XRP (XRP) price, charts, market cap, and other metrics

Get Ticketing -- A Sleeping Giant

Here is an article by an author named Adnan about why Get Ticketing will explode:
https://medium.com/@adnanzzz/the-bullish-case-of-get-protocol-451ad6059f2d
Below is the same article copied and pasted for those who are too lazy to click the link. However, I recommend reading the article from the link instead as it has a lot of graphs, links, and pictures that gives a much fuller picture.
 
"GET protocol — the sleeping blockchain giant
Bear with me as I try to explain why the GET token is currently the most bullish crypto token in the space. The price surge will be driven by adoption and not just mere speculation. And adoption is already there but will only now start to gain huge momentum!
By the time you have read this blog you will come to see how most other crypto projects lose value in your eyes when you compare it to a project with amazing fundamentals, a project that doesn’t need an “altseason”, driven by mere mindless speculation, to give you nice returns!
Most people in the crypto space have never heard of the GET protocol. This is on one side suprising because there are 191.329 wallet holders to be exact. This means that 191.329 people have used the GET protocol, mostly without even knowing it!
The focus has always been on building a product that works and where there is demand for. Where other projects have focused and spent their funds on marketing in the crypto space (meaning luring in new investors) GET has neglected that part a bit.
Instead they focused their funds on building a waterproof system and acquiring clients who will use the protocol (venues, artists, governments, …). The effect of this is that the price hasn’t been affected by speculation.
The list of artists who use GET-fueled tickets is endless and I have honestly lost sight of everyone who uses it. But to give you an example of adoption, here is a list of some of the artists who sell GET-fueled tickets:
 
What is the GET protocol and what does it do?
The GET Protocol offers a blockchain-based smart ticketing solution that can be used by everybody who needs to issue admission tickets in an honest and transparent way. The goal of GET protocol is to become the worldwide ticketing standard.
To put it in simple terms: the ticketing industry is plagued by dishonest players. Not only ticket fraud but also scalping are an enormous problem in the industry. Once a ticket sale starts bots buy up the tickets and later sell them for enormous profits.
Fans are sidelined and are forced to buy tickets of their idols for a much higher price. The scalpers, not adding any value in the process, make tons of money at the expense of artists, fans, venues, event organizers, … and everybody who makes the event industry what it is.
 
This is where GET offers a solution proven to work
The tickets issued on the GET protocol are registered on your phone. This means that only the person in possession of the phone also owns the ticket. Every ticket is unique and is based on a QR code that updates itself and rotates to prevent fraud and scalping.
The tickets are all registered on the blockchain as a mean of transparency and accountability. This means that fans can check ticket authenticity whenever they want. This is also where the GET token comes in play but more on that later…
 
GET is currently the best adopted microcap
This is a bold statement but it’s not difficult to prove. Whereas other crypto “companies” confuse their investors with a lot of technical words that the average Joe doesn’t even understand and show off with meaningless partnerships, GET is actually changing the ticketing world for the better!
At the moment of writing there are 4 ticketing companies that are completely integrated in the GET protocol, and together have sold many GET-fueled tickets!
These companies currently run on the GET protocol:
Integrating an existing ticketing company is a low investment move (only the GET token is needed) that offers traditional ticketing companies several benefits. That is why I expect many ticketing companies to integrate and GET to scale quickly.
 
The supply
Some people are scared by the big difference in the circulating supply and the total supply. This is an unneccessary fear. The GET supply is made up of 3 portions:
This means that the circulating supply as it is now can only, ever, lightly increase for the purpose of growth. With the buybacks and burns being large enough the circulating supply will instead keep decreasing at a swift tempo.
 
GET in times of COVID19
In May Dutch group Di-Rect sold thousands of tickets for an online concert. They used GET’s technology to use a dynamic price setting. This means that fans were given the option to pay whatever they wanted for a ticket. Whoever paid €20 or more had the chance to win a lottery and be present at the concert.
Once the concert starts, whoever bought a ticket, will be able to watch the streamed concert on GUTS’ app. This is yet another proof of the advantages a digital ticket offers. As this was a big succes, the expectation is that more and more artists will make use of GET’s technology.
On 27/05 Dennis van Aarssen, The Voice Of Holland 2019 winner, announced that he will also do a livestreamed performance of classic covers and original music on June 7th. All tickets will be issued through the GET protocol.
GET also offers several advantages in different areas in the fights against COVID19. The right of access being linked to your mobile makes it possible for potential clients to monitor the number of visitors in real time all the time, to apply an automated seating selection which consideres an appropriate distance between all visitors, queue control, booking of timeslots for museums, shops, parks, beaches, … so overcrowding can be avoided.
When an event gets cancelled, whereas with paper tickets it’s sometimes impossible to track who owns the ticket at the current time, with GET’s technology the event organizer can, with one click, choose to make a refund to the current ticket owner, to communicate with him, to postpone the event, …
 
What more to expect in the (near) future?
There are so many amazing things to come in the very near future so I’ll only focus on a few of them:
Seeing the adoption the GET protocol has, the solution they bring and the enormous potential they have in conquering the ticketing industry, they have been asked by Kakao to join their blockchain “Klaytn”. So GET is an initial service partner of the Klaytn blockchain.
“Kakao’s global public blockchain project Klaytn is an enterprise-grade, service-centric platform that brings user-friendly blockchain experience to millions.”
The choice for choosing to be an Initial Service Provider of Klaytn is based on two aspects. The first aspect is the fact that Klaytn’s blockchain infrastructure is fully business and integration focused, more than any other blockchain in the market.
This results in huge improvements in areas as cost-efficiency, scalability, and data reliability. The second aspect is fueled by the potential of being part of the Klaytn ecosystem.
Kakao is a giant in South Korea. GET will bring its adoption to Kakao’s blockchain and Kakao, with its giant network, in return will open many doors in South Korea. A win-win for everyone involved!
In 2017 Kakao had more than 220 millions users on their messaging and content platform. The last few years the company has been rapidly expanding in other industry verticals.
 
GET fueled tickets sold for K-pop stars
As mentioned earlier: South Korean ticketing company getTicket will run fully on the GET protocol. They have already deals in line to sell tickets for K-pop stars in their country.
K-pop legend Mr. Won-Kwan Jung, as someone who has a lot of connections in the K-pop world, has joined the GET protocol as an advisor. He is an iconic figure and innovator in the world of K-Pop, owing to the fact that he was one of the three original members of SoBangCha, (or ‘Firetruck’ in English) which is regarded as the first K-Pop group to exist in the world.
In a survey conducted in 17 countries in 2019, around 37.5 percent of respondents stated that the genre K-pop was “very popular” in their country. The survey found that the popularity of K-pop reaches far beyond South Korean borders.
The fact that their idols will be selling GET-fueled tickets hasn’t reached the Korean audience yet. It is still a “public secret”. The news will be released in a directed marketing campaign later this year. You better believe that once the Koreans find out that they’ll be buying GET like hot cupcakes!
 
Tickets for museums and beaches to be in line with COVID19 restriction measures
With the Corona virus still not wiped out but more under control, many countries are lifting restrictions. This needs to be done in a safe and controlled manner. This means avoiding overcrowding. GET’s technology can and will surely help here.
GET’s system can do all that is needed now for a safe experience. Whether it’s booking a timeslot for the beach, for a museum,… or even for a shop from your home. The system lets the client monitor everything in real time. Someone can that way for example choose to go when there is less crowd. This all while fully respecting the user’s privacy.
The GET sales team has been busier than ever, being in contact with governments, museums, … and the dev team is constantly creating custom made smart ticketing solutions for new costumers. I’m sure we can expect some major announcements in this area soon!
 
Top tier exchange listings & marketing in the crypto space
The team has confirmed that listing on a top tier exchange has already been agreed. They’re just waiting for the right time to announce it, fitting in their marketing campaign. Besides that, a fiat on ramp exchange will list GET in a short timeframe.
Many projects invested most of their funds in exchange listings and fake volume, creating artifical demand. These exchange listings are almost always accompanied by paying for a market maker. Once the funds dry up (and we have seen this with many projects) delisting becomes a reality and the funds end up being spent in vain.
GET’s exchange listing and marketing campaign aren’t a means to pump the price but have the goal of creating liquidity for the end users (mainly ticketing companies) who will need to acquire a lot of GET from the open market in the short future.
 
Expansion in several other countries
GET’s business developer Sander:
"I am reached out by ticketing parties all around the world on a daily basis. The main challenge is to vet these parties. The goal of GET Protocol is to be the worldwide standard of digital admission rights and to get there we need to stay extremely lean and flexible in order to scale well.
In that sense we need to be 100% convinced the parties we partner up in this phase have a very high potential of becoming a big player in their respective geographies. From the onboardings we currently experience, we learn to speed up onboarding processes upcoming year."
And when asked how many tickets he expects to be sold in the near future and how many ticketing companies he expects to run on the GET protocol in 5 years time:
"Along the journey, we here at GET and GUTS learned quite a few things. One of them is avoiding to publicly announce ticket sale estimates as the chances are that we shoot ourselves in the foot with that. If we don’t meet our estimates, life sucks and the community will let us know which is fine and rightful, but to be honest for GET nothing to win.
If we meet our goal, it is okay but even then some people members manage to say they hoped for even better. In that sense, whatever we do, we can’t do well enough on that front, so I am reluctant about giving specific numbers (and I don’t have a crystal sphere either!).
That being said, regarding the amount of ticketing companies in 2025, I expect many, in many countries. It’s a matter of time that we can easier offer our products in a whitelabeled manner. Only this week we got requests for more information about our services from Germany, Paraguay, Mexico, UK and Italy and Australia.
This certainly doesn’t always mean a ticketing company could lead out of such a request, but the interest is certainly there. If we keep on doing what we do now, I believe we can boost ticketeers and event organizers around the world pretty soon and let them issue fully digital and blockchain registered tickets, all processed by GET Protocol. If more ticketing companies are onboarded, the amount of ticket sales processed by the protocol will grow exponentially."
Knowing how GET’s team has always been very careful with their promises, I take such statements very seriously. If the past has taught me anything: they’re probably making an understatement. So expect GET to spread its wings in many regions around the world and take the ticketing world by a storm!
 
