Juan ramon rallo bitcoin
Rallo gives a good example: “When someone denounces a bubble, they are trying to indicate that this asset is being over-acquired in the present in relation to the value of its future income”. This economist argues that “with monetary assets there is a curious circumstance: the more people demand them as a monetary asset in the present, the more their present price increases and, in many cases, also their equilibrium price. Therefore, how can we speak of a bubble if the fundamental value of the monetary asset depends on the people who are demanding it?
Patreon juan ramón rallo
More juice, however, has the second problem: not every asset is susceptible to be analyzed under the criteria of a bubble. What is a bubble? Basically, when the current price of an asset greatly exceeds the present value of its future cash flows. For example, if an apartment that has a market price of one million euros can be rented for 850 euros per month (10,200 euros per year), it is clear that the price of the apartment is in a bubble phase: if a bank deposit, for example, offered me 2%, it would be more logical for me to place the million euros in the deposit (charging 20,000 euros per year) and pay the monthly rent from the bank interest. Something similar could be said with respect to a stock or a commodity stock (if the current purchase price far exceeds the eventual future sale price – based on its foreseeable final utility for consumers – then it is in a bubble phase).
However, the biggest obstacle to speaking of a bubble is another: what is the equilibrium price of this generic protection? There simply is none: gold is just as good as a monetary asset when its price is $1,000 an ounce as when it is $5,000. Whether it is closer to $1,000 than to $5,000 will depend, quite simply, on two factors: a) the number of people who want to incorporate it as a cash reserve in their wealth, b) the percentage of their wealth that these people want to have in the form of gold.
En un vídeo titulado Por qué el Gobierno quiere aumentar su control sobre la Era Bitcoin y que fue presentado dentro de su canal de Youtube, el famoso economista español Juan Ramón Rallo expresó a su audiencia su visión sobre la nueva reforma fiscal que está haciendo el gobierno español.
Refiriéndose precisamente a esta reforma de las leyes tributarias que, como ya mencionamos en Cointelegraph, se centrará, entre otras cosas, en las operaciones con criptomonedas que tienen los españoles, Rallo expresó que esto es una señal de que el gobierno español busca aumentar el control sobre el patrimonio de sus ciudadanos.
Ante este escenario, el economista austriaco recordó que los Estados, no sólo España, se encuentran actualmente en niveles de endeudamiento excesivamente altos y que esto plantea una “mayor necesidad de confiscación de la riqueza de los ciudadanos” para poder saldar sus cuentas. “Durante las próximas décadas iremos a un régimen fiscal mucho más confiscatorio por sus altos niveles de deuda pública”, dijo Rallo sobre sus visiones de futuro a nivel fiscal.
Juan Ramón Rallo: I don’t know what you mean by “certain”. Although I don’t really know what you (or many others) mean when you talk about “neoliberal” either. Probably not even they are clear about it, beyond using it as a pejorative label.
Good Juan Ramon, I would like to know if, since inflation is a way to avoid given the results in Latin America or Zimbabwe, if then what we have to look for is deflation and if this can be bad or not. I would also like to know if during an inflationary period wages go up or not and if not, why not. I know there are many doubts, but I would be glad if you could help me.
Juan Ramón Rallo: What we have to look for is price stability: neither inflation nor deflation. Wages in inflation tend to rise in nominal terms, not necessarily in real terms.
Juan Ramón Rallo: I don’t see much of a problem with certain types of editions that subtract genes that, behind a veil of ignorance (as Rawls would say), we would all agree to eliminate. Embryo selection is more problematic because it does compromise the (possible) rights of the embryo (there is no consensus within liberalism in this respect).