A criticism of the article "Six monetarist errors: why emission won't feed inflation"
(be gentle, it's my first RI attempt, :P; I hope I can make justice to the subject, this is my layman understanding of many macro subjects which may be flawed...I hope you can illuminate me if I have fallen short of a good RI) Introduction So, today a heterodox leaning Argentinian newspaper, Ambito Financiero, published an article criticizing monetarism called "Six monetarist errors: why emission won't feed inflation". I find it doesn't properly address monetarism, confuses it with other "economic schools" for whatever the term is worth today and it may be misleading, so I was inspired to write a refutation and share it with all of you. In some ways criticizing monetarism is more of a historical discussion given the mainstream has changed since then. Stuff like New Keynesian models are the bleeding edge, not Milton Friedman style monetarism. It's more of a symptom that Argentinian political culture is kind of stuck in the 70s on economics that this things keep being discussed. Before getting to the meat of the argument, it's good to have in mind some common definitions about money supply measures (specifically, MB, M1 and M2). These definitions apply to US but one can find analogous stuff for other countries. Argentina, for the lack of access to credit given its economic mismanagement and a government income decrease because of the recession, is monetizing deficits way more than before (like half of the budget, apparently, it's money financed) yet we have seen some disinflation (worth mentioning there are widespread price freezes since a few months ago). The author reasons that monetary phenomena cannot explain inflation properly and that other explanations are needed and condemns monetarism. Here are the six points he makes: 1.Is it a mechanical rule?
This way, we can ask by symmetry: if a certainty exists that when emission increases, inflation increases, the reverse should happen when emission becomes negative, obtaining negative inflation. Nonetheless, we know this happens: prices have an easier time increasing and a lot of rigidity decreasing. So the identity between emission and inflation is not like that, deflation almost never exists and the price movement rhythm cannot be controlled remotely only with money quantity. There is no mechanical relationship between one thing and the other.
First, the low hanging fruit: deflation is not that uncommon, for those of you that live in US and Europe it should be obvious given the difficulties central banks had to achieve their targets, but even Argentina has seen deflation during its depression 20 years ago. Second, we have to be careful with what we mean by emission. A statement of quantity theory of money (extracted from "Money Growth and Inflation: How Long is the Long-Run?") would say:
Inflation occurs when the average level of prices increases. Individual price increases in and of themselves do not equal inflation, but an overall pattern of price increases does. The price level observed in the economy is that which leads the quantity of money supplied to equal the quantity of money demanded. The quantity of money supplied is largely controlled by the [central bank]. When the supply of money increases or decreases, the price level must adjust to equate the quantity of money demanded throughout the economy with the quantity of money supplied. The quantity of money demanded depends not only on the price level but also on the level of real income, as measured by real gross domestic product (GDP), and a variety of other factors including the level of interest rates and technological advances such as the invention of automated teller machines. Money demand is widely thought to increase roughly proportionally with the price level and with real income. That is, if prices go up by 10 percent, or if real income increases by 10 percent, empirical evidence suggests people want to hold 10 percent more money. When the money supply grows faster than the money demand associated with rising real incomes and other factors, the price level must rise to equate supply and demand. That is, inflation occurs. This situation is often referred to as too many dollars chasing too few goods. Note that this theory does not predict that any money-supply growth will lead to inflation—only that part of money supply growth that exceeds the increase in money demand associated with rising real GDP (holding the other factors constant).