Staking & nodes
GET’s blockchain developer Kasper Keunen has announced that a staking model is being developed. This means that you’ll be able to stake your GET. In return a portion of the ticketing fee will be rewarded to those stakers and nodes. So see it as a passive income. You sit down, relax and see it grow exponentionally as GET conquers the ticketing world :)
 
The end goal is to be an open source protocol
The endgoal of the GET protocol is to become open source. There will be a governance model where changes to the protocol will be determined by GET token holders. That’s why I expect ticketing companies to acquire a lot of GET in time as their revenue relies on the direction of the protocol.
GET will have a role as governance for the project as a whole. Such a role for the token is the most natural in a fully open-sourced environment of the protocol(currently not the case, yet).
As then governance by stakeholders (ticketing companies) with a serious stake in the game as their ticketing revenue relies on the direction/quality of the code to be on point.
As of yet, we do not really assign too much fundamental value to this role for the token (we barely mentioned it actually) as it is still a bit early for it to have serious merit.
So pushing that value of the token now would be a bit false advertising. As we onboard more and more ticketing companies we will develop the governance of the token role more and more!
 
Why the GET token is set to explode
Now that I’ve covered what the GET protocol is and where it’s going, it’s time to dig deeper in the token. And I have to say that I’ve never been more bullish on anything in my life. This for the simple reason that usage will drive the price to insanely high levels (where speculation isn’t even needed).
 
Tokenomics
As mentioned above: to have full transparency and accountability (both missing links to make the ticket industry fraud- and scalpfree) all tickets sold are registered on blockchain.
You can compare GET to a gas that is needed to fuel the protocol (every state change of the ticket needs to be registered — for which GET is needed). So for every ticket sold GET is bought back from the open market and burned forever.
 
GET’s valuation in the (near) future
Bear in mind that this is my own expectation, based on big changes in supply and demand that I will try to explain below. Also keep in mind that I’m not a financial advisor and nothing is guaranteed in the crypto space!
But I will try to explain why I personally believe that GET will be trading at 10€ per token and more in the near future.
As time goes on and more tickets are sold, the demand for GET will keep increasing while the supply will keep decreasing. You don’t need to have a PhD in economics to understand what this will do to the price!
 
What kind of demand/buybacks can we expect?
As explained above: for every ticket sold at least €0,28 worth of GET is needed by the ticketing companies. Most of this GET is bought back from the exchanges (the money to do this is included in the ticket fee).
Some GET is supplied by the “user growth fund”. This is a fund created to give potential new customers a discount. This is done by subsidizing them a portion of their need for GET so these new customers don’t need to pay the full price immediately. Bear in mind that as time goes by this fund will dry up and all the GET that is needed will from that moment on be bought from the exchanges.
Since the buybacks are based on the amount of tickets issued by the protocol, to calculate what kind of buybacks we can expect in the future we need to look at the ticket sales. As mentioned before there are 4 ticketing companies using the protocol right now (GUTS, ITIX, TecTix and getTicket). Below I will make an estimation of what to expect from them.
GUTS has sold over 400k tickets. From just the deals already signed, over a million tickets would have been sold in 2020. Due to Covid19 most events had to be posponed (not cancelled). In the meanwhile the GUTS sales team hasn’t been idle and has atracted many more customers.
This means that the 1 million tickets number is probably even on the low side. But let’s say a minimum of 1 million tickets will be sold the first year where all events will be allowed again. This means that at least €280.000 worth of GET will be needed in that year.
ITIX sells 2 million tickets a year on average. Once fully integrated they will thus need at least €560.000 worth of GET on a yearly basis.
TecTix, as a new ticketing company, it’s hard to predict what kind of numbers they’ll be running at the start. But given the expertise of the TecTix team I think 200.000 tickets is a safe bet to start with. That would put us on at last €56.000 worth of GET needed/year.
And finally getTicket, a ticketing company based in South Korea. In their case it’s also difficult to make a prediction because they’re new and we have no previous data to rely on.
But judging from the comments made by the team that “everything is bigger in Korea” and that they’ll be selling stadium concerts for K-pop stars (just one concerts can mean over 100.000 tickets sold) I think it’s safe to say that they’ll be selling at least 1 million tickets/year. That would bring their need for GET to at least €280.000 a year.
So if we put this together the 4 ticketing companies will need over € 1 million worth of GET on a yearly basis. Bear in mind that more ticketing companies will keep joining and the existing ticketing companies will keep growing, taking away marketshare from ticketing companies that can’t offer all of the advantages mentioned before.
Based on all of this I, pesonally, would say that €5 million/year in GET buybacks by 2023 is not an unreasonable prediction.
 
What can we expect from GET’s supply?
Demand for a token means nothing if the supply is unlimited. The best example of the importance of the supply is the recent Bitcoin halvening that got everyone excited.
Before the halvening around 1800 BTC were mined every day. Let’s say that at current prices this was around $16 million worth of BTC per day. The miners obviously have to sell a large portion of this to cover their costs. So even if there are no other sellers, a large number of BTC has to be bought from the market every day just to keep status quo of the current price.
Halvening basically means that the speed at which the supply increases will be halved (900 BTC mined on a daily basis instead of 1800). The supply of BTC will still continue to increase, only at a slower tempo.
Scarcity should be the ultimate goal when investing in utility tokens.
With GET’s utility token things are different: every GET bought by a ticketing company will be burned. Contrary to BTC the supply of GET will thus continue to decrease as time goes on, removing the stacks of those eager to sell.
This is not a dig at Bitcoin by the way as I’m a fan. Just highlighting the advantage an adopted utility token with good tokenomics has over “the king”.
I hope you now understand my expectation that the price will explode. Many holders will obviously not be willing to sell at current prices with such an increasing demand.
As the price is determined by many factors and we don’t know what the price will do exactly, it’s not possible to pin down the exact supply in the future. We do know that it will keep decreasing at a swift tempo unless the price goes parabolic.
 
Finding the equilibrum for the price
The demand for GET will keep increasing through adoption and the supply decreasing as the used GET are destroyed forever
The equilibrium price and equilibrium quantity occur where the supply and demand curves cross. The equilibrium occurs where the quantity demanded is equal to the quantity supplied. If the demand increases and the supply decreases then the price will rise until it finds a new equilibrium.
Putting a correct marketcap valuation on a crypto project is an extremely difficult task. With traditional companies we can for example rely on the revenue, profit, dividend payments, … to estimate what the company is/should be worth.
In most countries a 5% rental yield is considered a good investment. Of course it’s not fully comparable as these buybacks don’t automatically put money on your account. But they do increase the price and destroy the supply. So I think it’s in a way reasonable to extrapolate this 5% yield to our case.
Having explained why I expect atleast €5 million in yearly buybacks by 2023, that would mean the marketcap should be around €100 million (5% = the buyback of €5 million multiplied by 20).
The current circulating supply of GET is around 13,5 million. The expectation is that the burning mechanism will destroy more than half of that by 2023 (this takes into account an increasing price of the GET token). So let’s round it up to 5 million GET remaining.
A marketcap of €100 million with a supply of 5 million GET would mean a price of €20/GET. This would be an increase of 6566.67%.
Of course these numbers are not set in stone and merely a prediction but if you’ve been reading this blog you have come to understand why I am extremely bullish on the GET token.
I have completely taken the speculation factor or an “altseason” or “fomo” out of the equation and only focused on a price increase driven by an increasing demand and decreasing supply! So the focus is on an organic price growth.
Another great thing about holding a token with mass adoption and guaranteed buybacks is that I don’t have to worry about the price. As the buybacks are a guaranteed thing, the lower the price of GET the more GET is bought back and destroyed forever. So even a price decrease, as contradictory as it may sound, is bullish for longterm holders!
submitted by Damnyeahhh to CryptoMoonShots [link] [comments]

