I can't help but think of the reaction that online poker players had when first told that UltimateBet admins were cheating, or that celebrity-backed FullTiltPoker was insolvent.
When it came to UB, the common response was that the company was making money hand over fist and that cheating a few high rollers out of $50 or $100k would jeopardize the much larger legitimate source, so they clearly wouldn't do that. Except that some of the admins really were cheating individual high-rollers.
And with FullTiltPoker, the business really was as profitable as the players guessed, but the company directors weren't actually treating customer deposits as deposits, but were instead paying themselves most of the money and paying withdrawals using new deposits (which works seamlessly, so long as deposits exceed withdrawals which is the usual case for both gambling websites and bitcoin exchanges).
So, I hope you're right. But I'd note that MtGox's actions are ALSO fully aligned with the actions of an insolvent company that wants to continue operations, and realizes that it is possible that they can recover so long as sufficient confidence is maintained by depositors such as yourself.
After all, if Gox is insolvent, then Tux's best hope for a new fortune is to use your deposits as his working capital... which is exactly what you're letting him do.
Not at all. A Poker Site didn't make any claims of guaranteed returns on your 'investment.' They probably considered player deposits to become virtual Poker Dollars, that have no legal value.
>>> A Poker Site didn't make any claims of guaranteed returns on your 'investment.'
This is irrelevant. They didn't need to make any guarantees on investment, they just needed more players. Just because they didn't need to bait people to play doesn't mean it wasn't a Ponzi scheme.
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from existing capital or new capital paid by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation"
That might be a too-generous interpretation. They could also be bad at business, which is pretty common. With some people it's more, "Hey, there's a pile of money in this account. I like money! Why don't I take some."
The separation of accounts is very much a learned set of disciplines. Some never learned it, and some just don't get it.
I'm not the person you're replaying to and I don't think that someone should be arrested in the described situation, but I think the logic follows like this.
Police are the people we've put in charge with keeping public order. In the course of that job, they're going to arrest and / or detain people. We want them to always detain the right people, but even a very good police department will detain the wrong people sometimes. So, we give the authority to individual officers to detain people, and we don't second guess their decisions at the time.
Of course, this system only works when there is a functioning review system. Where the policed populace feels like their concerns are listened to by the authority figures. Where officers who misbehave, even by the loose standards of american police, are publicly disciplined. None of these things are common in modern america - but you can still believe in the right for police to detain people and push for better accountability.
I think you should consider how much you are reading into statements before you ascribe particular views to people. You both agree the author was treated deplorably, and you both agree (I assume) that police can do better.
Never is a strong word, though it's pretty close: http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com/2012/01/police-involv... (not a great looking source, but obviously this is not a topic authorities like talking about). In general, I agree with all your points, and I favor a system were non-LEOs investigate LEOs.
It saddens me that some people look at travesties like this and think "fuck him, the system is great, three cheers for the status quo."
This despite the fact that any honest reading of our medical outcomes shows that America gets very average medical care, and that we pay about twice per capita what the best care in the world costs.
I mean, I know there's a lot of propaganda out there, and I know there are a lot of sociopaths who are eager to believe it... but I'd think you'd keep your dishonest pro-status-quo, anti-efficiency nonsense out of a thread like this one. Especially since your post implies an utterly nonsensical (and clearly grossly uninformed) dichotomy that the only options are pure state control or the status quo, when any informed survey of developed nations would show many other models, some of which would work well in the US.
Sadly, progress is stalled and we all suffer because there are obstructionist assholes like you, willing to ignorantly pretend that the status quo is the best in the world.
The top can get the best care for the right price, the bottom has been inadequately supported though much progress has been made with ACA, and lots of people in the middle are inadequately prepared, because given the choice, they choose a higher standard of living instead of more safety for the future. To be given that choice is engrained in a lot of American culture.
You won't find much sympathy for the middle class who choose a nicer house in a more expensive city, a newer car, or a bigger family instead of safety and security for the future.
Sure especially bad circumstances happen, and then you have the government, friends, and family to fall back on... and maybe some of these public services could be improved, but a significant positive change certainly has happened with the ACA.
Progress isn't necessarily taking choice away from the population, because ultimately health care will cost the same whether you can choose your coverage or the government chooses it for you... if there are inefficiencies and cost problems, don't think that forcing everyone to have the same health coverage will fix them... there are plenty of other problems.
"You won't find much sympathy for the middle class who choose a nicer house in a more expensive city, a newer car, or a bigger family instead of safety and security for the future."
The average cymo treatment is about $75,000 a hit. So, you know anyone who is prepared for that? The top 1% are, of course. But the rest of us? Those who don't have insurance are fucked. Those that do are ok until they get a bill for services not covered by their insurance. And god help you if you want a non-standard treatment. Then it's ALL on you. And then the house is up for sale. Then the cars. Then you are applying for medicare disability. Only to be dined because you made too much money last year.
This happens all the time. My hope is that Obamacare deals this. But I have my doubts.
