because you have not understood what I have written thus far, for a patently obvious desire to pursue motivated reasoning, and so I see no reason to labouriously explain even more complicated topics if you will give those explanations all the same treatment
I don't understand how asking for one limit you'd place on government is asking you to model your ideology.
alright, we'll play this game. Here's one limit: I believe the government should not require me to eat cheeseburgers for dinner (sorry, "surrealitycheck").
now what
But what if it prices cheeseburgers so that they're the only viable food for you to consume due to your effective taxation rate on other non-ground beef forms of sustenance, and/or lack of choice through sponsored monopolies within the food industry? How many options beyond cheeseburgers (of roughly equivalent nutritional value) does the government owe you for you to feel it's fair?
why would it matter what it prices cheeseburgers at
qua my limits, it doesn't require me to eat them
If it controls the entire economy with no limits, even if it does have a rule that they can't force you to eat cheeseburgers, it can make it so you have no alternative but eat cheeseburgers or starve from malnutrition, die from a heart attack/cholesterol or have to grow your own crops. You're comfortable with that level of social engineering within government?
well that was fast! In two posts we are back to this.
Sadly I refuse to define any ideal model of government or its theoretical bounds, save that single point about cheezburger, so I guess you will have to ask another question instead
Back to this? I asked a direct question, with very specific caveats. I don't understand why you dodge these questions. Your entire argument thus far has been I'm too stupid to understand the complex world of macro because I spend my time interacting with markets instead of studying other people's work on macrotheory. I've asked questions I think relevant, and I am willing to have this conversation in whatever way you deem most appropriate for it to be constructive and have us express our differing views.
What is your opinion of the 60 minutes piece on honest graft from last night?
I don't understand how asking for one limit you'd place on government is asking you to model your ideology.
alright, we'll play this game. Here's one limit: I believe the government should not require me to eat cheeseburgers for dinner (sorry, "surrealitycheck").
now what
But what if it prices cheeseburgers so that they're the only viable food for you to consume due to your effective taxation rate on other non-ground beef forms of sustenance, and/or lack of choice through sponsored monopolies within the food industry? How many options beyond cheeseburgers (of roughly equivalent nutritional value) does the government owe you for you to feel it's fair?
This is stupid.
I thought about elaborating about how monopolies are not a government invention but it seems more succinct to just say this is stupid.
Because it is.
You need to learn that the original monopolies were state-sponsored, look into Ma Bell, as well as Chaebol's for a good example of a modern state sponsored monopoly, and don't get me started on the Chinese system and its corruption. There are laws against monopolies for private citizens, google anti-trust or trust buster and you'll see the original thrust of the argument that broke up Standard Oil, and get an idea of the legal precedent for the action.
I feel the State is just another defacto arm of oppression, and in no way truly creates fully functioning citizens to operate in Smith's "nation of shopkeepers", or Jefferson's 'self-sustaining farmers' (please don't start the slavery debate), and I feel a big part of this is the TREMENDOUS consolidation of power that has occurred, and the under representation per capita in Congress. I, also, feel the executive has had FAR too much power (I think Obama has been a good-decent president, I actually wish he would've had more chutzpah for pushing for hard left policy just to really put it to the test with his first term run of the government, and I don't understand why he didn't force single payer.)
A : I didn't watch it because I am not American. That episode will not be shown for several months over here and I can't use the link to stream the episode. So there is no way to for me to know what the 60 minutes story said.
B : 60 Minutes is not an academic source. Its a news program. A respected highly valued news program, but not a peer reviewed academic source of information.
C : MAKE YOUR OWN FUCKING ARGUMENTS! Remember what we said about posting links and essentially saying "these guys make my argument for me, so if you want to debate read/watch every link I say and then respond to me". You are doing it again. It may only be 1 link and it may only be 60 minutes, but its still linkspamming instead of arguing. Because:
D : If you can't be bothered/lack the ability to form your own argument in your own words, then you probably don't know enough about the issue to be worthwhile debating. Which is basically what we been telling you for the last 6 pages. Your lack the ability to even make us understand what you are arguing about, much less for.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
because you have not understood what I have written thus far, for a patently obvious desire to pursue motivated reasoning, and so I see no reason to labouriously explain even more complicated topics if you will give those explanations all the same treatment
I don't understand how asking for one limit you'd place on government is asking you to model your ideology.
alright, we'll play this game. Here's one limit: I believe the government should not require me to eat cheeseburgers for dinner (sorry, "surrealitycheck").
now what
But what if it prices cheeseburgers so that they're the only viable food for you to consume due to your effective taxation rate on other non-ground beef forms of sustenance, and/or lack of choice through sponsored monopolies within the food industry? How many options beyond cheeseburgers (of roughly equivalent nutritional value) does the government owe you for you to feel it's fair?
why would it matter what it prices cheeseburgers at
qua my limits, it doesn't require me to eat them
If it controls the entire economy with no limits, even if it does have a rule that they can't force you to eat cheeseburgers, it can make it so you have no alternative but eat cheeseburgers or starve from malnutrition, die from a heart attack/cholesterol or have to grow your own crops. You're comfortable with that level of social engineering within government?
well that was fast! In two posts we are back to this.
Sadly I refuse to define any ideal model of government or its theoretical bounds, save that single point about cheezburger, so I guess you will have to ask another question instead
Back to this? I asked a direct question, with very specific caveats. I don't understand why you dodge these questions. Your entire argument thus far has been I'm too stupid to understand the complex world of macro because I spend my time interacting with markets instead of studying other people's work on macrotheory. I've asked questions I think relevant, and I am willing to have this conversation in whatever way you deem most appropriate for it to be constructive and have us express our differing views.
What is your opinion of the 60 minutes piece on honest graft from last night?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
an we
What are you talking about? Give me a link that isn't a pdf to the Leontief-BLS paper I can c/p from without breaking copyright, and I'll be glad to pull up more of the points in the paper I'd like you to clarify what you were trying to prove with, and I did cite exactly where I had my major question and mentioned what they found to be the flaw in their model, and asked you if you agreed or disagreed with that conclusion, and you hedged.
