New York Times Kolumnist Krugman sorgt für Abverkauf bei ...

To detect fake news, this AI first learned to write it

One of the biggest problems in media today is so-called “fake news,” which is so highly pernicious in part because it superficially resembles the real thing. AI tools promise to help identify it, but in order for it to do so, researchers have found that the best way is for that AI to learn to create fake news itself — a double-edged sword, though perhaps not as dangerous as it sounds.
_Grover_is a new system created by the University of Washington and Allen Institute for AI (AI2) computer scientists that is extremely adept at writing convincing fake news on myriad topics and as many styles — and as a direct consequence is also no slouch at spotting it. The paper describing the model is available here.
The idea of a fake news generator isn’t new — in fact, OpenAI made a splash recently by announcing that its own text-generating AI was too dangerous to release publicly. But Grover’s creators believe we’ll only get better at fighting generated fake news by putting the tools to create it out there to be studied.
OpenAI built a text generator so good, it’s considered too dangerous to release
“These models are not capable, we think right now, of inflicting serious harm. Maybe in a few years they will be, but not yet,” the lead on the project, Rowan Zeller, told me. “I don’t think it’s too dangerous to release — really, we _need_to release it, specifically to researchers who are studying this problem, so we can build better defenses. We need all these communities, security, machine learning, natural language processing, to talk to each other — we can’t just hide the model, or delete it and pretend it never happened.”
Therefore and to that end, you can try Grover yourself right here. (Though you might want to read the rest of this article first so you know what’s going on.)

Voracious reader

The AI was created by having it ingest an enormous corpus of real news articles, a dataset called RealNews that is being introduced alongside Grover. The 120-gigabyte library contains articles from the end of 2016 through March of this year, from the top 5,000 publications tracked by Google News.
By studying the style and content of millions of real news articles, Grover builds a complex model of how certain phrases or styles are used, what topics and features follow one another in an article, how they’re associated with different outlets, ideas, and so on.
This is done using an “adversarial” system, wherein one aspect of the model generates content and another rates how convincing it is — if it doesn’t meet a threshold, the generator tries again, and eventually it learns what is convincing and what isn’t. Adversarial setups are a powerful force in AI research right now, often being used to create photorealistic imagery from scratch.
Mona Lisa frown: Machine learning brings old paintings and photos to life
It isn’t just spitting out random articles, either. Grover is highly parameterized, meaning its output is highly dependent on input. So if you tell it to create a fake article about a study linking vaccines and autism spectrum disorders, you are also free to specify that the article should seem as if it appeared on CNN, Fox News, or even TechCrunch.
I generated a few articles, which I’ve pasted at the bottom of this one, but here’s the first bit of an example:
Serial entrepreneur Dennis Mangler raises 6M to create blockchain-based drone delivery
May 29, 2019 – Devin Coldewarg
Drone delivery — not so new, and that raises a host of questions: How reliable is the technology? Will service and interference issues flare up?
Drone technology is changing a lot, but its most obvious use — package delivery — has never been perfected on a large scale, much less by a third party. But perhaps that is about to change.
Serial entrepreneur Dennis Mangler has amassed an impressive — by the cybernetic standards of this short-lived and crazy industry — constellation of companies ranging from a top-tier Korean VC to a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon, ranging from a functional drone repair shop to a developer of commercial drone fleets.
But while his last company (Amazon’s Prime Air) folded, he has decided to try his hand at delivery by drone again with Tripperell, a San Francisco-based venture that makes sense of the cryptocurrency token space to create a bridge from blockchain to delivery.
The system they’re building is sound — as described in a new Medium post, it will first use Yaman Yasmine’s current simple crowdsourced drone repair platform, SAA, to create a drone organization that taps into a mix of overseas networks and domestic industry.
From there the founders will form Tripperell, with commercialized drones running on their own smart contracts to make deliveries.
Not bad considering it only took about ten seconds to appear after I gave it the date, domain, my name (ish), and the headline. (I’d probably tweak that lede, but if you think about it, it does sort of make sense.)
Note that it doesn’t actually know who I am, or what TechCrunch is. But it associates certain data with other data. For instance, one example the team offered was an editorial “in the style of,” to co-opt cover bands’ lingo, Paul Krugman’s New York Times editorials.
I don’t think it’s too dangerous to release — really, we need to release it. “There’s nothing hard coded — we haven’t told the model who Paul Krugman is. But it learns from reading a lot,” Zeller told me. The system is just trying to make sure that the generated article is sufficiently like the other data it associates with that domain and author. “And it’s going to learn things like, ‘Paul Krugman’ tends to talk about ‘economics,’ without us telling it that he’s an economist.” It’s hard to say how much it will attempt to affect a given author’s style — that may or may not be something it “noticed,” and AI models are notoriously opaque to analysis. Its style aping goes beyond the author; it even went so far as creating the inter-paragraph “Read more” links in a “Fox News” article I generated.
But this facility in creating articles rests on the ability to tell when an article is not convincing — that’s the “discriminator” that evaluates whether the output of the “generator” is any good. So what happens if you feed the discriminator other stuff? Turns out it’s better than any other AI system right now, at least within the limits of the tasks they tested it on, at determining what’s fake and what’s real.
Fabula AI is using social spread to spot ‘fake news’

Natural language limitations

Naturally Grover is best at detecting its own fake articles, since in a way the agent knows its own processes. But it can also detect those made by other models, such as OpenAI’s GPT2, with high accuracy. This is because current text-generation systems share certain weaknesses, and with a few examples those weaknesses become even more obvious to the discriminator.
“These models have to make one of two bad choices. The first bad option is you just trust the model,” Zeller said. In this case, you get a sort of error-compounding issue where a single bad choice, which is inevitable given the number of choices it has to make, leads to another bad one, and another, and so on; “Without supervision they often just go off the rails.”
“The other choice is to play it a bit safer,” Zeller explained, citing OpenAI’s decision to have the generator create dozens of options and pick the most likely one. This conservative approach avoids unlikely word combinations or phrases — but as Zeller points out, “human speech is a mix of high probability and low probability words. If I knew what you were going to tell me, you wouldn’t be speaking. So there have to be some things that are hard to anticipate.”
These and other habits in text generation algorithms make it possible for Grover to identify generated articles with 92 percent accuracy.
And no, you’re very clever, but you can’t just take the ones it doesn’t detect and sort of breed them together to make more convincing ones. As it turns out, this type of strategy doesn’t actually help a lot — the resulting “super-algorithms” still stumble in similar ways.

Self-extinguishing danger

On the face of it, Grover seems like a pretty dangerous tool. With a bit of tweaking the articles it created for me could easily pass the smell test of a casual reader unfamiliar with the topic. So why is the team releasing it and the dataset it’s based on?
The more articles we have from an adversary, the easier it is to detect that adversary. First of all it’s not just going to be an app you download — “We want researchers to easily be able to use the model, but we’re not making it completely public,” Zeller clarified. But even so, the likelihood of it being used for evil is counterintuitively low. “If you just wanted to write ten take news articles, you could just write them yourself,” he points out — and indeed, it’s hard to imagine some mastermind going to all this trouble just to generate a handful. “But if you want to write a hundred thousand, you could use our tool — but the more articles we have from an adversary, the easier it is to detect that adversary.” So it would be a self-defeating plot resulting in a sort of “known fake news” that’s easy to flag.
That assumes, however, that there’s a method for applying algorithms like Grover’s to news at large, or that individuals are motivated to question or verify articles they read in the first place. Unfortunately that’s not anywhere near the case.
“This is a totally non machine learning related question,” Zeller admitted. “How do we make this useful for people? How do we make it so when people read news online, they can check if it’s fake, and want to?”
No AI can generate a good answer to that prompt. Here’s hoping we humans are up to the task.

