Why Borrowing Cash to Purchase Crypto Is a Actually Unhealthy Thought

Cryptocurrencies have been a hot investment for a while now and it seems like there are stories every day of people getting rich by investing in them. With all of the hype surrounding cryptocurrencies, you might be tempted to invest as much in them as you can – and possibly even borrow a lot of money To do that.

However, the reality is that borrowing money to buy crypto is a really bad idea. It’s not something anyone should do.

One email a day could save you thousands

Tips and tricks from the experts delivered direct to your inbox that can help you save thousands of dollars. Register now for free access to our Personal Finance Boot Camp.

By submitting your email address, you consent to us sending you money tips along with products and services that we think may interest you. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please read our Data protection and Terms & amp; conditions.

Why You Shouldn’t Borrow to Buy Crypto

Generally speaking, it is not advisable to take out loans to buy most investments. You agree to pay interest on a debt while the return on your investment is only speculative. You will need to make payments on your loan whether your investment is doing badly or making you money. And those payments can become a financial burden if you end up suffering from investment losses.

Borrowing to buy investments also means that your investment must do extremely well in order for you to make a profit. Because you would have to cover the interest costs of a loan with your investment income in order to break even before you actually make a profit. And you could be forced to sell an investment at an inopportune time if you are having trouble making payments. This can result in your losses being permanently secured if you don’t have time to wait for your investment to recover from a downturn.

While this is true of any type of borrowing that is to be invested, the risks are only increased when you borrow Buy cryptocurrency. That’s because crypto investments can be much more dangerous than many other types of investments for a number of important reasons:

  • The cryptocurrency market is extremely volatile. The prices of digital currencies fluctuate enormously from one day to the next. If you don’t schedule your purchases and sales at exactly the right time – which is really difficult – there is a very high risk of losing money. If you take out a loan and have a deadline to make a profit so that you can pay back your loan, then the chances of having to sell at the wrong time increase greatly.
  • There is a lack of regulation in the crypto market. The federal government is still trying to catch up and figure out how to do it effectively regulate virtual currencies. In the meantime, investors are vulnerable to scammers. If you take out a loan and end up losing the money because you were scammed, you still have to pay back the entire loan.
  • The cost of buying cryptocurrencies can sometimes be separated from their underlying value. Cryptocurrencies often see a price increase due to Celebrity tweets or social media hype. If virtual currencies are going up in price because they become the newest meme stock, the price can go down as people move on to the next big thing. This further increases the risk of losing the funds borrowed.

If you want invest in cryptocurrencies and having done your research, adding some to your portfolio can be a good thing. However, you should only invest in virtual currencies with money that you can afford to lose. Chances are, you can’t afford to borrow money just to lose it, so avoid buying crypto with cash you get from a. have received private loan.

Jamie Murray explains why Novak Djokovic’s NBA-style bubble thought can be troublesome to drag off in tennis

Jamie Murray says quarantine for long periods is “not good for your sanity” while also acknowledging that Novak Djokovic’s proposal to implement an NBA-style bubble would be “very difficult” to replicate in tennis.

The world’s best tennis players had to self-isolate for 14 days in Melbourne and Adelaide before the Australian Open 2021.

The players were only allowed to train for a short time each day and when the sport finally got going, several players were fighting mentally and physically.

World number 1 Djokovic, who sustained an injury en route to winning a ninth Australian Open trophy, said the majority of players do not want to continue the season if it means going through multiple quarantine periods.

He also came up with the idea of ​​an NBA style bubble for tennis where all events are held in the same location.

Novak Djokovic reveals that talks about the future of the tennis season are ongoing

Doubles specialist Murray admits that he and his partner Bruno Soares aren’t sure when they’ll be returning to the ATP Tour, but says the current situation is not healthy.

“We’re not entirely sure what we’re up to, but we want to play in Acapulco and Miami, assuming they go on as planned next month,” he wrote on his BBC Sports column.

“We should have exceptions through the ATP in order to travel and take part in competitions. There is the added stress for the players of getting flights without knowing if you will test positive on arrival and then sitting in your room in quarantine for long periods of time.

“It is not a great preparation for your sanity. It’s a strange time and I don’t know how long it will go on.

“Novak Djokovic recently launched the idea of ​​an NBA-style bubble. In an ideal world, the tour would move to one country for six or seven weeks and host a variety of tournaments.

“In reality, it is obviously very difficult because the tour does not run the tournaments.

“Hopefully the world can be vaccinated and we can once again compete in a normal world with people who are free to watch us play.

“But it still feels like we’re far from it.”

Follow us on Twitter @ T365Official and like ours Facebook site.

Soulmates turns Black Mirror-style concept into a ridiculous revenge story

Did you ever think you married the wrong person? You love her, of course, but not in the delirious, all-consuming way you imagined when you were both younger and in the early stages of romance.

It has become a marriage of comfort and companionship rather than passion. In the meantime, you know that your ideal partner – your perfect partner who you should rightly be living your life with – must be out there somewhere, perhaps in the same unsatisfactory situation as someone else.

Things could be so much different if only the two of you could meet. Wouldn’t it be great if there was a company that is solely dedicated to bringing people together who are an ideal match? Or maybe it wouldn’t be that great. Maybe it would be disastrous.

This is the requirement of Soul mate (Amazon Prime), made by the US broadcaster AMC. It’s a pretty intriguing concept, ideally suited to an episode of Black Mirror – if you will -.

It’s not a coincidence. Will Bridges, who co-created Soulmates with Brett Goldstein, wrote the Charlie Brookers series. Expanding the idea into a six-part anthology series is a different matter.

