of two, what happens is those two things come together, like magnets. They come into collision, or they become polarized and become completely divided. I think we need to rise above partisan politics and find a path forward together. As Albert Einstein is quoted—I’m not sure the line came from him, but he’s quoted in many places—he said that the definition of insanity is making the same mistake or doing the same thing over and over and over again, expecting a different result. [Ed. note: Einstein never said this.] It feels like that’s what our election cycle is like. Half the country feels like they won, half the country feels like they lost, at least if they voted or participated.
Obviously, there’s another late-comer to the presidential race, and that’s Kanye West. He’s received a lot of flak for his candidacy, as he’s openly admitted to trying to siphon votes away from Joe Biden to ensure a Trump victory. Is that something you’re hoping to avoid or is that what you’re going for as well?
Oh no. This is a very serious campaign. Our campaign is very serious. You’ll notice I don’t say anything negative about either of the two major political candidates, because I think that’s one of the problems with our political system, instead of people getting on stage, talking about their visionary ideas, inspiring people, informing and educating, talking about problems, mentioning problems, talking about solutions, constructive criticism. That’s why I refuse to run a negative campaign. I am definitely not a spoiler. I’m into data, right? I’m a technologist. I’ve got digital DNA. So does most of our campaign team. We’ve got our finger on the pulse.
Most of my major Democratic contacts are really happy to see that we’re running in a red state like Wyoming. Kanye West’s home state is Wyoming. He’s not on the ballot in Wyoming I could say, in part, because he didn’t have Akon on his team. But I could also say that he probably didn’t want to be on the ballot in Wyoming because it’s a red state. He doesn’t want to take additional points in a state where he’s only running against Trump. But we’re on the ballot in Wyoming, and since we’re on the ballot in Wyoming I think it’s safe—more than safe, I think it’s evident—that we are not here to run as a spoiler for the benefit of Donald Trump.
In running for president, you’ve opened yourself up to be scrutinized from every angle going back to the beginning of your career. I wanted to ask you about your time at the Digital Entertainment Network. Can you tell me a little bit about how you started there? You became a vice president as a teenager. What were your qualifications and what was your job exactly?
Well, I was the co-founder. A lot of it was my idea. I had an idea that people would use the internet to watch videos, and we create content for the internet. The idea was basically YouTube and Hulu and Netflix. Anyone that was around in the ‘90s and has been around digital media since then, they all credit us as the creators of basically those ideas. I was just getting a message from the creator of The Vandals, the punk rock band, right before you called. He’s like, “Brock, looks like we’re going to get the Guinness Book of World Records for having created the first streaming television show.”
We did a lot of that stuff. We had 30 television shows. We had the top most prestigious institutions in the world as investors. The biggest names. High-net-worth investors like Terry Semel, who’s chairman and CEO of Warner Brothers, and became the CEO of Yahoo. I did all sorts of things. I helped sell $150,000 worth of advertising contracts to the CEOs of Pepsi and everything else. I was the face of the company, meeting all the major banks and everything else, selling the vision of what the future was.
You moved in with Marc Collins-Rector and Chad Shackley at a mansion in Encino. Was that the headquarters of the business?
All start-ups, they normally start out in your home. Because it’s just you. The company was first started out of Marc’s house, and it was probably there for the first two or three months, before the company got an office. That’s, like, how it is for all start-ups.
were later a co-defendant in the L.A. County case filed against Marc Collins-Rector for plying minors with alcohol and drugs, in order to facilitate sexual abuse. You were dropped from the case, but you settled with one of the men for $21,600. Can you explain that?
Okay, well, first of all, that’s not accurate. Two of the plaintiffs in that case asked me if I would be a plaintiff. Because I refused to be a part of the lawsuit, they chose to include me to discredit me, to make their case stronger. They also went and offered 50 percent of what they got to the house management—they went around and offered money to anyone to participate in this. They needed people to corroborate their story. Eventually, because I refused to participate in the lawsuit, they named me. Subsequently, all three of the plaintiffs apologized to me, in front of audiences, in front of many people, saying Brock never did anything. They dismissed their cases.