Tell you what.. get cancer then come back and comment. I bet you change your mind. ;) No offense of course. Just don't come to my county hospital for care.. my property taxes are high enough. ;)
The thing that seems to be missing from most people's argument is that the cost doesn't go away if you move to a single-payer healthcare system. You still pay for that $75k in the form of higher taxes and higher prices... it doesn't get erased. Wanting a non-standard treatment and not being approved won't change with single-payer... you'll still have to sell everything you own to pay for it.
Saying the cost doesn't 'go away' is deflecting from the fact that it does reduce overall, because of a number of reasons. Administrative costs are vastly reduced. Employers no longer have to negotiate individual contracts with insurers. Hospitals don't need huge administrative staff for deals with different insurers and paperwork for each one. On the whole, the cost savings from moving to single-payer take a huge bite out of the increased taxes.
Under plans like H-R 676, 95% of people are expected to pay less overall for healthcare. So, no, you are not paying for 'that $75k', you are paying for much less.
They are HUGE. I work in the field (writing software). Every insurance company has it's own forms and payments requirements. So do governments, local, state and federal. Not to mention reporting requirements. Throw in other insurances such as schools, the VA (and TriCare), Medicare, Medicare Disability (they are different by the way) and Medicaid - and the hundreds of other sources I've missed. This all equals to a administrative nightmare. A cluster-fuck. A huge expense the hospitals and doctors have to deal with. And you'd think moving to electronic medical systems would fix this.
And this is one of the big reasons healtcare.gov failed the first time out.
My god you're a privileged, elitist, self centred... calm, be calm. The fact that you keep posting this crap on a thread about some I look up to who is DYING OF BRAIN CANCER is really upsetting. So please stop.
If you don't like discussing the costs and methods of delivering health care, downvote the parent comment which mentioned it initially, not a person whom you disagree with.
If you can't handle an opposing viewpoint without becoming extremely upset and resorting to petty insults, you are part of the broken political system that has led to many of the problems we face, not me.
I don't even live in the US, so nice try -- I'm telling you to pull your head out and show some respect for the fact that someone who is one of us is dying.
But hey, as far as you're concerned, that's okay; he should've lived out of his car or something to be able to afford it.
I was once a childless single white male programmer. Oh, and an asshole. Didn't realize it at the time but I wised up. Give him time and cut him a little slack, he's entitled to his opinion.
He's entitled to his (ignorant) opinions, but he's not entitled to be so pointlessly rude and cruel with his method of expressing it.
If this was a dinner party, I'd quietly ask him to excuse himself, and he'd never be invited again. His choice of language was pointlessly cruel and outrageous.
I suspect he didn't view it as being rude, he viewed it as doing the right thing. He probably truly believes what he is saying, I used to think stuff sort of like that. My guess is he is somewhere between 23-32 years old, that was my stupid range :)
I guess the point is don't assume he's being an asshole, a real asshole would troll harder. I think he believes what he is saying. Yeah, it's rude but I'm not sure I'd be willing to write the guy off.
If all conversations were limited to dinner-party politeness, we'd remain trapped in a state of childlike obliviousness about the real disagreements and difficulties of the world.
(My dinner party would welcome both paul and
thaumasiotes, as people able to speak about a difficult topic calmly, with strong and contrasting perspectives based on real experience. In contrast, yscale would be asked to apologize or leave for content-free name-calling.)
I agree with your point of view, but I don't think you've phrased it productively, let alone respectfully. I know it's a touchy topic, but you'll be a better advocate if you avoid flying off the handle.
HFTs tend to add liquidity when it's least valuable, and they tend to consume liquidity when it's most vital.
For example, an analysis of the 2010 flash crash shows it was worsened by HFTs fleeing their positions once volatility increased, which is the exact time that liquidity and market-making are most valuable.
If there is any social benefit to HFT it is utterly trivial.
They already did, but many people are satisfied with the Apple app and wouldn't appreciate being forced to switch to a different and not-meaningfully-better app.
You got it. For me, I like getting my personal and work emails pushed to my iPhone in the same place (the Mail app). Though I have the Gmail app I don't use it.
When it came to UB, the common response was that the company was making money hand over fist and that cheating a few high rollers out of $50 or $100k would jeopardize the much larger legitimate source, so they clearly wouldn't do that. Except that some of the admins really were cheating individual high-rollers.
And with FullTiltPoker, the business really was as profitable as the players guessed, but the company directors weren't actually treating customer deposits as deposits, but were instead paying themselves most of the money and paying withdrawals using new deposits (which works seamlessly, so long as deposits exceed withdrawals which is the usual case for both gambling websites and bitcoin exchanges).
So, I hope you're right. But I'd note that MtGox's actions are ALSO fully aligned with the actions of an insolvent company that wants to continue operations, and realizes that it is possible that they can recover so long as sufficient confidence is maintained by depositors such as yourself.
After all, if Gox is insolvent, then Tux's best hope for a new fortune is to use your deposits as his working capital... which is exactly what you're letting him do.