Removed comments from Economics subreddits - 07/23/18

And what has Germany provided the US in the last 30 years?
Comment removed from /Economics - Captian_Cocksmith - Created on 07/23/18 00:19:43 UTC - permalink
The low interest rates are a response to the expansion of credit. This sets off the inflationary boom which ends as money begins being priced to actual conditions. Optimistic investments 'above' the actual conditions suffer when the credit expansion ends or even inflects.
Comment removed from /AskEconomics - sh0t - Created on 07/23/18 00:30:26 UTC - permalink
You can easily google that information. Starting point: critical military bases.
Comment removed from /Economics - nutmeggerking - Created on 07/23/18 00:41:39 UTC - permalink
I like Steve Keen's take on this and his modeling of monetary flows:
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2010/11/05/solving-the-paradox-of-monetary-profits-2/
A recent Business Insider article put the blame on monopsony, which I also agree with.
Comment removed from /AskEconomics - sh0t - Created on 07/23/18 00:57:40 UTC - permalink
Critical military bases to protect Germany.. that's not helping USA..
Comment removed from /Economics - 162lake - Created on 07/23/18 01:07:08 UTC - permalink
You do realise that Ramstein Airbase is where your critically wounded soldiers get their emergency care right?
Also, you also realise that Germany hosts your drones communication operating in the mid east?
Comment removed from /Economics - tat310879 - Created on 07/23/18 01:21:39 UTC - permalink
So.. Germany has provided a base to fly USA drones. Your right, my bad USA can pay for 90% of Europe protection, tax our products, buy 70% gas from Russia and 50% oil from Russia while we protect them. Makes sense to me now. Thanks for the clarification.
Comment removed from /Economics - 162lake - Created on 07/23/18 01:25:56 UTC - permalink
The main gun for literally every main battle tank we've used in the last 30 years.
Comment removed from /Economics - kegman83 - Created on 07/23/18 01:26:48 UTC - permalink
Firstly, US is paying for no one's protection. What the Nato treaty entails is that each nation pledges to spend 2%of their budget to defence. It is like everyone bring a plate of food to a potluck. You are not spending a single dime into Nato.
Also, do note that no one told you to go full retard buy getting 11 aircraft carriers, and spend trillions invading Afghanistan or Iraq. That is on you, not them.
Finally, Germany, France and Europe in general could well protect themselves from Russia should they choose. They have the know how, the tech, the money and the population as well. Russia is weaker than Germany, not the other way round. Germany have plenty of allies even if you pull out.
You should really use your brain and stop watching Fox news once in a whilem
Comment removed from /Economics - tat310879 - Created on 07/23/18 01:33:11 UTC - permalink
How did Russia take Ukraine so easy? Because Russia controls their gas and oil supply. They shut off their supply, a week before they walked right across the boarder. Ohh guess what, Russia controls 50% of Germany oil, and 70% of their gas. I wonder where this is headed. France can't defend themselves, they can't even defend the streets of Paris because of the Muslim grooming gangs. And lastly how many countries paid 2%?
I strongly suggest you read your history books, before insulting others it is not justifying your point of view. God bless.
Comment removed from /Economics - 162lake - Created on 07/23/18 01:49:41 UTC - permalink
Are you seriously comparing Western Europe with Ukraine? Really? Are you that desperate in your argument?
France can't defend themselves? Really? What about their nukes? How stupid can you get?
Grooming gangs? Really? In that case i say the US is also weak because you can't even protect your kids from getting massacred yearly. Kindergarten kids being shot wantonly and there is shit all you idios can do about it. You cant even go to a concert in Vegas without being shot at. How about that?
Also, Germany is not as dependent of Russian gas supplies as they could easily ship them in from the mid East or Canada if need be. You heard about this thing called super LNG ships, right?
Then again, Fox watching Trumptards like you wouldn't even comprehend my arguments. You are really that stupid.
Comment removed from /Economics - tat310879 - Created on 07/23/18 01:57:25 UTC - permalink
Don't bother talking to that guy his whole post history is full The Danald bs and fake moon landing stuff
Comment removed from /Economics - johannthegoatman - Created on 07/23/18 02:00:43 UTC - permalink
The stupidity and ignorance of some Americans are just breath taking.
France can't defend themselves? That really took the cake. If they have a vague idea that France has a UN Security Council seat they probably thought they were there because they could cook well or something.
Stupid is stupid does.
Comment removed from /Economics - tat310879 - Created on 07/23/18 02:06:37 UTC - permalink
Billions and billions and billions of dollars of foreign direct investment in the US.
Comment removed from /Economics - lolexecs - Created on 07/23/18 02:18:21 UTC - permalink
This is why the rest of the world think Americans are fucking retards...
Comment removed from /Economics - Rec1umWrecker - Created on 07/23/18 02:23:06 UTC - permalink
Which they are going to keep selling us....
This isn't complicated people. The tariffs are just to make a point... you trade fair with us, you trade freely with us, we'll do the same for you.
Trump is NOT WRONG that non-tariff barriers against our products put us at an unfair disadvantage.
Comparative advantage and free trade are great, you people... so let's put those ideas into actual fair practice.
The point of raising tariffs isn't to have more tariffs forever... it's just to actually shake things up and get broad international reductions in tariffs... which is what will happen.
2 years from now, the US will have lower tariffs on imports overall than it did 2 years ago... and it will be thanks to Donald Trump being willing to flex our muscles and get the rest of the world to respect us and reciprocally lower their own trade barriers to fair levels.
Comment removed from /Economics - Nanarayana - Created on 07/23/18 02:24:42 UTC - permalink
some Americans
People, not Americans. France has Jean-Marie Le Pen too you know.
Comment removed from /Economics - RE5TE - Created on 07/23/18 02:25:23 UTC - permalink
Gilead is nearly bankrupting states with their cure for hepC
Medicine is a special breed since the vast majority comes from public dollars and then through lobbied monopolies that we grant to companies they can charge through the sky
Comment removed from /AskEconomics - datareinidearaus - Created on 07/23/18 02:25:44 UTC - permalink
Are you like literally seriously defending Amerikkka right now? :(
Comment removed from /Economics - EternalPropagation - Created on 07/23/18 03:04:28 UTC - permalink
Propaganda
Comment removed from /Economics - AFlyingMexican5 - Created on 07/23/18 03:39:35 UTC - permalink
Bad troll is bad.
Comment removed from /Economics - anothercleaverbeaver - Created on 07/23/18 03:40:43 UTC - permalink
Logic is useless without empiricism, isn't it? Seems to me that there is only best method to seeking truth, and that is the inductive method.
Does the following hold as analogous to your argument?
There are a certain number of birds in flight at this very instant on Earth.
It is improbable that we possess the means to measure the number of birds in flight at any instant with absolute accuracy.
Therefore we cannot develop a useful hypothesis regarding the number of birds.
If this is the logic of your argument that empiricism cannot provide useful and testable hypotheses for economic matters, then I dont believe you have a very solid argument.
Comment removed from /Economics - _Lazarus_ - Created on 07/23/18 03:56:36 UTC - permalink
Are you like literally implying that countries who export their goods to America are propagandized to complain when America imposes tariffs?
Comment removed from /Economics - EternalPropagation - Created on 07/23/18 05:21:19 UTC - permalink
No, that's not analogous. The analogous argument for economics would be: Hey I think I've figured out how to estimate the numbers of birds in the sky, and now I'm going to use that estimate to control their movement.
Comment removed from /Economics - d00ns - Created on 07/23/18 05:27:36 UTC - permalink
No. The Republicans base is ignorant and gets their news is propaganda.
Comment removed from /Economics - AFlyingMexican5 - Created on 07/23/18 05:29:30 UTC - permalink
Okay good. For a second I thought you were saying European tariffs on American goods were bad or something.
Comment removed from /Economics - EternalPropagation - Created on 07/23/18 06:20:29 UTC - permalink
Even in our quantitative economic studies we are basic it mostly on the fact that certain factors won't change - ceteris paribus (all things being constant).
Economics is boiled down to how humans organise our scarce resources. Humans do not always act logically; economys are complex and multi layered not every factor can be mapped; and we our cultures all impact how how individual economies work.
Simply put any quantitative research in macroeconomics is really just a theory that might work if we exclude 60% of all unpredictable factors and try to calculate for the 40%. It works sometimes but classical economics works best because we accept we cant make predictions and policies so lets just not try and hope the market organises itself.
Comment removed from /Economics - unstopablex5 - Created on 07/23/18 07:16:12 UTC - permalink
Yes, I understand that there are many factors. It is exactly the same in any other scientific discipline. There are no such things as exact values in chemistry or physics, there are only accepted values. And, there are situations where the traditional math breaks down. PV=NRT starts to break down if gases start to act not ideal like at high temperatures or if their collisions become elastic. But still, PV=NRT or c=wavelength x frequency are still useful models of what the relationships are between different things are.
I must say that I being a little harsh on the person that I was responding to previously. I am aware that there are Austrians that are perfectly happy to incorporate quantitative studies into their analyses, and that they call themselves Austrians to simply that their work has caused them to favor free markets and small government. I don't really have an issue with these people.
Comment removed from /Economics - Man-of-Sex - Created on 07/23/18 07:55:11 UTC - permalink
I’m going here in a week! Very excited
Comment removed from /Economics - onemanragecage - Created on 07/23/18 08:08:16 UTC - permalink
“We devised an alternative to austerity, focusing on higher growth..."
and more debt ;)
Comment removed from /Economics - Bitcoin_21 - Created on 07/23/18 08:24:22 UTC - permalink
before you upvote this guy's comment, just bear in mind he's a conservative and believer in alternative facts
Comment removed from /Economics - Strong__Belwas - Created on 07/23/18 08:26:53 UTC - permalink
Try and get the simple demand-supply wage-employment graph out of your head. Stop thinking of them as a trade-off, in reality they don't act against each other.
