RT @SorenDuggan: $11.6 trillion in value moved, and $10 billion in fee revenue. Staggering statistics in the EOY review for Ethereum.
Every other blockchain *combined* comes in a distant second.
There may be competitors in the future, but there aren’t any right now.
Quick question for you Evan, if you don't mind.
I was using Coinmetrics (free version) to get a sense of the total value transferred on the network last year and came up with a number around $3.6T (I'm trying to potentially get investors interested in decentralized staking with Rocket Pool!).
The $3.6T number was specific to the asset ETH and I used the metric:
Xfer'd Val, Adj (USD)
Did you simply go through all the other major ERC-20s (e.g. WETH, LINK, UNI, MAKR, AAVE) and use that exact same metric then sum them?
Did you include stables like USDT and USDC?
Thanks for the insights.
yes i'm concerned.
do i think it will pan out? i'm not sure. oddly i think the numbers going the wrong way over the past couple months may be a blessing in disguise because this may wake people up to the fact that this is the most pressing problem in Ethereum. we have 4 great staking clients. people need to stop taking foolhardy risks with their ETH and the network. DECENTRALIZATION MATTERS
i think thats a valid point but this value is a measure over an entire year.. so it has persisted ... and couldnt you say the same thing with visa in relation to inflation? or resale value of goods? tho not to the same extent.
also, this measure is really pointing to the center of the argument... is it really speculation?
eth MC is 70 billion UNDER visa - while moving more value (over the course of a year)...
your assumption is that because its speculative that it is over valued... but is it? the number seem to line up.. no? 380 B MC for eth while moving 11 TRILLION (US$)..
i guess my point is that - is it really speculation? or is it (value of eth) actual value?
I never said Ethereum was over valued. I’m bullish on Ethereum. It can’t really be considered a global payment system the way Visa can yet though. When Ethereum is transacting the same amount of real value as Visa it’s market cap will likely be orders of magnitude larger than Visa’s.
You have a great point that I'm curious about as well. How many people are actually using Ethereum as it was meant to be used - a currency, a means of exchange for goods and services? What percentage of wallet owners are actually buying food or utilities or making payments to real world vendors with their crypto?
Majority of hodlers (myself included) are treating it simply as an investment vehicle, waiting for appreciation **to convert to fiat** to buy what we want versus appreciating and or accumulating Ethereum to use to purchase said wants.
In order for Ethereum to be used as a currency or as a payment system on par with global credit lenders and banks, the price has to stabilize like fiat with single digit movements over the entire year versus 2-3x up, or 33-50%+ down in a month. For any crypto to be used as they were intended to be used, they need to be stable.
I think we're all "bullish" on crypto because at the end of the day we want our coffers to be stuffed full of more fiat unless you really want to drive that metaverse Lambo.
You could reverse that argument and point out all the useless consumer goods people pay for with Visa. In the end, the way I look at it is, if someone is willing to pay the transaction fee, that transaction must provide some value to that person.
Ah ok, thanks for explaining that. So when people complain about the gas fees being too dear are they sort of complaining about paying the miners too much? Or is it more a I'd rather not pay anyone complaint?
"It would harness the left’s emphasis on human welfare, but it would encourage the progressive movement to “take innovation as seriously as it takes affordability,” as Ezra Klein wrote."
"I just want to point out how much good we can do by simply taking on the enemies of abundance."
It's comforting to see articles like this that accurately identify scarcity as a major source of suffering. They're aware that there are weaknesses in the fabric of society spanning from energy to health care. Granted in this case the author doesn't know what exactly to do about it, but they're on the right track. I find that comforting. It reminds me that the transition may not look like a solid mile point but rather like a stream of water, flowing from one social structure to another. The flow is subtle yet continuous. And we're watching it unfold in front of our very eyes.
To summarize they believe it is because there isn't enough supplies of certain needed and quasi necessary goods. They say it isn't a spending issue, and then determine it is.
Yet the US government, in their example, did not order Covid tests because they believed Covid was basically done by Summer. The various organizations that slowed the process was due to red tape and too much incompetent bureaucracy.
Medical costs are high not because we don't spend enough or have enough doctors. It's because we have inefficient systems and no price controls. Education is so high mostly because we again have an inefficient system and no price controls. Why would it with no oversight and unlimited money.
When ivy league schools received more in foreign student payments and alumni donations did they reduce costs, no. When their costs during Covid went down due to students not attending in person did they lower costs or even pay teachers more, no.
We need an overall of the entire system and remove inefficacies, lost, etc. If you had a car with a hole in it's tank would you fix the hole first or just keep filling it with gas?
With the housing stuff, you start gradually. Legislation and referenda that allowed for ADUs (essentially home-owners in otherwise single-family homes being able to rent out rooms or ad-on units, typically one per lot) has been pretty successful in California.
I think the next step is allowing for duplexes to be built by-right, and small apartment buildings on roads that allow for more traffic. It all helps - if you can build duplexes and single-family homes on smaller lots, you've nearly doubled the amount of housing units you can build per area of land. Allow for town homes and small apartment buildings, and it goes up even further.
Solar, wind, and geothermal progress has been impeded by regulations that benefit the fossil-fuel industry, by antigrowth attitudes among Americans who don’t want new energy projects in their neighborhood, and by questionable cost-benefit analyses by environmentalists.
I'm in favor of reforming NEPA so that renewable construction gets the same benefit of the doubt as oil and gas production. But I also think we need to do a better job of getting people financially invested in infrastructure in their backyard, so they don't just see it as an imposition without any say on their part. One of the things Denmark has done to really speed up deploying wind turbines is mandating that communities get an ownership stake in wind turbines, that funding gets put aside for environmental preservation in the area, etc.
Nuclear power is 99.6 percent greener than oil in emissions per unit of energy created and 99.7 percent safer in deaths per unit of energy. But the U.S. has closed more nuclear-power plants than we’ve opened this century.
Austin Vernon has a good piece on this, but basically it's rather dubious that new nuclear plants are going to be commercially viable with the rapidly dropping prices of renewables and storage even with far more favorable regulators and ultra-cheap credit, and even existing plants are only barely at par with them just on operating costs.
Civilian nuclear power just doesn't really seem to have much of a future in the US unless either new generation nuclear plants can be built cheaper (or have very low operating costs), or unless they can be cost-effective at far smaller sizes.
Doctors who do not come from wealthy families end up with a half a million dollars of student loans after committing years of their lives to becoming a doctor. They do not get compensated well enough to recover from this easily and the current system is horrible to work in.
It would channel the right’s fixation with national greatness to grow the things that actually make a nation great—such as clean and safe spaces, excellent government services, fantastic living conditions, and broadly shared wealth.
Yeah, those are things that the right doesn’t want. In fact, they actively work against those things. Again, another author who thinks that the right has actual plans or policies and that someone can just convince them to come around. That ship has sailed.
Not a bad article. It’s true that dumb laws are always at the root of high prices/shortages. I don’t,however think that foreign manufacturing or trade is a problem though. Foreign markets are bound to respond to the things Americans want to buy, and that’s good.
In journalism school, you learn that when you use the words first, last, always or never, you are guaranteed to be incorrect, and if you find yourself using this word you should analyze your thought process.
Lol I guess if the journalism student says so, it must be true. Besides my use of forbidden language, what else do you have? Because that’s all you’ve said so far. It’s almost like you’re holding back an opinion you and I both know won’t work in light of common sense.
It's not an opinion, its a fact. The majority of the high prices and shortages are caused supply side issues related to covid and demand side issues related to covid. The majority of mainstream, non-partisan economists know this to be true. Apparently you do not, as you have claimed that "dumb laws are always at the root of high prices/shortages." We are currently experiencing high prices and shortages, and have been for quite some time. These problems are not caused by laws, they are caused by too much demand chasing too little production. And if anything more than 0% of that is caused by anything other than "bad laws" then, prima facie, your statement is false.
And by "we" I mean the whole world. PPI is high in China, CPI is high in Bulgaria, so please let me know what "laws" are universal on earth causing CPI and PPI inflation suddenly in almost every single country you look at, including ones which have been in deflationary spirals for years.
This article is hilarious. It points out real problems, but the solutions are all super conservative. Capitalism and imperialism are responsible for everything he lists, but he refuses to meaningfully address it and instead spends the article insisting that everything can be solved with better policy decisions. Policies the rich would never support.
While your view isn't supported by any evidence it is the dominant theme of liberal propaganda, which is incredibly popular in the US. Even if you were correct, it's impossible for everyone to do well in a capitalist society and the methods for accumulating wealth tend to be bad for the environment and community.
Yes. This is entirely true, and I am one of those people too.
Unfortunately it is a two way street, and if you know anything about the Post Soviet counties in the 1990s, you will know that countless people went from comfortable lives to poverty, also because of capitalism.
Oh, what a clickbait title, and here I thought it was going to be put all of our faith into a single person and make them the unquestioned leader, I mean it is the 20s again. So there is precedent for it. At least in Italy.
I was thinking of ignoring the size of the debt and the programmed lament: but the kids will have to pay for it.
Give them something worth paying for rather than the crumbling ruins that their parents don't want to keep up. Of course the 'rich' who have come to see themselves as an aristocracy we should be grateful for, will never pay to give their servants a decent life. That's an awful lot to ask of a people whose DNA designs them to take until they have it all.
So damn the debt. If we spend right now, the kids will have a better world and will be productive enough to 'pay' this ridiculous instrument.
Housing affordability is due to apartment complexes that cant be taller?
Assigning American greatness to Democrat agenda items as a gimme to Republicans?
What a joke.
I’m all for shaking things up. The systemic problem is greed. The left and right have a greed problem and that’s the first domino in everything this dude identifies.
There’s just too much money being greedily hoarded out of the economy.
Even as a Libertarian, I believe this has reached a point where the heavy hand of the government is needed to shake loose the cash from the top 1-3% wealthiest demographic.
Infrastructure, somehow forcing an actual living wage, and making college harder to get into would be great ways to get out of scarcity.
As for college needing to be harder, look, we have tried this “you can be anything you want” lie long enough. There’s a lot of very dumb people chasing dreams they aren’t capable of. I taught college for 3 years and left because there were just too many stupid people believing they could do stuff they had no business chasing.
I have an idea. Stop your infantile jealousy of people who are doing better than you. Develop your own virtue. Wanting what someone else has makes you a mewling baby. Working with what you have makes you a grown up. Either way I won’t pay any heed to your shut-uppery
It’s also the fault of the “McMansions”.
A big house is a status symbol…more house than most people really need so they go out and buy more stuff to fill it.
Houses like that are going for 450,000 to 600,000 in my town.
College is fine. But most people don’t need to go to expensive schools. The base line should be a 2 year associates at an affordable (govt paid) community college. Its like high school plus.
Then, more ambitious/brighter kids can go from there.
I can’t decide if you sound cynical or misanthropic. Your experiences are not a stand-in for reality; there are plenty of bright kids out there.
Knowledge and skill are learned. Most jobs don’t require brilliance, they require learning. I would argue that many (most?) jobs, white collar or otherwise don’t require a 4-year degree. They require a general understanding of the field and then job-specific training. You cannot expect an 18 or 20 year old to be as knowledgeable as a 30yo or a 40yo.
That said, a liberal arts education (2-year community school) is really important for a functioning society. It sounds like a great time to learning basic home economics and finance, and to experiment/ find out the field they want to work in.
Edit: this is not a defense of our school systems. They are indeed broken, but I’m much more optimistic on the potential of individuals.
Having 2 additional years of general education (paired with career aspiration/discovery and basic economics/finance/math) would be beneficial to individuals and society.
If individuals already know out of the gate they want to be in STEM, thats different. They should go straight to 4-year. But thats not most people.
Ex-high school teacher here. I have students that can't do basic arithmetic, like converting ounces to grams, who think they are going to be doctors. They think they can just show up in college and get a degree, much like what they are taught in high school, which for high school is true. Have a pulse, get a diploma! Attendance doesn't even matter in high school anymore.
This is because of parents, though. They threaten to sue schools if their little darlings don't pass. And because administrators have become pussies that only care about their six figure salaries they give parents whatever they want. This is why I quit.
Student accountability has become almost non-existent in schools, but I wouldn't be so quick to put the blame solely on parents.
As a parent myself, I absolutely want my kids to get the grades they earn, but how can I enforce good habits if the school just accepts late assignments, or gives passing grades for shit work? It's beyond frustrating to hear my kids say, "I can just hand it in late for full credit," or "it's fine, my friend didn't even show up half the year and still passed" and know that they're right.
Now I'm reading about AP for all classes and it's just honestly terrifying. The bar is way too low. This needs to stop.
Where do you think those policies came from? Parents complaining about their kids not passing due to the teacher being unfair or their kid is absent because grandma is sick, etc etc.
Behavior has been disconnected from grades due to both bias (some kids get a passing grade due to favoritism, yes this does happen) and lawsuits (parents perceive bias in their child’s grade and whether that’s true or not they will raise hell about it). So yeah, a lot of the blame lands on parents and how they act when their little angel fails.
It's far more complicated than this. School districts have pressure from all sides to keep their ratings high.
It's not in a child's best interest to receive grades they haven't earned or to be passed onto a grade they're not ready for. Most decent parents recognize this. The little angel trope is not representative of the majority and I don't think schools are terribly scared of obviously frivolous lawsuits.
Ratings aren’t near as big a thing since No Child Left Behind was all but done away with. In the school district where I work, there is little mention of standardized test scores anymore.
Also, again in my school district so this does not hold true across the board, students are not passed if they don’t deserve it. They are given plenty of opportunities to recover the credit aside from retaking the course again, but if I give a kid a 68 then he doesn’t get credit for my course. And yes, schools are constantly worried about lawsuits and so are us teachers. That’s why we join professional organizations who’s sole purpose it to defend us if we get wrapped up in a lawsuit.
My school started allowing just about anyone that wanted AP to take AP. The only reason schools are doing this is to boost the school ranking. Everything about how schools are run today has to do with making the school look good in paper.
Superintendents can then go to the school board and parents and say look how great our school is. When in reality it is so much worst. Sickening. I retired after ten years of that bullshit because it just keeps getting worst.
I feel bad for parents like you and the kids that want to work and learn. All of these shenanigans only dilute the value of a diploma for those that actually earned it.
The looking good on paper thing is really the priority now, unfortunately. It's not what's best for the students or the teachers who are forced into leniency.
School district ratings prop up real estate values so there's a broad interest from the community to keep those ratings high. I'm not sure how many people even realize how bad it has gotten.
I spy greed again. It’s at the root of all our problems.
And that’s interesting about your POV. After seeing what I did at the college level, my wife and I pulled the kids from public school and now homeschool.
I’ve been a student, parent, or teacher at the public, private, and homeschool levels and homeschool just seems to be the most appropriate now. Every person for themselves or in small likeminded groups. The public models are broken.
With respect to housing affordability, it’s a supply and demand problem. If you constrain supply with stupid, arbitrary laws surrounding the placement and height of apartments, you reduce supply and increase the price.
I’ll appeal to your libertarian side for a moment. If I own a piece of property, who is the government to tell me what I can do with it? So long as I don’t harm anyone, I should be able to build an apartment complex, duplex or multiplex.
Look at Tokyo. They have relaxed zoning laws, and have affordable AF housing for a global city. That’s what NYC, LA and SF should be like.
I live in a hot real estate location with crazy supply and demand as a lot of Blue State refugees come here. So this is a vivid reality.
I agree in principle and so do county commissioners here, yet recently the locals- all Trump loving Red State, 2A supporting people - successfully stopped a new development where zoning had been waved so the former farmland could be developed into a new subdivision.
The locals are up in arms because the commission isn’t using any type of planning for all the growth. So roads, sewer, schools, and other utilities are in a reactive state, not proactive.
And here comes the greed…
Those developers who were give leniency, a la Tokyo, decided to cram in as many lots as possible with tiny yard allotments. That leads to soil erosion and a concentration of waste for the sewers, among other things.
They had opportunity to be smart and generous on their own. They chose greed.
And that brings me back to what I believe is America’s systemic problem: greed at every level.
We need a Great Humbling.
If only you ruled the world, huh? You would install a system that would perfect society, no matter how much blood you had to spill? And then you would expect thanks? What would you call your bloody empire?
Years ago I talked to a commissioner about his plans for growth. I said "if you do this, traffic will increase. What are you planning to do at these intersections?"
"The county does not control those. The state does and we can't make changes."
I agree in general that if you own property you should be able to do what you want with it. One caveat: your use can't reduce value of neighboring properties. I used to live in a residential area next to a rock quarry. That was a bad zoning decision. The rock quarry would regularly cause the air to be incredibly dusty, it would shake my house when they triggered blasts, they would set off loud sirens to alert of an imminent detonation. That's not fair to people who live there.
So I might propose that you can do whatever you want with land provided that either: 1) all neighbors impacted by your use consent to your use; 2) you can demonstrate no adjoining land owner is impacted. For #2, take my rock quarry example. If they had bought sufficient buffer land around the quarry, no residences would be impacted. Instead they only owned the land directly used for the quarry. They should need to own the quarry land, plus several hundred acres of surrounding forest buffer land. If they had done that, their blasting would disturb no one.
> your use can’t reduce value of neighboring properties
Yup. Your 10-story dense apartment building with *poor miscreants* blocks my view of the street with my favorite tree and coffee shop. Plus, with all those *people*, my inefficient non-dense single family home’s value has been destroyed.
Thats the problem dude.
I think dense housing is great. I’d never want to live in it or near it but it’s fine for those that do. I want to live in a detached house with a substantial personal garden in a quiet street which is only possible by zoning.