Please, let me understand how you would like this debate to take place, and can we start from a position of treating one another as equals instead of you accusing me of credulousness and being some under informed rube? I've read most of the papers you've linked already from when I was first getting interested in the economy, and have just kept up with the more modern economic landscape in the world of the International Economy. I also have read each and every link you've provided that I hadn't already, and would be glad to go into a lenghty debate with you over them, but just am not sure what you're trying to counter that I've argued from the papers you link. Please cite me the particular excerpts or give me an idea where they are, and I'll be glad to show you how that is dated, especially since most of the papers you've linked are from the days before the internet, and big data.
A: I didn't watch it because I am not American. That episode will not be shown for several months over here and I can't use the link to stream the episode. So there is no way to for me to know what the 60 minutes story said.
B: 60 Minutes is not an academic source. Its a news program. A respected highly valued news program, but not a peer reviewed academic source of information.
C: MAKE YOUR OWN FUCKING ARGUMENTS! Remember what we said about posting links and essentially saying "these guys make my argument for me, so if you want to debate read/watch every link I say and then respond to me". You are doing it again. It may only be 1 link and it may only be 60 minutes, but its still linkspamming instead of arguing.
If you can't be bothered/lack the ability to form your own argument in your own words, then you probably don't know enough about the issue to be worthwhile debating. Which is basically what we been telling you for the last 6 pages. Your lack the ability to even make us understand what you are arguing about, much less for.
This isn't academia, this is a debate and discussion forum. I'm not trying to write my manifesto, as I don't have a grant to do so. I was just looking to spark debate on the topic with people I respect, which is true for most of the folks around here. I just feel there's a blind spot here to honest graft, and the corruption of government, and I have cited several examples in the recent years, and historically to defend my side. I don't understand what sort of arguments you expect me to make if citing historical instances, convictions and investigative journalistic pieces on the matter that have already had an immediate impact the last time a similar episode aired (and let's not forget what 60 minutes did as far as the smoking tort, ala The Insider. Which is a damn fine movie.)
I'd be happy to draw up rules for a formal debate, and we could even have a panel of judges and an entry fee to be won by the winner, as I've put a lot of thought into my side and would be more than happy to write it out.. I just don't have the sort of time to justly articulate and produce a document summarizing all these sources, without some sort of grant, or wager, so I felt I'd just provide them and see if anyone had recent articles, and what people's feelings were on Peter Schweizer, and why they feel research out of the Hoover Institute is Austrian dogma.
I mean, I've read every article @ronya has produced to me, and he's the only one who has given any real citations to the arguments we were having, even though I'd hardly say they discredit the arguments I've made, as people of MUCH higher academic standing than I have, and I felt I could just give you their sources, as there is no way I could summarize it more efficiently than the sources. 5 minute videos, and then the 11 minute full length aren't exactly high barriers of entries to a discussion of the scale of this one, in my opinion.
I also want to know why ronya thinks economics and physics are related in anyway, or if it was just a loose simile that makes his discipline seem much more 'hard' than it really is, and then wouldn't enter the debate I provided to help him elucidate his side for that comparison in the realm of physics.
I carefully explained to you the flaws in the Econtalk podcast, and you promptly ignored it and demanded that I defend a totalitarian society. I explained to you the nature of Bretton Woods and the space of economic policies that nations can choose from, and you promptly ignored it and demanded that I defend a totalitarian society. I explained to you the intellectual precedents of the ideas that you claim to passionately support, and you promptly ignored that, too, and demanded that I defend a totalitarian society.
I am not here to play your imagined podcast jester. If you actually care about cryptocurrencies and shadow banking and their role in monetary policy, I would suggest spending more time thinking about how these would actually mesh together. I explained mainstream policy instruments and goals. That is your cue to explain your own favoured 'Hayekian demand-side economy' instruments and goals. That is why this is a forum, you actually must give replies to the posts other people have made, not signal a cue for a fool to dance on stage before the curtain call.
I carefully explained to you the flaws in the Econtalk podcast, and you promptly ignored it and demanded that I defend a totalitarian society. I explained to you the nature of Bretton Woods and the space of economic policies that nations can choose from, and you promptly ignored it and demanded that I defend a totalitarian society. I explained to you the intellectual precedents of the ideas that you claim to passionately support, and you promptly ignored that, too, and demanded that I defend a totalitarian society.
I am not here to play your imagined podcast jester. If you actually care about cryptocurrencies and shadow banking and their role in monetary policy, I would suggest spending more time thinking about how these would actually mesh together. I explained mainstream policy instruments and goals. That is your cue to explain your own favoured 'Hayekian demand-side economy' instruments and goals. That is why this is a forum, you actually must give replies to the posts other people have made, not signal a cue for a fool to dance on stage before the curtain call.
I did not ignore it. I asked you why, with your interpretation of Bretton Woods, you felt Nixon Shock occurred, and what your opinion of the legacy of those events was. Then asked you specific questions about the power of the IMF SDR's, which you promptly ignored and cited a 13 page paper to me saying I'm so naive, that I had read already many moon ago.
There has been only one person in this back and forth calling the other under informed, or understudied, and I am completely sincere in my offer of drawing up rules for a formal debate with stakes on the matter to give me incentive to truly articulate them, as well as you since you are so sure in the righteousness of your side and its facts.
Please, clarify to me how you would like this debate to go forth, and please, answer my questions about the Leontief-BLS paper you cited, if SDR's need more power, and if Bretton Woods not accepting the bancor was the right decision.
Oh, really. Very well, then I call a moratorium on those questions. I think it will be better to start with the basics: kindly explain your favoured cryptocurrency, and how it works.
I don't understand why he didn't force single payer.
:psyduck:
I think one of the best moves the president did, as far as precedent is concerned, was letting Congress vote on Syria.. I think one of his biggest fuck ups was by dithering on the stimulus, and not using his carte blanche to inject quicker and more to give liquidity to get the credit markets flowing/give a Bush style check to every citizen to stimulate demand for a short period, especially if given around 4th of July or Thanksgiving.
Oh, really. Very well, then I call a moratorium on those questions. I think it will be better to start with the basics: kindly explain your favoured cryptocurrency, and how it works.
In what instance? Do you feel greenbacks are the best form of currency for a government to use for taxation purposes?
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
I don't understand how asking for one limit you'd place on government is asking you to model your ideology.
alright, we'll play this game. Here's one limit: I believe the government should not require me to eat cheeseburgers for dinner (sorry, "surrealitycheck").
