Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

ddl

Platinum VIP
  • Posts

    318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ddl

  1. Interesting discussion from a fund manager.  Sorry I don't have the name.  This is his take for an Elliot Wave perspective.

    Elliot Wave prediction for bitcoin price move from here

    This is to follow up with my earlier price prediction posts. In my last one I said that bitcoin would first correct to at least $6,600 (2/3 of my targets were hi, down to as low as $6,000) to complete wave 4 and then start a wave 5 that “could take prices well above $10,000”).

    As this is precisely what happened I am now updating my scenario. Please note that I would not really assign more than a 66% probability to this one as I have a hard time to see bitcoin correct this much at this point in time. Though perhaps that is exactly the reason why it is likely to happen (after all I am just human and I suffer from the same behavioral biases as all of us).

    Current situation

     
    1*XNLm79MsuVQmlcYgcuxu5w.png
    Long Term
     
    1*aQBH_y55FOv0huREXy0-Rg.png
    Short Term

    As you can (hopefully) see on the charts, wave 5 is in full force. I actually think we are in the process of the bubble really taking off, very similar to what happened in the Nasdaq 100 at the end of 1999. It then rose another 100% in very short time before it crashed. In the crypto world “a very short time” could well just be a few days or weeks. As this move started at about $8,300 it could mean that this wave ends above $15,000. To be honest — I have no idea how high it will rise, but I can see that the sell order books on most exchanges are practically empty. So every time the price takes a “round number” hurdle, it can easily shoot up another $500–800 without much resistance.

    Outlook

    Wherever this current move ends, it is likely that it will be followed by a pronounced correction. Given it would mark the end of a 15 months bull cycle, I would expect a full A-B-C correction potentially going as low as $5,500 to $7,500. It is unlikely that such a move would happen without a catalyst, but I can see the following three possibilities for that:

    a) Euphoria around the launch of Futures culminates when they actually launch on CME, potentially sending the price up 25% or so on that day and then giving people enough reasons to sell in droves. Alternatively in this same bucket any kind of issues around the final authorization for CME Futures trading (note they will launch “pending regulatory approval”) could be a more negative catalyst

    B) The ICO bubble bursting on harsh new SEC regulation or even the SEC bringing numerous cases at the same time and some founders facing jail if they cannot reimburse investors

    c) The Tether construct blowing up in the face of a few exchanges. Other people have written enough about this topic but I can see almost no scenario in which the US government tolerates a company with known human actors to deal with their currency in this way, while I do not believe for a second that USDT “bought” for bitcoin when these are sold on an exchange actually get converted into real USD. There probably already are 5 USDT per actual USD that Tether may or may not have on an undisclosed bank account. A crash in USDT price would hurt quite a few exchanges. I even think today it should not trade higher than $0.2 per USDT…

    So in summary, I think we are about to see a higher high on btc than anyone would have thought possible, but at this point in the rally I would be extremely cautious with new positions and the above is my best guess as to where we are going from here. It does remain just a personal opinion and a guess.

    Finally, the usual important disclaimer: This is not investment advice, this is my personal and not my professional opinion. Any asset can go to zero.

     

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  2. ***///

    Awesome Chat, CHIEF:twothumbs: Thanks as always !

    SHORT SHARE: someone looked at us like we'd lost our minds at the gas station the other day because

    we were remarking on how good it would be if the ppb would go up .... if they only knew !

    I doubt they'd do that in Texas, Alaska, North Dakota or other oil producing states.  A lot of the smaller oil and oil service companies are holding on by a thread.

  3.  

     

    I said this before and I'll say it again - Obama screwed up

    when he pulled the troops. Someone commented last week

    that it wasn't Obama's decision... give me a break! Mr E.O.

    "Executive Order" Obama isn't even bound by our Constitution,

    much less an "Agreement" made 8 years ago... but hey, if

    you want another reason to say "It's Bush's Fault!" I guess

    that was as good as any. Anyway... what's done is done, and

    what needs to happen next is simply deal with the situation

    at hand and not continue to place blame and call names.

    Ground troops need to be there, because it's obvious that

    the airstrikes aren't doing the job - we've heard that from

    Syria, Turkey, and Iraq already.

     

     

     

     

     

    My one and only response ...lest I again be accused of high jacking by replying to a comment in the first post....

     

    It was NOT Obama's call. BUSH made Iraq a SOVEREIGN NATION and BUSH signed the agreement withdrawing the troops. Obama tried to negotiate for them staying longer, but the Iraq refused altogether. It takes two to negotiate. Iraq would not budge on the immunity and that was non negotiable...(as it should be), As for EXECUTIVE ORDER PRESIDENT.....Obama has the LEAST amount of EO's since Harding. So, short of AGAIN invading Iraq, Obama could NOT keep the troops there without Iraq's consent.

