Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Category: economics – Page 212

At the end of 2015, the US national debt will be 18.6 trillion dollars. With such a big number, it’s tempting to put it in perspective by comparing it with things more easily envisioned. 98e2c31e5c194d21be9fd3922dc45fde9207f454Alas, I can not think of anything that puts such an oppressive and unfair burden into perspective, except to this:

US debt represents a personal obligation of $60,000 for each American citizen. And it is rising quickly. Most of our GDP is used simply to pay down interest on that debt. Few pundits see a way out of this hole.

bretton_woods-aIn my opinion, that hole was facilitated in August 1971, when the US modified the Bretton Woods Agreement and unilaterally terminated convertibility of the US dollar to gold. By forcibly swapping every dollar in every pocket and bank account with the promise of transient legislators, individual wealth was suddenly based on fiat instead of something tangible or intrinsic.

Feds Meet: No interest rate hike

The benchmark interest rate set by the US Federal Reserve Board is currently between 0 and 0.25%. It has been at or near zero since 2006.

By now, Lifeboat readers know that 20 hours ago, the US Federal Reserve board decided to not hike the benchmark interest rate. The Fed did, however, signal that they still intend to raise interest rates at a future meeting—perhaps in October or December.

The announcement came just after US equity markets closed. But, in what has become a most odd news coverage of a non-event, the immediate reaction was to lift the Asian stock markets, which were still open during the announcement.

I am a frequent contributor to Quora. I field many questions on economics, politics, law, and even physics. You might be inclined to check out my credentials as pundit of macro-economics. Don’t bother…There are none! I am an armchair economist (this is the same as saying: “I am not an economist”). But I certainly follow these things closely, and have an informed opinion.

Today, I was asked this:
What would happen if the fed had raised interest rates?

The question asked specifically about the effect on other interest rates, but a more interesting exercise might be to speculate on the state of the economy. Here then, is a comon-sense response…

If we could freeze all other conditions and avoid the effects of public confidence, likely change in debt, debt rating, etc… If we ignore these things, then the direct result of raising the interest rate for a given national currency is to attract outside money. That is, we would see an increase in foreign conversion into dollars and a movement of US assets from stocks and bonds into currency or currency equivalents. This is a simple result of the higher payout that one would expect after a raise in interest rates.

In theory, the sift of international assets and investment into dollars does four things:

  • It strengthens the value of the dollar, thereby increasing the take-home potential of US workers and the number of things US residence buy from overseas (because a slightly higher fraction of organizations seek dollars)
  • It increases income for anyone tied to published interest rates, such as many senior citizens.
  • It increases interest payments from anyone tied to published interest rates. For anyone deeply in debt on instruments such as credit cards or home equity, this can have a devastating impact—causing minimum payments to rise by many times the interest rate hike.
  • It increases US national debt, because so much of the economy is built on forward loans in the form of Treasury notes. With an interest rate increase, the US must pay more on both new debt and the financing of massive outstanding debts.

This is all theoretical, of course. In practice, one of the first effects is for individuals and institutions to wonder: “How can the US possibly pay out on debt at an increased rate?”. [possible answer]*

One very obvious effect is that many individuals will further lose confidence in the American economy or the will of American’s to honor the national debt. Because of this, the effect of raising the interest rate (for the first time in 9 years) is not easy to predict. Despite massive uptake on US debt, the Chinese and energy producing nations have limits to what they can believe. A subtle switch in their investment activity (or the determination to move away from a dollar-based reserve) will have massive repercussions, especially for the US.

_____________
* Some pundits argue that US debt and payments can continue to grow, because the ability to accommodate these things are protected by these things:

  • a recovering economy
  • increased activity from the new investors
  • need for producer nations to seize on a massive consumer market
  • need for producer nations to invest their gains

But, a growing number of economists, investors, analysts, credit bureaus, and citizens don’t buy this argument! They point out that it kicks-the-can down the road and foists untenable debt on future generations. They would prefer that the US reign in spending and pay down debt.

In this regard, being the world’s reserve currency has helped hook the US on debt, and it has ballooned out of control. Transitioning to a firmly capped currency that is not controlled by legislation or a reserve board would help the country avoid massive debts (those that exceed the willingness of bond holders to finance) and to do what it must do.