So it's not mere emission, but money supply growing faster than money demand which we should consider. So negative emission is not necessary condition for deflation in this theory. It's worth mentioning that the relationship with prices is observed for a broad measure of money (M2) and after a lag. From the same source of this excerpt one can observe in Fig. 3a the correlation between inflation and money growth for US becomes stronger the longer data is averaged. Price rigidities don't have to change this long term relationship per se. But what about causality and Argentina? This neat paper shows regressions in two historical periods: 1976-1989 and 1991-2001. The same relationship between M2 and inflation is observed, stronger in the first, highly inflationary period and weaker in the second, more stable, period. The regressions a 1-1 relationship in the high inflation period but deviates a bit in the low inflation period (yet the relationship is still there). Granger causality, as interpreted in the paper, shows prices caused money growth in the high inflation period (arguably because spending was monetized) while the reverse was true for the more stable period. So one can argue that there is a mechanical relationship, albeit one that is more complicated than simple QTOM theory. The relationship is complicated too for low inflation economies, it gets more relevant the higher inflation is. Another point the author makes is that liquidity trap is often ignored. I'll ignore the fact that you need specific conditions for the liquidity trap to be relevant to Argentina and address the point. Worth noting that while market monetarists (not exactly old fashioned monetarists) prefer alternative explanations for monetary policy with very low interest rates, this phenomena has a good monetary basis, as explained by Krugman in his famous japanese liquidity trap paper and his NYT blog (See this and this for some relevant articles). The simplified version is that while inflation may follow M2 growth with all the qualifiers needed, central banks may find difficulties targeting inflation when interest rates are low and agents are used to credible inflation targets. Central banks can change MB, not M2 and in normal times is good enough, but at those times M2 is out of control and "credibly irresponsible" policies are needed to return to normal (a more detailed explanation can be found in that paper I just linked, go for it if you are still curious). It's not like monetary policy is not good, it's that central banks have to do very unconventional stuff to achieve in a low interest rate environment. It's still an open problem but given symmetric inflation targeting policies are becoming more popular I'm optimistic. 2 - Has inflation one or many causes?
In Argentina we know that the main determinant of inflation is dollar price increases. On that, economic concentration of key markets, utility price adjustments, fuel prices, distributive struggles, external commodity values, expectatives, productive disequilibrium, world interest rates, the economic cycle, stationality and external sector restrictions act on it too. Let's see a simple example: during Macri's government since mid 2017 to 2019 emission was practically null, but when in 2018 the dollar value doubled, inflation doubled too (it went from 24% to 48% in 2018) and it went up again a year later. We see here that the empirical validity of monetarist theory was absent.
For the first paragraph, one could try to run econometric tests for all those variables, at least from my layman perspective. But given that it doesn't pass the smell test (has any country used that in its favor ignoring monetary policy? Also, I have shown there is at least some evidence for the money-price relationship before), I'll try to address what happened in Macri's government and if monetarism (or at least some reasonable extension of it) cannot account for it. For a complete description of macroeconomic policy on that period, Sturzenegger account is a good one (even if a bit unreliable given he was the central banker for that government and he is considered to have been a failure). The short version is that central banks uses bonds to manage monetary policy and absorb money; given the history of defaults for the country, the Argentinian Central Bank (BCRA) uses its own peso denominated bonds instead of using treasury bonds. At that time period, the BCRA still financed the treasury but the amount got reduced. Also, it emitted pesos to buy dollar reserves, then sterilized them, maybe risking credibility further. Near the end of 2017 it was evident the government had limited appetite for budget cuts, it had kind of abandoned its inflation target regime and the classic problem of fiscal dominance emerged, as it's shown in the classic "Unpleasant monetarist arithmetic" paper by Wallace and Sargent. Monetary policy gets less effective when the real value of bonds falls, and raising interest rates may be counterproductive in that environment. Rational expectations are needed to complement QTOM. So, given that Argentina promised to go nowhere with reform, it was expected that money financing would increase at some point in the future and BCRA bonds were dumped in 2018 and 2019 as their value was perceived to have decreased, and so peso demand decreased. It's not that the dollar value increased and inflation followed, but instead that peso demand fell suddenly! The IMF deal asked for MB growth to be null or almost null but that doesn't say a lot about M2 (which it's the relevant variable here). Without credible policies, the peso demand keeps falling because bonds are dumped even more (see 2019 for a hilariously brutal example of that). It's not emission per se, but rather that it doesn't adjust properly to peso