to crypto or not to crypto - part 3

so now we have a crypto saga... some dude who owns one of the largest crypto exchanges turns out to be a fraud. so here we have the 2008 crisis once again. it is the equivalent of having one of the most established investment banks collapse. not saying that this exchange is a gazillion years old. just saying that it is one of the significant players in the infrastructure for crypto currencies. 

does that mean crypto currency would lose value? 

well... to answer that question, you have to ask yourself, do we still require an alternative to fiat currencies?

in 2008, the fact that an investment bank collapse does not mean property is a bad asset class. it means the people who give out loans for properties should be selective. loans should be given out to people who are able to repay. it means that banker should not sell the risky loans to retirement funds by getting the rating agencies to say they are non risky loans. it means that government should not have bailed bad investment banks for making bad decisions without stating the clear criteria for bail out - ie they should not pay themselves shitload of money for f*cking up.

so, today, the fact that a fraudster caused the exchange to collapse does not mean all crypto currencies are worthless. it means (hopefully), that once the root cause of the collapse has been identified, that it would be prevented from happening again. it means (hopefully), that the other affected exchanges, if they survive, would have controls in place to prevent the same from happening again. it means (hopefully) that the worthless coins that may not be able to hold its worth would go away... at least for awhile.

but i suppose that is just history repeating itself. it always start off with the right intention. somebody want to enable something wonderful. then greed kicks in. someone figured out how to work the system. gets everybody into trouble. people wake up and learn from the mess. comes up with controls. it is peaceful for awhile and then greed kicks in again. and history repeats itself in different forms. nothing new really.

to cypto or not to crypto - part 2

i have just attended a crypto investor programme with Equities Tracker and am now bona fide bitcoin expert... i hope > <

so, let's test me. i welcome any question on the subject!! 

a friend did ask - where did bitcoin's value come from? 

this line of questioning is probably best done in person as different people have different perspectives. but i will attempt it anyway. so, where do any of the fiat currency's value come from? it comes from its ability to serve as money. what is money? money is something that would be durable, portable, divisible, uniform, limited in supply (hence ability to store value) and acceptability. why would you accept the US dollar but not the venezuelan bolivar as payment. it is because the venezuelan bolivar is not limited in supply (hence unable to store value). then again, the US dollar is not limited in supply. as a matter of fact, then US has been printing money irresponsibly - resulting in a worldwide inflation. so US dollar's value is simply attributable too many people are holding US dollar and may not (at this point) want to see it fail - and not its ability to serve as money. Its value lies, currently, in its acceptability.  

so, bitcoin - durable and portable as it lives on the internet, divisible up to 8 decimals (a.k.a 1 satoshi), uniform, limited in supply to a maximum of 21million BTC scheduled to be mined by 2140 and acceptability has been growing, evidenced by the growing infrastructure that support BTC. 

then why do the governments and the banks discredit the coin and say it is a scam? 

control. 

governments and banks have been the centralized authority for money all this time. they decide how much money to print (and in effect, how much and when to rob the people). with bitcoin, it is decentralized. no one party is able to control bitcoin. there is this fear of the loss of control and therefore, governments and banks have attempted to discredit bitcoin. that is, until they are ready with their version of "crypto currency". at least that is what they are going to try to get people to believe. they are going to try to get people to believe that their digital money is crypto currency - when in fact it is a world of difference. 

before buying any crypto currency - read the white paper. because there would be no authority for you to go cry to should you find your money missing and if it is missing - it is probably because you were careless with your passwords or you were not aware of the terms already stated to you on the white paper. before buying any "crypto currency" from the banks or governments - check the headlines for what they used to say about bitcoin. if they claim it wouldn't work before, why would they now have their version of the same? people do have very short term memory. thanks to branding, we choose to believe the banks although they have lied to the people over and over again. 

why would the bitcoin price fluctuate this way if it was of value?

