There’s a great deal of confusion right now about the regulation of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. Many observers seem to confuse “regulation” and “banning bitcoin,” as if regulation amounts to outlawing bitcoin.
Further confusing things is the regulation of cryptocurrency exchanges, where cryptocurrencies are bought and sold.
In China, for example, cryptocurrencies are not outlawed, but exchanges were shut down until regulators could get a handle on how to deal with the potential for excesses such as fraud, misrepresentation, etc.
A Wild West free-for-all is conducive to scammers, and so some thoughtful regulation that protects users is to be welcomed.
Governments tax income and capital gains. This is how they fund their activities. Clearly, gains reaped from cryptocurrencies are no different from gains reaped from other speculations and investments, so they should be recorded and taxed in the same manner.
Some enthusiasts of cryptocurrencies seem to think that regulations requiring the reporting and taxation of gains made buying and selling cryptocurrencies is tantamount to destroying cryptocurrencies.
I think this view has it backwards: fully legalizing and regulating cryptocurrencies as financial instruments legitimizes them in a much wider circle of potential users, and common-sense regulations are to be encouraged and welcomed, not viewed as threats to cryptocurrencies.
I want to stress that beneath all the speculative frenzy we see in the cryptocurrencies, what will retain value and remain scarce and in demand is whatever solves problems.
Cryptocurrencies have the potential to solve two problems:
1. reducing the cost and friction of financial intermediaries.
2. holding value as the $250 trillion in phantom wealth created in the asset bubbles of the past 12 years vanishes.
These are real problems: financial intermediaries introduce a great amount of friction and cost globally, and even a modest reduction in cost and friction (time, effort, compliance, recording transactions, etc.) would add up very quickly.
The global value of real estate, stocks, bonds and debt-assets such as mortgages and auto loans is around $500 trillion. By my rough estimate, about half of this was created in the past 12 years as central banks inflated enormous bubbles.
A house that was worth $200,000 in 2005 is now worth $500,000, but it provides no additional value as shelter; it is the exact same house with the exact same utility value. So the additional $300,000 of current market value is entirely phantom wealth.
The same can be said of all the other assets whose value has skyrocketed: the underlying assets/collateral haven’t changed enough to justify the current valuations.
Once the bubbles in stocks, bonds, housing, commercial real estate and debt-assets start popping, the owners of all that phantom wealth will be desperate to sell what is dropping in value and convert that wealth into assets that are either holding their value or appreciating.
Virtually all of this newly created financial “wealth” is ephemeral. Bitcoin et al. are routinely criticized as being “worthless” due to their digital/ephemeral nature.
But critics rarely if ever examine the equally ephemeral nature of $250 trillion in financial “wealth.”
Bitcoin in particular has two features which may be viewed as having value as all these coordinated bubbles pop:
1. The organization and distribution of bitcoin is mathematical. It is not something that can be changed at the whim of a handful of self-serving people in a room (i.e. central bankers).
2. It is limited in quantity.
Some critics claim this can be changed, but that’s not the way it works. A group of bitcoin miners can propose a new version of bitcoin that will issue a trillion coins, but if nobody supports their new version, it dies.
In other words, the marketplace of users decides what has value and what doesn’t.
Regulations that enable cryptocurrencies to solve the two problems listed above should be welcomed, as these problems are structural and impact everyone in some fashion.
Nations that attempt to limit cryptocurrencies’ ability to solve these problems will find that protecting high costs and systemic friction will grind their economies into dust.
I’m offering my new book Money and Work Unchained at a 10% discount ($8.95 for the Kindle ebook and $18 for the print edition) through December, after which the price goes up to retail ($9.95 and $20).
If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
Vía Max Keiser http://ift.tt/2CzLK8L
A key pillar of the Russia-gate affair is the assumption that Russia’s leaders wanted to stop Hillary Clinton and boost Donald Trump, but the Kremlin’s views on last year’s election were much more nuanced, writes Gilbert Doctorow. By Gilbert Doctorow…Read more →
Vía Consortiumnews http://ift.tt/2CA23T2
Charlie Rose: fall of a Globalist mouthpiece
The abuse and the crimes are real; the media op is different…
By Jon Rappoport
If you had to pick three titans who were promoting Globalism and its new world order, you could scarcely do better than Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and George Soros.
During his reign at PBS, Charlie Rose interviewed them a total of 34 times.