Comment removed from /AskEconomics - wraggy44 - Created on 07/23/18 08:38:35 UTC - permalink
It'd be interesting to see counterpoints to his statements instead of discrediting him through political beliefs and unclever expressions like "alternative facts".
Comment removed from /Economics - kairos - Created on 07/23/18 08:42:47 UTC - permalink
why?
if i say "as an american, i think this story is made up and trump is the greatest" you probably wanna know my political affiliations, that i'm not some guy with special insight as a member of that nation, i'm just politically-motivated to lie on reddit.
that's all
Comment removed from /Economics - Strong__Belwas - Created on 07/23/18 08:44:40 UTC - permalink
Because your economical/political ideologies don't make you right or wrong.
If you say "as an american, i think this story is made up and trump is the greatest", but back your arguments up with credible data/sources, then your contribution adds to the discussion.
If the sources are rubbish, then you point out the flaws in OPs sources and go on from there.
This is why comments asking for sources are pretty useful, because people who are full of shit tend to not be able to provide them or just link to rubbish (the odd blog post or something).
Comment removed from /Economics - kairos - Created on 07/23/18 09:15:17 UTC - permalink
where are the facts of the person i'm replying to
the thing is, you are making my point for me. people will just blindly believe the guy. they ought to know what his biases are.
Comment removed from /Economics - Strong__Belwas - Created on 07/23/18 09:17:42 UTC - permalink
You are assuming that I'm defending him, when I'm not. All I'm saying is that attacking his political beliefs doesn't make him wrong.
By labeling him as a conservative, all you're doing is leading people who have the same bias as him to believe him and people who lean the other way will not believe what he's saying.
In the meantime, (I think) most people here are smart enough to not take "being portuguese" as an authority on all things Portugal and expect some sort of source for his claims.
I will read (but, depending on the arguments, probably not respond) to any replies to this, as I think I've made my point clear enough and don't think there's much to be added to this discussion.
Comment removed from /Economics - kairos - Created on 07/23/18 09:29:50 UTC - permalink
They’re not smart enough because they believed him and upvoted him even tho he provided no evidence
Why are you singling me out for this is all I’m wondering. Guy makes a claim and doesn’t support it. I say “don’t believe everything you read on Reddit, this guy is politically biased and hasn’t offered evidence”
Seems like you should be directing your posts to that islamophobic bigot
Comment removed from /Economics - Strong__Belwas - Created on 07/23/18 09:50:48 UTC - permalink
Time to short Portugal
Comment removed from /Economics - mancala33 - Created on 07/23/18 10:05:21 UTC - permalink
sshhhhh.... nobody wants to hear that here.
Comment removed from /Economics - ThisOriented - Created on 07/23/18 10:09:34 UTC - permalink
You lost the discussion. Nowhere in these comments did he mention Islam. He mentioned his government has a history of misusing statistics to cover the truth.
Comment removed from /Economics - GodsGoodGrace - Created on 07/23/18 10:18:01 UTC - permalink
I will never get used to this new two-sentence headline structure.
Comment removed from /Economics - externality - Created on 07/23/18 13:36:22 UTC - permalink
This is all Trumps fault!
Comment removed from /Economics - kinypornaccount - Created on 07/23/18 14:39:41 UTC - permalink
that roar is the sound of money rushing into the accounts of the 1%
Comment removed from /Economics - sighbourbon - Created on 07/23/18 14:44:36 UTC - permalink
It's like you are trying to start /neoliberal2
Comment removed from /badeconomics - qchisq - Created on 07/23/18 16:22:14 UTC - permalink
Is this even worth an R1: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/07/20/trump-were-playing-with-the-banks-money-on-markets-gain-since-el.html?__twitter_impression=true
Comment removed from /badeconomics - Araraguy - Created on 07/23/18 16:33:46 UTC - permalink
I will give it to you, I only shared my personal bias, it's quite frustrating to me to see opinions/articles saying how well Portugal is doing, it's enabling bad politics here.
And I'm not a conservative, I'm a minarchist/libertarian and yes I've criticized Islam (not Muslims), if that makes me a bigot, I don't know why, people criticize Christianity all the time and never heard anyone be called a bigot or cristianiphobic for it...
Comment removed from /Economics - Autosleep - Created on 07/23/18 17:00:22 UTC - permalink
"Lock the can down the road" socialism.
Comment removed from /Economics - Mynameisfatsoshady - Created on 07/23/18 17:00:36 UTC - permalink
And the really sad part is there’s more wealth now than ever before. The older generation is fucking it up for the younger generation. This is the ultimate travesty.
Comment removed from /Economics - Xerkzeez - Created on 07/23/18 19:42:25 UTC - permalink
Thank you GOP and Baby Boomers for selling us the ultimate scam of trickle down economics and low corporate taxes.
Comment removed from /Economics - LemonHarangue - Created on 07/23/18 20:36:32 UTC - permalink
Yeah, well, if you could convince younger people to vote during every election then maybe the politicians would pay attention to their concerns. As it stands now, young voters can't be counted on.
Old people vote. All. The. Time.
Comment removed from /Economics - KillYourTV - Created on 07/23/18 20:37:51 UTC - permalink
Yes
Comment removed from /Economics - Throwaway989972 - Created on 07/23/18 20:38:36 UTC - permalink
This is a non-substantive comment. This sub is meant for economic theory discussion, not normative conjecture.
Comment removed from /Economics - jackshiels - Created on 07/23/18 20:50:34 UTC - permalink
Trickle-down economics has never been an economic theory. It is a label given to supply-side stimulus by left-wing critics and a common talking point by economically ignorant users on this site.
Comment removed from /Economics - jackshiels - Created on 07/23/18 20:51:33 UTC - permalink
Now, I'm just curious, but does this have to do with the civil responsibility instilled in the greatest generation (oldest voters probably) or is it because of the age? Like will baby boomers vote as much as the greatest generation when they are aging into their mid-60s/70s?
Tldr do you vote more because you're retired or bc of the civil duty instilled your generation?
Comment removed from /Economics - WritersofRohan17 - Created on 07/23/18 20:51:48 UTC - permalink
you will not find it in textbooks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
There's about thirty sources listed here that say you're wrong
Comment removed from /Economics - Plopplopthrown - Created on 07/23/18 21:01:10 UTC - permalink
https://www.reddit.com/conspiracy/comments/630wf1/how_the_federal_reserve_is_robbing_us_blind/
Are conspiracy things off limits?
Comment removed from /badeconomics - DHallahan - Created on 07/23/18 21:03:31 UTC - permalink
Once again, with feeling: it is not taught in economic textbooks.
Comment removed from /Economics - jackshiels - Created on 07/23/18 21:04:16 UTC - permalink
They've slowly come to learn that politics actually matter.
Comment removed from /Economics - FunAndGamesNStuff - Created on 07/23/18 21:06:43 UTC - permalink
Probably a bit of everything. Also more life experience which includes decades of local to federal politicians passing bills that you disagree with.
I'm only in my 30s and have watched myself and peers go from only really "caring" about presidential or governor elections to voting to even in every local election.
I really don't think it's a pride thing but more that people begin to realize more and more that they must vote to try to keep the things they want the same or to change things they dislike and voting is the easiest way to do it.
Comment removed from /Economics - garlicdeath - Created on 07/23/18 21:08:02 UTC - permalink
My dad just bought a new 350k yacht, while I struggle to meet my mortgage payments. He retired when he was 45, and expects me to be able to do the same...
Comment removed from /Economics - aesu - Created on 07/23/18 21:09:26 UTC - permalink
It’s supposed to be a criticism, reflecting what actually ends up happening with such policies instead of using the nice terms created by their proponents. Not being the word supply-side economists would like to use doesn’t make it invalid.
Comment removed from /Economics - BossaNova1423 - Created on 07/23/18 21:15:26 UTC - permalink
Why would I study macroeconomics, when it lacks even the predictive power of meteorology?
Comment removed from /Economics - wockyman - Created on 07/23/18 21:33:38 UTC - permalink
My answer won't be liked, but I'll say it anyway. It's because civic education was purposefully altered, diluted, and largely removed from the school system... and it was done on purpose for exactly this reason.
Comment removed from /Economics - arminiusreturns - Created on 07/23/18 22:39:20 UTC - permalink
Yeah, young people have among the lowest voter turnout rate. If they voted at the rate of people (especially white men) over 50 a lot of the state legislatures and Congress would look different than it does today.
Comment removed from /Economics - A7-23 - Created on 07/23/18 22:41:52 UTC - permalink
A-men. Why should I have to take Advanced Placement Government class to get knowledge that all kids should get outright?
Comment removed from /Economics - Bonzoso - Created on 07/23/18 22:43:54 UTC - permalink
What's wrong with low corporate taxes? It's just coming out of company growth, market cap, and potential wages. I see no reason at all to even have corporate taxes.
Comment removed from /Economics - radwimp - Created on 07/23/18 22:50:39 UTC - permalink
Why would you hang out in /economics if you don't care about economics?
Comment removed from /Economics - way2lazy2care - Created on 07/23/18 22:52:53 UTC - permalink
at least in my HS there was a required civics/government class for your senior year. AP Gov theoretically just aims the material at the test. In practice, this just means the best teachers teach AP Gov.
Comment removed from /Economics - eetsumkaus - Created on 07/23/18 23:02:53 UTC - permalink
Election day should be a national holiday.
This would mostly help government, finance, and other white collar professions.
Retail, healthcare, restaurants, etc. are working on all other federal holidays. What will make election day any different?
Comment removed from /Economics - raiderato - Created on 07/23/18 23:05:05 UTC - permalink
They shouldn't.
Comment removed from /Economics - raiderato - Created on 07/23/18 23:05:53 UTC - permalink
To be honest, I’m in my late 20s, went to college without the help of family/friends, worked hard to pay it off, have found a job in my field without too many obstacles, am about 70% of the way towards putting a downpayment on a house.
15/20 of my friends are doing just as well.
My sisters are doing just as well.
What the fuck is everyone talking about when they cry about opportunity in 2018?
Comment removed from /Economics - justin_truedoee - Created on 07/23/18 23:09:03 UTC - permalink
submitted by throwittomebro to reconomics_mod_audit [link] [comments]