The weaknesses of such a narrow field of vision become evident in the first and second episodes of Soulmates, which are the only ones I’ve seen at this point.

About 15 years into the future, a company called Soul Connex discovered “the soul particle” (science is easily run over) and developed a test that could determine with 100 percent accuracy who you should be with most can.

Ideal for singletons looking for “The One”. Not so great, in the first and better of the two episodes, for wife and mother Nikki (Sarah Snook from Succession), whose 10-year marriage to the kind, dutiful, reliable and occasionally a bit boring Franklin (Kingsley Ben-Adir, recently as Barack Obama in The Comey Rule) has settled into cozy stasis.

Everywhere Nikki looks there are happy, loving couples holding hands, cuddling and smooching. Even her smug older brother Peter (Darren Boyd, one of several British actors with decent American accents) has found his perfect wife for life. It doesn’t matter that they keep arguing about stupid things, like who had the most sexual partners. Because they are the ideal couple, explains Peter, they will always sort things out without any consequences.

Nikki’s neighbor and close friend Jennifer (Dracula’s Dolly Wells, wasted in an undeveloped role) admits that she too took the test, found her soulmate, and plans to leave their stable marriage. This is going as well as you would expect from her husband, who tells her he is taking her children away.

Nikki was trying to keep her own FOMO in check. She eventually gives in and books a test, then pulls out at the last moment. She tells Franklin everything, then says to stay together and make their marriage work – although to the objective observer it seemed to work more or less well.

Unfortunately, Franklin reveals that he too has taken a test on the sly and will drop them to start a new life with his true soulmate.

Flash forward a few months and Nikki found a new partner too. As she prepares to take the children home after a weekend with her father, she and Franklin look downright unhappy in their bright new lives. “It is better this way?” Asks Franklin plaintively, which implies the two were soul mates the entire time but didn’t realize it.

Light as the episode feels, it’s a masterpiece compared to the second which is really weak.

David Costabile plays a somewhat creepy-looking college professor whose apparent soulmate (Sonya Cassidy) hacked into his private files and tracked him down, much to his discomfort.

It looks like it’s exploring some interesting avenues at first, before turning into a ridiculously exaggerated revenge story.

Steve Chapman – Losing cash is a foul thought | Opinion Columnists

Last spring, Treasury sent “Economic Impact Payments” of $ 1,200 for each qualified adult to approximately 160 million people. In September, Gallup asked people if they would like the government to give them more money.

Lo and behold, 70% of them said yes. Only 17% said no – a group that may have been dominated by those who did not qualify for the first time and were seething with resentment.

When President Donald Trump proposed distributing another round of checks for $ 2,000 per person in December, he again found a receptive audience. Two-thirds of Americans were willing to do their patriotic duty in order to accept more money. In the end, however, Congress approved payments of just $ 600.

President Joe Biden is now looking to make up the difference by writing checks for $ 1,400 to the vast majority of Americans. In the midst of an economic crisis sparked by a raging pandemic, there are many ways the federal government could spend money that would be both inexpensive and humane. Stimulus payments are not included.

Now is no time for austerity. Millions of people have lost their jobs and are unlikely to return to work until a large part of the population is vaccinated against COVID-19. Tens of thousands of businesses have closed due to public health regulations or missing customers. The federal government should stand ready to take on large amounts of new debt to alleviate widespread hardship and prevent the economy from collapsing.

However, this commitment is not an excuse for spending that is ill-suited to either task. While additional stimulus checks will help Americans who are in serious need, they will help many more people who are not. Anyone earning $ 99,000 or less, or a household of two adults with incomes of $ 150,000 or less, was entitled to the full amount of the initial payments.

Approximately 90% of Americans got something that’s double the number of people who say they suffered the economic effects of the pandemic. It is one thing for Uncle Sam to go into debt in order to save people from misery. It is another thing to do to improve the comfort of people who are fully employed and financially secure.

The checks are commonly referred to as stimulus payments, but are not intended to stimulate the economy.

Stimulus is also not what the economy needs. In a normal recession, people will spend less money losing their jobs or fear of losing it, causing the economy to decline. The federal government can help in the short term by giving people money to spend.

This time, however, the economy contracted because the pandemic halted or restricted a variety of activities. Giving people money doesn’t help if they can’t or don’t want to do so many things that involve money – eat out, go to the movies, buy clothes, go on a trip, or throw a party. It’s like wasting matches to light a sodden bang.

The pointlessness of this approach became clear after the first payment round. A study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that only 40% of the money was spent on goods and services, with the balance supposed to reduce debt or increase savings.

The $ 600 checks cost $ 166 billion, and the $ 1,400 back payment would bring a total of $ 600 billion, according to the Committee on Responsible Federal Budget. That money could be spent in far more productive ways – to keep businesses and nonprofits from going bankrupt; Enable tenants to pay their rent; or fund COVID-19 treatment, testing, and vaccinations.

Restricting payments to individuals with incomes up to $ 50,000 and families with incomes up to $ 75,000 would save $ 200 billion and focus aid on the people who are most likely to need and spend it.

It would be a wrong economy for Washington to forego urgent needs during a crisis. But that does not excuse pumping out cash with a fire hose. Every dollar borrowed adds to the swollen federal debt. We are fortunate that interest rates are now low, making it cheap to borrow. But they won’t stay low forever, and when they go up, taxpayers will groan under the weight.

Most Americans would be happy if the federal government gave them free money, just as they would be happy if someone offered them free beer or free food. You may not notice that they are volunteering to pick up the tab.

(Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune and Creators Syndicate.)