Remember, this is a civil thing. I’ve never been charged with a crime in my life. And the last plaintiff to have his case dismissed, he contacted his lawyer and said, “Dismiss this case against Brock. Brock never did anything. I just apologized. Dismiss his case.” And the lawyer said, “No. I won’t dismiss this case, I have all these out-of-pocket expenses, I refuse to file the paperwork unless you give me my out-of-pocket expenses.” And so the lawyer, I guess, had $21,000 in bills. So I paid his lawyer $21,000—not him, it was not a settlement. That was a payment to his lawyer for his out-of-pocket expenses. Out-of-pocket expenses so that he would file the paperwork to dismiss the case.
You’ve said the cases were unfounded, and the plaintiffs eventually apologized. But your boss, Marc Collins-Rector later pleaded guilty to eight charges of child enticement and registered as a sex offender. Were you aware of his behavior? How do you square the fact that later allegations proved to be true, but these ones were not?
Well, remember: I was 16 and 17 years old at the time? So, no. I don’t think Marc is the man they made him out to be. But Marc is not a person I would associate with today, and someone I haven’t associated with in a very long time. I was 16 and 17. I chose the wrong business partner. You live and you learn.
You’ve pointed out that you were underage when most of these allegations were said to take place. Did you ever feel like you were coerced or in over your head while working at DEN?
I mean, I was working 18 hours a day, doing things I’d never done before. It was business school. But I definitely learned a lot in building that company. We raised $88 million. We filed our [form] S-1 to go public. We were the hottest start-up in Los Angeles.
In 2000, you left the country with Marc Collins-Rector. Why did you leave? How did you spend those two years abroad?
I moved to Spain in 1999 for personal reasons. I spent those two years in Europe working on developing my businesses.
Interpol found you in 2002. The house where you were staying reportedly contained guns, machetes, and child pornography. Whose guns and child porn were those? Were you aware they were in the house, and how did those get there?
My lawyers have addressed this in 32 pages of documentation showing a complete absence of wrongdoing. Please refer to my webpage for more information.
[Ed. Note: The webpage does not mention guns, machetes, or child pornography. It does state:“It is true that when the local police arrested Collins-Rector in Spain in 2002 on an international warrant, Mr. Pierce was also taken into custody, but so was everyone at Collins-Rector’s house in Spain; and it is equally clear that Brock was promptly released, and no charges of any kind were ever filed against Brock concerning this matter.”]
What do you make of the allegations against Bryan Singer? [Ed. Note: Bryan Singer, a close friend of Collins-Rector, invested at least $50,000 in DEN. In an Atlantic article outlining Singer’s history of alleged sexual assault and statutory rape, one source claimed that at age 15, Collins-Rector abused him and introduced him to Singer, who then assaulted him in the DEN headquarters.]
I am aware of them and I support of all victims of sexual assault. I will let America’s justice system decide on Singer’s outcome.
In 2011, you spoke at the Mindshift conference supported by Jeffrey Epstein. At that point, he had already been convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor. Why did you agree to speak?
I had never heard of Jeffrey Epstein. His name was not on the website. I was asked to speak at a conference alongside Nobel Prize winners. It was not a cryptocurrency conference, it was filled with Nobel Prize winners. I was asked to speak alongside Nobel Prize winners on the future of money. I speak at conferences historically, two to three times a week. I was like, “Nobel Prize winners? Sounds great. I’ll happily talk about the future of money with them.” I had no idea who Jeffrey Epstein was. His name was not listed anywhere on the website. Had I known what I know now? I clearly would have never spoken there. But I spoke at a conference that he cosponsored.
What’s your connection to the Clinton Global Initiative? Did you hear about it through Jeffrey Epstein?
I joined the Clinton Global Initiative as a philanthropist in 2006 and was a member for one year. My involvement with the Initiative had no connection to Jeffrey Epstein whatsoever.
You’ve launched your campaign in Minnesota, where George Floyd was killed by a police officer. How do you feel about the civil uprising against police brutality?
I’m from Minnesota. Born and raised. We just had a press conference there, announcing that we’re on the ballot. Former U.S. Senator Dean Barkley was there. So that tells you, when former U.S. Senators are endorsing the candidate, right?
[Ed. note: Barkley was never elected to the United States Senate. In November of 2002, he was appointed by then Minnesota Governor Jesse Venture to fill the seat after Sen. Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash. Barkley’s term ended on Jan. 3, 2003—two months later.]
Yes, George Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis. My vice-presidential running mate Karla Ballard and I, on our last trip to Minnesota together, went to visit the George Floyd Memorial. I believe in law and order. I believe that law and order is foundational to any functioning society. But there is no doubt in my mind that we need reform. These types of events—this is not an isolated incident. This has happened many times before. It’s time for change. We have a lot of detail around policy on this issue that we will be publishing next week. Not just high-level what we think, not just a summary, but detailed policy.
