Beyond Bitcoin: A new case for novel payment systems MIT ...

Why we need to think more carefully about what money is and how it works

Most of us have overlooked a fundamental problem that is currently causing an insurmountable obstacle to building a fairer and more sustainable world. We are very familiar with the thing in question, but its problematic nature has been hidden from us by a powerful illusion. We think the problem is capitalism, but capitalism is just the logical outcome of aggregate human decisions about how to manage money. The fundamental problem is money itself, or more specifically general purpose money and the international free market which allows you to sell a chunk of rainforest and use the money to buy a soft drink factory. (You can use the same sort of money to sell anything and buy anything, anywhere in the world, and until recently there was no alternative at all. Bitcoin is now an alternative, but is not quite what we are looking for.) The illusion is that because market prices are free, and nobody is forced into a transaction, those prices must be fair – that the exchange is equitable. The truth is that the way the general money globalised free market system works means that even though the prices are freely determined, there is still an unequal flow of natural resources from poor parts of the world to rich parts. This means the poor parts will always remain poor, and resources will continue to accumulate in the large, unsustainable cities in rich countries. In other words, unless we re-invent money, we cannot overturn capitalism, and that means we can't build a sustainable civilisation.
Why does this matter? What use is it realising that general purpose money is at the root of our problems when we know that the rich and powerful people who run this world will do everything in their power to prevent the existing world system being reformed? They aren't just going to agree to get rid of general purpose money and economic globalisation. It's like asking them to stop pursuing growth: they can't even imagine how to do it, and don't want to. So how does this offer us a way forwards?
Answer: because the two things in question – our monetary system and globalisation – look like being among the first casualties of collapse. Globalisation is already going into reverse (see brexit, Trump's protectionism) and our fiat money system is heading towards a debt/inflation implosion.
It looks highly likely that the scenario going forwards will be of increasing monetary and economic chaos. Fiat money systems have collapsed many times before, but never a global system of fiat currencies floating against each other. But regardless of how may fiat currencies collapse, or how high the price of gold goes in dollars, it is not clear what the system would be replaced with. Can we just go back to the gold standard? It is possible, but people will be desperately looking for other solutions, and the people in power might also be getting desperate.
So what could replace it? What is needed is a new sort of complementary money system which both
(a) addresses the immediate economic problems of people suffering from symptoms of economic and general collapse and
(b) provides a long-term framework around which a new sort of economy can emerge – an economy which is adapted to deglobalisation and degrowth.
I have been searching for answers to this question for some time, and have now found what I was looking for. It is explained in this recently published academic book, and this paper by the same professor of economic anthropology (Alf Hornborg). The answer is the creation of a new sort of money, but it is critically important exactly how this is done. Local currencies like the Bristol Pound do not challenge globalisation. What we need is a new sort of national currency. This currency would be issued as a UBI, but only usable to buy products and services originating within an adjustable radius. This would enable a new economy to emerge. It actually resists globalisation and promotes the growth of a new sort of economy where sustainability is built on local resources and local economic activity. It would also reverse the trend of population moving from poor rural areas and towns, to cities. It would revitalise the “left behind” parts of the western world, and put the brakes on the relentless flow of natural resources and “embodied cheap labour” from the poor parts of the world to the rich parts. It would set the whole system moving towards a more sustainable and fairer state.
This may sound unrealistic, but please give it a chance. I believe it offers a way forwards that can
(a) unite disparate factions trying to provoke systemic change, including eco-marxists, greens, posthumanists and anti-globalist supporters of “populist nationalism”. The only people who really stand to lose are the supporters of global big business and the 1%.
(b) offers a realistic alternative to a money system heading towards collapse, and to which currently no other realistic alternative is being proposed.
In other words, this offers a realistic way forwards not just right now but through much of the early stages of collapse. It is likely to become both politically and economically viable within the forseeable future. It does, though, require some elements of the left to abandon its globalist ideals. It will have to embrace a new sort of nationalism. And it will require various groups who are doing very well out of the current economic system to realise that it is doomed.
Here is an FAQ (from the paper).
What is a complementary currency? It is a form of money that can be used alongside regular money.
What is the fundamental goal of this proposal? The two most fundamental goals motivating this proposal are to insulate local human subsistence and livelihood from the vicissitudes of national and international economic cycles and financial speculation, and to provide tangible and attractive incentives for people to live and consume more sustainably. It also seeks to provide authorities with a means to employ social security expenditures to channel consumption in sustainable directions and encourage economic diversity and community resilience at the local level.
Why should the state administrate the reform? The nation is currently the most encompassing political entity capable of administrating an economic reform of this nature. Ideally it is also subservient to the democratic decisions of its population. The current proposal is envisaged as an option for European nations, but would seem equally advantageous for countries anywhere. If successfully implemented within a particular nation or set of nations, the system can be expected to be emulated by others. Whereas earlier experiments with alternative currencies have generally been local, bottom-up initiatives, a state-supported program offers advantages for long-term success. Rather than an informal, marginal movement connected to particular identities and transient social networks, persisting only as long as the enthusiasm of its founders, the complementary currency advocated here is formalized, efficacious, and lastingly fundamental to everyone's economy.
How is local use defined and monitored? The complementary currency (CC) can only be used to purchase goods and services that are produced within a given geographical radius of the point of purchase. This radius can be defined in terms of kilometers of transport, and it can vary between different nations and regions depending on circumstances. A fairly simple way of distinguishing local from non-local commodities would be to label them according to transport distance, much as is currently done regarding, for instance, organic production methods or "fair trade." Such transport certification would of course imply different labelling in different locales.
How is the complementary currency distributed? A practical way of organizing distribution would be to provide each citizen with a plastic card which is electronically charged each month with the sum of CC allotted to him or her.
Who are included in the category of citizens? A monthly CC is provided to all inhabitants of a nation who have received official residence permits.
What does basic income mean? Basic income is distributed without any requirements or duties to be fulfilled by the recipients. The sum of CC paid to an individual each month can be determined in relation to the currency's purchasing power and to the individual's age. The guiding principle should be that the sum provided to each adult should be sufficient to enable basic existence, and that the sum provided for each child should correspond to the additional household expenses it represents.
Why would people want to use their CC rather than regular money? As the sum of CC provided each month would correspond to purchases representing a claim on his or her regular budget, the basic income would liberate a part of each person's regular income and thus amount to substantial purchasing power, albeit restricted only to local purchases. The basic income in CC would reduce a person's dependence on wage labor and the risks currently associated with unemployment. It would encourage social cooperation and a vitalization of community.
Why would businesses want to accept payment in CC? Business entrepreneurs can be expected to respond rapidly to the radically expanded demand for local products and services, which would provide opportunities for a diverse range of local niche markets. Whether they receive all or only a part of their income in the form of CC, they can choose to use some of it to purchase tax-free local labor or other inputs, and to request to have some of it converted by the authorities to regular currency (see next point).
How is conversion of CC into regular currency organized? Entrepreneurs would be granted the right to convert some of their CC into regular currency at exchange rates set by the authorities.The exchange rate between the two currencies can be calibrated so as to compensate the authorities for loss of tax revenue and to balance the in- and outflows of CC to the state. The rate would thus amount to a tool for determining the extent to which the CC is recirculated in the local economy, or returned to the state. This is important in order to avoid inflation in the CC sector.
Would there be interest on sums of CC owned or loaned? There would be no interest accruing on a sum of CC, whether a surplus accumulating in an account or a loan extended.
How would saving and loaning of CC be organized? The formal granting of credit in CC would be managed by state authorities and follow the principle of full reserve banking, so that quantities of CC loaned would never exceed the quantities saved by the population as a whole.
Would the circulation of CC be subjected to taxation? No.
Why would authorities want to encourage tax-free local economies? Given the beneficial social and ecological consequences of this reform, it is assumed that nation states will represent the general interests of their electorates and thus promote it. Particularly in a situation with rising fiscal deficits, unemployment, health care, and social security expenditures, the proposed reform would alleviate financial pressure on governments. It would also reduce the rising costs of transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. In short, the rising costs and diminishing returns on current strategies for economic growth can be expected to encourage politicians to consider proposals such as this, as a means of avoiding escalating debt or even bankruptcy.
How would the state's expenditures in CC be financed? As suggested above, much of these expenditures would be balanced by the reduced costs for social security, health care, transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. As these savings may take time to materialize, however, states can choose to make a proportion of their social security payments (pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowance, etc.) in the form of CC. As between a third and half of some nations' annual budgets are committed to social security, this represents a significant option for financing the reform, requiring no corresponding tax levies.
What are the differences between this CC and the many experiments with local currencies? This proposal should not be confused with the notion, or with the practical operation, of local currencies, as it does not imply different currencies in different locales but one national,complementary currency for local use. Nor is it locally initiated and promoted in opposition to theregular currency, but centrally endorsed and administrated as an accepted complement to it. Most importantly, the alternative currency can only be used to purchase products and services originating from within a given geographical range, a restriction which is not implemented in experiments with Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). Finally, the CC is provided as a basic income to all residents of a nation, rather than only earned in proportion to the extent to which a person has made him- or herself useful in the local economy.
What would the ecological benefits be? The reform would radically reduce the demand for long-distance transport, the production of greenhouse gas emissions, consumption of energy and materials, and losses of foodstuffs through overproduction, storage, and transport. It would increase recycling of nutrients and packaging materials, which means decreasing leakage of nutrients and less garbage. It would reduce agricultural intensification, increase biodiversity, and decrease ecological degradation and vulnerability.
What would the societal benefits be? The reform would increase local cooperation, decrease social marginalization and addiction problems, provide more physical exercise, improve psycho-social and physical health, and increase food security and general community resilience. It would decrease the number of traffic accidents, provide fresher and healthier food with less preservatives, and improved contact between producers and consumers.
What would the long-term consequences be for the economy? The reform would no doubt generate radical transformations of the economy, as is precisely the intention. There would be a significant shift of dominance from transnational corporations founded on financial speculation and trade in industrially produced foodstuffs, fuels, and other internationally transported goods to locally diverse producers and services geared to sustainable livelihoods. This would be a democratic consequence of consumer power, rather than of legislation. Through a relatively simple transformation of the conditions for market rationality, governments can encourage new and more sustainable patterns of consumer behavior. In contrast to much of the drastic and often traumatic economic change of the past two centuries, these changes would be democratic and sustainable and would improve local and national resilience.
Why should society want to encourage people to refrain from formal employment? It is increasingly recognized that full or high employment cannot be a goal in itself, particularly if it implies escalating environmental degradation and energy and material throughput. Well-founded calls are thus currently made for degrowth, i.e. a reduction in the rate of production of goods and services that are conventionally quantified by economists as constitutive of GDP. Whether formal unemployment is the result of financial decline, technological development, or intentional policy for sustainability, no modern nation can be expected to leave its citizens economically unsupported. To subsist on basic income is undoubtedly more edifying than receiving unemployment insurance; the CC system encourages useful community cooperation and creative activities rather than destructive behavior that may damage a person's health.
Why should people receive an income without working? As observed above, modern nations will provide for their citizens whether they are formally employed or not. The incentive to find employment should ideally not be propelled only by economic imperatives, but more by the desire to maintain a given identity and to contribute creatively to society. Personal liberty would be enhanced by a reform which makes it possible for people to choose to spend (some of) their time on creative activities that are not remunerated on the formal market, and to accept the tradeoff implied by a somewhat lower economic standard. People can also be expected to devote a greater proportion of their time to community cooperation, earning additional CC, which means that they will contribute more to society – and experience less marginalization – than the currently unemployed.
Would savings in CC be inheritable? No.
How would transport distances of products and services be controlled? It is reasonable to expect the authorities to establish a special agency for monitoring and controlling transport distances. It seems unlikely that entrepreneurs would attempt to cheat the system by presenting distantly produced goods as locally produced, as we can expect income in regular currency generally to be preferable to income in CC. Such attempts would also entail transport costs which should make the cargo less competitive in relation to genuinely local produce, suggesting that the logic of local market mechanisms would by and large obviate the problem.
How would differences in local conditions (such as climate, soils, and urbanism) be dealt with?It is unavoidable that there would be significant variation between different locales in terms of the conditions for producing different kinds of goods. This means that relative local prices in CC for agiven product can be expected to vary from place to place. This may in turn mean that consumption patterns will vary somewhat between locales, which is predictable and not necessarily a problem. Generally speaking, a localization of resource flows can be expected to result in a more diverse pattern of calibration to local resource endowments, as in premodern contexts. The proposed system allows for considerable flexibility in terms of the geographical definition of what is categorized as local, depending on such conditions. In a fertile agricultural region, the radius for local produce may be defined, for instance, as 20 km, whereas in a less fertile or urban area, it may be 50 km. People living in urban centers are faced with a particular challenge. The reform would encourage an increased production of foodstuffs within and in the vicinity of urban areas, which in the long run may also affect urban planning. People might also choose to move to the countryside, where the range of subsistence goods that can be purchased with CC will tend to be greater. In the long run, the reform can be expected to encourage a better fit between the distribution of resources (such as agricultural land) and demography. This is fully in line with the intention of reducing long-distance transports of necessities.
What would the consequences be if people converted resources from one currency sphere into products or services sold in another? It seems unfeasible to monitor and regulate the use of distant imports (such as machinery and fuels) in producing produce for local markets, but as production for local markets is remunerated in CC, this should constitute a disincentive to invest regular money in such production processes. Production for local consumption can thus be expected to rely mostly – and increasingly – on local labor and other resource inputs.