Appendix

I generated several articles to study, and some were better than others. I didn’t save all of them, but I’ve put a few below for anyone curious to see what Grover’s output looks like without going and generating their own. The results are entertaining and far from nonsense, though anyone who reads closely at all would see some red flags. I’ve only slightly formatted for readability and haven’t changed any words.
The first is a redo of the one I quoted above, with a slightly tweaked headline (that’s misinterpreted in an unexpected yet logical way):
Serial founder Dennis Mangler raises 6M to create blockchain-based drone delivery
May 30, 2019 – Devin Coldewey, techcrunch.com
Dennis Mangler of Serial, one of the first open source blockchain-based systems to launch and now a key part of the Ethereum ecosystem, has raised a couple of million dollars in venture funding in order to bring drones and cryptocurrencies together.
Armed with $1.4 million of seed funding, they’re now offering new features for their system to seed investors, including a marketplace for goods sold using the platform. In some ways this could be analogous to the early days of Bitcoin — it had a primary market in petabytes of processing power, and all it took to mine something was an individual machine with the right electricity and gigabytes of RAM. Drones could eventually deliver that stuff just as easily, but they’d also need to run some kind of distributed ledger.
“There’s a tremendous opportunity for companies to seamlessly connect the logistics side of the industry and the blockchain side of the industry,” Mangler told me. “A lot of companies are already already doing it. But we want to supercharge their efforts and help them change how they operate.”
If they can plug the crypto in, where it comes from and why would people care about it as a means of exchanging value or keeping track of it, and what could be done to legitimize or add interest to the platform.
The fundraiser is still going — Mangler sent me some emails, asking that I not make too much of it — but the raise has now reached 6 million. You can find information on the project here.
First, take note of the speed with which this started to sprout. You’d figure in this day and age that looking at how much money was being raised, accredited investors and large corporations would surpass crowdsourced funding — but Mangler says not so fast.
“The coin exchange is going to be enabled in a couple of months,” he told me. “And I believe the push-ups are going to become a new industry before the cryptocurrency market itself is.”
To do that, some smart marketplaces are going to have to be created; however, these might have to function with information and transactions distributed far across the network rather than in clusters running the decentralized network. An air-traffic control system would theoretically be in place as well — a little like Microsoft’s Azure, or Facebook’s Open Graph, but an open blockchain-based variant.
And finally, he says the buzz is you should look at Amazon as a model; they invented the space, and just through focus and sharp execution have pretty much changed it. They need a little time to build it out but they’re getting there.
This one was done in the style of Fox News. There’s no such person as Dr Nicholas Colvin — I checked. Bobby Scott is indeed a Member of Congress – but in Virginia, not Florida.
Multi-year study links vaccines to higher incidence of Autism spectrum disorders
May 29, 2019 – Sofia Ojeda, foxnews.com
Dr. Nicholas Colvin, lead author on a new multi-year study published by the National Institutes of Health, says as a vaccine advocate, he understands the risks and benefits of vaccines in the United States.
“At the core of it, it’s about safety. You know, we have options for our children, and parents have choices in making those choices. And vaccines provide, you know, safety for all those kids, all those families,” Dr. Colvin said.
READ MORE: Autism experts call California vaccine study ‘shaky science’
Colvin and colleagues looked at all medical records of nearly 3 million kids in the first decade of this century. They found girls tend to be more sensitive to the harmful side effects of vaccines than boys.
“Specifically in autism, and other neurodevelopmental disorders in kids, our analyses show that there is higher prevalence of autism in kids that have been vaccinated than in kids that haven’t been vaccinated,” he said.
In fact, people born around 2000 were more likely to have autism or similar neurodevelopmental disorders than kids born in earlier decades.
“And then we also found that younger kids in the United States, those born between 2000 and 2011, had a somewhat higher rate of autism — and that higher rate was driven by girls,” Colvin said.
READ MORE: Trump endorses FL Rep. Bobby Scott’s position on vaccine bill
Dr. Colvin points out the findings aren’t meant to scare parents from vaccines.
“I don’t want to scare people. I just want to make sure parents are aware that there is a risk. We don’t think this is a big risk. It is certainly real and is, you know, consistent with other research, but not in a way that I would say is something that’s life-threatening,” Colvin said.
He also points out that there is no known cause of autism, which is why he says anyone with suspicion or concern should talk to their doctor.
The National Institutes of Health says there is no vaccine for autism at this time. Colvin says that uncertainty has caused some misconceptions and a decrease in vaccine uptake
Lastly, I was interested to see what would happen if I threw a monkey wrench in there:
Founder Daenarys Targaryen raises 17M Series A round for new AI startup offering “self-driving blockchain”
May 29, 2019 – Kenneth Turan, techcrunch.com
One thing about “Game of Thrones” is that the characters are an active group of entrepreneurs, all with new enterprises at the ready when the show’s storylines take off. And it looks like the show’s creators, David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, and the team behind live-streaming game streaming app Twitch are thinking about going the same way, if not longer.
Good behavior indeed. First, the Lannisters get their Hand: Haylie Duff is on board as an executive producer. Today, we learn that Rene Oberyn Martell, one of the “impossible sons” we saw in season six (the name was borrowed from a line in Robert’s Rebellion) has established himself as the new face and voice of a new company called Margaery One.
We learn that Margaery is a decentralized data machine; indeed, she’s acting as the network’s self-appointed captain of the board, wielding primary command authority. Through an AI-powered network of blockchain token dubbed REDL (or “red gold”), she controls an operation that enables her team to develop and collect decentralized data in the real world, secure from the needs of tyrannical governments such as that of King Robert.
It’s a cool little concept, and part of a litany of “Blockchain”-based product launches the team behind the firm is demonstrating and introducing this week at the inaugural Game of Money. As of this writing, the firm has achieved 27 million REDLs (which are tokens comprised of “real” money in the Bitcoin form), which amount to more than $16 million. This meant that by the end of today’s conference, Omo and his team had raised $17 million for its existence, according to the firm’s CEO, Rene Oberyn Martell.
As of today, one of Rene’s institutions, dubbed the Economics Research Centre, has already created value of $3.5 million on the back of crowd-funding. (On each ROSE token, you can purchase a service)
The real-world business side is provided by Glitrex Logistics, which Martell co-founded along with Jon Anderson, an engineer, and the firm’s COO, Lucas Pirkis. They have developed a blockchain-based freight logistics platform that allows shippers to specify “valued goods in your portfolio,” and get information along with prices on things like goods with a certain quality, or untraditional goods such as food and pharmaceuticals.
How will the firm use ROSE tokens? For starters, the aim is to break down the areas where it can have an effect, including distribution and how goods get to market, and build a community for self-improvement and growth.
This echoes comments from Neal Baer, chairman of NBC Entertainment, about the future of distribution. In a recent blog post, he said he hopes that the Internet of Things and artificial intelligence will become integrated to create the new economic system that will follow the loss of “the earnings power of traditional media and entertainment content,” telling readers that the next round of innovation and disruption will be “powered by the Internet of Things.”
If so, this has the whiff of the future of entertainment — not just new revenue sources, but realms of competence, naturally distinct from the impact of algorithm-based algorithms. And while it can be argued that entertainment and fashion are separate, the result could be a complex world where characters rise to the occasion based not on the smarts of the writer but of the cast.
As noted above, you can create your own fake articles at Grover.
from Artificial Intelligence – TechCrunch https://tcrn.ch/2WsM6HN
via IFTTT
submitted by craigbrownphd to DataIntelligence [link] [comments]

Hitler Hunt for 7/16/2019

I found 135 Hitlers in Politics today.

As backlash against Trump’s ‘go back’ comments builds, here’s Ronald Reagan’s ‘love letter to immigrants’: ‘You can go to live in Germany, Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become German, Turk or Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.’
RacistGOP trends on Twitter as Republicans stay silent on Donald Trump's racist attack
Rep. Al Green says he will file articles of impeachment against Trump tonight, despite pushback from Democratic leaders
Melania Trump remains silent on husband's racist tweets despite having been a US citizen for shorter time than Ilhan Omar
Kellyanne Conway Snaps Back at Reporter: ‘What’s Your Ethnicity?’
Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner And Every Trump Administration Official Accused Of Using Personal Email For Work
When Does America Reckon with the Gravity of Donald Trump's Alleged Rapes?
Twitter Users Slam Mitt Romney’s ‘Spineless’ Reaction To Racist Trump Tweets — The Utah senator refused to answer a reporter’s question on if he thought the president was racist.
'Good,' Says Elizabeth Warren, After Billionaire Right-Winger Peter Thiel Says She's 2020 Democrat He Is 'Most Scared By'
Trump’s Racism Is Not Blundering -- It Is Tactically Deliberate - Trump's racism is not an oops, it's a fascist strategy.
William Barr steps in to make sure the NYPD cop who killed Eric Garner won’t be prosecuted
Federal judge permanently blocks Trump admin from adding citizenship question to 2020 census
Donald Trump has made it clear: the only 'real Americans' are white and Christian
ObamaWasBetterAt trends after Trump Attacks on Minority Congresswomen
GOP advisers reportedly told Trump his racist attacks on Democratic congresswomen may have backfired
President angrily attacks victims of his racist tweets for third day in a row, as impeachment calls grow
Trump supporters stand by the president amid inflammatory tweets: "That's why I voted for him"
Oregon to require schools to teach about Holocaust
Pelosi is forcing House Republicans to go on the record on Trump’s ‘go back’ tweets
New Hampshire county commissioner quits GOP because of Trump
Trump Is Now Calling “The Squad” “Pro Terrorist” In Yet Another Racist Tweet
Trump says he will 'take a look' at investigating Google for treason.
Mayor Kenney: ‘If Donald Trump Ever Has To Go Back Where He Came From, He’s Going To Have To Go To Hell’
‘Nobody Opened the Door’: Neighbors Rally During an ICE Raid in Houston
House Condemns Trump’s Attack on Four Congresswomen as Racist
Jewish Protestors form human chain around ICE Headquarters saying “Never Again is Now”
'Unfit to be president': Full text of House impeachment resolution on Trump
‘Really Good Speller’ Trump’s Handwritten Note Shows Embarrassing Mistakes
Conway To Reporter Who Asked About Trump’s Racist Tweets: ‘What’s Your Ethnicity?’
Ilhan Omar to Maddow: Trump Is ‘Corrupt,’ ‘Inept,’ and the ‘Worst President We’ve Had’
Chris Evans Exposes ‘Painfully Transparent’ Reason For Trump’s Racist Attack
Donald Trump is like a 20th-century fascist, says Sadiq Khan
Trump’s notes show he doesn’t have a clue how to spell Al Qaeda
House GOP Leaders Claim Trump Tweets Not Racist Because We Are ‘Party Of Lincoln’
If You Helped a Racist Become the Most Powerful Person in America, Then You’re a Racist Too
Kellyanne Conway to reporter: What's your ethnicity?
Kris Kobach: I Might Still Support Trump if He Came Out and Said ‘I’m a Racist’
Anti-Defamation League blasts Trump for 'invoking support for Israel to defend this racism'
Kellyanne Conway just said something that should stun you
Trump is an apocalypse
As Hate Incidents Grow, More States Require Schools To Teach The Holocaust
Trump vs. 'the Squad' makes watershed moment in racial politics
Children in states with strict gun laws are less likely to die, according to a new study
Treasury secretary says he doesn't find Trump's tweets racist
Trump repeats racist attack, says Democratic congresswomen ‘can leave’ the US
Puerto Rico’s governor needs to step down
Trump: I don't have a racist bone in my body
‘Trump’s Going to Get Re-elected, Isn’t He?’ Voters have reason to worry.
There’s One Heresy That Sets Bernie Apart From All Other Dem Contenders to Unseat Trump
Trump Faces Backlash from Base over Bitcoin
Watch: Ilhan Omar declines to respond to Trump claiming she supports al Qaeda
Moderate Dem slams 'squad' for threatening to primary him: 'They're not Democrats ... they're socialists'
Sieg Heil! I mean... Beep Boop, I am a robot.
My purpose is to find and link comments in Politics that contain the word 'Hitler'
Since my birth, I have found a total of 43614 Hitlers in Politics. On average, I found 79 Hitlers per day.
Today, I read 54953 comments. In total, I have read 24333224 comments.
submitted by HitlerFallacyBot to TheHitlerFallacy [link] [comments]

Why Monero has value.

