Metals, Markets, and Digital Jewellery

Wow, it's December, over two months since my last post - that's flew by. So definitely time for a little update.

Firstly my stocks. I've bought more since my last post, and in that time they've shot up then shot back down again. At one point I'd shot up to about $230 profit, but I'm back down to just $3.86 now 😄 Though that's significantly better than my lowest point which was about -$60.

As I noted in my last post you can follow my goings-on here;

https://www.etoro.com/people/copperlocks

I think I'll leave it until the new year now however, I think I've invested enough. So I'll just watch it do its thing for the time being.

Gold and Bitcoin

Since my last post I've had a little revelation too, and it came in regard gold and Bitcoin. Watching analysts speak on YouTube for hours on end has given me a decent overview.

My main takeaway is that both gold and Bitcoin are competing for the same space in the human psyche. I've been quite scathing of Bitcoin in the past, stating that it isn't backed by anything. However, gold isn't really backed by anything either. Sure, it's more real-world and physical, but its value largely stems from its cultural status and how much people want it, rather than from how useful and needed it is. Shiny shiny, wanty wanty.

Its rarity adds to this of course, but ultimately it's the status, which in part stems from this rarity - gold is the king of metals. In fact, if we sidestep into the esoteric for a moment it's decidedly odd that the most sought after metal just so happens to be the colour of the Sun (with silver, its second-placed sister, the colour of the Moon). It's almost like it has to be this way in some alchemical fashion. This is just how the world works.

As humans we've been living the last six or seven thousand years or so in the age of metals. From bronze to iron to rail and skyscrapers. Metals like copper, tin, etc, have real practical value and usefulness. They've been needed. Whereas gold (and to a lesser extent silver) have been much more ornamental. No one needs gold jewellery, but it's nice to have, and it's perfectly natural that in the age of metals the most beautiful, rare, unreactive and Sun-like would be the most valued. The standard against which every other metal is measured.

It's superficial, but human consciousness demands that something fill this position.

Acknowledging this has made me reconsider Bitcoin (and potentially other crypto assets) in a similar light. If humans are moving into a digital age it stands to reason that this void will need to be filled in the digital world too. We spend so much time online, and the online world has so much practical value, that perhaps we'll likewise end up with a Sun-like digital gold standard - along with other forms of digital jewellery. Things which in practical terms are valueless, but that derive their value from the collective cultural reservoir, and from the human need for bling.

In the real world you flex with a gold watch or necklace, online it may be with some NFT artwork or avatar. It's maybe telling that the symbol for Bitcoin is orangey-gold, and Ethereum is silver. Mirroring the Sun and Moon dichotomy of gold and silver. In this regard you could view all the other coins and tokens as akin to other real world jewellery - the precious and not-so-precious gemstones, crystals, metals and other trinkets. The array of shiny, shiny. Only this time digital and online.

I still remain sceptical of Bitcoin, and unlike gold it isn't rooted in reality in the same way, so some other crypto asset could potentially fill this 'digital gold' role - assuming modern human culture does indeed have a demand for this. However, my attitude has softened a bit. Largely because I'm aware that I would've had a similar attitude to gold had I lived in the distant past.

I imagine myself as a fisherman living a few thousand years ago.

I have my wooden boat, my fishing net and my iron sword. Someone comes up to me and offers some gold in exchange for some fish. Me, being a stoic and non-superficial type of person replies:

"No thanks, gold has no practical use to me, and what value it has in wider society is dependent solely upon the confidence people place in it - which could dissipate at any moment, meaning I'd just be left with some shiny, but useless rocks. That won't feed my family."

Now, of course, all that would be somewhat true. You can't eat gold, and in a crisis a starving man will happily trade his ounce of gold for a single fish, but real crises like that are exceptionally rare, and in hindsight it would've been smart for the ancient version of me to accept gold as a barter. History has shown it's retained its value.

So I now wonder if I'm making the same mistake with cryptos - "No thanks, Bitcoin isn't backed by anything, so its value is based solely on confidence - which could dissipate at any moment."

Perhaps like gold it's backed by the human need for a Sun-like gold standard - which will always be there to some degree; and which in the digital world will take a digital form.

I've also now recognised that whatever my views are on cryptos their operation and function overlaps with the operation of more practical things online. Such as social media, etc.