submitted by anthropoz to sustainability [link] [comments]

A realistic way forwards (long, but I believe important)

Most of us have overlooked a fundamental problem that is currently causing an insurmountable obstacle to building a fairer and more sustainable world. We are very familiar with the thing in question, but its problematic nature has been hidden from us by a powerful illusion. We think the problem is capitalism, but capitalism is just the logical outcome of aggregate human decisions about how to manage money. The fundamental problem is money itself, or more specifically general purpose money and the international free market which allows you to sell a chunk of rainforest and use the money to buy a soft drink factory. (You can use the same sort of money to sell anything and buy anything, anywhere in the world, and until recently there was no alternative at all. Bitcoin is now an alternative, but is not quite what we are looking for.) The illusion is that because market prices are free, and nobody is forced into a transaction, those prices must be fair – that the exchange is equitable. The truth is that the way the general money globalised free market system works means that even though the prices are freely determined, there is still an unequal flow of natural resources from poor parts of the world to rich parts. This means the poor parts will always remain poor, and resources will continue to accumulate in the large, unsustainable cities in rich countries. In other words, unless we re-invent money, we cannot overturn capitalism, and that means we can't build a sustainable civilisation.
Why does this matter? What use is it realising that general purpose money is at the root of our problems when we know that the rich and powerful people who run this world will do everything in their power to prevent the existing world system being reformed? They aren't just going to agree to get rid of general purpose money and economic globalisation. It's like asking them to stop pursuing growth: they can't even imagine how to do it, and don't want to. So how does this offer us a way forwards?
Answer: because the two things in question – our monetary system and globalisation – look like being among the first casualties of collapse. Globalisation is already going into reverse (see brexit, Trump's protectionism) and our fiat money system is heading towards a debt/inflation implosion.
It looks highly likely that the scenario going forwards will be of increasing monetary and economic chaos. Fiat money systems have collapsed many times before, but never a global system of fiat currencies floating against each other. But regardless of how may fiat currencies collapse, or how high the price of gold goes in dollars, it is not clear what the system would be replaced with. Can we just go back to the gold standard? It is possible, but people will be desperately looking for other solutions, and the people in power might also be getting desperate.
So what could replace it? What is needed is a new sort of complementary money system which both
(a) addresses the immediate economic problems of people suffering from symptoms of economic and general collapse and
(b) provides a long-term framework around which a new sort of economy can emerge – an economy which is adapted to deglobalisation and degrowth.
I have been searching for answers to this question for some time, and have now found what I was looking for. It is explained in this recently published academic book, and this paper by the same professor of economic anthropology (Alf Hornborg). The answer is the creation of a new sort of money, but it is critically important exactly how this is done. Local currencies like the Bristol Pound do not challenge globalisation. What we need is a new sort of national currency. This currency would be issued as a UBI, but only usable to buy products and services originating within an adjustable radius. This would enable a new economy to emerge. It actually resists globalisation and promotes the growth of a new sort of economy where sustainability is built on local resources and local economic activity. It would also reverse the trend of population moving from poor rural areas and towns, to cities. It would revitalise the “left behind” parts of the western world, and put the brakes on the relentless flow of natural resources and “embodied cheap labour” from the poor parts of the world to the rich parts. It would set the whole system moving towards a more sustainable and fairer state.
This may sound unrealistic, but please give it a chance. I believe it offers a way forwards that can
(a) unite disparate factions trying to provoke systemic change, including eco-marxists, greens, posthumanists and anti-globalist supporters of “populist nationalism”, as well as large numbers of confused and worried "ordinary" people. The only people who really stand to lose are the supporters of global big business and the 1%.
(b) offers a realistic alternative to a money system heading towards collapse, and to which currently no other realistic alternative is being proposed.
In other words, this offers a realistic way forwards not just right now but through much of the early stages of collapse. It is likely to become both politically and economically viable within the forseeable future. It does, though, require some elements of the left to abandon its globalist ideals. It will have to embrace a new sort of nationalism. And it will require various groups who are doing very well out of the current economic system to realise that it is doomed.
Here is an FAQ (from the paper).
What is a complementary currency? It is a form of money that can be used alongside regular money.
What is the fundamental goal of this proposal? The two most fundamental goals motivating this proposal are to insulate local human subsistence and livelihood from the vicissitudes of national and international economic cycles and financial speculation, and to provide tangible and attractive incentives for people to live and consume more sustainably. It also seeks to provide authorities with a means to employ social security expenditures to channel consumption in sustainable directions and encourage economic diversity and community resilience at the local level.
Why should the state administrate the reform? The nation is currently the most encompassing political entity capable of administrating an economic reform of this nature. Ideally it is also subservient to the democratic decisions of its population. The current proposal is envisaged as an option for European nations, but would seem equally advantageous for countries anywhere. If successfully implemented within a particular nation or set of nations, the system can be expected to be emulated by others. Whereas earlier experiments with alternative currencies have generally been local, bottom-up initiatives, a state-supported program offers advantages for long-term success. Rather than an informal, marginal movement connected to particular identities and transient social networks, persisting only as long as the enthusiasm of its founders, the complementary currency advocated here is formalized, efficacious, and lastingly fundamental to everyone's economy.
How is local use defined and monitored? The complementary currency (CC) can only be used to purchase goods and services that are produced within a given geographical radius of the point of purchase. This radius can be defined in terms of kilometers of transport, and it can vary between different nations and regions depending on circumstances. A fairly simple way of distinguishing local from non-local commodities would be to label them according to transport distance, much as is currently done regarding, for instance, organic production methods or "fair trade." Such transport certification would of course imply different labelling in different locales.
How is the complementary currency distributed? A practical way of organizing distribution would be to provide each citizen with a plastic card which is electronically charged each month with the sum of CC allotted to him or her.
Who are included in the category of citizens? A monthly CC is provided to all inhabitants of a nation who have received official residence permits.
What does basic income mean? Basic income is distributed without any requirements or duties to be fulfilled by the recipients. The sum of CC paid to an individual each month can be determined in relation to the currency's purchasing power and to the individual's age. The guiding principle should be that the sum provided to each adult should be sufficient to enable basic existence, and that the sum provided for each child should correspond to the additional household expenses it represents.
Why would people want to use their CC rather than regular money? As the sum of CC provided each month would correspond to purchases representing a claim on his or her regular budget, the basic income would liberate a part of each person's regular income and thus amount to substantial purchasing power, albeit restricted only to local purchases. The basic income in CC would reduce a person's dependence on wage labor and the risks currently associated with unemployment. It would encourage social cooperation and a vitalization of community.
Why would businesses want to accept payment in CC? Business entrepreneurs can be expected to respond rapidly to the radically expanded demand for local products and services, which would provide opportunities for a diverse range of local niche markets. Whether they receive all or only a part of their income in the form of CC, they can choose to use some of it to purchase tax-free local labor or other inputs, and to request to have some of it converted by the authorities to regular currency (see next point).
How is conversion of CC into regular currency organized? Entrepreneurs would be granted the right to convert some of their CC into regular currency at exchange rates set by the authorities.The exchange rate between the two currencies can be calibrated so as to compensate the authorities for loss of tax revenue and to balance the in- and outflows of CC to the state. The rate would thus amount to a tool for determining the extent to which the CC is recirculated in the local economy, or returned to the state. This is important in order to avoid inflation in the CC sector.
Would there be interest on sums of CC owned or loaned? There would be no interest accruing on a sum of CC, whether a surplus accumulating in an account or a loan extended.
How would saving and loaning of CC be organized? The formal granting of credit in CC would be managed by state authorities and follow the principle of full reserve banking, so that quantities of CC loaned would never exceed the quantities saved by the population as a whole.
Would the circulation of CC be subjected to taxation? No.
Why would authorities want to encourage tax-free local economies? Given the beneficial social and ecological consequences of this reform, it is assumed that nation states will represent the general interests of their electorates and thus promote it. Particularly in a situation with rising fiscal deficits, unemployment, health care, and social security expenditures, the proposed reform would alleviate financial pressure on governments. It would also reduce the rising costs of transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. In short, the rising costs and diminishing returns on current strategies for economic growth can be expected to encourage politicians to consider proposals such as this, as a means of avoiding escalating debt or even bankruptcy.
How would the state's expenditures in CC be financed? As suggested above, much of these expenditures would be balanced by the reduced costs for social security, health care, transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. As these savings may take time to materialize, however, states can choose to make a proportion of their social security payments (pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowance, etc.) in the form of CC. As between a third and half of some nations' annual budgets are committed to social security, this represents a significant option for financing the reform, requiring no corresponding tax levies.
What are the differences between this CC and the many experiments with local currencies? This proposal should not be confused with the notion, or with the practical operation, of local currencies, as it does not imply different currencies in different locales but one national,complementary currency for local use. Nor is it locally initiated and promoted in opposition to theregular currency, but centrally endorsed and administrated as an accepted complement to it. Most importantly, the alternative currency can only be used to purchase products and services originating from within a given geographical range, a restriction which is not implemented in experiments with Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). Finally, the CC is provided as a basic income to all residents of a nation, rather than only earned in proportion to the extent to which a person has made him- or herself useful in the local economy.
What would the ecological benefits be? The reform would radically reduce the demand for long-distance transport, the production of greenhouse gas emissions, consumption of energy and materials, and losses of foodstuffs through overproduction, storage, and transport. It would increase recycling of nutrients and packaging materials, which means decreasing leakage of nutrients and less garbage. It would reduce agricultural intensification, increase biodiversity, and decrease ecological degradation and vulnerability.
What would the societal benefits be? The reform would increase local cooperation, decrease social marginalization and addiction problems, provide more physical exercise, improve psycho-social and physical health, and increase food security and general community resilience. It would decrease the number of traffic accidents, provide fresher and healthier food with less preservatives, and improved contact between producers and consumers.
What would the long-term consequences be for the economy? The reform would no doubt generate radical transformations of the economy, as is precisely the intention. There would be a significant shift of dominance from transnational corporations founded on financial speculation and trade in industrially produced foodstuffs, fuels, and other internationally transported goods to locally diverse producers and services geared to sustainable livelihoods. This would be a democratic consequence of consumer power, rather than of legislation. Through a relatively simple transformation of the conditions for market rationality, governments can encourage new and more sustainable patterns of consumer behavior. In contrast to much of the drastic and often traumatic economic change of the past two centuries, these changes would be democratic and sustainable and would improve local and national resilience.
Why should society want to encourage people to refrain from formal employment? It is increasingly recognized that full or high employment cannot be a goal in itself, particularly if it implies escalating environmental degradation and energy and material throughput. Well-founded calls are thus currently made for degrowth, i.e. a reduction in the rate of production of goods and services that are conventionally quantified by economists as constitutive of GDP. Whether formal unemployment is the result of financial decline, technological development, or intentional policy for sustainability, no modern nation can be expected to leave its citizens economically unsupported. To subsist on basic income is undoubtedly more edifying than receiving unemployment insurance; the CC system encourages useful community cooperation and creative activities rather than destructive behavior that may damage a person's health.
Why should people receive an income without working? As observed above, modern nations will provide for their citizens whether they are formally employed or not. The incentive to find employment should ideally not be propelled only by economic imperatives, but more by the desire to maintain a given identity and to contribute creatively to society. Personal liberty would be enhanced by a reform which makes it possible for people to choose to spend (some of) their time on creative activities that are not remunerated on the formal market, and to accept the tradeoff implied by a somewhat lower economic standard. People can also be expected to devote a greater proportion of their time to community cooperation, earning additional CC, which means that they will contribute more to society – and experience less marginalization – than the currently unemployed.
Would savings in CC be inheritable? No.
How would transport distances of products and services be controlled? It is reasonable to expect the authorities to establish a special agency for monitoring and controlling transport distances. It seems unlikely that entrepreneurs would attempt to cheat the system by presenting distantly produced goods as locally produced, as we can expect income in regular currency generally to be preferable to income in CC. Such attempts would also entail transport costs which should make the cargo less competitive in relation to genuinely local produce, suggesting that the logic of local market mechanisms would by and large obviate the problem.
How would differences in local conditions (such as climate, soils, and urbanism) be dealt with? It is unavoidable that there would be significant variation between different locales in terms of the conditions for producing different kinds of goods. This means that relative local prices in CC for agiven product can be expected to vary from place to place. This may in turn mean that consumption patterns will vary somewhat between locales, which is predictable and not necessarily a problem. Generally speaking, a localization of resource flows can be expected to result in a more diverse pattern of calibration to local resource endowments, as in premodern contexts. The proposed system allows for considerable flexibility in terms of the geographical definition of what is categorized as local, depending on such conditions. In a fertile agricultural region, the radius for local produce may be defined, for instance, as 20 km, whereas in a less fertile or urban area, it may be 50 km. People living in urban centers are faced with a particular challenge. The reform would encourage an increased production of foodstuffs within and in the vicinity of urban areas, which in the long run may also affect urban planning. People might also choose to move to the countryside, where the range of subsistence goods that can be purchased with CC will tend to be greater. In the long run, the reform can be expected to encourage a better fit between the distribution of resources (such as agricultural land) and demography. This is fully in line with the intention of reducing long-distance transports of necessities.
What would the consequences be if people converted resources from one currency sphere into products or services sold in another? It seems unfeasible to monitor and regulate the use of distant imports (such as machinery and fuels) in producing produce for local markets, but as production for local markets is remunerated in CC, this should constitute a disincentive to invest regular money in such production processes. Production for local consumption can thus be expected to rely mostly – and increasingly – on local labor and other resource inputs.
submitted by anthropoz to ExtinctionRebellion [link] [comments]

Suggestions for a better Bomb community

Hello, Bombinos.