block-size tradeoffs & hypothetical alternatives (Re: Block size increase oppositionists: please clearly define what you need done to increase block size to a static 8MB, and help do it) | Adam Back | Jun 30 2015

Adam Back on Jun 30 2015:
Not that I'm arguing against scaling within tech limits - I agree we
can and should - but note block-size is not a free variable. The
system is a balance of factors, interests and incentives.
As Greg said here
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3b0593/to_fork_or_not_to_fork/cshphic?context=3
there are multiple things we should usefully do with increased
bandwidth:
a) improve decentralisation and hence security/policy
neutrality/fungibility (which is quite weak right now by a number of
measures)
b) improve privacy (privacy features tend to consume bandwidth, eg see
the Confidential Transactions feature) or more incremental features.
c) increase throughput
I think some of the within tech limits bandwidth should be
pre-allocated to decentralisation improvements given a) above.
And I think that we should also see work to improve decentralisation
with better pooling protocols that people are working on, to remove
some of the artificial centralisation in the system.
Secondly on the interests and incentives - miners also play an
important part of the ecosystem and have gone through some lean times,
they may not be overjoyed to hear a plan to just whack the block-size
up to 8MB. While it's true (within some limits) that miners could
collectively keep blocks smaller, there is the ongoing reality that
someone else can take break ranks and take any fee however de minimis
fee if there is a huge excess of space relative to current demand and
drive fees to zero for a few years. A major thing even preserving
fees is wallet defaults, which could be overridden(plus protocol
velocity/fee limits).
I think solutions that see growth scale more smoothly - like Jeff
Garzik's and Greg Maxwell's and Gavin Andresen's (though Gavin's
starts with a step) are far less likely to create perverse unforeseen
side-effects. Well we can foresee this particular effect, but the
market and game theory can surprise you so I think you generally want
the game-theory & market effects to operate within some more smoothly
changing caps, with some user or miner mutual control of the cap.
So to be concrete here's some hypotheticals (unvalidated numbers):
a) X MB cap with miner policy limits (simple, lasts a while)
b) starting at 1MB and growing to 2*X MB cap with 10%/year growth
limiter + policy limits
c) starting at 1MB and growing to 3*X MB cap with 15%/year growth
limiter + Jeff Garzik's miner vote.
d) starting at 1MB and growing to 4*X MB cap with 20%/year growth
limiter + Greg Maxwell's flexcap
I think it would be good to see some tests of achievable network
bandwidth on a range of networks, but as an illustration say X is 2MB.
Rationale being the weaker the signalling mechanism between users and
user demanded size (in most models communicated via miners), the more
risk something will go in an unforeseen direction and hence the lower
the cap and more conservative the growth curve.
15% growth limiter is not Nielsen's law by intent. Akamai have data
on what they serve, and it's more like 15% per annum, but very
variable by country
http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/soti-visualizations.html#stoi-graph
CISCO expect home DSL to double in 5 years
(http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-providevisual-networking-index-vni/VNI_Hyperconnectivity_WP.html
), which is about the same number.
(Thanks to Rusty for data sources for 15% number).
This also supports the claim I have made a few times here, that it is
not realistic to support massive growth without algorithmic
improvement from Lightning like or extension-block like opt-in
systems. People who are proposing that we ramp blocksizes to create
big headroom are I think from what has been said over time, often
without advertising it clearly, actually assuming and being ok with
the idea that full nodes move into data-centers period and small
business/power user validation becomes a thing of the distant past.
Further the aggressive auto-growth risks seeing that trend continuing
into higher tier data-centers with negative implications for
decentralisation. The odd proponent seems OK with even that too.
Decentralisation is key to Bitcoin's security model, and it's
differentiating properties. I think those aggressive growth numbers
stray into the zone of losing efficiency. By which I mean in
scalability or privacy systems if you make a trade-off too far, it
becomes time to re-asses what you're doing. For example at that level
of centralisation, alternative designs are more network efficient,
while achieving the same effective (weak) decentralisation. In
Bitcoin I see this as a strong argument not to push things to that
extreme, the core functionality must remain for Lightning and other
scaling approaches to remain secure by using the Bitcoin as a secure
anchor. If we heavily centralise and weaken the security of the main
Bitcoin chain, there remains nothing secure to build on.
Therefore I think it's more appropriate for high scale to rely on
lightning, or a semi-centralised trade-offs being in the side-chain
model or similar, where the higher risk of centralisation is opt-in
and not exposed back (due to the security firewall) to the Bitcoin
network itself.
People who would like to try the higher tier data-center and
throughput by high bandwidth use route should in my opinion run that
experiment as a layer 2 side-chain or analogous. There are a few ways
to do that. And it would be appropriate to my mind that we discuss
them here also.
An experiment like that could run in parallel with lightning, maybe it
could be done faster, or offer different trade-offs, so could be an
interesting and useful thing to see work on.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
Which of course raises another issue: if that was the plan, then all you
can do is double capacity, with no clear way to scaling beyond that.
Why bother?
A secondary function can be a market signalling - market evidence
throughput can increase, and there is a technical process that is
effectively working on it. While people may not all understand the
trade-offs and decentralisation work that should happen in parallel,
nor the Lightning protocol's expected properties - they can appreciate
perceived progress and an evidently functioning process. Kind of a
weak rationale, from a purely technical perspective, but it may some
value, and is certainly less risky than a unilateral fork.
As I recall Gavin has said things about this area before also
(demonstrate throughput progress to the market).
Another factor that people have said, which I think I agree with
fairly much is that if we can chose something conservative, that there
is wide-spread support for, it can be safer to do it with moderate
lead time. Then if there is an implied 3-6mo lead time we are maybe
projecting ahead a bit further on block-size utilisation. Of course
the risk is we overshoot demand but there probably should be some
balance between that risk and the risk of doing a more rushed change
that requires system wide upgrade of all non-SPV software, where
stragglers risk losing money.
As well as scaling block-size within tech limits, we should include a
commitment to improve decentralisation, and I think any proposal
should be reasonably well analysed in terms of bandwidth assumptions
and game-theory. eg In IETF documents they have a security
considerations section, and sometimes a privacy section. In BIPs
maybe we need a security, privacy and decentralisation/fungibility
section.
Adam
NB some new list participants may not be aware that miners are
imposing local policy limits eg at 750kB and that a 250kB policy
existed in the past and those limits saw utilisation and were
unilaterally increased unevenly. I'm not sure if anyone has a clear
picture of what limits are imposed by hash-rate even today. That's
why Pieter posed the question - are we already at the policy limit -
maybe the blocks we're seeing are closely tracking policy limits, if
someone mapped that and asked miners by hash-rate etc.
On 30 June 2015 at 18:35, Michael Naber <mickeybob at gmail.com> wrote:
Re: Why bother doubling capacity? So that we could have 2x more network
participants of course.
Re: No clear way to scaling beyond that: Computers are getting more capable
aren't they? We'll increase capacity along with hardware.
It's a good thing to scale the network if technology permits it. How can you
argue with that?
original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/009282.html
submitted by bitcoin-devlist-bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Reaching consensus on policy to continually increase block size limit as hardware improves, and a few other critical issues | Michael Naber | Jul 01 2015

Michael Naber on Jul 01 2015:
This is great: Adam agrees that we should scale the block size limit
discretionarily upward within the limits of technology, and continually so
as hardware improves. Peter and others: What stands in the way of broader
consensus on this?
We also agree on a lot of other important things:
-- block size is not a free variable
-- there are trade-offs between node requirements and block size
-- those trade-offs have impacts on decentralization
-- it is important to keep decentralization strong
-- computing technology is currently not easily capable of running a global
transaction network where every transaction is broadcast to every node
-- we may need some solution (perhaps lightning / hub and spoke / other
things) that can help with this
We likely also agree that:
-- whatever that solution may be, we want bitcoin to be the "hub" / core of
it
-- this hub needs to exhibit the characteristic of globally aware global
consensus, where every node knows about (awareness) and agrees on
(consensus) every transaction
-- Critically, the Bitcoin Core Goal: the goal of Bitcoin core is to build
the "best" globally aware globally consensus network, recognizing there are
complex tradeoffs in doing this.
There are a few important things we still don't agree on though. Our
disagreement on these things is causing us to have trouble making progress
meeting the goal of Bitcoin Core. It is critical we address the following
points of disagreement. Please help get agreement on these issues below by
sharing your thoughts:
1) Some believe that fees and therefore hash-rate will be high by limiting
capacity, and that we need to limit capacity to have a "healthy fee market".
Think of the airplane analogy: If some day technology exists to ship a
hundred million people (transactions) on a plane (block) then do you really
want to fight to outlaw those planes? Airlines are regulated so they have
to pay to screen each passenger to a minimum standard, so even if the plane
has unlimited capacity, they still have to pay to meet minimum security for
each passenger.
Just like we can set the block limit, so can we "regulate the airline
security requirements" and set a minimum fee size for the sake of security.
If technology allows running 100,000 transactions per second in 25 years,
and we set the minimum fee size to one penny, then each block is worth a
minimum of $600,000. Miners should be ok with that and so should everyone
else.
2) Some believe that it is better for (a) network reliability and (b)
validation of transaction integrity, to have every user run a "full node"
in order to use Bitcoin Core.
I don't agree with this. I'll break this into two pieces of network
reliability and transaction integrity.
Network Reliability
Imagine you're setting up an email server for a big company. You decide to
set up a main server, and two fail-over servers. Somebody says that they're
really concerned about reliability and asks you to add another couple
fail-over servers. So you agree. But at some point there's limited benefit
to adding more servers: and there's real cost -- all those servers need to
keep in sync with one another, and they need to be maintained, etc. And
there's limited return: how likely is it really that all those servers are
going to go down?
Bitcoin is obviously different from corporate email servers. In one sense,
you've got miners and volunteer nodes rather than centrally managed ones,
so nodes are much more likely to go down. But at the end of the day, is our
up-time really going to be that much better when you have a million nodes
versus a few thousand?
Cloud storage copies your data a half dozen times to a few different data
centers. But they don't copy it a half a million times. At some point the
added redundancy doesn't matter for reliability. We just don't need
millions of nodes to participate in a broadcast network to ensure network
reliability.
Transaction Integrity
Think of open source software: you trust it because you know it can be
audited easily, but you probably don't take the time to audit yourself
every piece of open source software you use. And so it is with
Bitcoin: People need to be able to easily validate the blockchain, but they
don't need to be able to validate it every time they use it, and they
certainly don't need to validate it when using Bitcoin on their Apple
watches.
If I can lease a server in a data center for a few hours at fifty cents an
hour to validate the block chain, then the total cost for me to
independently validate the blockchain is just a couple dollars. Compare
that to my cost to independently validate other parts of the system -- like
the source code! Where's the real cost here?
If the goal of decentralization is to ensure transaction integrity and
network reliability, then we just don't need lots of nodes or every user
running a node to meet that goal. If the goal of decentralization is
something else: what is it?
3) Some believe that we should make Bitcoin Core to run as a high-memory
server-grade software rather than for people's desktops.
I think this is a great idea.
The meaningful impact to the goals of decentralization by limiting which
hardware nodes can run on will be minimal compared with the huge gains in
capacity. Why does increasing capacity of Bitcoin Core matter when we can
"increase capacity" by moving to hub and spoke / lightning? Maybe we should
ask why does growing more apples matter if we can grow more oranges instead?
Hub and spoke and lightning are useful means of making lower cost
transactions, but they're not the same as Bitcoin Core. Stick to the goal:
the goal of Bitcoin core is to build the "best" globally aware globally
consensus network, recognizing there are complex tradeoffs in doing this.
Hub and spoke and lightning could be great when you want lower-cost fees
and don't really care about global awareness. Poker chips are great when
you're in a casino. We don't talk about lightning networks to the guy who
designs poker chips, and we shouldn't be talking about them to the guy who
builds globally aware consensus networks either.
Do people even want increased capacity when they can use hub and spoke /
lightning? If you think they might be willing to pay $600,000 every ten
minutes for it (see above) then yes. Increase capacity, and let the market
decide if that capacity gets used.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Adam Back <adam at cypherspace.org> wrote:
Not that I'm arguing against scaling within tech limits - I agree we
can and should - but note block-size is not a free variable. The
system is a balance of factors, interests and incentives.
As Greg said here
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3b0593/to_fork_or_not_to_fork/cshphic?context=3
there are multiple things we should usefully do with increased
bandwidth:
a) improve decentralisation and hence security/policy
neutrality/fungibility (which is quite weak right now by a number of
measures)
b) improve privacy (privacy features tend to consume bandwidth, eg see
the Confidential Transactions feature) or more incremental features.
c) increase throughput
I think some of the within tech limits bandwidth should be
pre-allocated to decentralisation improvements given a) above.
And I think that we should also see work to improve decentralisation
with better pooling protocols that people are working on, to remove
some of the artificial centralisation in the system.
Secondly on the interests and incentives - miners also play an
important part of the ecosystem and have gone through some lean times,
they may not be overjoyed to hear a plan to just whack the block-size
up to 8MB. While it's true (within some limits) that miners could
collectively keep blocks smaller, there is the ongoing reality that
someone else can take break ranks and take any fee however de minimis
fee if there is a huge excess of space relative to current demand and
drive fees to zero for a few years. A major thing even preserving
fees is wallet defaults, which could be overridden(plus protocol
velocity/fee limits).
I think solutions that see growth scale more smoothly - like Jeff
Garzik's and Greg Maxwell's and Gavin Andresen's (though Gavin's
starts with a step) are far less likely to create perverse unforeseen
side-effects. Well we can foresee this particular effect, but the
market and game theory can surprise you so I think you generally want
the game-theory & market effects to operate within some more smoothly
changing caps, with some user or miner mutual control of the cap.
So to be concrete here's some hypotheticals (unvalidated numbers):
a) X MB cap with miner policy limits (simple, lasts a while)
b) starting at 1MB and growing to 2*X MB cap with 10%/year growth
limiter + policy limits
c) starting at 1MB and growing to 3*X MB cap with 15%/year growth
limiter + Jeff Garzik's miner vote.
d) starting at 1MB and growing to 4*X MB cap with 20%/year growth
limiter + Greg Maxwell's flexcap
I think it would be good to see some tests of achievable network
bandwidth on a range of networks, but as an illustration say X is 2MB.
Rationale being the weaker the signalling mechanism between users and
user demanded size (in most models communicated via miners), the more
risk something will go in an unforeseen direction and hence the lower
the cap and more conservative the growth curve.
15% growth limiter is not Nielsen's law by intent. Akamai have data
on what they serve, and it's more like 15% per annum, but very
variable by country
http://www.akamai.com/stateoftheinternet/soti-visualizations.html#stoi-graph
CISCO expect home DSL to double in 5 years
(
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-providevisual-networking-index-vni/VNI_Hyperconnectivity_WP.html
), which is about the same number.
(Thanks to Rusty for data sources for 15% number).
This also supports the claim I have made a few times here, that it is
not realistic to support massive growth without algorithmic
improvement from Lightning like or extension-block like opt-in
systems. People who are proposing that we ramp blocksizes to create
big headroom are I think from what has been said over time, often
without advertising it clearly, actually assuming and being ok with
the idea that full nodes move into data-centers period and small
business/power user validation becomes a thing of the distant past.
Further the aggressive auto-growth risks seeing that trend continuing
into higher tier data-centers with negative implications for
decentralisation. The odd proponent seems OK with even that too.
Decentralisation is key to Bitcoin's security model, and it's
differentiating properties. I think those aggressive growth numbers
stray into the zone of losing efficiency. By which I mean in
scalability or privacy systems if you make a trade-off too far, it
becomes time to re-asses what you're doing. For example at that level
of centralisation, alternative designs are more network efficient,
while achieving the same effective (weak) decentralisation. In
Bitcoin I see this as a strong argument not to push things to that
extreme, the core functionality must remain for Lightning and other
scaling approaches to remain secure by using the Bitcoin as a secure
anchor. If we heavily centralise and weaken the security of the main
Bitcoin chain, there remains nothing secure to build on.
Therefore I think it's more appropriate for high scale to rely on
lightning, or a semi-centralised trade-offs being in the side-chain
model or similar, where the higher risk of centralisation is opt-in
and not exposed back (due to the security firewall) to the Bitcoin
network itself.
People who would like to try the higher tier data-center and
throughput by high bandwidth use route should in my opinion run that
experiment as a layer 2 side-chain or analogous. There are a few ways
to do that. And it would be appropriate to my mind that we discuss
them here also.
An experiment like that could run in parallel with lightning, maybe it
could be done faster, or offer different trade-offs, so could be an
interesting and useful thing to see work on.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
Which of course raises another issue: if that was the plan, then all you
can do is double capacity, with no clear way to scaling beyond that.
Why bother?
A secondary function can be a market signalling - market evidence
throughput can increase, and there is a technical process that is
effectively working on it. While people may not all understand the
trade-offs and decentralisation work that should happen in parallel,
nor the Lightning protocol's expected properties - they can appreciate
perceived progress and an evidently functioning process. Kind of a
weak rationale, from a purely technical perspective, but it may some
value, and is certainly less risky than a unilateral fork.
As I recall Gavin has said things about this area before also
(demonstrate throughput progress to the market).
Another factor that people have said, which I think I agree with
fairly much is that if we can chose something conservative, that there
is wide-spread support for, it can be safer to do it with moderate
lead time. Then if there is an implied 3-6mo lead time we are maybe
projecting ahead a bit further on block-size utilisation. Of course
the risk is we overshoot demand but there probably should be some
balance between that risk and the risk of doing a more rushed change
that requires system wide upgrade of all non-SPV software, where
stragglers risk losing money.
As well as scaling block-size within tech limits, we should include a
commitment to improve decentralisation, and I think any proposal
should be reasonably well analysed in terms of bandwidth assumptions
and game-theory. eg In IETF documents they have a security
considerations section, and sometimes a privacy section. In BIPs
maybe we need a security, privacy and decentralisation/fungibility
section.
Adam
NB some new list participants may not be aware that miners are
imposing local policy limits eg at 750kB and that a 250kB policy
existed in the past and those limits saw utilisation and were
unilaterally increased unevenly. I'm not sure if anyone has a clear
picture of what limits are imposed by hash-rate even today. That's
why Pieter posed the question - are we already at the policy limit -
maybe the blocks we're seeing are closely tracking policy limits, if
someone mapped that and asked miners by hash-rate etc.
On 30 June 2015 at 18:35, Michael Naber <mickeybob at gmail.com> wrote:
Re: Why bother doubling capacity? So that we could have 2x more network
participants of course.
Re: No clear way to scaling beyond that: Computers are getting more
capable
aren't they? We'll increase capacity along with hardware.
It's a good thing to scale the network if technology permits it. How can
you
argue with that?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150701/6d43b13a/attachment-0001.html>
original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009293.html
submitted by bitcoin-devlist-bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

