Ah, bitcoin. Since this thread has reappeared, I'll take the time to say that I still have an unused 5970 and two 5870s in me cupboard at uni. Not sure what to do with them. I wouldn't mind mining again, but it is a hassle and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be very profitable right now.

Worse still, even though the difficulty has been dropping recently, it's still much greater than when I was mining back in June and Ars Technica ran an article on Bitcoin again very recently... bleh.

First individual wallets, now actual bank robberies. Bitcoin is shite.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/15/bitcoinica_hack/

>>1982
Please can a moderator edit "allot" to "a lot" because this is slowly driving me insane.

>>2808
I think that's an exchange platform rather than a bank. Doesn't bode well.

>>2809
>can a moderator edit
Unpossible.

>>2808
But the thefts are not a valid criticism of Bitcoin itself. Bitcoin payments were designed to be irrevocable. This is a key tenet of a decentralised system. CHAPS (while not a currency, but a money transfer system our banks use) is irrevocable. The problem is people without a solid background in secure development are developing sites and systems that handle money and people are misplacing their trust into these systems.

>>2796
If you're one of the crazies, then everything's going to get much more expensive. Otherwise, internal markets probably wouldn't be affected greatly, and IIRC there certainly wasn't major price fallout when we did it last time.

>>2796
>but how is it done with a modern fiat currency?
Inflation

>if the pound was devalued tomorrow by 20%
No, it would just be worth less compared to other currencies.

This could off course effect trade in various goods so values will shift depending on where the product is manufactured and it's country's strength against the pound.

Since we import most of our stuff, I'd have thought prices would have gone up. Also, because we import oil, the cost of everything else would go up as transport costs are built into the product cost.

>>2800
I'm disappointed, lad. You got the "whom" in, but then insisted on ending your sentence with a preposition. Time to think long and hard about what you've done.

Mostly UK institutional investors. About £45 billion is in Premium Bonds.

>>2801

Should have been 'To whom do we owe', but anyway.

45 billion, eh? All I can think of is 'that's a lot of premium bonds prizes they must give out a year'.

</early morning autism>

>>2802
Typically around 2 million prizes a month. The prizes are given out in lieu of interest, so if you never win your investment is decaying. These days you must buy at least £100 of them, and you can hold up to £30k. 11/32 top prizes this month, including the million, were won by £30k holders, and another 6 by people close to that amount. 5 by those holding under £10k, of which only one was in three figures (some lucky soul in Essex with only £207 hit £50k).

The notional return on them in general isn't great.

>>2803
I worked out once that the odds were the equivalent of about 1 or 2% interest, if I recall correctly.

>>2804
Or you could have saved yourself the effort and looked up the published interest rate - currently 1.5%.

>>2787
Rothbard on children:

>The rights of children, even more than those of parents, have been systematically invaded by the state. Compulsory school attendance laws, endemic in the United States since the turn of this century, force children either into public schools or into private schools officially approved by the state.[18] Supposedly "humanitarian" child labor laws have systematically forcibly prevented children from entering the labor force, thereby privileging their adult competitors. Forcibly prevented from working and earning a living, and forced into schools which they often dislike or are not suited for, children often become "truants," a charge used by the state to corral them into penal institutions in the name of "reform" schools, where children are in effect imprisoned for actions or non-actions that would never be considered "crimes" if committed by adults.

>For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature — in short, when he leaves or "runs away" from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child's ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.

>Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children.

I could also post his views on race or gender, but that by itself should tell you how batshit the man was. I'm not interested in debating this, by the way. This isn't /pol/. The views of a self-described "racialist" who vigorously defended Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke and wants a "flourishing free market in children" will not be taken seriously here.

>>2790

But I posted a link to his economic theory. I am trying to make the point that no country in the world can be described as capitalist and no market can be described as 'free' because of the control and manipulation of the money supply.

His theories on other issues are not really important here.

>>2790
It sounds like he thinks reality should be an early 20th century children's book.

>>2792
Of course no market is free. If they were, there would be a flourishing market in children.

Rothbard is a kook, mate. Almost all countries in the world are capitalist, and it is in no way desirable that markets be free of regulation. Adam fucking Smith recognised that.

>>2768
>my last statement said that if I retire at 65 I will received £10,000 per annum.