First of all, huge thanks to all the team, mods and people working on the project. I'm writing some suggestions aiming to organize and grow our community and increase awareness about the project. It's divided in three specific topics related to strategy, communities and marketing. But first, I'll suggest some aesthetic changes in this subreddit to make it look more friendly.
A) The font color in the topic on the front page is too dark in my desktop screen. The background is black and the font is dark gray, making it almost unreadable. It has to be changed to a lighter tone.
B) The text on the sidebar is incomplete. I made some alterations in the new text below.
"Bomb, the original and first deflationary currency experiment, was born after an airdrop in the end of 2018 aiming to answer one simple question: Can a deflationary cryptocurrency work as a store of value? The Bomb currency works by destroying 1% from every transaction recorded in the Ethereum blockchain. Only 1,000,000 tokens were minted. There will never be newly minted tokens."
C) The sidebar should include a price ticker similar to the one used in the Telegram group and include our etherscan address.
D) The sidebar should also include links to the Telegram and other communities.

1- Strategy:

A) First deflationary currency and importance of the Bomb Token against governments printing money.
The economist Friedrich Hayek from the Austrian school, in his acceptance speech titled "The Pretense of Knowledge" at the Swedish Nobel Academy, emphasized the importance of letting the economy free of government interference, specifically in the case of a continuous injection of additional amounts of money at points of the economic system where it creates a temporary demand, which generates a future imbalance after the artificial demand ceases. We are seeing this today with the interference of governments on the economies after the coronavirus. Trillions of dollars are being given to companies that don't have any idea how the consumers will react when the economies restart. The irrationality of the human behavior must be considered in this case, because there's no scientific theory to guarantee how the people will react after the restrictions are over.
With all this new money on the market, we are risking a long term inflation that devalues national currencies like we have never seen before. That's where a deflationary currency becomes important as a hedge against this anomaly created in the market and this enormous sum of new money.

B) Increasing the network effect to protect the asset
To have a chance against its competitors, Bomb must protect its network against copycats and bad actors. The best way to do this is to increase the number of holders and, subsequently, wallets, to squash the power of any holder to manipulate the price and even crash it. We have to protect our network the same way Bitcoin did, increasing the number of financially interested people to a point where it's not productive to manipulate the price.
Bomb has another quality that makes it prone to manipulation and volatility. One person (or entity) holding a lot of tokens can game the system using an exchange that runs off-chain transactions to crash the price. We are seeing this today. The transactions are happening but there's no burn and the price keeps going down. The only way to protect against this kind of bad actor is to increase the network effect and spread the tokens to a lot more holders, people interested in defending the currency.

C) Increase the total holders and wallets to improve liquidity in exchanges and awareness
Increasing the total number of holders would reduce the capacity of bad actors to wash trade. More people interested means more transactions, more transactions generate smaller spreads. Smaller spreads make it harder for bad actors to manipulate the price through wash trading.

D) Evaluate new listings or removing old ones
Yes, we need at least on more good exchange like Kraken. We should first wait for more holders before going after new listings. And we should look forward removing Bomb from bad exchanges.

2- Communities:

A) Focus decisions on Reddit and Telegram (only three communities: news, price discussion and Bombassadors) and sharing everything published on Facebook and Twitter.
Voting and decisions should be centralized in only one place. We can share the discussions everywhere else, but the voting and decisions must be centralized to one platform.

B) Elect mods to these communities to increase decentralization
I don't know how the Bombassadors program work, but we need to keep the current mods and choose new ones to run things more smoothly. Reddit and Telegram take a lot of time and we absolutely need more people.

3- Marketing:

A) Use the small war chest wisely because Bomb is deflationary and becomes more and more scarce by the minute. We have to extended the war chest as long as we can to reach a more valuable network.
Any marketing campaign must consider the increase in the network effect. We should focus on campaigns that attract outside interest. Example: each 15 days somebody could be rewarded with 50 bombs for an article shared on Reddit, Twiter, Facebook and 4chan. The prize must be voted and awarded to the best article that was shared, not only published.
Articles or content that eventually reach a lot of engagement could be awarded outside of this prize with 100 bombs, discretionarily, by the mods.

B) Use the funds only in campaigns that bring new people to the project instead of distributing it in the existing community to produce meaningless burns.
Again. Burning will not increase the network value. After meaningless burns we will have the same number of interested people, but less tokens on the market. This way Bomb will never reach the store of value status.

C) Reward people that generate quality content (like Pedro's 3D printed bombinos) and people that share this quality content and generate a lot of awareness.

D) All campaigns must answer positively the question: Does this increase the network effect and represents quality content?

E) Kill proposals that value meaningless token burns to create pumps.

F) Don't forget to have fun! Good memes could be rewarded every 15 days, after voting, with 20 bombs.

Suggestions are welcome. Let's find some common ground and move forward. And thanks for reading!
submitted by KazaCthulhu to BombToken [link] [comments]

Doing the Math on the S4E10 eCoin Transaction...

In this week's Mr Robot episode, Darlene sits on a park bench with Dom, and distributes the money she stole from the Deus Group to everybody, evenly. I timed the transaction as it happened in the show. It was 24 seconds, between her hitting return and seeing the following message on her screen: "*Transfers Complete. All Wallets Updated*" This processing time includes a message that says, "cleaning coins through crypto tumbler". It took 1 minute and 16 seconds for the transaction to tumble, process, and for the recipients to begin to get notices that they received money in their accounts.
If you have worked with bitcoin, you know that cryptocurrency does not work like this. Transferring money is a slow and sometimes expensive process, as transaction fees eat into every transaction. I know that eCoin isn't necissarily bitcoin, because it's controlled by eCorp, but it's fun to think about what happens if eCoin works like bitcoin does today...
How much money was transferred?
According to Forbes, the most wealthy people in the world are worth a combined $8.7 trillion, or $2.7 trillion. It depends on which Forbes list you are looking at. On the actual Forbes web site, they say the richest people in the world are worth $8.7 trillion, but they do not state how many of the richest people in the world are worth that much. If you look at sites like Victor Media, they publish a table of the 100 most wealthy people, and say they got the list from Forbes. They probably did purchase the list from Forbes. If I put the Victor Media list into excel, and add all the values in the net worth column, that number comes out to $2.7 trillion. So Forbes might be talking about a list that is more than the top 100 people, and sell the top 100 people list to sites like Victor Media? I don't know.
Either way, we are talking about somewhere between $2.7 and $8.7 trillion.
How many people did the money go to?
That's complicated. There was no global montage showing people celebrating all over the world (which I found a little surprising, even though I still love how this episode was shot). The only indication of a truly global transfer, to every individual in the world, is a TV screen in the airport saying that, "Global eCoin Payout... Deus group collapses as wealth spreads around the world." So Darlene could have sent the money to every individual with an eCoin wallet in the world, or she could be sending them to every American, or to everybody in the developed world. I doubt the average rice farmer in Indonesia is really using eCoin, but it's possible. If she only sent it to every American, our wealth tends to spread around the globe pretty fast, so that's possible, too.
Lets work with World Bank population numbers for all three of these possibilities...
World Population: 7.6 billion people
Global North (AKA the developed world): 1.24 billion people
United States: 327 million people
So we have 6 possibilities for how much money was sent to each person...
People Total Money Money Per Capita Satoshis
7.6 billion $2.7 trillion $355.53 4,739,471
1.21 billion $2.7 trillion $2230.82 29,741,808
327 million $2.7 trillion $8252.65 110,079,512
7.6 billion $8.7 trillion $1145.60 15,279,332
1.21 billion $8.7 trillion $7188.22 95,883,716
327 million $8.7 trillion $26591.89 355,275,242
How much would this transaction cost with bitcoin?
Aside from the fact that eCoin probably functions differently than bitcoin, this is a very complex question. I'm definitely not as sure about these numbers as the other numbers I have, but I'll do my best to come up with useful, realistic numbers. If you are more familiar with the block chain than me, please correct me.
The coins were taken from 100 different Deus Group accounts. Lets say each transaction launders through a bitcoin tumbler 1,000 times. I'm going to ignore transaction fees for the tumbling process, because I don't fully understand the details of tumbling, but 1,000 times seems reasonable to me.
That means that there are 100 x 1,000 = 10,000 inputs in any transaction that spends all the money from the Deus group.
For outputs... for simplicity's sake, I will make the conservative assumption that everybody has one eCoin wallet. That means somewhere between 327 million and 7.6 billion outputs. Accounting for everybody having multiple wallets would make the transaction even bigger, but this is a good starting point to get a feel for what this transaction would look like, in the real world.
How long will this transaction take to process?
There is a bidding process and a bit of politics involved in processing a cryptocurrency transaction. For simplicity, I'll assume we bid enough that this transaction gets priority treatment from the bitcoin miners.
According to blockchain.com, transactions happen on the block chain at a rate of roughly 3.5 transactions per second. At that rate, the tumbling would take roughly 48 minutes, rather than the few seconds it took for Darlene to tumble this money.
According to buybitcoinworldwide.com's fee calculator, here are the transaction sizes, the transaction fees involved (in US Dollars), and the time it would take at 3.5 transactions per second...
Inputs Outputs Size Cost Time
10,000 7.6 billion 240.4737 Gb $38,884,280.55 68.85 years
10,000 1.21 billion 38.32587 Gb $6,192,571.09 10.96 years
10,000 327 million 10.35582 Gb $1,673,260.46 2.96 years
So this transaction would take years to go through, and it pays Evil Corp somewhere between $1.6 and $38 million. In the real world, most of that money would go to Chinese bitcoin miners.
What would the impact be?
A one time windfall of $327 per capita would probably not trigger hyperinflation in America. The largest payout we calculated was $26.5k, and I doubt that would cause hyperinflation, either. Regular inflation? Yes. Hyperinflation? Probably not.
It might lead to hyperinflation in other countries, though, because of differences in purchasing power.
Purchasing power parity is a number that describes the differences in the cost of goods and services around the world. $5 in America will buy you a big mac, but if you go to, say, Indonesia, you can buy a lot more with that $5, because Indonesia is full of people who make something like 25 cents a week.
OECD.org publishes PPP (purchasing power parity) numbers for countries all around the world. If you want to know how far your dollar will stretch, on average, in a foreign country, consult this list. If you have $100 in America, you can expect it to be worth $100 worth of American goods and services, so on the OECD table, it has a PPP of 1.0. If you take that $100 to, say, the UK, where the PPP is 0.7, you can expect that $100 to be worth $70 worth of goods and services. If you take that $100 to Australia, where the PPP is 1.48, you can expect that $100 to buy roughly $148 worth of goods and services.
If Elliot and Darlene were genius economists, I might expect them to account for PPP in their payout. They would have to be geniuses, to predict what PPP is doing after events like the 5/9 hack, because their best data would be out of date, so they would have to use all kinds of fancy regressions and tricks to figure out how that would work in such a volatile world economy. They definitely aren't economists, though, so I'll assume they sent the same nominal amount to everybody.
So what's the range on how much purchasing power this transaction gives people around the world? In 2018, the highest PPP number on the OECD list is Indonesia, with a PPP of 4,245.613140. The lowest PPP on the list is Lithuania, with a PPP of 0.457582. Lets see how this shakes out in each of these countries...
$ Per Capita Lithuania (0.46) Indonesia (4,245.61)
$355.53 $162.68 $1,509,442.84
$2,230.82 $1,020.78 $9,471,198.70
$8,252.65 $3,776.26 $35,037,559.28
$1,145.60 $524.20 $4,863,774.41
$7,188.22 $3,289.20 $30,518,401.29
$26,591.89 $12,167.97 $112,898,877.60
What would this cause? People might predict a lot of different things. The Yang gang people probably strong opinions on this. I have a bachelor's degree in economics, so I believe I can predict that most mainstream economists would predict the following...
In Lithuania, when they get a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, they probably raise a pint to F Society, then put the rest towards a house or car payment, or buy themselves something nice. Minor inflation would happen, probably starting at the pubs, and that would worry financial types, but it would not cause any kind of major economic catastrophe.
In Indonesia, where everybody becomes an asset millionaire overnight, they will probably have hyperinflation, mass social upheaval, and violence.
In conclusion...
TL;DR: What Darlene did last night with eCoin isn't actually possible with bitcoin, and the impact in America might not be as great as you think, but the impact would be much bigger in poorer parts of the world.
submitted by bubblesort to MrRobot [link] [comments]