     

    That said...I appreciate all you do, and I applaud your extensive research on the situation regarding the rv. I come here for facts on the RV. If I am unable to respond to your political comments without penalty, let me know now. Thanks

     

     

    Number of executive orders is less important than what they are used for.  However, just to set the facts straight the following is from the Federal Register.  As can be shown by simple arithmetic Gerald Ford had fewer than Obama.  But again, the usage, rather than the number is what is critical.

     

    Home > Federal Register > Executive Orders >Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index

    Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index

    Barack Obama (2009-Present)

    EOs 13489 - 13672   |   Subject Index

    The Disposition Tables list the status of Executive Orders from:

    • January 8, 1937 - July 21, 2014

    Disposition Tables contain information about Executive Orders beginning with those signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and are arranged according to Presidential administration and year of signature. The tables are compiled and maintained by the Office of the Federal Register editors.

    The Disposition Tables include the following information:

    • Executive order number;
    • Date of signing by the President
    • Federal Register volume, page number, and issue date
    • Title
    • Amendments (if any)
    • Current status (where applicable)

    Learn More About Executive Orders And About These Tables

    George W. Bush (2001-2009)

    EOs 13198-13488   |   Subject Index

    William J. Clinton (1993-2001)

    EOs 12834-13197   |   Subject Index

    George Bush (1989-1993)

    EOs 12668-12833

    Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)

    EOs 12287-12667

    Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)

    EOs 11967-12286

    Gerald R. Ford (1974-1977)

    EOs 11798-11966

    Richard Nixon (1969-1974)

    EOs 11452-11797

    Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969)

    EOs 11128-11451

    John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)

    EOs 10914-11127

    Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)

    EOs 10432-10913

    Harry S. Truman (1945-1953)

    EOs 9538-10431

    Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)

    EOs 6071-9537

    Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)

    EOs 5075-6070

  4. DWitte, on 16 Apr 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:snapback.png

    I get to be first to reply and I don't have anything to say and as I write this two beat me to it.  Turns out to be three. Guess I should've taken the Evelyn Wood speed reading class.  I did go to the Idi Amin school of humanity but that didn't work out so well for me.

    DWitte,  I actually took the Evelyn Wood speed reading class many years ago and it was amazing how much faster I could read.  But then I let is slide, quit practicing, and now it's back to slow reading again.  Oh well, thanks for the post.

    • Upvote 1
  5. No negs CJSinSJ.  Just dropping the zeros would do nothing to change the value.  Your 10K notes would be exchanged for 10 notes and what used to cost 10K would now cost 10.  HOWEVER, if the drop of zeros were accompanied by a revaluation of the dinar then and only then would the value of the dinar change.  From everything I've read on this site it is unlikely they would simply drop the zeros without also revaluing the dinar.

    • Upvote 2
  6. Removing the zeros, unless accompanied by an RV, is a neutral act.  It is to simplify the currency into smaller denominations.  Concurrently with the removal of the zeros all pricing would drop accordingly.  What used to cost 1,000,000 will now cost 1,000.  The new money would have the same value as the old money.  However, it is quite possible that a removal of the zeros would be accompanied by an RV which would be great!

    • Upvote 1
  7. U.N. council brings Iraq closer to end of 1990s sanctions

    Posted on June 27, 2013

    download-1-150x150.jpgThe U.N. Security Council brought Iraqone step closer on Thursday to ending United Nations sanctions imposed on Baghdad more than two decades ago after former President Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait In 1990.

    The 15-member council unanimously agreed that the issue of missing Kuwaiti people, property and archives should be dealt with under Chapter 6 of the U.N. Charter – which urges countries to peacefully resolve any conflicts – instead of Chapter 7.

    Chapter 7 of the charter allows the Security Council to authorize actions ranging from sanctions to military intervention if states do not abide by council demands.

    The move by the council is a significant political boost for Baghdad as it struggles to restore its international standing a decade after a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam in 2003.

    The Security Council resolution recognized “the importance of Iraq achieving international standing equal to that which it held prior to (1990).” U.S.-led troops drove Iraq out of Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf War.

    “This is a new beginning for the relations between our two neighborly and brotherly countries,” Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters after the vote. “This is an example for other countries also to resolve their disputes and differences through peaceful means.”

    The only issues linked to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait that remain under Chapter 7 are an arms embargo and Baghdad’s payment of $52 billion in compensation to Kuwait, diplomats say. Iraq still owes $11 billion and has said it expects to pay by 2015.

    There are still a range of Chapter 7 issues imposed on Baghdad after Saddam’s ouster in 2003, diplomats say, including the freeze and return of Saddam-era assets and trade ban on stolen Iraqi cultural property.

    U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has recommended that the U.N. political mission in Iraq should take responsibility for facilitating the search for missing Kuwaitis, or their remains, property and the country’s national archives.

    Source: Reuters

    Looks as if there are a couple of issues still to be handled under chapter VII but that at least relative to Kuwait they are out.

