anoncowherd

>> we have on the one side a dollar that has endured as a value store and medium of exchange for hundreds of years, and which has proven remarkably resilient (valuable) by any objective measure throughout the worst economic implosion since the Great Depression (which the dollar also survived)

There's something you're overlooking though: the dollar was backed by gold until 1971, and that's where our problems really started mounting.

Krugman's rants can be safely ignored. He either genuinely thinks that the solution to problems created by printing and borrowing way too much money is.. printing and borrowing shitloads more money, or he doesn't actually think that and is a government shill instead.

Either way, he's not to be trusted.

>> BitCoin looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind—to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions

So? Damaging States' ability to forcefully confiscate everyone's wealth is a distinctly good thing, here in the real world.

I wonder if the ever-vigilant FTC has noticed anything shady about what Wall Street has been doing for years now.

It seems he just wanted to draw a parallel between two "manias". I have no idea what will happen to Bitcoin, but it sure does look like a mania. I do see the benefits too, of course.

Most Bitcoins are purchased as a speculation, expecting their value to go way up. It's possible that the gold rush is already over, but it's also possible it's only beginning.

>> Let's see who laughs in 5 years

Hah :P

It's nice to see yet another sane person on HN, by the way.

>> We have to find a way to give the President the power he needs to protect us, while making sure he does not abuse that power.

Now if only he was interested in "protecting us". What you're suggesting is that we need to give a fox the power to protect the hen house, and to ensure it won't abuse that power. What do you think will happen? It's not about the president either, by the way. He's just a puppet for The Powers That Shouldn't Be.

>> But what has really changed?

Not much. The only positive change here is that people are now widely aware that they're being spied on in everything they do online, so now there's less resistance to "conspiracy theories" (ie. "reality"). On the other hand, that very same awareness serves to advance "the chilling effect", so it's unclear if it's even a net positive.

Other than that, everything keeps changing for the worse, of course. The police are increasingly militarized, secret courts keep doing their thing, and people keep losing their liberties. The only possible "solution" to this insanity is spreading awareness of the fact that governments are inherently immoral. They're based on taxation, and taxation itself is based on coercion. The way it works is that people are punished for attempting to keep their property. Does it make sense to punish you for keeping your computer? No? -Okay then, does it make sense to punish you for keeping your money? .. Well no. No it doesn't. Yet, that's exactly how taxation is forced upon everyone. If you do not pay taxes, you will be punished for attempting to keep your property. Something is wrong here.

>> There's little evidence the true motivation was to defeat terrorism

It was never about terrorism. In fact, governments like terrorism because it gives them an excuse to grab more power and strip people of their liberties. The surveillance is about control, power and maintaining it. It's meant to be used against the general populace.

"I played a central role in setting up this all-encompassing surveillance, but now that it's been in operation for years, I realize it could be used for naughty things. It's time to blow the whistle on this!"

Binney's case is interesting, to say the least.

.. or he's doing Image Management.

Heyyy, if torture was "regulated" by Congress, The President and his military commanders, I guess it would be alright?

Don't worry about the "inequality", they've always been spying on US citizens too, and still are!

In fact, US citizens are their priority, because they're the ones the US government needs to control and keep in check to maintain their power.

I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be, but I suspect you don't actually have one.

You didn't even give the Mises Institute a chance to educate you. If you listen to their in-depth videos on the fundamental "mechanics" of economics, but find yourself disagreeing with what they say, you're pretty much just refusing to hear anything, or simply not very bright.

They're not "fanatic", they're just explaining how economics works, in very clear terms, and in a way that obviously corresponds to reality (because it's all based on the way humans actually behave).

>> pointing to that site to learn about economics is like referring to Glenn Beck's site to learn about President Obama

So where do you learn about Obama? -The mainstream media? How's that "change you can believe in" going? -Oh well, I guess stripping away your civil liberties counts as "change", right?

>> Obviously, most economists have some ideology, but I think you should try to learn from people are are at least not so fanatic.

Nah, I'm fine learning from people who are actually talking about how economics works here in the real world. You just keep on keeping on.