Based on present annuity rates, in a defined contribution scheme you'd need a pension pot of around £175k to get an annuity paying that much and that would be one that does not escalate in payment and also has no a spouse's pension.

Also, this >>2769

>>2770
>If you're interested in shiny things you could buy into mining companies and things like that.

In September I switched 20% of my pension fund, and future contributions, into BlackRock Gold and General; I've attached a graph of what has happened to the fund since then. As it's going to be another 30-40 years until I retire and I know I'm taking a risk I'm not too fussed, I find it funny more than anything.

>>2771

That's not a particularly pretty sight, but it's only three months! If it can go down 20% in three months, then it can go up 20% in three months! Therefore you'll definitely make 800% by 2022.

>>2772
But it could also go down 800% by 2022!

>>2772
It's not necessarily a bad thing that the unit price is going down as it's going to be a long time before my benefits crystalise; as it's regular contributions it means that I've been able to buy more units; in December it cost £1.91 a unit and this month it was £1.58, so I've been able to get over 20% more than I would have. By comparison, every other fund I'm investing in has grown by 5-9% in that period, so I'm able to buy less. Pound cost averaging.

Having said that, many North American equity funds have skyrocketed in the same period, so I'm regretting that I haven't invested in any of them.

>>2774
I suppose that since you're technically buying more units with your contribution, you could argue that you're effectively buying low, which would allow you to cash out more units on a high.

>>2747 Also, due to flight from the Eurozone, aren't we currently borrowing money at a negative rate, where creditors are paying us to take our debt? I'm sure I read that somewhere. Germany is in the same situation.

>>2776
Yep.

>>2777

Isn't the UK government only able to borrow money at such low rates because it is rigging the market by using its programme Quantitative Easing to buy up its own bonds? Am I right in thinking that without the Treasury's QE programme we would be paying the same rate of interest as Italy and Spain?

>>2778
QE is certainly responsible for lowering rates by the main reason behind it is simply because the Eurozone is so unstable and Britain is a relative safe haven. I hate that term, but in relative terms we're in a very good position.

>>2779
expanded

The first QE was introduced in March 2009, and expanded in late 2009. Second round from October 2011 to Feb 2012

How about this:

http://order-order.com/2011/06/02/the-bank-of-englands-great-inflation-swindle/

>This is the exact opposite of what you would do if you really feared deflation, in a deflationary environment fixed income securities rocket, out-performing index-linked securities. Mervyn King’s Bank of England pension pot profits from doing the exact opposite of what it should if the trustees believed the Governor’s pronouncements were credible.

>>2686
Let's not ever link to that fatarse's site again, okay?

>>2687

indeed, even i know that's an unspoken 'no no'.

>>2687 >>2690
Is there any problem with the message or is it just the messenger?

>>2748
It's a bit of both, really.

>>2701
Out of interest, do you have any outstanding debts? (Student loans don't count.)

>>2702
None, I have around £20k in savings that was meant to be for a deposit on a house, but things have gone tits up with my girlfriend recently so I'm going to have to re-evaluate things.

Sage because I don't want to turn this into /emo/.

>>2704
>None
Then invest away.

Chatting to Nationwide earlier, later on they're bringing out an ISA with a 4. something rate which seemed very good, but they want a minimum deposit into your normal account with them of £750 a month.
Stay away from NS&I, I've got some in with them at the moment and their rates are atrocious.

>>2732
>Stay away from NS&I, I've got some in with them at the moment and their rates are atrocious.

I'm hoping they will issue index-linked savings certificates in the next few months.

>>2709
The banks must hate you. If you definitely have no mortgage, credit cards, store cards, etc. then save away. I hear Google has some decent information on ISAs. Television cheapskate money-saving expert Martin Lewis keeps an eye on where you can find the best rates, and has information on stuff to watch out for - for example, because of the special tax-free status, all of the administrative work is done long-hand (or, at least, that's the banks' excuse for it and for now they're sticking to it).

>>2710 I agree. I trust Martin Lewis with my life. If you can't get great info directly from the site, the forums will have it. These people spend their lives wringing every last penny out of the trains, banks, shops etc. I'd rather listen to them than a financial advisor who just wants me to take whatever gives him the biggest commission.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/

>>2705

I think Santander have a very good two year ISA at something like 3%. No where near beating inflation but no risk unless the economy collapses.