Beautiful article wonderfully written that articulates an essential problem, while only grasping at the edges of it- much like a blindfolded boy beginning to understand he has within his grasp an elephant while scarcely grasping the trunk.
The fundamental problem is the philosophy of scarcity, not just the current practical and political symptoms. There already exists the resources within the world to feed, clothe, educate and care for every human being in Earth. There is at some distant and fantastic point in our shared legacy the point at which we shed the shameful evil that prevents us from reaching this most humble basis for human dignity.
Material obsolescence, consumerism, demand/supply based evaluations of the worth of human beings and their suffering become more barbaric and antiquated every day. Any futurist knows that it is within our grasp to build heaven or hell with the technology we already have. Every single one of us bears the burden and responsibility of which we choose to build.
Really? We have the material resources to have every single person on planet earth act like an American? 24/7 A/C at 65 degrees for 2 billion indians? Nearly one car per person for 5 billion additional people? Beef for lunch, beef for dinner, and a sausage McMuffin for breakfast?
Short answer: we absolutely have the ability to do this today- without a doubt. Slightly longer answer- I can't imagine this is anyones presumption of heaven, although I appreciate the tongue in cheek. :)
Slightly longer answer- we can create meat without livestock, unlimited clean energy to power livable, climate-controlled homes (for everyone!), and flexible, reasonable transportation far more efficient than our current outmoded constructs.
And all it really takes is enough courage to abandon our own self-defeating cynicisms.
> Beautiful article wonderfully written that articulates an essential problem, while only grasping at the edges of it- much like a blindfolded boy beginning to understand he has within his grasp an elephant while scarcely grasping the trunk.
That's a fair criticism but I think it's also fair to consider it a fairly complete articulation of this issue in a constrained perspective of our political landscape.
While the political side of things is already fairly comically insurmountable, the broader philosophical, cultural, and societal side is so much further out of reach.
Obviously though, it makes tremendous sense to find ways to address the issue from as many sides as possible.
I agree with you, that's a valid point. Although I think we're at a point (at least in American politics) where we have culturally become so encumbered by _how_ to achieve "progress" (as either of the two opposing sides construe it), that we've fundamentally lost sight of _what_ we should be striving for.
In the end, both politics and socioeconomics provide valuable tools but are not the ends in and of themselves. In short- few people genuinely understand the sheer abundance not only available to us, but how thin the constructs are that keep us from partaking in that same abundance equitably. It is, and has always been, about choice- both corporately and individually.
I support almost all of this but college admissions really isn’t a question of abundance. There are many colleges that are actually facing closure because of falling admissions, even before COVID-19. Meanwhile, college affordability has dwindled not necessarily because of supply, but because states have reduced higher education subsidies and because the skill premium in wages is increasing faster than the rate of inflation.
We need to investigate why the cost of school is so fucking high. The professors aren't getting the money, the labs and programs aren't getting the money, sports programs bring IN money... where the fuck is it going? Is it all just six figure administration salaries to administrators who do fuckall?
To be fair I think the article specifically comments in elite Universities, which are guilty of this... I've heard an argument I'm sympathetic to where I'd you aren't expanding admissions in line with population growth, you have your endowment taxed and/or lose nonprofit status.
It's mostly a nothing-burger. The ROI on an education is huge. So yes, students graduate with debt, but the post-college income increase more than covers the cost of that debt.
The people who are getting screwed are those who fail to graduate. They have a lower income and student loans.
Yeah, the higher Ed thing is a much bigger pickle than any one argument/article is able to explain.
Rising tuition, inflation and rising prices of everything, rising wages, falling state contributions, falling enrollments, increasing focus and pressure from the workforce in extremely specialized degrees…the list goes on and on.
Currently work in HR and when I started my job search in this industry, every job posting I looked at wanted a _Bachelor’s in HR_. I had no idea that was a _thing_ (as someone who didn’t explore much in college - but also my school def didn’t have that). While my degree is obviously transferable (as I did get a job at some point), it brought this to my attention.
You don’t just have to have A Degree anymore. It must be The Correct Specialty Degree. Feels like the freaking lottery to land an entry-level job anymore.
>You don’t just have to have A Degree anymore. It must be The Correct Specialty Degree. Feels like the freaking lottery to land an entry-level job anymore.
Employers can ask for the moon and stars all they want. Back in the real world, unemployment is under 4%. Entry level positions are getting quite hard to fill. HR departments are willing to compromise.
This is true - today - but the job market changes much more quickly than college and training programs can/do, and again, experience is far more valuable than the degree anyway and most employers agree and place that value, so I think we need to separate and redefine the role of education/degrees and get them to focus more on general education + experience opportunities
Most of the job market doesn't actually change that fast. For example, you know what HR does today? Annual reviews, featuring stack ranking, 9 boxes, and scaling compensation ratios against market by rated performance. You know when that was invented? The 80s. Only real difference about this is that we now do it in big databases rather than on big wallboards.
The role of education in the system is more of a "what society do you want to live in?" question. I would agree that experience is highly valuable, but I would also say that generalist degrees conflict with your experiential goals. If you try to cover everything a little, there is a risk you won't cover anything well enough to make someone useful in an experience-gaining setting.
The place in the current education system I would say you get the most useful and relevant experience is in a STEM lab. Your education in such a place is extremely specific -- not just a major, not just a field, but a specific activity within a field. In this context, you see PhD students and postdocs literally becoming the most educated person in the world in their specific focus, and these people become highly employable through having detailed knowledge.
But to take that one step further - there was definitely _not_ a bachelors in HR in the 80s, I would imagine…so if the industry hadn’t changed too much, why does anyone ask for a specialized degree at all? No one had it then and as you state, the primary work is the same excepting tech (which, as previously stated, is going to change org to org and can’t really be trained on until you get to a job).
The % of people who get a PhD is minuscule, and while those people are highly employable, the majority of them want to continue on in academia and _that_ job market is (a) terrible, (b) often exploitative, and (c) often actually heavily administrative and full of duties that aren’t just further research and teaching (which is also something those people don’t receive training in). Not to mention, again, the pay is lower than in industry (necessary in order to lure PhDs out of academia!)
So if we talk about the largest group of people - those with a bachelors or less - we need to train for a more general knowledge set. Not “a little bit of everything” that’s task/industry-oriented, but more towards your “what society do we want to live in?”
Ironically that means literature, history, philosophy/logic, tech, science, and basic business.
I can’t tell you how much I still use from one basic Microsoft office course in college. More of that, please!
>why does anyone ask for a specialized degree at all?
The recuiter asks for the best possible thing for their role. The more specialist training for your role gets done before you hire, the less training you have to pay for after you hire.
>The % of people who get a PhD is minuscule, and while those people are highly employable, the majority of them want to continue on in academia
The point of the example isn't to say that everyone should get PhDs. It's that specificity is very useful for generating experiential opportunity. Pairing "students should be given a broad, general education" with "students should have many opportunities to gain practical experience" is a big challenge.
>So if we talk about the largest group of people - those with a bachelors or less - we need to train for a more general knowledge set.
I am not an expert in education, but my initial reaction here is the opposite. The less time you have to educate someone, the more you need to narrow. The risk of peanut buttering is high. Concretely, associate's degree programs must be the most focused programs, while something like a law program has the time to spend a fair bit on general education.
Yes - but this is a smidge oversimplified.
There are certainly very bloated administrative positions and extraordinarily overpaid administrators, but to some extent this is also caused and compounded by a needed expansion of administration.
There were very few to no academic or career advisors at most schools in the 70s when college cost so little. The safety and healthcare forces were nearly or completely nonexistent. Almost no one in society had access to mental health professionals, let alone free services at your own school. Just to name a few. (And most of those positions are severely underpaid compared to their larger industries.)
And so whether or not anyone individually believes those positions aren’t necessary at colleges, parents and students do. Parents want their little babies to be safe and cared for, and students want and need both academic and social support 24/7.
So we’ve turned every college into its own little city, and that is _costly_.
Not to even dig into the magical math behind the sticker price of colleges that the vast majority of students never pay (nor take out loans to pay), and just get invisible discounts. So we pretend the price is $50k a year, when in reality there’s _maybe_ 5% of students that pay that.
You're missing one of the biggest contributors: regulatory compliance. I can't imagine that schools in the 70s spent millions each year on teams of lawyers and other administrators whose sole purpose was to make sure the school wasn't breaking one of the thousands of state and federal laws it needed to follow.
Oh good God, absolutely - and then add in institutional assessment and accreditation.
At a small institution between those two things alone you’re talking a dozen people at least.
At a large state or research institution, you could easily be looking at 100+ employees.
When I first got hired as faculty at a mid-size school, we had the standard two days of onboarding. Literally, it was just person after person who's job it was to enforce compliance giving us presentations on how not to break the law. I can only imagine how many more people there were behind the scenes who we didn't see.
>So we’ve turned every college into its own little city, and that is
This is my impression as well. I graduated from undergrad in 2007 and attended grad school in 2012. Both schools were large state schools.
I was surprised by just how much more services/expectations seemed to be higher in grad school. There was a sexual assault scandal on campus that led to outrage and the president stepping down. I also see a much greater emphasis on things like D & I initatives including buildings and cousework being added as well.
This all drives up the cost of attendence.
> The onus is on colleges though to keep their curriculums relevant.
by “relevant” and “worthless”, do you mean relevant to industry and worthless to salary negotiations? because if that’s true, then you’re really arguing for replacing the university with vocational/trade schools. by getting rid of history, literature, ethics, political science and replacing it with e.g. a two year concentrated “here’s how to nail an accounting interview” program, you can maximize return on investment in a strictly dollar sense. probably at the expense of civilization.
Perhaps high School should be responsible for teaching relevant curriculum and then college for advanced studies. Adjunct faculty are being hired to teach college kids algebra and biology and Microsoft Powerpoint at thousands of dollars per credit hour when wealthy high schools can teach kids calculus and physics and computer coding for the price of taxes.
Then again, an educated electorate can be dangerous to the wrong party.
Colleges are the ones who have money, and they’re the ones charging tens of thousands of dollars for degree programs. I’m not saying the k12 system doesn’t need improvement but students aren’t taking going into life changing debt to go to high school and then not getting a positive return on that investment.
Students forking over 40, 50, 60 thousand dollars for a degree expect a return on that investment. This is life changing debt and if it doesn’t pay for itself it can be a real financial set back for your whole life.
I’m really not sure what you’re advocating for here. College is a luxury only for people that can afford it?
> College is a luxury only for people that can afford it?
arguably, college is primarily valuable as a class signal. the reason people hate on making university-level education universally accessible is because it undermines this signaling capability.
> I’m really not sure what you’re advocating for here.
You view college as a job training program/monetary investment. I'm advocating that you stop doing that and instead view it as an academic institution instead of a mechanism to train people to work. View it as an institution in where the student goes to learn a concentrated track with enough supplementary lessons so as to have some breadth. Don't view as a stepping stone to get a job at Boeing.
Then it has little to no justification.
I do value education for education's sake. Education is valuable. But, if you spend that money to be well educated and it doesn't lead to a career where you can pay for your food and shelter, then what's the justification for making yourself poor for something that does actively enrich you but also leads to arguably the most capable and productive years of your life spent on something not contributing to your long term survival?
There is a HUGE difference between something having value and something having a valid justification.
Value is nebulous. A valued thing is a desired thing, something that brings meaning. Art and culture bring meaning. Love brings meaning, family brings meaning. I value those things.
Love, family, and art for their own sake don't have a hell of a lot of justification, though. Learning to program and working 80 hours a week between a main job and a side gig is easily justified because it gets you the currency that you use for buying food and shelter and preparing for retirement. Love, family, and hobbies all too often just take those things away. I still want them, obviously, they are why I work, but they can be difficult to justify beyond "I like having them" which isn't a practical justification at all.
I truly love reading. I love literature and all the strange places it can take me to. I love history, mythology, and religion. It is, however, very difficult to justify spending lots of time on them when I have to have a place to sleep, food to eat, and when I need to work on my long term security by saving for a time when I may not be able to work anymore. It's very difficult to justify studying those things when there isn't a lot of money to be made and when more money can be made elsewhere, doing things that I am perhaps more capable of doing.
What do you mean no justification? An educated society increases the standard of living and productivity of everyone in it. It is only a boon to have easy, cheap/free, and universal access to education; countries grow wealthy and strong on the back of a learned population, because everyone benefits from it.
Why do you think there is no reason to do something if there isn’t a wealth factor to gatekeep it? Do you see no value in something if a dollar amount isn’t assigned to it?
There is value. A lot of value in fact. I think we strongly undervalue the arts - literature, music, visual art/sculpture, film, theater, and so on. It shows in what we choose to prefer in our popular culture.
There is, however, little justification on an individual basis. If I need to eat and house myself, then the associate's in programming at a school with ties to local companies and good placement looks WAY better than the degree in literature. If we aren't independently wealthy, we need education to serve a purpose.
On top of that, we attend college in our early 20s. Those are the years when we are most fertile and most physically capable. Spending them in a sort of extended adolescence seems sort of crazy to me.
Things without dollar amounts are certainly valuable but ultimately things that DO have a dollar value are always going to come first. We need skills we can monetize, unless we are independently wealthy, which is sorta who university educations used to be exclusively for.
If I could do it again, I would go into the trades out of high school and start my family, then in my 40s after 20 years of working hard, pursue a college degree in something that I find interesting but really isn't economical. I'd love to study literature and mythology, history, and culinary.
Except this is the problem I’m pointing out.
I understand the knee-jerk response to this, but what does “relevant” mean? Does it mean that students should know the ins and outs of HR and be ready to work in HR?
And good god, tech evolved so quickly and is often SO different at different companies that training in specific (especially new) computer languages is often not just futile, but stupid - many people won’t work with that language in their company and the others might evolve past that language not long after getting into the industry.
We actually have to _stop_ preparing people specifically for “the workforce” because (a) that is yikes level of capitalism, (b) will send us into a never-ending spiral towards specificity which quickly and heavily favors privileged students who know about that industry or its changes and (c) doesn’t serve anyone who decides at any point that that industry/job isn’t what they want after all.
I think we need to get back to a more liberal arts education style, with tons more basic tech training and critical thinking, and TONS MORE experiential education - internships, externships, apprenticeships, etc, for students to see how things translate and relate outside of education.
But we have got to get off of this downward spiral toward specificity.
>We actually have to
> preparing people specifically for “the workforce” because (a) that is yikes level of capitalism
I'm 100% okay with as long as we have a way to force companies to train their employees.
The problem is, in a deindustralized workforce, we don't, as least none that I've see thus far.
Can I ask what you mean by “train their employees” more specifically?
While I agree that there’s a ton of training that is NOT provided by employers (virtually none, formally), most places hire people with less than 100% of the full ask in the job description, meaning they have to bring that person up to speed somehow.
But I don’t want to dive into that rabbit hole til I better understand your point lol
My point is that I believe that most people attend college because they believe it is required for them to do so in order to obtain a white collar job (and sometimes not even a white collar job, like a CSR).
I have a master's degree in Business but was a double major in undergrad (english lit and business), so I believe there is real internal value to learning but I think that the root of the problem is largely due to over credentialing when it comes to hiring. What I mean by that is that a large number of jobs that require a college degree, where HR professionals filter out those who apply who do not have a college degree, can be done with a high school diploma holder who is trained properly.
Over-credentialing is absolutely another facet of this issue, and I’m not sure we can fully tease out your solution/argument vs. mine because the whole thing is just so darn broken lol
But I absolutely agree with you here, and it’s another thing that’s a bit too big for just HR to solve.
For one thing, I can tell you that this is actually a huge conversation in many HR departments, but arguments come from all sides (hiring managers and upper leadership) about what the “perfect candidate” looks like, and why the requirements can’t be lower or more open in this way or that (because while HR screens applicants, their first job is to get you as many applicants as possible lol).
And as was already stated, job descriptions are more aspirational than anything.
This is why I started with “this whole thing is so much bigger and more nuanced than any one article has ever been willing to cover”!
Ha, I know.
But I gotta yell into the void anytime I can. Higher Ed is dying. And it’s (ironically) killing livelihoods due to overwhelming loans.
And there are both nuances within the issues as well as possible ways to still provide real value. So we’ll see what happens when more schools start closing.
American policies have been based around government imposed artificial scarcity for a very long time. We are now seeing all the fallout because of these policies. And I don't even blame the government for all of this. It is often times organized labor unions and home-owners that impose scarcity on others.
Housing is so expensive largely because cities refuse to build apartments over 2 stories tall- China doesn't have this problem, they house their urban poor in massive skyscrapers. The American people really do have the power to change this, they just have to get more involved in local politics.
Medical staff is so expensive because of artificial scarcity in the medical school and residency systems. There are plenty of other countries that just do a much better job at keeping medical costs reasonable than the US. There are foreign medical schools that are much more reasonably priced.
1/3rd of Americans needs a government license in order to work. That number was only 1 in 20 in the 1950s. California had to slash the number of hours spent in school to become a cosmetologist down to 600 from 1500 because of labor shortages. The reason why DIYing is so popular is because labor costs to hire contractors are so high.
Trump actually did run on an abundance agenda. And he did bend a few rules during the early days of COVID, like signing the defense production act. Many of his policies were based around abundance and removing red tape. He wasn't successful in many of them, and many of those policies occur on a state and local level. China tends to have much more free policies when it comes to the issues that this article points out, they probably are going to become the world superpower at this rate.