[Table] I am Antony Davies, associate professor of Economics at Duquesne University, columnist, and sometime tech entrepreneur. AMA!

Verified? (This bot cannot verify AMAs just yet)
Date: 2013-05-22
Link to submission (Has self-text)
Link to my post
Questions Answers
What say you about the Austrian School of Economics? As an econometrics guy, you don't seem to have that in common, but you have seemingly come to largely the same conclusions, i.e. free markets, free trade, etc. I am new to Austrian economics. I got all the way through undergraduate and PhD work and had never heard of Hayek, Mises, or Rand. When I finally heard the Austrian perspective, I was amazed -- using philosophical tools, the Austrians reach the same conclusions that I reached using econometric tools. I believe economics should be taught, at the undergraduate level, from an Austrian perspective. The graphs and equations that populate the standard undergraduate texts speak only to small subset of students. The Austrian approach, however, speaks to a broad audience and provides a solid intuitive understanding of economics that is very difficult to get from a picture.
What specific public policy change in the US do you think would most benefit society in the short and long term? What the US needs to do is something like the following (I've run the numbers, so what I'm about to say is approximately correct)...
(1) Cut federal spending by 10%. If you want to avoid cutting something (e.g., Social Security), then cut something else by more, but the total must come out to a 10% cut. (2) Hold spending constant (no adjustments for inflation) for four years. (3) At the end of year 5, we'll have a balanced budget. From that point forward, the growth in government spending must not exceed the growth in real GDP.
Why would getting a balanced budget help us in the short term? The problem is the debt. As it continues to grow, we approach a point at which the interest payments eat so much of our tax revenue that there is little money left to do the things government needs to do.
Balancing the budget would cause the debt to stop growing.
The CBO estimates that in the next decade, interest payments as a percent of GDP will be no higher than it was during the Bush years. Tell me again why getting a balanced budget will help us in the short term? I've done an analysis of historical CBO forecasts. Of the available 170+ times they have forecasted, they overestimate tax revenues 75% of the time, underestimate spending 80% of the time, and underestimate the debt 90% of the time.
Thank you for all the work you do over at Learn Liberty and for doing this AMA. I don't agree. Sometimes, the economy is like a tube of toothpaste. The government can push down on one end and all that happens is that the other end bulges. In this case, there is no question that the bailout saved jobs in Detroit and saved us the immediate pain of car companies and their suppliers and finaciers going bankrupt.
Today, the conventional wisdom seems to be that the financial and automotive industry bailouts bailouts averted an even worse crisis and saved us from an awful depression. However, what the bailout ultimately did was to keep a large chunk of our scarce resources tied up in industries that have demonstrated their inability to use those resources in the best possible way. So, a decade or two or three from now, we're going to be right back to the dealing with the same problem because we didn't address the disease. We addressed the symptom.
What is your position on the bailouts? And what do you believe would have happened if they had not been implemented? Think of it as a law of conservation of economic pain. The government can't make the pain of wasted resources go away -- it can only shift the pain to the future.
I've seen some of your videos concerning the national debt/budget deficits. What's your prediction on the outcome? Will we see any policy changes before it's 'too late'? And what does it look like when it is, in fact, 'too late'? High inflation? Hyperinflation/currency crisis? A major change in the way government works? I'll give you my personal prediction, though I'm not yet comfortable enough in it to write about it in the press.
I predict the following sequence of events: (1) The economy begins to pick up and the Fed, fearing inflation, starts to let interest rates rise; (2) The federal government -- the largest borrower in the U.S. -- can't afford higher interest payments, so it puts pressure on the Fed to hold interest rates low; (3) Some compromise is reached and the result is a mix of some increase in interest rates and some inflation; (4) Let simmer for a while; (5) Government spending reaches a point that there is no option left by monetizing the deficit (i.e., the Fed prints money to fund deficit spending); (6) The dollar ceases to be the global reserve currency; (7) We start to talk about replacing the dollar with a New Dollar.
As a liberal type of guy I often look at talk of hyperinflation and debt crises in general as a lot of hot air. However, I also understand theoretically how extreme debt can cause a number of problematic issues, including high levels of inflation. What are some real world examples of Western/Industrialized economies that succumbed (or almost succumbed) to hyperinflation in the post-WWII era? Think of borrowing and saving as moving consumption and income across time. When I borrow, what I am really doing is consuming now money I will earn in the future. When I save, what I am really doing is consuming later money I earn now.
When a country does this, it is transferring the consumption and income of the taxpayers across time. So, by accumulating $16 trillion in debt, what the US has really done is to take $16 trillion of consumption away from future taxpayers and give it to today's taxpayers. IMHO, that's an extreme example of taxation without representation.
How would you look at the returns on that $16 trillion dollar consumption? Like surely our military spending, infrastructure or any spending now, has a return for the citizens down the road. You are correct, sometimes it is better to borrow and buy things now because the benefit we get from having the things now outweighs the cost of paying for them later. For an individual, college loans are a good example. For a country, military spending is probably a good example. There are probably others.
There is a serious difference, however, between the decision the individual faces and the decision the country faces. The individual compares the benefit of consuming now to the cost of paying later and judges whether to borrow or to save. At a country level, we can't do the same thing because the people who borrow are not the people who are paying back. It would be like your neighbor deciding whether he should borrow to buy a new car, knowing that he would be able to use the force of law to require you to pay back the money he borrowed.
Professor Davies, Thanks for taking time to do this AMA! What do you think current Federal monetary policy & financial law says about citizenship in America today? Duties? Expectations? Allowed Behavior? It seems to me that the duty of an American citizen is to respect other people's property rights (I use the term "property" broadly to include not just people's objects but their lives and well-beings). To that end, anyone who is willing to come here and so live should be considered a citizen.
If you could automatically remove one United states policy what would it be and why? Also if you could make one United states policy what would it be and why? As a homerun, I would remove the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. As a second best, I'd repeal the 17th Amendment so that Senators would be appointed by the state legislatures. A third idea I've been wondering about recently is how things would be different if the states appointed the Supreme Court Justices -- e.g., election by the fifty state governors.
A freshman econ major here, just so you know. I've noticed in some of your articles you've been critical of Obama's economic policies, notably his stimulus package. However, it seems you fail to address some of the benefits of the stimulus, such as its investment in human capital and the effect it had on aggregate demand and consequently the recession as a whole. Taking these into account, doesn't it lend some merit to Obama's decision? Furthermore, do you believe that the economy would be better off now if Obama had gone with austerity instead? The question is never does a policy have positive effects (which is the way politicians describe policies), but rather, do the positive effects of a policy outweigh the negative effects of that policy. I tell my students that economists don't care about individuals. What I mean by that is, economic policy is not designed for individuals but for the economy as a whole. So, when an economist thinks about policy, he has to think about the effect on the economy as a whole.
If people measured one's preferred form of governance on a scale of 0 to 100 (0= anarchy, 100= dictatorship), what would be your number? My preference is 0, though I could live comfortably with the 1 to 10 range.
On a scale of one to ten, how dumb are you? On a scale of one to ten, how badly do you need me to pay your phone bill this month?
Do you think that financial crisis like the fall of the banks is an intrinsic part of a growth based economy, or was that just a hiccup that we can fix? And if we can fix it, what steps should we take to make sure that doesn't happen again? The financial crisis was very much the result of government intervention. Since the 1970s, Congress has been pressuring banks to extend loans to low-income and risky borrowers. The banks (because they had to bear the cost of failed loans) largely resisted. That all changed when Congress ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ramp-up.
The way it is supposed to work is that banks have a profit motive to loan money and a loss motive to avoid loaning money to people who won't pay it back.
Here's how it did work. Banks would lend money to people. FM and FM would immediately buy the mortgages from the banks. End result: The banks had still had a profit motive to loan money to people, but they no longer had the loss motive to avoid loaning money to risky people. By purchasing the loans, FM and FM took the risk away from the banks. Since FM and FM were backed by the US government, that risk got foisted on taxpayers.
The end result was predictable. Notice that the problem wasn't greed. Banks were greedy before. The problem was that the government removed the penalty for greed (loan defaults) so as to encourage banks to make loans that they otherwise would not have made.
What do you think about the role of "Bitcoin" in society? Bitcoin is absolutely the right idea. It is an easily stored and exchanged currency that can't be inflated. It also has the astoundingly beautiful property of being untraceable. If bitcoin (or something like it) takes hold, it will be a huge blow to government controls everywhere.
As far as I know, it isn't strictly untraceable. Also, the exchange rates can still wildly fluctuate, as we have recently seen with the popping of a bitcoin bubble. How do we know that it is the value of the bitcoin that is wildly fluctuating or the value of the dollar? :)
Do you view taxation as a necessary evil? Wow. That's a hard question. Any tax that pays for something that could otherwise be provided by the private sector is probably an evil tax. So, school taxes are evil. Transportation taxes are probably evil.
So, I suppose the question boils down to, "is there anything the government does that could otherwise be provided by the private sector?" I don't know. I think of myself as a "soft anarchist." By that, I mean, while I'm not ready to say that we can survive without government, I haven't yet heard a compelling argument as to why we do need government.
Do you count the national defense as something that could otherwise be provided by the private sector? Private companies already can fulfill many if not most functions of our military. Probably not. However, the "we need government because we need national defense" argument ends up being circular. (1) I need government because I need an army. (2) But, I only need an army to protect me from your army. (3) You are able to have an army because you have a government. Conclusion: The purpose of government is to protect you from government.
What would you say is the book that everyone should read to understand economics? I always recommend The Armchair Economist (Landsburg, Freedom Press) and Eat the Rich (O'Rourke). The former can be read as individual chapters; the latter is a narrative. Both are excellent.
Will the dollar collapse? And if so, when and why? Also, what are your thoughts on the origin of natural rights?? Most explanations I've read from people like Locke tend to explain it through God which seems like a cop out to me. There are good arguments for the origin of natural rights that don't invoke God. Being a theist, I find the ones that do invoke God more satisfying. I find the philosophical discussion fascinating, but I'm not adept enough to be able to reproduce it.
1) Do you think Keynesian multipliers ever exceed 1? I haven't done the calculations myself, but I've seen estimates in studies that range all the way down to less than one. I'm not a fan of the multiplier, but in its defense, it has been abused by politicians. Politicians quote Keynes' prescription for increasing government spending so as to spur economic growth. But they don't quote Keynes' next statement which is, after the economy picks up, return government spending to its original level.
2) What are your thoughts on the Chicago School vs. the Austrian School? I dislike the idea of "schools." It gives the impression of mutually exclusive sets. There's a lot in the "Chicago school" that is good, so too in the "Austrian school." There's also error in both. My tendency is to approach economics from the Austrian school because the Austrians begin with a first principle (people own themselves), and then construct subsequent principles by applying logic to the first principle. I like that approach.
3) There is quite a bit of derision in the /Economics sub about the Austrian school as being outdated and not quantifiable. What would you say in response to that criticism? I disagree. My training is in econometrics and I find a wealth of quantifiable stuff in Austrian economics.
Do you think cutting entitlement spending could ever be politically viable? There seems to be entire blocks of voters who base their entire vote on 'don't touch my medicare'. The interesting thing here is that whether it becomes politically viable is moot. We are going to reach a point (my guess is not sooner than 5 years nor later than 20) at which it becomes mathematically impossible to continue entitlement spending as it is now. At that point, it won't matter whether there is a political will to cut spending any more than it matters whether there is a political will for gravity to pull downward.