I carefully explained to you the flaws in the Econtalk podcast, and you promptly ignored it and demanded that I defend a totalitarian society. I explained to you the nature of Bretton Woods and the space of economic policies that nations can choose from, and you promptly ignored it and demanded that I defend a totalitarian society. I explained to you the intellectual precedents of the ideas that you claim to passionately support, and you promptly ignored that, too, and demanded that I defend a totalitarian society.
I am not here to play your imagined podcast jester. If you actually care about cryptocurrencies and shadow banking and their role in monetary policy, I would suggest spending more time thinking about how these would actually mesh together. I explained mainstream policy instruments and goals. That is your cue to explain your own favoured 'Hayekian demand-side economy' instruments and goals. That is why this is a forum, you actually must give replies to the posts other people have made, not signal a cue for a fool to dance on stage before the curtain call.
Since you're citing your academic sources, and my citation of similar isn't allowable, I'd like us to draw up formal rules for the debate, and definitely put some skin in the game. You have the backing of the majority of PA, so I'm sure you could crowdsource some of it, and there are very many legal avenues we could pursue to get fair and impartial arbitration.. Hell, I'd even be willing to fly to Cambridge if you'd liike.
Oh, really. Very well, then I call a moratorium on those questions. I think it will be better to start with the basics: kindly explain your favoured cryptocurrency, and how it works.
In what instance? Do you feel greenbacks are the best form of currency for a government to use for taxation purposes?
OH GOD WHY DOES EVERYTHING I ASK YOU BECOME A DEMAND FOR ME TO DEFEND THE STATUS QUO AND/OR TOTALITARIAN STATE
Oh, really. Very well, then I call a moratorium on those questions. I think it will be better to start with the basics: kindly explain your favoured cryptocurrency, and how it works.
In what instance? Do you feel greenbacks are the best form of currency for a government to use for taxation purposes?
Is that the problem you think cryptocurrency should solve?
For one thing, I'm pretty sure nobody anywhere pays their taxes in actual physical cash in the first place.
Oh, really. Very well, then I call a moratorium on those questions. I think it will be better to start with the basics: kindly explain your favoured cryptocurrency, and how it works.
In what instance? Do you feel greenbacks are the best form of currency for a government to use for taxation purposes?
OH GOD WHY DOES EVERYTHING I ASK YOU BECOME A DEMAND FOR ME TO DEFEND THE STATUS QUO AND/OR TOTALITARIAN STATE
Because I need to understand why you think it's superior to crypto-currencies in your view, I've already stated why I think crypto-currencies are superior several times in this thread. I've also asked you fi you agree with the paper you cited, in that their model failed due to the inaccuracy of their available metrics, and lack of solid definitions on certain quants.
Oh, really. Very well, then I call a moratorium on those questions. I think it will be better to start with the basics: kindly explain your favoured cryptocurrency, and how it works.
In what instance? Do you feel greenbacks are the best form of currency for a government to use for taxation purposes?
Is that the problem you think cryptocurrency should solve?
For one thing, I'm pretty sure nobody anywhere pays their taxes in actual physical cash in the first place.
it's quite difficult to nail down the specifics here, because as Quid et al explained on earlier pages, the cryptocurrency system that MadCaddy favours doesn't appear to be quite like bitcoin and doesn't even seem internally consistent at all
Oh, really. Very well, then I call a moratorium on those questions. I think it will be better to start with the basics: kindly explain your favoured cryptocurrency, and how it works.
In what instance? Do you feel greenbacks are the best form of currency for a government to use for taxation purposes?
OH GOD WHY DOES EVERYTHING I ASK YOU BECOME A DEMAND FOR ME TO DEFEND THE STATUS QUO AND/OR TOTALITARIAN STATE
Because I need to understand why you think it's superior to crypto-currencies in your view, I've already stated why I think crypto-currencies are superior several times in this thread. I've also asked you fi you agree with the paper you cited, in that their model failed due to the inaccuracy of their available metrics, and lack of solid definitions on certain quants.
i'm not asking whether you think cryptocurrencies are inferior or superior
i'm asking you to explain how it works
in the increasingly futile hope that it becomes more than a label to be slotted in the Good or Bad box
Oh, really. Very well, then I call a moratorium on those questions. I think it will be better to start with the basics: kindly explain your favoured cryptocurrency, and how it works.
In what instance? Do you feel greenbacks are the best form of currency for a government to use for taxation purposes?
Is that the problem you think cryptocurrency should solve?
For one thing, I'm pretty sure nobody anywhere pays their taxes in actual physical cash in the first place.
This is false. You pay your taxes in Australian Dollars, much as Americans pay in USD. Even though they're just digits on a computer, or deducted before you get access to it, doesn't mean you're not paying taxes in terms of greenbacks. Crypto-currency doesn't equal a debit/credit card system, and a government backed crypto-currency would allow you to pay your taxes in the same way you can do so by USD now. I highly recommend you read the Mathematicians defense of bitcoin that I linked upthread that was from PBS.
The point is that you need to explain why a crypto-currency would be better than the status quo, because the assumption is that the status quo is the best, that's why it is the status quo.
Oh, really. Very well, then I call a moratorium on those questions. I think it will be better to start with the basics: kindly explain your favoured cryptocurrency, and how it works.
In what instance? Do you feel greenbacks are the best form of currency for a government to use for taxation purposes?
OH GOD WHY DOES EVERYTHING I ASK YOU BECOME A DEMAND FOR ME TO DEFEND THE STATUS QUO AND/OR TOTALITARIAN STATE
Because I need to understand why you think it's superior to crypto-currencies in your view, I've already stated why I think crypto-currencies are superior several times in this thread. I've also asked you fi you agree with the paper you cited, in that their model failed due to the inaccuracy of their available metrics, and lack of solid definitions on certain quants.
i'm not asking whether you think cryptocurrencies are inferior or superior
i'm asking you to explain how it works
in the increasingly futile hope that it becomes more than a label to be slotted in the Good or Bad box
What does this mean?
And I have already explained crypto-currency upthread and cited further media sources for detailed analysis on it from PBS.
Oh, really. Very well, then I call a moratorium on those questions. I think it will be better to start with the basics: kindly explain your favoured cryptocurrency, and how it works.
In what instance? Do you feel greenbacks are the best form of currency for a government to use for taxation purposes?