demand (which is falling). That doesn't mean increasing interest rates is enough to achieve it, following Wallace and Sargent model. This is less a strict proof that a monetary phenomenon is involved and more stating that the author hasn't shown any problem with that, there are reasonable models for this situation. It doesn't look like an clear empirical failure to me yet. 3 - Of what we are talking about when we talk about emission? The author mentions many money measures (M0, M1, M2) but it doesn't address it meaningfully as I tried to do above. It feels more like a rhetorical device because there is no point here except "this stuff exists". Also, it's worth pointing that there are actual criticisms to make to Friedman on those grounds. He failed to forecast US inflation at some points when he switched to M1 instead of using M2, although he later reverted that. Monetarism kind of "failed" there (it also "failed" in the sense that modern central banks don't use money, but instead interest rates as their main tool; "failed" because despite being outdated, it was influential to modern central banking). This is often brought to this kind of discussions like if economics hasn't moved beyond that. For an account of Friedman thoughts on monetary policies and his failures, see this. 4 - Why do many countries print and inflation doesn't increase there? There is a mention about the japanese situation in the 90s (the liquidity trap) which I have addressed. The author mentions that many countries "printed" like crazy during the pandemic, and he says:
Monetarism apologists answer, when confronted with those grave empirical problems that happen in "serious countries", that the population "trusts" their monetary authorities, even increasing the money demand in those place despite the emission. Curious, though, it's an appeal to "trust" implying that the relationship between emission and inflation is not objective, but subjective and cultural: an appreciation that abandons mechanicism and the basic certainty of monetarism, because evaluations and diagnostics, many times ideologic, contextual or historical intervene..
That's just a restatement of applying rational expectations to central bank operations. I don't see a problem with that. Rational expectations is not magic, it's an assessment of future earnings by economic actors. Humans may not 100% rational but central banking somehow works on many countries. You cannot just say that people are ideologues and let it at that. What's your model? Worth noting the author shills for bitcoin a bit in this section, for more cringe. 5 - Are we talking of a physical science or a social science? Again, a vague mention of rational expectations ("populists and pro market politicians could do the same policies with different results because of how agents respond ideologically and expectatives") without handling the subject meaningfully. It criticizes universal macroeconomic rules that apply everywhere (this is often used to dismiss evidence from other countries uncritically more than as a meaningful point). 6 - How limits work?
The last question to monetarism allows to recognize it something: effectively we can think on a type of vinculation between emission and inflation in extreme conditions. That means, with no monetary rule, no government has the need of taxes but instead can emit and spend all it needs without consequence. We know it's not like that: no government can print infinitely without undesirable effects.
Ok, good disclaimer, but given what he wrote before, what's the mechanism which causes money printing to be inflationary at some point? It was rejected before but now it seems that it exists. What was even the point of the article?
Now, the problem is thinking monetarism on its extremes: without emission we have inflation sometimes, on others we have no inflation with emission, we know that if we have negative emission that doesn't guarantees us negative inflation, but that if emission is radically uncontrolled there will economic effects.
As I wrote above, that's not what monetarism (even on it's simpler form) says, nor a consequence of it. You can see some deviations in low inflation environment but it's not really Argentina's current situation.
Let's add other problems: the elastic question between money and prices is not evident. Neither is time lags in which can work or be neutral. So the question is the limit cases for monetarism which has some reason but some difficulty in explaining them: by which and it what moments rules work and in which it doesn't.
I find the time lag thing to be a red herring. You can observe empirically and not having a proper short/middle run model doesn't invalidate QTOM in the long run. While it may be that increasing interest rates or freezing MB is not effective, that's less a problem of the theory and more a problem of policy implementation. Conclusion: I find that the article doesn't truly get monetarism to begin with (see the points it makes about emission and money demand), neither how it's implemented in practice, nor seems to be aware of more modern theories that, while put money on the background, don't necessarily invalidate it (rational expectation ideas, and eventually New Keynesian stuff which addresses stuff like liquidity traps properly). There are proper criticisms to be made to Friedman old ideas but he still was a relevant man in his time and the economic community has moved on to new, better theories that have some debt to it. I feel most economic discussion about monetarism in Argentina is a strawman of mainstream economics or an attack on Austrians more than genuine points ("monetarism" is used as a shorthand for those who think inflation is a monetary phenomenon more than referring to Friedman and his disciples per se).