In my take, the real question is not “What if the Fed has raised interest rates?” The real question is:

Does the U.S. have the courage to link its currency to something durable
— and beyond control of transient political winds and a debt pyramid?”

Sure, we must still honor the excess of the past 40 years. But with gold, or Bitcoin, at least we will have solid underpinnings and incentives to spend within our means.

Philip Raymond is a member the New Money Systems Board
at Lifeboat. He is Co-chair of Cryptocurrency Standards
Association and editor at A Wild Duck.

This short post is not about Bitcoin. It’s about a new method of organizing and arbitrating communications that is at the heart of Bitcoin

We hear a lot about the blockchain. We also hear a lot of misconceptions about its purpose and benefits. Some have said that it represents a threat to banks or to governments. Nonsense! It is time to form a simple, non-political, and non-economic explanation…

What is a Blockchain?

The blockchain is a distributed approach to bookkeeping. It offers an empowering, efficient and trusted way for disparate parties to reach consensus. It is “empowering”, because conclusions built on a blockchain can be constructed in a way that is inherently fair, transparent, and resistant to manipulation.

This is why blockchain-backed systems are generating excitement. Implemented as distributed and permissionless, they take uncertainty out of accounting, voting, legislation or research, and replace it with trust and security. Benefits are bestowed without the need for central authority or arbitration. The blockchain not only solves a fundamental transaction challenge, it addresses communication and arbitration problems that have bedeviled thinkers since the ancient Egyptians.

Related:

—Philip Raymond, CRYPSA Co-chair
Cryptocurrency Standards Association

When my daughter was just starting primary school, she would look inside a book for the pictures before reading the text. She was old enough to read without pictures, but she wanted to get a quick synopsis before diving in. “Look, Dad! a bunny is carrying a giant clock into a rabbit hole.”

White Rabbt-01This is my first article without pictures. At least none of Bitcoin, because the copper coin metaphors are tired and inaccurate. At the user level, owning bitcoin is simply your stake in a widely distributed ledger. Ownership exists only as strings of secret code and public code. There is no physical coin.

Since the only pictures in this post show a white rabbit with a big clock, let me give you the quick synopsis: The answer is “No”. Bitcoin will not end government, nor its ability to tax, spend—or even enforce compliance.

But there is an irony: Most lawmakers and regulators have not yet figured this out. They perceive a great threat to their national interests. That’s why Andreas M. Antonopoulos runs around the world. He briefs prime ministers, cabinets and legislators with the noble purpose of demystifying and de-boogieing Bitcoin.

Does Bitcoin Help Tax Cheats?

I accept the need for taxpayer reporting, measurement, and compliance initiatives. After all, it’s human nature to dislike paying taxes. Many individuals dodge taxes, if the perceived risk of being caught is low. Sociologists also point out that people are willing to cheat a system, if they perceive it to be sufficiently big or impersonal—i.e that their individual contribution is meaningless.

[ASIDE]: For this reason, Akamai Technologies ends their free-soda-&-snack policy whenever an office grows beyond 30 people (I learned this during a job interview a few years ago). People who would normally respect the policy begin pocketing free sodas for their home or friends, if (a) they no longer know everyone, or (b) they perceive the extra burden is just a drop in the corporate bucket, and not a burden on their office peers.

I suspect that most early proponents of Bitcoin are partially motivated by a desire for low taxes and privacy. While I don’t feel that these individuals are bad for the cause (after all, I am one), I feel that it is unfortunate that they appear to be the overwhelming majority of users & supporters. Let’s dismiss, for the moment, the fraction of voices that want to completely end government and taxation…If you believe in any taxes at all, then government needs compliancy mechanisms, including methods that measure, verify and ultimately arbitrate or prosecute offenders. (Don’t blame me…I’m not even the messenger here. Just an observer).

My point is that in their effort to control a country’s monetary supply (and the interbank loan rate, etc) and in their effort to ensure taxpayer compliance, a great many governments view Bitcoin as a threat. In the past, I felt that my job was to evangelize the public on the benefits of cryptocurrency, and to a great extent, that’s what CRYPSA is all about. But in recent months, I have become confident that Bitcoin will become ubiquitous. It doesn’t need me to be an evangelist. The freight train is now rolling downhill. But…

Andreas Antonopoulos-01s
But as an engineer, author, speaker and occasional consultant, I have found a new calling. Like Andreas Antonopoulos (my idol), I have found a calling in de-boogieing Bitcoin to lawmakers and regulators. I demonstrate that (a) cryptocurrency represents far more of an opportunity than a threat to a national interests, and (b) the future is coming at ya’.
So, either: Stand pat; Get out of the way; or Hop on!