OH GOD WHY DOES EVERYTHING I ASK YOU BECOME A DEMAND FOR ME TO DEFEND THE STATUS QUO AND/OR TOTALITARIAN STATE
Because I need to understand why you think it's superior to crypto-currencies in your view, I've already stated why I think crypto-currencies are superior several times in this thread. I've also asked you fi you agree with the paper you cited, in that their model failed due to the inaccuracy of their available metrics, and lack of solid definitions on certain quants.
i'm not asking whether you think cryptocurrencies are inferior or superior
i'm asking you to explain how it works
in the increasingly futile hope that it becomes more than a label to be slotted in the Good or Bad box
What does this mean?
And I have already explained crypto-currency upthread and cited further media sources for detailed analysis on it from PBS.
the bolded is a cry of despair directed at the laughing gods, not at you, I am afraid. Feel free to ignore it.
As for cryptocurrency, I would like you to explain your favoured model in your own words.
(1) it is not necessary to choose between prohibiting Congressmen from owning any stocks or bonds at all, or letting them free rein to insider-trade based on changes in government policy. The usual response to the self-evident conflict of interest, in other countries, is to require policymaking elected offices and senior civil servants to place their assets in a blind trust.
Regulation can then assure that the blind trust is suitably diversified; thanks to (heh) the Chicago economics that @MadCaddy is quite aware of, we can generally expect a blind trust to hold mostly index funds, and we would be rightly suspicious if it did not.
(2) on earmarks: duly observe that an outlook like this:
Except that earmarks, in the vast majority of cases, aren't graft. A congresscritter pushing for the federal government to give a museum in their district a $1M grant is is performing the job for which their constituency duly elected them to do.
is quite coherent, but it also highlights why Americans will probably not appreciate non-geographic-seat proportional representation systems. More than a century after the Civil War, Americans are still not quite sure whether they are electing a national assembly, or electing a local representative toward a national assembly. And, as the dispute over earmarks demonstrates, you cannot comfortably compromise between both systems.
And again, I'm more of a Hayeking with a preference for a demand style economic model, a form of Monetary policy neither party endorses. I think the future is in crypto-currency and global finance, and the government should use it, and it could use it, if it'd do away with unneeded entitlements and forced morality, learning nothing from Prohibition, or the war on drugs, and what has happened to the legalized tobacco industry. The US also is the most inefficient regulator of new pharmaceuticals and spends the most per capita for healthcare for a middling ranking internationally, all of which could be fixed with a few simple changes to the forms entitlements take and changes in the overall welfare system.
There's a kind of libertarian who doesn't really give a damn about the content of the theories they support, but basically pursue buzzword bingo: if Wingnut A and Moonbat B both condemn something we don't like (taxes! liberals! Keynesians! Democrats!), then everything A and B say must combine to be something good.
This makes sense only if Good and Bad economic policy was neatly dichotomous, but regrettably this is not the case.
Specifically, you cannot combine the efficient markets of Chicago with Hayek, especially not on monetary policy. Hayekian cycles explicitly rely on intertemporal disequilibrium because investors cannot see the real interest rate from the nominal interest rate. Hayekian investors are, in short, systematically wrong.
Worse, neither of these are 'demand-style'. Both intrinsically imply that the action goes on in the supply side. They don't even give you any instruments to use on the demand side. Cryptocurrency doesn't give you any monetary policy levers at all! 'Demand-style' rhetoric is however popular with populist conservatives, who are painfully aware that supply-side anything sounds oddly elitist and handwavy to suspicious cultural conservatives, who never really liked the moral excesses of Wall St. to begin with, and who grew up in the Keynesian era and are nostalgic for its ideas.
A government backed crypto currency would be better than greenbacks because of the log. This log is what would cut down on the shadow economy, basically since it's the financial equivalent of a phone's metadata. With a crypto currency as the governments central currencies, computers could be in charge of most of the audits, and again, be inherently more efficient. I'm not saying the only currency should be bitcoin or bitcoin equivalents, I'm saying the federal government should take notes from what it's learned about the money supply, and quit making states social issues their problem, and have a single logging national currency so they can follow interstate and international commerce, even for "cash" purchases.
When I get a chance I'll write out the theory I had, but basically if it wasn't for privacy concerns, improper use of the records, a treasury controlled crypto currency would be intrinsically better for matters of taxation, knowledge of money supply and prevention of laundering, as well as put a severe hindrance on the shadow economy.
The above quoted is from page 3, and there was more after that. Read the PBS articles about what crypto-currencies are, and how they work. Basically, my argument for a government backed crypto-currency is akin to arguing for paper money instead of coinage. The biggest difference is that they're all fiat now.
this is like explaining how a car works by writing down a list of all the places a car will allow you to visit
I've also answered this upthread in the post with the differences between private money, and public money, but here's a few quotes from the articles I link (that I guess you don't even bother reading, so yea, citing seems like a great call on here.)
Zvi has a finance professor's problems with Bitcoin, which echo those of some of our commenters. I asked him to share them briefly with our readers.
Zvi Bodie: I think that there is something unique about Bitcoin that NYU economic historian Richard Sylla did not mention, at least not in the broadcast story. Paper money has value if a functioning government will honor it in payment for taxes. Thus U.S. dollars serve as currency, but Confederate dollars do not.
Credit cards are also accepted as money, but only when a third party verifies them and guarantees ultimate payment.
Then there is gold, whose physical properties give it value independent from its use in settling transactions.
But bitcoins seem to have no independent source of value other than that a group of digital experts have agreed to accept them. So far, it may be working. But the exchange rate between dollars and bitcoins has already proved far from stable, suggesting that there is only one reliable moral to the story: Caveat investor.
Paul Solman: As usual, we agree with Zvi. But the Bitcoin evangelists are a fascinating flock that we found well worth listening to. So we're going to share some of their interviews with us in greater detail than we had time for on the broadcast.
As part of our Bitcoin interview series, here's Charles Hoskinson, a Colorado-based technology entrepreneur and mathematician who attended the University of Colorado, Boulder, to study analytic number theory in graduate school before moving into cryptography and social network theory. He describes his current focus as "evangelism and education for Bitcoin and fully homomorphic encryption schemes."
He is the director of the Bitcoin Education Project and chief executive officer of Invictus Innovations Incorporated (a Virginia based "peer-to-peer" technology company).
Paul Solman: Explain how Bitcoin works now. This is computers, hacking, encryption... why would this be more secure than gold?