Mi nombre es Guillermo Ezequiel Paredes Pastrán PP14005. Mi ensayo lo he elaborado pensado en desarrollar las preguntas que se realizan en los lineamientos y concluir a partir de estas, pero también dar mi opinión para fortalecer mi ensayo.
¿Qué es el dinero y cómo ha evolucionado hasta llegar a BTC?
Mi definición de dinero puedo decir que es un medio de pago para intercambiar algún servicio o algún producto que tenga un valor y que mi dinero puede pagar. La operación de trueque da inicio a la primera forma de comunicación de valor. La evolución del dinero da inicio con el trueque o en caso del libro “Internet del dinero” menciona a un nivel muy básico, una manera de comunicar valor es a través del intercambio de bienes que consideramos tienen un valor equivalente. "He aquí una cabra. La cambiaré por 20 plátanos". Ahora debo de hablar a cerca del surgimiento de los metales preciosos que da paso a la primera evolución tecnológica fue el intercambio de algo que no pudieras comer, una pluma, una piedra preciosa. Aquí es donde el dinero comienza a tomar su forma abstracta. Tanto es así que las monedas de metal comenzaron a funcionar por su facilidad de conversión y apilamiento. Al ser de plata, oro o cobre su fiabilidad estaba fuera de toda duda, aunque cada sociedad (ya en el primer milenio antes de Cristo) la acuñaba para estandarizar el comercio dentro de sus fronteras. La evolución del dinero continua de los metales preciosos al papel en este caso surgió la idea de "Si le pido a alguien de confianza que custodie mi oro, podría darme a cambio un documento que acredite que mi oro ha sido depositado en dicho lugar de confianza." A partir de ese momento yo podría intercambiar dicho papel por otros bienes en lugar de tener que utilizar mi oro directamente. Sería mucho más fácil de transportar. En la medida que pueda confiar en que mi oro se encuentra seguro en ese lugar y yo pueda acreditarlo mediante un documento, estaré inventando una nueva forma de dinero basada en papel. Luego que pasa el tiempo alrededor de hace 60 años apareció una nueva forma de dinero con el aspecto de tarjetas de plástico. En realidad, las primeras tarjetas seguían siendo de papel. En Estados Unidos, Diners Club fue la primera en crear una tarjeta de crédito, que fue una forma de cheque pensada para gente que viajaba a menudo. La gente, cuando iban a pagarle con ella decía, “Eso no es dinero. ¿Por qué no me pagas con el dinero de papel de toda la vida?" Aquella fue otra gran transformación del dinero. En este caso se pude observar que como hoy ha sido difícil adoptar la nueva invención de las criptomonedas es parecido a los que sucedió del cambio de metales preciosos a papel y de papel a plástico a través de las tarjetas. Pero además la incomoda idea de que ningún gobierno o banco central o mundial pueda regular el uso de este forma de dinero.
¿Qué es el Bitcoin y cómo fue creado?
Es dinero al igual que lo son el euro o el dólar, con la diferencia de que no pertenece a ningún gobierno. Puedes enviarlo desde cualquier lugar del mundo a cualquier otro destino instantáneamente, con seguridad y por una mínima comisión o incluso gratis. Bitcoin es una moneda digital cuya existencia data del año 2008, como una invención de alguien que por entonces se hizo llamar Satoshi Nakamoto. Publicó un trabajo donde aseguraba que había encontrado la manera de crear una red descentralizada en la que podría lograrse el consenso, el acuerdo, sin el control de una autoridad central. Bitcoin no es una compañía. Tampoco es una organización. Se trata de un standard o protocolo tal como lo es por ejemplo TCP/IP o Internet. No pertenece a nadie. Su funcionamiento se basa en simples reglas matemáticas que todo aquel que participa en la red acuerda cumplir.
Manejo de las transacciones, ventajas y desventajas en la red BTC.
