Small wonder that Joseph Stiglitz proposes to ban Bitcoin, so called because of the threat to the economy. Stiglitz is a former employee of the world bank, a political organisation. And politics is responsible for all economic crises in the past. The great depression of the 1920s / 1930s wss caused by the fed’s inflating of the money supply; the housing crash was caused by the government pushing through the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) http://www.federalreserve.gov/communitydev/cra_about.htm
The ECB is now digging a deep hole for the European economy.
So cryptocurrencies like BitCoin are a way out for the people. Just like they are for Venezuelans who are victimized by the communist junta that has devalued the Bolivar to the point oglf econonic ruin.
Some inventor got so upset about politicians’ unrelenting attempts to impose communism, that he invented a time machine, and took one of the despots with him to the future, to make him/her himself experience the communist hell hole they were creating for citizens.
The punch line is, that they’re not traveling back in time to post-1917 Russia, but they’re travelling to post-2037 Europe (or America (north, middle or south) or whereever you wish to place this)
The population density,of the Netherlands is over 10 times that of the USA. Therefore: so long as European countries bears the brunt of immigration from countries that benefit from American foreign policy attention, the US population will not put pressure on the US government to stop terrorizng the world.
Of course, the Arab continent is so much closer to the European continent, so the refugees are more likely to coe to Europe thanto America.
So… at the end of 2012, 23% of the entire world population (1.6 billion people) was a muslim, eh? (A number of them have been killed since then).
Now imagine, that the logic of Bush2 (GWB) made any kind of sense¹, and muslims were genetically predisposed to kill westerners. Surely, if that were so, Europe and the Americas would be entirely depopulated by now.
I maintain that being a muslim is a much more dangerous passtime than being a non-muslim.
BTW I still maintain that christians are much more dangerous than muslims.
Of course, not all christians are like that, only the ones in political power (in DC, mostly), commonly known as neo-conservatives.
¹) remember “They hate us for our freedoms.”?
This post is a follow up to https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/11/09/lessons-in-economics-from-pop-culture/
What makes such a road so wasteful (of money and materials, energy)? Because it does not contribute to the economy.
Why not? Such a road has to be built, won’t it? Yes, that does mean an employment opportunity for a small handful of people. And when that road has been built: “PARAR! No more work for you, thus section of road is done. But you will still pay taxes for the construction of the next section!”
Meaning that money has just been permanently removed from the total sum of wealth of the planet.
Would you say that the wealth still exists, because it has been spent on/by construction companies? Ah, broken window fallacy (Bastiat) would suggest that involuntary spending like this does not add to the sum of product, except that the unproductive waste means that the taxed money can now not go to anything productive, like a pair of shoes that a citizens wears to work.”
If you have Netflix, you may be able to watch Top Gear https://www.netflix.com/nl-en/title/70140457. In season 20 episode 3, they ably demonstrated the folly of Keynesian economics. By stating that the mountain road they were on was a delight to drive, then to their amazment finding out the road went nowhere. Whatever way you look at it, the 3 cars they tested (Ferrari 458, McLaren MP4 and Audi R8) were less wasteful of energy than the road they were on, which had just prolonged Spain’s economic woes (at 57% youth-unemployment, during the recording of that episode). It took considerable energy to build that road, and the amount of energy the tax victim had to put into coughing up the taxes, wouldn’t have helped the environment either.
“I can’t wait to drive on a road that actually goes to a city: that must be awesome!”
They then did some top speed runs on the runway of an unused airport. That opened 5 years earier, then went bust. The computers were still running though.
Then instead of hiring a hotel room to spend the night, they chose an empty house in an empty town. Not only did the building of this town deprive a hotel of income, it also cost it considerable taxation. Remember: money is only productive when it is invested in productive ventues. Roads to nowhere, don’t serve anyone person or business. They just lie there, having cost considerable money. I believe the English language has the word “boondoggle” for that.
Then they got to Madrid, which was so empty that they laid out a street circuit through the town of Madrid.
So three huge wastes of money.
I wish the politulicians that have such a mouth full of the word
would recognize that there is nothing durable about this: it is only a single, one-time boon for the workers, that fall back into unemployment and because such money as been drawn from the productive segments of society (businesses, citizens – in short: civillians), those civillians will be unable to invest that money ito productive ventures.
Take a look at Guy Verhofstadt (@GuyVerhofstadt): https://twitter.com/GuyVerhofstadt?s=09
Follow the tweets from one of the most willfully blind EU-politicians, for a good laugh.
And then: there’s the text on his profile: “Building a new Europe”, right. With the tax victim’s money. Time for Mr. Verhofstadt to read some Mises, Bastiat about the desirability and effectiveness of make-work programs, like building buildings nobody wants to use: they only cost money and hurt the economy by wasting wealth (this applies to the whole institution)