Charles Hoskinson: You start with something that not even the National Security Agency or the federal government can break and deal with. Let's build a money system on it. So we have this thing called a block and it contains a bunch of bitcoins and you mine that. A block contains all the transactions that have occurred up until that point. And every 10 minutes a new one is created. They stack on top of each other and they create what's called a block chain.
And this is so incredible because for the first time in history, every transaction made with Bitcoin is known. The block chain is like a global ledger. If you buy something today with Bitcoin, for the rest of time, as long as the Bitcoin network is supported, that transaction is going to be known and archived. So whatever bitcoins you assert that you have, we can see where they were created in the block chain and all the way to your address. That record must exist and everybody in the network has a copy, not just a bank or some credit institution -- everybody who has the client has the copy of the block chain.
Paul Solman: But you don't know it's me.
Charles Hoskinson: Exactly -- that's the beauty of the system.
Paul Solman: But how can you be sure that people won't decrypt what you all can encrypt?
Charles Hoskinson: Well, if that were the case, we'd have bigger problems because all of our passwords would be vulnerable; people could break bank encryption; the secret communications the NSA uses and the government uses would all be decryptable. I'm a cryptographer and a mathematician. We and the U.S. government, and the world as a whole, has trust in the cryptography that's used in Bitcoin. And it involves what's called a public-key cryptosystem. So you have a public address that you can expose to the whole world but then you have this private address that only you know. You have to have the private address to spend your money. To receive money, you can just give out your public address, and that's safe and secure. It's the way key exchanges work between you and your bank or you and Amazon.
Paul Solman: But I've got a million passwords I have to keep...
Charles Hoskinson: You don't have to know that; the software takes care of all of that for you. So the cryptography has been made very simple by modern-day software.
Paul Solman: But you could see how I would be scared, as a user, that somebody would be able to hack my Bitcoin account and just take them all away and I would never know.
Charles Hoskinson: Okay, well let's do a compare and contrast with credit cards and Bitcoin. A credit card is really like a secret key into your financial life. If you hand somebody your credit card, they at any time can charge money to that account, right? With Bitcoin, it's a one time access to an amount of money that you have decided. That's kind of the difference. So you have the same ability to transact online as you do with credit cards, but the difference is that a credit card is unlimited; as long as they have your credit card they can use it, whereas Bitcoin is one time access and for as many funds as you've decided for that particular transaction.
Paul Solman: So why am I not safer to have, I don't know, gold in a safety deposit box?
Charles Hoskinson: Within a few years, with a lot of the innovation that's being done, just with your cell phone, with really strong Department-of-Defense style cryptography, you'll be able to go anywhere in the world and spend your bitcoins. So you have basically the same store of value mechanism of gold, but the transactability of credit cards with even more security layered on top, and that's why we really think Bitcoin is special.
Paul Solman: How much of this activity is an attempt to avoid taxes?
Charles Hoskinson: It's up to the consumer and to the individual to decide whether to pay their taxes, and if people don't want to pay their taxes, they're not going to pay. They're going to deal in a cash-only economy. The (difference between) Bitcoin (and) traditional payment foils is that there's no middle man, so when you have middlemen like PayPal or banks and when you get above a certain point of money, that has to be reported to the government. And that's set by the Patriot Act.
But with Bitcoin, what's really unique is that it's impossible for anybody to really understand how much money you're making. So over time, if Bitcoin becomes very popular, what we'll probably see happen is increasing consumption taxes and decreasing income taxes because it will become less feasible to actually understand how much money people are making, particularly because of the global nature of the money.
Paul Solman: Isn't this a way of making money laundering a lot easier?
Charles Hoskinson: In terms of making it easier for financial crimes, yes, there's some avenues that could be exploited; there's avenues that can be exploited with cash. And just like the Internet can be used for bad things, like terrorist activity or child pornography, Bitcoin could be used for bad things -- for example, funding rogue states like Iran or North Korea, but it also revolutionizes commerce. You kind of have to take the good with the bad, and the government has the ability and it is building great tools and good regulations to try to mitigate those money laundering concerns.
Remember, the key here is that if you're a criminal network, you get paid initially in Bitcoin, but right now you can't buy a lot of things, so at some point you want to offload that for your sovereign currency. So if you're in Europe, you want to have Euros. If you're in the United States, you want U.S. dollars. Well, how do you convert it? It's very hard to convert it without using an exchange, and if they regulate the exchanges, they can make it very difficult for people to silently convert their money.
are you advocating the use of bitcoin for the choice of cryptocurrency, or are you advocating some unspecified cryptocurrency alternative (perhaps with the state possessing a generating key and central servers?) which will avoid bitcoin's particular faults
if you are committed to bitcoin, I will take it that you are prepared to discuss bitcoin's particular flaws
are you advocating the use of bitcoin for the choice of cryptocurrency, or are you advocating some unspecified cryptocurrency alternative (perhaps with the state possessing a generating key and central servers?) which will avoid bitcoin's particular faults
if you are committed to bitcoin, I will take it that you are prepared to discuss bitcoin's particular flaws
I have said already I'm not advocating for bitcoin in anyway, I'm advocating for the process of a designed crypto-currency that would be superior to cash, that if the government accepted to pay taxes, would be the same as cash.
are you advocating the use of bitcoin for the choice of cryptocurrency, or are you advocating some unspecified cryptocurrency alternative (perhaps with the state possessing a generating key and central servers?) which will avoid bitcoin's particular faults
if you are committed to bitcoin, I will take it that you are prepared to discuss bitcoin's particular flaws
I have said already I'm not advocating for bitcoin in anyway, I'm advocating for the process of a designed crypto-currency that would be superior to cash, that if the government accepted to pay taxes, would be the same as cash.
As you guys have noticed in the bitcoin thread, bitcoins anonymity isn't as great as people make it out to be, especially with what's involved in spending them. The real beauty is just the cost of manufacture once infrastructure is implemented, and the efficiency allowed for forensic auditing if the government is the backer of the currency. It also makes certain types of taxation much easier to implement, and crib shadow banking heavily.
are you advocating the use of bitcoin for the choice of cryptocurrency, or are you advocating some unspecified cryptocurrency alternative (perhaps with the state possessing a generating key and central servers?) which will avoid bitcoin's particular faults
if you are committed to bitcoin, I will take it that you are prepared to discuss bitcoin's particular flaws
I have said already I'm not advocating for bitcoin in anyway, I'm advocating for the process of a designed crypto-currency that would be superior to cash, that if the government accepted to pay taxes, would be the same as cash.