well, it is currently finding its equilibrium. being new (and growing), its value is still uncertain because there are skeptics and there are many powerful people who would prefer if it does not exist. but if you believe that the existing monetary system is not working and that there is value in bitcoin, then if you are a value investor, you would realize that this is a value-price divergence. and it is a huge divergence. as bitcoin is not an equity, it is closer to a form of money and so, more like forex than stocks, there is no secondary value (correction for my previous post). its eventual value would depend on how widely it is accepted. the current valuation fluctuates as such because the number of people trading on it is relatively small. as the institutions are currently obviously preparing to battle bitcoin with their own "crypto" (and scam the people - again) and probably have already secured bitcoin for themselves, the subsequent waves would be interesting. 

there are so many coins out there. how do i know which coin to invest in?

similar to stocks - there are so many companies out there, how do i know which one to invest in? do your own research. find your own country's Equities Tracker. look for research that would provide you with facts. read the white papers. 

On another note, the subconscious mind is so powerful. Uncle Jimmy's words has really gone into my head and obviously, deeply ingrained in his sons'. He found a way to manage through investments and i definitely believe in value investing. Uncle Jimmy has always been all about power to the people. and supporting bitcoin is all about power to the people. his sons are perpetuating his legacy -  which is pretty cool. 

to crypto or not to crypto?

In my mind, I am able to understand why people would search for an alternative to money. And i understand crypto currency's value is different from it's secondary value in the market where it is traded. It's value should depend on its durability, portability, divisibility, uniformity, limited supply and acceptability. So meaning its value really depends on if its supply is truly limited and if it has the ability to be accepted by the merchants out there. 

The current financial sector that has engineered the current global inflation situation we are in would likely have the money to ensure that their crypto currency would be accepted widely. However, i think i would like to support a crypto currency that is not by a bank or a particular country. Having said that, how do i know who is truly behind the currency i would like support? 

hmmm.....

10 Nov 2022 - correction, there is no secondary value for bitcoin. It's value fluctuates at the moment as it finds its equilibrium. Partly because there are many skeptics out there, partly because there are many powerful people who do not want bitcoin to succeed, partly because many people are buying and selling bitcoin without knowing much about it, partly because the institutions that were attempting to discredit it is now jumping into the bandwagon and causing the fluctuation, partly because its acceptance is growing, partly because the infrastructure that support it is growing, partly because the community that wants to see it work is growing... 

Different perspectives

After watching numerous youtubes about the 2008 financial meltdown, in a bit to understand why i am paying MYR45 for cooking oil today, when just about a year back, it was a high of MYR32 and when on a sale, I can get it for a low of MYR21.

So, we now understand that it is an issue of politicians and the ability to create credit or the ability to create a "product" from thin air. Industries that are able to generate transactions from thin air. Mainly financial industries. And all would be due to greed. The ability to generate credit is how banks steal from the hardworking, poor and middle class and transfer the wealth to the very rich and to themselves.

And banks have done this over and over again - creating financial disasters to feed their own greed. Knowing that because they are "too big to fail", that governments would jump in and save them with taxpayer's money. And they get away with all the money that they have stolen. Then when the people have gotten accustomed to the fact that they have to deal with the injustice, the bankers come out again and push the politicians for further deregulation of the financial markets. Rinse and repeat. 

Documentaries on the 2008 disaster did give a different perspective. It tells of how the in the middle of the disasters, there are regulators who truly believe in market forces or open markets. The regulators who believe in deregulation and moral hazard. Regulators who did not want to bail the banks out because they believe the market rewards and punishes. Who in the end, have no choice but to bail the banks out for the economy and good of the country. Regulators who believe that if they allow the financial system to fail, that other countries would lose confidence in the country and that would result in complete collapse of the country's economy. So, the public should understand. 

