@Porwest
more from that month
I follow certain YouTube channels and other commentators devoted to Shiba Inu because I am a small time investor in the meme token with holdings a bit around 6.2 million SHIB to date. But my investment is by no means "long term." That being said, the ONLY crypto I own that is "in the money" through this massive dip is my Shiba Inu. So, for that reason it continues to hold some interest for me, and to my mind is still worth following. While it has generally been a joke, and lacked utility, it does appear that there are things in the pipeline that could still rally the popular meme token. Meaning simply that there may still be some pretty interesting short term gains to be enjoyed just by having some in the portfolio. This particular video I am sharing offers some interesting ideas, albeit published 4 days ago, about the path and direction that I think is at least worth consideration and some analysis. Check it out and let me know what your thoughts are. https://youtu.be/tXzlsutyRkU
18 comments
Oh thanks man.
Don’t you find it disturbing that “4 days” means the info may be obsolete? SHIB reminds me of the Beanie Baby craze back in the 1990’s. People were buying up and hoarding these silly little animal toys in the belief that they were gonna get rich. Some people actually did make money on the dumb things, but then so what? Some people actually win the lottery. What utility to society at large did the Beanie Babies bring?
I agree with you. But keep in mind I also sometimes think of crypto the same way. I am still undecided whether its a fad or a thing. As for post itself, I was more interested in the "longer-term" points it was trying to make. Not that I agree with them, though. lol
I believe crypto is a "thing", but it is facing some serious resistance from the US Government right now. The stupid IRS, (as prompted by the even stupider, corrupt Congress), considers using crypto to purchase something a "taxable event". I think this is just an attempt to remove a competitor to the US Dollar, and will ultimately come back to bite the US Government in the butt. You can't swim upstream against technological progress without hurting yourself.
But I thought crypto's aim was to be removed from government pressure and fiat, not be controlled by it, which your comment would suggest is the reason for the dip.
That's because those clever bastards at the government found a way to control it, by declaring just about anything you do with it a taxable event. Being subject to taxation is NOT a key feature desired by the crypto community.
But one everyone should have seen it coming to be quite honest. I mean, there is no such thing as tax free money. It never has existed, and I am not even sure that it should. It's a much larger argument, of course, about WHAT the government uses taxpayer money for. I guess in an ironic twist, one would ASSUME that the vast majority of the people who hold crypto and believe in it are not among the super rich. I would not be surprised if the same people vying against taxation are also the ones crying for the rich to "pay their fair share." Yet, that would fly in the face of that idea, AND give the super rich a MASSIVE advantage to not pay any taxes at all—and would shelter the "new rich" from anyone even knowing they WERE rich. It is an interesting dichotomy if you think about it.
Whoa ..... wait a minute. Are you telling me that all the time and effort I’ve spent through the years looking for a free lunch has been in vain? If we would adopt a sales tax INSTEAD of, (not in addition to!), an income tax, the government wouldn’t have to care about what was used as currency.
I am actually a fan of a VAT. BUT, it's still a VERY regressive tax, and most people can't understand that that do not have money. People become rich because they INVEST their money. Not necessarily spend it. So the tax burden would be on the poor and middle class. Not the rich. Because the rich would still save and invest most of their income and the poor and middle class would be forced to spend it. If I did not have to pay taxes on my dividends, I would only become more and more and more richer.
I'd still rather see a tax on spending, than on income. Amongst the many benefits we could get rid of the Infernal Revenue Service!
You mean to tell me nobody likes the IRS? lol. Keep in mind this would also be a big boon for corporations as well...I wonder where the money would go? Do you think it would go to the workers? Or to the execs?
It would probably go like this: for every extra dollar corporations would receive, 10¢ would go to shareholders, and 10¢ would be spent on PR bragging about how great it is that the workers were getting an extra 5¢. The rest would go to the execs. Hmm ..... that's a valid concern. We don't need an even bigger gap in wealth distribution in this country. I hate to admit it, but I think that would be even worse than the IRS.
I actually disagree often with the notion that there really is a wealth distribution gap. Granted, that is always a controversial argument. But I think most workers are paid what they earn, and are paid well for the work they do depending on the field they have chosen to work in. Wealth building is not anyone's responsibility other than the individual person to create it for themselves, utilizing all of the wealth building opportunities which are abundant, but that many people fail to understand and use. The rich and the super rich have mostly earned their right to be rich. And frankly the poor and middle class are in their own positions for a reason as well, and often times their financial 'position,' good or bad, is also earned. I have known two guys in life in VERY different situations and having chosen very different career paths. One worked for a Burger King and never stopped doing that kind of work. The other is a lawyer. The lawyer is broke and the Burger King worker is a millionaire many times over having eventually bought into 11 restaurants—it was how he used his low income wages and invested him that made the difference. And it is how the lawyer spent his money that made him broke. Wealth is not a right. It is something that is earned through effort and action and knowledge. It is also earned through enormous risk taking. Just my two cents.
Vast fortunes can be transmitted via inheritance. Yes, effort, action, and knowledge play a role. But so do circumstances of birth. This reminds me of the old environment vs. intelligence debate. It's not one or the other, but both.
Very, very few people inherit their wealth. The vast majority of the rich got it from zero. On top of that, many of the ones who do inherit it die broke because the concepts that earned the money they inherited are not inherent in the ones who inherit it. So, they essentially just piss it all away.
Well, I like your version of how wealth works better than mine, so let's just assume you're correct and not argue about it. But I don't know any folks my age or younger who, through their own efforts, bettered their economic position. Maybe IT folks are inherently economically tone deaf? Most people spend too much on trinkets, regardless of how much they make/have.
I passed up almost everyone I have ever known financially. I think it is just as I stated. Most people do not take the time nor the effort to figure it out. Although chiché, "If I can do it, anybody can." I have spent years trying to help people to understand, but unfortunately it mostly falls on deaf ears. 🤷♂️
It's not due to lack of understanding, it's due to lack of self-discipline. People go around with an, "I want it NOW!" attitude, and suffer the consequences. Back when I was single, (between marriages), I was saving money like gangbusters. But then I got married again, and had my first kid at 50, and second at 55. Ever since then there never seemed to be enough money to get us through the month.