You said that you support “law and order.” What does that mean?
“Law and order” means creating a fair and just legal system where our number one priority is protecting the inalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” for all people. This means reforming how our police intervene in emergency situations, abolishing private prisons that incentivize mass incarceration, and creating new educational and economic opportunities for our most vulnerable communities. I am dedicated to preventing crime by eliminating the socioeconomic conditions that encourage it.
I support accountability and transparency in government and law enforcement. Some of the key policies I support are requiring body-cams on all law enforcement officers who engage with the public, curtailing the 1033 program that provides local law enforcement agencies with access to military equipment, and abolishing private prisons. Rather than simply defund the police, my administration will take a holistic approach to heal and unite America by ending mass incarceration, police brutality, and racial injustice.
Did you attend any Black Lives Matter protests?
I support all movements aimed at ending racial injustice and inequality. I​ have not attended any Black Lives Matter protests.​ My running-mate, Karla Ballard, attended the March on Washington in support of racial justice and equality.
Your platform doesn’t mention the words “climate change.” Is there a reason for that?
I’m not sure what you mean. Our policy platform specifically references human-caused climate change and we have a plan to restabilize the climate, address environmental degradation, and ensure environmental sustainability.
[Ed. Note: As of writing the Pierce campaign’s policy platform does not specifically reference human-caused climate change.]
You’ve recently brought on Akon as a campaign surrogate. How did that happen? Tell me about that.
Akon and I have been friends for quite some time. I was one of the guys that taught him about Bitcoin. I helped make some videogames for him, I think in 2012. We were talking about Bitcoin, teaching him the ropes, back in 2013. And in 2014, we were both speaking at the Milken Global Conference, and I encouraged him to talk about how Bitcoin, Africa, changed the world. He became the biggest celebrity in the world, talking about Bitcoin at the time. I’m an adviser to his Akoin project, very interested in the work that he’s doing to build a city in Africa.
I think we need a government that’s of, for, and by the people. Akon has huge political aspirations. He obviously was a hugely successful artist. But he also discovered artists like Lady Gaga. So not only is he, himself, a great artist, but he’s also a great identifier and builder of other artists. And he’s been a great businessman, philanthropist. He’s pushing the limits of what can be done. We’re like-minded individuals in that regard. I think he’ll be running for political office one day, because he sees what I see: that we need real change, and we need a government that is of, for, and by the people.
You mentioned that you’re an adviser on Akoin. Do you have any financial investments in Akoin or Akon City?
I don’t believe so. I’d have to check. I have so much stuff. But I don’t believe that I have any economic interests in his stuff. I’d have to verify that. We’ll get back to you. I don’t believe that I have any economic interests. My interest is in helping him. He’s a visionary with big ideas that wants to help things in the world. If I can be of assistance in helping him make the world a better place, I’m all for it. I’m not motivated by money. I’m not running for office because I’m motivated by power. I’m running for office because I’m deeply, deeply concerned about our collective future.
You’ve said you’re running on a pro-technology platform. One week into your campaign last month, a New York appeals court approved the state Attorney General’s attempt to investigate the stablecoin Tether for potentially fraudulent activity. Do you think this will impact your ability to sell people on your tech entrepreneurship?
No, I think my role in Tether is as awesome as it gets. It was my idea. I put it together. But I’ve had no involvement in the company since 2015. I gave all of my equity to the other shareholders. I’ve had zero involvement in the company for almost six years. It was just my idea. I put the initial team together. But I think Tether is one of the most important innovations in the world, certainly. The idea is, I digitized the U.S. dollar. I used technology to digitize currency—existing currency. The U.S. dollar in particular. It’s doing $10 trillion a year. Ten trillion dollars a year of transactional volume. It’s probably the most important innovation in currency since the advent of fiat money. The people that took on the business and ran the business in years to come, they’ve done things I’m not proud of. I’m not sure they’ve done anything criminal. But they certainly did things differently than I would do. But it’s like, you have kids, they turn 18, they go out into the world, and sometimes you’re proud of the things they do, and sometimes you shake your head and go, “Ugh, why did you do that?” I have zero concerns as it relates to me personally. I wish they made better decisions.
What do you think the investigation will find?