How Lava ‘Chains’ the Real Economy

How Lava ‘Chains’ the Real Economy
https://preview.redd.it/o2yvybwn42j41.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=436cb9f83c8474a7823a7e6c4adf1ad471dab29c
‘Simply put, it is a machine for creating trust.’ This is the remark by The Economist when it first reported the blockchain in 2015. Now the blockchain has established a complete set of traceable and tamper-proof decentralized distributed ledgers based on the cryptography. Relying on its own unique consensus mechanism and incentives, the blockchain enables the quick establishment of trust between initially strange or even distrusted parties, thus greatly reducing the cost of mutual trust. Based on this, a great number of decentralized and trustless business models are now changing the collaboration mode of social and business economic activities, which in some way breaks the line between the maximization and the cost efficiency.
The transparency and immutability of the blockchain have made itself ‘trustworthy.’ But whether is it really the case that all industries could follow suit by incorporating the blockchain, just like the sweeping ‘Internet +’ wave decades ago? In fact, it is not. When the banner of ‘blockchain +’ is held high in China and when we are discussing the integration of blockchain and the real economy, what are we really referring to?
The Internet focuses on the transfer of information, and the blockchain deals with the transfer of value. Since the advent of the blockchain, there are about 22,500 domestic enterprises centering around the development and service of the blockchain technology, up to about 5% of the world. The scale of blockchain enterprises has risen from less than 80 at the beginning to more than 800 in 2016, and so on and so on all the way grown to more than 15,000 in 2018. The application of blockchain in China has been seen in more than 50 scenarios, such as finance, the cross-border payment, content services, forensic services, social interaction, and government affairs.
The Internet focuses on the transfer of information, and the blockchain deals with the transfer of value. Since the advent of the blockchain, there are about 22,500 domestic enterprises centring around the development and service of the blockchain technology, up to about 5% of the world. The scale of blockchain enterprises has risen from less than 80 at the beginning to more than 800 in 2016, and so on and so on all the way grown to more than 15,000 in 2018. The application of blockchain in China has been seen in more than 50 scenarios, such as finance, the cross-border payment, content services, forensic services, social interaction, and government affairs.
Among them are some enterprises chanting fancy technical concepts but are actually tricking the public. And of course, there are also some enterprises that really adhere to the essence of the blockchain. For example, some enterprises use blockchain in addressing the problems of traditional supply chain finance to achieve standardized on-chain processing of users’ information, including account receivables and credit data between individuals, and to alleviate some problems found in the traditional supply chain finance, such as the difficulty for small and micro enterprises to request loans. In addition, blockchain technology has also been applied in public welfare in such provinces of China as Guizhou and Guangdong. Also, blockchain applications are enabling the digital identity of managers and playing a role in the ownership and transaction information of real estate holdings to reduce fraud in the public sector.
Therefore, finance on chain, retail on chain, and life on chain are binding the real economy and the blockchain closely together through data and contract trust to accelerate the implementation of blockchain applications, which also points to the future of the ‘blockchain +’ development.
For the blockchain technology itself, it can be viewed as both an opportunity and a challenge if it is to demonstrate more application scenarios and empower a broader range of real economy. Looking back on the evolution of the blockchain technology, it is not difficult for us to find that although the business logic of the first generation of blockchain applications led by Bitcoin was very clear, the link between those applications and the real economy was rather weak. The reason behind this is that the large volatility, throughput limitations, and uncontrollable transaction costs of the applications have all prevented them as becoming useful payment tools, which as a result hindered the deep integration between them and the real economy.
Therefore, how to achieve targeted and refined connection between on-chain assets and off-chain entities seems to be a conundrum laying in front of practitioners in the blockchain field. Apart from this, offline payments of the blockchain are also facing such issues as the need for performance improvement, privacy and data protection, and security supervision. But technological progresses do take time, without which the industry change can never occur. Although there are still many problems with the integration of blockchain and the real economy, efforts are unremittingly made by project teams. For example, the introduction of technologies, such as ring signatures and zero-knowledge proofs, is to verify user data and ensure user privacy. And the construction of multi-chain framework, lightning network and Segwit is also to boost the growth of TPS, which today is no longer two orders of magnitude.
With the evolution of technology, offline blockchain payments, which have traditionally been considered difficult to implement, are becoming ever more possible. It is through the blockchain technology that Standard Chartered Bank can now complete a cross-border payment business in just 10 seconds. And at present, countries around the world are at full strength with the blockchain payment. Libra is challenging the global payment industry. And Chinese Internet giants, such as Tencent and Alibaba are also deploying blockchain payments, let alone DC and EP which are also joining.
But we have to be clear that though the blockchain payment wants to replace the centralized payment system on a thorough basis, there are still many technical problems, including to-be-improved efficiency, privacy, and recoverability, that are impeding the implementation of this technology. For now, the blockchain payment needs to first find a small payment scenario to verify its feasibility so as to accelerate its landing, and then to provide references and implications for the blockchain payment as a whole.
Regardless of the future, it is undeniable that under the current market, the model of ‘blockchain + payment’ is sure to drive the real economy to exploring new business scenarios. And it is particularly important for project teams and even countries to actively embrace innovative technologies and keenly ride development trends in this fast-changing era of the new digital economy.
Lava is also actively promoting the development of blockchain payments and exploring the African market. There has been evidence that today’s Africa has become a new battlefield for cryptocurrencies. Some sub-Saharan African countries, including Ghana and Kenya, are seeing a large number of cryptocurrency users, with the total scale of them ranking the top 45 in the world. From the perspective of the new generation of Africans, cryptocurrencies are not only investment vehicles, but also an important method to address financial needs, such as the transfer of goods, transfer of services, and transfer of funds.
Also, the promotion of blockchain payments cannot be separated from Lava’s vision, which is to build a decentralized ‘Root of Trust’ and ‘Top-level Indexing.’ It is true that the entire blockchain technology is by no means a single combat. It also needs to borrow infrastructure-level support from new-generation technologies, such as artificial intelligence, big data and cloud computing. The same is even more true for blockchain projects, which otherwise will only cause great waste of resources, waste of computing power, or waste of assets. And Lava wishes to do something worthwhile by building a trust consensus of global storage. To that vision and starting from the PoC consensus mechanism, Lava is doing its bit to build a trust consensus of global storage. It is steadily moving towards this goal by working on a system of solutions that include the 2-way peg cross-chain asset transaction technology, the script-based cross-chain atomic switch technology, the off-chain expansion plan, payment channels, and state channels.
Lava Community
Discord:https://discord.gg/uzxqe3P
Telegram:https://t.me/lavatech
submitted by ebjkee to lavatech [link] [comments]