Detallando lo que menciona el libro “Internet del dinero” sobre como se lleva a cabo una transacción: Bitcoin supone toda una revolución para el sistema jerárquico de finanzas internacionales tradicionales. Hasta ahora, ese sistema jerárquico había basado su seguridad en el control de acceso, porque ese es el método principal en el que se basa la confianza en nuestros actuales sistemas de pago, no puedes entrar a menos que seas bien identificado. Bitcoin crea una red completamente plana y descentralizada, donde cada uno de los participantes es igual a los demás, donde el protocolo es neutral a las transacciones efectuadas y en la cual las innovaciones se trasladan a los márgenes de la misma, potenciando exactamente el mismo fenómeno que ya vivimos con Internet: Innovación sin permiso. No necesitas preguntar a nadie si tu aplicación puede ser publicada en Internet. No necesitas preguntar a nadie para sustituir completamente una industria con tu nueva y más avanzada tecnología. En Bitcoin, no necesitas pedir a nadie que invente un nuevo instrumento financiero, un nuevo sistema de pago, un nuevo servicio. En tus propias manos está el hacerlo. Puedes sencillamente escribir el código y automáticamente pasas a formar parte de una red internacional financiera que puede ejecutar tu código y ponerte en contacto con millones de potenciales consumidores. Finalmente mencionare las ventajas que brinda la red de BTC que observe en la lectura: Claramente es una gran ventaja que ningún gobierno o estado es dueño de BTC, eso ayuda a poder usar las criptomonedas en cualquier lugar del mundo ajeno a impuestos por ubicación geográfica. No se puede crear deuda con él, su valor no depende de una intervención de un banco central. Ningún comité de “expertos” controla el destino del bitcoin. Hay unas reglas previamente fijadas por el protocolo ideado por Satoshi Nakamoto que ha de aceptar libremente quien quiera utilizar el bitcoin. Para el caso de las desventajas sobre estas criptomonedas: La aceptación. Que tomara tiempo como el cambio de minerales a billetes, como de billetes a tarjetas por el temor de una nueva manera de usar dinero. Límite de emisión. Si bien es positivo para evitar la pérdida de valor, el que sea deflacionaria podría incentivar su acumulación y por tanto como dice el premio Nobel de Economía Paul Krugman podría deprimir la economía.
La banca y el acceso a ella.
En la actualidad, alrededor de un billón de personas cuentan con acceso al sistema bancario, con acceso al crédito, y a capacidades financieras internacionales - principalmente las clases sociales altas, las naciones occidentales. Por otro lado, séis billones y medio de personas en este planeta carecen de acceso a algún tipo de sistema monetario. Sin embargo dos billones de personas ya cuentan con acceso a Internet. Descargando simplemente una aplicación, pueden formar parte de una economía internacional de manera inmediata, utilizando una moneda internacional que puede ser transmitida a cualquier lugar del mundo, sin apenas comisiones y sin controles gubernamentales. Bitcoin es el dinero de la gente. Internamente se rige por simples reglas matemáticas que todo el mundo está de acuerdo en asumir y sobre las que nadie puede ejercer control total. La posibilidad de conectar a esos séis billones y medio de personas al resto del mundo es verdaderamente revolucionaria.
Privacidad en la red BTC
En 1970s, nuestras monedas comenzaron a tornarse digitales. Esto despertó el sueño de los gobiernos por poder algún día controlar todas las transacciones financieras de todos los seres humanos en el planeta, logrando de ese modo que todo fuera visible a las estructuras de poder. Un escenario donde nuestra privacidad desaparece. Un escenario en el que la habilidad para hacer una transacción, te pone inmediatamente bajo la lente de sistemas que te vigilan. Hemos creado un sistema de vigilancia financiera global, un sistema de vigilancia financiera totalitaria en todo el mundo. Cuando menciono la palabra Bitcoin, no me estoy refiriendo sólo a la moneda. De lo que hablo es de un concepto mucho más amplio, el concepto de redes no jerárquicas, completamente descentralizadas, sobre las que poder desarrollar aplicaciones que gestionan tecnológicamente la confianza. Si contáis con una red no jerárquica, completamente descentralizada, capaz de ofrecer tecnología aplicada a la confianza, la primera y más lógica aplicación que desarrollaríais sería una moneda. Pero eso sería sólo la primera aplicación.