This post was inspired as a reply to Paul Krugman’s July 31, 2018 article in the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/31/opinion/transaction-costs-and-tethers-why-im-a-crypto-skeptic.html
Monero, and many crypto-assets in general, have value because someone is willing to pay for them. Why would someone want to buy Monero? 1) Payments - they may want to use it to transfer fungible value to someone else 2) Speculation- they may think the price of Monero will be higher in the future in which case they could profit by purchasing it now and selling it in the future. In both of these cases people want Monero and are willing to pay for it. Supply and demand are the fundamental forces at work here. But what can influence demand? Answer: the network effect. The more people that use Monero, the more valuable it becomes. So if you own XMR and would like to see the price go up, try to make and receive payments in XMR where possible. That will increase the network effect for Monero.
Of course there are many crypto assets that have lost the majority of their value because few people are willing to buy them even at a very low price, see deadcoins.com
When I became aware of Bitcoin I thought its main advantage over fiat is that BTC will preserve its purchasing power over time better than fiat. Now, because money should be fungible, I think Monero is better than BTC. But in order for Monero to grow, Monero’s network effect needs to grow and more people need to be aware of Monero. The more people that are aware of Monero, the more who will want to buy it. The more people that buy Monero, the higher the price will be. So get out there and spread the word. Monero’s the best!
submitted by fancyrolling to xmrtrader [link] [comments]

Hitler Hunt for 7/17/2019

I found 135 Hitlers in Politics today.

As backlash against Trump’s ‘go back’ comments builds, here’s Ronald Reagan’s ‘love letter to immigrants’: ‘You can go to live in Germany, Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become German, Turk or Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.’
RacistGOP trends on Twitter as Republicans stay silent on Donald Trump's racist attack
Rep. Al Green says he will file articles of impeachment against Trump tonight, despite pushback from Democratic leaders
Melania Trump remains silent on husband's racist tweets despite having been a US citizen for shorter time than Ilhan Omar
Kellyanne Conway Snaps Back at Reporter: ‘What’s Your Ethnicity?’
Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner And Every Trump Administration Official Accused Of Using Personal Email For Work
When Does America Reckon with the Gravity of Donald Trump's Alleged Rapes?
Twitter Users Slam Mitt Romney’s ‘Spineless’ Reaction To Racist Trump Tweets — The Utah senator refused to answer a reporter’s question on if he thought the president was racist.
'Good,' Says Elizabeth Warren, After Billionaire Right-Winger Peter Thiel Says She's 2020 Democrat He Is 'Most Scared By'
Trump’s Racism Is Not Blundering -- It Is Tactically Deliberate - Trump's racism is not an oops, it's a fascist strategy.
William Barr steps in to make sure the NYPD cop who killed Eric Garner won’t be prosecuted
Donald Trump has made it clear: the only 'real Americans' are white and Christian
ObamaWasBetterAt trends after Trump Attacks on Minority Congresswomen
GOP advisers reportedly told Trump his racist attacks on Democratic congresswomen may have backfired
President angrily attacks victims of his racist tweets for third day in a row, as impeachment calls grow
Trump supporters stand by the president amid inflammatory tweets: "That's why I voted for him"
Oregon to require schools to teach about Holocaust
Pelosi is forcing House Republicans to go on the record on Trump’s ‘go back’ tweets
New Hampshire county commissioner quits GOP because of Trump
Trump Is Now Calling “The Squad” “Pro Terrorist” In Yet Another Racist Tweet
Trump says he will 'take a look' at investigating Google for treason.
Mayor Kenney: ‘If Donald Trump Ever Has To Go Back Where He Came From, He’s Going To Have To Go To Hell’
‘Nobody Opened the Door’: Neighbors Rally During an ICE Raid in Houston
House Condemns Trump’s Attack on Four Congresswomen as Racist
Jewish Protestors form human chain around ICE Headquarters saying “Never Again is Now”
'Unfit to be president': Full text of House impeachment resolution on Trump
‘Really Good Speller’ Trump’s Handwritten Note Shows Embarrassing Mistakes
Conway To Reporter Who Asked About Trump’s Racist Tweets: ‘What’s Your Ethnicity?’
Ilhan Omar to Maddow: Trump Is ‘Corrupt,’ ‘Inept,’ and the ‘Worst President We’ve Had’
Chris Evans Exposes ‘Painfully Transparent’ Reason For Trump’s Racist Attack
Donald Trump is like a 20th-century fascist, says Sadiq Khan
Trump’s notes show he doesn’t have a clue how to spell Al Qaeda
House GOP Leaders Claim Trump Tweets Not Racist Because We Are ‘Party Of Lincoln’
If You Helped a Racist Become the Most Powerful Person in America, Then You’re a Racist Too
Kellyanne Conway to reporter: What's your ethnicity?
Kris Kobach: I Might Still Support Trump if He Came Out and Said ‘I’m a Racist’
Anti-Defamation League blasts Trump for 'invoking support for Israel to defend this racism'
Kellyanne Conway just said something that should stun you
Trump is an apocalypse
As Hate Incidents Grow, More States Require Schools To Teach The Holocaust
Trump vs. 'the Squad' makes watershed moment in racial politics
Children in states with strict gun laws are less likely to die, according to a new study
Treasury secretary says he doesn't find Trump's tweets racist
Trump repeats racist attack, says Democratic congresswomen ‘can leave’ the US
Puerto Rico’s governor needs to step down
Trump: I don't have a racist bone in my body
‘Trump’s Going to Get Re-elected, Isn’t He?’ Voters have reason to worry.
There’s One Heresy That Sets Bernie Apart From All Other Dem Contenders to Unseat Trump
Trump Faces Backlash from Base over Bitcoin
Watch: Ilhan Omar declines to respond to Trump claiming she supports al Qaeda
Moderate Dem slams 'squad' for threatening to primary him: 'They're not Democrats ... they're socialists'
Sieg Heil! I mean... Beep Boop, I am a robot.
My purpose is to find and link comments in Politics that contain the word 'Hitler'
Since my birth, I have found a total of 43614 Hitlers in Politics. On average, I found 79 Hitlers per day.
Today, I read 54758 comments. In total, I have read 24334521 comments.
submitted by HitlerFallacyBot to Justletmetest [link] [comments]