What’s driving scarcity is the financialization of America. You won’t have a 100% margin to support the luxurious lifestyle if there is abundant supply: think about cars or low end mobile phones.
If we zoom out further , financialization is just the monetization of an once upon a time great empire’s legacy: think about Rome, Britain
Trump did try to change that, but it is not welcomed for obvious reasons: do you want to get rich by building caterpillar trucks? Or do you want to get rich by borrowing against America ‘s future and directly depositing into your personal account (Edit: and paying an interest rate of -6% pa)?
Pretty good ideas, but sadly, most of them are impossible to implement here. And I have no idea what would it take to convince our politicians as well as the average citizen to try to make this country better for all of us. (In the past only really big events like WW1 and WW2 did it.)
Politics is about building majority coalitions. The problem with these ideas is they don't build majority coalitions.
- The housing perspective here is straight out of NYC or San Francisco or DC or Boston. The situation is 100% different in Philly or Detroit or Baltimore or Providence. That's not to mention Duluth or Sioux Falls or all the smaller places. It's rich-metro only focused.
- The higher education perspective here is straight up just about elite colleges. Nothing is in here about state schools and community colleges and other places most people actually use. It's elite 1500+ on the SAT focused.
- The medical plan here is MD focused. Sure, premed kids might want more residencies and more medical school slots and an easier path to practice. That doesn't do anything about high deductibles, expensive premiums, coverage gaps, Medicaid expansion, Medicare coverage, the uninsured, lack of rural hospitals, or anything else but doctors.
- The energy plan is basically just nuclear. Nuclear power is expensive. Cutting corners gets risky. Price on natural gas and solar is cheaper. Natural gas already emits far less carbon than coal plants, which are still operating, mind you. At this point offshore wind is probably cheaper than nuclear. And here's the real rub: It's regional. Desert states can prefer solar power. New England states with very high offshore winds might prefer offshore wind power. States with lots of rivers might prefer hydro – this is pretty much what Washington does. So on and so forth. Nuclear-only is not much of a solution.
- Transportation is literally only about expanding existing subway systems and high speed rail. Great I guess. Nothing about seaports. Nothing about airports. Nothing about cargo rail. Nothing about regular commuter rail. Nothing about roads and highways. Nothing about buses. Just myopic focus only on select large urban metro transit.
Like, I don't know shit about Derek Thompson. But I would bet you $100 blind that he lives in either San Francisco, New York City, Boston, or Washington DC. If you live literally anywhere else, this plan makes little sense.
Do smaller cities not also suffer from these same issues as larger metros? Wouldn't they generally be solved by eliminating restrictions to housing development too? I'm genuinely asking because I felt like the housing issue is kinda the same no matter where you go.
I'll give you an example from my home state. Boston is Massachusetts' largest city (pop 684k). The median home listing is $775,000. Worcester is Massachusetts' 2nd largest city (pop 185k). The median home listing is $325,000. Springfield is Massachusetts' 3rd largest city (pop 154k). The median home listing is $229,000. See the massive drop-off?
Or take New York, our neighbor to the west. NYC is New York's largest city (pop 8,230k). The median home listing is $850,000. Buffalo is New York's 2nd largest city (pop 254k). The median home listing is $124,000. Rochester is New York's 3rd largest city (pop 205k). The median home listing is $139,000.
Once you get out of the superstar metros, even in the same state, housing quickly gets more affordable. The median home listing in Buffalo here is $124,000. How much lower do you want that number to do? I think maybe it would be better for the city if home values increased a bit there. More tax base. I mean, [look what the median price - just $124k - gets you in Buffalo.](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/243-Laurel-St-Buffalo-NY-14208/30188040_zpid/) For $4,000 down, you could own that house for $950/mo all-in. There's 6 bedrooms.
Niter the author nor I claim that the ideas described in the text are perfect or the best possible. I'm sure that there are experts in appropriate fields who could do better, much better.Nevertheless, the problem of lack of our unity on any issue remains unresolvable. So in reality, we can only dream about any progress on resolving issues presented here.
> The energy plan is basically just nuclear. Nuclear power is expensive. Cutting corners gets risky.
I think there's a perfectly appropriate argument to be made that nuclear power is expensive because of exactly the bullshit restrictions this idea of abundance policy intends to attack.
Cutting corners is not the only way to reduce cost in nuclear power. The largest factors are using painfully antiquated designs and using so many different designs. Simply developing one or two modular small scale designs and standardizing everything can allow for tremendously reduced cost. You could even make the training standard and transferable.
I will grant that even then the costs per unit of energy would still be larger than solar or wind but it would be perfectly consistent and independent of weather or geography as well as being oddly enough, safer. Nuclear power, even considering Fukushima and Chernobyl, is safer to produce per unit of energy than either solar or wind.
>Natural gas already emits far less carbon than coal plants, which are still operating, mind you.
Yeah, and countries like Germany operate them longer and occasionally make new ones due to reduced availability of nuclear power from plants that are shut down.
Natural gas emits far less carbon than coal but it still emits a lot of carbon.
I’ve never understood why we didn’t just mass produce the reactors that power the aircraft carriers and subs. They are small and have a long, safe operating history sailing all over the world numerous times.
> Politics is about building majority coalitions.
it could be, but isn’t - at least not in the US. here it’s about money explicitly picking who runs, and think tanks/PACs/corporate media and their advertisers (which is to say, money) steering voting behavior.
Sure, all that stuff matters a ton. But the reps and Senators are still assigned geographically. If you build a national policy platform around 3 cities and 1 district that doesn't even have Reps or Senators, there's little chance it's ever going to pass.
Even if it makes some very wealthy folk happy, it'll piss off others. Make the nuclear folk at Bechtel happy, piss off ExxonMobil, etc.
People hate the giant bills that try to do everything, but that's how shit gets passed in America, for better or worse. Think you're going to get Iowa's votes on an energy bill without including corn ethanol? It's all the energy they've got. What does Rhode Island have for energy but offshore wind? What does Washington have but hydro? What does Nevada have but solar? What does North Dakota have but oil? You can piss off Wyoming and West Virginia and say screw coal, but you have to make enough of the rest happy to cobble together a majority.
>And I have no idea what would it take to convince our politicians as well as the average citizen to try to make this country better for all of us. (In the past only really big events like WW1 and WW2 did it.)
Doesn't really seem possible at all given the response to COVID tbh
They definitely are not mentally ready for war. People act like they know all out modern war because they played call of duty or watched some war movies. They have a romanticized version of it in their head where they don’t lose everything they own, the food on their table, and the neighbors around them. The same thing applies to all those who want a civil war, they don’t understand how brutal modern civil wars are. A look at the Bosnian civil war saw some of the worst shit imaginable and yet some Americans call for it because of… “the other side bad”?
Despite all the disillusionment among certain parts of the population, a majority of the population are comfortable with their life and wouldn't want a disruptive event like a war...let alone one with China.
Eh, that’s interesting considering [in 2017](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/most-americans-cant-afford-a-500-emergency-expense/) most Americans didn’t have enough cash to cover a $500 emergency expense. I guess different definitions of thriving
That definitely is interesting conflicting data. I guess that's a problem of surveys that gauge people's perception rather than quantifiable data. So people think they are thriving but in reality they have false confidence in their status.
This is ultimately a political problem through and through. The larger picture is basically gone from the minds of many Americans, replaced with what about meism. It's definitely not an economic question of whether or not any of this can be achieved. Thousands of people spent the last decade building-up and hustling pyramid schemes on distributed databases. We've trust the market for the last 40-years and we've done nothing but slowly let other economies catch-up and threaten to replace ours.
> The larger picture is basically gone from the minds of many Americans, replaced with what about meism.
it is somewhat predictable that if you spend several decades trying to convince the public that narrow self-interest totally eclipsing any sense of civic-mindedness is the one thing preventing us all from standing in communist breadlines at gunpoint, everyone will be narrowly self-interested without any sense of covid-mindedness.
The political problem largely stem from a lack of education. People are so susceptible to misinformation because they don't have any understanding of the subjects in question. Often you will hear people saying they trust one source more than another. But at the end of the day you shouldn't have to just trust what one side is saying, you should be educated enough to know whether it makes any sense.
I definitely have some reservation about limited general education though. I find very often a lot of people end up arguing from [Mount Stupid](http://theengineeringmanager.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/20111228.gif) I'd even say it's damn near 98% of people. We give a lot of tools to people and they have no idea how to really use them, so they abuse them.
Holy shit, thank you. If there's one thing we've learned in the last few years, it's that ulterior motives seep their way into *everything*. The only way to keep things in check is to have a mass of people educated enough to see through the bullshit and call it like it is. Without these people, we're reduced to blind trust and the wheel of incompetence keeps spinning unchecked.
The obsession with money isn’t a political problem. Politics play a role but I think it’s above that. I’ll never understand why having obscene profits is so desirable. Congrats on doing well, what are you going to do with you $10,000,000,000 in profits? Oh, you’re going to stow it away…
> The obsession with money isn’t a political problem.
Of course it's a political problem. How is obsession with wealth for the sake of wealth NOT a political problem? There is literally no facet to that quality that isn't political.
It’s not solely a political problem, but our American political system certainly plays a large role.
Many of the items mentioned here are issues for reasons directly related to political agendas. Robust housing, specifically robust affordable housing is a massive issue in metros because of things like single-family zoning, which the author delicately touched on before moving on.
Clean energy is still an issue in places like Nevada because of old political habits. Harry Reid was a liberal, but had the coal lobby in his pocket almost his entire career as senator. And yea, this is anecdotal, but I mention it because I’m from Vegas where the implementation of solar can produce incredible benefits.
The fact that lobbyists exist and are able to unload the money they are into the campaigns for people that don’t have term limits is a huge contributor to these problems. Capitalism bred the mentality of hoarding profits and our current political system props it up.
> But this age of bits-enabled protest has coincided with a slowdown in atoms-related progress. Altogether, America has too much venting and not enough inventing. We say that we want to save the planet from climate change—but in practice, many Americans are basically dead set against the clean-energy revolution, with even liberal states shutting down zero-carbon nuclear plants and protesting solar-power projects.
This implication that people are doing "too much" online protest seems like an insidious attempt to censor unwanted political discourse online, especially at a time when mass social gatherings can be dangerous super-spreader events. (The term "slacktivism" is another example of this attempt to disparage people's efforts to use the internet to raise awareness of important issues.)
As for why "we say" we are against climate change, but "many Americans" are against solving it, has the author considered that the people against solving it might not be the ones who think it is a problem? Without providing statistics, it's completely possible that these could be disjoint sets, and it's not inconceivable that some minority of people want to stop climate change but think that current efforts are enough (or that other proposals are not worth the cost).
The examples given are slightly weasel-worded, not listing which "liberal states" and which "solar-power projects" they mean, nor what the objections to those climate change measures are (nor how much support those policies really have), but it suffices to point out that California planning to eventually shut down its last nuclear power plant (which is on a fault line, and built in the 60's) can be compatible with climate goals, especially as the plant generated only 18.3 TWh in 2018, whereas solar generation alone increased by 23.0 TWh between 2013 and 2018.
tl;dr The wealthy and powerful are impeding progress by blocking policies that would threaten their wealth and power. Let's pretend that's just an oversight and we can fix it by pointing out that there's a better way.
@DeepCipher@shl@elonmusk Disparities in economic success between men and women are far larger once marriage+children enter the picture. Synthetic wombs would remove the high burden of pregnancy, significantly reducing the inequality.
I’d like to see these charts with average child support figured in to the income numbers. Add the amount women are paid to their numbers and subtract the amount men are forced to pay from their numbers. My guess is that it shrinks up that gap significantly.
> Well there you go. Stop having children and all the 'problem' will disappear!
But but but how can a womyn *do* that when the patriarchy forces her to have children???/??/?
You see?? You see?? It's a no-win situation! The patriarchy *forces* a womyn to have children and that *forces* her out of the workforce and they're *forced* to have lower earnings and that *forces* them into dependency upon their husbands (and their husbands can easily handle that for they are forced to do nothing and burdened not at all). They're punished both coming and going, at every turn and twist, no matter what they say or do. Boo, oh, boo hoo. To be a womyn is to suffer helplessly and endlessly.....
Wait wait, hold on.... so what they're saying is-- and stop me if I'm barking up the wrong tree here--- if I were to scale-back and/or stop work entirely for many years at a time... I would earn less than someone who doesn't???Whoa.
Is that the secret here? To stop working means earning less than someone who doesn't stop working? My god, that's earth-shaking! And, conversely, to work more means to earn..... more?
Whoa, man. Mind. Blown.
It's a shame that child-bearing isn't a choice nowadays, isn't it? And that this isn't a self-selected "penalty" that the author is describing, which normally gets called an "opportunity cost" in any other kind of economic situation?
Did these people just step-off the flying saucer from fucking Pluto or something? No wonder they find obvious things "stunning."
Apparently, the patriarchy pushes women out of the workforce and penalizes them for not being in the workforce. That's not a very smart policy, patriarchy. Not very smart at all. If you were smart, patriarchy, you would make a woman's children more lovable and joyful than punching numbers into an Excel spreadsheet and everyone knows that Excel spreadsheets are the funnest things around!
Some question and before I'm down voted I'm not making any implications on my opinion I'm just asking.
Why should we expect businesses to pay for and accommodate child birth after all they don't owe it to us and it is a choice that you can plan and save for? Child free people don't get special vacations for not inconveniencing others why should we expect everyone else to loose while we gain just because we have made the decision to have a child?
Should having a child not be something you should be 100% prepared for? If you expect your employer to pay for it how are you prepared??
Finally we have a population crisis already with the state of the world getting worse and worse and a food crisis just around the corner should we really be making it easier for people that cannot afford to look after children without funding from somebody else to have kids?
People who care for and raise children are doing important work and making a long term investment in the sustainability of our economy. Having children is an individual choice, but if no one did it, we would all be in trouble. Yet the work of having and caring for children is largely under compensated or uncompensated. It is generally not even viewed as work at all, but a "gap in employment". Societally, we value neither the product of this work (the future workers and productive members of society), nor the experiences and skills gained while performing it. Parenting can provide a crash course in time management and organizational skills, conflict resolution and crisis management, delegation and negotiation, project management, enhanced communication and interpersonal skills, coaching and mentoring, and more. Put that on your resumé and you will be mocked.
Saying that women make less money because they do less work or less valuable work is a justification, not a reason. We value it less because it has traditionally been done by women. Sharing the work of child care equally between genders would be a step in the right direction, not because it would burden men, but because it would create a better appreciation of the contributions that have traditionally been made by women.
People don't get paid based on the level of "appreciation" society has for their work. People get paid based on what the market will support--that is, as little as they can be paid without going elsewhere for work, and not more than the highest rate at which his/her productivity justifies that wage.
These are practical considerations made by people who usually have to justify every line of their budget to someone or some group of people. When making these analyses, they do not consider whether or not there is an abstract benefit to them, by extension of the general benefit that procreation has for society, conveyed by the individual act of their employee starting a family.
Motherhood simply doesn't generate the basic liquid revenues on which payroll expenditures are based. This and this alone is why mothers don't get paid, and that's fine. Pretty much everyone in our society appreciates the value of mothers and the work they do, but people get paid by other people, not by society. You can't change that without turning the economy isn't some giant piggy bank that the government takes money out of to express our collective appreciations, which I know is how a lot of people think it should be, but is a stupid way of looking at government and an even more stupid way of spending money.
And it can only end with more of the money that people *are* being paid getting taken from them to be wasted, laundered, and generally frittered away by the same bureaucrats that ruin all of our other social spending attempts. I'd just as soon see some money back in my paycheck so I can take care of my own family, and you can take care of yours.
Governments do incentivize companies in the form of tax breaks and other concessions all the time. Look at the bidding for Amazon HQ2 if you need examples. Unfortunately too many companies focus on only short term gains like the next quarterly or annual statement.
What is your opinion on the skills and experiences gained? Should taking time out of a career to care for children and manage a household be viewed as "unemployment", which has a negative affect on re-entering the work force? Or should it be viewed as work experience?
>What is your opinion on the skills and experiences gained? Should taking time out of a career to care for children and manage a household be viewed as "unemployment", which has a negative affect on re-entering the work force? Or should it be viewed as work experience?
It should be viewed as what it is: time that you did not spend in the work force. Now more than ever, business and professional environments are changing so fast that if you've been away for a few years you're at a serious disadvantage. Employers shouldn't have to pretend that you aren't, or make hiring decisions on the false pretext that you aren't, just because the reason you were gone is admirable.
If you want to put on your resume that you were a full time mother, go right ahead. I would personally support that, not because I think the skills learned by being a full time mother are necessarily relevant to the professional world, but because I think full time mothers are a vital asset to a society and should be supported, and I would be proud to help someone who made those sacrifices get back into professional life. That said, I wouldn't blame an employer for scoffing at such a resume, because without meeting your children or seeing your home, the employer has no idea if you're any good at being a mother.
Personally I say there is a third option not explored by this study. The need for short term gains in income.
When you have two parents that can both take time off. The mother is obviously going to take it first. So lets say 6 months pass.. bills are still increasing as is the nature of having a child.
You are now faced with a choice does the mother keep taking time off or do you switch and have the father take time....
If the mother goes back to work after 6 months she is basicly starting freash again. This means more time before being concertered for advancement and with it raises so you can better afford and pay the raising costs of your family. But if the mother continues to stays home, the father has (if at the same job) the higher chance of a promotion sooner since he has been working and proving himself during this time.