Not only that, Charlie managed never to ask a direct question about the underlying aim of Globalism, and he never elicited a straight response on that subject.
Instead, Charlie’s furry, smarmy, self-congratulatory, oh-so-innocent breathless questions navigated “deep intellectual waters” in the realm of The Abstruse, and you came away from the interviews with a rash and an itch. You were supposed to feel smarter from the experience, but you couldn’t recall what really happened. What was Charlie asking? What were the titans saying? It could have been a parody of high academic fluff. Countries had been mentioned. Crises had been alluded to. The word “solution” occasionally bubbled up.
This was Charlie’s impenetrable style on important subjects.
He was a social hob-nob pro of the first order in New York. Anybody who was anybody wanted to sit down with him and slide into a long-form interview. And he met many of them at cocktail parties on the Upper East Side. He was a kinder gentler magnet for the rich, famous, and fatuous. If you weren’t fatuous before you appeared on his PBS show, you were by the time you were done. Because Charlie pretended everything coming out of his and your mouth was exceedingly Important. He kept pumping fake dead cartoon blood through those televised conversations.
But that’s what “viewer supported” PBS is all about, so it worked. The audience of conscientious liberals demands Disneyesque knock-offs of intellectualism. Everybody congratulates each other, throws a few bucks into the fundraising pot, and goes to sleep.
Charlie was Elmer Fudd who went to Harvard or Yale and got a PhD.
He was a perfect example of many liberals, who listen and talk at parties and begin to pick up on what they’re supposed to believe, if they want to fit in. The interdependence of all nations, the expression of “humanity” through official networks and foundations, the correct charities for serving the disenfranchised, the preferred political candidates, the soft socialism of all good folks, and the absolute need to maintain limousines and high apartments in the best sections of town.
“You should see my doctor, he’s wonderful, here’s the name of my broker, you’ll want to look at these schools for Jimmy, my art dealer can help you, I hope you’ll be out on the Island this summer…”
Charlie stumbled into realizing he could represent these people, and he made it work. He was their mouthpiece, his show was their outlet.
Until it didn’t work anymore. He was hiring young women for his small team, they came to him with great ambition and high intelligence, they knew this could be their big break in a business where plum jobs were at a premium, and he used that torque and control to perform his weird sexual tricks, because he was really a sad sack when it came to women, and because his power seemed like the only card in his deck.
Plus, his act on television was wearing thin. For his friends and betters, he was disposable. No one cared anymore about some nuanced way of selling Globalism to the PBS crowd. Things were moving in a more venal direction: destroy Trump; why didn’t Hillary win; we white people must shame ourselves and grovel because it’s the in-thing to do this year (last year it was owning a Prius); my son is buying fentanyl at his prep school; bombs are going off and cars are slamming into people on city streets and we aren’t allowed to say we know where this is coming from, and we have to get out of town and find a place in the country where we can settle down permanently (why doesn’t Trump just shut down the border without telling anybody)…
So Charlie went down, a casualty in the war. A minor blip on the screen went blank. He’ll now pretend to count his sins while he tries to plot his next move. A mea culpa book? That won’t work. A new independent show on a website? How degrading. He has a law degree—could he represent women who’ve been abused? Ridiculous.
He gets on the phone.
“Could we team up and sell Netflix a show called The Real Deplorables? You know, blame ourselves over and over? Maybe we could make a new art form out of it. ‘There is no bottom’.”
“I don’t think so.”
“How long do we have to weather this thing?”
“I’m guessing ten years.”
“Then we could come back?”
“Maybe. People have short memories. And so much could happen in ten years.”
Maybe that’s true. But for now, the Globalist PBS man who brought the country endless “conversations about conversation” is a vaporous figure in a building media wave of figures who are vanishing, as the op to construct a tsunami and, finally, place Trump at the top, as the prime predator, continues.
“See, we in the media are eating our own, some of the most famous and praised among us. We have that mission and that conscience. You cannot doubt our sincerity. So when we decide to tell you that Trump is the kingpin of this type of sordid behavior, remember Charlie and Matt and all the rest. They are the evidence of our truth-seeking, at any cost…”
Bye for now, Charlie. Take it easy. Raise Chickens, grow avocados. Interview the chickens. You’d be surprised at what they have to say. Their answers aren’t all that different from what Soros and Kissinger laid out to you via their opaque blabber.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Vía Jon Rappoport’s Blog http://ift.tt/2yS0E85
Twitter will begin suspending accounts which engage in “hateful conduct” or affiliate with organizations which “use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes” both on and off the platform, following a November announcement. The new rules apply to whatever Twitter deems “hateful,” including “hateful images or symbols in your profile image or profile header.”
