Jump to content

tar

Member
  • Content Count

    310
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

About tar

  • Rank
    Regular

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://blog.anep-economics.org/?lang=en

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    economics (esp. monetary theory), law, history, politics, ethnology
  • Location
    .de
  • Country
    Germany
  1. Go to https://www.tradingview.com/chart/ and enter BITFINEX:XLMUSD/BITFINEX:XRPUSD in the upper left corner.
  2. Yep, ask 5 EW analysts and you get 5 different countings Thanks - as I have no earlier chart data we actually could also be only in major wave 4 and not in the major correction wave b/c (which would explain a possible deeper dip to somewhere above $ 0.03 (end of wave 1)). That would mean that the final 5th wave is still in front of us but also that the purple channel would have to be corrected to the downside (after wave 4 has finished) and $ 589 will be reached even later. I updated my idea with this alternative count:
  3. tar

    As predicted

    As this is my chart, I am very aware of my overall predicted path But the long-term $ 589 target of XRP is not as sure as the actual bearish condition of BTC which will likely drag XRP further down. Therefore, I want to warn you that another dip could happen and is legit within the actual downward channel and EWT ABC wave count. Furthermore, the "flippening" and "bullish" news/signs of XRP in the mid- to long-term path could also mean, that while BTC falls to $ 1000 and below, XRP would only be able to hold its price around $ 0.20 and perhaps up to $ 0.80 but not higher for the following years which would make the path to $ 589 obsolete.
  4. https://www.base64decode.org: Perceive that which cannot be seen with the eye. -M. Musashi
  5. Inzwischen bin ich schon ein bisschen irritiert, weil ich nicht so recht weiß, was @Wandering_Dog mit "blunt" meint. Ist meine Satzstellung im Englischen irgendwie falsch oder holprig oder zu verschachtelt? Da es hier aber offenbar doch einige Deutschsprachler gibt, kann ich wenigstens euch mal meine Zusammenfassung der eigentumsökonomischen (Heinsohn/Steiger) und der debitistischen (Paul C. Martin) Theorien zum Lesen geben, die ich im Rahmen meiner Bachelorthesis vergleichend untersucht habe. Sie bietet eine gute Übersicht über die Diskrepanzen und Missstände der (neo)klassischen Ökonomie ggü. den (postkeynesianischen) eigentums- & machttheoretischen Ansätzen (insb. dem Verständnis von Geld, Märkten, Zinsen, usw.) sowie einen Abriss der historischen Zusammenhänge - lässt sich aber bereits im Deutschen etwas schwierig lesen: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der Eigentumstheorie als Grundlage des Wirtschaftens (2012) Hierbei muss ich nochmal anmerken, dass Heinsohn/Steiger auch nicht ganz präzise gearbeitet haben (da sie keine Juristen sind und Rechtshistorie geht Soziologen und damit Wirtschaftswissenschaftlern im Grunde leider völlig ab, während sie v.a. wg. der von @Wandering_Dog erwähnten Wissenslücken eigtl. ins Grundstudium gehören sollte), da ihre "Eigentumsprämie" und ihr ganzer Bezug zum bloßen "Eigentum" zwar für das grundsätzliche Verständnis erstmal richtig und wichtig ist, aber sich juristisch und buchhalterisch korrekt auf das gesamte (freie) Vermögen beziehen müsste - und damit auch auf Forderungen und nicht nur auf Eigentumsrechte. Die Herausstellung dieser Unterscheidung hat erst ANEP so richtig wahrgenommen (wird aber glaub von H/S irgendwo auch kurz erwähnt: Forderungen sind nominell fixiert, Eigentumsrechte sind nominell (also im Preis) variabel). ANEP hat aber, soweit ich weiß, außer deren Onlineartikeln und einigen Präsentationen noch keine eigene schriftliche Abhandlung herausgegeben. Wohl, weil das ganze Thema halt ziemlich komplex ist und die mit möglichst fakultätsübergreifend-verständlichen, trennscharfen Begriffen von der praktischen Juristen- und Buchhaltersprache ausgehend her arbeiten wollen - und nicht mit den irreführenden, unterschiedlich interpretierbaren Wischiwaschi-Begriffen der Wirtschafts"wissenschaften". Außerdem scheinen sie die Machttheorie von Martin bewusst zu vermeiden (weil diese in akademischen Kreisen, die ja von öffentlich-abhängig Beschäftigten dominiert werden, kaum durchzusetzen sein dürfte) und konzentrieren sich auf die daraus resultierende (unterschiedliche) Rechtsetzung und deren Konsequenzen.