Short term goal planning say this is the better option. So most people would choose this. Long term the reverse would be true but when you have raising costs you look for the short term fix typically not the long term.
> If the mother goes back to work after 6 months she is basicly starting freash again.
This is where the paid time off kicks in though. If we had a system where people could take off 6 months and go back to the same job and same salary, there's no upside to women staying home and men avoiding leave.
So no, that is my point she will not be in the same possitionwhen it comes to advancement. Very few if any employer would be promoting someone after being gone for 6 months as things change in that time. She will need to spend time getting caught up with all the things she missed. The father would have been working the entire time so would not face that and thus be more likely for promotion.
The only way to change that is to promote people blindly, not knowing if they are up to the task. Which no company will do.
This is just a basic fact of working. If a man left work for 6 months the same thing will apply. Hell if I break my leg and have to leave for short term disability I would not expect a promotion the week after I get back to work same thing.
Oh and the system to come back at the same job for the same pay exsists. It is called maturnity leave. The thing they were talking about in the study.
All women who leave on maturnity leave get to come back to their job at the same pay.
This is a pretty good article about the wage gap and wage earnings. There is still a slight wage gap even adjusting for time taken off work and career choices.
Some points from the article:
Women are penalized more for being outspoken, and for asking for raises.
Careers that become female dominated from male dominated start to pay less, as in "women's work" is often valued less, even if it is just as difficult.
All of this said, I agree. Equalizing childcare as much as possible would go a long way towards equality. And it would be great for men too. Father's shouldn't feel bad about taking time off to raise their children. Children do best when both parents can be involved.
The earnings gap from childcare is a very obvious and "easily" solvable thing. The wage gap is far more subtle, and doesn't really have a good fix that I can think of aside from cultural shift. Legislators should focus on the Earnings Gap, and we can let the wage gap get fixed as a side effect of other aspects of the feminist movement.
Women's earnings drop as they generally spend more time with the child and less hours working hence the "wage gap". I don't know why this is even considered that revealing as it's been the main argument against the supposed wage gap. At the end of the day this should come down to the couple making the decision as apposed to people moaning about inequality in pay because of reasons X,Y & Z.
Also I love the title, "the gender wage gap is really a child care penalty", having a child is a commitment from both parties and generally women want to spend more time with the child due to maternal instincts, it's well known babies hold a deeper connection to the mother after childbirth so obviously with all that in mind we can all see why "women are most affected" by this. I'll reiterate, no one forces you to have a child and when you do decide to have a child obviously some compromises have to be made, in this case that would mean working less hours in order to correctly raise your child.
Actually, newer studies controlling for time spent with the baby show that mothers and fathers have an equally good connection to the baby. Of course, the person spending more time will always have a better connection, so if you don't control for it that will look as if the fathers do worse.
The gap exists because the average income of both men and women are taken into account, what's not taken into account is the likes of job profession, hours worked and years of employment. These all play into how much someone is paid and because of this the statistics come out skewed. There's your reason as to why the gap "still exists".
> what's not taken into account is the likes of job profession, hours worked and years of employment.
Do you think that researchers wouldn't take these very obvious factors into account when doing these studies? Those factors are controlled for. It's also well known that the more women enter a field, the lower the wages become. It's also well known that because women tend to make less it "makes sense" for them to cut their hours more due to the overall income coming into the house. If the guy is being paid more due to a variety of factors out of their control, it makes more sense for the household for the guy to stay employed.
No it exists when those things are taken into account. It is just a lot smaller.
You're referencing an article which was released 2 years ago and also from a less that reputable source "The Washington Post". They've a clearly liberal stance and tend to side with movements such as the feminist movement, so of course they're going to reiterate this narrative and have you believe it's true. Give this a read or better yet, watch the interview that the piece is about.
But Jordan Peterson is not biased. Okay buddy. Sure. The washington post article has really good references to studies in it which is why I chose it. You can choose to read the studies apart from the main article or not. They were my main point.
Edit: And the fact that you said this while linking to the dailywire is even more of a joke. At least link to thehill or something jesus christ. And the title is so overboard "JORDAN PETERSON DESTROYS LEFTISTS" that is so unbiased I can't even believe it! hahaha oh man I haven't laughed this hard in a while.
Oh one more thing,
A 2 year old study and/or article is super recent. Just so ya know. I've written a number of research papers and using something that is 2 years old is still considered recent - unless your topic deals with a very limited time frame.
Everything I care to say on the matter has been stated above, I've no doubt Jordan Peterson has his biases as we all do. It is impossible for a person to not have biased opinions in this world, but I'll choose a calm and collected individual over a zealot any day of the week. By the way, all the references you're citing are fairly dated, one was a census from 1950-2000 another was a study from 2004, there's another there which goes on about white collar jobs being less flexible (working hour wise) for women with family responsibilities, those jobs pay so well for the sole fact of how unforgiving the hours can be. It seems to me that this article has cherry picked the most appropriate citations in an attempt to peddle a narrative. But I'll let you be the judge of that.
I haven't "made up my mind", give me references that aren't 14+ years old and I won't take the article as a whole with a grain of salt. Would you not agree it's a bit strange most of the references are dated?
In regards to your edit earlier which I missed: I had asked you to watch the interview itself, so using the fact I linked a DailyWire article is redundant. Watch the interview and make up your own mind instead of trying deflecting points. With your article I at least made an attempt to give you my 2 cents based on the information you provided, it's clear you're not willing to show the same courtesy.
It's not like social scientists have tons of money thrown at them to study whatever they want and repeat studies every year.
This cites a study from 06'.
Again recent enough. Attitudes don't completely shift in 20 years. My father's generation got rid of segregation and we can see racism isn't solved yet either. The kids protesting against black kids joing their school are now adults voting - and I'm sure their attitudes haven't changed as much as you would like to think. The same goes for gender. Marital rape wasn't treated as a "real" rape in many states until the 1980s. With the last state finally changing the laws in 1993.
My point with this is that you cant discount our social structure and WHY people make the choices they make.
Here is another one about pay dropping when a field becomes female dominated. I don't have time to check the sources on it though, so take from it what you will.
That website almost gave my computer cancer - I'll look up the video somewhere else when I have time and get back to you. I've read some of his arguments before and I think he relies on dismissing his opponents far too much , but I will give it another shot.
Edit: I only pointed out the dailywire because you made your comment about the washington post. Otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. I was pointing out how hypocritical it is to call a source biased and then literally use a tabloid as a source. It's kinda ridiculous. Yes the video stands on it's own merrits (like the studies I've referenced) but that wasn't my point.
If they're saying the true cause of something is one thing, I'd like to see the proof that it isn't something else.
By saying the cause of the gap is childbirth they're saying it isn't gender. I'd like to see that in a chart, to see how well their data supports this.
I'm sure everyone already knew that women who have kids will earn less than women who don't over the course of their careers. That's not particularly new information.
This is something that almost every single economist worth their salt knows. The gap is rarely down to any actual pay discrepancy, but rather the costs of raising a child and things such as maternity leave, childcare problems (as mentioned in the OP) and the knock-on effects that the loss of employment experience.
I could see a case for direct discrimination being the cause before the economics research started to appear, but now, it's a sad state where, yet again, people ignore the reality to spout baseless accusations.
So far,e veryone who's posted here has the rigth idea - get to a point where both parents can share a legitimate equal rights and responsibilities.
Why are people so closed minded? Down votes for stating facts and non offensively as well. We should be celebrating our minor differences and learning how to best move forward and work together not sweeping them under the rug for equality. Equality does not mean emotional, intellectual and physical communism it means recognising differences and solving them / treating people farely in light of those differences.
If a job is purly lifting things of course the person who lifts more weight faster will be payed more and will be more likely to go into that job.
To follow on with this, there were some interesting studies done on the Danish system which allows both parents to take (non transferable) leave once their child is born - I'd suggest anyone wishing to investigate this a little have a google. The short version is the only way they are able to pay for this is by running a 45% basic tax rate, and it's unclear how it would work for the US system with the costs being prohibitive.
I understand what you are saying and I'll try to write a complete reply to better explain.
The leave is not 'forced', merely it is not available to the couple as a whole to distribute between them, it is reserved for the male partner only in order to better facilitate bonding with their child. If the couple do not wish to utilize this, that is their prerogative however that leave will not be automatically transferred to the mother.
This normalizes leave to be taken by the male partner and allows employers to budget and consider this will be highly likely to be taken, something which should help with early-years preponderance of having the female partner stay off work, often for long periods.
I do believe that even in Denmark the amount of women which stay out of the work force once they have children is quite high, but it does ease the path of many others by not leaving them significantly out of the work force and their skills not current. This should also have a positive effect on male partners who will not be shouldering the burden of providing alone, as well as letting them be involved more actively in early-years care without such a stigma.
The significant problem for all of this is social cost.
Do you see that you are forcing your world view onto people and forcing them to do what is “normal” to you with the law.
Why do you think you have the right to force social engineering on society to create your view of how the world should be? It usually doesn’t work and has all sorts of unintended side effects.
> Everyone should be looking at Norway and Sweden as prime examples. They used to offer men and women equal parental leave, which they could split however they liked. This resulted in women taking most of it while men barely taking any, because of cultural reasons, since back then parenthood was still considered solely women's work. But what those countries did was hack off a certain portion of parental leave and assign it to fathers only - as in, if they refused it, the mother couldn't take it.
> they push the idea that women get paid less for the same job.
But that is also true. I agree fighting for child care options etc is necessary, but there is data pointing out that women are often paid less than male peers due to getting worse initial offers and fewer raises.
The root of that problem is not sexism though. Every company is going to low ball as a much as possible. If a man is willing to walk for more money but a women isnt then that is on the individual.
I see it as more of an issue of agreeable, team workers getting screwed and aggressive risk takers being rewarded. it just happens that those traits generally fall along genders lines.
I like the idea of people being more open about their salaries to get around this.
> If we want the pay gap to close we need to fight for better childcare options, joint parental paternity leave and end the stigma of men taking time off for their children.
Well said, the former is being addressed in some countries but the latter seems quite hard to shift - due to how many of both partners tend to value the provider role significantly.
A lot of it self selects for the partner types. Many men will work harden at work due to knowing their partners significantly value their earning capability and indeed this contributes to their partner's attraction towards them (study in Evolution and Human Behaviour covers exactly this). Therefore being asked/expected to stay at home is not only something which other men do not support, but something which actively harms their partner's attraction towards them if it harms their earning capabilities.
There is also the other side of this, which is that male parents make excellent employees due to how they are now the only breadwinner in many families, which ties them in to performing at a high level and seems to contribute to a wage 'bounce' amongst male parents vs male non-parents of a similar age and experience level.
I see an explanation for an earnings gap but not a wage gap.
My main problem is that these types of articles seem to equate personal success with career success which is insanity.
Of course having children is going to penalize you in the workplace. You are shifting priorities from work to family. This is common sense and people make these choices of their own free will. If you go from working 60 hours a week to only working 40 how is there an expectation that your income trajectory won't be affected?
Even if we consider the concept of a perfect balance of work and family won't we still see people that focus on work doing better in that field? Why is that a bad thing?
> If you go from working 60 hours a week to only working 40 how is there an expectation that your income trajectory won't be affected?
The assumption is generally that society should be required to take up the slack, usually via law and/or taxes.
This is actually the main reason I'm not on the left...I do not believe it's society's job to make you happier or protect you from the consequences of personal choice, only to prevent other people from *inhibiting* your freedom. Since both feminists and MRA's tend to be on the left, it's no surprise to me that both groups often want to force the change they want to see via legislation or taxation.
Well that doesn't seem to be a smart move.
If I can get paid the same working 30 hours as I would working 40, whats my motivation to work 40?
If I get paid the same to work 20 as I would working 30 then why would I work 30?
Its just turtles all the way down brah.
I mean, this is kind of the entire principle of socialism in a nutshell, wrapped up in ~~forced~~ charity language. Communism is the same way, with more resentment built in, which typically results in more genocide instead of mere famine.
The idea is typically seen as "we have a lot, therefore we should help those who don't," which is a noble view...except that those pushing it typically want *other* people to do it, whether they want to or not.
I've had discussions about the gender wage gap where the other party had been under the impression that the wage gap was controlling for everything but gender.
After explaining causes (such as this being the most influential one), they've actually flipped on the issue to the perspective that it's not actually unfair. It may be relevant that these were married men who had been less than free to take the minimum allotted paternity leave.
One is an environmental explanation, where social norms make it harder for mothers to stay in the workforce. Under this explanation, moms may find that they aren’t offered certain opportunities — a job that requires significant travel or long hours, for example — because of the perception that they are the primary caregiver to a child.
Or women are choosing not take these opportunities? Why must every article like this strip women of their agency. I have no doubt there are ALSO social pressures involved, but I don't think every woman (just like I don't think every man ) is seeking out the apex job.
While I agree that child rearing contributes to the wage gap, this alone doesn't explain the racial pay gap.
When we don't acknowledge the racial piece of the pay gap, we tend to focus all of our attention to the top, ie high-paying jobs and positions, which white women are more likely to hold than women of color. But high-earning white women aren't the majority of female workers — and the majority of wage discrimination happens to low-wage workers.
While paid family leave would certainly help to bridge the wage gap, even more basic solutions are needed as well, like raising minimum wage. The wage gap exists because women, especially women of color, are more vulnerable to exploitation by their employers. Basic workers protections—which this country severely lacks—would go a long way toward closing not only the wage gap but the gap between the rich and the poor.
Your own argument seems to dismiss the racial aspect in favor of a class conflict. Why is race specifically relevant here? Or are poor white women paid more than equivalent poor minority women (and if so, do you have evidence)?
Also, saying that rich women make more than poor women seems kind of, well, obvious. I'm not sure why paying people doing less valuable jobs less money is exploitation...could you expand on this?
If I were to guess, I would say it's because women of color tend to occupy more of the lower rungs of workplaces, thus putting them in a worse position as far as how they're treated by their employers.
I've got to say I've got some problem parsing this logic. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems... evident when expressed differently.
> The wage gap exits because women, especially women of color, tend to occupy more of the lower rungs of workplaces.
Seeing the connotation between lower rungs and lower pay.
In theory, Danish policy does allow parents to split up their leave. But in practice, Danish women take off the vast majority of time after the birth of a child. Recent data shows that Danish men account for just 10 percent of parental leave taken in the country.
“When parental leave is neutral [not specifically divided up between two parents], then we wouldn’t expect it to do something great for the gender gap,” Kleven says.
While maternity leave is no doubt a family-friendly policy, it isn’t the type of policy that will fix the gender wage gap. If anything, it potentially can widen the gender wage gap by taking just women out of the labor force for as long as a year, likely reducing their earning potential in the future.
Let's take choices away from people so that our equality metrics look nicer!
HalafaxBattered optimist, single father3 years ago
Yes, kids are a career handicap. I'm living the dream, it has ups and downs. I think this is a more complicated conversation though, dipping into verboten toxic femininity.
Are professional women looking for house husbands? Even willing to consider them? I don't think so. I've read that women earning more than their spouses is a much higher risk for divorce than average.
Of families I have experience with: the dual income households where both partners maintain their careers leverage third party child care heavily. Very heavily. They make it work, but time with the kids is lost. Even this is a career impact, but not an extreme one. Apex career paths don't have leeway to support this situation, they are binary all-work or nothing.
For professionals, spending time with your kids is a luxury. Working parent + stay at home parent offers some nice benefits, but both parents accrue risk doing do. The risk materializes along lines of social bias by gender.
I think the outcomes shown do boil down to choices: often hard choices. But I think the choices are framed by social wants. If women choose spouses (even partially) by earning ability, that sets a lot of boundaries on the choices available. Child care is expensive. Having a stay at home parent until school starts makes a lot of sense, both in terms of quality of life and finance. If lady X was attracted to dude Y because of Y's sweet paycheck, guess who is more likely to be the SAHP? If the mother stands to gain more status, who is more likely to be the SAHP? If the father loses more status for giving up career... Well, you get the idea.
I love my kids, I love being a father. I cratered my life to do what I want to do, I accept the outcome.
AcidJilesFully Egalitarian, Left Leaning Liberal CasualMRA,3 years ago
>I accept the outcome.
This, there seems to be huge amounts of non acceptance of reality and the choices people have made. The flawed mentality that "women" can have it all (where are men in this anyway, what counts as them having it all?) is just not true, every decision will lead to either more time with the children or more time for the career. There is no perfect solution whereby people can achieve some sort of perfect balance, there will always be sacrifices which most people accept. Only activists and certain political parties push the idea that people are being screwed out of "having it all".
I agree with most of what you write. I would only add that I still believe that there is still more "stigma" attached to being a stay-at-home-dad, compared to a mom.
I also think SAHDs get different benefits than SAHMs, but both are treated and valued differently.
HalafaxBattered optimist, single father3 years ago
>I also think SAHDs get different benefits than SAHMs, but both are treated and valued differently.
It's complicated. The primary benefit: spending time with your child during the brief period when they are... well... children. That's pretty much the same.
I don't think SAHD's are valued (by society, and thusly by their partners), but that wouldn't keep me from being one. Lack of money... That would keep me from being one.
I think both SAHMs and SAHDs receive very different judgements and benefits. I was a SAHM for a few years and ovelapped time with a very good friend who was a SAHD. We would often marvel at how different our experiences were.
jesset77Egalitarian: anti-traditionalist but also anti-pun3 years ago
Finish your vegetables first azi, and don't forget to brush your teeth afterwards! ;3
RapeMattersI am not on anybody’s side, because nobody is on m3 years ago
I mean, really, the wage gap is evidence of sexism against men more than anything.