What single math principle would you want all politicians to understand? I believe the problem isn't understanding but communication. I would want no politician to offer something to voters without clearly defining the costs. For example, to ask, "Do you want the government to provide you with health insurance?" is (to many people) a no-brainer. But the question doesn't capture the reality of what's being asked. What's really being asked is, "Do you want the government to provide you with health insurance in exchange for lower quality health care and increased unemployment?"
What got you into economics? My mother. She told me to study it. Always listen to your mothers.
What is the most mind-blowing economic fact/theory that you know? Link to www.antolin-davies.com
Have any post WWII Western/post-industrial economies collapsed as a result of debt or inflation? Not to my knowledge, though Cyprus and Greece might become the first examples.
Hello Dr. Davies, what are your thoughts on the Gold Standard? Any system that holds the supply of money relatively constant is good. It doesn't have to be gold. A water standard or a land standard might work just as well. Many advocates of the gold standard go awry when they claim that we need a gold standard because gold is inherently valuable and we need something with inherent value to back the dollar.
This is incorrect. The reason a gold-backed dollar has value isn't because it is backed by gold. It has value because you can hand it to a bartender and he'll give you a beer.
Would prosecuting the ring leaders of the biggest banks, or breaking the too big to fail banks up have a significant impact on the economy? Or is Holder just lying...again? The ring leaders were Congress and the Federal Reserve. Absolutely, banks were acting like corner drug pushers. But it was Congress and the Fed that were the drug cartel.
Do you think the national debt can be repaid without heavy inflation to reduce its effective size? No. For the moment, it is political impossible. In about five or ten years, it will become mathematically impossible.
Which economic school do you lean towards more? Chicago? Austrian? Austrian -- no question.
Whose your favorite George Mason Economic Professor and why? Rob Raffety. He adjuncts in the law school and was a student of mine as an undergrad.
What do you like best about your job? Variety. It's most of the joy of being self-employed without the risk. Probably only half of the educating I do now is done in the classroom. The rest is via videos, opeds, invited lectures, and venues like this. It's gotten even more interesting in the past couple of years as people seem to be waking up to classical liberal thought.
Regarding public policy, what is your stance on immigration? What is your utopia with respect to immigration, and then what kinds of reforms should Congress seek that are practical with today's government and/or society? Peaceful people should be allowed to cross boarders freely. Immigration is really a violation of your economic freedom. Suppose I own a house and a person from Mexico wants to buy it. Were it not for immigration law, we could come to an agreement and freely transact the exchange. When the government prevents the person from coming into the country, it has the same effect as telling me to whom I can and cannot sell my property.
If you had the chance to scrap our tax system, would you? what system would you go to? Absolutely. I'd replace it with an 18% consumption tax -- no exceptions. I'd also accompany it with a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Historically, regardless of tax rates, the government collects total revenue equal to about 18% of GDP. So this tax would generate the same revenue as the government has now. The balanced budget amendment would force politicians to make tradeoffs among spending rather than tradeoffs between spending and tax increases.
What is your response to criticisms of the Austrian School of economics? Also, should children be a part of the free market? Do infants have self-ownership? I would also like to know if you have any responses to this or this. To my knowledge, no philosophical system has yet been able to deal with the "children" question. A philosopher friend of mine once said that parents don't own children, they own the right to parent the children. The way I explain it to my own children is that I make for them the decisions I believe they would make for themselves if they had my knowledge and experience.
Professor I have a question for you. I'm Braziliand and we have a conditional assistance program. We don't give welfare to everyone, in fact the only welfare people get is through work, but we do have free healthcare. Technically, you don't have free healthcare. Rather than paying hospitals for healthcare, you pay the government and the government pays the hospitals.
Anyway we have a program that distributes between 20-80 dollars per family below the poverty line, which is substantial for many of them, and costs a bit more than our outrageous senate. I'm usually skeptical of inequality concerns though not of poverty concerns. No one every died of inequality, but far too many people die of poverty.
Link to en.wikipedia.org. I believe that every person has a moral obligation to care for the poor. But to coerce action is to remove the moral component. If a government forces its people to care for the poor, then you have indeed fed the poor, but the feeding is not a moral act since moral actions require free will.
As it turns out these people spend this money in their local environment, local stores, local markets, in the poorer neighborhoods. So, while I can think of several effective ways the government could use its coercive power to fight poverty, I could not say that any of them are legitmate.
Isn't this a legitimate tool for social mobility and a mini-stimulus package which does wonders for the people? I am quite fond of Hayek's theories but in my country we have such an absurd social inequality that initiatives like these make perfect sense to me. One effective way is a negative tax. That is, everyone pays a fixed percentage of their income and everyone receives a fixed check from the government. For example, suppose we all paid 10% of our incomes in tax and received $10,000 from the government. A person with no job would pay $0 in taxes and receive a $10,000 check. A person who earned $200,000 would pay $20,000 and receive a $10,000 check.
econometrics? I've just started a job in econometric modeling so I would love a good reference! The gold-standard is Econometrics by William Greene, but it is extremely heavy mathematically. You need a solid background in linear algebra to get through it.
What do you think of the transaction tax? specifically Link to thetransactiontax.org. One great danger with a tax like this is that if we don't amend the Constitution to get rid of the income tax at the same time that we enact a transactions tax, we will end up with both.
A potential problem is that a transactions tax (as opposed to a sales tax) might require the government to monitor transactions as opposed to sales. I'm not overly comfortable with that.
So let's say we must cut government spending. IMO we should cut off federal funding for states that vote against spending, since they want smaller government. This would probably start with farm subsidies to mid-western states like OK. The free market will provide America with enough food right? What would you cut first? If you're concerned that we won't have enough food because we aren't subsidizing farmers, fear not. We are already paying a lot for our food, but we pay in two forms. One is payment to the farmers when we buy stuff. The other is payment to the government so it can subsidize farmers. Without the subsidies, farmers would get less money from the government and so might have to charge us more. But we would not be paying the government to pay farmers and so our total cost might not be that different. IOW, removing subsidies is less about how. Much we pay farmers than how we pay farmers.
Glad to catch ya mr. davies! Just quick question: If America were to legalize every drug and regulate said drugs, how do you think this would effect the economy? Putting aside drugs that are instantly addictive (they are a problem because they call into question whether the person has freedom of choice), the government would spend a lot less because we wouldn't have a huge portion of our society locked up. Those people who are locked up for drug offenses would then be free to work -- that would be a huge increase in a valuable resource. All told, I believe that economic growth would accelerate.
What are your thoughts on Distributism? I don't know much about it. I understand that it derives from Catholic social thought. CST is often (IMHO) abused by statists. For example, the directive that we have a responsibility to care for the poor is usually interpretted as a call to government intervention. But the Church doesn't say the government has a responsibilty to care for the poor. It says we have a responsibility to care for the poor.
One way to find common ground between Catholic social thought and classical liberal thought is to think of CST not as recipe for how to fix society but as a description of how a fixed society would look.
As someone who just graduated with a bachelors in Economics/ Int'l Business, what do feel is the current atmosphere for new hires? Any specific sector standing out to you? I have an interview with a company in ATL this coming August. I tell my students that employers don't need you to know how to do things. They'll teach you what you need to do. Employers need you to know how to think clearly and communicate concisely. To that end, emphasize your skills in mathematics, statistics, logic, speaking, and writing, and you'll find employers across a broad range of industries will be interested in you.
Where are the checks and balances on deregulated capitalism? At what point does the free market and the desire to maximize profit influence unethical behavior that may impede on the personal liberties of others (i.e. prison profiteering, military contractors, disaster capitalism)? "Deregulated" is a misnomer. All industries are regulated. The question is whether they are regulated by consumers freely choosing to hand over their dollars for the things the industry produces, or regulated by bureaucrats and politicians.
Is it true that this year’s deficit is greater than the total taxable income of Americans earning more than $100,000? Not greater than their taxable income, but about equal to the amount of taxes they paid. This year's numbers are still in flux. I believe that last year's deficit was around $1.1 trillion. The latest breakdown of federal tax receipts by income group was for 2009. In that year, everyone earning $100,000 and up paid a combined (approximately) $1.2 trillion in federal income, payroll, capital gains, estate, etc. taxes.
I'm confused by your philosophy on too big to fail. You seem to think congress is to blame for our current economic crisis. But I see congress as more of a symptom of institutions being to big to fail. Congress is paralyzed because the institutions have become so powerful that they control congress. If the institutions were smaller they would not have as much clout over congress. Can you comment on this? I believe you have the causality backward. The problem isn't that institutions are so large that they can control Congress. The problem is that Congress has become so powerful that it is worth controlling.
What's your opinion on the Rogoff/Reinhart situation, and did it cause you to change your philosophy? I haven't read the paper. My understanding is that it was a calculation error that changed the results quantitatively but not qualitatively.
Who do you think was the most handsome economist in history? Lord Acton had a rockin beard. Jeffrey Tucker has a rockin tie.
Y...you think that it's a good idea to repeal the 17th amendment? The point (prior to the 17th) was to encourage separation of power between the federal government and the states by making the Senate answerable to the states.
Hello Mr.Davies, As someone who knows nothing about economics and business (I am a welder), what is the best way to break into such fields of work? Education is a must I assume, but are certain universities more valued? Which degrees or majors are more in demand? Are there specific things to learn, do, or specialize in to stand out? How do mentor ships work? How can I meet a mentor and build a relationship with them? Normally, you'd need a bachelors degree in economics at the least. Typically jobs that carry the title "economist" (as opposed to "analyst") require a minimum of a masters degree. If you want to try and break in without getting the formal degrees, you'd need to be extremely good at higher level statistics (e.g., I'd recommend two semesters of stats, one of econometrics, one of advanced econometrics), mathematics (e.g., minimum calculus II), and basic economic theory (e.g., intermediate micro, intermediate macro). Your writing skills would also have to be top notch. Without the degree, you'd also need a goodly piece of luck because it will be hard to convince an employer to take a chance.
Dr. Davies: Given the the United States has previously held a price floor on wages slightly higher than 30% of GDP/hour worked with no significant disemployment effects, (late 1960s) and Canadian minimum wages are currently in the 20-23% range, and yet manages a higher 16-64 employment rate than that of the United States, can you tell me if you believe that an increase in the minimum wage from 12% to 15%, as the President proposed, would have significant disemployment effects, and if so why? I don't know what "no significant disemployment effects" means. The right way to measure the effect of the minimum wage is to compare the unemployment rate at various points in time with the relative minimum wage (i.e., the minimum wage as a ratio of the average hourly wage) at those points in time.
You can see that comparison here: Link to www.antolin-davies.com
Why do you feel comparing the minimum wage to the average hourly wage is correct? Won't that make attempts to suppress wages generally appear as though the minimum wage is higher in real terms than it would otherwise be? It's the correct measure because what is important is the degree to which the minimum wage is distorting the price of labor. For example, if the average free market wage is $10 an hour, I would expect that a minimum wage of $11 an hour won't have much effect. However, if the average free market wage is $5 an hour, I would expect that a minimum wage of $11 an hour would have a huge effect. Conclusion: What matters is the ratio of the minimum wage to the average wage.
Why would you refer to the labour market, a market characterized by weak monopsony and employer-enforced information asymmetry, as a free market? You are correct. I am using the average market wage as a proxy for the free market wage. It's not perfect, but for our purposes isn't a bad proxy.
Is it pronounced "Du-shane" or "Dju-kane"? Du-Kane.
Is Grove City College a good school? I have no first hand knowledge of the college. I know some of their students and faculty and none has ever failed to impress me as good and intelligent.
I think he's saying that there is still an inflection point where debt/GDP ratio causes negative growth. It might not be at 90%, but it will certainly still exist at some point. You are correct.
Last updated: 2013-05-26 17:05 UTC
This post was generated by a robot! Send all complaints to epsy.
submitted by tabledresser to tabled [link] [comments]