How would it be superior to cash?
Go to page 3, if you still have questions, please quote and I'll answer. We've already discussed this, and I've just reiterated the big points.
are you advocating the use of bitcoin for the choice of cryptocurrency, or are you advocating some unspecified cryptocurrency alternative (perhaps with the state possessing a generating key and central servers?) which will avoid bitcoin's particular faults
if you are committed to bitcoin, I will take it that you are prepared to discuss bitcoin's particular flaws
I have said already I'm not advocating for bitcoin in anyway, I'm advocating for the process of a designed crypto-currency that would be superior to cash, that if the government accepted to pay taxes, would be the same as cash.
How would it be superior to cash?
Go to page 3, if you still have questions, please quote and I'll answer. We've already discussed this, and I've just reiterated the big points.
How would it be superior to cash and how would it work?
How would the log work, in real-time?
Why doesn't the idea of the government being able to track all transactions give them too much power?
As you guys have noticed in the bitcoin thread, bitcoins anonymity isn't as great as people make it out to be, especially with what's involved in spending them. The real beauty is just the cost of manufacture once infrastructure is implemented, and the efficiency allowed for forensic auditing if the government is the backer of the currency. It also makes certain types of taxation much easier to implement, and crib shadow banking heavily.
bitcoin would not permit easy forensics, it would not permit easy tax collection, and it would not curb shadow banking
there, I've crossed out some of the destinations on your list of places your car will go. This has advanced the argument exactly nothing because you have still not provided an explanation, you have provided a fanciful description of all the things your crypotocurrency-that-is-not-bitcoin will do
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Oh, really. Very well, then I call a moratorium on those questions. I think it will be better to start with the basics: kindly explain your favoured cryptocurrency, and how it works.
In what instance? Do you feel greenbacks are the best form of currency for a government to use for taxation purposes?
Is that the problem you think cryptocurrency should solve?
For one thing, I'm pretty sure nobody anywhere pays their taxes in actual physical cash in the first place.
I once mailed the IRS $7 in loose change to cover the extra tax obligation.
I feel the State is just another defacto arm of oppression, and in no way truly creates fully functioning citizens to operate in Smith's "nation of shopkeepers", or Jefferson's 'self-sustaining farmers' (please don't start the slavery debate), and I feel a big part of this is the TREMENDOUS consolidation of power that has occurred, and the under representation per capita in Congress. I, also, feel the executive has had FAR too much power (I think Obama has been a good-decent president, I actually wish he would've had more chutzpah for pushing for hard left policy just to really put it to the test with his first term run of the government, and I don't understand why he didn't force single payer.)
The State is just another defacto arm of oppression. That's because anarchism is fucking stupid and unproductive and leads to an awful lot of awful things.
Jefferson's views of a perfect society developed before industrialization, and so resembles exactly no state on earth. His ideals died with the importation of the spinning jenny and some unnamed genius's idea to couple it to a waterwheel. Also, subsistence farming fucking sucks. If you disagree with that I would point you to large swathes of Africa.
I assume you're referring to consolidation of power in the federal government? Let me help you out: State government is without exception fucking terrible. It is vastly more feckless and corrupt than federal government because it doesn't have the same visibility. (What's the name of your state house rep? Did you know it before I asked? Odds are very low.)
Your conception of the Presidency is very odd. Obama has no way of "forcing" Congress to do anything at all that it doesn't want to save actually sitting in the chairs. Single-Payer was a nonstarter in the Senate; it simply wasn't going to happen with Lieberman needed to pass anything.
As you guys have noticed in the bitcoin thread, bitcoins anonymity isn't as great as people make it out to be, especially with what's involved in spending them. The real beauty is just the cost of manufacture once infrastructure is implemented, and the efficiency allowed for forensic auditing if the government is the backer of the currency. It also makes certain types of taxation much easier to implement, and crib shadow banking heavily.
bitcoin would not permit easy forensics, it would not permit easy tax collection, and it would not curb shadow banking
there, I've crossed out some of the destinations on your list of places your car will go. This has advanced the argument exactly nothing because you have still not provided an explanation, you have provided a fanciful description of all the things your crypotocurrency-that-is-not-bitcoin will do
Why? Why can a crypto-currency not be designed to the specifications I've mentioned? It would be like programming any sort of intricate clearinghouse/exchange, and so any controls could be put in place.
Why it would not give the government too much control is because of my states rights' views, and the states not being the controller of the currency. That was what this thread was about, how the government power of the land has floated to federally ever since reconstruction, and I feel it's to blame for a lot of our lingering issues, and stagnant recovery. Have you noticed how a lot of high GDP states are blue, while most of the welfare states are red?
There is also the questions of the recent 60 minutes piece, and the previous one that got action put forth in congress right quick, and this newer piece just goes to show that the designers of the system will know all the loopholes.
I feel the State is just another defacto arm of oppression, and in no way truly creates fully functioning citizens to operate in Smith's "nation of shopkeepers", or Jefferson's 'self-sustaining farmers' (please don't start the slavery debate), and I feel a big part of this is the TREMENDOUS consolidation of power that has occurred, and the under representation per capita in Congress. I, also, feel the executive has had FAR too much power (I think Obama has been a good-decent president, I actually wish he would've had more chutzpah for pushing for hard left policy just to really put it to the test with his first term run of the government, and I don't understand why he didn't force single payer.)
The State is just another defacto arm of oppression. That's because anarchism is fucking stupid and unproductive and leads to an awful lot of awful things.
Jefferson's views of a perfect society developed before industrialization, and so resembles exactly no state on earth. His ideals died with the importation of the spinning jenny and some unnamed genius's idea to couple it to a waterwheel. Also, subsistence farming fucking sucks. If you disagree with that I would point you to large swathes of Africa.
I assume you're referring to consolidation of power in the federal government? Let me help you out: State government is without exception fucking terrible. It is vastly more feckless and corrupt than federal government because it doesn't have the same visibility. (What's the name of your state house rep? Did you know it before I asked? Odds are very low.)
Your conception of the Presidency is very odd. Obama has no way of "forcing" Congress to do anything at all that it doesn't want to save actually sitting in the chairs. Single-Payer was a nonstarter in the Senate; it simply wasn't going to happen with Lieberman needed to pass anything.