  6. Ich könnte auch einfach deutsch und damit wesentlich präziser schreiben, da nicht nur die meisten Wissenschaftler der von mir vorgetragenen Theorien deutschsprachig sind, sondern freilich auch ich in meiner Muttersprache ein diffizileres Sprachverständnis hege und mir dahingehend bspw. auch die begriffsscharfe Trennung zwischen "Eigentum" und "Besitz" im deutschen Rechtsverständnis recht klar ist, während mir demgegenüber das rechtliche Begriffsverständnis zwischen den englischen Ausdrücken "property" und "ownership" (ich gehe davon aus, dass "possession" präziser wäre) fehlt. Dieser starke Kommunikationsmangel bzw. die mir verständlichere Präzisierungsmöglichkeit beim Nutzen der deutschen Sprache hat mich bis vor 1-2 Jahren auch dazu veranlasst, derartige Beiträge in englischsprachigen Foren zu unterlassen, da die Themen selbst ja schon recht komplexer Natur sind und Sprachbarrieren und zugehörige Missverständnisse nicht gerade zur Verständlichkeit beitragen. Da ist es eben recht anstrengend, diverse Übersetzungstools zeitraubend händisch zu korrigieren, wenn diese automatisch irreführende Begriffe einsetzen. Falls ich allerdings bei deutsch bleibe, hege ich die leise Vermutung, dass mich hier kaum noch einer zu verstehen vermag - und folglich auch diesen Beitrag nicht Also was tun? Gar nicht drüber reden und keine Denkanstöße mehr geben halte ich für keine sinnvolle Lösung. Corrected automatic translation: I could also simply write in German and thus much more precisely, since not only are most of the scientists of the theories I have presented German-speaking, but of course I also have a more meticulous understanding of the language in my mother tongue and in this respect, for example, the sharp distinction between "Eigentum" and "Besitz" is quite clear to me in the German understanding of law, whereas the legal understanding between the English terms "property" and "ownership" (I guess, "posession" would be more precisely) is missing. Until 1-2 years ago, this severe lack of communication and the possibility of specifying the use of the German language more precisely, which I understand, prompted me to refrain from making such contributions in English-speaking forums, since the topics themselves are quite complex in nature and language barriers and associated misunderstandings do not exactly contribute to comprehensibility. So it is quite exhausting to manually correct various translation tools in a time-consuming manner if they automatically use misleading terms. If, however, I stay with German, I have the quiet suspicion that hardly anyone will be able to understand me here - and consequently not this article either. So what to do? Don't talk about it and don't give food for thought anymore, I don't think it's a sensible solution. Cheers, Louise
  7. A TLDR of this stuff alone would require a TLDR I think, with Polanyi & Co. we moved far away of your topic regarding IoV, XRP, international liquidity, etc. by trying to explain what the reason of surplus production and the history of Post Keynesianism is. In my opinion, you have to be aware of those main points: The fact that historically there were different states of mankind of which some had no surplus production, at all. The surplus production began with forced tribute (at first: non-written but outspoken law of tax) and thereby through the weapon. The basic economical foundation lies within sanctionized due dates (thereby inventing nominal claims & obligations). WARNING: This can change the whole personal world view and therefore lead to internal conflicts denying reality as hereby one can say goodbye to the silly peaceful ideas of puppies and kittens, needs, voluntary services, universal exchange fantasies, universal hom.o oeconomicus, free initial equipments, and so on as an understanding of any economical foundation. Like citizens, states compete with each other (and form temporary alliances against other groups), and their economic behaviour is based on power-political and legal circumstances. Without the corresponding law and institutions there is no legal sphere matching the requirements needed for this and that: claims (money), interest, means of payment, nominal values, property, markets, wage labour, and so on. Public law can exist without private law but private law cannot exist without public law as public law guarantees private law. There is an ongoing struggle between the dialectic of public and private law which is not only fought between the government and the people but between particular interest groups, in general, in order to change the law to their advantage. E.g. (national) trade unions vs. (international) business management/business owners/shareholders. That for the historical part and while I find those things extremely interesting I can understand that this sounds far off for someone trying to grasp todays approaches for better technologies. I think, Mehrling is a good choice for the understanding of the financial system or money and credit. But please be aware that, as far as I understood my friend on ANEP, Stützels model of business cycles is more consequently distinguishing between buying & paying (and we recently found out that paying is also split up into: transfer order, clearing and settlement), receipts & payments, revenues & expenditures and yields & costs. Furthermore, we have to distinguish between property rights (variable