I can give an audience filled with old-school conservatives compelling reasons to “hop on”. Ultimately, blockchain technology coupled with true, permissionless, p2p transactions will shake up established mechanisms and enforcement protocols. They will force new ways of thinking. But cryptocurrency will not end the reign of government—nor even end the ability to tax, enforce and spend. It will simply change the way they do these things. It will also change the way we conduct polls, vote, arbitrate disputes, perform scientific research and much more.

Bitcoin and the blockchain are not just technologies. They transform the way in which many tasks are performed. But it’s not just about efficiency. These technologies offer mechanisms to level the playing field. TWhite Rabbt-02hey bring fairness and representation to processes that were opaque and perhaps even relied on the excuse of opaqueness.

Ultimately, Bitcoin may render certain government departments redundant. Nations will begin to question their need to directly control monetary policy. The impact at the department level is no reason to fear Bitcoin. Overall, it represents great opportunity and not a threat. In my opinion, the changes will benefit everyone.

Bitcoin is not an us-against-them instrument. It is win-win. Of course, perception counts. Misunderstanding potential and confusing it for a threat is a fundamental problem. I share CRYPSA’s passion to help make it a very short-term problem.

Philip Raymond is CEO and Co-Chair of CRYPSA,
The Cryptocurrency Standards Association.

For most of us, figuring out the value of something that we want, comes from research. If you want a new set of wine glasses, you check the price online. Perhaps you consult a catalog. If the set of 8 stemware goblets that you like are a current model from a major company, there are probably many places to buy them. If there are multiple Ebay sellers and many recently completed sales, then you can establish the value with precision.

I’ve written a lot of Bitcoin articles on this Lifeboat Blog and elsewhere, so, let’s dig a bit deeper this time. Let’s talk about from where value really comes.

Supply and Demand

In the end, an item’s value is a direct result of supply and demand. It’s no different with a currency. And let’s be clear: Despite a raging debate, Bitcoin is a currency and not just a payment instrument. How can I be certain? Try this mental exercise—

Amazon_Gift_CardWestern Union money orders and Amazon Gift cards are each trusted monetary instruments. They facilitate cash transactions. But are they currencies with inherent value? If so, there would be no need to denominate them in units of fiat currency.

A money order is only worth something before it is redeemed. The gift card is only worth $500 when it is purchased or received as a gift. As the $500 is depleted, it becomes worthless. Eventually, it is just a piece of plastic. But like a dollar bill, a bitcoin can be circulated over and over. You may believe that its value comes from the government, but more realistically, its value arises from brand recognition and from pure supply and demand—not from a trusted redemption authority.

Bitcoin isn’t the first ethereal stash of bits with value. But it is more durable than others. The latest Pixar film on DVD or On Demand from your cable service provider has value. But piracy reduces the value dramatically. The supply is no longer scarce (no matter the demand) because of the ease and willingness to replicate digital files in any quantity. A Picasso painting is very rare, but it is so scarce, that we cannot gather enough data points to establish a stable value. Even worse, it’s not portable, divisible or fungible and it is nearly impossible to validate in the hands of the average person.

But, commodities like iPhones, Doritos tortilla chips—or even non-branded things, like Idaho potatoes, have a large and fluid market. These things have very measurable value and we can track the change in value over time.

People like to think that money is different than other commodities. In practice, it differs only by its handling characteristics: Compared to a Bitcoin-08Picaso painting or a new iPhone 6, currency has these properties. It is:

  • portable
  • fungible
  • divisible
  • widely recognized
  • resistant to forgery
  • backed by something tangible

Bitcoin has all of these characteristics. In fact, it surpasses your national currency in every way. But many people are confused about that last niggling detail… Aristotle called it “intrinsic value”. They worry that there is no gold—or at least the promise of a stable government—to establish and stand behind the value of a bitcoin unit (BTC). The concern is understandable, but it is wrong.