If you have some spare time just walk into any local banks/building societies and ask for a leaflet on their ISAs.

Don't forget that any money you have in savings is funding the UK's corrupt banking system.

>>2711
>I'd rather listen to them than a financial advisor who just wants me to take whatever gives him the biggest commission.

That's not really going to happen these days. The standard commission you'll be charged on an ISA will be 3% initial with 0.5% trail, but using an adviser can get rid of the initial fund charges and it's not uncommon for those to be around 5%. The only real risk you will have is the adviser wanting to switch the funds you're invested in every year, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Anyway, the Retail Distribution Review should see commission scrapped by the end of the year.

>>2712 My ISA just got slashed. I see Santander are now offering easy access at 3.5 %. Can anyone beat that?

>>2397>Byzantine

I fucking wish, mate. There'd have been a nice neat coup (or perhaps a sprawling messy one) by now.

Watching two democratic leaders faff is just tedious. I guess it's passably Byzantine in that Sarkozy and Merkel cover up how much they despise each other, but at least the Byzantines did neat stuff like calling the Persian and their Emperor "Two lights which light up the world".

Instead of hugging and air-kissing a thousand times, jesus.

>>2397
I love farage's speeches to the MEPs. He's not afraid to call a spade a spade. Also he does some pretty good interviews on King World News about once a month or so.

http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2011/12/3_MEP_Nigel_Farage.html

Obligatory:
http://www.youtube.com/v/TpYIKF1wuyE

>>2418

>GS Graduate
>Read that as .gs graduate

The Lemon Party needs more MEPs

>>2418

I agree with your analysis and I would like to hear what I can do about investing my money. Currently my portfolio includes tobacco, underpants, booze and curries.

>>2654 I'd try a different bank. She's obviously a bitch.

Use a building society ... Not many left though ... Nationwide is the main one . They won't Jew you quite so hard.

>>2655
Yeah try a diff bank.

I'm with Natwest and Lloyds TSB, Lloyds seemed less anal about the signup process.

Although what kinda rock are you living in if you don't have a bank account in 2012, get with the times ladm8.

Yeah well I get paid tomorrow, so I'll see you queers in Barbados.

>>2597
Lucky sod. What's your system? Even when I'm doing well, after I've got a burger and a few pints my pockets are full of nowt but betting stubs and lint.

>>2624
Well lad, it was only my second time. First time was down hove years ago on a work trip. I was crap. Didn't win anything (10 £1 bets!)

Anyway, so the recent trip, we were out by the track, and the track side bookies were £4 quid. So I rushed a bet down on the first race, lost, then the second, lost again, and thought - ooh this could get expensive. So retreated to the bar for a bit.

Then race 6 was approaching, and I thought - yeah I'm ready to have another go now. And I analyzed the race card more thoroughly. I looked the at the classes of previous races and how the dogs had fared. Then I strolled over to the bookie to look at the odds. Great odds on a dog that I thought from the card seemed to have a good chance. So £4 at 7/1 and in it came.

Then at first I was itching to have another go, but I didn't rush it, and didn't fancy anything, so off to the bar again.

Then somehow just was chatting away, and forgot about the betting, and then the 12th race came up. Again I looked at the card first (before looking at the odds) to get a feel for the dogs. THen again, there was one who I thought from the card looked good, but with good odds. So that was £5 at 5/1 iirc.

So, it's hardly a proven system as I only twice! But if I was to go again - my system would be: Analyse the race-card first (before looking at odds) looking for performance in previous races, taking note of the class of previous races, and pick 1-3 that you feel are in with a chance. Then look at the odds. If there was just one dog you fancied, and it's a big favourite, I probably wouldn't bet. If there's 2 or 3 you liked, and one has good odds, have a punt.

Don't rush into a bet. Don't feel you have to bet on every race because you might not have a chance to analyse the card properly.

>>2652
>First time was down hove years ago on a work trip.
Amex?

>>2656
Fraid not geez . It may surprise you , but loadsa companies go there for nights out .

Amex though ... I did know a girl that worked there . Kate , brunette, tall, bit thick.