So, for example, in the age of metal, having mining technology was (and remains) practically useful for getting copper, tin, etc, but that usefulness also helps to get the gold too. As it's all mining. It's all the same industry. So the people with the knowhow to get the practical stuff also have the knowhow to get the luxury stuff - so why not exploit both. They're both aspects of the same industry. Likewise online it's only natural that the people that are creating useful online products are the same people that will also have the expertise and knowledge to develop crypto currencies. Again, it's all the same industry.

So the superficial and practical heavily overlap.

Even if, like me, you feel no love for crypto (or gold for that matter) it's still smart to have access to and expertise in that arena. As that expertise will also help to develop the online infrastructure that is essential in modern society. If you ignore the online market for 'digital jewellery' those that don't will have a huge edge.

Obviously I'm thinking more on a societal level here than a personal one with all this. For instance, a country or large business for security reasons might want a secure social media platform that they control, that can't be shut off by Silicon Valley. Just as a country might want to maintain its own steel industry to have a degree of self sufficiency in that arena. So if I was a government or a billionaire I'd invest in the crypto or 'digital jewellery' world primarily to develop the expertise and leverage to be strong in the more practical realms. As you can't just do one and ignore the other.

Controlling a social media platform is like controlling a copper mine, or a paper mill. It's a practical asset. Whereas developing a crypto is like controlling a bank or a mint. It's a little more abstract. These are loose analogies, but the point I'm essentially getting at is that you can't be a purist - like the fisherman above - you can't just focus on the practical - as the less tangible markets will be there influencing your world whether you like it or not.

I'm wandering off on a tangent here, so I'll wrap it up :)

I still don't plan on buying any cryptos or NFTs anytime soon, but I'll definitely start paying more attention to these things. Also I'll be interested to see if an inverse relationship develops between Bitcoin and gold as the two wrestle for that same niche in our psyche. I also wonder if the battle between the off-line real world and the online Meta-Matrix world will be reflected in this. Though I would guess the two are both too heavily intertwined for this to be the case.

Stock Market Crash

A little update on my investment portfolio ..it's now down $34.59 😭

My beginner's luck has quickly ran out.

In the time since my last post I've reassessed my plans a little though. I've realised that six months is really nothing -- or at least not enough to make a judgement. So I'm holding on to my stocks, effectively indefinitely. Unless there's something really dire that makes me want to sell some of them. I may even buy more (I've actually bought a little more since that last post).

So I'm looking more long term. I've also been learning about dividends, so that is now much more a part of my thinking.

Ironically, in spite of my downturn I think I'm now more invested than I was before. I'll keep updating periodically. I'm learning piecemeal, little by little.

My page can be found here for anyone that wants to know how not to invest:

https://www.etoro.com/people/copperlocks

We Can't Have Euthanasia, We've Abused Abortion

The strongest argument in favour of abortion is the argument that it's merciful. Whether it's ever right to take life is always a moral conundrum, but even people who are strongly against abortion are generally sympathetic to this case.

(Leonardo da Vinci sketch of a

foetus in the womb)

It's thought a child will be born severely handicapped, to the extent that its life will only be misery. Or a foetus is deformed to the extent that it won't reach full term, or if it does the child won't survive very long once born. In circumstances like these it can be a lesser evil to end the pregnancy. In order to shorten any suffering that might be endured by the child.

Again, it's not easy to say what is truly right or wrong, and personally I'm not entirely sure what I would do as a parent in such a situation. I hope I'm never in that position. And of course every circumstance is unique, so it's difficult to draw lines and make blanket judgements. I can be fairly confident though that nearly all parents in such situations are heartbroken, and are thinking purely about what is right for their unborn child. What is best, or perhaps least worst, ..and nothing else.

This is how it should be. Parents love the unborn child. It is a precious life, and they try to do what they think (and hope) is right in its interests. Even if that means ending its life prematurely so it can avoid any needless suffering.

This however is quite different to abortion for wider social reasons:

"There are too many people on Earth."

"I'm putting my career first."

"We're not ready to start a family yet."

"We can't afford to have more children."

"Etc."

With all these examples the decision isn't made solely with regard to the interests of the precious being inside the womb. It's made for wider reasons. Reasons that are in the interest of the wider group.

An otherwise healthy foetus - that would've went on to live a normal human life - is sacrificed for the greater good. That is: for other people.

[Of course, people will often use the expression that it's only a "potential human life." However, all future life is only potential. I will potentially live another 50 years if I'm lucky, but if someone murders me that potential goes away. So what's the difference? Well, the reply often comes: "But a foetus is only cells - it doesn't suffer".

Okay, so what if someone murders me peacefully in my sleep tonight, in a way that causes no suffering to me? My potential years ahead are gone, and I didn't suffer. So again, what's the difference?