The Intellectual Foundation of Bitcoin比特幣的智識基礎. By Chapman Chen, HKBNews

The Intellectual Foundation of Bitcoin比特幣的智識基礎. By Chapman Chen, HKBNews

https://preview.redd.it/w6v3l8n3zxu41.jpg?width=2551&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb0338a36a1a321d3781f43ff5eb6929d8b92edc
Summary: Bitcoin was invented by the anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto as recently as 2008, but it is backed up by a rich intellectual foundation. For instance, The 1776 First Amendment separates church and state, and contemporary American liberation psychologist Nozomi Hayase (2020) argues that money and state should similarly be separated. Just as Isaac Newton’s study of alchemy gave rise to the international gold standard, so has the anonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto's desire for a “modernized gold standard” given rise to Bitcoin. Indeed, Bloomberg's 2020 report confirms Bitcoin to be gold 2.0. Montesquieu (1774) asserted that laws that secure inalienable rights can only be found in Nature, and the natural laws employed in Bitcoin include its consensus algorithm and the three natural laws of economics (self-interest, competition, and supply and demand). J.S. Mill (1859) preferred free markets to those controlled by governments. Ludwig von Mises (1951) argued against the hazards of fiat currency, urging for a return to the gold standard. Friedrich Hayek (1984) suggested people to invent a sly way to take money back from the hands of the government. Milton Friedman (1994) called for FED to be replaced by an automatic system and predicted the coming of a reliable e-cash. James Buchanan (1988) advocated a monetary constitution to constrain the governmental power of money creation. Tim May (1997) the cypherpunk proclaimed that restricting digital cash impinges on free speech, and envisioned a stateless digital form of money that is uncensorable. The Tofflers (2006) pictured a non-monetary economy. In 2016, UCLA Professor of Finance Bhagwan Chowdhry even nominated Satoshi for a Nobel Prize.
Full Text:
Separation between money and state
The 1791 First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enshrines free speech and separates church and state, but not money and state. "Under the First Amendment, individuals’ right to create, choose their own money and transact freely was not recognized as a part of freedom of expression that needs to be protected," Japanese-American liberation psychologist Nozomi Hayase (2020) points out (1).
The government, banks and corporations collude together to encroach upon people's liberties by metamorphosing their inalienable rights into a permissioned from of legal rights. Fiat currencies function as a medium of manipulation, indulging big business to generate market monopolies. "Freedom of expression has become further stifled through economic censorship and financial blockage enacted by payment processing companies like Visa and MasterCard," to borrow Hayase's (2020) words.
Satoshi is a Modern Newton
Although most famous for discovering the law of gravity, Isaac Newton was also a practising alchemist. He never managed to turn lead into gold, but he did find a way to transmute silver into gold. In 1717, Newton announced in a report that, based on his studies, one gold guinea coin weighed 21 shillings. Just as Isaac Newton’s study of alchemy gave rise to the international gold standard, so has the desire for a “modernized gold standard” given rise to Bitcoin. "In a way, Satoshi is a modern Newton. They both believed trust is best placed in the unchangeable facets of our economy. Beneath this belief is the assumption that each individual is their own best master," as put by Jon Creasy (2019) (2).
J.S. Mill: free markets preferable to those controlled by governments
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) the great English philosopher would be a Bitcoiner were he still around today. In On Liberty (1859), Mill concludes that free markets are preferable to those controlled by governments. He argues that economies function best when left to their own devices. Therefore, government intervention, though theoretically permissible, would be counterproductive. Bitcoin is precisely decentralized or uncontrolled by the government, unconfiscatable, permissonless, and disinflationary. Bitcoin regulates itself spontaneously via the ordinary operations of the system. "Rules are enforced without applying any external pressure," in Hayase's (2020) words.
Ludwig von Mises (1958): Liberty is always Freedom from the Government
In The Free Market and its Enemies, theoretical Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises (1951) argues against the hazards of fiat currency, urging for a return to the gold standard. “A fiat money system cannot go on forever and must one day come to an end,” Von Mises states. The solution is a return to the gold standard, "the only standard which makes the determination of the purchasing power of money independent of the changing ideas of political parties, governments, and pressure groups" under present conditions. Interestingly, this is also one of the key structural attributes of Bitcoin, the world’s first, global, peer-to-peer, decentralized value transfer network.
Actually, Bloomberg's 2020 report on Bitcoin confirms that it is gold 2.0. (3)
Von Mises prefers the price of gold to be determined according to the contemporaneous market conditions. The bitcoin price is, of course, determined across the various global online exchanges, in real-time. There is no central authority setting a spot price for gold after the which the market value is settled on among the traders during the day.
Hayek: Monopoly on Currency should End
Austrian-British Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek’s theory in his 1976 work, Denationalization of Money, was that not only would the currency monopoly be taken away from the government, but that the monopoly on currency itself should end with multiple alternative currencies competing for acceptance by consumers, in order "to prevent the bouts of acute inflation and deflation which have played the world for the past 60 years." He forcefully argues that if there is no free competition between different currencies within any nation, then there will be no free market. Bitcoin is, again, decentralized, and many other cryptocurrencies have tried to compete with it, though in vain.
In a recently rediscovered video clip from 1984, Hayek actually suggested people to invent a cunning way to take money out of the hands of the government:- “I don’t believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can’t take them violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something they can’t stop” (4). Reviewing those words 36 years hence and it is difficult not to interpret them in the light of Bitcoin.
Milton Friedman Called for FED to be Replaced by an Automatic System
Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman (1994) was critical of the Federal Reserve due to its poor performance and felt it should be abolished (5). Friedman (1999) believed that the Federal Reserve System should ultimately be replaced with a computer program, which makes us think of the computer code governing Bitcoin (6).[\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve#cite_note-:2-12) He (1970) favored a system that would automatically buy and sell securities in response to changes in the money supply. This, he argued, would put a lid on inflation, setting spending and investment decisions on a surer footing (7). Bitcoin is exactly disflationary as its maximum possible supply is 21 million and its block reward or production rate is halved every four years.
Friedman passed away before the coming of bitcoin, but he lived long enough to see the Internet’s spectacular rise throughout the 1990s. “I think that the Internet is going to be one of the major forces for reducing the role of government," said Friedman in a 1999 interview with NTU/F. On the same occasion, he sort of predicted the emergence of Bitcoin, "The one thing that’s missing, but that will soon be developed, is a reliable e-cash, a method whereby on the Internet you can transfer funds from A to B, without A knowing B or B knowing A." (8)
Of course, Friedman didnt predict the block chain, summed up American libertarian economist Jeffery Tucker (2014). “But he was hoping for a trustless system. He saw the need. (9).
Bitcoin Computer Code as Constitution in the Buchananian Sense
American economist cum Nobel laureate James Buchanan (1988) advocates constitutional constraints on the governmental power to create money (10). Buchanan distinguishes a managed monetary system—a system “that embodies the instrumental use of price-level predictability as a norm of policy”—from an automatic monetary system, “which does not, at any stage, involve the absolute price level” (Buchanan 1962, 164–65). Leaning toward the latter, Buchanan argues that automatic systems are characterized by an organization “of the institutions of private decision-making in such a way that the desired monetary predictability will emerge spontaneously from the ordinary operations of the system” (Buchanan 1962, 164). Again, "Bitcoin regulates itself through the spontaneous force of nature, flourishing healthy price discovery and competition in the best interest of everyone" (Hayase 2020).
Shruti Rajagopalan (2018) argues that the computer code governing how the sundry nodes/computers within the Bitcoin network interact with one another is a kind of monetary constitution in the Buchananian sense. One of Buchanan's greatest inputs is to differentiate the choice of rules from the choice within rule (Buchanan 1990). One may regard the Bitcoin code as a sort of constitution and "the Bitcoin network engaging in both the choice of rules and choice within rules" (Rajagopalan 2018) (11).
Tim May: Restricting Digital Cash may Impinge on Free Speech
Cypherpunks are activists who since the 1980s have advocated global use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a route to social and political liberation. Tim May (Timothy C. May [1951-2018]), one of the influential cypherpunks published The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto in September 1992, which foretold the coming of Bitcoin (12). Cypherpunks began envisioning a stateless digital form of money that cannot be censored and their collaborative pursuit created a movement akin to the 18th Enlightenment.
At The 7th Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, Burlingame, CA. in 1997, Tim May equated money with speech, and argued that restricting digital cash may impinge on free speech, for spending money is often a matter of communicating orders to others, to transfer funds, to release funds, etc. In fact, most financial instruments are contracts or orders, instead of physical specie or banknotes (13).
Montesquieu: Laws that secure inalienable rights can only be found in Nature
In his influential work The Spirit of Laws (1748), Montesquieu wrote, “Laws ... are derived from the nature of things … Law, like mathematics, has its objective structure, which no arbitrary whim can alter". Similarly, once a block is added to the end of the Bitcoin blockchain, it is almost impossible to go back and alter the contents of the block, unless every single block after it on the blockchain is altered, too.
Cypherpunks knew that whereas alienable rights that are bestowed by law can be deprived by legislation, inalienable rights are not to be created but can be discovered by reason. Thus, laws that secure inalienable rights cannot be created by humankind but can be found in nature.
The natural laws employed in Bitcoin to enshrine the inalienable monetary right of every human being include its consensus algorithm, and the three natural laws of economics (self-interest, competition, and supply and demand) as identified by Adam Smith, father of modern economics.
Regarding mathematics, bitcoin mining is performed by high-powered computers that solve complex computational math problems. When computers solve these complex math problems on the Bitcoin network, they produce new bitcoin. And by solving computational math problems, bitcoin miners make the Bitcoin payment network trustworthy and secure, by verifying its transaction information.
Regarding economic laws, in accordance with the principle of game theory to generate fairness, miners take part in an open competition. Lining up self-interests of all in a network, with a vigilant balance of risk and rewards, rules are put in force sans the application of any exterior pressure. "Bitcoin regulates itself through the spontaneous force of nature, flourishing healthy price discovery and competition in the best interest of everyone," to borrow the words of Hayase (2020).
A Non-monetary Economy as Visualized by the Tofflers
In their book, Revolutionary Wealth (2006), futurists Alvin Toffler and his wife Heidi Toffler toy with the concept of a world sans money, raising a third kind of economic transaction that is neither one-on-one barter nor monetary exchange. In the end, they settle on the idea that the newer non-monetary economy will exist shoulder-to-shoulder with the monetary sector in the short term, although the latter may eventually be eclipsed by the former in the long run. What both the Tofflers' The Third Wave (1980) and Revolutionary Wealth bring into question is the very premise of monetary exchange. The vacuum left over by cash in such a non-monetary economy may be filled up by Bitcoin as a cryptocurrency.
Satoshi Nakamoto Nominated for Nobel Prize by UCLA Finance Prof.
UCLA Anderson School Professor of Finance Bhagwan Chowdhry nominated Satoshi Nakamoto for the 2016 Nobel Prize in Economics on the following grounds:-
It is secure, relying on almost unbreakable cryptographic code, can be divided into millions of smaller sub-units, and can be transferred securely and nearly instantaneously from one person to any other person in the world with access to internet bypassing governments, central banks and financial intermediaries such as Visa, Mastercard, Paypal or commercial banks eliminating time delays and transactions costs.... Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin Protocol has spawned exciting innovations in the FinTech space by showing how many financial contracts — not just currencies — can be digitized, securely verified and stored, and transferred instantaneously from one party to another (14).
Fb link: https://www.facebook.com/hongkongbilingualnews/posts/947121432392288?__tn__=-R
Web link: https://www.hkbnews.net/post/the-intellectual-foundation-of-bitcoin%E6%AF%94%E7%89%B9%E5%B9%A3%E7%9A%84%E6%99%BA%E8%AD%98%E5%9F%BA%E7%A4%8E-by-chapman-chen-hkbnews
Disclaimer: This article is neither an advertisement nor professional financial advice.
End-notes
  1. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-is-the-technology-of-dissent-that-secures-individual-liberties
  2. https://medium.com/hackernoon/why-sir-isaac-newton-was-the-first-bitcoin-maximalist-195a17cb6c34
  3. https://data.bloomberglp.com/professional/sites/10/Bloomberg-Crypto-Outlook-April-2020.pdf
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYhEDxFwFRU&t=1161s
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6fkdagNrjI
  6. http://youtu.be/mlwxdyLnMXM
  7. https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/friedman_images/Collections/2016c21/IEA_1970.pdf
  8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MnQJFEVY7s
  9. https://www.coindesk.com/economist-milton-friedman-predicted-bitcoin
  10. https://www.aier.org/research/prospects-for-a-monetary-constitution/
  11. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3238472
  12. https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
  13. http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/tcmay.htm
  14. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/i-shall-happily-accept-th_b_8462028
Pic credit: Framingbitcoin
#bitcoin #bitcoinhalving #jamesBuchanan #MiltonFriedman #AlvinToffler #FirstAmendment #LudwigVonMises #TimMay #freeMarket # SatoshiNakamoto #FriedrichHayek #Cypherpunk #Cryptocurrency #GoldStandard #IsaacNewton
submitted by HKBNews to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why the Covid-19-induced Economic Downturn Can be a Blessing in Disguise

Why the Covid-19-induced Economic Downturn Can be a Blessing in Disguise

https://preview.redd.it/ei56m90o8hz41.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=b23062c417a8b87d8fd0f228165dabef2f6adf2f
Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund, Gita Gopinath has written a piece reporting and predicting the disastrous consequences of the Coronavirus pandemic on the global economy. Hoping that the economies will be able to restart by the 3rd quarter of the year 2020, this year will see a global GDP growth rate of -3%. This is not only worse than the 2008 financial crisis, Gopinath writes; it is the worst recession since the great depression of 1930s. The cumulative losses to the global GDP over 2020 to 2021 is predicted to be equivalent to approximately 9 trillion dollars, which is greater than the economies of Japan and Germany combined.
How Can the Economy Bounce Back?
All these assumptions will hold true if the economic institutions are able to bounce back properly. The labour markets and human capital development may be stunted with the crisis in the health and the education sector. So, one of the most crucial factors of production might be in scarce supply even after the economy restarts, in most countries.
Investment is also likely to become a big problem as the investors are becoming increasingly risk averse in the wake of this crisis. This is particularly bad news for the developing economies, as they will be facing a lot of capital flight. This again will have negative consequences for the global economy. As a consequence there will be huge job losses, shutdowns and shrinking in the per-capita income.
Even the stock and commodities markets are in an exceptionally bad state. On May 13, both stock and oil prices have taken a hit, as there is an increasing fear of a second wave of Covid-19. Indices across the globe plummeted, especially after the statement by Anthony Fauci, the Head of Center for Disease Control, United States, signifying the possible negative consequences of an early lifting of the lockdown, therefore indicating the prolongation of the economic lockdown.
Can Digital Assets be the Answer to Global Financial Woes?
In the light of these instabilities in the global economic system, it is not surprising that people are looking for alternatives, and are in fact being compelled to do that. In fact, the World Economic Forum, which is the vanguard of the global economic order, has passed been considering how blockchain technology could be used to improve the global supply chains, to make them more resilient in the face of crises like these. Similarly, the COVID-19 crisis has led to a 72% increase in the use of fintech apps in Europe.
In late April, according to CoinMarketCap, Bitcoin prices rose by 23% to 9500 dollars in less than a day. This is indicative of a greater interest in cryptocurrencies; and also of the fact that how cryptocurrencies can be much more resilient in the face of a crisis, given that they are not subjected to policy changes, and other forms of market manipulation and direct exogenous forces affecting fiat and equities alike. Therefore in a globalised world they will show the way.
Why Cryptocurrency Trading has Seen a Sharp Rise
The uncertainty surrounding the current global economic scenario has renewed interest of many traders in the crypto sector. Almost all digital assets trading platforms, or cryptocurrency exchanges, have reported a sharp rise not only in number of new registrations, but in trading volumes as well.
Even new traders, without any previous experience in trading either traditional assets, or digital assets, are also taking the plunge into crypto trading. While these are exciting times, there are also risks associated with volatility of digital assets. However, with some inside knowledge into how trading (in its different avatars) works, traders can be empowered to take informed decisions and protect their investments alongside making handsome profits.
Leading digital assets trading platform, Bithumb Global, has introduced many innovative options which make trading easy in these times. For example in a time of capital shortage, margin trading can be a great way to leverage the opportunities of crypto trading to make profits.
How Does Leverage Trading Work?
While we have explained through a step-by-step guide on how new traders can register on the Bithumb Global platform for margin trading activities, let us explain the process and its intricacies a bit better.
Bithumb Global margin trading adopts the full-position mode, and provides 5X leverage. At the same time, when the transaction is generated, the currency is automatically borrowed and returned, eliminating the steps of active borrowing and repayment.
Considering you have registered onto the platform, or are logged in to it and have also transferred assets in your margin trading account, the system will automatically allocate funds based on the available assets in your margin trading account and leverage multiples. The borrowable value is the largest loanable asset that the user can currently borrow from the platform and it depends on how much asset the user hold in the margin trading account.
For example, if the amount of assets in the margin trading account is 10,000 USDT (it will show on the page), the user can borrow a maximum of 38,000 USDT. Therefore, through margin trading, the maximum amount that the user can operate with is 10,000 + 38,000 = 48,000 USDT.
Assuming that the price of BTC is 7000 USDT and you are bullish it will reach 8000 USDT, you can borrow USDT from the platform to buy BTC.
Now, your USDT position is 10,000 USDT and your maximum loan limit is 38,000 USDT. When buying 5 BTC for a pending order, a loan will be generated immediately after the pending order is placed. The loan amount is: 5 * 7000–10,000 = 25,000 USDT.
In the order operation area, click the loan summary to view the asset balance, loan amount and interest payable in each currency.
When BTC rises from 7000 USDT to 8000 USDT, you sell 5 BTC at 8000 USDT and the profit is 5 * (8000–7000) = 5000 USDT.
You open the position (your target of 8000 USDT per BTC) and once target price is reached, you need to close the position. Our platform provides users with three modes of operation:
1) Quick liquidate
In the Quick liquidate mode, the system will automatically calculate the user’s openable quantity. The user only needs to enter the target price and click “sell” to realize the sale of the pending order with the number of openable positions, thus achieving the effect of one-key closing.
2) Close loan
In the close loan mode, the system will automatically calculate the amount of money and interest payable by the user. The user only needs to enter the target price and the system will automatically calculate the amount to buy or sell. You can realize the pending order for the corresponding amount of loan repayment.
3) Normal orders
After opening a position, in the normal order placing mode, click 100% of the amount to buy or sell to realize the reverse opening order.
Let us take the long BTC as an example to understand the three modes. User buys 5 BTC at 7000 USDT, and closes the position when BTC rises to 8000 USDT. The user will automatically close the position by quick liquidate mode. The system will automatically calculate the number of BTC that the user can close. The user has to click “sell” after the BTC price reaches 8000 USDT, to generate a pending order to sell 5 BTC at 8000 USDT in the current commission area.
In the close loan mode, the system will automatically calculate the 25,000 USDT and interest payable that the user needs to repay the loan. When user enters 8000 USDT and click on “Sell BTC” to close the loan, he can generate 8000 USDT in the current commission area for sale.
In the normal order placing mode, the user enters 8000 USDT and clicks 100% to sell BTC. A pending order with a quantity of more than 5 BTC will be produced. After the pending order is completed, the position will be converted from long BTC to short BTC.
In summary, it is recommended that users complete the liquidation operation through quick liquidate when repaying the transaction. In addition, closing a position can also be done by transferring assets. The user transfers the loan amount from spot trading account to margin trading account, and the system will realize automatic repayment.
Conclusion
You have used money from the platform as a loan, bought assets, opened a position and made a handsome profit when the target was achieved. After paying back the loan as well as the interest on the money that you used, the remainder is your net profit.
Margin trading also protects your downside. Your investments are protected when the price of an asset goes down. There are stops placed at the lower end to help you minimize your losses. So it is imperative that you try out margin trading with a small amount to understand the nitty-gritties and feel confident about it.
All in all, margin trading has helped thousands of traders on Bithumb Global to leverage the current bullish sentiments in the cryptocurrency markets to make profits and hedge their risks in digital assets. Will you be the next successful trader?
submitted by BithumbGlobal to BithumbGlobal [link] [comments]

