Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "CNBC Television"
channel.
-
129
-
57
-
24
-
23
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@WolframaticAlpha America overplayed their dealt hands. In the 1940s and the 1980s, America was booming, and then you got all Bill Clintony and you fell into a trap of providing countless social services without thinking about what you're doing. You will continuously spend more than you ever capable of recoup, serving a gigantic number of overly privileged, unproductive people and you will burn.
You're not taking on debt a small amount at a time, whether the amount of debt is small or big depends on your capability of paying it back. In this current state, all debt is unrepayable, America is filled with a generation of losers, the wealth gap in America is widening faster than ever, not because the rich is "stealing", it's because the poor is so damn unproductive.
While the Japanese, due to their culture, they have maintained a stable population of productive people, sane people. People in Japan know that they have to work to get what the things they're using, so are the people in Norway, so are the people in Germany. Even the ones in England are more responsible than America. The debt doesn't matter, the question is how you're going to deal with that debt. Your population is incompetent. Your politicians are campaigning on the grounds of "social justices" and environmental protection make belief, because none of their "electorates" care or understand fiscal responsibilities. Society doesn't just progress onward automatically, in America, it has regressed backwards.
America Supremacy is almost over with this trend, you no longer produce breakthrough technology necessary for the world to put up with you, yeah, Amazon and Facebook are huge but those are not necessary technologies, those companies are big due to their large number of users, not because of their "proprietary tech", even the Chinese can create a worthy rival. And with the rising of countries gaining more profits through cooperation in services sector instead of warfare, it shall render the American Military useless. Blame yourself.
The difference between America and Japan is that the Japanese public can endure hardship. Americans not so much, the freedom to be anything in America had made the people choose to be stupid. It's still their choice, but they'll reap the consequences. It's very amusing actually.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HurricaneGaming509 If you can't get both UBI and Healthcare, then what's the point of giving UBI?
You remove people's benefits so the people will have to replace it if they don't want to die, and most of them will not use the money to replace it. They rather have a drink then saving up to go the doctor.
It's a zero sum game if you remove people's social program to give them the money that was going to the social program.
It's immoral because when the people waste that money, you'll have no choice but to leave them to die because you don't have any money left on well fare.
Where's your math for that generating more? You give the people's UBI only pay for the extra cost on products that are going to the VAT. zero sum game, study.
If you're claiming that people will earn more than what they pay then your sum would be in the negative because you don't generate more money in the VAT but you're giving more what you get. Study.
And again, marijuana decriminalize, and opioids? You'r giving people money and the same time allow them to use drugs that cost money and bring them harm?
Wow, that is just basic math of stupidity. Go back to school, if you generate new source of income by giving people harmful products to buy, they will use the money on those products and not on themselves. Did you think before you type that? And opioids being legal? What's next, crystal meth, next we should decriminalize cocaine, right, because of what? People responsibility to themselves?
Pal, go back to school, you're way over your head.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nope, he answered it. You didn't understand it, but he answered it.
Anybody who trade derivatives on FTX gets to loan other user's fund to trade as long as they put up collateral. This is legal, it's in the terms of service.
Alameda put up their collateral using FTT tokens, and of course, when Alameda faisl, FTX supposed to use the collateral to pay off Alameda loans, but in this case, they can't.
Because FTT tokens also fail when Alameda fails.
So in short, Sam version is completely legal, it's risky, but it's legal. He didn't steal anybody's money. Terms of service allows FTX to use user's fund to loan out to other traders on FTX platform as long as they put up collateral. And it includes the risk of somebody putting really risky collateral.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yeah, and there's a risk in delivering cash. Bitcoin is useful because you can make an annonymous transactions and then convert those into cash.
So yeah, Bitcoin is a kidnapper's mean to get cash, so you're sort of correct.
Let me break it down to you, the world will never use bitcoin as a means of exchange. Because money is means of exchange for labor, therefore anybody who owns any money, has to have contributed some kind of labor to deserve that amount of money in the process. Therefore the likes of you, owning bitcoin because you bought it early or you mine a lot of it, that contributes nothing to the total "labor" in the world. And of course, that disqualifies bitcoin as a means of transaction.
Sure, certain dollars are being printed by the federal reserves, but those fiat moneys are distributed among a lot of people therefore it doesn't create an absurd inequality out of thin air. So study some math, pal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
How desperate are you, pal?