Yes, as the disaster was unfolding, you had to do what you had to do. You had to give the public's money to the banks to stabilize the situation. But why were there no conditions to the bail out? How the bail out money should be used? New rules in place to prevent this from happening again? Perhaps it was too much to handle. Banks were going bankrupt over the weekends. 

But now that the situation has been managed, and why aren't the culprits punished? Or at least controlled? You can imagine why occupy wall street happened. You worked hard to maintain a normal life, the money in your bank loses it's value because the banks created more money. The retirement money in the hedge funds got stolen because the banks were selling derivatives to enrich themselves. Taking a percentage of that savings every quarter. And finally, when the bubble the banks created explodes, the government have to take taxpayers' money to save the bank. 

It is difficult to not be angry when you are trading time for money, not getting to spend that time with your loved ones, and yet money it losing value and you are being robbed every single day. From the money you have in the bank, and the money the government insist you save and then the money you passed to the government to create a thriving living environment. Instead the money in the bank loses value, a percentage of the money in the hedge funds get stolen (especially if the hedge funds don't understand the investments they are making) and the taxpayer's money goes into the banker's pockets to save them and indirectly save the people from the disaster the banker's created. 

I must say kudos to the people who created the documentaries - documenting this disaster in a simple way so the public may understand, the regulators would remember. Perhaps prevent the next disaster? No, history always repeats itself. After all that happened, it is clear that the ignorant is punished. So, whoever the perpetrators are, however useless the regulators are, in the end, if you are ignorant, you are punished. 

With the advancement in technology, there will be innovation. With these changes, there will be new ways of doing things, new products - created to fulfill a need. Understand those changes, those innovations and how it works. Because one arsehole is going to figure out how to make money from it. This arsehole is going to convince another person who don't necessary understand it to do the same. Thanks to social media, alot of people are going to be very quickly convinced that it is the best new way to make money. Jumping into it even if they don't understand it, as they would not want to miss the boat. This creates a bubble. Especially if whatever they are doing or selling does not really create any value. 

Knowing all this is frustrating. There is no real resolution. Unless there is a medium that is durable, portable or transferable, divisible, uniform, acceptable and limited in supply (which money is not). Crypto currency perhaps? It is likely that the concept came about due to this need. But the banks and politicians are jumping on board. Will the people understand what is going on? Or will they allow themselves to be robbed once more? Will the effort to take away the very elements that have gotten the people into this mess be successful? Or will money prevail? The banks have the money and politics to take this idea and bring it back into their fold. What will their claims be? That banks are credible...? Really?

   

Financial nuclear meltdown

In 2008, a financial meltdown orchestrated by the greedy bankers at wall street was of epic proportions. Due to the fact that the political party in 2008 (bush's administration - to be fair, the last of the reforms put in place from the era of the Great Depression was lifted during clinton's time) had let this bunch of greedy herd of hyenas out to hunt for years in the cover of darkness - zero transparency - the disaster that they have concocted was beyond what anybody could have imagined. 

Due to the interconnected of the financial system of the world and the dependence on US Dollar, the world had to pay for the greed, lack of foresight and irresponsibility of these bankers (and is still paying). 

After the meltdown, what these bankers got, was a slap on the wrist and here is more money - go make yourselves look presentable, so the world would still have confidence in the US. No changes in law, no limit on bankers' compensation, no change in how things are run in wall street. Seriously? Obvious step one would be to reduce dependence on the US dollar. I guess this has already happened as the US citizens are now paying more and more for the money stolen by the bankers at wall street as the world work towards reducing dependence on the main US banks as they have displayed their inability to manage their own greed. The banks appeared to have recovered even though the US economy has not. That may be because the world is very interconnected. As the world find ways to reduce dependence, and that may be why more and more services are done via other than traditional banks/ investment banks, the US citizen would be paying more and more of the bonuses that was taken by the bankers all those years prior.  

Lesson to self would be always always be on the look out for wolves in sheep's skin. Understand the "investments" that you are making. Find out how to store your wealth. Obviously money is not the best option. Find ways to offer services that were previously dominated by the banks. Banks are primed for a takedown.  