prices) & claims (nominally fixed), which can both be used as means of payment. As you maybe know, Keynes was the first one that developed the liquidity preference model as demand for money. The Post Keynesian model of Heinsohn/Steiger introduces the property premium (which is not particularly correct as the creditor & debtor cannot only mortgage their property but also their claims and therefore their wealth, in general) where through a credit contract the creditor applies its property (better: wealth) to gain interest and the debitor applies its property (better: wealth) to gain liquidity. Here, we suddenly are on a different level of economic understanding: the legal sphere of wealth (property & claims), credit contracts, uncertainties, etc. that apply on all hierarchical levels (between individuals, between private institutions (e.g. banks, companies, associations), between public institutions (e.g. central banks, municipalities, countries, states), between individuals & private institutions, between individuals & public institutions, between private institutions & public institutions). Oops, I guess I'm digressing again...
  8. I would like to add Heinsohn: "Where Does the Market Come From? Why the Controversy Between Polanyi’s “Substantivists“ and “Formalist“ Neoclassical Protagonists of a Universal Market Was Never Solved" and Bernbeck: "The dissolution of the domestic mode of production".
  9. @KarmaCoverage As I am a bit sick at the moment, I will only try to clear up some of your historic misapprehensions. Isn't there economic growth? Where can you find economic growth before states and law!? Lacking any nominal you are not even able to measure it. Before the founding of the state (i.e. the patriarchal subjugation of peasant tribes by shepherd tribes equipped with bronze weapons), there was subsistence production based on solidarity, in which surpluses were either not produced at all or were produced accidentally, let alone managed systematically. Thanks to solidarity, trade was not necessary. This solidarity still exists nowadays within the family and circle of friends. There is also no evidence for prehistoric trade but mere interpretations of the finding of goods on different locations (e.g. obsidian on long-distances) which are highly questionable regarding the locations and motivation for trade: Prehistoric humans did not once and for all settled where they left their traces. Tribes that divided after reaching the known "optimum number" of about 150 ("Dunbar's number"), as it is still handed down in written history (e.g. "Twelve Tribes of Israel"). The tribes were distributed to further areas (or only the main tribe remained in the original area). Many hunters/collectors who had already moved on to B with what they had found in A anyway. How could a tribe know that another tribe hundreds or even thousands of miles away would need a particular good? Regarding the location problems, how were they able to find each other (again and again) as there were no fixed trade locations? "Obsidian circulated(!) among Epipalaeolithic hunting and foraging groups around the Fertile Crescent.“ (Colin Renfrew) -> How were highly mobile and segmentaded hunting groups able to find each other (again and again)? A split tribe group (which either is the hard core of the tribe that leaves the remaining tribe defenseless behind OR it would be a bigger group that builds its own tribe!) had to move around for a long time (far more than one hunting season or harvest season) in order to find the other tribe. Which goods were exchanged for obsidian, e.g. (hunting or harvest goods make no sense, by the way)? There is no single evidence for any exchanged goods near the obsidian sources. Different types of obsidian circulated in different areas but not on the same location which is not a sign of trade but of tribal movements (and belligerent conflicts). We can assume that a split tribe group did not leave unarmed (and we know that its weapons coincidentally were made of obsidian, among others). So, what did the archaeologist do? He found spanish weapons (or cannons) within the Aztec Empire and concluded that this weapons (or cannons) were traded. Do you see the mistake? Another example are the Kula and their ring circulation of gifts and counter gifts. There is no barter and no bargain. The Kula items (vaygu’a) are never used or considered as a medium of exchange or as a measure of value when in the Kula. They exist only to circulate within the Kula. With/after the founding of the state (i.e. the patriarchal subjugation of peasant tribes by tribes of shepherds equipped with bronze weapons), for the first time there was a (arbitrary) demand against those subject to sanctions with regard to deadlines, who now had to systematically produce surpluses until the due date in order to escape the sanction. This was accompanied by the start of economic activity, because prices could now be determined on the basis of the due date which were generally valid for the respective sphere of power of the subjugates and stood in relation to competing spheres of power: currency exchange rates. The story of "offering the service of protection" (reminds me of mafia cliches) is quite old but far from the truth of compelling into submission and demanding tribute. Property rights just emerged!? There were brutal uprisings (around 1200-800 B.C the fall of the Mycenaean Greece and 1381 the Peasant's Revolt in Great Britain) that finally lead to property rights. The history of law is the history of violence and not of peaceful understandings.
