Historically, STEEM prices have jumped between April and July every year since 2016, when the STEEM blockchain first launched. The main anomaly to this was the beginning of last year when the price surged to all time highs, dropped to under $2, and then went back up past $5.
The first time STEEM went above $1, it fell from just under $4 to submarine under $0.20 (so farther than this time), and did so until May/June of 2017. So, potentially, 2019 could be following a similar pattern as 2016.
That said, who really knows when the markets are going to take off. Surely most of the wealth that was accumulated by the last surge is sitting somewhere. How liquid it is, and how quickly that can be accessed will be a part of the equation.
Interestingly enough, STEEM has been at or over $1 for the majority of its lifetime. Unless fundamentals have changed in someway (of which, there isn't much of an indication to date), then it's more likely it will be again, then not.
Just looking at the index now, STEEM has been rising for roughly 9 days, on increasingly significant volume (current 24-hour is $31 million). Up until the beginning of the year, STEEM was lucky to see volume over just $1 million for an extended period of time. Something is happening now, even though it's not driving price at an accelerated rate.
This could be just another, albeit long and rather distended pump, waiting for another dump, or it could be the foundations for another upward trend is being laid. The problem is, who can say which is which? We will probably know soon, if it is a pump and dump, and by no later than June if were going to the moon in 2019.
In short, the answer is no. Whether it be a massive amount of energy required, or infinite mass (which scientists don't believe exists in nature), enough acceleration, or whatever other theory that might hold, time travel, though it may be theoretical (meaning under some pretty impossible conditions), for all practical intents and purposes, cannot be done.
As some have already stated, if it were possible, then someone would have managed it by now. Then the question would be, how would we know, since time is suppose to realign with whatever events may have been caused by the time traveler's actions, or they're mere existence in the past.
So, even if it did happen, since time is relative, unless we were the time traveler, we wouldn't know someone had done it.
There is a prevalent theory currently that nature itself would not allow traveling to the past for the very reason already described—too much of an opportunity for things to be altered. Which means, the future is still available, but then that would basically mean the future is set, or a version is set, unless we were capable of changing things in our present (which would then be the past from the future standpoint until we return to it).
If the future is set, then what does that do for free will? Fate would step in, and it truly wouldn't matter what choices we make. All would happen the way it was cosmically scripted to take place, and we would all be bumbling around more or less without purpose.
Personally, I believe time is nature's recorder of historical and current events. If we were able to step outside of space and time, or tap into this fourth dimension (as time is commonly referred to), I think we'd be able to see things as they actually happened in the past, and watch things in the present from various angles and distances, in real time. We'd do so, however, without affecting any of it.
The future, though, to me, would not be set, but it would be possible to predict, if we had a clear view of what was happening with the past and present combined. We could see where things were going, and try to steer them in one direction or another toward an outcome we deemed more appealing.
Since time is relative to the observer, we would only hold sway over our own actions, and no one else's. Most likely, since events are generally a series of actions and reactions, while what we did might affect us and maybe some around us, the course corrections we might make would have to be farther reaching for, say, the entirety of society to change direction. Which would mean our position could improve, but not necessarily that of others. Or it could worsen, because our circumstances changed.
In my mind, we're better off. There are some of life's decisions we'd all love to take back, do differently, or make right. But those events always help shape the individual we are, as well as those around us. Changing things would not make things necessarily better.
The good thing, most of those regrets we might have can be remedied if we choose to. It might be difficult, it might take more time than we like or want to give it, but it's still possible to do. More possible than trying to fix it through time travel, anyway.
As things are now, there's really only two ways wealth is ever going to be distributed differently—voluntarily, or by force.
It would be quite noble and generous of the 26 billionaires if they were to just give up their riches (some have pledged to do so upon their deaths), but I don't believe the 3.8 billion people referred to here, along with the rest of the world, can reliably expect to see their own personal economic positions improved this way.
Which means force. Well, the billionaires have ways of protecting themselves, or influencing outcomes. Isn't that what is always said of them? So, the likelihood that an entity large enough to mandate, and then enforce it, like the government of a sizable, prominent country, isn't that likely, either.
And if it were, the most likely scenario would be that some of the most vulnerable among the billionaires would end up having their wealth distributed among the remaining, or that the wealth would go to a few others, who in turn would become billionaire's themselves. I'm not sure if that would be a better way or not.