Know that wall street has not changed. Having gotten off scot-free from the meltdown, they have returned, more greedy that before. Do we have to go back to bartering? Do we go into cypto-currency? Which of these crypto-currencies are initiated by the same wall street people? How do we reduce dependence on US dollars? Which other countries currency can we rely on? Which government is not at the mercy of the financial sector of the country? Which government has shown the world that it is governing the country in a responsible manner with the foresight of a true leader? Which country has mechanisms in place to prevent political parties from being in power for too long a period of time? Afterall didn't someone say that "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? Which country has policies in place to ensure successful succession - to ensure a country continue to thrive even with the necessary change of leadership? Which instrument does not allow the indiscriminate printing of money (unlimited provision of credit) - which is essentially how banks steal from their customers? How do we ensure that each entity giving out loans would have to bear the consequences if the people default? 

With the new technology enabled by the internet, what are the new instruments that are not well understood and looks to be a potential issue? Which of these instruments can be created from thin air with no limit or judgement? Which of these instruments would be able to eventually represent the value of everything productive in the world? 

People who believed in the free economy, that the market rewards and punishes, would have seen that it is true. The market rewards those creating the market, those in the know and punishes those who are powerless and ignorant within the market. Greed has been there, since the beginning of time. There is no way people will behave if there are no rules. That is the reason history repeats itself.

It is like telling your kids, they can go to bed whenever they feel like it. Will they go to bed at 9pm? Will they wake up at 8am? Will they have any discipline? Will they achieve anything of significance? Will they come to you when they are 21 years old for money? Will they spend the money on necessity or will it be spent on whatever fancies them? When they finally crash and burn, will they tell you that they are a loser because you did not discipline them? Well... that is wall street for you.

Credit: Money, Power and Wall Street 

Why we search for alternatives to banks and money

Banks claim to create wealth. But do they really? They manage money - which is the medium we think store wealth. But money lose value all the time. Meaning the people keeping money are robbed all the time without realizing it! After watching numerous documentaries and reading loads of stuff, i think banks do not create wealth. They redistribute wealth. Mostly to themselves and to the people keeping them out of trouble. And screwing their customers. 

Came across this thing called credit default swaps, explained in numerous documentaries. It comes across as a pretty screwed up tool for the banks. 

Explaining it simply, banks take money and help you keep it physically safe (it does not mean the value of the piece of paper stays unchanged - it just means you are likely to have that piece of paper when you wish to withdraw it). And since it is something of value, they pay you a tiny interest for it. Then they take the money that they have and they give out loans. They are able to give out loans amounting to more money than what the banks' customers have deposited with the bank. And they charge the lenders an interest (which of course, is a higher percentage than what is paid to the depositors). 

I have yet to understand why they are able to give out more than what the depositors have placed with them. But to me, that is what i understand to be printing money. However, it is very different from creation of wealth. It does however, sound like re-distribution of wealth. Imagine if you are on a plot of land that has 5 farms. 4 farms are established and healthy. So you have plenty of vegetables, chickens, cows, etc. And those 4 hardworking farmers store their money with mister banker. Mister scammy came along and said, i have not farm before and i do not have many assets, but i would like to borrow some money, buy farm 5 and plant dragon fruits for sale. Mister banker want to sell the loan because if he sells this loan, he will get a huge bonus from the bank. So he say, sure mister scammy, take the money. And he gives out more money than the total money saved by the established 4 farmers in the bank. So, now all the money in the system represents the value of everything on that plot of land. Effectively distributing the 4 farmers' wealth to mister banker (bonus) and mister scammy (loan which might go bad). There is more money in the system, but essentially, it is worth less. At least until and if mr scammy manage to establish a healthy, profitable farm. 