We already know that men are punished more harshly for taking time off work than women are. For most couples, what's the rational course of action? For a woman to take it on the chin and be "punished", or for a man to be punished far more harshly?
It's not an irrational thing. The problem is that society itself is sexist against men, and this is driving the gender wage gap - men are expected to sacrifice everything for their work on the basis of their gender, including spending time with their families.
There is, factually speaking, a biological component to this. *In general*, women are more interested in taking care of children for long periods of time than men. The people/things distinction, one of the greatest psychological differences between men and women, is partially responsible for this, but the other part is biology...women undergo pretty significant hormonal and biological changes during pregnancy that men (mostly) lack.
My wife didn't really care about children before having our daughter...and after, our daughter is her primary focus in life. I was affected too, of course, but it's not the same. It isn't just a matter of women being "expected" to take care of their children...the vast majority of women *want* to take care of their children, and polls of women who go back to work soon after childbirth demonstrate that they are usually far less happy with the change.
Do exceptions exist? Sure. But when you're talking about something like the wage gap, which is a population-based statistic, population-level differences matter. If anything, biology is "sexist", and societies evolved along the lines that best optimized reproduction and survival. We can change these things, but not without great difficulty and often coercion. Nature simply doesn't care about our ideals.
I would disagree on this point in that society isn't sexist against men, but rather asymmetric and we are often discussing the problem from one side, where the asymmetric nature isn't taken into account.
People like to make their own choices, but unfortunately, there's also asymmetric ramifications for those choices, and we can see this all over the place.
Rob a store? You'll likely get a lighter sentence as a woman.
Woman gets pregnant? There's some options for her, but fewer for him.
Want to have a career and children? If you want more career than children, then being male is advantageous, but if you also want to actually spend time with your kids, then being female is advantageous.
Again, the issue is that asymmetric, we're not addressing that fact, and approaching the situation accordingly.
From the methodology of the cited Danish study where the data comes from it includes those who left work outright and this represents a wage of 0. That is going to be quite the reduction in wages no matter where you start, to drop to 0. The charts don't seem so dramatic considering that. And the conclusion is no surprise either if you factor that in, of course wages drop when you are not working. No mention of that in the article though, doesn't fit the narrative I guess.
So, the subtitle of this article is "The gender wage gap is really a child care penalty." But why is it seemed a "penalty"? People choose to do different things, and it seems quite normal to me that people who choose to take focus off of their work to focus on their family would end up in lower positions than people who stayed focused on their careers.
He finds that women start to gravitate toward different jobs after the birth of a child, ones with fewer hours and lower wages.
The concepts of "the second shift" and "pink collar ghettos" are related to this. Women need to be able to give time and energy to the child when they are at home. They can't afford to work so hard that they are too exhausted to wake up if a child comes into their room in the middle of the night.
Men with well-paid jobs tend to be exhausted after work, too exhausted to do things like that. If both parents get that exhausted, then no one is able to provided the care the child needs.
Even if you are a heartless monster, society puts pressure on parents to actually take care of their own kids. Someone has to do it.
For various reasons, this tends to fall more to the mother than the father.
I'm actually kind of weirded out seeing this piece. I thought this was incredibly well established and fairly obvious on the face of it to boot.
I will add that all the reading I have done over the years suggests that countries that primarily address the gender gap by trying to lighten the child-bearing and child-rearing burden for women are the ones that have generally been more successful in reducing the gap. Simply decrying the gap as sexism or whatever tends to not be particularly helpful.
This can be addressed in part via cultural practices. It isn't just about laws or official policies. From what I have read, a lower divorce rate and a general expectation that the extended family helps out with the kids tends to be helpful. When a woman stays married and her mother or aunt is the primary babysitter while she is at work, you see women do better at advancing their careers.
Interesting that men who eventually will have kids earn less than men who eventually won't have kids (4 years prior to the first child birth, fathers-to-be still earn less). That is not the case for women.
Difficult to tell how pronounced that is without the raw data though.
The mother, who overwhelmingly takes care of cooking, laundry and many other child-related activities, cannot spend as much time working as the father (who on average spends less time on those activities).
It's not a wage gap, but a lower pay for less work. That hasn't changed for at least 500 years.
But now it apparently takes a left-leaning social scientist to figure this out and wrap it into a gender discrimination theory.
RT @saylor: Q4 #Bitcoin Mining Council Survey Confirms Improvements in Sustainable Power Mix and Technological Efficiency. Estimated sustainable energy mix was 58.5%. Join us at 5pm ET today for a full briefing.
RT @ethereumJoseph: Wallet extensibility is key to accelerating Web3 innovation.
Snaps allows developers to expand the functionality of MetaMask at runtime, without our involvement.
Build a snap, tell your users about it, and add features that you've always wanted to see in MetaMask. https://t.co/sWWzcjEocj
Wallet extensibility is key to accelerating Web3 innovation.
Snaps allows developers to expand the functionality of MetaMask at runtime, without our involvement.
Build a snap, tell your users about it, and add features that you've always wanted to see in MetaMask. https://t.co/sWWzcjEocj
Intel, a $220 billion industry leader, is preparing to launch ASIC hardware for bitcoin mining.
Bitcoin is a computer network. Every technology company will eventually plug themselves into it.
I mean Intel is no longer competitive in the CPU market. They spent so long to crack 10nm they got left in the dust, even with the huge government stipend to build new manufacturing for better chips to ease reliance on TSMC, we are a decade away from that even being feasible...
They have to do something to make up for the loss of Apple chips and losing to AMD on multi-thread/core processing, as more programs and especially gaming utilize the power of chips more efficiently.
Pandering to Crypto could make up for some of their shortcomings.
And there we go. Thanks for proving my point for me.
I’m totally cool with someone thinking crypto is [insert bearish opinions] if you came to that conclusion from a foundation of knowledge. An informed decision. But you literally developed an opinion built on ignorance from ignorance
Proof of stake vs proofs of work is like the simplest thing to google to understand the crypto world and you couldn’t even do that.
You're really the only one expressing immaturity through name calling here. Also, I get that the environmental impact is important. Are you aware that the impact is changing though? How beneficial has traditional finance been to the environment?
This sub specifically is rife with it.
If you want to discuss tech (current and futuristic) you’re better off at r/gadgets
This sub first of all never reads articles posted. The articles themselves are usually very low quality. The discussions tend to be extremely high level and ignorant…like the ones in this thread. It’s such a shitty sub
It's not about evangelizing cryptocurrency, it's just that non-crypto people are in here spouting completely wrong, nonsensical misinformation when they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
For example, people in here are bashing Bitcoin for the GPU shortages. Except people haven't used GPUs to mine Bitcoin for years. Other cryptocurrencies do,like Ethereum, but not Bitcoin.
Also, people don't understand that high-energy use "Proof of Work" algorithms are being replaced by "Proof of Stake" mining, which doesn't require all that processing or energy, because you don't solve math problems. This can/will fix the energy issue.
This all gets downvoted though, because people are substantially misinformed.
Haven't seen a lot of that. They can have delusional out there takes, but at least they have a solid grasp on how crypto works.
Here we have upvoted comments talking about GPU Bitcoin mining. I don't see why someone whose understanding of it is so far removed from being solid would comment anything at all.
Is blind tribalism really how subjects should be discussed here?
Yea it is almost like 99% of people dont have experience in crypto. You can still critique things you havent done -- Like jumping off a cliff is really stupid. Likewise, burning the environment for digital money whose whole purpose is to be speculated on and then converted into real money is really stupid
It's not necessarily that mining is "ruining" the environment. Our outdated power infrastructure is. That being said, a sizeable portion of mining farms gravitate toward renewable because it offsets some of the cost to operate. Personally, I'm adding some solar panels for the same reason. And by "real" money, I think you just mean fiat. The only thing that gives a fiat currency value is the government that's backing it. USD is backed by oil, debt, and military power for example.
The only reason to use crypto is to convert it into fiat money. People dont use crypto as actual cash outside of black market shit. The things backing fiat are actual real things that have material value. Crypto is only backed by ones and zeros. One survives if the internet goes down (the internet that only survives under the government) and the other doesnt
That's actually a really good point. Using crypto to get around FOREXs is a fantastic utility. And while you're technically correct about the internet going out, it would have to be a global outage. But as long as there's one node active on the Blockchain, then it stays up. So while it's possible, it's highly unlikely. And the whole black market thing is just something politicians use as a flimsy argument against crypto. Crypto is no more, or less used for black market purposes than fiat. And contrary to that belief, crypto has a better auditability trail than cash does.
I've seen people who haven't graduated highschool try to point out why the Large Hadron Collider was designed to create a black hole to let satan into the world.......
And they seriously try to argue "gibberish" physics just putting random numbers like *r/2 - 4 +x = 12* therefore LHC is bad.
Unlikely to happen due to the main things affecting GPU prices is the low production of semiconductors and availability of silicon which is projected to continue till next year sadly. Sure cryptos requirements for hardware hasn't helped but the rapid increase in EVs has also had a big impact.
As long as a GPU pays for itself in a reasonable timeframe, miners will snap up as many as they can to capitalize. Supply shortages make it easier for miners to clean out the good price points of the market instead of causing temporary dips in supply. In turn, the cleaned-out market makes it easier for scalpers, thieves, and regular secondhand sales to drive up the prices to absurd levels, which gives them more incentive to keep snapping up all the cards they can get their hands on.
If the insane mining system wasn't pulling so many cards off the market for so long, the supply chain shortages would have landed much softer, and the incentives to drive prices up for resale would have been lower. Meanwhile, many more people would be using the available graphics cards for graphics instead of mining rigs. There are supply chain problems all over the economy, but the graphics card shortage went far beyond the usual trends, even compared to other common semiconductor products.
All the folks here saying crypto didn’t jack up GPU prices are wrong.
In 2015, I was able to buy an EVGA 980Ti card at retail on Newegg for less than [$650… AND it came with a free copy of MGSV](https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/get-metal-gear-solid-5-free-with-latest-nvidia-geforce-gtx-bundle-2927366). Now crypto certainly existed around that time, but no cryptocurrency was yet worth 10s of thousands of $$$ like now, so there weren’t crypto bros snatching GPUs off shelves.
Now if you’re lucky you can get a 3070 for [<$700](https://www.evga.com/products/productlist.aspx?type=0&family=GeForce+30+Series+Family&chipset=RTX+3070) IF you can snag it before bot swarms yoink them all and posts them to StockX for $1500+.
> All the folks here saying crypto didn’t jack up GPU prices are wrong.
A bigger impact are the [GPU clusters used for machine learning](https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2010/11/15/announcing-cluster-gpu-instances-for-amazon-ec2/).
A lot of [NVidia's recent efforts have been directed toward the machine learning community](https://developer.nvidia.com/deep-learning)
I find it extremely hard to believe that AI research has a bigger impact on GPU prices than crypto. I would venture a guess that the impact AI has on the chip shortage is minuscule compared to that of even automotive and consumer electronics.
IIRC, a lot of this GPU mining is due to Ethereum, not Bitcoin. (BTC miners these days use specialized hardware.) The Ethereum network is moving away from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake, which is less hardware and energy intensive. If GPU demand is all due to ETH miners, then prices could fall after Ethereum goes to PoS. (I'm not sure if any other PoW network that uses GPUs is big enough right now to influence GPU price.)
I've spent quite a bit of time in the mining space, since way back before all this craziness started.
You're right that it isn't Bitcoin being mined on GPUs. Bitcoin hasn't been mined on GPUs in many years because the difficulty has increased far too much for it to be profitable. Specialized machines (ASICs) have pushed GPUs out of the space to the point that you'd almost always be spending more money on electricity than you're making in Bitcoin.
You're also right that the biggest coin being mined on GPUs right now is Ethereum. I don't know if exact numbers exist, but based off what I've seen, I'd venture to say at least 90% of the collective GPU computing power is going toward Ethereum. Other POW coins are just significantly less profitable.
That said, people are preparing for Ethereum's shift to POS. Once this happens, it will no longer be possible to mine Ethereum. There are many coins that miners are considering moving to afterward, but I'm certain that this will result in many quitting permanently (myself included, I plan on just staking my Ethereum because I honestly have faith in the protocol, unlike any of the current POW alternatives). I would anticipate a drop of about 20% of more in total collective mining power.
As for where the miners who continue will turn to afterward, I have a few guesses.
Ravencoin is currently the most profitable to mine other than Ethereum. This could draw people toward it.
Monero I believe is currently the third most profitable to mine, but also has a market cap much larger than Ravencoin, so it's possible people would rather own this crypto.
These are my two guesses right now based off their current status as well as the buzz I've heard from other miners. Honestly though, the shift in mining power will be so fundamentally massive that it will most likely completely reset the power balance between these other POW currencies, so evaluating the power balance beforehand could turn out to be futile.
Guess we'll have to wait and see.
If you're implying paying off the massively inflated card prices by using them for mining like the other crypto bros on here, using crypto to solve the problems crypto is causing isn't nearly as good of a sales pitch as you think it is, neither is re-orienting the primary value of GPUs to being a source for yet another side hustle.
Also learn what a figure of speech is.
owning personal property is not disallowed in communist systems. nor is capital entirely.
rather capital is seen as a step in a direction where the next step we wont need capital systems.
bitcoin is the evolution of capital in its attempt to stay relevant and dominant as a system. Thats because capitalists who stand to lose run that system.
bitcoin drives climate change in a way that is entirely unnecessary... at least with many of our current polluters we the public didnt know better. only the rich knew.
but with bitcoin... we all know what amount of energy it eats. way more than we humans should be sharing.
> owning personal property is not disallowed in communist systems. nor is capital entirely.
Capitalism isn't disallowed in communist systems because communist systems can't survive without it. By communist, of course, you actually mean central control, which really isn't communism in anything but name.
> bitcoin drives climate change in a way that is entirely unnecessary
The same argument can be made about TV, movies, the internet and especially reddit. It's hypocrisy to complain about one and not the other.
> but with bitcoin... we all know what amount of energy it eats. way more than we humans should be sharing.
You seem to believe that energy is finite. The limit of the energy we can create is far beyond anything we can use. There are places on this earth where they pay people to take their energy. They have too much and need people to take it.
it could survive, just not achieved unfettered growth... which would be good right now.
and no, that does not mean centralized control. dont perpetuate the state past its need, nor the economic system.
they are tools that we can make better and put down once we make new tools.
we are already able to achieve post scarcity, but we don't because billionaires profit
> it could survive, just not achieved unfettered growth... which would be good right now. and no, that does not mean centralized control. dont perpetuate the state past its need, nor the economic system. they are tools that we can make better and put down once we make new tools.
You are just waving your arms and blowing smoke. There is nowhere on this earth where this is true.
> we are already able to achieve post scarcity, but we don't because billionaires profit
We are beyond scarcity precisely because of billionaires. For every dollar they put in their pocket, some one else puts a dollar in theirs. The fact that there are billionaires is an indication of how wealthy the rest of the world is getting.
It's nothing but a pyramid scheme, and the owners of the coins are doing everything they can to push their agenda in order to increase the value of their waste of energy and silicon.
I'm *so* sick of seeing it everywhere.
The only people I know who buy it anymore do it to buy things you don’t want traces.
I know people who bought it along time ago and made a killing, but it’s primary utility now seems to be drug deals or worse.
If the industrial use of gold were its only value then it wouldn't be as valuable to most people. It's valuable because people believe it to be. The gold standard is not magic any more than a titanium standard or uranium standard or calcium standard.
The economy doesn't really matter that much for the valuation of a currency. What matters is imports/exports setting the exchange rate. The greatest export of the US is the dollar. That makes it in large part a speculative currency. It is a great speculative currency because its so large and stable.
The greatest risk of US dollars as an asset is the issuing. You wouldn't want to buy a large share of the dollar and then have the fed issue a large amount to somebody else, as that devalues your share. As a foreign holder of the dollar you have basically no control over the fed.
The greatest risk of bitcoin is the lack of stakeholders. Since no large country uses it as their primary currency there is no guaranteed demand. On the other hand, it has one great (arguably) feature the dollar lacks: Control over issuing.
All asset trading is speculation. Anyone who says otherwise just doesn't care about the result of their gamble.
Objectively bad, lmao. Intentionally deflating your currency with no means to adjust the policy to circumstances doesn’t become less stupid if it’s “protected by math and cryptography.”
Also, mega lol at the idea that a consortium of Bitcoin miners lighting the rainforest on fire to solve sudokus is in any way more accountable to the needs of society than the Federal Reserve
To be fair, bitcoin can and should replace the banking industry, the banks consume 100 x at least what bitcoin consumes. So you wanna put an environmental spin on it then go after the banks, don't be that dumb cunt.
That’s what a hardware chip can help with though. Completely reducing the environmental impact
genshiryoku|Agricultural automation | MSc Automation |16 hs ago
That's not how cryptomining works....
The mining isn't environmentally damaging because of technological limits. It's environmentally damaged because it's *designed* to be that way.
Let me explain: The Proof of Work mining algorithm is specifically designed so that the Bitcoin reward for miners is generated based on the "difficulty" which scales with how "hard" miners are mining.
So let's say somehow every mining station gets shut down except for 10 single computers. These 10 computers would still be able to process all Bitcoin transactions. It's just that every computer now has 10% of all mining power and thus if you own 6 of the 10 computers you could fabricate false data. Also getting 10% of the reward for running one computer is *very* profitable so everyone would immediately jump on and connect their computer to also compete for that market share.