Complete Guide to All r/neoliberal Flair Personalities [J-L]

Please see the first post [A-I] for more info about this post. Unfortunately, post character limit is 40k, so I will have to break this into multiple posts linked here:

[A-I]

[J-L]

[M-P]

[Q-Z]


James Heckman
1944 – Present Born: United States Resides: United States
· Professor in Economics at the University of Chicago. Professor at the Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies. Director of the Center for the Economics of Human Development (CEHD). Co-Director of Human Capital and Economic Opportunity (HCEO) Global Working Group. Heckman is also a Professor of Law at ‘the Law School’, a senior research fellow at the American Bar Foundation, and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
· In 2000, Heckman shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with Daniel McFadden, for his pioneering work in econometrics and microeconomics.
· As of February 2019 (according to RePEc), he is the next most influential economist in the world behind Daniel McFadden.
· Heckman has received numerous awards for his work, including the John Bates Clark Medal of the American Economic Association in 1983, the 2005 and 2007 Dennis Aigner Award for Applied Econometrics from the Journal of Econometrics, the 2005 Jacob Mincer Award for Lifetime Achievement in Labor Economics, the 2005 Ulysses Medal from the University College Dublin, the 2007 Theodore W. Schultz Award from the American Agricultural Economics Association, the Gold Medal of the President of the Italian Republic awarded by the International Scientific Committee of the Pio Manzú Centre in 2008, the Distinguished Contributions to Public Policy for Children Award from the Society for Research in Child Development in 2009, the 2014 Frisch Medal from the Econometric Society, the 2014 Spirit of Erikson Award from the Erikson Institute, and the 2016 Dan David Prize for Combating Poverty from Tel Aviv University.
“The best way to improve the American workforce in the 21st century is to invest in early childhood education, to ensure that even the most disadvantaged children have the opportunity to succeed alongside their more advantaged peers”

Janet Yellen
1945 – Present Born: United States Resides: United States
· Successor to Ben Bernanke, serving as the Chair of the Federal Reserve from 2014 to 2018, and as Vice Chair from 2010 to 2014, following her position as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Yellen was also Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton.
· Yellen is a Keynesian economist and advocates the use of monetary policy in stabilizing economic activity over the business cycle. She believes in the modern version of the Phillips curve, which originally was an observation about an inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation. In her 2010 nomination hearing for Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Yellen said, “The modern version of the Phillips curve model—relating movements in inflation to the degree of slack in the economy—has solid theoretical and empirical support.”
· Yellen is married to George Akerlof, another notable economist, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureate, professor at Georgetown University and the University of California, Berkeley..
· In 2014, Yellen was named by Forbes as the second most powerful woman in the world. She was the highest ranking American on the list. In October 2015, Bloomberg Markets ranked her first in their annual list of the 50 most influential economists and policymakers. In October 2015, Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute ranked Yellen #1 in the Public Investor 100 list. In October 2010, she received the Adam Smith Award from the National Association for Business Economics (NABE).
“In the long run, outsourcing is another form of trade that benefits the U.S. economy by giving us cheaper ways to do things.”
“I'm just opposed to a pure inflation-only mandate in which the only thing a central bank cares about is inflation and not unemployment.”

Jared Polis
1975 – Present Born: United States Resides: United States
· 43rd governor of Colorado since January 2019. Polis served on the Colorado State Board of Education from 2001 to 2007 and was the United States Representative for Colorado's 2nd congressional district from 2009 to 2019.
· Polis is the first openly gay person and second openly LGBT person (after Kate Brown of Oregon) to be elected governor in the United States.
· In 2000 Polis founded the Jared Polis Foundation, whose mission is to “create opportunities for success by supporting educators, increasing access to technology, and strengthening our community.” Polis has also founded two charter schools.
· Polis was named Outstanding Philanthropist for the 2006 National Philanthropy Day in Colorado. He has received many awards, including the Boulder Daily Camera's 2007 Pacesetter Award in Education; the Kauffman Foundation Community Award; the Denver consul general of Mexico “Ohtli”; the Martin Luther King Jr. Colorado Humanitarian Award; and the Anti-Defamation League's inaugural Boulder Community Builder Award.
“Having alternative currencies is great, right, because, historically, government's had a monopoly on currency. At the end of the day, why should only politicians—either directly or indirectly—control the currency? We can reduce transaction cost, provide an alternative, and—look, I don't know whether it'll be Bitcoin or not—but I think the concept of digital currencies is here to stay, and the fact that a politician would write to try to ban them in their infancy is just the wrong way to go about it. Let the market determine whether there's any value there or not.”

Jeff Bezos
1964 – Present Born: United States Resides: United States
· Best known as the founder, CEO, and president of Amazon, Bezos is an American internet and aerospace entrepreneur, media proprietor, and investor. The first centi-billionaire on the Forbes wealth index, Bezos was named the “richest man in modern history” after his net worth increased to $150 billion in July 2018. In September 2018, Forbes described him as “far richer than anyone else on the planet” as he added $1.8 billion to his net worth when Amazon became the second company in history to reach a market cap of $1 trillion.
· Bezos supported the electoral campaigns of U.S. senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, two Democratic U.S. senators from Washington. He has also supported U.S. representative John Conyers, as well as Patrick Leahy and Spencer Abraham, U.S. senators serving on committees dealing with Internet-related issues.
· Bezos has supported the legalization of same-sex marriage, and in 2012 contributed $2.5 million to a group supporting a yes vote on Washington Referendum 74, which affirmed same-sex marriage.
· After the 2016 presidential election, Bezos was invited to join Donald Trump's Defense Innovation Advisory Board, an advisory council to improve the technology used by the Defense Department. Bezos declined the offer without further comment.
· In September 2018, Business Insider reported that Bezos was the only one of the top five billionaires in the world who had not signed the Giving Pledge, an initiative created by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett that encourage wealthy people to give away their wealth.
“Percentage margins don't matter. What matters always is dollar margins: the actual dollar amount. Companies are valued not on their percentage margins, but on how many dollars they actually make, and a multiple of that.”
“We have the resources to build room for a trillion humans in this solar system, and when we have a trillion humans, we'll have a thousand Einsteins and a thousand Mozarts. It will be a way more interesting place to live.”

Jens Weidmann
1968 – Present Born: Germany Resides: Germany
· German economist and president of the Deutsche Bundesbank. Chairman of the Board of the Bank for International Settlements. From 1997 to 1999, Weidmann worked at the International Monetary Fund. In 2006, he began serving as Head of Division IV (Economic and Financial Policy) in the Federal Chancellery. He was the chief negotiator of the Federal Republic of Germany for both the summits of the G8 and the G20. He was given the 2016 Medal for Extraordinary Merits for Bavaria in a United Europe.
· Weidmann was involved in a series of major decisions in response to the financial crisis in Germany and Europe: preventing the meltdown of the bank Hypo Real Estate, guaranteeing German deposits and implementing a rescue programme for the banking system, piecing together two fiscal-stimulus programmes, and setting up the Greek bail-out package and the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF).
· In a 2011 speech, Weidmann criticized the errors and “many years of wrong developments” of the European Monetary Union (EMU) peripheral states, particularly the wasted opportunity represented by their “disproportionate investment in private home-building, high government spending or private consumption”. In May, 2012, Weidmann's stance was characterized by US economist and columnist Paul Krugman as amounting to wanting to destroy the Euro. In 2016, Weidmann dismissed deflation in light of the European Central Bank's current stimulus program, pointing out the healthy condition of the German economy and that the euro area is not that bad off.
“I share the concerns regarding monetary policy that is too loose for too long. … As you know I have concerns about granting emergency liquidity on account of the fact that the banks are not doing everything to improve their liquidity situation.”

Jerome Powell
1953 – Present Born: United States Resides: United States
· Current Chair of the Federal Reserve, nominated by Trump. Powell has faced substantial and repeated criticism from Trump after his confirmation. The Senate Banking Committee approved Powell's nomination in a 22–1 vote, with Senator Elizabeth Warren casting the lone dissenting vote.
· Powell briefly served as Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance under George H. W. Bush in 1992. He has served as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors since 2012. He is the first Chair of the Federal Reserve since 1987 not to hold a Ph.D. degree in Economics.
· Powell has described the Fed's role as nonpartisan and apolitical. Trump has criticized Powell for not massively lowering federal interest rates and instituting quantitative easing.
· The Bloomberg Intelligence Fed Spectrometer rated Powell as neutral (not dove nor hawk). Powell has been a skeptic of round 3 of quantitative easing, initiated in 2012, although he did vote in favor of implementation.
· Powell stated that higher capital and liquidity requirements and stress tests have made the financial system safer and must be preserved. However, he also stated that the Volcker Rule should be re-written to exclude smaller banks. Powell supports ample amounts of private capital to support housing finance activities.
“The Fed's organization reflects a long-standing desire in American history to ensure that power over our nation's monetary policy and financial system is not concentrated in a few hands, whether in Washington or in high finance or in any single group or constituency.”

John Cochrane
1957 – Present Born: United States Resides: United States
· Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and economist, specializing in financial economics and macroeconomics.
· The central idea of Cochrane's research is that macroeconomics and finance should be linked, and a comprehensive theory needs to explain both 1.) how, given the observed prices and financial returns, households and firms decide on consumption, investment, and financing; and 2.) how, in equilibrium, prices and financial returns are determined by households and firms decisions.
· Cochrane is the author of ‘Asset Pricing,’ a widely used textbook in graduate courses on asset pricing. According to his own words, the organizing principle of the book is that everything can be traced back to specializations of a single equation: the basic pricing equation. Cochrane received the TIAA-CREF Institute Paul A. Samuelson Award for this book.
“Regulators and politicians aren’t nitwits. The libertarian argument that regulation is so dumb — which it surely is — misses the point that it is enacted by really smart people. The fact that the regulatory state is an ideal tool for the entrenchment of political power was surely not missed by its architects.”

John Keynes (John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes)
1883 – 1946 Born: England Died: England
· British economist, whose ideas fundamentally changed the theory and practice of macroeconomics and the economic policies of governments. Originally trained in mathematics, he built on and greatly refined earlier work on the causes of business cycles, and was one of the most influential economists of the 20th century. Widely considered the founder of modern macroeconomics, his ideas are the basis for the school of thought known as Keynesian economics, and its various offshoots. Keynes was a lifelong member of the Liberal Party, which until the 1920s had been one of the two main political parties in the United Kingdom.
· During the 1930s Great Depression, Keynes challenged the ideas of neoclassical economics that held that free markets would, in the short to medium term, automatically provide full employment, as long as workers were flexible in their wage demands. He argued that aggregate demand (total spending in the economy) determined the overall level of economic activity, and that inadequate aggregate demand could lead to prolonged periods of high unemployment. Keynes advocated the use of fiscal and monetary policies to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions and depressions.
· Keynes's influence started to wane in the 1970s, his ideas challenged by those who disputed the ability of government to favorably regulate the business cycle with fiscal policy. However, the advent of the global financial crisis of 2007–2008 sparked a resurgence in Keynesian thought. Keynesian economics provided the theoretical underpinning for economic policies undertaken in response to the crisis by President Barack Obama of the United States, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom, and other heads of governments.
· Keynes was vice-chairman of the Marie Stopes Society which provided birth control education and campaigned against job discrimination against women and unequal pay. He was an outspoken critic of laws against homosexuality. Keynes thought that the pursuit of money for its own sake was a pathological condition, and that the proper aim of work is to provide leisure. He wanted shorter working hours and longer holidays for all. Keynes was ultimately a successful investor, building up a private fortune.
“How can I accept the Communist doctrine, which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete textbook which I know not only to be scientifically erroneous but without interest or application to the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, who with all their faults, are the quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human achievement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the red bookshop? It is hard for an educated, decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here, unless he has first suffered some strange and horrid process of conversion which has changed all his values.”