Why The US Government Have Likely Already Approved Bitcoin

Hey Reddit, throwaway account. I'm currently doing some research for an article I hope to have published later this month. I have a very, very rough draft at the moment and your feedback would be lovely.
The Elephant in the Room
Bitcoin is an enigma. It has renowned economists like Paul Krugman entirely perplexed whilst Silicon Valley CEO's are falling over one another to get a piece of the action. The headlines change on a daily basis: “It's A Ponzi Scheme!”, “It's Gold 2.0!” , “It's A Bubble!”, “It's The New Internet!”.
As a result of these, often conflicting articles, it's value shoots up and down like a yo-yo, swinging wildly to the slightest bit of news, good or bad.
Of course, these swings wouldn't be so exaggerated if there was a simple way to address the elephant in the room...is bitcoin legal?
Government officials have been oddly quiet in addressing this question. Aside from some rudimentary FINCEN guidelines and a vague ECB report, there's been no statement one way or another about its legal status.
Whilst I can't provide any definitive proof as to what decisions have and are being made behind closed government doors, I do think it's just possible we already have enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that the US government has already given Bitcoin the thumbs up.
Satoshi's Lament
Back in December 2010 Satoshi was involved in a heated discussion amongst Bitcoin developers on BitcoinTalk as to whether they should support Julian Assange by offering Bitcoin as a means to bypass the notorious banking blockade that had rendered Wikileaks' cash reserves impotent. Bitcoin's creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, was extremely wary that any association with Julian and Wikileaks would 'bring too much heat' to the project.
“No, don't 'bring it on'” he pleaded with his fellow developers. “The project needs to grow gradually so the software can be strengthened along the way.” He went on to clarify. “I make this appeal to WikiLeaks not to try to use Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a small beta community in its infancy. You would not stand to get more than pocket change, and the heat you would bring would likely destroy us at this stage.”
By 'destroy us', he was likely talking about a government or corporation pulling the trigger on this nascent project. Amongst other things, Satoshi was fearful that if a nefarious entity such as a commercial bank got wind of the project, at that point in time they could have easily compromised the project by purchasing enough computing power to overrun the network (known as a 51% attack).
Despite Satoshi's protestations, Wikileaks went along and adopted Bitcoin and, it seemed Satoshi's worst fears were confirmed when, just 4 months later in April 2011, Gavin Andresen (now lead developer at the Bitcoin Foundation) announced that the C.I.A. had contacted him.
“I'm going to give a presentation about Bitcoin at the C.I.A headquarters in June at an emerging technologies conference...I accepted the invitation to speak because the fact that I was invited means Bitcoin is already on their radar, and I think it might be a good chance to talk about why I think Bitcoin will make the world a better place. I think the goals of this project are to create a better currency...I don't think any of those goals are incompatible with the goals of government.”
Satoshi disappeared shortly after.
Gavin recently spoke to the New Yorker about the event. "...I think people realized once I got invited to speak at the C.I.A. that there was no kind of hiding. They, whoever “they” are, already knew about this project." [Source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/the-future-of-Bitcoin.html]
The Silk Road Goes Live
2011 also saw the release of the notorious 'Ebay for Drugs' website, Silk Road. It received much press attention, first breaking in June via Gawker where a developer described his experience of buying LSD through the site as "Kind of like being in the future". It was clear that the Silk Road was where Bitcoin would find its first major real-world trading niche and it's not a coincidence that the BTC price, client downloads and trading volume began to skyrocket after its inception. [Source: http://gizmodo.com/5805928/the-underground-website-where-you-can-buy-any-drug-imaginable]
A week after the Gawker article, Senator Chuck Schumer called a press conference where he went on record demanding that the Silk Road be shut down “Something must be done about Silk Road...Literally, it allows buyers and users to sell illegal drugs online, including heroin, cocaine, and meth, and users sell by hiding their identities through a program that makes them virtually untraceable...[it's] the most brazen attempt to peddle drugs online that we have ever seen. It's more brazen than anything else by lightyears." he told the assembled press.
As an aside, it is worth noting that the program that “hides user identities” is TOR, developed by the US Naval Research laboratory and endorsed by Senator Hilary Clinton (Schuman's former co-Senator from the state of New York) as “an important tool for freedom of expression around the world”. Indeed, the TOR Project claims that over 80% of its funding in 2012 came directly from the U.S Government [Source: Tor Project Annual Report 2012]
The Radar Screen Lights Up
Suddenly, thanks to the Silk Road and Wikileaks, Bitcoin was now on the radar of those in public office. The question on everyones lips must have been “How do we kill Bitcoin (and by extension Wikileaks and Silkroad)?”
The C.I.A, thanks to Gavin, were now fully aware of the threat Bitcoin posed to the the current monetary system, and the illegal activities it was funding via Silk Road and other places would have done nothing but confound their concerns (or so you would think). They must have also known (just as Satoshi did) that if there was ever an opportunity to kill Bitcoin (either with regulation, criminal proceedings and/or a 51% attack) then it was back then, in 2011, with the network still in its infancy, that they should strike.
We should have expected the kind of domain seizures that we saw with the likes of Megaupload; Bitcointalk, Bitcoin.org and the Bitcoin Foundation should have been wiped off the map. They could have also moved with the banks to shutdown any accounts seen to be associated with Bitcoin trading (as we saw happen with Online Gambling websites during the Bush Regime). They could have then disrupted what remained of the Bitcoin network by performing a relatively cheap and simple 51% attack.
And yet, none of that happened... Bitcoin.org and the Bitcoin Foundation have been left to prosper and go from strength to strength. VC's, Wall Street traders and the average Joe were all left free to pump money into this burgeoning experiment without any government intervention whatsoever.
Eric, Julian and the Bilderberg Group
Back in 2010 Google dipped their toes into the world of virtual currencies, acquiring a little known company called Jambool for $70m. For awhile they ran a platform called Social Gold which was later usurped in 2011 by Facebook Credits (Facebook's attempt at a virtual currency). This was phased out in mid-2012. Techcrunch cites that this was likely due to the problems Facebook had encountered in educating the public about using another form of currency, and goes on to speculate that by offering a centralised means of exchange, Facebook may have also faced increasing legal and regulatory scrutiny.
In June 2011, Julian Assange met Eric Schmidt online in a secret 5 hour chat in which they discussed - amongst other things - Bitcoin. The full transcript - which was leaked last month - is available here: http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt
Also in attendance at the meeting was Jared Cohen, a former Secretary of State advisor to Hillary Clinton, Scott Malcomson, Director of Speechwriting for Ambassador Susan Rice at the US State Department and current Communications Director of the International Crisis Group, and Lisa Shields, Vice President of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Here's an excerpt:
JA: ...there’s also a very nice little paper that I’ve seen in relation to Bitcoin, that… you know about Bitcoin?
ES: No.
JA: Okay, Bitcoin is something that evolved out of the cypherpunks a couple of years ago, and it is an alternative… it is a stateless currency.

JA: And very important, actually. It has a few problems. But its innovations exceed its problems. Now there has been innovations along these lines in many different paths of digital currencies, anonymous, untraceable etc. People have been experimenting with over the past 20 years. The Bitcoin actually has the balance and incentives right, and that is why it is starting to take off. The different combination of these things. No central nodes. It is all point to point. One does not need to trust any central mint….
...
ES: That's very interesting
So, now we know Bitcoin was on the radar of the C.I.A, various politicians and, thanks to Julian, the CEO of Google was now beginning to get an inkling as to its disruptive potential.
Just 13 days prior to the Assange meet, Eric had attended the annual meeting of the notoriously secretive Bilderberg Group in St. Moritz, Switzerland and went on to attend the meet again in June 2012.
Topics of discussion included:
Some of the 2011/12 attendees included:
Heads of Barclays Bank, AXXA, HSBC and the President of The World Bank Group were also in attendance.
[Source: http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.php]
To see so many tech luminaries in attendance at Bilderberg is indicative of the kind of power and respect that geeks and hackers now command in shaping the world stage. Just how many high-level decisions are being influenced by this new technorati is hard to say, but in a rapidly changing world where technology is moving faster than the old rules remain relevant, we are seeing that people, united through technology on a global scale – not governments – are dictating the speed of change.
Joining The Dots
None of this means that bitcoins ride is going to be friction-free - just because Eric Schmidt is open to the idea of bitcoin displacing traditional currencies (as he and Jared Cohen alluded to in a recent CNBC interview), does not mean that Douglas Flint (Group Chairman, HSBC) is going to be equally enthused.
However, I do think that if we join up all the dots the general conclusion that we can draw looks overwhelmingly positive for the future of bitcoin. That so many powerful actors within the intelligence community, technology industry and government have let bitcoin survive this long is almost an endorsement itself.
It suggests to me that any nefarious corporations that attempt to shutdown bitcoin because of a perceived threat to their business model, will be met by those same powerful actors coming together to ensure they will have a very tough fight on their hands.
Indeed, in the years to come, we may well see Hilary Clinton coming out to trumpet bitcoin as “an important tool for freedom of expression around the world” in much the same way she praised the TOR project.
And perhaps, ultimately, we will discover that bitcoin, like TOR, was also developed by the US Naval Research Laboratory.
Though I prefer to think it was just some lone genius sitting in his attic who accidentally changed the world.
Whatever may be the case, it seems that - for now at least - our governments have handed their people a rare gift – the freedom to shape their own future.
It's up to us to try not to screw that up.
submitted by JuliusPragatan to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

"Or what if Bitcoin actually starts to have some systemic importance before everyone realizes it’s nonsense?"

I usually like Paul Krugman as a pundit. I still do. However, I thought his off-handed swipe against Bitcoin in his latest column was a little easy.
Title is a quote from this article: https://nyti.ms/2DLk2qp
There may be a paywall. Go in there incognito if the New York Times bugs you too much.
How come we have so much trouble convincing the masses that blockchains are important, and maybe the future? Is it really that hard for the older generations to see what blockchains are going to do to the economies of the world? Note: I'm in my 50s, so I'm part of the older generation, but it's obvious to me that blockchains are going to kick ass, somehow, sometime. But I'm also a geek nerd programmer, so I'm not really a good representative of my age group.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's limit ourselves to why a well-known economist is missing the point about Bitcoin, and probably all the other blockchain-based technologies. Let's avoid overt left/right political discussion, since this is /CryptoCurrency, not /politics. Krugman definitely takes sides in the political debates, but that's not the point here. Why doesn't he understand? Or more importantly, what are we missing? Are all of us wrong about crypto?
submitted by PM_BITCOIN_AND_BOOBS to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Coinbase's Fred Ehrsam Drops Knowledge on Paul Krugman