This is why you can't "reduce environmental impact" by having better mining chips. There is only 100% of the mining power after all. How it gets rewarded to the miners is merely based on how much computer power you provide compared to the total amount of computerpower "hashpower" the entire blockchain receives.
A lot of people, especially people not familiar with computing or how blockchains work on a technical level don't seem to understand that the energy consumption and computational drain *is by design* as a way to safeguard the blockchain.
In fact if we ever find a "solution" that would allow people to mine Bitcoin while using less energy or less computing power it would mean that Bitcoin as a technology has failed. Because the entire backing of the security and value of Bitcoin is based upon the fact that as the blockchain grows it should take more and more energy to sustain. That's literally the only thing ensuring nobody tampers with the blockchain.
There won't be a "clean, energy efficient" Bitcoin ever. And people need to realize this. Read the whitepaper of Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto to understand this better.
**TL;DR:** **The growing energy and computing resource usage to mine Bitcoin is not a bug or flaw but a specifically chosen design decision by Satoshi Nakamoto, the entire innovation of PoW mining is specifically that it costs more and more energy to maintain, a LOT of engineering prowess was put into ensuring that it'll always need more and more energy and computational resources to sustain itself**
I have another question. I once watched YT video explained that bitcoin will eventually undergoes defaltion and its value will increase with time. So, is one of the reason it goes deflation because it required a lot of energy to mine and maintain it?
If that was the case, is there a way to make bitcoin less valuable in the future?
No. The energy usage for mining will stabilize at the energy you can buy for the mining reward. The hardware used for mining will stabilize at the most efficient hardware that can consume that amount of energy. The optimal solution to continue mining and lower it's environmental impact is to stop making more efficient chips so they don't get obsolete and limit mining rewards while increasing energy prices.
We don’t have any turtles in a lot of places, so I’m not sure why the straw thing is such a big deal. I’m all for doing the right thing, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a turtle in the wild in Wyoming.
It doesn’t matter how “efficient” the hardware is. Because of difficulty adjustments Bitcoin always scales to consume all the money being put into it.
So even if there’s a temporary drop in electricity and hardware waste it’ll quickly adjust and be back to where it was.
All to process 5 transactions per second using the electricity of a medium sized country.
No...all of this creates the most secure computer network the world has ever seen. (by multiple orders of magnitude).... Bitcoin is so secure that not even having the energy grid capacity of entire countries could distort the integrity of the block chain....
People who say that bitcoin computing power is only to process transactions is people who don't understand the bizantines generals problem, block chain technology, decentralised computing and zero knowledge proof cryptography.....
In summary, it's people who don't understand bitcoin (around 99.9 percent of Reddit).
The blockchain is horribly insecure with 80% of mining done by 6 pools and about half done by only 3 so there's only theatre of decentralisation.
Also while the blockchain is theoretically secure (or would be if it wasn't centralised) you have to move Bitcoin to a terribly insecure intermediary if you want to actually use it
So no, it's not secure but as you say 99.9% of people don't understand crypto.
> 80% of mining done by 6 pools and about half done by only 3 so there's only theatre of decentralisation.
FYI, decentralization doesn't refer to where the money is distributed, (i.e. who has the most money concentrated in their wallets), it has to do with not having a centralized "gatekeeping" institution that all the transactions have to go through (like a central bank, or clearinghouse in traditional banking).
In traditional banking you have to "trust" the banks, credit card companies etc., and all banking transactions go through them and are controlled by them (while taking fees along the way). There is no centralized institution with the cryptocurrencies, transactions are directly between wallets.
Also, the security also has nothing to do with who has the money either. One guy could control 100% of the mining and coins and it wouldn't change the security, because all the other nodes in the network validate the transactions, not whoever mined (or owns) the coins.
The problem is that a small number of entities actually do control the price of Bitcoin as well as the purchase and sale of Bitcoin.
- Mining is tightly concentrated into "pools" and 3 of them have ~50% of the total mining power so you have to trust the miners.
- Exchanges to cash you in/out are tightly concentrated and poorly regulated so you have to trust them to be able to cash you out. Hint: they go down for maintenance during large market drops because they're insolvent and out of cash to fund sales.
- Tether is effectively the central bank of crypto and most Bitcoin takes place against Tethers, not Dollars. So when you sell bitcoin you're buying Tethers until you get it cashed out by the exchange to your bank account. Tether is a proven fraud.
So yeah, there's no decentralisation with Bitcoin. It's all a scam.
51% (of hashing power, not of the nodes or number of computers on the network) allows the attacker to send transactions and then revert them. In a practical sense, this breaks all transactional trust, making the network useless for securing transactions. It effectively gives one actor infinite spending power.
Most of the posts above are corporate PR. - or at least believing corporate PR.
Murdoch ordered Fox etc to condemn bitcoin as pure evil. He has $20 billion in bitcoin. All the rich people are buying bitcoin, and the media owning ones are running scare stories to get smaller holders to sell up before BTC price rises.
The same happens every stock thats going to rise.
We've run out of/reached peak oil.
Solar Panels want to dryhump your dog.
Wind Turbines slice the air into small sharp bits that will fly out and kill your baby!
Not exactly. They seem to have a grasp on what ponzi schemes are, but zero grasp on how cryptocurrencies work.
They're over here claiming there's no internal transcations with bitcoin, that the only way to get bitcoin is to exchange dollars for it, and that you have to "pay new investors(?)"
Trying to explain how cryptocurrencies actually work to these folks is falling into the same trap as trying to explain geography to a falt-earther. They got wrong info in their head from Facebook, or some conspiracy YouTube rabbithole, and logic and reason isn't gonna pull them out of it.
If you have an investment scheme with...
- No internal cash-flows
- Incoming investor funds are used to cash out old investors and pay the operators
...then you've got yourself a pure Ponzi. The fact that it's run by miners and exchanges instead of Bernie Madoff or Charles Ponzi doesn't change the economics.
So yeah, Bitcoin is fundamentally a Ponzi.
There's a ton of internal cash flow, and new "investors" aren't paid by old investors. That's not even a thing. Crypto isn't any more a ponzi scheme than cash is a ponzi scheme.
Miners introduce coins into circulation at a tightly controlled rate. Fundamentally no different than the Feds printing money. Then people exchange goods, services or other currency for the money in circulation, just like cash.
I hear this "ponzi scheme" from non-crypto people all the time and I'm not even sure where it comes from, beyond not understanding blockchain or cryptocurrency.
You price Bitcoin in Dollars and your hope is to get more Dollars out than you put in. Bitcoin will never be currency.
So Dollars go in to buy Bitcoin, you're buying that Bitcoin from Miners (who operate the Ponzi) or you're cashing out an earlier holder. Miners then take those Dollars and spend them to pay for electricity and hardware.
So the total number of Dollars out of Bitcoin is far fewer than the numbers in.
To keep the scheme going requires a constant inflow of new Dollars.
So it's a Ponzi.
This is fundamentally inaccurate though. You don't "price" bitcoin in dollars. You "price" it by the amount of Bitcoins.
You can *exchange* Bitcoin for any number of other crypto or fiat currencies, but that's no different than exchanging dollars for say, euros. There are countless people who make a living exchanging *fiat* currencies, trying to profit (through speculation) off the changes in relative value between different foreign currencies. There are also people who do it between crypto/fiat currency pairs, or pairs of different crytocurrencies, and that's what you're talking about here. That's not a "ponzi scheme," that's just speculating, and exists whether it's with crypto or not.
But you can get Bitcoin without exchanging fiat currency for it just like you can earn dollars without exchanging foreign currency for it. You can mine it, earn it through wages, or sell things for it directly, just like any other money. And you can exist and pay for goods completely within the Bitcoin ecosystem, without ever "cashing out" into a fiat currency.
There is no "paying for new investors," I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. In a ponzi scheme you have to buy your way in (not so for crypto), and rob Peter to pay Paul to pay returns. And there isn't enough money to pay everybody, because the returns aren't real, so you have to keep paying the existing investors with new investor money, and the minute there are no new investors everything crashes because there was never really enough money to begin with. That's got nothing to do with crypto. No one "pays investors" a return. You either have Bitcoin or you don't. And you don't need "new money," because you don't need dollars to get Bitcoin. They could close off Bitcoin to new people starting today, with the number of Bitcoins no longer increasing, and the ecosystem would keep functioning fine.
As for the volatility, that's a bug, not a feature, and one that will eventually be corrected. There are already other coins (stablecoins) that attack this by staking their value to known fiat currencies to keep value stable (though again, you don't need to purchase from, or convert to, these fiat currencies).
There is absolutely nothing like a "ponzi" scheme with Bitcoin, unless you consider "dollars" and "cash" a ponzi scheme too.
I came here to say this. The only way crypto can have value is if it costs fiat money to mine it. If mining crypto were to become 10x more efficient, then the supply would increase and people would simply have 10x more coins at 1/10 the fiat money value.
It's limited flat out. Even if mining power increased by 100% per day the same number of coins would be issued. You are right with the wrong reasoning.
Fiat only matters when calculating the energy impact, because the network can't sustainably consume more energy than the block reward is worth, independent of whether the power bill is paid in Fiat or crypto. (And it's paid in Fiat obviously)
It's more like they create the golden geese and make it, then the golden geese farmer buys by the hundreds and has all the infrastructure to produce eggs
Those golden geese aren't going to be cheap thought
Intel gets their crypto money by doing what they already do best, other people worry about the logistics and infrastructure of it
Bringing the performance legacy of the Itanic and the ability to grok new markets demonstrated by the (former) radio modem business to Bitcoin. I wish them the best of luck, never have two phenomenon so deserved each other's embrace.
Its like watching the alligators and snapping turtles having a tiff in the swamp: it's gonna be a fun mud wrestle to watch, someone's gonna come out missing some chunks, and the rest of the world benefits no matter which one of them loses. Infact we might just take advantage of the distraction to send some shots their way for the general betterment of society.
Intel needs money. Crypto has money. GPU makers snobs crypto, making things like LHR to protect their primary market from the secondary market (used GPUs) sales during a crypto downturn, while also trying to nickel-and-dime miners with barely interesting mining GPUs (because, crypto has money :)
So Intel sees that, realize they have the know how + existing technology and patents + fabs, and decides to bring it to the market.
If executed correctly, it has the potential to crush Bitmain.
Also, bringing US-made miners to the market will certainly lead to a change in perception about crypto: it won't be "that thing using chips made in Asia and coal" anymore, but "using made-in-the-US chips and clean power plus carbon offsetting credits"
>But being able to do much more efficient blockchain validation at a much lower cost, much lower power, is a pretty solvable problem.
Mining ASICs don't do anything like blockchain validation; they instead solve a hash partial preimage problem, mostly after blockchain validation has been done on CPUs (although when a new block is published and its PoW verified, a miner might try solve the puzzle on top of the new block before it has had time to validate that block, betting that the new block is very likely to be valid).
"Just stop. Seriously," Austan Goolsbee, a professor at the University of Chicago, said in response to the question. Goolsbee previously served as chairman of the Council of Economics Advisers under former President Barack Obama.
F you Goolsbee and Chicago school.
Limiting how much companies can charge will distort markets, they argue, causing shortages and exacerbating supply chain problems while only temporarily reducing inflation.
Yeah, sure. You know what really distorts the hell out of markets:
Basics ingredients and healthy food should be subsidized. There should be a zero mile initiative for food like they have in other countries like Italy. When you walk into the supermarket and there is no chicken, that’s because your chicken comes from god knows where.
As for gas, let it die. It’s killing the Earth anyway. America should subsidize renewable energy systems that don’t have us rely on foreign entities for energy and be at the mercy of their prices.
What if we had the gov't competing in the private market? That is, non-profit run businesses. Could probably shave 10% off prices and would make it harder for for-profit businesses to jack up prices if the gov't option is always rock-bottom.
I could see this being particularly helpful for those industries where profits and high prices seem out of control. E.g. housing, baby formula, internet connection, and a few others.
When it comes to price gouging, then yes. When a volatile market is in question, then no. Governments have already made markets more volatile by causing artificial crashes during the shut-downs to prevent disease spread. The markets will fluctuate back and forth until they reach equilibrium. Government assistance will bring an artificial equilibrium, which is unhealthy for industry. Industry either becomes reliant upon government help to sustain low product cost, or the cost of the product is fixed higher than it needs to be, causing businesses to lose customers.
Government already effects Gas Prices by requiring manufacturers to produce regular gasoline with ethanol (an unneeded additive which gives corn farmers business).
Additionally, large farms are already largely subsidized, artificially driving down costs to the detriment of producers not conforming with subsidy agreements. In terms of agriculture, farmers are not permitted to fully cater to market demands as other industries if they want to compete with other farms receiving subsidies.
If they arent going to count it in the Consumer price index for inflation then yes maybe, same with housing. As it stand it defacto makes the US dollar a fungible labor only reserve currency by having stock, capital measured and policy regulated as a separate economy from labor dollars.
Well this is just capitalism at work. Isn’t one of the fundamental tenets of capitalism “supply and demand,” so companies will charge as much as they can while maintaining profits? That’s just how the game is played
The article quotes economists who don't think it's a good idea for price controls. But they are economists from the University of Chicago, which is fairly well-known for austerity economic ideas....
People are paying a lot more for food, gas, cars and services, and inflation isn't over yet as the pandemic continues to distort the economy. So should governments consider setting the price of essential goods?
It's been done before, typically during times of crisis, but for most mainstream economists, the answer to this question is a resounding "no." Limiting how much companies can charge will distort markets, they argue, causing shortages and exacerbating supply chain problems while only temporarily reducing inflation.
"Price controls can of course control prices — but they're a terrible idea," David Autor, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, remarked in a survey published earlier this month by the University of Chicago.
The government should make sure that there are no policies causing shortages of any of these things. The government should also provide the necessary subsidies to ensure energy independence (ie, making sure we have appropriate levels of solar and wind investment, where possible, to reduce fossil fuel dependence).
The government can also make sure that food prices are relatively stable by providing need based assistance to people who need food. This ensures a stable floor of food production so that there is enough food to meet minimum requirements and no sudden influx of food demand (leading to inflation in food prices) if the population does well economically.
The government, generally speaking, cannot literally control the price of food and gas.
Depends on if the government is actually democratic, plans on pricing things in a manner that is consistent with reality and worker livelihood, and wants to actually improve things. If not, say hi to the new boss, just as bad as the old boss.
RT @js_horne: New essay: Hyperstructures
The nature of crypto protocols opens up expansive new models to create free, invaluable and unstoppable public infrastructure.
I define Hyperstructures, and why they will form the basis of the internet for decades to come.
New essay: Hyperstructures
The nature of crypto protocols opens up expansive new models to create free, invaluable and unstoppable public infrastructure.
I define Hyperstructures, and why they will form the basis of the internet for decades to come.
So Bitcoin mining is good because miners will "reduce demand" when asked? Is that actually "will reduce demand when prices skyrocket"?
Bitcoin consumes as much power as the entire zinc mining industry? So rather than doubling the amount of injection-moldable, infinitely-recyclable metal parts we use -- we instead have 20 minute long flame-pit burn competitions, and whoever makes the biggest smokiest cloud wins and we start over?
Just so a bunch of cryptobros can say "decentralized"? Fuck all this, and fuck your fake internet money.
If you want to use the energy for zinc mining then go for it. The only thing stopping you is the free market, which clearly doesn't value it as much as Bitcoin mining. Bitcoin is willing to pay for it's energy use.
If you think the government should step in and subsidize zinc mining when the free market clearly doesn't demand it, you are naive. Uses of energy should not be dictated by a central party instead of by market demand. The best you can hope for is to improve the sustainability of the grid itself.
Secondly, the fact that zinc can be used as a construction material for batteries (and recently -- rechargable ones) means it *should be subsidized*, so at least you have a hope of saying "its sustainable" when your warehouse full of ASICs is burning off the solar power collected in a cornfield.
Please point to a tangible QoL improvement for humanity at large that Bitcoin has brought that an equivalently-sized industry like zinc mining hasn't. I have a ton of things in my house made from die-cast zinc, and I have zero fucking Bitcoins.
I don't even particularly care about zinc
>Please point to a tangible QoL improvement for humanity at large that Bitcoin has brought
Quite a few examples in these articles by Alex Gladstein (Human Rights Foundation) if you are willing to take a look
last comment was large, new comment for any feedback.
On the Trojan Horse article, this quote stuck out to me: "Unlike in 1933, when the U.S. government was able to seize the gold of citizens with Executive Order 6102 by attacking points of custody, that does not work if hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans are holding their keys."
I'm curious how you think this would work inside a government strong enough to impose this with Bitcoin, and why Bitcoin would actually be resistant to it? A government issuing this order could just as easily say "turn over your wallet's private keys or we jail you". Monitor for traffic on port 8333 & 18333 to ensure compliance. TOR doesn't necessarily help you here, seize exit nodes, or make running an exit node a jailable offense and watch those dry up.
Right now it seems as though the government is allowing Bitcoin to exist because it's not threatened by it. The minute it is, it gets driven back underground and loses most of its legitimacy.
On the Check Your Financial Privilege article: Nigerian cell-phone repair shops are not why you have Bitcoin and you and I both know it. It's strong *right now*, because power is cheap *right now.* As soon as the cost of electricity accurately reflects the true generation (and mitigation) costs, impoverished nations will not have the means to burn terawatts of power as a hedge against inflation of their own currency.
The article even mentions that the majority of Bitcoin owners \[in Nigeria, at least\] can't even use the money they have, due to hardware or internet accessibility reasons. So, this makes this use-case seem like a What Aboutism -- a canned food drive for publicity without actually implementing food stamps as a long-term solution.