I have no idea. The problem that was raised is that there was a $5 million loan between two entities and whether or not they had the right to do that, did they disclose it correctly. There’s been no accusations of, like, embezzlement or anything that bad.
[Ed. Note: The Attorney General’s press release on the investigation reads: “Our investigation has determined that the operators of the ‘Bitfinex’ trading platform, who also control the ‘tether’ virtual currency, have engaged in a cover-up to hide the apparent loss of $850 million dollars of co-mingled client and corporate funds.”]
But there’s been some disclosure things, that is the issue. No one is making any outrageous claims that these are people that have done a bunch of bad—well, on the internet, the media has said that the people behind the business may have been manipulating the price of Bitcoin, but I don’t think that has anything to do with the New York investigation. Again, I’m so not involved, and so not at risk, that I’m not even up to speed on the details.
[Ed note: A representative of the New York State Attorney General told Forbes that he “cannot confirm or deny that the investigation” includes Pierce.]
We’ve recently witnessed the rise of QAnon, the conspiracy theory that Hollywood is an evil cabal of Satanic pedophiles and Trump is the person waging war on them. You mentioned human trafficking, which has become a cause for them. What are your thoughts on that?
I’ve watched some of the content. I think it’s an interesting phenomenon. I’m an internet person, so Anonymous is obviously an organization that has been doing interesting stuff. It’s interesting. I don’t have a big—conspiracy theory stuff is—I guess I have a question for you: What do you think of all of it, since you’re the expert?
You know, I think it’s not true, but I’m not running for president. I do wonder what this politician [Georgia congressional candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene], who’s just won her primary, is going to do on day one, once she finds out there’s no satanic cabal room.
Wait, someone was running for office and won on a QAnon platform, saying that Hollywood did—say what? You’re the expert here.
She won a primary. But I want to push on if we only have a few minutes. In 2006, your gaming company IGE brought on Steve Bannon as an investor. Goldman later bought out most of your stock. Bannon eventually replaced you as CEO of Affinity. You’ve described him as your “right-hand man for, like, seven years.” How well did you know Bannon during that time?
Yes, so this is in my mid-twenties. He wasn’t an investor. He worked for me. He was my banker. He worked for me for three years as my yield guide. And then he was my CEO running the company for another four years. So I haven’t worked with Steve for a decade or so. We worked in videogame stuff and banking. He was at Goldman Sachs. He was not in the political area at the time. But he was a pretty successful banker. He set up Goldman Sachs Los Angeles. So for me, I’d say he did a pretty good job.
During your business relationship, Steve Bannon founded Breitbart News, which has pretty consistently published racist material. How do you feel about Breitbart?
I had no involvement with Breitbart News. As for how I feel about such material, I’m not pleased by any form of hate-mongering. I strongly support the equality of all Americans.
Did you have qualms about Bannon’s role in the 2016 election?
Bannon’s role in the Trump campaign got me to pay closer attention to what he was doing but that’s about it. Whenever you find out that one of your former employees has taken on a role like that, you pay attention.
Bannon served on the board of Cambridge Analytica. A staffer on your campaign, Brittany Kaiser, also served as a business director for them. What are your thoughts on their use of illicitly-obtained Facebook data for campaign promotional material?
Yes, so this will be the last question I can answer because I’ve got to be off for this 5:00 pm. But Brittany Kaiser is a friend of mine. She was the whistleblower of Cambridge Analytica. She came to me and said, “What do I do?” And I said, “Tell the truth. The truth will set you free.”
[Ed. Note: Investigations in Cambridge Analytica took place as early as Nov. 2017, when a U.K. reporter at Channel 4 News recorded their CEO boasting about using “beautiful Ukranian girls” and offers of bribes to discredit political officials. The first whistleblower was Christopher Wylie, who disclosed a cache of documents to The Guardian, published on Mar. 17, 2018. Kaiser’s confession ran five days later, after the scandal made national news. Her association with Cambridge Analytica is not mentioned anywhere on Pierce’s campaign website.]
So I’m glad that people—I’m a supporter of whistleblowers, people that see injustice in the world and something not right happening, and who put themselves in harm’s way to stand up for what they believe in. So I stand up for Brittany Kaiser.
Who do you think [anonymous inventor of Bitcoin] Satoshi Nakamoto is?
We all are Satoshi Nakamoto.
You got married at Burning Man. Have you been attending virtual Burning Man?
I’m running a presidential campaign. So, while I was there in spirit, unfortunately my schedule did not permit me to attend.
OP note: please refer to the original article for reference links within text (as I've not added them here!)
submitted by Leather_Term to Epstein [link] [comments]