Here's a clue, the technology behind it is called blockchain, which has absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoin.
Another guy can create another coin, that has the exact same function and is distributed accordingly. No government in the world, or any set of nations in the world will accept a trading instrument where the majority of it is heavily focused in one country. You Americans are delusional, try to keep it real.
How much did you put in the game and how much you've lost? Get out while you can, pal.
Your same argument is applied to countless websites during the tech bubble and of course, it all failed. It's still in it's infancy,..., it is the future,.... All hype, no results, no value.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CeBePuH No, that's not correct, pal. Auto pilot is safer in routines, what if the routines are wrong? What if there's unforeseen circumstances?
If it crashes and when it crashes, who will take responsibility?
Do you think that people hired chauffeur because they think they're safers? No, kid, it's because of accountability.
If you cause an accident, the person behind the wheel is responsible.
So if auto pilot crashes on its own. It's you who are responsible, think about that.
Your point is flawed, because it misses the point.
If it can crash, then the responsibility belongs to someone. Who is that?
1
-
1
-
Yeah, that's not how it works, pal.
He specifically said in the interview that FTX US is maybe solvent, and he's no longer in charge of it.
FTX International is different. His explaination is that Alameda Research was doing trading on FTX platform, trading derivatives and options, and such they need to put up collateral that they did not have. And if Alameda can't put up collateral, supposedly FTX has to stop Alameda trading activities and "liquidate" the assets, which means they keep all the collateral put up by Alameda.
However, he said this did not happen due to lack of attention, that Alameda was able to kept trading on the platform despite not putting up enough collateral.
It's a bit different, but in this case, it's actually legal.
There are 2 scenario.
Scenario 1: FTX wired money to Alameda directly and let Alameda uses such money to trade elsewhere, that is illegal, and by Sam's claim, it did not happen
Scenario 2: Every "derivative trading", "leverage" on FTX platform uses other customer's funds in order to trade, and in order to do so, the ones who trade has to put up collateral. For example, if you want to trade ETH on FTX but you don't have ETH, FTX can loan you ETH of other customers if you put up collateral into FTX platform. This is legal and is in the terms of service.
What happened supposedly is that Alameda traded on FTX platform using legal loans that they collateralized with FTT tokens, which is perfectly legal token to put up as collateral by market cap. But when the FTT tokens fail, Alameda trading options got closed out, but FTX can no longer sell the collateral FTT tokens anymore. This is a perfectly legal scenario
In scenario 2, where does the money go? The money goes to the sides that were betting against Alameda. Not everybody loses money, money here is a fixed amount, other parties that bet against Alameda won big, you just didn't hear of them yet.
Like in 2008 Real estate bubble, where did the money go? The money went to the people who built those houses and sold them off easily for quick money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aolvaar8792 Household, pal, household, average 2 people gaining 63000, not to mention that the number also means half of the country is earning less than 63000.
Learn some math, it's not even high.
So here, by your idiotic argument that if that much is enough for people to get healthcare, why aren't they getting it?
Your argument is forcing employers to pay for their healthcare, taking from their salary to do so, but the employers are already paying them enough money for healthcare?
So 2 possible situation, if the money paid is enough to get healthcare, then the people is fine to do whatever they want with the money, they can spend it, choosing not to get healthcare is their choice. And the second possibility, which is you're very wrong, and people don't make enough to pay for the healthcare, then your idea would force employers to give out free money. Think a bit, fake math doesn't work, because it's fake.
1
-
@aolvaar8792 Again, you math is just simply wrong, it's fake. Median household income doesn't mean everybody is making that much, it means in the middle, households are making such, the 28% of the single are all below 63000, except the single millionaires and upper middle class, don't be dumb, pal.
Like I said, your policy is just stupid, your employer pays your healthcare because they believe that you made enough to cover your healthcare with you. The difference between your wage and your market is that what was put into your healthcare, the employer didn't give you any extra, learn some math.
Like I said, the logic stays the same, individuals in the lower class don't make enough to pay for healthcare, they can't get healthcare, they created less than what they spend. .
What is your excuse of stealing from employers?
Again, if the people are paid what they made, the healthcare is already included, and if your employer pays the healthcare for you, you'll be paid less.