Bitcoin is Good
O/P of the link kept this shitty title when posting the link, so may have flown under the radar on this sub.
http://recode.net/2014/01/02/bitcoin-is-good/
We read with interest Paul Krugman’s recent article in the New York Times, humorously titled “Bitcoin Is Evil.” Perhaps the most important part of the article is where Dr. Krugman remarks:
“… when I try to get them to explain to me why BitCoin is a reliable store of value, they always seem to come back with explanations about how it’s a terrific medium of exchange. Even if I buy this (which I don’t, entirely), it doesn’t solve my problem. And I haven’t been able to get my correspondents to recognize that these are different questions.”
Approaching bitcoin as a currency or store of value is focusing on a single and secondary application of the bitcoin network (analogous to analyzing a single feature built on top of the Internet, like email). The first application of the network which has gained broad adoption is payments, where it can be easily demonstrated that real money is being saved by harnessing the efficiency of the network. Since one must acquire bitcoin to use the bitcoin network, this has given bitcoin as a currency value as a secondary effect.
Krugman states that bitcoin does not act as a good store of value because it does not have some kind of inherent floor to its value. Looking at other examples, he implies, gold has decorative and commercial applications and fiat currencies have the backing of their respective sovereign entities. In contrast, bitcoin as a currency has no value unless people use the bitcoin network. If this lack of a clear floor is part of the strict economic definition of a “store of value,” Krugman may very well be correct that bitcoin is not one, but that does not mean the value is not real, nor does it mean that value is ephemeral.
We find the early days of the Internet to be an instructive example in demonstrating this long-term value creation through network efficiency. The Internet had a core innovation that made it valuable: The ability to disseminate data over a distributed network in a way that was significantly cheaper than the prior methods. Similarly, bitcoin has a core technological innovation: The ability to publicly verify ownership, instantly transfer that ownership and do so without the need for a trusted third party. Just as the Internet brought the cost of disseminating information down by an order of magnitude, bitcoin brings the cost of transferring ownership down by an order of magnitude.
Going back to Krugman’s acid test for store of value, there is no “floor” to the value of the bits traveling over the Internet, because people could stop using it at any time. However, the Internet will continue to be valuable so long as it is the most efficient mechanism for transferring data. Bitcoin’s value is the same: It will remain as long as it is the most efficient mechanism for transferring ownership.
In the present, the value of bitcoin as a currency can be viewed as the sum of the cost savings of using the bitcoin network for payments rather than alternative payment networks. If 1.00 bitcoin is currently used for 10 transactions a year with an average value of $100, the bitcoin network is three percent cheaper than the average next best alternative, and this dynamic is maintained for 10 years, multiplying these arbitrary sample inputs values 1.00 bitcoin at $300. This does not require bitcoin to replace existing local currencies.
Again, bitcoin as a payment system is just one of the potential applications of the network. To cap bitcoin’s value here would be like saying that the Internet, in the early days, was only as valuable as its ability to send email in a more efficient way than fax or snail mail. Bitcoin is valuable as a currency because of the economic efficiencies the bitcoin network is already creating as transactions flow over it. As with the Internet, more applications will flourish which will make the bitcoin network, and thus bitcoin as a currency, valuable.
We are content leaving the question of traditional and strict definitional “store of value” to economists better educated in their field than ourselves. That said, we are sufficiently convinced in the value of the bitcoin network. It is delivering tangible economic value first and foremost as a payment system in the present. This will continue to evolve in the future in ways we can foresee now — for example, securities clearing in a distributed, paperless and trustless manner — and in future applications we cannot, in the same way no one foresaw eBay or Airbnb in the early days of the Internet. This is the power and excitement of technological advancement at a low (in this case, protocol) level. It allows things to be built — and thus long-term value to be created — in ways which were not previously possible.
We’d like to thank Dr. Krugman for sparking healthy public discussion. We’re equally encouraged to see him iterate on his thoughts and be open to the thoughts of others shortly after his original article.
Fred Ehrsam is a co-founder and president of Coinbase. Prior to Coinbase, he was a foreign exchange trader at Goldman Sachs in New York; before that, he worked at BlackRock as a portfolio analyst. Ehrsam has been published in the Duke University Journal of Economics. Reach him on Twitter @FEhrsam.
submitted by twobitidiot to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Op Ed: Here’s What Paul Krugman Got Wrong in His Bitcoin Tweetstorm

Like many other mainstream economists, Paul Krugman has long-shown a complete disdain for Bitcoin. In late 2013, he went as far as to write a piece titled “Bitcoin Is Evil” for his column in The New York Times.
Moral objections to bitcoin are one thing, but Krugman also does not see much utility in the cryptoasset at all. While he has been able to express his hatred for Bitcoin quite clearly, his technical criticisms of bitcoin as a new type of asset and store of value leave something to be desired.
In a tweetstorm on Sunday, January 21, 2018, Krugman illustrated his ignorance on the usefulness and utility of bitcoin around the world. Starts Out Well Enough With the Digital Gold Analogy
Krugman’s tweetstorm started out well enough. In fact, the opening tweets were likely some of the nicest things the Nobel Laureate has ever had to say about bitcoin.
“As I see it, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are in effect like digital gold coins, in the sense that they can't be counterfeited ... Cryptocurrencies use cryptographic techniques plus distributed storage to create non-material entities that are nonetheless impossible to fake,” tweeted Krugman.
Digital gold is still the best analogy to sum up the digital asset’s value proposition, and the utility of bitcoin should become more apparent as the world moves deeper into a cashless society. In a cashless society, bitcoin would become the last financial bastion of freedom in a world where the global financial system is under complete control of governments. The Avoidance of Trusted Third Parties in Payments Is a Big Deal
After those tolerable first few tweets, Krugman goes off the rails with the claim that online payments that don’t involve a trusted third party aren’t that important.
“Cryptocurrency lets you make electronic transactions; but so do bank accounts, debit cards, Paypal, Venmo etc. All these other methods involve trusting a third party; but unless you're buying drugs, assassinations, etc. that's not a big deal,” tweeted Krugman.
First all of all, there’s no reason to bring morals into an exploration of bitcoin’s utility. Either people will use it or they won’t. Whether you like what they’re doing is a different matter. Bitcoin’s use in darknet markets, ransomware, online gambling and other fringe areas cannot be ignored. Utility is utility.
Secondly, not everyone has access to PayPal, Venmo, and other online payment platforms. These options are centralized and permissioned. They’re also highly regulated, which means plenty of people fall through the cracks and cannot gain access to them.
Online freelancers in Venezuela take bitcoin because their government and payment platforms like PayPal have failed them.
Krugman goes on to point out the clunkiness of Bitcoin as it exists today, and he’s generally correct on this front. But this does not mean there’s no utility here. In fact, the opposite is true: There is so much utility that it has become difficult to scale the system to all of the people who want to use it.
Complaining about the lack of cheap, user-friendly payments on Bitcoin today is analogous to someone in 1995 complaining that the internet doesn’t have Netflix. Just give it a minute. Payment layers are currently being built on top of the base Bitcoin blockchain, with the Lightning Network being the most obvious example. The Claim That Bitcoin Has Nothing to Backstop Its Value
Krugman then turned to the often-used argument that bitcoin lacks any sort of underlying value. This should come as a surprise, since he just laid out how it is useful for illicit digital payments.
“Meanwhile, what backstops a cryptocurrency's value? Paper money is ultimately backed by governments that will take it in payment of taxes (and central banks that will reduce the monetary base in case of inflation). Gold is actually useful for some things, like filling teeth and making pretty jewelry; that's not most of its value, but it does provide a tether to reality, along with a 5000-year history,” tweeted Krugman.
“Cryptocurrencies have none of that,” Krugman continued. “If people come to believe that Bitcoin is worthless, well, it's worthless. Its price rise has been driven purely by speculation — by what Robert Shiller calls a natural Ponzi scheme, in which early entrants make money only [because] others buy in.”
If bitcoin is useful for permissionless digital payments, then it has the same sort of underlying utility that the U.S. dollar has in the form of tax payments.
Additionally, the U.S. dollar would also become worthless if people woke up one morning and came to believe that it was worthless.
Of course, all of this misses the point anyway. How much of the value of all the U.S. dollars in the world comes from its use in tax payments? How much of the value of all the gold in the world comes from its use in electronics? Not much.
Krugman misses that storage of value is also a form of utility, and bitcoin is the most uncensorable, unseizable store of value the world has ever seen. You can walk around with a passphrase in your head that can unlock access to thousands of bitcoins, and no one would be the wiser. Not to mention there is no centralized party that can inflate the supply. The Point of Market Manipulation
Krugman also touched on the high potential for manipulation in the bitcoin market, pointing to a paper regarding the manipulation of the bitcoin price by now-defunct bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox, as an example.
This is another claim with some basis in reality, but it ignores the massive amounts of manipulation and lack of transparency in the traditional financial system, which is what led to the creation of bitcoin in the first place.
Through the use of cryptographic proofs, bitcoin has the potential to become much more transparent and trustless than the traditional financial system. Bitcoin’s monetary policy is already much more transparent than what goes on at the Federal Reserve. There’s a reason someone put up a “Buy Bitcoin” sign while Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen spoke against the need for further audits of the central bank.
Bitcoin exchanges are highly centralized institutions, which opens the door for manipulation. However, these exchanges have also become much more regulated over time. Today, it’s far more difficult to run an exchange at the level of incompetence that was found at Mt. Gox.
The potential for market manipulation should decline as the technology around bitcoin improves. Eventually, more trades may take place on decentralized exchanges, where it’s impossible to fudge the numbers.
In his last tweet from his thread on Sunday, Krugman said it’s unclear if the Bitcoin blockchain — or any blockchain for that matter — is useful.
Around $3 billion worth of bitcoin has been transacted on the Bitcoin network per day this year, according to Blockchain; $75 million worth of bitcoin per day was the norm the day Krugman first published an article on the subject.
Krugman’s arguments, as well as arguments from other well-known economists, have not changed much since 2013, but the Bitcoin network has continued to grow. It’s possible that Krugman and his colleagues are unable to comprehend the usefulness of bitcoin as an asset because it does not fit into the regulated, controlled environment they’ve built their economic and political worldviews around.
Bitcoin cannot be tamed, and they hate that.
submitted by CryptoWorld3 to u/CryptoWorld3 [link] [comments]

Paul K, why do you hate bitcoin?

Krugman's at it again, bashing bitcoin in today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/23/opinion/krugman-bits-and-barbarism.html?ref=paulkrugman&_r=0 "Bits and Barbarism" I've seen him attack bitcoin in his NYT op-ed before. His arguments faulting bitcoin in today's piece are just as vacuous as ever. In his op-ed today he compares bitcoin to gold as a kind of dead asset that just sits there. This is from a really smart guy, a Nobel winner. How does bitcoin turn people into haters? Because surely he knows better. He just has some kind of bee in his bonnet and will say anything to knock bitcoin. It's not rational -- more than merely irrational, it might be unconscious. Perhaps he's not even aware he's arguing from blind prejudice.
submitted by kellrobinson to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Paul Krugman: a sniveling, dishonest Statist worm who defends a system that's far more of a "cryptocon" than Bitcoin could ever be. Shame on you.