Recall that value arises through supply and demand and not simply because of authority or promises. The real question is “Can we trust that the supply is limited and that the demand is durable?”. That is, will my coin be recognized, coveted and honored in the future?

The Case Against Bitcoin as a Currency

Here are some frightening facts (frightening for some cryptocurrency enthusiasts and early adopters): Bitcoin is manufactured out of thin air. It lacks the underpinnings of a traditional currency. Referring to that last item on Arisotle’s list above, Bitcoin seems to fail the test of intrinsic value, because it lacks at least one of these properties:

  • A fractional reserve requirement
  • An edict to remit taxes in Bitcoin
  • A promise of a trusted authority
  • Any claim of pegging it to the value to some essential commodity (intrinsic value)
  • Bitcoin doesn’t even offer a perception of uniqueness. The formula is open for anyone to copy. You could create a competing ‘Bob-coin’ tomorrow.

In the absence of at least one of these things, detractors claim that Bitcoin lacks a foundation—and so it is effectively worthless. But value does not come only from authority. It comes from trust and is goverend by supply and demand.

snoop-03
The dollar is backed by trust — Not gold, math, nor even history

In fact, math may be a more trusted ‘authority’ than the directors of your national treasury and reserve board. Supply and demand leads to more tangible value than bankers, especially if the math leads you to believe that the demand will continue to outpace the supply. In fact, this is the primary reason that you are comfortable with a $20 bill in your pocket. You have a pretty good idea, that next week, it will still buy 2 movie tickets or 2 pizzas.

Bitcoin has achieved a “two-sided network effect” (Google the term and the economist “Marshall Van Alstyne”). It has captured the public imagination more than Picasso. It cannot be manufactured. With a reasonable understanding of wallets, it cannot be seized, stolen or lost.

The ability to mine new bitcoins is capped with a total supply of 21 million units, and so there is no opportunity for governments to inflate it through mismanagement of taxation or spending. They cannot even inflate it with good intent (for example, when they need to repair a bridge or provide for the poor). Instead, the ability to pay for these services (and all other government functions) forces them to live within a balanced budget. Spending cannot outpace the revenue generated by taxes and bonds. In a Bitcoin economy, the bonds will more likely be paid back by user fees rather than the future debt of unborn generations.* You get the point: Because governments no longer control the printing press, they cannot make hollow promises and then kick the problem into the next administration. With a limited money supply that everyone recognizes as money, governments are forced to live within their means.

What About Uniqueness?

The last item in the list above decries Bitcoin’s lack of uniqueness. You cannot mint your own bitcoins of course—but you can create an equivalent bitcoin ecosystem yourself. If your name is Bob, you can call it Bobcoin. Many countries and organizations are already doing this.

This is really no different than the US Dollar or your own national currency. The government note is difficult to counterfeit, but so is your own signature when placed on a fancy printed currency (Let’s call it a Bob-Buck). The problem is that the dollar is widely recognized, trusted and accepted, but few people other than your kids are collecting Bob Bucks.

You would face the challenge of spurring adoption. Whether it’s Bob Bucks (paper) or Bobcoin (cryptocurrency), how will you get the world to covet, mine and trade your new currency? That’s the point of a two-sided network. It becomes increasingly more difficult after one method rises to the top—especially if that method is open, transparent and extensible. Bitcoin is open. It is subject to worldwide scrutiny. But this works both ways. Bitcoin can also add incremental improvements that are part of any pretender to the throne.

Bitcoin is not just a transient coin-du-jour. It evolves and so it will not die.

How Can the Value be Measured?

I get this question a lot, and so I am adding the answer here. There is no need to measure the value of Bitcoin or define debt. Its value floats with supply and demand like a true world currency. Because the supply growth is capped and well understood, it is resistant to manipulation. As time goes by, it becomes far less likely to exhibit wild swings in value.

A few years from now, if Bitcoin spikes or tanks by 10% in a short time, you will be more likely to wonder “What is affecting the dollar?” (or Euro), rather than “What is affecting Bitcoin”. Consumers will budget for the cost of a new car or refrigerator in BTC rather than dollars or Euros. You will even see catalogs that print prices in BTC and honor them for the life of the catalog or online sale. After all, in an international market, it makes sense to quote a price in units with no geopolitical boundaries, just as we quote time in UTC (formerly called GMT).