(And this is assuming that the countless abortions that take place are completely without suffering of course.)]

Anyway, you've probably guessed by now that I'm very much against abortion for wider social reasons. It's an act of sacrifice in my opinion, and I think it's wrong.

This brings me to another point in fact; and one that's often lost on people on all sides of this debate. You can deem something morally wrong, yet also deem it lawful. Just because you view abortion (in my case abortion for social reasons) as morally wrong, it doesn't mean that you therefore must usurp the power over that decision from a pregnant woman.

You can believe it's a woman's right to choose and believe it's morally wrong.

These things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Personally I'm happy for there to be a balance between the mother's and the child's rights as far as the law is concerned. Obviously I don't believe people should have the right to abort babies far gone into pregnancy, but at the same time I can respect a woman's right to make such a decision up to a certain point in the pregnancy ..no matter how morally wrong I think it is that she's exercised that choice.

So I think we often get lost in the legal debate, and forget that we as individuals are entitled to have and to express our own moral viewpoints.

I'm not writing this to remove anyone's rights. I'm writing this to chastise people for the way they've exercised them.

This finally brings me to the title of this article.

Euthanasia, or assisted dying, is a very similar issue, and again, the best argument for it is that of mercy. That it's an act of kindness to help end someone's needless suffering. Like the argument for abortion at the start of this, it's an argument that everyone can sympathise with. No one wants to see unnecessary suffering, and few would hold it against someone if they sincerely helped a dying person to pass the final threshold of life more gently. Even those that are strongly against the idea in principle.

But..

..just look at how this sympathy has been abused with abortion.

How can we as a society be trusted to not take advantage of, or stretch, euthanasia laws for wider social reasons as well? Look at how readily we abort babies for these reasons.

In many ways it's been easier with abortion, as women's rights have been used as a wedge; - a counterbalance against the rights of the child. So it's a slightly more complex issue to navigate, as it concerns the rights of two separate, but intimately connected humans. It's not hard to imagine how euthanasia laws could likewise lead to a slippery slope too though. With the concerns of wider society overlapping so readily with the circumstances of the individual needing care.

People say "Of course we won't misuse this - it'll always be used purely in the interests of the person dying."

..but you already misuse abortion. It is rarely used in the interests of the child.

How on Earth can you be trusted with more leeway.

I'm A Capitalist Now.

Ooh, my Sainsbury's shares are up today.

Yes, shares. I recently opened an eToro account (!) I've invested £750, which is a lot for me -- almost a month's wages. This works out to be about $1000. So it feels like a nice round figure.

As this is a new little chapter for me it's probably a good time to post about it.

(I'm currently $14 up !!! - the powwwer!)

My philosophy so far is quite prosaic. I want tangible assets. So my basic thinking is essentially: "I can't afford to buy a house, so I'll do the next best thing and get a little piece of an actual real-world business."

I also think it's probably sensible to go with what you know. Hence Sainsbury's. Obviously I'm starting from a position of ignorance. 90%+ of the listed companies I've never heard of ..so for the time being I'll focus on what I know -- Amazon, Sainsbury's, Morrisons, Tesco.

It's not exciting, but I know these places; I use these places. I actually like them (yes, I like Amazon). I have real world experience of them, so I can be fairly confident they'll still be around going forward.

Saying that though, and slightly more excitingly, I've also invested in some mining companies too. I like metals. (I bought some actual physical gold this year as well, which feels incredibly miserly, but having miraculously saved up some cash I've been mindful of inflation. So you can see where my thinking has been heading this year.)

I'm largely in the dark though with these mining companies. Aside from reading a few articles and Wikipedia pages, and watching a few YouTube videos, my knowledge is zero. So we'll see where things go.

They are at least tangible things to invest in however, whatever risks I'm taking. In fact, this brings me to things like Bitcoin and meme stocks, which I'll be staying well away from. I think you can make money from Bitcoin, but ultimately I view it as a Ponzi scheme. I don't like the idea of putting a month's wages into blips on a computer screen. Something which only derives its value from the confidence other people place it in.

Of course, people will often say this is no different to standard paper currencies, which equally derive their value from nothing but confidence. However, this isn't true. These currencies have value because they're backed by states. As long as there are 300m+ Americans that need to pay their taxes and bills in dollars the dollar will always have value. Whereas no-one needs Bitcoin.

Plus, people aren't really using Bitcoin as a currency. They're just buying it as an asset.