The Bitcoin Chart NO ONE Is Looking At (BTC CHARTS) DECISION TIME! Ripple XRP Price Chart and Bitcoin and Market Caps PRESSED AGAINST RETRACE LEVEL! BITCOIN PRICE WARNING ALERT  ALTCOINS LATEST PRICE UPDATES NEWS HINDI CRAZY BITCOIN PRICE AREA TO WATCH FOR BULLISH BTC CONFIRMATION! BITCOIN PRICE URGENT UPDATE  BIG BTC MOVE FINALLY HERE?

The Performance Report is a Detailed Quote that includes today's activity plus the previous four days of trading prices.Included are the Open, High, Low, Last,Change, % Change and Volume figures. The page is divided into multiple parts: Bitcoin Trading Guide for Beginners. By: Ofir Beigel | Last updated: 5/1/20 This post covers the basics of Bitcoin trading. It will help you get familiar with basic terms, understand different ways to “read” the market and its trend, make a trading plan, and learn how to execute that plan on Bitcoin exchanges.. Bitcoin Trading Summary This continuous historical price chart for Lean Hogs futures (LH, CME) is part of a huge collection of historical charts that covers decades of North America futures / commodity trading. In addition to continuous charts, the collection includes thousands of single-contract historical price charts that cover individual contract months from years past. Conversion Lean Hog Price Price; 1 Pound = 16 Ounces Lean Hog Price Per 1 Ounce 0.03 USD 1 Pound ≈ 0,453 Kilograms Bitcoin is the world’s first cryptocurrency which works on a completely decentralized network known as the blockchain. The blockchain network consists a link of blocks that are secured using cryptography and record all the transactions. Bitcoin was first presented to the world in 2009 by an anonymous identity known as Satoshi Nakamoto.

[index] [26080] [5485] [23196] [5365] [13230] [2478] [5825] [22059] [24674] [29503]

The Bitcoin Chart NO ONE Is Looking At (BTC CHARTS)

BTC, ETH, ZIL, XTZ, ADA, LINK and more! Let's take a live look at the crypto charts. Join the Node Insiders! Trading Bot Status, Trending Names, Alerts, Training videos and more! Tools made by ... The Bitcoin Chart NO ONE Is Looking At (BTC CHARTS) ----- We actually go over some other bitcoin charts in today's video. If you like me looking over other charts like this please comment down ... Learn how to read stock charts and identify technical patterns as ClayTrader does a quick stock chart review on Bitcoin (Bitcoin). Watch more Bitcoin Technical Analysis Videos: https://claytrader ... Bitcoin charts are finally lined up and btc price is primed for a breakout. After waiting and tracking this bitcoin symmetrical triangle since the beginning of May, Bitcoin price finally enters ... In this video we will review the Ripple XRP chart, the Bitcoin chart in comparison to silver, and the total market cap charts. Hi, I am the Blockchain Backer, bringing you the latest crytocurrency ...

Flag Counter