Are these predictions crazy? They are not even bold. For us, here at Lifeboat Foundation, they are rather obvious. If we can be accused of dreaming, it is because we are ahead of the game. Look ahead, yourself. The signs are clear…

If Bitcoin has Value, What is the Value?

As Bitcoin adoption moves past enthusiasts and early adopters, the capped supply of coins (21 million, max) will be spread thinner and thinner. This doesn’t play out like a classic shortage, because unlike a supply squeeze on food or medicine, you can work with a smaller piece of the pie each year. The piece needed to pay for a car or an iPhone simply gets smaller as the unit price floats higher and higher.

Last year, I set up an equation to predict how high Bitcoin will float in 5 or 10 years. It involved a lot of WAGs (wild *ss guesses). Although I am a pundit, I am not a mathematician, and so the attempt was incomplete. No need to rehash that exercise.

Passport-s-TAs Hysteria Withers, Bold Becomes Mundane

Eventually consumers, banks, brokers, and governments will recognize that Bitcoin is a far greater opportunity than it is a threat. It pulls the world together by decoupling currency controls from national agenda, inflation, manipulation and loss (You can back up your Bitcoin. Try doing that with your paper money or a defunct bank).

Philip Raymond is CEO and Co-Chair of CRYPSA,
The Cryptocurrency Standards Association.

_____________
* This is just one reason why an eventual transition to Bitcoin (as currency, and not just as a payment instrument) is in the national interest. It demonstrates to citizens that monetary policy is backed by more than growing debt, inflation or the promises of transient officials. It returns any government or economic entity to a non-inflationary, limited-supply pie. The pieces of pie can grow in value, but the pie cannot be watered down by printing more ingredients, counterfeit or even by enemy action.

Further Reading

Dr. Nils J. Nilsson spent almost a lifetime in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) before writing and publishing his book, The Quest for Artificial Intelligence (2009). I recently had the opportunity to speak with the former Stanford computer science professor, now retired at the age of 82, and reflect on the earlier accomplishments that have led to some of the current trends in AI, as well as the serious economic and security considerations that need to be made about AI as society moves ahead in the coming decades.

The Early AI that Powers Today’s Trends

One key contribution of early AI developments included rules-based expert systems, such as MYCIN, which was developed in the mid-1970s by Ted Shortliffe and colleagues at Stanford University. The information built into the diagnostic system was gleaned from medical diagnosticians, and the system would then ask questions based on that information. A person could then type in answers about a patient’s tests, symptoms, etc., and the program would then attempt to diagnose diseases and prescribe therapy.

“Bringing us more up to the future was the occurrence of huge databases (in the 1990s) — sometimes called big data — and the ability of computers to mine that data and find information and make inferences,” remarks Nils. This made possible the new work on face recognition, speech recognition, and language translation. “AI really had what might be called a take off at this time.” Both of these technologies also feed into the launch of IBM’s Watson Healthcare, which combines advanced rules-based systems with big data capabilities and promises to give healthcare providers access to powerful tools in a cloud-based data sharing hub.

Work in neural networks, another catalyst, went through two phases, an earlier phase in the 1950s and 1960s and a latter phase in the 1980s and 1990s. “The second phase (of neural networks) allowed…people to make changes in the connected strength in those networks and multiple layers, and this allowed neural networks that can steer and drive automobiles.” More primitive networks led to the cutting-edge work being done by today’s scientists in the self-driven automobile industry via companies like Tesla and Google.

Robotics was also being developed at Stanford in the 1950s and 1960s. A robot could look at its environment and determine the position of objects, could be given tasks and then make a plan of action to achieve the goal. A built-in monitoring system allowed it to evaluate results and it could re-orient itself and get back on track. These early robots used a digital equipment computer that is not nearly as powerful as the technology that we have on a present-day wristwatch, let alone an an autonomous drone.

All of these early technologies led to the trends in industry that are moving and shaking the global economy. An interesting difference worth noting, between the way that old and new technologies were primarily developed, has to do with the driving context. There is a well-known distinction between ‘demand-pull’ technology (using AI to solve existing problems) and ‘push’ technology orientations (AI that is developed from the top down, without necessarily meeting specific user needs).