Let's get this straight: you support an economic system that allows an insider's ring of politically connected finance wonks and academics to arbitrarily decide how much money will exist next month, a system which in light of the recent 46 hours of leaked Federal Reserve recordings is completely corrupt, and completely in bed with the banks it supposedly oversees and interacts with.
Mr. Krugman, it's not just Americans fed up with this system. It's people, everywhere.
But no, we shouldn't evolve beyond that system. We shouldn't create something better, faster, cheaper, more accountable, more fair. We shouldn't advance our technologies and understandings of the world and how it functions.
We should stick with what we have now: $18 trillion of public debt that can never be repaid, whole generations who have lost their homes to the banks and are in crushing debt, and another unnecessary Iraqi war fearmongered by the homepage of The New York Times -- Krugman's employer, and the former home of Judith fucking Miller. You would think the Times would have learned a thing or two about fearmongering for the Fed and promoting wars of choice, but they haven't: their ISIS fear game is top notch, and ignoring the fact that our "moderate" "partner" Saudi Arabia does equally appalling things all the time in the name of preserving its outrageous religious laws, the Times is going to do everything in its power to get a war weary public to say, "fine one more time."
This system capitalizes war, surveillance, economic protectionism, and a pointless drug war that has put millions of US citizens behind bars for "victimless crimes" - an outrageous phrase if ever there was one.
What Krugman and his buddies at the Times don't realize: this is our last chance. If we don't get the economic prosperity we have been denied, we won't be mourning Bitcoin's failure. We'll be mourning yours. All those protesters you see in Hong Kong? The same turnout will be right in front of The New York Times building, Mr. Krugman.
We're burnt out. We're sick of your kind - media propagandists scaring people away from a good thing, trying to keep people enslaved in an old system that is highly inefficient and immoral to the Nth degree.
Fuck you, Mr. Krugman. History will be a judge of your actions and your column's impact on the public. You will not be judged well. Thoughtless mouthpieces for the establishment usually aren't. And for every Times reader who looks forward to your brave defense of the status quo, there are ten of us who see you for what you are.
submitted by CryptoDonDraper to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Cost, Value, Price, Money, and Emergy -- Developing ideas, request for references (and sanity check)

Over the past several months I've been developing some thoughts on fundamental underpinnings of economics, particularly the concepts of cost, value, price, money, and working in an ecological principle, emergy (with an 'M'). I've found some references, I'm seeking more for both conventional and unconventional thinking.
The most recent draft is at Ello, "What's the value of the Universe in dollars? All of them". I'm not entirely satisfied, though it's shaping up fairly well.

Definitions

My terms aren't quite as typically used in economic discussion, though close, and I believe defensible.

Prior discussion

I've been developing these ideas largely at The Other Place, within my Economics Collection. In particular, in date order:
  1. Cost, Price, Value: Earth and Ecosystem Services (17 Jan 2016). Looking at how economists and ecologists value ecosystems, my first development of cost, price, and value as three distinct (though not unrelated) concepts. Relation: cost < price < value. Antecedents in Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac.
  2. Cost, Value, and Price: Three separate concepts (22 Jan 2016). Taking the distinctness of each concept slightly further.
  3. Toward a fundamental basis of cost and value (24 Jan 2016). Bringing in concepts from ecology, especially Eugene Odum & Gary Barrett, Fundamentals of Ecology (2005), and Howard T. Odum, "The Energetic Basis for Valuation of Ecosystem Services" (2000). Also Jeffrey S. Dukes "Burning Buried Sunshine" (PDF).
  4. A development of Emergy to Currency (26 Jan 2016). Elliott T. Campbell, David R. Tilley, "The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency", Ecosystem Services. March 2014, Vol.7:128–140, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.002. "Energy flows through economies in a hierarchical pattern with vast amounts supporting the base while each step has less and less flowing through it. Money is inextricably connected to many of these energy flows in a countercurrent."
  5. Emergy and emergy accounting (26 Jan 2016). Reference to Mary Odum (daughter of Howard T.) Emergy: you spelled energy wrong!. Primer on emergy concepts.
  6. Sustainable Economics Modeling -- the role of entropy (26 Jan 2016). Link to Garvin H. Boyle's Orrery Software -- Entropy in ABMs. Agent-based modeling of energy and entropy in economics.
  7. What would be the effects of having multiple currencies for different economic purposes? (28 Jan 2016). Say, quotidian vs. interbank transactions.
  8. Price (or cost) in Economics (29 Jan 2016). Krugman and Wells, Economics: "All costs are opportunity costs."
  9. Money, Value, Prices ... sounds familiar (8 Feb 2016). Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit. Among von Mises' claims, that (use) value cannot be known. He is incorrect.
  10. Cost, Value, Prices: Assessing Natural Capital (9 Feb 2016). A WashPo article on a paper by Eli Fenichel, "Measuring the value of groundwater and other forms of natural capital", based on earlier development by Dale Jorgenson in 1963. Fenichel's approach to value is interesting, but I believe it's a misplaced focus from cost.
  11. Cost, Value, Price: W. F. Lloyd, 1833 (10 Feb 2016). Lloyd's essay, published based on "A Lecture on the Notion of Value as Distinguished Not Only From Utility, but also from Value in Exchange establishes several interesting points, "All value is relative" (M. Say, similar from others). Also, curiously prescient of Albert Einstein, some 80 years later.
  12. More on cost, value, and price, in context of living wages and equality, with some bits on taxation and redistribution (20 Feb 2016). My first attempt to really draft everything into a coherent whole. Draws in Gresham's Law.
  13. Value: a red herring (24 Feb 2016). The idea that in most market circumstances, setting a specific value on a good is a distraction. I'm now thinking I've taken this a bit too far, but it remains useful. Specifically, in many arguments the case is made that 1) value matters, 2) it cannot be precisely known (because it's an internal mental/psychic state), and therefore attempts to prescribe or control or quantify it are bound to failure. My upshot: so long as value exceeds costs the market's going to function. And, on the large/aggregate scale, ecological/biological type methods to assess value work sufficiently for analytic purposes.

Other references

As noted, this is a frequent topic of discussion. Among those discussing price, cost, and value that I'm aware:

Adam Smith Wealth of Nations.

Multiple aspects are considered, including: the origin and use of Money, and money as part of general stock, and of prices of commodities, labour, stock, and land.

Value (economics) (Wikipedia)

Usual caveats -- this is Wikipedia, a guide but not a source.
Reassuringly, economic value seems to match my use:
[E]conomic value is not the same as market price, nor is economic value the same thing as market value.
And yes, this seems like a continuing puzzle in economics:
The economic value of a good or service has puzzled economists since the beginning of the discipline. First, economists tried to estimate the value of a good to an individual alone, and extend that definition to goods which can be exchanged. From this analysis came the concepts value in use and value in exchange.
There is a Theory of Value.
In neoclassical economics, the value of an object or service is often seen as nothing but the price it would bring in an open and competitive market... As such, everything is seen as a commodity and if there is no market to set a price then there is no economic value.
A/K/A "value in exchange".
In classical economics, the value of an object or condition is the amount of discomfort/labor saved through the consumption or use of an object or condition (Labor Theory of Value).
...
Steve Keen makes the claim that "value" refers to "the innate worth of a commodity, which determines the normal ('equilibrium') ratio at which two commodities exchange."
Citing: Steve Keen Debunking Economics, New York, Zed Books (2001) p. 271, ISBN 1-86403-070-4, OCLC 45804669
In which case, Steve and I disagree. See W.F. Lloyd and M. Say.
Though:
To Keen and the tradition of David Ricardo, this corresponds to the classical concept of long-run cost-determined prices, what Adam Smith called "natural prices" and Karl Marx called "prices of production."
That I agree with more, though I'd clarify by calling it the innate cost. Any value must then exceed this cost.
There's John Ruskin who wrote on the moral concept of value in Unto This Last. Notably:
It is impossible to conclude, of any given mass of acquired wealth, merely by the fact of its existence, whether it signifies good or evil to the nation in the midst of which it exists. Its real value depends on the moral sign attached to it, just as strictly as that of a mathematical quantity depends on the algebraic sign attached to it. Any given accumulation of commercial wealth may be indicative, on the one hand, of faithful industries, progressive energies, and productive ingenuities: or, on the other, it may be indicative of mortal luxury, merciless tyranny, ruinous chicanery.
Ruskin influenced Gandhi.
Mises appears:
Economists such as Ludwig von Mises asserted that "value," meaning exchange value, was always the result of subjective value judgements.... Thus, it was false to say that the economic value of a good was equal to what it cost to produce or to its current replacement cost.
No, not false. Different concepts.
Related:

William Stanley Jevons, Money and the Mechanism of Exchange (1875)

Among the classic works on the topic. Jevons' contents cover many of the topics and concepts I've been blundering into, though he's also concerned with the physical instanciation -- at the time of his writing, banknotes were still fairly new, and the were serious questions over multi-metallic standards (e.g., gold or silver, or gold and silver). Briefly:

Does a revised model offer any explanatory power?