Then mister banker got creative. He wants more bonus. And he wants to give out more loans. So, he need more money to come into the bank. And he knows mister scammy might not be able to repay his loan. So, he also need to get rid of the risk associated with the loan that he has given out on behalf of the bank. One fine day, a new customer came to the bank. This customer has some money from other plots of land and would like mister banker to advise him on how to make more money. Mister banker told new customer, why don't you buy this asset I have - it is a loan (mister scammy's loan) and you can get interest from this loan. New customer asks, what if they lender default? Mister banker says, don't worry, I will get rating agency to verify that it is a good "investment". So, he bought rating agency a bottle of wine and says, mister scammy's loan looks like a AAA asset - don't you think? As it is a very expensive bottle of wine, rating agency agreed and says, it does look like a solid investment. With that, mister banker screwed new customer over and sold him a loan likely to default - with the help of rating agency. And now bank has more money to loan to other people like mister scammy. The overall wealth of the plot of land and now the adjacent land is now overall less - unless mister scammy turns out to be a talented farmer. And the wealth of the hardworking farmer and new customer has now be redistributed to mister banker and mister scammy and rating agency. There is even more money in the system, but it would be chasing after less vegetables, chickens and cows. The money held would be worth less (again). 

With this tool, banks can give out loans irresponsibly, because they can offload their risks to unsuspecting investors with the help of the not-so-objective rating agencies. Earn their bonuses and not worry about non-performing loans. That would be somebody else's investment risk. 

This is why crypto currency exists - the people are trying to look for an alternative. To give banks less power. To take away the "services" they claim to provide. To make banks less relevant. Because time and again they create bubbles by doing things do not create wealth and then they threaten the not so smart politicians - if you don't save me, your country's financial system will collapse and you will be in recession. Well mister banker, it is time wrap arms around each other and die together (direct translation from cantonese dialect). When they bankers have stolen enough and the people are fed up enough, people might be willing to see how things can be when banks (if they still exist) have significantly less relevance. Bail outs have happened time and again with no difference in outcome. Perhaps it is time to try something different. 

Be aware of new vehicles that may not be called banks, but does exactly what banks do. So, educate yourself. As tools become more complex, don't ever agree that it is too complex for you to understand. If banks do not understand their products well enough to explain it is a simple manner, then they do not deserve the business. when banks tell you it is a good investment backed by rating agencies - know that there are always fine prints - you are investing knowing that there is "investment risk" and rating agencies' ratings are only an "opinion", not a recommendation. 

How the politicians and bankers screw the world over

As a part 2 to the post on inflation, this would be an attempt to explain how the politicians and bankers destroy lives. Over and over again. 

All countries would have experienced varying degrees of the following process. However, the process itself does not differ significantly. 

The process is complex. Which is why it has been repeated over and over. The average you and I, can only see a certain extent of the process. So, only understanding a portion of the cycle.  

To understand the process, we need to understand the motive. So first, a politician or political party who need money to gain control (a common enough starting point - the ambitions of arseholes). To get the money, they have to make the bankers happy. So, they make the banking industry less controlled. To enable the bankers to earn money from the people. In return, they get the financial support for their political campaigns, to stay in power.  

Next the bankers. With the deregulation, they take more risks with their customers' money - for example, giving loans/ credit cards to people who cannot afford to have loans and credit cards. Then they developed new financial instruments. Higher risk financial instruments. And they "invest" their customers' money in these financial instruments, disclosing in the fine prints that these investments carries risks. So, if the customers loses money, they did so knowing the risks. By giving these loans and selling these "investments", they have brought in business for the bank and they would then pay themselves a bonus. And knowing that the loans they sold and investments they made were risky, they would proceed to sell the loans to a third party or hedge the investments (selling the investments to unsuspecting people, then putting a bet that the investment will fail).

When the bubble created by the bankers explode, ie when money is "created" by the bankers and politicians without real increase in productivity, then inflation happens. Price of goods increase. Effectively, the hardworking people who have not invested their money in something that can grow and produce, would be robbed. What they have in hand can now buy significantly less than what they thought they would be able to. Retirees would be in jeopardy. So honest hardworking people would be poor again. 

