Predicting the gold market or in other market with a timestamp and pricetarget is a suckers game, but his statement about this, is correct. I dont need to listen to anyone, I referred you to schiff because he has already done a speech on the main issue, and even before the crash because the mechanics are obvious to people who understand how the markets operate… So I dont need to waste time explaining to you, when I can refer you to relevant information.
You can go listen to it, or not, Its your choice but it requires that you do your own thinking and extended research… You shouldn’t just listen to believe someone… You take in information for the sake of it.
I am going to end this conversation, because you have no depth in your thought process, and none of us will gain anything from each other.
Someone makes a price prediction that fails = everything he says is wrong and cannot be trusted
Sees video on youtube about an experiment about the capacity of Chimps to understand the concept of trading and value, where I tell you, that it is one out of many docs done on this, and it has been seen in the wild = dismisses the idea that chimps can trade based on the video you see which is a conduction of a experiment involving humans
And just for reminders, I made the .18 call where you said I was pulling it out of my behind. What was the bottom price that day and the following week? .18. Take that for depth. Some people love to act like they know everything.
But it is not limited to an exchange of an item, it can be an exchange of services, like cooperation of a task, where both have to do their individual part to successfully complete a task.
You obviously didn’t read the article, understand the data, able to consume the statistics and understand the rationale that the researchers came to when they publised the article. Defining was conclusive it does not occur in chimpanzees what other animals it’s been studied it’s been proven. Do you have another YouTube video to show me? If you do I’m certain I can find the research to point out to you that you don’t understand what you’re talking about.
No I havent read it, I read the excerpt where bartering of items was not seen. I might do it, but not now, there are a bunch of pages… I am just pointing out that a exchange does not have to require a item.
Cooperation is not trading. Another liberal extension to be right. There is no depth to what you’re trying to use as a justification or support of your position. Please.
Orcas hunting in a pod are not trading tasks for a meal. Trading involves commodities and the understanding of the associated value. But continue trying to be right instead of admitting you’re wrong. It’s very interesting.
Orcas hunting, It depends on the specifics of the situation… I can agree with that if they dont specifically need each other to perform 2 duties to complete 1 task, because that requires both to need a understand the exchange going on… I dont know how Orcas hunt, so I wouldn’t be able to say… We can exclude Orcas, I have no problem with that.
Great news… if any one still fears the Ada whales, you can go buy some of that Traxia while it’s still on ICO and become a whale yourself. Those of us who are in the know on Ada and Cardano have advanced knowledge on Traxia, so no better time than the present. Yay!
The behavior is the same across species. Trading and bartering are exclusive to the hominid lineage as of now. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. There is evidence which shows that the behavior can be trained but when the reinforcement (trainer) is removed, the behavior is not propagated by the learner species. In time, through conditioning this might take hold but a construct of intrinsic value would have to be developed in objects, which currently does not exist in any species on Earth other than humans. Aliens maybe, but I have not seen nor met one to date. Mathematically speaking, this should Is more likely the case than not, but that’s math. I don’t believe in YouTube science, no offense.
This is not trading. Again, please read the scientific research. YouTube and television science do not cover the data in detail. It is sensationalized for exactly the reason why you are referencing the video.