The problem is this. Even with equal opportunity guaranteed (something we find hard enough to do by itself), equal outcome does not exist in a free and open society. Some people are simply better at earning and accumulating wealth than others. Some are more fortunate. Some have connections. It's the way things work. A restructuring of the world's wealth, if left to its own, would result once again in some having tremendously more than others.
Which means, there would have to be limits placed on compensation and how much could be owned. For that to happen, someone, or some organization, would have to make it so, and then be able to enforce it. Governments would probably end up being those authorities, and would probably do it through taxation around 80% or even higher. They'd have to do it on capital gains, more than they would earned income, since the wealthy earn less that way than they do through gains.
Then, the government would take it's share to pay this even larger bureaucracy to ensure collection is taking place, and then oversee the distribution of the remaining funds to wherever it was deemed better to go (which would also need to be determined).
As I said at the beginning, it would be great if these folks with the $1.4 trillion in wealth would just voluntarily give up most of it. Not because they had to, but because they wanted to. A giving back for the bounty they had earned. The problem is, voluntarily doing something as a group doesn't naturally happen. There would need to be discussions about it. Someone would have to present the idea, perhaps in an editorial, or a proposal on social media. The idea would have to be advanced, talked about, and emphasized as much as possible over an extended period of time. And in the end, the decision would still be left up to the individual billionaires.
So, the only way which has probable and more of an immediate outcome is force.
Now, this $1.4 trillion of estimated worth is not, however, all of the wealth that these billionaires likely have control or say over. The stocks they own in the companies they've founded or invested in provide them with access to more than just what can be attributed to them. I would imagine in a scenario where we're distributing the wealth more fairly, any wealth creating ventures, properties or enterprises that weren't solely or wholly owned outright should also be figured into the equation, would it not?
And of course, why stop there? The latest Forbes List of the world's billionaires is from March, 2018. Then, there were a total of 2,208 billionaires, worth $9.1 trillion combined. Might as well go after that, and the companies they control, too.
View this question on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
Historically, STEEM prices have jumped between April and July every year since 2016, when the STEEM blockchain first launched. The main anomaly to this was the beginning of last year when the price surged to all time highs, dropped to under $2, and then went back up past $5.
The first time STEEM went above $1, it fell from just under $4 to submarine under $0.20 (so farther than this time), and did so until May/June of 2017. So, potentially, 2019 could be following a similar pattern as 2016.
That said, who really knows when the markets are going to take off. Surely most of the wealth that was accumulated by the last surge is sitting somewhere. How liquid it is, and how quickly that can be accessed will be a part of the equation.
Interestingly enough, STEEM has been at or over $1 for the majority of its lifetime. Unless fundamentals have changed in someway (of which, there isn't much of an indication to date), then it's more likely it will be again, then not.
Just looking at the index now, STEEM has been rising for roughly 9 days, on increasingly significant volume (current 24-hour is $31 million). Up until the beginning of the year, STEEM was lucky to see volume over just $1 million for an extended period of time. Something is happening now, even though it's not driving price at an accelerated rate.
This could be just another, albeit long and rather distended pump, waiting for another dump, or it could be the foundations for another upward trend is being laid. The problem is, who can say which is which? We will probably know soon, if it is a pump and dump, and by no later than June if were going to the moon in 2019.
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this question on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
In short, the answer is no. Whether it be a massive amount of energy required, or infinite mass (which scientists don't believe exists in nature), enough acceleration, or whatever other theory that might hold, time travel, though it may be theoretical (meaning under some pretty impossible conditions), for all practical intents and purposes, cannot be done.
As some have already stated, if it were possible, then someone would have managed it by now. Then the question would be, how would we know, since time is suppose to realign with whatever events may have been caused by the time traveler's actions, or they're mere existence in the past.
So, even if it did happen, since time is relative, unless we were the time traveler, we wouldn't know someone had done it.
There is a prevalent theory currently that nature itself would not allow traveling to the past for the very reason already described—too much of an opportunity for things to be altered. Which means, the future is still available, but then that would basically mean the future is set, or a version is set, unless we were capable of changing things in our present (which would then be the past from the future standpoint until we return to it).
If the future is set, then what does that do for free will? Fate would step in, and it truly wouldn't matter what choices we make. All would happen the way it was cosmically scripted to take place, and we would all be bumbling around more or less without purpose.