The value isn't increased or decreased, so the policy affecting this is either total nonsense or stealing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WolframaticAlpha The same thing happened in America with your The Great Recession. Economic crisis that are caused by the imbalance between supply and demands, as well as bubbles always happen. But the "debt ceiling" is nothing like that. Actually, it is that, but it's much more severe, because unlike the companies in Japan who dared to cut spending and paid of their debt with real money, real labor value.
America has nothing like that, you've committed into a trap. More and more social services, with zero way of recouping the money.
In the lost decade or the Great Recession, what happened was a bubble of overvalued assets that led to too much debt being accumulated for assets that are not worth that much. However, those crises happened to companies, which led to a reduction in economic activities. This is different, in this case, America itself is a company, a company that serves the American people, for a rate of 100% continuously loosing money. America have overvalued it's own people. The American population wellbeing doesn't worth the money the government is giving them, because the American population, overwhelming majority of them do not contribute back enough.
And you can not cut the spending because it's too late, the money you've already wasted on social services to unworthy people can never be recouped. And to continue those policies shall just keep sending you into the abyss.
Normal countries have debt to pay for something that is actually solid and exchangeable, America waster their debt entirely.
Unlike a company that took on debt for a shot of gigantic revenue later. In Japan, the government took on debt to rebuild their infrastructure, which are used and paid for everyday by the Japanese people, it's a solid source of revenue. The American people have used their debt to give out free healthcare, which just waste the money entirely because once the healthcare is used, it's gone.
1
-
@WolframaticAlpha No, pal, you're confusing stability with temporary quietness.
There has been no crash due to social spending because massive social spending has only been a thing since Lyndon B Johnson formed Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. What we are suffering now is the result of such stupid action, this is the first wave of the consequences.
Somebody tried to ride a car off a cliff to jump to the Moon, even though there's no "precedent" of that happening because nobody was dumb enough to try it, by logic, we can still see that it's a stupid and bound to fail action. This is what US social spending is like. Spending money you don't have, and are never going to have, increasing the debt not by billions or dozens of billions, but by hundreds of billions every year.
I'm not comparing the current situation to the cause of the 2008 Recession, so your entire paragraph there is useless. I'm comparing how you have reacted to the 2008 Recession, and how such reaction can never be done in this current situation.
In 2008 Recession, America bailed out the banks, so that the Banks could live and regain their lost profits by doing business off the loans.
Unfortunately for America, when America fails, their regressing population can never regain what they have wasted off. The money they've wasted is too much, it's now too late.
Cutting social spending is the only way to save money, you can't make money out of thin air, so therefore not to overspend, you have to cut your spending. Don't confuse stability with temporary quietness. In Norway, there is some sort of stability, because low population, enough productive people to cover their asses.
In America, not so much, gigantic of population, overwhelmingly unproductive people. Mandatory spending by law that makes no sense. You have temporary quietness for a while, but now it's going to burn.
There's no such thing as "pure capitalism" or "pure socialism", and that's not the argument the point is that this plan is pure stupidity. Even in a "socialist" state, you can only spend what you have. The Americans are spending what they don't have at an alarming rate without plans to ever recoup.
Norway or Japan model shall give them about 50 to 70 years before they face a "debt crisis". America shall face that crisis within the next decade or so, because as American population grows less competent, the money America committed to spend increases heavily. Like I told you, it's a trap, no country in the world dared to behave this stupidly. It's not just the social spending, it's the "reckless" social spending.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, it's not facts, it's hypocrisy.
If you want to work from home, fine. You can prefer it and ask for your employer to accommodate, that's a working condition like any other working condition such as medical care or wages or paid leave. But you can't just assume moral highgrounds demanding it.
You don't have any moral highground to demand that, you have the right to ask for it, and if it's refused, you have to do what you were employed to do.
The moral issue is you thinking that you're entitled to demand it, you're not entitled to a demand, you're entittled to a negotiation, and that's it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pretty much. Look, the Feds work on the will of the American People, you want them to stop printing money, just vote on politicians who will stop them, in the Senate and all. But you can't, because printing money benefits a considerable number of people and they won't stop. For example, everybody who is in the medicare and medicaid programs, mostly Americans. If you can't print money, government programs has to stop and American lives will be affected, that's a trap FDR set up nearly a century ago.
So you know, the dollar works for a considerable number of American people, it is the American Currency.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1