I didn't articulate my side well with some of the conclusions you reached, and I take full responsibility due to the fragmented nature of this thread, and how sporadic it's been. I should have kept it on topic strictly to the Peter Schweizer stuff, as the more we dilute the conversation, the harder it will be for me to make coherent arguments without spending exceptional amounts of time getting more citations, and doing the usual academic paper writing.
I do not think the President can force the Congress to do anything, I think he can lead, and I think he could have gotten single payer if he wanted it bad enough with how he entered the presidency, but I still like the Affordable Care Act, and think it was long past due.
I don't think people should be subsistence farmers, I think they should be free citizens, with a guaranteed welfare (akin to the amount it would cost to imprison them), and that each State should decide the type of economy it wants to run (which has been a very basic tenet of our government since the beginning.) I do think the federal government should intervene if states do not follow through on Federally guaranteed rights, or enforce federal tariffs (Nullification, Kennedy calling the guard) and should have control of all states suzerainty.
Posts
e: this works too
You need to learn that the original monopolies were state-sponsored, look into Ma Bell, as well as Chaebol's for a good example of a modern state sponsored monopoly, and don't get me started on the Chinese system and its corruption. There are laws against monopolies for private citizens, google anti-trust or trust buster and you'll see the original thrust of the argument that broke up Standard Oil, and get an idea of the legal precedent for the action.
I feel the State is just another defacto arm of oppression, and in no way truly creates fully functioning citizens to operate in Smith's "nation of shopkeepers", or Jefferson's 'self-sustaining farmers' (please don't start the slavery debate), and I feel a big part of this is the TREMENDOUS consolidation of power that has occurred, and the under representation per capita in Congress. I, also, feel the executive has had FAR too much power (I think Obama has been a good-decent president, I actually wish he would've had more chutzpah for pushing for hard left policy just to really put it to the test with his first term run of the government, and I don't understand why he didn't force single payer.)
I don't understand why he didn't force single payer.
:psyduck:
A : I didn't watch it because I am not American. That episode will not be shown for several months over here and I can't use the link to stream the episode. So there is no way to for me to know what the 60 minutes story said.
B : 60 Minutes is not an academic source. Its a news program. A respected highly valued news program, but not a peer reviewed academic source of information.
C : MAKE YOUR OWN FUCKING ARGUMENTS! Remember what we said about posting links and essentially saying "these guys make my argument for me, so if you want to debate read/watch every link I say and then respond to me". You are doing it again. It may only be 1 link and it may only be 60 minutes, but its still linkspamming instead of arguing. Because:
D : If you can't be bothered/lack the ability to form your own argument in your own words, then you probably don't know enough about the issue to be worthwhile debating. Which is basically what we been telling you for the last 6 pages. Your lack the ability to even make us understand what you are arguing about, much less for.
Why do you think a nation of small bourgeosie (or, for that matter, yeoman farmers) is desirable?
What are you talking about? Give me a link that isn't a pdf to the Leontief-BLS paper I can c/p from without breaking copyright, and I'll be glad to pull up more of the points in the paper I'd like you to clarify what you were trying to prove with, and I did cite exactly where I had my major question and mentioned what they found to be the flaw in their model, and asked you if you agreed or disagreed with that conclusion, and you hedged.
Please, let me understand how you would like this debate to take place, and can we start from a position of treating one another as equals instead of you accusing me of credulousness and being some under informed rube? I've read most of the papers you've linked already from when I was first getting interested in the economy, and have just kept up with the more modern economic landscape in the world of the International Economy. I also have read each and every link you've provided that I hadn't already, and would be glad to go into a lenghty debate with you over them, but just am not sure what you're trying to counter that I've argued from the papers you link. Please cite me the particular excerpts or give me an idea where they are, and I'll be glad to show you how that is dated, especially since most of the papers you've linked are from the days before the internet, and big data.
This isn't academia, this is a debate and discussion forum. I'm not trying to write my manifesto, as I don't have a grant to do so. I was just looking to spark debate on the topic with people I respect, which is true for most of the folks around here. I just feel there's a blind spot here to honest graft, and the corruption of government, and I have cited several examples in the recent years, and historically to defend my side. I don't understand what sort of arguments you expect me to make if citing historical instances, convictions and investigative journalistic pieces on the matter that have already had an immediate impact the last time a similar episode aired (and let's not forget what 60 minutes did as far as the smoking tort, ala The Insider. Which is a damn fine movie.)
I'd be happy to draw up rules for a formal debate, and we could even have a panel of judges and an entry fee to be won by the winner, as I've put a lot of thought into my side and would be more than happy to write it out.. I just don't have the sort of time to justly articulate and produce a document summarizing all these sources, without some sort of grant, or wager, so I felt I'd just provide them and see if anyone had recent articles, and what people's feelings were on Peter Schweizer, and why they feel research out of the Hoover Institute is Austrian dogma.
I also want to know why ronya thinks economics and physics are related in anyway, or if it was just a loose simile that makes his discipline seem much more 'hard' than it really is, and then wouldn't enter the debate I provided to help him elucidate his side for that comparison in the realm of physics.
I am not here to play your imagined podcast jester. If you actually care about cryptocurrencies and shadow banking and their role in monetary policy, I would suggest spending more time thinking about how these would actually mesh together. I explained mainstream policy instruments and goals. That is your cue to explain your own favoured 'Hayekian demand-side economy' instruments and goals. That is why this is a forum, you actually must give replies to the posts other people have made, not signal a cue for a fool to dance on stage before the curtain call.
I did not ignore it. I asked you why, with your interpretation of Bretton Woods, you felt Nixon Shock occurred, and what your opinion of the legacy of those events was. Then asked you specific questions about the power of the IMF SDR's, which you promptly ignored and cited a 13 page paper to me saying I'm so naive, that I had read already many moon ago.
There has been only one person in this back and forth calling the other under informed, or understudied, and I am completely sincere in my offer of drawing up rules for a formal debate with stakes on the matter to give me incentive to truly articulate them, as well as you since you are so sure in the righteousness of your side and its facts.
Please, clarify to me how you would like this debate to go forth, and please, answer my questions about the Leontief-BLS paper you cited, if SDR's need more power, and if Bretton Woods not accepting the bancor was the right decision.