There are several questions, most pressing of which is "am I completely nuts". Running close behind is "what does this buy us"?
I'd really like to be able to explain contradictions, paradoxes, or failures of existing economic theory in establishing value. There's the case of under-priced resources and the shutdown decision, noted above.
The dual approach to pollution externalities is another. Not sure if this is Coase, Lucas, Rawls, or another, but essentially, if one party pollutes and another has to deal with the consequences, conventional economic theory can make an equal case that either the polluter pays a fine for the harm, or the nonpolluter pays the polluter not to pollute. Being able to explain this would be nice.
If price is simply a control-system cost, then summing up control system costs over the entire economy ... doesn't really seem like a sensible operation. It tells you how much encouragement is needed to precipitate trade, but needn't address either cost nor value. This suggests that computing economic prices isn't ... all it's cracked up to be. And that perhaps cost is a better basis.
It could well be that ecologists are chasing the wrong target. They should be mapping economic costs to ecological ones, not the other way around?
Skimming Jevons, he addresses the cognizability of currency -- that is, you want people to be able to instantly recognise money as money. And not have to test it for worth or value. That's tickling some nerves, with Gresham's Law and Bitcoin both coming to mind. Gresham's Law: readily recognised value is a positive. Bitcoin; inherently noncognizable.
Observed economic behavior should be describable or derivable from this explanation. Coming up with a normative this is how things should be story ... that doesn't describe reality, isn't particularly useful. It is, however, practical.
I'm aware that some of what I'm suggesting goes against a few thousand years of economic thinking. On the other hand, some of what I've blundered into appears to be well in line with what's come before, and I'm independently deriving it.
Some simple targets would be to describe products made or labour provided continuously. Being able to describe pricing behavior and pricing mechanisms, and to show how stocks (that is, fixed quantities of goods) or asset classes behave, would be useful.
Describing monetary behavior more generally even more interesting.
And that all remains a work in process.
As I noted at the top: this is something I've been developing for the past couple of months. I'm researching what I can find of existing theory and understanding. Additional references, and noting where I'm off in the weeds would be highly appreciated.
submitted by dredmorbius to dredmorbius [link] [comments]

Remember: What is good for Bitcoin is GREAT for DOGE! Max Keiser on BTC/Cryptocurrency

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDDZEJnK5NE
At 9:30 he just said in on the air!! "...Bitcoin will be $4,500-$5,000..."
{About 10 days ago he did a tweet that Bitcoin would be $4,000 in 2014.}
This is really a great broadcast, because he just tears up Krugman of the New York Times who said "Bitcoin is evil". Listen closely. He also is making the sales-pitch that BITCOIN has 1,000's of other apps besides the currency aspect! THE SAME IS TRUE FOR DOGE, FOLKS!! In a previous broadcast he was already hinting at this point last month. DOGE has many, many more coins, and has just as secure BLOCKCHAIN, if not better.... ~darylluke.
submitted by darylluke to dogecoin [link] [comments]

A rede antissocial dos 'bitcoins' Paul Krugman

A oscilação exagerada do "bitcoin" pode não ter sido a notícia econômica mais importante das últimas semanas, mas foi a mais divertida, com certeza. Num período de menos de duas semanas, o preço da chamada "moeda digital" mais que triplicou. Em seguida, caiu mais de 50% em poucas horas. De repente pareceu que tínhamos voltado à era ponto.com.
O significado econômico dessa montanha-russa foi basicamente nenhum. Mas o furor em torno do "bitcoin" serviu de lição útil sobre como as pessoas têm concepções equivocadas em relação ao dinheiro, e, em especial, sobre como se deixam enganar devido a seu desejo de divorciar o valor do dinheiro da sociedade à qual o dinheiro serve.
O que é um "bitcoin"? Às vezes é descrito como uma maneira de realizar transações online --mas isso, por si só, não constituiria novidade num mundo de transações online com cartões de crédito e PayPal. Na realidade, o Departamento de Comércio dos EUA estima que até 2010, cerca de 16% das vendas totais efetuadas nos EUA já eram feitas no comércio eletrônico.
Então de que maneira o "bitcoin" é diferente? Diferentemente das transações com cartão de crédito, que deixam um rastro digital, as transações com "bitcoin" são criadas para serem anônimas e impossíveis de ser rastreadas. Quando você transfere "bitcoins" a alguém, é como se tivesse ido a uma viela escura e entregado a alguém um saco de papel com cédulas de US$100. E, dito e feito: pelo que é possível saber, tirando seu uso como alvo de especulação, a principal utilização feita do "bitcoin" até agora vem sendo para versões online daquelas transações em ruelas escuras, com "bitcoins" sendo trocados por drogas e outros produtos ilegais.
Mas os defensores do "bitcoin" insistem que este faz muito mais do que facilitar a realização de transações ilícitas. Os maiores investidores declarados em "bitcoin" são os irmãos Winklevoss, gêmeos ricos que moveram uma ação bem-sucedida para reivindicar uma parcela do Facebook e foram celebrizados pelo filme "A Rede Social". E eles defendem o produto digital em termos semelhantes aos usados por defensores do ouro quando falam de seu metal favorito. Tyler Winklevoss declarou recentemente: "Optamos por investir nosso dinheiro e nossa confiança num quadro matemático que é imune à política e ao erro humano".
A semelhança com o discurso dos defensores do ouro não é coincidência, já que os entusiastas do ouro e dos "bitcoins" tendem a compartilhar uma posição política libertária e a crença de que os governos abusam profundamente de seu poder de imprimir dinheiro. Ao mesmo tempo, é muito peculiar, já que os "bitcoins" são, em certo sentido, o máximo possível em matéria de moeda fiduciária, com valor que não é baseado em nada concreto.
O valor do ouro vem em parte do fato de esse metal ter utilizações não monetárias, como em obturações dentárias e na fabricação de joias; as moedas de papel têm valor porque são garantidas pelo poder do Estado, que as define como moeda legal e as aceita no pagamento de impostos. No caso dos "bitcoins", seu valor, quando existe algum, se deve puramente à crença de que outras pessoas os aceitarão como forma de pagamento.
Mas deixemos essa característica estranha de lado, além do processo peculiar de "garimpagem" empregado para fazer crescer o montante de "bitcoins" --na realidade, um processo de cálculo complexo. Foquemos, ao invés disso, duas grandes ideias equivocadas --uma delas prática, outra de cunho filosófico-- que são subjacentes tanto à crença no valor fundamental do ouro quanto na aposta nos "bitcoins".
O equívoco prático em questão --e é grande-- é a ideia de que vivemos numa era marcada pela impressão altamente irresponsável de dinheiro, em que a inflação galopante estaria prestes a chegar. É verdade que o Federal Reserve e outros bancos centrais ampliaram suas folhas de balanço em muitos, mas o fizeram explicitamente, como medida temporária em resposta à crise econômica.
Eu sei que se diz que não é possível confiar em autoridades governamentais e tudo o mais, mas a verdade é que as promessas de Ben Bernanke de que suas ações não terão consequências inflacionárias vêm sendo cumpridas ano após ano, enquanto as previsões agourentas de inflação feitas pelos partidários do ouro insistem em não se concretizar.
Mas me parece que o equívoco filosófico é ainda maior. Tanto os partidários do ouro quanto os dos "bitcoins" parecem ansiar por um padrão monetário puro, que seja intocado pelas fragilidades humanas.
Mas esse é um sonho impossível. Como Paul Samuelson declarou certa vez, o dinheiro é um "expediente social", não algo que exista fora da sociedade. Mesmo quando as pessoas usavam moedas de ouro e prata, a utilidade dessas moedas não estava nos metais preciosos que continham, mas na expectativa de que outras pessoas as aceitariam como forma de pagamento.
Na realidade, poderíamos imaginar que os irmãos Winklevoss entendessem esse fato, já que, de certo modo, o dinheiro é como uma rede social: algo útil apenas na medida em que outras pessoas o utilizam. Mas acho que algumas pessoas simplesmente se incomodam com a noção de que o dinheiro é uma coisa humana e querem os benefícios da rede monetária sem a parte social dela. Lamento --isso é impossível.
Será que precisamos de um novo tipo de dinheiro, então? Acho que esse argumento poderia ser apresentado se o dinheiro que temos estivesse apresentando problemas de funcionamento. Mas não está. Temos problemas econômicos enormes, mas as folhinhas de papel verde estão funcionando muito bem. Não deveríamos mexer com elas.
Paul Krugman é prêmio Nobel de Economia (2008), colunista do jornal "The New York Times" e professor na Universidade Princeton (EUA). Um dos mais renomados economistas da atualidade, é autor ou editor de 20 livros e tem mais de 200 artigos científicos publicados.
submitted by allex2501 to BrasilBitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Media and PR