John Locke
1632 – 1704 Born: England Died: England
· Known as the “Father of Liberalism,” Locke was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers. His work greatly affected the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence.
· Locke's political theory was founded on social contract theory. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order.
· Locke advocated for governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances. Locke was vehemently opposed to slavery, calling it “vile and miserable … directly opposite to the generous Temper and Courage of our Nation.”
· Locke uses the word “property” in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of human interests and aspirations; more narrowly, it refers to material goods. He argues that property is a natural right and it is derived from labour aand that the individual ownership of goods and property is justified by the labour exerted to produce those goods
· According to Locke, unused property is wasteful and an offence against nature, but, with the introduction of “durable” goods, men could exchange their excessive perishable goods for goods that would last longer and thus not offend the natural law. In his view, the introduction of money marks the culmination of this process, making possible the unlimited accumulation of property without causing waste through spoilage.
“The power of the legislative, being derived from the people by a positive voluntary grant and institution, can be no other than what that positive grant conveyed, which being only to make laws, and not to make legislators, the legislative can have no power to transfer their authority of making laws, and place it in other hands.”
“No man in civil society can be exempted from the laws of it: for if any man may do what he thinks fit, and there be no appeal on earth, for redress or security against any harm he shall do; I ask, whether he be not perfectly still in the state of nature, and so can be no part or member of that civil society; unless any one will say, the state of nature and civil society are one and the same thing, which I have never yet found any one so great a patron of anarchy as to affirm.”

John Mill (John Stuart Mill a.k.a. J. S. Mill)
1806 – 1873 Born: England Died: France
· John Stuart Mill was arguably the most influential English speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century. He was a naturalist, a utilitarian, and a liberal, whose work explores the consequences of a thoroughgoing empiricist outlook. In doing so, he sought to combine the best of eighteenth-century Enlightenment thinking with newly emerging currents of nineteenth-century Romantic and historical philosophy. His most important works include System of Logic (1843), On Liberty (1859), Utilitarianism (1861) and An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy (1865).
· Mill's conception of liberty justified the freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state and social control. A member of the Liberal Party and author of the early feminist work The Subjection of Women (in which he also condemned slavery), he was also the second Member of Parliament to call for women's suffrage after Henry Hunt in 1832.
· Mill, an employee for the British East India Company from 1823 to 1858, argued in support of what he called a “benevolent despotism” with regard to the colonies. Mill argued that “To suppose that the same international customs, and the same rules of international morality, can obtain between one civilized nation and another, and between civilized nations and barbarians, is a grave error. ... To characterize any conduct whatever towards a barbarous people as a violation of the law of nations, only shows that he who so speaks has never considered the subject.”
· John Stuart Mill believed in the philosophy of Utilitarianism, which he described as the principle that holds “that actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness [intended pleasure, and the absence of pain], wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness [pain, and the privation of pleasure].” Mill asserts that even when we value virtues for selfish reasons we are in fact cherishing them as a part of our happiness.
· Mill's early economic philosophy was one of free markets. However, he accepted interventions in the economy, such as a tax on alcohol, if there were sufficient utilitarian grounds. Mill originally believed that “equality of taxation” meant “equality of sacrifice” and that progressive taxation penalized those who worked harder and saved more. Given an equal tax rate regardless of income, Mill agreed that inheritance should be taxed.
· His main objection of socialism was on that of what he saw its destruction of competition. According to Mill, a socialist society would only be attainable through the provision of basic education for all, promoting economic democracy instead of capitalism, in the manner of substituting capitalist businesses with worker cooperatives.
· Mill's major work on political democracy defends two fundamental principles at slight odds with each other: extensive participation by citizens and enlightened competence of rulers. He believed that the incompetence of the masses could eventually be overcome if they were given a chance to take part in politics, especially at the local level.
· Mill is one of the few political philosophers ever to serve in government as an elected official. In his three years in Parliament, he was more willing to compromise than the “radical” principles expressed in his writing would lead one to expect.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
“The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.”

John Rawls
1921 – 2002 Born: United States Died: United States
· Liberal American moral and political philosopher who received both the Schock Prize for Logic and Philosophy and the National Humanities Medal in 1999, the latter presented by President Bill Clinton, who acclaimed Rawls for having “helped a whole generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy itself.” He is frequently cited by the courts of law in the United States and Canada.
· Rawls's most discussed work is his theory of a just liberal society, called justice as fairness. Rawls first wrote about this theory in his book A Theory of Justice. Rawls spoke much about the desire for a well-ordered society; a society of free and equal persons cooperating on fair terms of social cooperation.
· Rawls’s most important principle (the Liberty Principal) states that every individual has an equal right to basic liberties. Rawls believes that “personal property” constitutes a basic liberty, but an absolute right to unlimited private property is not.
· Rawls's argument for his principles of social justice uses a thought experiment called the “original position”, in which people select what kind of society they would choose to live under if they did not know which social position they would personally occupy.
“Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.”

Joseph Nye
1937 – Present Born: United States Resides: United States
· American political scientist and co-founder of the international relations theory of neoliberalism (a theory concerned first and foremost with absolute gains rather than relative gains to other states), developed in the 1977 book Power and Interdependence. He is noted for his notion of “smart power” (“the ability to combine hard and soft power into a successful strategy”), which became a popular phrase with the Clinton and Obama Administrations.
· Secretary of State John Kerry appointed Nye to the Foreign Affairs Policy Board in 2014. In 2014, Nye was awarded the Order of the Rising Sun, Gold and Silver Star in recognition of his “contribution to the development of studies on Japan-U.S. security and to the promotion of the mutual understanding between Japan and the United States.”
· From 1977 to 1979, Nye was Deputy to the Undersecretary of State for Security Assistance, Science, and Technology and chaired the National Security Council Group on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In recognition of his service, he was awarded the State Department's Distinguished Honor Award in 1979. In 1993 and 1994, he was Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which coordinates intelligence estimates for the President, and was awarded the Intelligence Community's Distinguished Service Medal. In the Clinton Administration from 1994 to 1995, Nye served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, and was awarded the Department's Distinguished Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster. Nye was considered by many to be the preferred choice for National Security Advisor in the 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry.
· Nye has been a member of the Harvard faculty since 1964. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences and a foreign fellow of The British Academy. Nye is also a member of the American Academy of Diplomacy. The 2011 TRIP survey of over 1700 international relations scholars ranks Joe Nye as the sixth most influential scholar in the field of international relations in the past twenty years. He was also ranked as most influential in American foreign policy. In 2011, Foreign Policy magazine named him to its list of top global thinkers. In September 2014, Foreign Policy reported that the international relations scholars and policymakers both ranked Nye as one of the most influential scholars.
“When you can get others to admire your ideals and to want what you want, you do not have to spend as much on sticks and carrots to move them in your direction. Seduction is always more effective than coercion, and many values like democracy, human rights, and individual opportunities are deeply seductive.”

Karl Popper
1902 – 1994 Born: Austria-Hungary Died: England
· Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. He was a self-professed critical-rationalist, a dedicated opponent of all forms of scepticism, conventionalism, and relativism in science and in human affairs generally and a committed advocate and staunch defender of the ‘Open Society’.
· In ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’ and ‘The Poverty of Historicism’, Popper developed a critique of historicism and a defense of the “Open Society”. Popper considered historicism to be the theory that history develops inexorably and necessarily according to knowable general laws towards a determinate end. He argued that this view is the principal theoretical presupposition underpinning most forms of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. He argued that historicism is founded upon mistaken assumptions regarding the nature of scientific law and prediction. Since the growth of human knowledge is a causal factor in the evolution of human history, and since “no society can predict, scientifically, its own future states of knowledge”, it follows, he argued, that there can be no predictive science of human history. For Popper, metaphysical and historical indeterminism go hand in hand.
· Popper is known for his vigorous defense of liberal democracy and the principles of social criticism that he believed made a flourishing open society possible. His political philosophy embraced ideas from major democratic political ideologies, including socialism/social democracy, libertarianism/classical liberalism and conservatism, and attempted to reconcile them.
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

Lawrence Summers
1954 – Present Born: United States Resides: United States
· American economist, former Vice President of Development Economics and Chief Economist of the World Bank, senior U.S. Treasury Department official throughout President Clinton's administration, Treasury Secretary 1999–2001, and former director of the National Economic Council for President Obama (2009–2010). Summers served as the 27th President of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006. Current professor and director of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
· As a researcher, Summers has made important contributions in many areas of economics, primarily public finance, labor economics, financial economics, and macroeconomics. Summers has also worked in international economics, economic demography, economic history and development economics.[ He received the John Bates Clark Medal in 1993 from the American Economic Association. In 1987, he was the first social scientist to win the Alan T. Waterman Award from the National Science Foundation. Summers is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
· In 1983, at age 28, Summers became one of the youngest tenured professors in Harvard's history. In 2006, Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty. Summers viewed his beliefs on why science and engineering had an under-representation of women to be a large part in the vote, saying, “There is a great deal of absurd political correctness. Now, I'm somebody who believes very strongly in diversity, who resists racism in all of its many incarnations, who thinks that there is a great deal that's unjust in American society that needs to be combated, but it seems to be that there is a kind of creeping totalitarianism in terms of what kind of ideas are acceptable and are debatable on college campuses.”
· As the World Bank's Vice President of Development Economics and Chief Economist, Summers played a role in designing strategies to aid developing countries, worked on the bank's loan committee, guided the bank's research and statistics operations, and guided external training programs. The World Bank's official site reports that Summer's research included an “influential” report that demonstrated a very high return from investments in educating girls in developing nations. According to The Economist, Summers was “often at the centre of heated debates” about economic policy, to an extent exceptional for the history of the World Bank in recent decades.
· In 1999 Summers endorsed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which removed the separation between investment and commercial banks. In February 2009, Summers quoted John Maynard Keynes, saying “When circumstances change, I change my opinion”, reflecting both on the failures of Wall Street deregulation and his new leadership role in the government bailout.
submitted by learnactreform to neoliberal [link] [comments]

The crypto market’s correlation with traditional markets (by Robert Aron Zawiasa)

https://medium.com/@Zawiasa/the-crypto-markets-correlation-with-traditional-markets-79e8209a6d8
At the time of Corona virus and the — not so related — economic meltdown, many questions the correlation between the virtual economy of cryptocurrencies and the “trad” one.
Why is it such an important question? For many years crypto evangelists predicted Bitcoin as a new safe-haven, the “digital gold”. — Oh boy, they were wrong.
The correlation is not imaginary, trad market players now have significant capital in cryptocurrency and when they need to pull liquidity to cover fiat liabilities, they just do it. The reason for the steep drop in % terms is because the BTC market is not liquid enough at this point in time.
Is it a problem? A heresy of the crypto evangelion?
A heresy for sure, but not a problem at all. Let’s be honest and admit it: The crypto community found nothing unusual in the recent price-drops. I, myself even shorted the market, because crypto is still full of promises but lacking adoption.
Okay, so they are correlating and crypto is full of shit and scammy and basically the same, right?
Not so! Do you remember the times when we had to wait days for a transaction? Paying with wire transfer for something in China was insanely expensive? When merchants preferred cash over credit cards, because of high fees? When you had to hire a broker for investing?
Those times are gone and yes, not because of crypto solved these problems, but crypto definitely accelerated this transformation, urged the financial world to change rules or die. Now what if I say, this is only the beginning and these are only entry-level benefits of what really crypo promises?

Crypto promises us the “digital America”

Uh, I said it. Crypto is the new land and all the resourceful wants their own pieces of it. The reason behind why so many are thinking about Bitcoin as the digital gold is because the digital America’s gold rush is happening now. We all know deep in our consciousness that the world is heavily changing, the youth is changing, society is being digitalized even if brain-computer interfaces are not a thing yet..
Damn son you are weird and I stopped reading here.
The reason you feel weird about our descendants living online is because you know it will happen, but stay in the present now and I will tell you what crypto is doing to our traditional economy!

What is the “crypto dream”?