I think one of the best moves the president did, as far as precedent is concerned, was letting Congress vote on Syria.. I think one of his biggest fuck ups was by dithering on the stimulus, and not using his carte blanche to inject quicker and more to give liquidity to get the credit markets flowing/give a Bush style check to every citizen to stimulate demand for a short period, especially if given around 4th of July or Thanksgiving.
In what instance? Do you feel greenbacks are the best form of currency for a government to use for taxation purposes?
FUK U
Since you're citing your academic sources, and my citation of similar isn't allowable, I'd like us to draw up formal rules for the debate, and definitely put some skin in the game. You have the backing of the majority of PA, so I'm sure you could crowdsource some of it, and there are very many legal avenues we could pursue to get fair and impartial arbitration.. Hell, I'd even be willing to fly to Cambridge if you'd liike.
OH GOD WHY DOES EVERYTHING I ASK YOU BECOME A DEMAND FOR ME TO DEFEND THE STATUS QUO AND/OR TOTALITARIAN STATE
Is that the problem you think cryptocurrency should solve?
For one thing, I'm pretty sure nobody anywhere pays their taxes in actual physical cash in the first place.
Because I need to understand why you think it's superior to crypto-currencies in your view, I've already stated why I think crypto-currencies are superior several times in this thread. I've also asked you fi you agree with the paper you cited, in that their model failed due to the inaccuracy of their available metrics, and lack of solid definitions on certain quants.
it's quite difficult to nail down the specifics here, because as Quid et al explained on earlier pages, the cryptocurrency system that MadCaddy favours doesn't appear to be quite like bitcoin and doesn't even seem internally consistent at all
so, we don't know how this cryptocurrency works
i'm not asking whether you think cryptocurrencies are inferior or superior
i'm asking you to explain how it works
in the increasingly futile hope that it becomes more than a label to be slotted in the Good or Bad box
This is false. You pay your taxes in Australian Dollars, much as Americans pay in USD. Even though they're just digits on a computer, or deducted before you get access to it, doesn't mean you're not paying taxes in terms of greenbacks. Crypto-currency doesn't equal a debit/credit card system, and a government backed crypto-currency would allow you to pay your taxes in the same way you can do so by USD now. I highly recommend you read the Mathematicians defense of bitcoin that I linked upthread that was from PBS.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
What does this mean?
And I have already explained crypto-currency upthread and cited further media sources for detailed analysis on it from PBS.
the bolded is a cry of despair directed at the laughing gods, not at you, I am afraid. Feel free to ignore it.
As for cryptocurrency, I would like you to explain your favoured model in your own words.
The above quoted is from page 3, and there was more after that. Read the PBS articles about what crypto-currencies are, and how they work. Basically, my argument for a government backed crypto-currency is akin to arguing for paper money instead of coinage. The biggest difference is that they're all fiat now.
I've also answered this upthread in the post with the differences between private money, and public money, but here's a few quotes from the articles I link (that I guess you don't even bother reading, so yea, citing seems like a great call on here.)
if you are committed to bitcoin, I will take it that you are prepared to discuss bitcoin's particular flaws
I have said already I'm not advocating for bitcoin in anyway, I'm advocating for the process of a designed crypto-currency that would be superior to cash, that if the government accepted to pay taxes, would be the same as cash.
How would it be superior to cash?
Go to page 3, if you still have questions, please quote and I'll answer. We've already discussed this, and I've just reiterated the big points.
How would it be superior to cash and how would it work?
How would the log work, in real-time?
Why doesn't the idea of the government being able to track all transactions give them too much power?
How would it work?
bitcoin would not permit easy forensics, it would not permit easy tax collection, and it would not curb shadow banking
there, I've crossed out some of the destinations on your list of places your car will go. This has advanced the argument exactly nothing because you have still not provided an explanation, you have provided a fanciful description of all the things your crypotocurrency-that-is-not-bitcoin will do
Fuck it.
The State is just another defacto arm of oppression. That's because anarchism is fucking stupid and unproductive and leads to an awful lot of awful things.
Jefferson's views of a perfect society developed before industrialization, and so resembles exactly no state on earth. His ideals died with the importation of the spinning jenny and some unnamed genius's idea to couple it to a waterwheel. Also, subsistence farming fucking sucks. If you disagree with that I would point you to large swathes of Africa.
I assume you're referring to consolidation of power in the federal government? Let me help you out: State government is without exception fucking terrible. It is vastly more feckless and corrupt than federal government because it doesn't have the same visibility. (What's the name of your state house rep? Did you know it before I asked? Odds are very low.)
Your conception of the Presidency is very odd. Obama has no way of "forcing" Congress to do anything at all that it doesn't want to save actually sitting in the chairs. Single-Payer was a nonstarter in the Senate; it simply wasn't going to happen with Lieberman needed to pass anything.
Why? Why can a crypto-currency not be designed to the specifications I've mentioned? It would be like programming any sort of intricate clearinghouse/exchange, and so any controls could be put in place.
Why it would not give the government too much control is because of my states rights' views, and the states not being the controller of the currency. That was what this thread was about, how the government power of the land has floated to federally ever since reconstruction, and I feel it's to blame for a lot of our lingering issues, and stagnant recovery. Have you noticed how a lot of high GDP states are blue, while most of the welfare states are red?
There is also the questions of the recent 60 minutes piece, and the previous one that got action put forth in congress right quick, and this newer piece just goes to show that the designers of the system will know all the loopholes.
That's an absurd answer.
I didn't articulate my side well with some of the conclusions you reached, and I take full responsibility due to the fragmented nature of this thread, and how sporadic it's been. I should have kept it on topic strictly to the Peter Schweizer stuff, as the more we dilute the conversation, the harder it will be for me to make coherent arguments without spending exceptional amounts of time getting more citations, and doing the usual academic paper writing.
I do not think the President can force the Congress to do anything, I think he can lead, and I think he could have gotten single payer if he wanted it bad enough with how he entered the presidency, but I still like the Affordable Care Act, and think it was long past due.
I don't think people should be subsistence farmers, I think they should be free citizens, with a guaranteed welfare (akin to the amount it would cost to imprison them), and that each State should decide the type of economy it wants to run (which has been a very basic tenet of our government since the beginning.) I do think the federal government should intervene if states do not follow through on Federally guaranteed rights, or enforce federal tariffs (Nullification, Kennedy calling the guard) and should have control of all states suzerainty.