What I still don't see from any of these articles are acknowledging or addressing the vast disparity between utility and resource consumption. That is what I want addressed.
I am willing, and I've got a few open in tabs now. I'll edit this comment in a bit with any feedback.
I have nothing fundamentally against crypto or blockchains, I just get extremely upset with PoW instead of any other method of validation. I know they all have their tradeoffs, but an incredible several-9's percentage of the work miners are doing is just because the algorithm itself says it must be difficult.
Bitcoin's explosive price means people will do whatever they can to try and get a piece of that pie, and the power they're buying (or sometimes stealing) usually does not have adequate carbon taxes associated with it. If there was a tangible good being produced, especially one that's highly recyclable or durable & reusable, then that's at least sorta handwaved as "an investment".
I whole-heartedly back any crypto (that isn't also a pump&dump rug-pull) that uses anything that's not PoW as a means to stabilize itself.
So I guess you don't have an actual response then?
Should the government step in and dictate what is allowed to use energy or not? Maybe we can fill out a government form if we want to buy a washing machine?
Of course they don't have a real response. The way people reveal their emotion driven reasoning and ignorant bias in these threads is blatantly obvious. They show their prejudice by peppering any comment they make with insults (this stupid fake money).
The ones who can't resist adding insults give themselves away. They are angry and jealous they missed an opportunity, so they seethe and pretend they always hated crypto. It's as easy to see through as a kindergartner attempting to lie.
My point is that this stupid internet money consumes as much power as an entire goods-producing mining industry, and its sole output is hashes and "decentralized bro". It contributes nothing of tangible value other than allowing people to move wealth around, which you could do with a railcar of zinc, or paintings.
Crypto should be doing everything in its power to move to PoS (or similar) instead of PoW algorithms rather than publishing PR articles about "no the burn pits are actually good see because"
The results are: making it easier to exchange money for criminal transactions, money laundering, and financial speculation in the form of a pump and dump Ponzi scheme, which is what you’re seeing here.
Imagine pretending the brigade in here is pro crypto lmao
EDIT: Downvoters proving my point again. Much appreciated! If "hErE COmEs ThE crYpTO BrIGaDe" had any truth to it then we would be seeing the opposite of what is happening in the comments.
It already offers a less volatile medium of exchange than the currencies of many countries.
But I guess that's not real?
Crypto.com's credit card and exchange...you know...that are on the former Staples Center, are bootstrapped by CRO token which was created with the SDK from Cosmos.
You....probably think none of that is real though lol
Here's some articles by Alex Gladstein, Chief Strategy Officer at the Human Rights Foundation. Bitcoin is used in many countries to escape authoritarian rule and provide a neutral and open system that anyone can access. Not everybody has Western privilege when it comes to having somewhat stable financial infrastructure.
It's really amazing how these super privileged people think a stable currency is the norm everywhere else in the world.
Volatility is relative, as most things are in the world. Even the volatility of bitcoin is less than that of many countries, and it appears to get loss volatile each year (logarithmic chart)
Is your bank account even 'real' anymore? It's headed towards all electronic these days...
Edit: Typical Reddit, downvoted for speaking truth. Your value as a human is stored as electromagnetic patterns, unless you're sitting on wads of physical cash, and even then people want to just abolish that for their own 'convenience'.
It's such a weird dystopia. People getting careers, using energy in a time of climate catastrophe, to feed the machine, with no clear to service to other humans. Shouldn't money be a reward for your service to others, not the machine? Tell me one more time that I just "don't understand it," "blockchain" "decentralized" yada yada. Get a real job.
> Tell me one more time that I just "don't understand it,"
Well you certainly do not seem to understand the benefit of flexible load for viability of emerging renewable energy production. But this is not an invitation to engage in an argument. Arguing with the ignorant is a waste of time.
EDIT: Downvotes without any attempt at rebuttal are just angry impotent admissions that you are wrong. Thanks for confirming I am correct for others.
Flexible load? You mean like batteries that actually store the surplus to be used for something useful during peak hours. Pouring energy into crypto mining is just pouring it down the drain and we can easily do that without any added bullshit.
Ah so you believe there is sufficient supply of batteries somewhere that offer the necessary storage capacity? Please tell us about them. Unless you have no clue and you're just arguing from ignorant bias.
Worse. BTC is highly deflationary.
Imagine you took on a mortgage in 2016 with bitcoins. Your loan is for 1,000 bitcoins.
Now it's 2022. You still owe 800 BTC, but your house is only worth 100 BTC, and you have no way of ever being able to pay back the loan with a life time of work.
The whole system transferring to a Bitcoin standard is a pipe dream that only maximalists believe in. But hypothetically if it did, there could be no inflation, as there would be no way increase to the global money supply.
Edit: no inflation beyond 21 million BTC
Commodity monies were commonly debased throughout history by lowering the purity of gold and silver bars or coins. So that was their form of inflation.
Coinage was debased 95% in Rome between the years 300 BC and 0 AD. (Dates might be a little off I don’t remember exactly, but look it up).
No the early investors will always have the large amount of BTC. And those who already have a lot of cash to buy in big. Nowadays small investors don't get any relevant amount of it and it will become less if thebprice climbs.
Your argument also requires the same risk profile and behaviors in terms of selling as well....and uh.....would need to include everyone on Earth evidently?
It's a fantasy. Besides, there are other crypto trying different distribution models to evaluate exactly what you're seeking
I mean it's pretty logical: How many people have BTC? And how many actually own a full BTC for examble? But here you go:
Absolutely no difference to the dollar, except it might have added some new faces. That's all.
That article is hardly evidence of anything other than an opinion piece.
I suggest you sign up for a Glassnode subscription and do the research yourself. Bitcoin distribution is fair.
The only thing a 51% attack can realistically do is censor certain transactions. It cannot be used to change the rules of the protocol because network participants all validate that the current consensus rules are met before accepting each block.
So basically, if you want to censor Bitcoin then you need to step up to the plate with half the energy of the entire Bitcoin network, and you have to maintain that attack *indefinitely*.
The energy use of Bitcoin provides massive censorship resistance, and I suppose it's up to you how valuable you believe a censorship resistant monetary network is for human freedom.
Let's say the governments of the world collectively decide "fuck bitcoin" and aggressively go after any and all mining operations. The hashrate plummets, and the NSA or whatever can then reasonably use some fraction of their compute to pull off a sustained 51% attack.
Or quantum computers could do so for reasonable costs, once quantum computers are a thing.
Can't happen? It's already happened in China. We're one market crash away from it happening in the US and Europe.
When it got banned in China, the only thing that happened is that within 6 months about 40% of the network simply relocated. Bitcoin hash rate is now back to all time highs again.
If this were to happen in the US, the mining would just relocate again. The NSA would also need to purchase Bitcoin mining ASICs before they relocated to other countries, because general purpose computing is several orders of magnitude less competitive than purpose built hardware. The NSA would also have to maintain this censorship forever, making them permanent participants of the Bitcoin network (assuming that users didn't just decide to kick them off and reject their blocks).
Quantum is a real concern, but not for quite a while. Thankfully Bitcoin has many extremely smart cryptographers as volunteers, and I suspect when the necessary time comes then a quantum resistant hash function will be adopted.
Yes, you can forge transactions with a 51% attack. You can even do so retroactively. You can modify the blockchain to your heart's content.
It's just the transactions will be obviously fraudulent. If you maintain 51% control, the transaction stands.
You can't forge arbitrary transactions. A transaction from A to B has to be signed with A's private key. If you don't have it, you can't forge it, even if you have 51% or 99% of the hashrate. All you can do is selectively filter out transactions.
With a 51% attack you can do literally anything. You can pretend that any transaction is valid.
Let's say our transaction is signed with private key SkeletonKey. The software of our attackers says, "If public key SkeletonKey decrypts message, then message is always valid."
The other 49% can choose to ignore the attacker's network's results. How are you going to sift through and decide who is a bad actor and who is a good actor? The bad actors can just change addresses and rejoin the system. You'd need a *centralized* authority to whitelist nodes.
Proof-of-stake has a very similar problem, but worse, since you don't even need the compute power to pull off the attack. You just need a near-monopoly (or a cartel) of the stake.
You cannot break the consensus rules with a 51% attack. For example, Litecoin blocks do not meet the Bitcoin consensus rules, and therefore they don't propagate through the Bitcoin network (users, merchants, exchanges, etc) that run validating full nodes to verify their transactions.
If a 51% attacker doesn't want to be ignored, they need to produce valid Bitcoin blocks or they will simply hard fork themselves off to their own altcoin. They won't be part of the Bitcoin consensus if they break the rules. This limits the effect of such an attack and constrains it.
There is no need to whitelist particular nodes or anything like that, because you never trust anything that another node gives you. Your node connects to other nodes and they flood information back and forth, and if a node connects to you and sends you a transaction or a block that doesn't meet the consensus rules, your node will disconnect and ban it. Sure, they could try to reconnect again, but ultimately they will never be able to trick you with false information because your node will check it every time
Bitcoin is free and open for anyone to use, which is why we see it being used in places where people need free and open financial tools the most, such as Nigeria, Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, Ukraine, etc
The transaction costs over the lightning network are so cheap as to be effectively free. The Bitcoin base layer is a low throughput settlement layer, akin to something like Fedwire in the traditional system.
That may be but it doesn’t address the fact the Bitcoin is a too heavy speculative asset that has no intrinsic value, it’s all based on having some poor fool pay more than you do which will only last for so long.
Hey now that's a false dichotomy. You don't know my politics. I'm not defending the Fed. But truth be told, I am intrigued by Marx's insistent that the people must have a monopoly over the banks. Fk Lenin though and the scum that followed him. But if you think that rich people getting richer by buying/trading currency is some egalitarian scheme, I don't know what to say. Maybe the fiat is a bad idea but it's what the working class depend on. In the bitcoin scheme, that fiat is devalued and so is the labor of the working class- their time and energy.
Thankfully in the case of Bitcoin, the amount of coin you own doesn't give you extra power over the protocol, unlike in proof of stake networks.
But that's besides the point, since wealth inequality is a fundamentally unsolvable problem. Bitcoin is free and open for anyone to use without a third party in the loop that can censor them.
If bitcoins replaces fiat currency, owning more bitcoins will allow you to lobby in politics, so while you wouldn't be able to hijack the bitcoin protocol, you would still be able to hijack democracy just like with fiat. And nothing would change for the average person. Rich bitcoin owners would benefit from the system while the poors get fucked.
Also, a sufficiently large mining operation allows for control. It's not impossible to consolidate a majority share in mining. The blockchain is just a ledger that you can only append to and is ruled by majority consensus.
It's more like an extension of the energy industry. It allows energy producers to sell energy on a blockchain instead of a local grid.
In that sense, it distorts the energy market by inviting speculation on the value of that digitized energy. Why would anyone want digital energy that can't actual power anything? To sell to a bigger sucker.
The unfortunate and widely-bemoaned consequence is that energy prices are artificially inflated and life-destroying energy sources (like coal) become profitable again.
Network effect matters a lot, but there is a gulf between users and investors right now.
Ask yourself how that's worked out in other markets, when investors and users go different ways. In my view, it's always the investors that end up having to follow the users, no matter how much they think users should use something else.
However, the gulf can persist for an unknown period before investors finally go along. As we all know, markets can remain irrational for a long time.
ConmanSpaceHeroPlatinum | QC: ETH 53, CC 50, SOL 161 | BSV 8 | Tr1 month ago
Not much. Just people who have bags of it from when it was popular trying to find any way to keep shilling it so they can unload theirs.
You should research more and see LTC is on every exchange, Greyscale, PayPal, recommended, zero downtime since inception over ten years ago, and with no vast bags held by a founder, inexpensive to use, etc. Fudders are often accumulating or just haven't researched. I'm way ahead and happily accumulating. :)
RT @peter_szilagyi: Buy an original pre-print of Dune for $3M, scan and sell the pages on #Ethereum at $60K a pop (~$13M profit), burn the original book.
And we wonder why people hate crypto. I'm ashamed to have enabled someone to even think about doing this.
Greg Maxwell: "Anyone involved in Bitcoin development is at risk of being subjected to multiple multi-billion dollar lawsuits. ... In this climate I wouldn't expect any substantial protocol changes to get competent review". https://t.co/UX7lExigVHhttps://t.co/B5jdRYS0Zn
greg claims here that, "in this climate I wouldn't expect any substantial protocol changes to get competent review, but I can't say specifically here because I haven't looked at it since the initial proposal".
if true, very concerning for #Bitcoin.
What is competent review? https://t.co/oHoY2NFMxb
RT @cdixon: It is true web3 shares ideals with web1 and early web2.
The difference now is
1) we understand how corporate-owned networks inevitably transition from attract to extract mode
2) we now have ways to build networks that make code-enforced commitments to network participants https://t.co/wi5Xlupj8x
It is true web3 shares ideals with web1 and early web2.
The difference now is
1) we understand how corporate-owned networks inevitably transition from attract to extract mode
2) we now have ways to build networks that make code-enforced commitments to network participants https://t.co/wi5Xlupj8x
I 100% agree. I knew that corporations were making plans. However I didn't expect them to be this grand, vague, and immediate. One of the linked articles is how Nike purchased a 'virtual sneaker retailer' for an undisclosed amount.
Another interesting case is that someone did one of those photos over a period of time things, sold the individual photos as NFTs, and now he's made over a million dollars.
This entire timeline is a joke.
It doesn’t make any sense. Like I don’t think I’m a Luddite here but to me this has gone too far. We have REAL WORLD problems bearing down upon us and the solution is just to strap us all into VR headsets? Like, is this really real life?
Please remember that LSC is a SAFE SPACE for socialist discussion.
LSC is run by communists. We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
This subreddit is a safe space; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter.
Walmart properly bribes the media while GME did not. Also walmart is the souless low quality giga type company they wanted to take over when they flash crashed everything in 2020. Amazon handling the majority of online and Walmart being the main physical stores.
According to Frank Chaparro, director at crypto information services firm The Block, many retailers are still reeling from being late to e-commerce, so they don’t want to miss out on any opportunities in the metaverse.
“I think it’s a win-win for any company in retail,” Chaparro said. “And even if it just turns out to be a fad there’s not a lot of reputation damage in just trying something weird out like giving some customers an NFT in a sweepstake, for instance.”
Ah yeah but when GME does it, it has the potential to support terrorism. I am so fucking done with MSM!
lol.. metaverse users will be able to buy virtualized furniture, food, electronics, (from walmart)for their virtualized homes in the metaverse with a cryptocurrency developed by Walmart.. Metaverse reminds me of a game i use to play when I was younger. How exactly does Walmart make profit(fiat currency) from this? They'd sure make a lot of money in decentralized currencies though.
Fuck Walmart. Worst business on earth. Idgaf how much you’re “earning” when your employees need to go on welfare you’re running a failure of a business. I’d be fucking EMBARRASSED if I couldn’t pay my workers enough to eat. Why we as a country haven’t boycotted this place and shut them down permanently (many communities have fought against them) is beyond my understanding.
RT @DocumentingBTC: The oldest renewable energy facility in the world was saved by mining #bitcoin
Built in 1897, the power company wanted to dismantle the hydroelectric plant. Instead, the owners turned to the only thing that would keep it profitable and running, #Bitcoin
Reddit uses a ton of electricity in its datacenters you know. Same as Facebook and any social media. Have you seen modern datacenters? Worse than bitcoin miners.
Maybe you should stop wasting your time in then and save the climate.
Shit. Something local to me that I can provide a less biased background on. Jim Besha loves blaming National Grid for everything because one of their predecessors screwed him over though a miscommunication. This plant should not have survived the 90s, but did due to that miscommunication.
The laws created by New York are what pushed them towards Bitcoin, not National Grid not paying them enough. The reason they got into Bitcoin mining is because they needed an alternative revenue source to keep the plant alive after being denied distributed generator status.
New York capped “DG” sites at 5 MW, unity power factor and forces everything larger to participate in the NYISO market. Their 2 motor-gen sets that convert their power from 40Hz to 60Hz are old enough that their rating is at 0.8 power factor and there is no way to update them to a unity power factor rating. They are rated at ~2.2 MW @ 0.8 pf, so 2.75MW @ unity pf, pushing the site over 5 MW. This rating prevented them from becoming a DG site, meaning they lost out on a ton of incentives, which would have about doubled their revenue. Bitcoin was their last grasp and I am glad it saved them because this is such a cool site with a ton of history and has been phenomenally restored by Albany Engineering.
If anybody wants more info, PM me and I may be able to find an in depth history of the hydro plant tomorrow.
I was listening to the Compass podcast today, and apparently in TX alone, theres enough available flare gas to run the entire BTC network 7-8x over.
Theres already 4-5 large companies working on this, and they are getting the lowest power costs in the country.
Along with stranded/decommissioned micro/small scale hydropower plants, the future of BTC is looking really green.
Actually it does exist do you listen to the podcast we study billionaires Preston talks to a gentleman that actually does this he brings a Shipping container two locations converts this gas in directs it into a generator that create electricity and the company mines off the gas is that they normally flare it off
There's probably a lot cheaper ways to get electricity in most people's situations than "chartering cargo space to go out into the middle of the ocean with a mobile mining rig to use exotic spare resources in the middle of nowhere". Maybe it has some decent margin if they have kept it up consistently, but this hardly sounds like a SLAM DUNK
RT @Faktastic11: I'm back with my biggest, most important post yet:
"Jack Dorsey has been all-in on calling out VCs for profiting from altcoins...what I found surprised me: most coins underperformed BTC, returns got worse over time, and VC-backed coins did worst of all."