Again though, as before, this isn't to say that you can't make money from Bitcoin. You most definitely can, and people most definitely are. At the moment there are always new people coming into the market wanting Bitcoin. People like me for example, that have recently opened something like eToro. They generally think;

"Ooh, Bitcoin is fashionable, and it's up in value, I'll get a bit of that in my portfolio."

So almost everyone (except me) has a little bit invested in it, and there's an endless stream of new investors coming in adding to the pot. Helping to raise the value in their own little way. So a Ponzi scheme. (At least in my opinion anyway -- it's possible I could be missing something. Feel free to leave a comment explaining what that is.)

Perhaps if I was craftier and smarter I'd invest and take advantage of this hype too, but I fear I'd end up being one of the dupes. Left holding a big parcel of nothing when the music stops.

Anyway, I've disappeared off on a bit of a tangent. Returning to my own little portfolio my hope is to make $100 over the next six months or so. Not so much for the money, but more as an indication. If I can make circa $100 then that shows I can potentially make money actively. So I'll then scale things up and plough more time and money in going forward. If not I'll probably hold on to the shares and watch what happens, but otherwise step back and focus my time elsewhere.

Plans could change as I learn more though.

The Real Cultural Prejudice of the English-Speaking World

Today I came across this song on YouTube.

(Claire Laffut - Hiroshima)

I really like it. I know most people reading won't necessarily have the same taste in music as me, so I understand if people think it's garbage pop music. That's not so much the point though. It's a really summery, well-produced song. The sort of thing you could easily imagine blaring out of speakers and radio stations over the summer months. However.. the song's not sung in English, so it probably won't be.

For all the cries of racist Britain and lowbrow inwards-looking Brexiteers this issue never really pops up. You'd think a Remainer may have chastised us all for this by now. After all, it is the one real cultural prejudice that runs right through the English-speaking world like a stick of rock ..but no.

No matter how good, catchy or beautiful a song is; if it isn't sung in our language it isn't getting in.

This is something that first really occurred to me back in the MySpace days. I remember coming across bands and artists from other countries, singing in their native language; some of which were really good. Up until that point I'd always just assumed that Europeans couldn't make decent music (seeing Eurovision didn't help that perception). Then I realised: "Oh right, if it's not sung in English it won't get played here, and I'm probably never gonna hear it."

Even countries with good records of chart success, like Sweden, needed to sing in English - be it their catchy pop like ABBA or Ace of Base, or their great bands like The Cardigans and The Soundtrack of Our Lives.

It's a bit unfair for them, but it's also quite boring for us. I like hearing stuff in different languages. It's interesting. It's a bit exotic. I have no idea what the song above is about at present, but it's still enjoyable; if anything it adds an element of mystique. (I don't understand what the birds outside are twittering about, but I still enjoy their song.) Plus, I've probably learnt more French from looking up what songs mean than I learnt from all the lessons I had at school.

We're denying ourselves all these fruits. We'll take the wine, and the food, and the clothes, and the cars, but not the music.

Weird that it takes a Brexiteer like me to make this point. Again, you'd think a few EU flag-wavers would have pulled us all up on this by now, but I guess they're just not as immersed in European culture as they seem to think they are ;)

Drink Driving, Compulsory Vaccination

Just a rough post.

We've seen in recent weeks arguments being made in the media that vaccination should become compulsory; with being unvaccinated compared to drink driving.

Obviously I'm quite against compulsory vaccination. The body is sovereign in my eyes, and I would hope most other people share this view. However, the mainstream media can be quite persuasive, and as almost all people support things like drink driving laws the comparison can be quite difficult to counter when first confronted with it.

[We've dealt with similar arguments over the course of this crisis. With other things, such as mask mandates, being compared to seatbelts and other restrictions placed on driving.

See: Drive an inch, take a mile ]

Ultimately, unless you're a total libertarian, where you draw the line on state infringements upon liberty will be a personal judgement. It's a balance, which we all weigh up slightly differently. However, some infringements are clearly more serious than others and you would hope that most people would be honest enough to at least acknowledge this.

Most people instinctively understand that compulsory vaccination is much more serious an intrusion than restrictions on driving a car whilst under the influence of alcohol. It can be hard to explain this understanding though when caught on the hop. Especially when the argument is reduced to a simplistic:

"Well, you accept this one infringement in the interest of public safety; therefore the argument is settled and you must accept this new infringement too."

 

A little list..

Anyway, I've been listing the reasons why the two things are different. In the hope that I can put together a simple and robust refutation.

