Where is bitcoin legal tender?

Where is bitcoin legal tender?

To the editor:
This was completely expected. Imagine what would happen if the US dollar fluctuated by only a small percentage of the degree that Bitcoin does. Total Chaos (“The Only El Salvador Experience,” cover story, September 9).

Besides the irrational environmental damage these ridiculous cryptocurrencies are causing, this should be a lesson to anyone who thinks this “currency” has any place in serious financial systems. Hopefully, the Securities and/or Congress will finally implement common sense regulations on cryptocurrencies.

John Fisher, at Barrons.com

To the editor:
Getting into cryptocurrencies is a risk/reward decision threshold for me. When the risk/reward ratio of using cryptocurrency against the dollar becomes better in my favor, it is time. Now is not the time. Let the crypto crowd clear out the kinks. I’ll sit on the sidelines and watch the match unfold.

Rolly Antonio, at Barrons.com

opposite indications

To the editor:
A Kardashian private equity firm (“A Housing Bubble and Kim Kardashian: More Troubling News for Markets,” Up & Down Wall Street, September 9). Actors promoting cryptocurrency when bitcoin price was at $62,000. List of celebrities with special purpose buyout companies. Even NBA star Giannis Antetokounmpo has started an Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance Fund. It seems great. Hey, what could possibly go wrong?

Steve Clauda, ​​Sugar Grove, Illinois.

social insecurity

To the editor:
Americans have been slamming their hands for decades about insufficient funds in the capital pool that will freeze the next generation of beneficiaries. The problem is not economic. It’s entirely political (“Social Security will reach a watershed. What it means for younger workers,” September 9).

We can solve the problem of “social insecurity” in no time. Simply invest money in a US stock index that, over time, will pay beneficiaries about 9% per annum versus the current 1% the fund is earning. This will end the topic of sufficient funds, as the participants will earn large sums over time. The drawbacks are the politicians in Washington, D.C., who want to control the fund so they can blow it up on favored projects, rather than give Americans the peace of mind we all seek.

Citizens must unite and demand this outcome or vote against every member of Congress who thinks otherwise. And for those who refuse to comply, they should be removed from any retirement program they are now participating in. Interested in betting that we get the changes?

Rich Klitzburg, Boca Raton, Florida.

To the editor:
The easiest and most reasonable way to ensure the continuity of Social Security is to raise the contribution ceiling. This is done periodically. However, it has always been the lower and middle classes that finance social security. The wealthy upper classes have never paid their fair share because their contributions stop there [an annual income level of] $147,000. Why not tax those who earn $148,000 to $10 million on their full income, or at least some percentage above the current maximum? This would keep Social Security in the black indefinitely.

Lyle Stutelier, Oceanside, Calif.

To the editor:
Martha Sheden, president and co-founder of the National Association of Registered Social Security Analysts, found it somewhat simple in concluding that beneficiaries should simply ignore potential reductions in benefits resulting from lack of programs. If benefits are reduced by 23% across the board in 2034, it will have a much smaller impact on those who start benefits early than those who start them late.

Let’s say someone turns 62 in 2026. Under the offered program’s exhaustion schedule, they can enjoy eight years of benefits before the reduction begins in 2034. But if benefits start at age 70, their benefits will be cut off from the start.

Additionally, compared to a program without such reductions, the break-even year (a critical computation for any sane individual assessing retirement delay benefits) under the above situation comes three years later (at age 81) for someone waiting until full retirement age and four years later ( at age 86) for someone who waits until age 70.

Clint Myers, Georgetown, South Carolina

buy europe

To the editor:
Jack Applin of Cresset Capital believes there will be a buying opportunity in the First Trust S&P International Dividend Aristocrats exchange-traded fund when the Fed’s tightening slows (“How Europe’s Energy Crisis Could Occur,” September 9). As Abelin says, the ETF keeps high-quality companies with strong balance sheets that can withstand the “ugly quarter.” But no matter how strong these companies are, the problem is the ETF’s long-term performance: one year, minus 8.38%; three years, 1.74%; five years 2.8%; And from the start 2.14%. I wonder why Abelin thinks the future might be brighter. Some individual stock research may be better at picking winners.

Harvey Rosen, Brooklyn New York

Holy Grail

To the editor:
Illumina’s main line of sequencing gear production is clearly impressive (“Illumina stock collapsed after trophy deal. Battle with regulators continues,” follow-up, Sept. 9). My view is that CEO Francis de Souza is not going to spend the massive amounts of human capital and actual dollars for Grail unless the return is huge, which I agree with. The numbers are enormous. I’m sticking with Illumina and deSouza, with or without Grail, but hopefully with.

Brett Hughes, at Barrons.com

Send messages to: mail@barrons.com. In order to be considered for publication, correspondence must bear the author’s name, address and telephone number. Messages are editable.

Source link

Leave a Comment