  8. Here's the full text of the link.

    By Salwa Jandoubi

    UNITED NATIONS, Dec 18 (KUNA) -- UN Security Council members on Tuesday said they needed more time to examine Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's options to deal with the issues of missing Kuwaiti and third country nationals and that of missing property, and insisted that whatever their choice will be, Iraq still needs to fulfill its obligations towards Kuwait.

    In his recent report to the Council, Ban, who visited Kuwait and Iraq earlier this month, listed four options to choose from after his high-level Coordinator for the two humanitarian files Gennady Tarasov leaves his post later this month for another UN job in Geneva.

    The four options Ban presented to the Council to choose from are: asking the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) to fulfill Tarasov's role, appointing an interim Coordinator for six months, replacing Tarasov with another Coordinator, or asking someone from UN headquarters to assume this mandate.

    Ban prefers that UNAMI takes over Tarasov's mandate. He said Kuwait and Iraq find it "acceptable" too, "but under certain conditions for Kuwait, most notably the fulfillment by Iraq of its border-related obligations." Diplomats said the Council is split on what option to choose, but concur on one thing: "whatever the choice is, Iraq still needs to continue to fulfill its obligations towards Kuwait," a diplomat told KUNA.

    While the US, UK, France and Germany prefer that someone the UN Secretariat at headquarters assume Tarasov's mandate for the coming six months, Russia prefers that an interim Coordinator be appointed.

    The option of replacing Tarasov with another Coordinator for a long period will happen only if Iraq fails to fulfill its obligations to Kuwait, especially those related to the border between the two countries.

    Tarasov briefed the Council behind closed doors for the last time on Ban's report and his options.

    He told KUNA following the briefing that the Council's reaction to Ban's options is that "they need more consultations, because the Secretary General proposed a new shorter confidence-building period to give Iraq another chance to comply with its obligations." They will discuss the option and "will decide at a later stage." "My mandate ends on December 31, but I told the Council very clearly: whatever the transformation of this mandate may undergo, the search for the missing persons must continue, as well as the missing property, including the (Kuwaiti) archives," he said.

    "It is something in the Council resolution (1284), and this effort needs to continue under whatever form or guise both sides find acceptable," he insisted.

    "I am leaving, but the Kuwaiti families who lost their loved ones are still there, they still suffer, they still wait for the outcome," he added.

    He described his job since he was appointed in April 2008 to replace late Yuli Vorontsov, as a "difficult task." He recalled that at the beginning, the "confidence between Iraq and Kuwait was at a very low point. So our first priority was to try to build the confidence between the parties, because without that, nothing could move forward ... Not many people believed in that approach, but it finally worked." He said the task of finding the remains of hundreds of people killed over 20 years ago in the desert was a "difficult professional business" that needed a machinery that he helped set up.

    He indicated that he got assurances from the Kuwaiti, Iraqi and other sides that such mission and excavations will continue after he leaves his post.

    He conceded that no much progress was recorded on this issue and that is because of the lack of information.

    "The biggest problem now is to have better information. Without more precise information, digging without precise information will take a lot of time and effort and will not produce any results," he argued.

    He noted that the exchange of high-level visits between Kuwait and Iraq and the decisions taken at the joint Ministerial Committee were "very good examples that both countries are now on the right track." Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told KUNA following the Council private meeting "we believe that the Secretary General's suggestion to have an interim appointment of a high-level Coordinator will be the cleanest in legal terms, and will also provide some political encouragement because it would indicate that we have taken note of the fact that Iraq has made some progress and that the overall relationship between the two countries has improved." "We certainly understand that Iraq wants to move in the direction of lifting all restrictions under chapter VII. We are very sympathetic with that. On this particular issue, some things need to be done, as far as Kuwait is concerned in order for that to happen. So far, that has not happened in order for the mandate of the high-level Coordinator to be discontinued," he added, in an indirect reference to Iraq's border-related obligations.

    He explained that Russia's choice to have an interim Coordinator for six months is to see "if Kuwait is satisfied and everything is OK, then this interim period will end, and Iraq exits the Chapter VII of the UN Charter." He admitted that if the Council agrees on an interim Coordinator, "we do have a Russian candidate. It remains to be seen," claiming that the two Russian diplomats, who have taken care of the two humanitarian issues for over a decade, have done so "with some success." He said Council members praised Tarasov for being able to produce "some progress under very difficult and delicate circumstances." In reaction to the Council Western members opting for the UN Secretariat to take care of the issues, Churkin said Council resolution 1284 mandated the Secretary-General to appoint a high-level Coordinator and not to relate them to the UN Secretariat.

    "The other option on the table is to have somebody from the Secretariat to do the job, not taking into account that resolution," he argued. (end) sj.bs KUNA 190007 Dec 12NNNN

  9. I had the honor today of participating in a flag raising ceremony today honoring our veterans. It was my privilege to accept a flag donated to our town that will be flown in their honor. Quite a humbling experience to realize that my (our) freedoms come from those who have fought for it through the years.

    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.