Personally, I believe time is nature's recorder of historical and current events. If we were able to step outside of space and time, or tap into this fourth dimension (as time is commonly referred to), I think we'd be able to see things as they actually happened in the past, and watch things in the present from various angles and distances, in real time. We'd do so, however, without affecting any of it.
The future, though, to me, would not be set, but it would be possible to predict, if we had a clear view of what was happening with the past and present combined. We could see where things were going, and try to steer them in one direction or another toward an outcome we deemed more appealing.
Since time is relative to the observer, we would only hold sway over our own actions, and no one else's. Most likely, since events are generally a series of actions and reactions, while what we did might affect us and maybe some around us, the course corrections we might make would have to be farther reaching for, say, the entirety of society to change direction. Which would mean our position could improve, but not necessarily that of others. Or it could worsen, because our circumstances changed.
In my mind, we're better off. There are some of life's decisions we'd all love to take back, do differently, or make right. But those events always help shape the individual we are, as well as those around us. Changing things would not make things necessarily better.
The good thing, most of those regrets we might have can be remedied if we choose to. It might be difficult, it might take more time than we like or want to give it, but it's still possible to do. More possible than trying to fix it through time travel, anyway.
View this answer on Musing.io
View this question on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
As things are now, there's really only two ways wealth is ever going to be distributed differently—voluntarily, or by force.
It would be quite noble and generous of the 26 billionaires if they were to just give up their riches (some have pledged to do so upon their deaths), but I don't believe the 3.8 billion people referred to here, along with the rest of the world, can reliably expect to see their own personal economic positions improved this way.
Which means force. Well, the billionaires have ways of protecting themselves, or influencing outcomes. Isn't that what is always said of them? So, the likelihood that an entity large enough to mandate, and then enforce it, like the government of a sizable, prominent country, isn't that likely, either.
And if it were, the most likely scenario would be that some of the most vulnerable among the billionaires would end up having their wealth distributed among the remaining, or that the wealth would go to a few others, who in turn would become billionaire's themselves. I'm not sure if that would be a better way or not.
The problem is this. Even with equal opportunity guaranteed (something we find hard enough to do by itself), equal outcome does not exist in a free and open society. Some people are simply better at earning and accumulating wealth than others. Some are more fortunate. Some have connections. It's the way things work. A restructuring of the world's wealth, if left to its own, would result once again in some having tremendously more than others.
Which means, there would have to be limits placed on compensation and how much could be owned. For that to happen, someone, or some organization, would have to make it so, and then be able to enforce it. Governments would probably end up being those authorities, and would probably do it through taxation around 80% or even higher. They'd have to do it on capital gains, more than they would earned income, since the wealthy earn less that way than they do through gains.
Then, the government would take it's share to pay this even larger bureaucracy to ensure collection is taking place, and then oversee the distribution of the remaining funds to wherever it was deemed better to go (which would also need to be determined).
As I said at the beginning, it would be great if these folks with the $1.4 trillion in wealth would just voluntarily give up most of it. Not because they had to, but because they wanted to. A giving back for the bounty they had earned. The problem is, voluntarily doing something as a group doesn't naturally happen. There would need to be discussions about it. Someone would have to present the idea, perhaps in an editorial, or a proposal on social media. The idea would have to be advanced, talked about, and emphasized as much as possible over an extended period of time. And in the end, the decision would still be left up to the individual billionaires.
So, the only way which has probable and more of an immediate outcome is force.
Now, this $1.4 trillion of estimated worth is not, however, all of the wealth that these billionaires likely have control or say over. The stocks they own in the companies they've founded or invested in provide them with access to more than just what can be attributed to them. I would imagine in a scenario where we're distributing the wealth more fairly, any wealth creating ventures, properties or enterprises that weren't solely or wholly owned outright should also be figured into the equation, would it not?
And of course, why stop there? The latest Forbes List of the world's billionaires is from March, 2018. Then, there were a total of 2,208 billionaires, worth $9.1 trillion combined. Might as well go after that, and the companies they control, too.
View this question on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
Thanks for your answer, have a nice weekend!
View this question on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this question on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this question on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
Hahaha....
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this question on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io
View this question on Musing.io
View this question on Musing.io
View this answer on Musing.io