But what happens to the bankers? Nothing. Time and time again, the bankers have denied accountability. The people invested knowing the risks. What happens to the banks? Oh, they would have merged. Why? Because the bigger they are, the less likely they would be allowed to fail. So, what happens? The politicians would then say, they have to bail the banks out so that the financial system would not collapse. So, this time, the taxpayers' money would be used to get the bankers out of trouble. Unfortunately, the bigger the banks, the bigger the mess they can create. The bigger the resulting crisis. But nothing happens to the bankers and the money that they have effectively stolen, stays with them.

Wouldn't the politicians need to answer for the inflation? Oh, they would make the rich happy. How, somebody asked, did the housing prices increase so significantly after a financial crisis? Well, the housing prices increased due to inflation. Is it a good thing? Well, the people who are able to hold on to their property post crisis would be "richer". Meaning the price of their "asset" (or rather liability) would have increased. Yea, the tenant they had may be less likely to be able to afford the rent, but on paper, their "wealth" would have increased. Not only that, they would report and increase in GDP - economic "recovery" because the overall "productivity" would have growth vs prior year. It simple means the prices of everything has increased. And if you calculate the money that would have traded hands to purchase the same things, you would have an increase. So, they report inflation as economic recovery. And life goes on. Until the next crisis. Perpetuated by the same people. 

Aren't there laws in place? Watchdogs to monitor such fraudulent activities? There can be. But if the bankers require any laws to be overturned, they would just have to tell their politician puppets to get it done. And watchdogs? Well, if you have heard of credit rating agencies, you would just have to find out what were the credit ratings of the companies that has failed, just prior to them failing, to figure out if these agencies were of any use. Academicians? Well, some of them would lend credibility to any crooks and scams provided they are paid handsomely. Those who are good at their jobs would be offered a job and brought over to the dark side. Those who would not participate would be destroyed.

So, what is happening today? In the last major crisis, the investment banks fueled the dotcom bubble. Everything dotcom was a good investment, until it wasn't. And then the subprime loans - another way to have the property prices increase for no good reason. Today, the most recent things that come to mind, would be the startups. The investments that went into start ups. Start ups that may be true unicorn or perhaps just plain junk. So, know that you are buying into. The money that has gone into these investments would also have been used to paid those who encourage the instruments. The "investment bankers" today may be disguised as start up accelerators. There would be some people in the industry that would have gained as long as money is coming in to fund start ups - regardless if the start ups succeed or fail in the very end. And as these start ups show themselves to be what they truly are - a unicorn or nothing at all, whichever the case may be - they would have effected a transfer of wealth. It may be that the start up founders have gain. In some cases, the start ups would have been mere vehicle for the transfer of wealth to those who promoted the start ups. Banks would have the create the money to fund these as the investors take out loans to fund these ventures. Banks would created money out of thin air and paid themselves handsomely. When would the bubble burst? Perhaps when enough start ups fail. When the accelerators have funded enough junk. Well, whenever it happens, the above would repeat itself and would returned disguised in another form. 

Not saying that all start ups fail. Perhaps all instruments started with the genuine intention to fulfill a need. Then the very human need for more would kick in. Structures would be set up to multiply and create more. And when it reaches a stage where the "productivity" is not real, when the start ups that are being funded are no longer of any real value nor potential, then the bubble will grow. If you are speaking to the people in the industry and the people promoting something in public is telling you privately that they don't truly believe in the value of what they are promoting...

So politicians and bankers at the expense of the people. Always. 

At the end of the day, the poorest, as always, pay the most - Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Credit: Thank you, Inside Job and MT for recommending it. 