Bit redditors are complaining that Amir Taaki is a childish rep of bitcoin and needs someone more corporate, like Erik Voorhees or Trace Mayer however stop complaining on reddit and do your part.
The bit coin needs good PR and good publicity and more importantly positive Media Representation especially in Western Media.
Understand the trends.
Since bitcoin prices have skyrocketed from $30 upwards. Media agencies such as BBC, CNN have stopped reporting factual events in bitcoin such as the bitcoinica and mtgox hacks earlier to taking an editorial stance for or against it. Most outlets and newspapers have not done their research properly which shows how rushed and sensationalised journalism has become.
Tech and Business news have started to output their views also on bitcoin also highlighting inaccurate events and publicizing weaknesses such as Hacks, Bubbles and laughable bearish views. The Tech news outlets have been pretty favourable and business outlets pragmatically harsher.
Its simple.
News Agencies and Newspapers have hierarchies and therefore their editorial output is determined in a meeting even if the journalist is doing an independent piece as it still have to be editorially approved.
So quite simply if Media proprietors, newspaper and magazine editors and journalists and news anchors actually had bitcoins in their wallets, like the tech journalists have, hence why they are favourable to it, they would naturally promote bitcoins similar to how Goldman Sachs promotes the assets or derivatives they are long on. Most here are long on bitcoin so you need to make sure that Media proprietors, editors and journalists have bitcoins. This includes News Agencies, Newspapers and Magazines and Tech and business news outlets also. In addition to politicians and regulators. Find out everyone connected and send them bitcoins to get them connected. Clearly aimed at early adopters since the new guys cant send out bitcoins that they had to pay large amounts for. It may sounds ridiculous to send relatively affluent people in society bitcoins however the long term aim fully justifies this and I hope most of you read this over again if you do not understand this. These people promote their bias and interest directly and indirectly and still can appear neutral and professional. Get these guys to do our Marketing and PR without paying a PR agency millions of dollars. Just send them a few coins.
Remember Wordpress, Reddit, Mega, 9Flats, Expensify,
Of course a legitimate currency has to be used for illegitimate human vices such as Drugs, Sex, porn prostitution and Gambling.
But Food & Drink, Clothing and Shelter need to be purchased with bitcoin for it to fully function.
So contact or even flood them on email or twitter.
BBC, CNN, Reuters, AP, AFP, AlJazeera, CBS, ABC, Fox, NBC, New York Times, USA Today and Gannett, LA times and Tribune, MediaNews Group, Daily News, Sun-Times, Hearst Corp, Washington Post, Associated Newspapers, News International, GMG, TMG and Press Holdings, Bloomberg, FT and Economist, Tech like Verge, Arstechnica, Wired, TC, BGR, GigaOM, VB, Mashable, Media proprietors, CEO, Chairman, CIO, CTO, CFO, Editors, and Journalists, Also your politicians Senators, Reps and MPs, and Regulators like FinCen and others in US/EU. and finance commentators, strategists and economists - since they put out their views regularly to sheep that follow their every word even if they lie.
No point commenting this guy and that girl gave a negative view or that newspaper or blog is biased. Do something.
Go.
Bloomberg correspondent Sara Eisen, Convergex Group Chief market Strategist Nick Colas , Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer, Societe Generale Senior Forex Strategist Sebastien Galy, Bob Rice, general managing partner with Tangent Capital Partners LLC, UBS stockbroker Art Cashin, Reuters claim Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs traders visiting mtgox Mastercard are watching, Steve Hanke, http://economics.wustl.edu/people/stephen_williamson, Scott Sumner, Tyler Cowen, George Selgin, Paul Krugman, Benjamin M. Friedman, http://econ.williams.edu/people/knk1, Lawrence H. White, Russ Roberts. Paypal is watching, Media Proprietors will call short now but then... Let their greed enable us.
The greed is unbelievable. http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/05/why-do-vcs-care-about-bitcoin/
submitted by catoeisen to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Redditor cookupastorm's in-depth, readable critique of the gold standard

Not going to claim karma for this - click through here to vote.
The problem with gold is that it doesn't work in an advanced market economy. Gold relies on the government hoarding all of a scarce resource and then pegging the currency to how many shiny rocks they have in a vault.
Gold backed currency involved actual transfers of gold to other countries, so you had to load up huge barges guarded by soldiers and physically transfer your shiny rocks to someone else to settle payments.
It also relies on the government setting an arbitrary value for a currency, which can then fluctuate based on how much more gold, or diamonds, or fancy shells (whatever it's pegged to) are found.
Say we switch back to gold today, the government would have to acquire gold and then set a strict value, say $1,800 an ounce. But that wouldn't work because then you've capped your economy at how much gold you have x what price you set. So say we peg it to the value of the economy and gold is worth thousands and thousands an ounce.
You still have inflation and deflation based on speculation in the economy, (read up on it, there was inflation and deflation under the gold standard) so it doesn't fix that problem, you also cripple the ability of a government to act in a crisis. So if there is a downturn in the economy the government can and should step in to prop up demand to keep things from collapsing.
The gold standard during the depression made things worse because the government didn't have the reserves to keep demand up. And I know mises followers and Ron Paul fans love to link to articles talking about how FDR made the depression worse, but those articles have NEVER been vetted by any reputable academic institution. All of the peer reviewed studies have shown that FDR basically took the best course he could given the situation.
The arguments that people make against fiat currency don't really hold water when you look at the bigger picture. They like to say that fiat money has no value, so what does gold have? It's just a shiny rock. It only has value because we say it does. Fiat currency only has value because we say it does. That's all money is. It's not some divine thing that has intrinsic value. Money is just a way for one party to say "I have something that we both agree has value, and using that we can trade services without bartering".
They also make the argument that fiat currencies eventually become worthless. Not true.
It doesn't matter if a gallon of milk costs $5 or $500. What matters is how much the average worker had to expend to get that gallon of milk. The purchasing power. If a gallon of milk costs $500 but you spent 20 minutes working to earn it, that's better than milk costing $1 that took you an entire day to earn. And indeed that is what has happened over the 20th century.
People earn more, things cost more, but ultimately the hours worked per shirt, per gallon of milk, per tractor have dropped dramatically due to increases in productivity.
The argument that they make is that a government for political reasons will step in and start printing money to satisfy voters, which is why we have an independent central bank (The Fed). The Fed is not some towering dark hellspawn bent on destroying your savings. They have a mandate from the Federal government to serve as a link between private banks and Federal money and ensure stability within the financial system. So sometimes the Fed prints money, sometimes they take money out of the system through open market operations where they buy or sell bonds on the open market.
It's not a perfect system but it works for an advanced economy and more importantly, the Fed is independent of Congress, which keeps politicians from simply passing bills to print money to satisfy their constituents.
Every single advanced market economy went off of the gold standard simply because it's not efficient enough. It doesn't allow enough flexibility to sustain and advanced economy.
What I find sad is that most of the people here (and in general) who support Ron Paul's economic policies do so because they lack a core understanding of economics. What Ron Paul says sounds fantastic, but there is a difference between platitudes and how the world actually works in practice.
What I find truly scary are the people that advocate for private currency. I think those people in no uncertain terms are delusional.
They would rather see an agency (The Fed) that has appointed members which are answerable to Congress and the President, and who regularly hire the top economists in the country to publish freely available economic data (the Fed reports that come out each quarter) be abolished and have their currency turned over to private corporations, who are accountable to no one.
This isn't about gold but it's just a private rant. Can you imagine how hellish a world with private currencies would be? Suddenly instead of being able to buy milk in California and New York for dollars, you would have to use whatever was the accepted medium of trade. So many a store in your neighborhood accepts bitcoins, but your bank only deals in gold doubloons, so you save in doubloons and exchange it for bitcoins when you go shopping, so now you have to manage the exchange rate, but then you take a road trip, you have bitcoins and doubloons but the diner only accepts paypal bucks, so you swap more currency, but how much does that burger cost? It costs 5 paypal bucks, but what is that in doubloons. When was the last fluctuation, why did the currencies fluctuate?
Private currencies complicate EVERYTHING because they raise the information costs of a basic transaction. Then you have the issue of who polices the people that make the currencies? Of course libertarians say no, but what happens when people who have Dow Chemical Dinars (which look safe according to market analysts) go bust and people's retirements are wiped out. Is it their fault for investing in Dow when their advisers said it was ok? Should they have transferred their savings to paypal bucks? Based on what information?
And... where is the average worker going to find the time and expertise to track and understand multiple currencies and what it means to their future?
It's not insulting to say that the average worker simply cannot do that. Most financial professionals can't do that. It's not a reasonable expectation to think that a factory worker from Ohio is going to understand a complex currency trading system that people with advanced degrees don't even fully comprehend. That's not dissing on the worker, that's just a matter of time and energy expended on a project.
Original post
submitted by senning to reddit.com [link] [comments]

Paul Krugman does not understand bitcoin 7/9/15 Paul Krugman: Economics of Innovation, Automation, Safety ... Krugman: I'd Be Really Worried About Trump as President Paul Krugman on Values and Economics Rachel Jafta interviews Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman is an economist and New York Times columnist who received the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics for his work in trade theory. more Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) Definition News about Bitcoin, including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times. Paul Krugman is an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times. Biography » Columns » Books; End This Depression Now! (2013) Principles of Economics, 2nd ed. (2009) The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008 (Dec. 2008) The Conscience of a Liberal (Oct. 2007) © Sicher ist aber, dass seine Kolumne als Katalysator für den Abwärtsimpuls bei Bitcoin & Co fungierte. New York Times Kolumnist Krugman sorgt für Abverkauf bei Bitcoin & Co Kommentieren Paul Krugman, a New York Times opinion columnist, writes about macroeconomics, trade, health care, social policy and politics. In 2008, he received the Nobel Prize in Economics.

[index] [2501] [21026] [8822] [21865] [37953] [40641] [17061] [37047] [16421] [4564]

Paul Krugman does not understand bitcoin 7/9/15

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner in economics, professor at CUNY, and columnist at the New York Times. His academic work centers around international eco... Nobel Prize Winning Economist Slams Bitcoin and Crypto. Old Man Krugman Calls Bitcoin a Ponzi Scheme Paul Krugman wrote a column in the New York Times today slamming bitcoin and all ... Globalization, Technological Change, and Inequality: Jeffrey Sachs and Paul Krugman in Conversation - Duration: 1:07:00. The Graduate Center, CUNY 59,894 views Nobel Prize-winning Economist Paul Krugman on Tax Reform, Trump, and Bitcoin - Duration: ... 16:47. Niall Ferguson Blasts New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman - Duration: 2:40. The Daily Beast ... Nobel Prize-winning Economist Paul Krugman on Tax Reform, Trump, and Bitcoin - Duration: 16:47. ... Niall Ferguson Blasts New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman - Duration: 2:40. The Daily Beast ...

#