Para la humanidad ha sido muy difícil adoptar un cambio de como realizar el uso del dinero con el tiempo fue difícil para la gente pasar de monedas de plata, oro y bronce a billetes y monedas de otro material, y ahora es normal que la gente piense que sería difícil que se lleve acabo una manera de recibir servicios o comprar cosas a través de una moneda que no es administrada por ningún banco central o mundial y mucho menos entidades bancarias.
Vivimos en un mundo donde la banca, en su día, fue una gran libertadora. Fue una invención que trasladó las finanzas desde las realezas a la gente de la calle. Este nuevo sistema liberaría a billones de personas. Pasado un tiempo, se concentró, adquirió poder y ese poder desembocó en corrupción. Lo que nos queda hoy no es un sistema libertador y es hora de buscarle sustituto. Bitcoin acabará inexorablemente con la centralización del poder.
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.’
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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
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.’
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.
When a capitalist tries to sell his product or service for the highest price they can get, they are seen as greedy. When a worker tries to sell their labor for the highest price they can get, they are seen as noble and deserving. (488 points, 138 comments)
Liberals: We need to end the two party system! *Howard Schultz announces possible presidential run as an independent * Liberals: WOAAAHH THERE BUDDY SLOW DOWN! (444 points, 54 comments)
I'm looking forward to the Democratic Primary because it's going to be one giant competition on who can give people the most free things. (408 points, 132 comments)
Porque todas as "moedas virtuais" nunca serão moedas de verdade, não apenas o Bitcoin
A melhor crítica que eu já li a respeito do Bitcoin veio do economista Paul Krugman. Em resumo, ele diz que o Bitcoin é uma porcaria de moeda porque é moeda sem política monetária. Agora deixa eu explicar de forma mais detalhada. Tudo que se troca num mercado está sujeito à lei da oferta e procura. Se o preço do jiló sobe vai ter mais gente produzindo jiló, aumenta a oferta e o preço se estabiliza. Se o preço cai acontece o inverso. A idéia básica é que a oferta se adapta ao preço. Política monetária é quando a oferta de moeda se adapta ao preço. É o que fazem os Bancos Centrais dos vários países: mudando a taxa de juros e as reservas dos bancos eles regulam a quantidade de dinheiro no mercado. Isso evita que a moeda fique muito "cara" (deflação) ou muito "barata" (inflação). Pra uma moeda nada é mais importante que estabilidade. Moeda é a medida do valor. Se a medida muda de tamanho então ela não mede mais nada. Esse é o problema do Bitcoin e, potencialmente, das moedas virtuais: elas não se adaptam às flutuações do mercado, não regulam a oferta conforme a demanda. Resultado: euforias especulativas que afastam as pessoas de as usar como moeda. Não é à toa que quanto mais aumenta o valor do Bitcoin menos gente a usa para troca.
Those who claim that deflationary-currency models are doomed to failure - Lookin at you, Krugman - say that, in essence, the currency becomes so valuable that no one every spends it - because it’s so valuable - so they are even more reluctant to spend it because it’s even more valuable - on so on, until everything just freezes up and the currency fails. It does give me cause for concern that this is - at the moment - exactly what’s happening, even if basing only on my own actions/behaviour: I don’t want to spend or trade, because it’s becoming so valuable — which, by extension, suggests that no one will want to trade with me, when I finally am ready to do so — because they think it will become even more valuable. And yet, the counter theory to all this is: “even if true, it’s just for right now. Soon, when price stabilises, use (spend) will become more common - calming fears of potential last value - further stabilising the price — which will increase use - and so on. (FWIW, i subscribe to this ‘context-and-time-dependent’ thinking.) But, i can’t help but wonder: what would Krugman et al, say to this ‘greater context’ way of thinking? What would their key criticism be? (Note: this post isn’t meant to debate whether he’s a great/accurate economist or not). Thoughts?
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:
Emerging Economies: Roles and Responsibilities
Economic and National Security in a Digital Age
Technological Innovation in Western Economies: Stagnation or Promise?
Imbalances, Austerity and Growth
Some of the 2011/12 attendees included:
Josef Ackermann (Chairman of Deutsche Bank),
Jean-Claude Trichet (President of the European Central Bank),
Chris Hughes (Co-Founder of Facebook),
Reid Hoffman (CEO of Linkedin),
Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon)
Keith Alexander (Commander, US Cyber Command; Director, NSA).