For the time being it's fairly rough, but I'll note it down now as a springboard towards something a bit more neat and fully formed.

• Being stopped from driving whilst drunk doesn't endanger you, whereas with vaccines there's a risk to health, however small.
• It sets a precedent for other compulsory medication. Why not mandate flu vaccines for similar reasons?
• Once the right to say "No" is removed it will result in diminishing standards (see the cake example below).
• Cars are heavy machines that amplify human agency - meaning it's harder for an individual to choose to avoid an oncoming high speed vehicle. Whereas you can choose who you do and don't interact with.
• Likewise the weight of a car makes death or injury highly likely. Whereas the risk of death or injury from walking past someone and potentially catching a virus is incredibly low.
• It's almost impossible to prove that someone has caused death by infecting another person with a virus - especially when you take into account the fact that both people choose to interact with each other. Whereas if a drunk driver runs someone over culpability is obvious.
• Restricting people's access to work, healthcare, supermarkets, etc because they're not vaccinated causes harm. Particularly if people are not free to set up their own healthcare, work, supermarkets, etc that do not require vaccination.

There are also some other, more politik reasons.

• The people pushing this have lied from day one - sorry, I'll put that a little more kindly - have continually shifted the goalposts. "Three weeks to flatten the curve" .. and so forth.
• Once adults have been forced, children will be next.
• The conflation of vaccines with vaccine passports and apps means social credit systems and the like will become more realistic possibilities.

Returning to the idea that it's virtually impossible to convict someone in court of murder via accidental flu spread. It's conversely the case that people have been prosecuted for forcing medication on people against their will.

So to allow the latter to prevent the former is just absurd.

*******************

the cake example..

(click to enlarge)

Facebook, and political opportunity

I haven't posted on here in a while. In fact, the reason I'm posting today has made me aware of how much my style of output has changed on here over the last 18 months. I seem to be posting individual article-style posts these days, when originally the intent was to do daily journal style entries.

Anyway, what's spurred me on is that one of my older posts received a comment. It was a post about the the last general election - particularly the Hartlepool seat. The commenter simply asking about one of the candidates.

https://freckledmonkey.blogspot.com/2019/12/hartlepool-table-time.html

Reading back the post reminded me of something I'd forgotten. Namely that in a few of the constituencies I was looking at independent candidates did quite well, and their relative success correlated well with their good Facebook showing. Indicating that they'd managed to get their votes by tapping into an avenue of self-promotion that the more mainstream candidates had failed to penetrate.

Politically active people tend to be a bit more Twitter focused. Whereas Facebook remains the domain of familial normality. The candidates had seemed to do well on Facebook by concentrating on local issues, and staying away from mainstream politics.

Reviewing all this at the time I suggested that there was a big possibility for mainstream parties if they could somehow tap into this way of reaching people. Obviously though it's hard for people affiliated with mainstream parties to detach themselves from national politics the way an independent candidate can. So it's difficult.

Facebook users tend to be quite conservative - and I don't mean politically conservative, but conservative in what they choose to like, share and discuss. As Facebook relates so heavily to real world social life, people have a tendency to avoid anything that looks 'weird' or 'controversial'. It's very much like a school playground where standing out is a major concern. Unlike say Twitter, where users can interact relatively anonymously with people they'll probably never meet in real life anyway.

So on Facebook it's very much mundane group think. With local gossip and 'keeping up appearances' being the mainstay of the interactions.

Consequently it can be difficult for political candidates to build up a base there. A person in a predominantly Labour area may vote Tory, but they'll refrain from liking a Conservative page for fear that others may see it and judge them. Likewise they'll be unlikely to share a post for similar reasons. Sensibly avoiding (from a social point of view) any controversy.

There's also the fact that many people find things like politics boring or annoying. So they don't want their timelines filled with a stream of political proselytising.

The local candidates seemed to do well by sharing 'local gossip' type stories on a regular basis - a new restaurant opening up, a shoplifter getting caught, a heart-warming story about some local football team - that type of stuff. In effect taking part in the local conversation, building up a following playing to that. Then cashing in on that reach come election time.

I should really have kept looking at this issue in order to develop some kind of 'Facebook strategy' for reaching people. However, the events of the last year have been something of a distraction. With local elections looming I should really try to refocus a little. In my area we have the Tees Valley mayoral election, and the election of the Police and Crime Commissioner coming up. I doubt too much can be gleaned from these contests. Still it might be worth paying attention.

The nearby Hartlepool by-election is also worth keeping an eye on.