[H] +300 Steam Games (Special discount) [W] Paypal (from 0.75$ each)

   
One free game of your choice for each purchase (only first list games)
      REP
Steam profile
IGSRep +83 trades confirmed
SGS Flair +220 trades confirmed
GameTradeREP +24 trades confirmed
       
Payment through Paypal (USD) using Good & Services option. Not accepting other type of payment (bitcoin, Venmo, etc). If you want to pay using F&F option fees are on your side. (I'm from EU).
   
Recently added. New games weekly Press Ctrl + F to search games in the list
   
   
   
0.75$ (OFFER 4x2: choose 4 games and pay only 2.5$ fees included)
   
3$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 4.75$ instead of 6$)
   
4.5$ (OFFER:Take 2 games for only 7$ instead of 9$)
   
submitted by SparkyNest to indiegameswap [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Price Prediction 2015 BITCOIN PRICE STILL FALLING!? MATIC DUMPS 73%!! Is the BULL Market OVER? Why is BITCOIN Price FALLING?! Flash CRASH: Fact vs FUD ... WILL BITCOIN PRICE KEEP FALLING?!? CRAZY BULLISH BTC ... Why Bitcoin is FALLING (My Number One Concern About BTC ...

The analyst calls this zone the “zero or hero” entry, in reference to the fact that Bitcoin price falling that low would put the asset at risk of potentially hitting zero in price. But just as possible, the entry could be a financial opportunity of a lifetime, the equivalent of buying Bitcoin at $150 at the 2015 bottom, then riding the investment all the way to $20,000 August 2015: Bitcoin XT Release. During 2015, the price of cryptocurrency continued to fall, then rise, gradually decreasing, but there were no sharp changes in it until August 19, 2015. That day, a $ 45 crash occurred due to the release of an alternative Bitcoin XT client, the release of which was an attempt to solve the problems of network ... Why the Bitcoin Price Is Falling Buy bitcoins in Europe 2015. Search. Library. Log in. Sign up. Watch fullscreen. 5 years ago 7 views. Why the Bitcoin Price Is Falling Buy bitcoins in Europe 2015. Bitcoin Mine. Follow. 5 years ago 7 views. Why the Bitcoin Price Is Falling Buy bitcoins in Europe 2015. Report. Browse more videos. Playing next . 8:07 ... Bitcoin’s decline. If 2014 was a bad year for the digital currency, 2015 looks like it will be even worse. Barely days into the year, UK-based Bitcoin exchange Bitstamp was “hacked” and 19,000 Bitcoin stolen. At the time, this loss was valued at US $5 million. At the peak of the Bitcoin frenzy in late November 2012, the exchange rate reached 1242 dollars per Bitcoin. As of January 14, 2015, the price of the virtual currency had dropped to around 180 dollars per Bitcoin. Warren Buffett: If You Own A Good Business, Keep It. Buying private businesses is easier than acquiring public firms, and investors should avoid selling good investments at all costs ...

[index] [37251] [13705] [12888] [33227] [24881] [31271] [23857] [12118] [6450] [32456]

Bitcoin Price Prediction 2015

Will #Bitcoin price continue to fall? One bullish possibility most are overlooking, the real economics behind cryptocurrency, Bitmain launches new #BTC minin... Today we take a look at the true reason for the Bitcoin dump yesterday. It’s something most BTC holders don’t want to admit. We also cover the news as we loo... The Bitcoin halving price dump is here! 5 Reasons I am bullish in spite of the big drop. 👨‍🎓 CRYPTO BEGINNER COURSE https://cryptolark.co/beginner-course ... After a year where the Bitcoin price declined dramatically from its end of 2013 highs, I'm often asked what my Bitcoin price prediction is for 2015. I have to admit that back in November 2013 I ... Bitcoin price has fallen below $7,000 and many people are talking about the price dropping below $6k. With the price of bitcoin falling, how do you not lose ...

#