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.
If you pay attention to the Noel Prize winner in Economy Paul Krugman, you will have been warned about bitcoin. There is a bubble that we should talk about -- a Ponzi scheme where people are rewarded. The US ended up being the world's reserve currency for reasons highly related to politics and economy. It benefitted the most from post-WWII industrialization, maintained power over oil resources (though in other countries), and initially had its dollar tied to gold. The 1944 Bretton Woods Accord was signed by 44 countries, and gave $35 for an ounce of gold. Thirty years later and Nixon unlinked gold and the dollar. The late 20th century saw a massive movement of manufacturing from the US to China, to exploit cheap labor. Our standard of living changes are very tied to that. The hourly wage of Americans is high compared to most of the world. But things don't always last. There's this theory called the Strauss-Howe generational theory, which outlines an archetype of generations, described by four cycles: High, Awakening, Unraveling, Crisis. The idea is basically this: when things are bad, people work to improve them, so things get better; when things are good, people ignore them, so things get worse. I've seen the thing over and over in social groups: small groups are tight-knit and personal, so they grow; large groups become faceless and restrictive, so they shrink if they can't figure out how to create the small group dynamics. I digress. Yes, this relates to economics, as it is about philosophical principles that drive economies, and how people work on improving value or ignoring that.
The question is, what creates monetary value? The answer is, trust. Sometimes the complete lack of trust in each other. There's an apocryphal story about how tulip bulbs were were sold for ten times the annual income of a skilled craftsmen, in the the Dutch commerce. The point of the story is that people became crazed about something that has low value. And that at some point people stopped buying tulips, thereby collapsing its price. Obviously a ridiculous story on its face, because tulips don't last and aren't a currency, and the value created was because people wanted the tulips for social reasons. What's backing the US dollar? If hyperinflation were to happen due to a new war or major economic collapse, your dollars would be worthless. Even putting those dollars into a banking account today, depending on your banking account, it's hard to say whether you would have equivalent buying power in a few decades. Those dollars would have lost value due to inflation. Some argue that inflatable currencies are a Ponzi scheme, with the hidden tax of inflation behind them.
What are you talking about?
Cryptocurrency. I'm leading into talking about cryptocurrency. Bitcoin. Ethereum. And plenty others. I'm a firm believer that Bitcoin will retain -- and increase -- in value over the next several decades. There will be other competitors that may gain in more value, but they will be service specific. I have several reasons for this. 1) All governments will inflate their currency, thereby losing value to those who are invested in them. Inflation is the hidden tax on us all. There is not only a nothing tangible thing behind that piece of paper or zeros and ones on a computer, but there isn't even a limited supply. Dollars come out of thin air, at a whim. The world has limited resources, but unlimited possible dollars. 2) Bitcoin is limited, therefore rare. Whether it is under or overvalued currently, I think it is a long term solution. It still allows for growth, as those computer bytes are nearly infinitely divisible. And other cryptos can allow for secondary currencies. 3) The younger generations will increasingly invest in crypto, and out of classical investment models. We will continue to see less money going from stocks to new crypto businesses that incorporate these as their models. 4) Crypto is global. It is not tied to a specific country, therefore, for many of the large cryptocurrencies, we are all in this together. If a country has problems with its currency, it will affect crypto value. But I would rather a a global hedge over a local, volatile hedge. 5) New models will result from this. Business. Political. Sociel. Technological. Distributed, decentralized models will be very robust long term.
Don't go and spend your entire bank account on crypto. Just. Don't. It's volatile, and you will get emotional, leading to stupid decisions. But do spend a small portion of it to get into this space. This is a long investment, unless you are using it to buy something tangible, such as from your local tech shop. But watch the space. There are models here that will become increasingly important. If you do hanker for buying bitcoin, I recommend coinbase or bitstamp. They say that a bubble exists only when people don't recognize that something is a bubble. The question that we have to answer is this: will the US retain global dominance, and how do we react to that answer?