In the earlier days of AI research, scientists and engineers leaned toward the latter ‘push’ method, as opposed to the ‘demand-pull’ strategy that is more prevalent today (though certainly both exist). Early AI scientists “really wanted to see how far they could leverage the technology”, remarks Nilsson, as they were fascinated by the basic techniques, but not yet sure about purpose.

AI Threats on the Horizon

Global security is an increasing threat made evident by developing technologies. People are and will be monitored more often (at airports, street corners, etc.). There’s also the issue of autonomous weapons, in particular planes or drones that are not guided as they are now. The technology is already available for allowing such machines to make decisions autonomously. This is already a pressing a public issue to which the United States, “as defenders of democracy”, and other nations should pay careful attention to, remarks Nilsson.

The theoretical concerns of AI’s threat to the existence of the human species, so readily covered in the media, are legitimate; however, Nils does not believe they are the only concern for the very near future. Instead, he suggests that AI poses other kinds of relevant threats about which we should also be thinking, such as those risks to the existing economic system.

The issue of employment as a result of increasing automation is one point for real consideration. Economists have made the argument that automation has occurred in the past and that such innovations have not prevented new startups; however, with the seeming inevitable development of human-level cognitive AI, there are many more jobs (certain types of journalism, for example) that machines can also perform more quickly.

“Now, should we regard that as a threat, or should we regard that as ‘well, lots of people have jobs that they don’t like, why should we regard eliminating the need for people to work at those jobs as a threat?”, says Nils. While increased automation will inevitably result in a decreased need for human labor, the question as to what humans will do with more leisure time remains. They could spend time doing more creative things, but this is a serious consideration for humankind.

Nilsson points out that nations will also need to reorient the economy. “The production of goods and services will certainly increase, but will be done by robots and automation; I think the big problem for us is to decide, ‘okay, how do we actually distribute these goods and services to people who aren’t earning a salary?’”

The Need for Real Solutions

What are the potential solutions? On autonomous weapons, Nils believes that there certainly needs to be international collaboration. The United Nations (UN), “which sometimes is not as effective as it should be”, needs to be heavily involved. Nilsson states the need for forming other alliances with NATO, the Chinese, and other rising governments; he’s not sure what to do about the Middle East, which is already a “hot spot.”

Regardless, Nilsson emphasizes that the United States needs to be able to lead the way and set better, well thought-out examples in how we use such technology. “Not only we, as a ‘defender of democracy’ should pay careful attention to and worry about (these threats), but other nations need to do so also.”

On the issue of employment, Nils points to the need to ask some tough questions i.e. “are we going to have a policy of income distribution or reverse income taxes?” There is the problem of people’s ability to purchase, but also the very real consideration as to what people will do with their time, a paradox shift. “In the past, people didn’t have that worry because they had to work…we can’t very well go back to the old breads and circus thing of the Romans,” he jests.

Nilsson believes that this will require the usual avenues of politics and think tanks, though one would assume a much more active and integrated citizenry as well. “One important part is the citizenry has to be more well-informed about these threats than it is at the moment.” Coming up with real solutions requires a real collaborative, multi-pronged effort, one that is all too often easier said than done.

Long time ago I was wondering why not to use drones (• (named for that concrete application Extreme Access Flyers) to explore the space, to reach new planets, asteroids … it would be exciting … rovers are limited in action, so what if we make it airborne? Once in space, why not to send a drone or a swarm of them from the main spaceship to explore a new planet? They could interact, share capabilities, morph, etc.

While the economy looks more or less promising for civil and military, there is still a long path to walk …

“Teal Group’s 2015 market study estimates that UAV production will soar from current worldwide UAV production of $4 billion annually to $14 billion, totaling $93 billion in the next ten years. Military UAV research spending would add another $30 billion over the decade.”

Read more at http://www.suasnews.com/2015/08/37903/teal-group-predicts-wo…-forecast/

Now NASA pursues the aim of using drones to overcome the problems of rovers …

Read more at http://www.engadget.com/2015/07/31/space-drones-mars-moon-asteroid/

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/extreme-access-flyer-to-take-pla…-airborne/

(• Using the word drone as it is more commonly used in society.

Ad Astra!