- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
By financial system they still mean a swift/Cips/sfms/spfs alternative?
So that if (hopefully not when) China invades Taiwan, they won’t get hit with sanctions as bad as Russia did.
Thats their goal, they want insulated within their own economic system.
🤣 Yeah, good luck with that.
Not sure what this comment means, BRICS has been rising in membership and stability.
Look at Russia’s economic growth in spite of the sanctions.
There’s a world economy outside US control and it is only growing. Where do you think the inflation is coming from?
That’s the thing about a war time economy, you produce one tank, and BOOM you’ve added $3.5MM to your GDP. A single SU-35? About 16MM added to GDP.
You can’t eat tanks and jets though, the labor and resources used to maintain a war footing are vast, and must be poached from other areas of the economy. The longer you maintain this posture, the more dramatic the contraction.
Gazprom posted a loss for the first time in decades. They sell one of the most profitable substances ever discovered by man and they still couldn’t turn a profit… despite how little the sanctions are impacting them, no less!
Turning tanks in a storage base into tanks destroyed in Ukraine is not economic growth, dispite what gdp would indicate.
Why not they’re consumables/disposable /s
Removed by mod
You think tanks do contribute, or that Russia is growing into new war unrelated sectors?
Russia is in for a harsh wakeup when the Ukrainian war ends (or in 2026 if the war is still ongoing IMO). Their economy is “looking good” right now only because it has been switched to a war economy, and the Kremlin injects tons of cash in it, but lots of it isn’t useful for the russians, it’s just getting destroyed in the war.
Also the ruble is close to a dead currency, nobody wants to trade in it any more.
Removed by mod
Nobody trusts China’s economic stats.
Except the IMF, World Bank, Moody, Standard and Poor, etc.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin
lol
Except the IMF, World Bank, Moody, Standard and Poor, etc.
They don’t trust it, they just have no other figures to work off. China has a long history of faking numbers or suddenly stopping the publishing of numbers when it can make the party look bad. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-16/china-is-hiding-more-and-more-data-from-the-rest-of-the-world
lol
Ok, be mad. A 15 year trend of growth on average no matter how you measure it: market cap, number of nodes, transaction volume, transaction capacity, etc. If you have thought Bitcoin was a scam or a bubble about to burst or whatever, you’ve been wrong 15 years in a row, maybe it’s worth reconsidering. Because it’s not just crypto bros using or investing in it now, it’s national treasures, it’s big banks and finance. But you know, on year 16 you’ll finally be proven correct, right?
Oh, well if the billionaire rag says china is lying, it must be true, for sure
They don’t trust it, they just have no other figures to work off.
That’s why they publish it. Not like there are (western adaptations of) the Li Keqiang Index
- At least have the decency to post the archive link https://archive.md/sgBQK
- Youth unemployment in the article:
Calculating the actual employment rate is complex and it’s plausible the government decided the changing nature of the economy and labor patterns means their current model isn’t accurately reflecting reality.
Obtuse way to say that the category 16-24 olds are studying and not part of the labour force
- Landsales: Communists don’t like speculation with real estate and land. Shocker. Not like they’ve been announcing a shift away from real estate to EV/Solar Panels/etc.
- Currency Reserves, Bond Transactions, Academic Information, Politicians’ Biographies:
President Xi Jinping’s ideological battle with the US has also motivated Beijing to ringfence data it believes could advantage the Biden administration.
Based.
A 15 year trend of growth on average no matter how you measure it: market cap, number of nodes, transaction volume, transaction capacity, etc.
If you think that’s the critique of bitcoin then you have been blinded by techbros optimizim on the tech. Also it’s funny how you wave away bitcoin using up 1% of global electricity usage lol
yeah but whats stopping rich people from working together to get 60% of the network and then change things as they deem fit?
Firstly, rich people already do this with our existing currency systems. So that has to be what we’re comparing against. And nobody has done this because there’s zero benefit to doing so.
The thing you’re talking about is a 51% attack and the answer is:
- The cost of doing so, which continues to increase and is around a trillion dollars currently. Even if you had the money, there are very significant logistical hurdles which make it difficult and means people would see it coming a mile away. They don’t have to buy coins, they have to buy energy and equipment to turn that energy into mining and they have to keep buying energy as long as they want their attack to continue. That trillion dollar figure is for one block worth of attack (10 minutes). The longer you attack, the more the cost per block goes up too.
- There is no benefit to doing so. The second your attack ends, the network reverts to the true “main chain”, the system is designed to be really robust
There are only two things you can do with a 51% attack
- “double-spend” meaning you spend the same coins twice. But if somebody is going to trade you 1 trillion dollars of stuff, they’re going to wait for more than a few blocks confirmation. The scenarios where this makes any economic sense for anybody to attempt are basically zero.
- Delay (censor) transactions which will go through the second your attack ends
Even if you controlled 51% of the network you cannot:
- Spend money you don’t have the key for
- Increase the supply beyond 21 million coins
- Otherwise make invalid transactions
Because all other nodes would reject your transactions as invalid.
Youre just gonna recreate what we have today with more energy usage. So why not fix the core societal problem?