When economists refer to industrialization, does it mean a move from agricultural to manufacturing economy? Is the growth in services a different term? (22 points, 6 comments)
Do economists actually calculate consumer surplus empirically, or is it more of s theoretical concept? (20 points, 5 comments)
If we have cobb douglas preferences, my demand for x is not a function of the price of y. How do substitution effects arise then? (11 points, 6 comments)
Is me making more money than I would necessarily require to work( so more than my 'opportunity wage') for a job an economic inefficiency? or is ineffiency in labor markets a wedge between my marginal revenue product and my wage? (11 points, 3 comments)
why is ceteris paribus important for analyzing/thinking about the world? (11 points, 7 comments)
Why does inflation necessarily mean wages will be increasing too? (6 points, 3 comments)
Can the Euro become the global currency for trade? (17 points, 3 comments)
Is China still considered a centrally planned economy? (16 points, 4 comments)
Ressources on the Soviet industrial failures due to poor economics? (14 points, 2 comments)
What is the reason behind France's high unemployment rate? (9 points, 14 comments)
About Land Value Tax & Single Tax: how would it affect farmers and those of them who own their land? (7 points, 3 comments)
Does welfare policies contribute to inflation? (2 points, 1 comment)
If a Bitcoin is worth $1 000 000 and some persons like Satoshi have one or more millions of it... what power do they have? Can they disrupt the financial system with the huge amount of dollars that they have? (1 point, 8 comments)
Not sure if this is the kind of question I should be asking here. I’m an Undergrad Econ major and I’m looking for reading recommendations. Anything from economic theory, history, current research, etc. Main interest is Macro. Thanks (4 points, 5 comments)
Beiträge über Krugman von Christoph Bergmann. Der Nobelpreisträger Paul Krugman rechnet in einem Kommentar in der New York Times mit Bitcoin und anderen Kryptowährungen ab. Dabei verbindet er die üblichen Argumente von 2013 mit denen von 2017. Paul Krugman, the famed economist who’s made a career out of being wrong about things, is wrong again. That in itself is no more surprising than the fact that his latest op-ed takes aim at his ... Der US-Volkswirt Paul Krugman hat die beliebteste Kryptowährung Bitcoin mit einem Finanzsysten von vor 300 Jahren verglichen. Bitcoin ist keine Entwicklung bzw. kein Fortschritt In einer Stellungnahme für die New York Times vom 31. Juli zielte Krugman auf die hohen Kosten des Bitcoin-Minings und den “spekulativen” Charakter seiner Nutzer ab und behauptete, Bitcoin habe die […] In the world of bitcoin antagonists, economist and author Paul Krugman has taken a central role. Krugman wrote a blog post titled "Bitcoin is Evil" in late 2013 and since then has penned several ... Der Bitcoin fällt derzeit von seinem Hoch von fast 20.000 Dollar klar zurück. Trotzdem ist es für viele Menschen unverständlich, dass eine digitale Währung einen so hohen Wert erreichen kann. Dazu gehört auch der Nobelpreisträger für Wirtschaft, Paul Krugman
Bitcoin Investing Lessons & The Real Impact of Blockchain - BTC & Cryptocurrency News
Finance and Crypto News Paul Krugman still doesn't understand need for Bitcoin How wrong is Paul Krugman about Bitcoin? Please comment below! Dont forget to like and subscribe! Bitcoin and cryptocurrency news - investors getting the hard lessons they need, Krugman may be warming to Bitcoin, Bitmain IPO investors disappearing, South Korea discussing moving closer to ... Bitcoin vs Dollar Debate : Krugman finally admits Bitcoin's superiority Finance and Crypto What does Pual Krugman acknowledgement of Bitcoin being more sup... Finance and Crypto News Paul Krugman gets owned on the value case for Bitcoin DId she own him or what? What are your thoughts on her response?! Please comment below! SUBSCRIBE! http://bitcoin-informant.de/2018/08/24/432-zentralbank-entwickelt-kryptowaehrung-liechtenstein-kryptowaehrung-krugman-gold-ist-tot Hey Krypto Fans, Willkomme...