  10. There is both. There are legal institutions and particular laws needed before anyone will be economically active, in general: e.g. fiscal law (tribute, taxes) There are also legal institutions and particular laws needed before particular economic activities can be made: e.g. private law (property rights, wage labour & employment, ...) There are also legal institutions and particular laws that "support economic activities in a way that risks are reduced and the activities becomes more efficient, and backstopped, and trustworthy": e.g. labour law (employment terms, child labour, co-determination, collective bargaining, anti-discrimination law, holidays act, act on maternity protection, ...), social equality (gender equality, racial equality) They all can be primary drivers for the groups they affect. Well, you are ignoring the fact that long-standing legal relationships (certain legal institutions and laws) form the basis for the (economic) use of cryptos. That those laws have created the basis for nominal claims, private property, interest, prices, markets and thus basically also the innovative creation and operation of the electricity supply to the equally innovative existence of cryptos. But of course some further legal safeguards are needed, because the blockchain or the ledger or the wallet or the node are actually only technically, but not legally secured (the situation is quite different with regard to the safekeeping of cryptos on private crypto exchanges - here the operator may be subject to the security obligation, see e.g. the insolvency administrator of Mt. Gox, who has to serve creditor claims). This lack of legal protection of the cryptos themselves has made it clear to me that the belief that purely technical protection (for which everyone is responsible for himself) would generally prevail is complete nonsense. I.e. it has become clear to me that Bitcoins cannot assert itself as a general means of payment against bank deposits, because Bitcoins are not legally secured, bank deposits are legally secured (and the grandma does not need to care about technical issues).
  11. Good to see that you researched Mehrling who I recommended you 5 months ago If 5 hours are not enough, I also recommend this playlist containing 192 videos of Mehrling to understand the modern financial system E.g., here he explains the essence of a market maker, which is a dealer (incl. own speculation risk) and not a broker (which has no own speculation risk) . Regarding to a friend of ANEP, Mehrling's work is based on Morris Copeland's (1895 - 1989) "Flow of Funds" whose system is inferior to that of Wolfgang Stützel (1925 - 1987, suicide). As the ANEP model actually still is in progress (see below), Mehrling's work is one of the best explanations of the relationship of money and credit but he does not consider the differences of private and public law. E.g., the whole topic of financial risk and central banks not only as "lender of last resort" but now as "dealer of last resort" is a consequence of systematic overpromises (here you find again a connection between private and public law). So, I am still looking forward for ANEPs approach: An interesting side note is that Mehrling attended an ANEP presentation linking his money view to legal institutionalism in 2016 - so I am full of hope that his model will be enhanced accordingly (Did you also attend, @Wandering_Dog?). Furthermore and regarding your focus on clearing, I stumbled over Keynes ICU approach to decrease global imbalances which is detrimental for banks as they finance open imbalances and therefore were and are against such approaches. How the ICU was prevented is explained in "Back to which Bretton Woods? Liquidity and clearing as alternative principles for reforming international finance" here (p. 225-242) and in this presentation.
  12. Since we broke out downwards of the former green channel, I made a correction of my orange wave count (we seem to be still in wave C). Here is the update: https://www.tradingview.com/chart/XRPUSD/sBujxv0t-The-Elliott-road-to-589/
  13. tar

    This is fine.

    Reasons? Rumors? Fundamentals? TA?
  14. Imho, it is the line that goes through the 2nd yellow circle (actually 3900 USD to 4600 USD on the green C etc.):
×