Moreover, Twitter will officially begin restricting “trending” content, to wit:
At times, we may prevent certain content from trending.
While many conservative Twitter users have suffered unfair account suspensions, mysterious drops in retweets and likes on controversial tweets, overnight drops in follower count, and unexplained disappearances of trending topics which paint liberals in a bad light, Twitter’s new rules effectively allow the social media giant to openly engage in censorship without repercussion.
Via Twitter Help Center:
We believe in freedom of expression and open dialogue, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, we prohibit behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice.
Context matters when evaluating for abusive behavior and determining appropriate enforcement actions. Factors we may take into consideration include, but are not limited to whether:
- the behavior is targeted at an individual or group of people;
- the report has been filed by the target of the abuse or a bystander;
- the behavior is newsworthy and in the legitimate public interest.
Violence: You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the serious physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people. This includes, but is not limited to, threatening or promoting terrorism.
You also may not affiliate with organizations that – whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform – use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes.
Abuse: You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else’s voice.
Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.
Hateful imagery and display names: You may not use hateful images or symbols in your profile image or profile header. You also may not use your username, display name, or profile bio to engage in abusive behavior, such as targeted harassment or expressing hate towards a person, group, or protected category.
While Twitter’s new rules are sure to lead to the purge of countless supremacists, you can say goodbye to Pepe the Frog – a cartoon meme made popular during the 2016 election among Trump voters, which the ADL considers to be a hate symbol despite a small percentage of Pepe memes expressing anti-Semitism or bigotry.
If I get booted from Twitter in the purge tomorrow, you’ll be able to find me talking to my kids for once and seeing what it’s like outside.
— Gavin McInnes (@Gavin_McInnes) December 18, 2017
Last month Twitter suspended it’s “blue check mark” verification policy, stating that it will rescind a user’s verified status if a person violates company guidelines. With blue checks having become a status symbol over the years, Twitter thinks the system is flawed and needs an overhaul.
“Our agents have been following our verification policy correctly, but we realized some time ago the system is broken and needs to be reconsidered,” CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted in November. “And we failed by not doing anything about it. Working now to fix faster.”
Verification was meant to authenticate identity & voice but it is interpreted as an endorsement or an indicator of importance. We recognize that we have created this confusion and need to resolve it. We have paused all general verifications while we work and will report back soon
— Twitter Support (@TwitterSupport) November 9, 2017
The announcement was quickly followed by the removal of blue checks from white nationalist Richard Spencer’s account, Unite the Right organizer and former Obama activist Jason Kessler, and conservative Jewish journalist Laura Loomer – who compared the loss of her blue check to the holocaust.
And so it begins. Twitter is quick to call me and others Nazis, but they are literally trying to eradicate my presence. Just like Hitler. https://t.co/qaVWOMKyc0
— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) November 16, 2017
Twitter’s recent changes have sparked a stampede of users to competing social network Gab.ai, “a social network that champions free speech, individual liberty, and the free flow of information online. All are welcome.”
— Jim Mad Dog Maddox (@jimlibertarian) December 18, 2017
Ahead of the #TwitterPurge make sure you follow me on Gab.ai. You can find me DavidVance. (I am verified over there too!) Let’s drain the twitter swamp!
— David Vance (@DVATW) November 27, 2017
— Jared Beck ???? (@JaredBeck) December 17, 2017
— Millie Weaver (@Millie__Weaver) December 18, 2017
At this rate, someday you’ll hop on Gab to tell your grandchildren where you were when the great Twitter purge began.
via Read More Here..
It’s not just the banksters who got a get out of jail free card, who are too big to prosecute. Following two years of inquiry, involving nine US attorneys, Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) officials were foiled in their attempts to hold McKesson, the largest US drugs distributor, appropriately accountable for its role in the opioids crisis. 60 Minutes and the Washington Post and yesterday reported on the results of their joint bombshell investigation into these efforts.
Vía BlackListed News http://ift.tt/2AVw53q