Many of the early adopters joined not because they wanted to make money, but because they think the current money system is unfair. Common citizens are paying the highest on almost everything and most of the time they don’t know about it. The financial sector’s practices are so hidden, almost like an occult knowledge. There are a few people who understand it and then there are everyone else, the vulnerable. This makes the first statement of the dream:
One of my biggest frustration as a teenager was I did not see real good opportunities in the world. I read about them, I saw them in historical movies, but in reality workplaces were boring and abusive, investments were only for the rich. Neither the booming housing market or fake forex trading seemed like a good fit for me. I had very little money, but a big passion to forge my fortune.
The wolves of Wall Street created our current system in the ideology of “I own what I could acquire” and backfired each other just like everyone did. They have done this, because there is no trust in the traditional world, but trust is heavily needed. But if things are transparent and open, we only need one more thing to wake up from this nightmare:
You read it right, a trustless environment provide uncheatable cooperation. There is no single entity that has authority over the system, and consensus is achieved without participants having to know or trust anything but the system itself.
I don’t eat your utopian bullshit! Your software is written by people I still need to trust.
People tend to be happier to direct trust towards organizations than systems. However, while organizations are made up of people who are easily corruptible, trustless systems can be governed entirely by computer code. All of the source code in crypto should be accessible to everyone. If it is not, then it is not a part of our ecosystem.

The technology behind crypto

Many being confused about the blockchain, thinking it is not a big deal. We had many software far older than Bitcoin, implementing the very same ideas. What Bitcoin had — which made the blockchain a very unique thing — is philosophy. It was intended to use a special way and confronted a very big thing, nobody thought it could be possible to confront.
The blockchain is a way to store information. A decentralized, fully transparent one, which is accessible for everyone 7/24. It never stops, It cannot be stopped and people make it doing different things.
The first use case its inventor made it doing is persisting transactions, money transfers. He told all of us it is just an experiment, which he didn’t tell is the capabilities of this technology. So fast people realized it is possible to do extraordinary things with it, like running a whole computer on the blockchain, making it behave like a virtual computer instance.
No one did things like this before: A global computer which cannot be stopped, which is capable to run all kinds of software on it.

What was the impact?

People go mad about it, especially greedy people who don’t know a bum about the technology but have money to pour in. At one point, the fundraising softwares running on the Ethereum global computer had more impact and volume than the whole VC industry in America. This was only the early rising of crypto, 2017 spring. Later that year, everyone hopped on the train who were brave or stupid enough.
Did crypto had a real economy at that point? Was it an industry? Real-world adoption? NOPE
It was a bitter funny hype train, challenging everyone inside or outside the community, but it showed us one thing: We have the gold.
Not so much people are capable to find and extract gold, to be honest: Most of us are just lurkers, fortune hunters and times could be rough when a mass hype destructs all the mines, but people had keep going, continuing the work.

How the crypto economy relates to the traditional economy now?

It is expanding much faster than any other economy in the world. Our frontiers in adoption are companies like Crypto.com paying hundred millions of dollars ($50 bonus for every new customer) to onboard millions of users, others like Coinbase paying $166 anyone to motivate in learning about cryptocurrencies. Handshake is airdropping hundreds of dollars (on current rates) to open-source developers and these are just a few examples of how generous and prosperous our thriving world is. In comparison: Revolut, a fintech company which is very similar to Crypto.com only paid 10 USD for new card holders and no one would ever pay you to educate yourself about financials. Developers? They historically get a fraction of a fraction of the pie in Silicon Valley. (Sorry Y Combinator, you are a delightful exception)
These companies I mentioned are very traditional ones and they are not innovating in software, but keeping our gates open to the new world. I don’t want to credit here any of the thousands of developer teams, all working on the “real deal”. I only leave here a link to the list of all variants of the Bitcoin source code alone. Understanding what blockchain companies are working on is a whole new profession now.
The idea of a crypto company is the DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization). Which covers trustless, often anonymous and fully transparent organizations with profit sharing and they are aimed to become better alternatives to traditional companies. Most of us in the community have different understanding, proposals and hopes about what a DAO should be, but common sense tell us it is the next big thing to emerge.

Wild West is Happening

We are building railway systems across the land, making connections and interoperations between blockchains. We are attracting a lot of immigrants day-to-day, because we have better paying workplaces, better interest rates and in overall a flourish economy. We are growing a strong identity to support our nation as the blockchain developers, economists, philosophers and investors. Our money is under our control as we own our future and all of us knows: We will soon show the world, what we are capable to achieve.
This is my view of the crypto world. This is the manifesto of “digital America”.
RAZ
contact me at zawiasa.hu
submitted by ZGenKibernetika to u/ZGenKibernetika [link] [comments]

I am reposting /u/sirbastian's takedown of Bitcoin, because I am constantly re-sharing it and terrified it will somehow get deleted

By sirbastian, originally posted here: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7iyej5/bitcoin_exposes_the_massive_economic_illiteracy/dr2sntd/
While it's true that a currency needn't necessarily be "backed" by something to be an effective means of exchange, virtually everything else you've said is false, or obvious pandering to the prevailing socioeconomic attitudes prevalent in this sub.
First, let's dispel the notion that US dollars aren't backed by anything. US Dollars have an important quality that makes them useful to an individual, regardless of whether other individuals want them: they can be used to pay down US citizens' tax obligations. This is no trivial thing. Read about Chartalism for more information.
A currency, the manifestation of money, is valuable when it does a good job of transferring the aforementioned data by being: 1) easy to use and understand by everyone 2) tamperproof such that it resists corruption of the original signal 3) neglegible in overhead costs
You're listing this out like it's out of a textbook or something, but it's just 3 random points you picked out of the air that are heavily influenced by the current subject matter of Bitcoin. The average economist, when asked about money, is not going to mention that it should be "easy to understand by everyone", tamperproof, or low in transaction overhead. They're going to talk about the usual trifecta: 1) A medium of exchange 2) A store of value 3) A standard of value
Hilariously, even though you've arbitrarily chosen the metric we're using to measure the worth of a currency, Bitcoin still utterly fails to meet all 6 of these points. Let's go through them, starting with yours:
  1. Easy to use and understand by everyone - Why would you even set yourself up for this? "What is Bitcoin" "how does Bitcoin work" "How do I get a bitcoin" These are some of the most asked questions on the internet because nobody can grok Bitcoin on the first try, and even when they do, it's not clear to them how they can "buy in".
  2. Tamperproof such that it resists corruption of the original signal - While at first bluff this is true, tamperproof is really just one element of a larger desire that malicious third parties can't change the debt record in their favor. From a purely technical standpoint Bitcoin should be resistant to this, but in practice, the number of coins lost to negligent storage, Wallet exploits, etc. puts this point squarely against BTC. I am much, MUCH less concerned that my US bank account will disappear due to some technical trapdoor, or compromised because somebody hacked into the computer systems at my credit union.
  3. Negligible in overhead costs - Bitcoin is ludicrously expensive to transact in, and circumventing this via, e.g. the Lightning network, necessarily involves tradeoffs against other technical qualities that you will doubtless be counting for Bitcoin elsewhere.
  4. Medium of exchange - worthless. Nobody wants to buy pizzas with Bitcoin, because it is by and large considered some kind of investment. I love the irony that people don't want to spend their bitcoin to buy things because they're convinced that it's so incredibly useful to buy things - so much so that it will one day net them millions of... dollars? No wait, not that!
  5. It is completely untrustworthy as a store of value - putting money into Bitcoin is not safe. This entire sub has "invest responsibly" posts slathered all over it because even the most foolhardy zealots realize that that saying you should save your life's earnings in Bitcoin is a terrible idea. If I had $20 in a bank account in 2008, when I took it out today, it would only be worth 87% of what it was then. Inflation does hurt you over long periods of time, but this was a smooth, monotonic decay. It's the kind of value you can quite literally bank on decades in advance. Bitcoin has no such assurances. The value of your life savings denominated in Bitcoin changes significantly every day.
  6. A standard of value - The fact that people's biggest concern is how many dollars one can buy with their Bitcoin tells you everything you need to know. Nobody denominates values in Bitcoin - it would be completely useless. If I told you this car was worth 1 BTC, that means two different things on Monday vs. Friday. If I tell you it's worth $15000, you understand.
It protects signal integrity to a degree that no other currency type can.
This is meaningless.
This is why cryptocurrency is so valuable, and why it will continue to soar
Oh, you mean soar up and down like a tech stock after an IPO? Making it completely untrustworthy as a store of value, and unusable as a medium of exchange? Regardless, even if it was monotonically rising in value (it's not, not even close), why would this be a good thing? If you want to live in a world where all goods and services are completely denominated in Bitcoin, it doesn't matter what Bitcoin is "worth" in US dollars at any point in that cycle. The measure of Bitcoin's usefulness starts and ends with what types of things can be bought with it. It doesn't matter if a pair of shoes costs 1 BTC or .0000001 BTC if, all other things being equal, your salary and pension and taxes are measured in BTC. It's just a scale-factor. If you think the value of Bitcoin, denominated in US dollars, soaring into the stratosphere is a good thing, then you've patently revealed your true motivation, which is for the in-crowd to get rich. This is deliciously ironic given:
they betray their ignorance, their illiteracy and their complete blindness to the revolution that's happening right under their feet and which will, in time, bring down the corrupt power structures of our world to create a freer, fairer society for all of us.
And so we see what you'd really like to see happen: destroy the riches of the current superwealthy and replace them with a different group that you like more - Bitcoin early adopters.
Bitcoin is a fascinating development, and it blazed an important first trail in the modernization of money and commerce, but from a technical standpoint it is totally inadequate to serve as the currency of the internet, or the currency of the world. Transaction fees, energy usage due to mining, validation waits, Wallet protection, and exchange with existing monetary infrastructure - all of these things are lacking in fundamental, unfixable ways. The world needs something that has a lot in common with Bitcoin, but it also needs to have a lot of things that are quite different. Sitting around and telling each other that the establishment just "Doesn't get us, man" is fucking delusional. There are people that don't understand cryptocurrency, but this is not the only or even the main reason that Bitcoin falls into criticism. It is being criticized because it has real, legitimate, unsustainable, deal-breaker problems. When you write this kind of BS that 'the establishment is just trying to protect the status quo', you sound like a lunatic conspiracy theorist who things that GM knows how to make cars run on water but won't tell us because of the oil cartel. It just doesn't make any fucking sense. If Bitcoin was a digital pantheon of economic exchange that was going to usher in the modern era of banking, then you know who would be all over that shit? BANKS. It's not a cabal of evil capitalists trying to crush the revolution. It's a few uninformed people, and a bunch of people who have genuine grievances based on their understanding of monetary policy and finance. Maybe in some cases they're too stuck in their old ways of thinking, but anybody assuming that finance and banking professionals have no wisdom to impart here is gravely mistaken.
The shorthand for all of this is to ask yourself: if you could wake up tomorrow to a world that had replaced all existing monetary infrastructure, would you REALLY want to? Millions of truck drivers with unsecured wallets, policeman's pensions sitting on the blockchain, Starbucks waiting 5 minutes to confirm that your $5 coffee (+ $5 settlement fee) can be handed over? 3 transactions per second for the entire world?
submitted by klf0 to finance [link] [comments]

How Bitcoin Works in 5 Minutes (Technical) - YouTube How transactions are verified in Bitcoin Blockchain ... 3 Ways to Anonymize Cryptocurrency Transactions - YouTube Bitcoin Transaction Details - Part 2 How do bitcoin transactions work?  Simply Explained for Beginners  BTC.com

So when demand for bitcoin transactions is high, the system clogs up. Users have to accept that their transactions may be delayed or not go through at all, or offer miners extra fees as an ... MIT economist Robert Townsend’s book, “Distributed Ledgers,” analyzes new forms of financial arrangements and payment systems, including Bitcoin, evaluating how these methods could help emerging countries and industries. The Economist explains How does Bitcoin work? The virtual currency is decentralised, which is part of its appeal. Explaining the world, daily The Economist explains. Apr 12th 2013. by T.S. BITCOIN ... How do bitcoin transactions work? [Economist] Even Satoshi Nakamoto, the elusive creator of bitcoin, admitted that his invention is hard to explain–because there is nothing you can compare it to. Here is how a bitcoin transaction is processed: 1) Payers initiate a bitcoin payment using “wallet” software. 2) This and other pending transactions are broadcast on the global bitcoin network ... Traditional approaches to understanding the value of bitcoin as money have failed. In this article we explore how function, faith and the availability of alternative assets will keep bitcoin ...

[index] [3187] [33400] [14817] [16923] [8414] [9290] [31630] [34791] [50231] [17112]

How Bitcoin Works in 5 Minutes (Technical) - YouTube

Bitcoin transaction demo We want to put bitcoin in a wider perspective, to reflect on what it means for society, politics and economics, as well as how it helps us think about money both a social and a technical ... A short introduction to how Bitcoin Works. Want more? Check out my new in-depth course on the latest in Bitcoin, Blockchain, and a survey of the most excitin... Simple tutorial for beginners about how bitcoin and cryptocurrency transactions work, and how blockchain technology makes it all possible. This video was mad... The basic mechanics of a bitcoin transaction between two parties and what is included within a given bitcoin transaction record. More free lessons at: http:/...

#