Inflation

For this article, I should really start with a disclaimer. This post is only my opinion or my understanding. An opinion/ understanding that I form as I read stuff and watch youtubes and try to understand economics and money. As time goes by and i learn more, this post might be edited. Here goes part 1.

so why this sudden desire to understand economics? perhaps it is because prices are rising like crazy. and the money that i have been trading my time for, has suddenly lost alot of its "value". it feels like i have been robbed. and i needed to understand what happened. 

so long long time ago, Uncle Jimmy who founded equities tracker (https://equitiestracker.com/) tried to explain to me, how the dollar is no longer backed by gold and is essentially worthless, but is too big to fail. or perhaps for the lack of a better option. so here, i am going to try to explain what i understand. 

once upon a time, we used to barter. i give you a chicken, you give me some cabbage, tomatoes and spinach. so the whole world is happy and balanced (to a certain extent). I work hard and I will get my hard work's worth of goods. then i decided i cannot be giving a chicken every week... and i am not able to finish the chicken's worth of vegetables in a week. so, we started to use "money" - like pieces of gold/ silver/ rare precious metal to trade. and the whole world is still balance. the precious metal/ gold/ silver is rare and limited and the people who had it spent time mining it or traded for it. So, it is still fair and balanced. 

then one dude says, these precious metal/ gold/ silver is heavy, why don't we use paper? For every piece of paper, the value stated would be backed by gold ie. the gold standard. And so these paper "money" represents gold and can be use to trade. 

sounds ok right? until 1971 when president nixon decided to scam the whole world. he realized that everybody holding the US dollar will not come and redeem the gold all at the same time. so, he decided it would be ok to announce that the dollar is "money" because i say so. so, all of a sudden, the "money" used in trade and is now being held around the world is no longer worth anything real. at that point, the US dollar became pieces of paper saying "I O U" with no real ability to make payment - and i suppose since internet does not really exist as yet, not everybody would be aware of the change. and even if those who were aware took advantage of the situation. how? what would you do if you know of this change before everybody else? 

well, let's just print more money! bring it to other countries and buy goods and services. as long as the money... oh.... excuse me, i cannot say money anymore at this point!.... as long as the US dollar does not simultaneously go back to US, it would be ok. The inflation (where there is more money chasing less goods and services - the money has to lose enough value to equal the actual amount of produce available) would be "exported". The dollar that is being held by the merchants who sold their hard earned produce to the US would be worthless dollars - poor merchants not yet knowing that it is worthless, holding to the dollar and so preventing the inflation from hitting the US.  

and in the US, they start to print more dollars (and yes, apparently it is really easy to do so and this shall be my next research) and bringing goods and services into US.... so, to my colleague who asked why is US so "rich" compared to the whole world, it is because the country stole from the whole world. The other countries caught on. But as they started late, the could not export as much of their inflation. Their currency is not the "standard" for anything or anyone else. so in countries like malaysia, when the politicians decide they needed more currency to purchase votes to stay in power, when they print the currency, the inflation cannot be "exported". there is not such demand for the currency. so inflation hits the nation. 

and such situation has hit some other corrupted countries at a greater degree - look at venezuela. and because too much of their currency has been printed, the paper is totally worthless. and they have to trade in US dollars (for now). and that is why, the market exist for gold and that is why crypto currency exist today. it is because people are looking for the one thing that cannot be produced by any nut job in need of money - hell to the world. it is because people are looking for something that can hold value.... hold it. did you say hold value? did the cryptos not lose a bunch of value recently? well, it is still being established. i suppose it is finding it's value. currently, it is very much based on sentiments of the buyers and seller - so essentially dependent on fear and greed. but over time, it should find its value.... provided it is true that it cannot be simply produced by a nut job without any basis what so ever other than the fact that my wife would like a hermes handbag. ok... need to learn more as i have not totally understood crypto. 

i welcome constructive comments - please explain in super layman terms. if you are not able to do so, then it would mean you do not understand it well enough. in such situations, please do more research before commenting. teng kiu.