Bad post. Assuming the numbers are even accurate…
- The 95 assets listed in '21 beat BTC by 58.7% & ETH by 37.9%
- The full portfolio beat BTC & ETH too
- All made money in USD terms
- But there are *windows* where a *subset* underperforms BTC & ETH
Conclusion: conspiracy! https://t.co/xzULgZzHbPhttps://t.co/J0IOyBppme
this was an interesting read
based on recent performance, the price maximizing strategy for a token project or protocol might be to:
1. never ship a product (hopium sells)
2. never list on a fiat pair exchange
3. minimize insto VC $$$
“Think of it this way: it’s like if Google invested in Goldman (Messari in this case), which then published research reports about Google’s work, and then Google ran IPOs of its own investments. And no one has to disclose what they’re buying or selling.” @Faktastic11
I knew that. But since a16z funded not only Celo but also Valora, I see it as a huge bet. I just follow the money.
I don't really care about this Web3=WebVC things. As long as I can do everything with my money, without censorship, it's enough. As long as the devs and the buidlers are there and innovating, it's enough. I don't care if it's Solana or Bitcoin or Ethereum or Terra or Celo or any other VC/non-VCchain
The inflation will be cut by 70% starting in April 2022. Everyone hates on VCs but they actually hold.... would you rather have the top 10 addresses be some random person? Kinda like a doge? They could dump and crash the price at anytime. VC won't do that. If you want crypto to succeed VC will always be a part of it. It's a fact.
I believe that's correct. But price discovery through supply/demand dynamics on exchanges is dependent on circulating supply, not on total supply. The supply schedule is public information, so there is no suggestion of foul play. Only that you need to do your homework if you're not in it for the super long-term. A project could be great, but it's token could go nowhere for years because lots of new supply is becoming unlocked.
it uses proof of transaction as its consensus mechanism, directly tying it to BTC's proof of work. I don't know enough to tell you about advantages/disadvantages of that solution, but you can take "proof of transaction" as a starting point to read up if you want
Pretty Solid read. In depth analysis regarding coinbase and their shady listing scheme
techma2019Silver | QC: BTC 30 | CelsiusNet. 1344 days ago
Bottom line: stop piling into "alt coins" that aren't Ethereum. And stick to Bitcoin. Those alt coins mentioned that are listed for 2021 that are still doing well are probably only doing well because we're in a bull market. All the ones that are worse off than BTC/ETH from years prior did not survive the bear cycle.
Do you want to continue gambling thinking your alt coin will perform better than Bitcoin/Ethereum?
kirtash93The Ash Ketchum of Crypto | Gotta Catch 'Em All4 days ago
It is a pretty interesting article. Thanks for sharing!
tldr; Coinbase is like the New York Stock Exchange of crypto - a listing there is a huge deal, and usually leads to massive profits for everyone involved. But unlike the NYSE or NASDAQ, Coinbase gets to choose whatever assets they want, using their own process. Most coins underperformed, returns got worse over time, and VC-backed coins did worst of all.
This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.
It's true that you don't 'own' Web3, but that doesn't mean VCs can just sell it to retail. Web3 is a decentralized platform, which means it can't be controlled by any one entity. The only way to use it is to join the network, which is open to anyone who wants to participate.
term web3 is used strictly by 100% centralized projects pretending to be decentralized
it can be controlled by 1 entity since it's designed that way, usually in form of a central permissioned premine of what controls it, a literal introduction of a central point of control and failure. and many introduce other points of central control such as building on a centralized network, relying entirely on trusted party called oracle, using trusted setup where 1 party can print whatever they want, and so on.
buying from your own "sale" is free for sellers which means 1 central party can literally control it and has to be trusted not to
this is why decentralized projects do not introduce new centralized tokens and, if they must have a coin, they use Bitcoin directly as the most permissionlessly distributed trust-minimized resource available
Joining the network is not permissionless for "web3"
See the project by a premine scammer known as Vitalik to see an example of a 100% centralized network just pretending to be centralized with history of confiscations, censorship, rule changes whenever they want.
Goal should be to avoid web3 and skip right to decentralized web to avoid association with just fake projects that make up entirety of "web3" buzzword
tldr; Coinbase is like the New York Stock Exchange of crypto - a listing there is a huge deal, and usually leads to massive profits for everyone involved. But unlike the NYSE or NASDAQ, Coinbase gets to choose whatever assets they want, using their own process. Most coins underperformed, returns got worse over time, and VC-backed coins did worst of all.
This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.
It occurred to me after reading this, is that an alternative explanation for the "Coinbase Curse" is that trades on Coinbase reveal the price of tokens IN USD and thus curb rampant speculation on other exchanges, priced in USDT or other stablecoins.
Just speculating, but I'd say the peak success a coin can achieve is getting listed on Coinbase. After that there's no more "accomplishments" to be had. Everybody wants to be in on the coin that's *going* to be listed on Coinbase. Once it's there, it's done. What would be the next accomplishment to spike the price?
Turns out something even remotely resembling price discovery on shitcoins, which provide no value to the world, isn't actually giving a gazillion percent gain to the "investors". Boohoo, who would have thought?
Anything I talk about below is not financial advice.
Full disclosure: My crypto holdings consist of around 1 ETH and $5 worth of BTC on Coinbase.
Anyone remember Monero? A POW crypto using state of the art cryptography such as ring signatures and Bulletproofs to guarantee private, secure transactions? It's secure enough that almost half of all dark web transactions are done using it despite its market cap being a fraction that of BTC. So secure that the IRS put out a $675,000 bounty for anyone who could find critical vulns. There's RandomX which is Monero's POW algo which is designed to run best on general CPUs and actually run terribly on ASICs? And to top it off, it has transaction fees in the fraction of cents.
With all of the talk by many crypto hustlers about banking the unbanked, "digital freedom", etc., that Monero would be perfect! So, why aren't VCs pouring money into developing it like they are into new web3 stacks?
It's because it's old news. It doesn't get enough eyeballs like a listing on Coinbase. You can't build digital fiefdoms using Monero, no ICOs, no pump and dumps. You can't have middlemen like OpenSea skim off the top and gatekeep. There's no artificial scarcity of coins. Monero isn't "useful" for the vision of web3 that investors have.
Most people don't have the time to read through every single whitepaper put out. It's easier to join a Discord server waiting for an airdrop, to read a bunch of Tweets, and check what's on Coinbase. It's just more convenient.
True, Monero doesn't have smart contract support and there are things like Tornado Cash which can emulate what Monero offers. Monero is still a sizeable player in the space and a lot of developers behind it. On top of that are all the controversies around Monero such as certain bad actors abuse CI integration services to mine it. But as the article points implies, for the majority of crypto investors/whales it's mainly about making a quick buck before moving on to the next pump.
I'm optimistic for a crypto future. Smart contracts are a great idea (though there's polishing needed) and there are other decentralized technologies out there I'm excited for. The Ethereum Foundation, Starkware, and others have helped push new and exciting cryptography research. Hopefully when the next correction comes, all the noise dissipates from the space.
> Those insiders include venture capital firms like a16z and, incredibly, Coinbase’s own venture arm, which has a number of investments listed on Coinbase.
As someone who is not as familiar with the day-to-day machinations of this field, this really surprised me. Does anyone at Coinbase care that there might be this massive conflict of interest? How can this be legal/ethical?
At a more basic level, don't they at least feel kinda slimy about it? I thought there would at least be some kind of hamfisted "we keep these departments separate" statement w.r.t who gets listed, but I don't even think they claim that. In fact at the launch for Coinbase Ventures, they said "You can expect that we’ll enthusiastically invest in ideas from our own alumni network."
Tracking performance relative to ETH and BTC seems flawed to me. Tokens/Coins can have investment properties that are more or less speculative so the relative price to other cryptos may be irrelevant. As an example FileCoin is a storage token and more of a utility coin rather than a value store.
I think the point around conflicts of interest is sound. A16Z should probably step down from the board.
> for the last few years, Coinbase put out the names of coins they were thinking to list, but never did. I analyzed those coins - and found they did even better than the ones that made it, and the VC-backed ones didn’t show any of the same underperformance.
This is implying a causal relationship that may be misleading. Is it that coins invested in by VCs underperform? Or is it that fraudulent or scammy coins are more likely to seek out VC investment?
Or worse, is it that rug-pulling scammers are both more likely to seek out VC and list on Coinbase to take as much money as they can and run?
I largely agree with the writer’s skepticism, both of the coins and of the VCs, but shouldn’t it be straightforward if time-consuming to confirm insider selling? If these are public blockchains, one ought to be able to notice and correlate big outflows from addresses with large holdings, no?
In a way, yes. the VCs know it is a scam, which is why they are doing it.
> The never listed coin is the best; the listed, non-VC coin is better; and the listed, VC-backed coin is the worst.
It is exactly what happened to Internet Computer when that launched on Coinbase and Binance, as the author in this article describes, as well as I did . The same happened especially with ENS  and the same happened with DESO.  These tokens listed out of no where on Coinbase or Binance, so that means that insiders who bought in at private token sales are using these exchanges to unload their holdings on to the retail buyers on the exchanges when they list.
By the time that has happened, it is too late and expect a pump and dump on the token price, hence why all these tokens are 'under performing'. As for the ENS token, they are doing it all over again via another airdrop , just look at how much ENS they can 'airdrop' and gift just to pump the price again.
I've lost respect for VCs that peddles web3 hard, just add sheen to random coins and get a sizable % of the float, easy money. In the past VC used to fund companies that created valuable products (mostly), this contrasts against hedge funds or HFTs who make money off arbitrage, legitimate imo but are characterised as vultures by some.
Retirees sharing altcoins tips in WhatsApp groups is going to be that scene in the Big Short where the stripper has 3 mortgages
Moxie Marlinspike had a good take on this, specifically about NFTs being a blockchain with a web link to the “asset”. Whoever controls the server (or DNS) controls the “asset”. If I was to seriously entertain the notion of NFTs I’d at least want my token to be a hash of the “asset” in question (or hashes, computed with differing algos, in case of collisions). Anything else is a non starter. We’re one hilarious hack away from some $50m NFT being turned into a collage of dicks.
Curious if rising interest rates put an end to the party.
Had an interesting debate with a friend yesterday, he thinks the money laundering value is so high the NFT market will never collapse; I opined that the appetite for any single get-rich-quick scheme is bounded by the number of peers one has who lose out; and that personal experience of that kind is weighted higher than the irrational exuberance; at that when the bit flips and the latter begins to be viewed through a soured lens of failing to Get Rich, things decay quickly, and the next fad takes hold.
At which point the "market" for NFTs implodes as can fully be anticipated, because while the money laundering would love it not to, it needs noise and chaos to get away with its own targeted grift.
Reminded, I need to order more popcorn. Gonna be a great show.
Well written article. Eventually regulation will catch on but by then Marc Andressen, Chamath, Balaji and the many other grifters of the Valley would have made their extra billions and launch their new funds promoting their next grift.
Whoa—what!? Nobody cares about playing “Blu-Ray” discs, but doesn’t this have a huge impact on like tens of thousands of cutting edge security projects? How come I’m not seeing articles about that? Like what about Mobilecoin?
Tweeps, please help!
Who still buys physical media? People are living in a fantasy that think they "own" whatever it is if it's not vinyl, VHS, cassette/8 track, CD, pre-Nintendo Wii cartridge/disc or a DVD. After DVD, it all connects to a server at some point anyway (or stops working because a key piece of how it works is discontinued), so to quote Willy Wonka: You get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir! =P
It hasn't happened with 4k yet, but there's an entirely free software playback platform for regular blu-rays using libaacs (and a file containing vuk keys which I probably can't legally link to) which won't be affected by any kind of DRM hardware changes.
Because of how this setup works, anything that plays now will always play in the future.
Physical media isn't too bad... once we get a nice free software way to play them. Just be sure to buy second hand to ensure big companies don't make any money off of you.
Signal uses SGX as an additional security layer, not an essential one (this is mentioned frequently because there is in fact a SGX hack). And as others have pointed out, this is only about Desktop processors. So there's nothing really to worry about here.
 the hack is rather sophisticated and it isn't something you should worry about either. Mostly because Signal isn't dependent upon SGX.
Intel chips have never played Blu-ray disks. Driver software is needed to read the data off the disk and media software is needed to render it to screen, convert it to other format etc... The SGX instruction set would be used in the driver and/or player but is only necessary from 'legal' perspective.
What they decide to do remains to be seen. Signal's developers don't usually talk about new or upcoming features until they're ready. I'm sure they're already aware that SGX is being deprecated and are making plans for a post-SGX world.
If the use of SGX were removed from Signal without any replacement, a malicious Signal server could a) gain access to the hashed phone numbers of a user's contacts, and b) gain an unlimited number of attempts to brute force a user's Signal PIN. Users who don't trust the server could still mitigate this by denying/revoking the app's contacts permission and by setting a long alphanumeric passphrase as their Signal PIN.
Edit: It looks like new server platforms will continue to support SGX for the time being, so there’s no rush for Signal:
Right about now nothing, because that article talks about Desktop processors, not server ones, as far as I can see, so there is no direct impact right about now.
If they happen to abandon SGX on servers as well (which is to be seen, might simply be that the technology doesn't yield benefits for the desktops, possibly because it competes with TPMs or something like that, but if server customers use it then Intel might still continue to deploy it there), we'll see. If they should abandon it on servers as well, maybe a successor emerges, maybe not.
Fortunately, SGX has always been a defense-in-depth technique; having it yields benefits, not having it/it being compromised doesn't break the system, so my worries are very limited even if Intel decides to abandon SGX entirely. If a successor or replacement comes around I could imagine Signal trying to leverage that one just as they looked into leveraging the benefits of SGX back in the day and did so to the benefit of the system.
But let's see if that article has any practical relevance for Signal's uses of the SGX at all or if Intel simply decided to make SGX a server-only technology.
There were a relatively small (not huge\*) amount of users at the time whose skepticism was pointed out to be overblown (not ridiculed). Why? For the reasons expressed in the two other comments after yours here:
>SGX has always been a defense-in-depth technique; having it yields benefits, not having it/it being compromised doesn't break the system, so my worries are very limited even if Intel decides to abandon SGX entirely
>Users who don't trust the server could still mitigate this by denying/revoking the app's contacts permission and by setting a long alphanumeric passphrase as their Signal PIN.
(\**Also, when PINs were first released there were probably 2-3x as many complaints from people who mistakenly believed Signal was forcing them to set an "app lock" code on installation than there were people who expressed any skepticism of Signal's use of SGX*)
The article implies it's only 4K blu-rays discs that are effected by the removal of SGX. Standard 1080p blu-rays should still be able to play on new Intel CPUs with Windows?
My guess is Intel didn't put further effort into it considering 4K BD never became as popular as DVD and 1080p BD and they probably assume most people stream on their computers anyway and the article also gives me the opinion 4K BD requires even more stringent DRM than DVD and standard 1080p BD.
DRM level is tiered and content playback quality depends on highest tier supported by device. "tier1" is having hardware + software backchannels from data source to your display across firmware, physical connectors, drivers, and operating systems to ensure content is encrypted from start to finish. widevine is for browsers and streaming services, but the OS to display component is shared with blu rays.
Skip getting the "right software" and just get the "right version" of the movie in question.
Also, this is only for UHD, which is 4k and (usually) rec2020 aka HDR. The number people that play 4k hdr through their PC is certainly higher than even, but I'm sure the number of people that actually *jump through the hoops to use a disc-based playback solution* represent a vanishingly small percentage of all intel chip users.
edit: And I'd wager most serious movie collectors that for some reason use an intel cpu for playback (htpc?) already rip their own movies, bypassing all DRM anyway.
Reading the article, it makes perfect sense why Intel dropped it, and AMD never supported it. This also goes for 11th gen btw. SGX was deprecated with security vulnerabilities and no successor in site. The movie industry wants DRM, but won’t put in the work to maintain it. They would rather people have products they can’t use than risk someone pirate a movie (which is already happening anyway).
Well realistically from a consumer perspective why tf would people purchase physical (or even digital) copies if you don't have the right to use them as you see fit. The DRM stuff has gotten so bad that people won't be able to play DVDs that they purchase on their fucking computers; and if they do have a computer that can play them they will often also need a special monitor.
The more DRM shit they do the more sense it makes to pirate shit. If a person pirates some media they can then do with it as they see fit; conversely they could purchase it and not be able to use it
and.... everybody could of predicted that, on chip DRM is the easiest to get rid of on future products to save cost considering everything is online these days
The whole physical market for media is hell bent on total hardware control, investing on the PC side for your blueray collection is not a wise move; better off with external player so you can upgrade your OS,CPU easily
For being a secure platform for DRM, SGX sure failed, full of security holes and got dumped by Intel megafast🙄
external player is just extra cost for no benefit, they can still allow playback without SGX DRM platform but we all know it will never happen
On AMD side , cpu or dedicated GPU it never worked anyways🙄
I already forget exactly how so, but they already gimped this about a year ago on some of previous gen processors. My I5-8400 can no longer play UHD Blurays on my Pioneer-211UBK because SGX and some other software won't activate. I spent hours digging around, only to find a work around involving wiping windows and installing PowerDVD before an online update could screw things up. Glad I just got another blu-ray drive beforehand, rolled back the firmware and now just rip the files directly off the disc.
First - Won't play 4K Blu-Ray Discs. This is one important distinction. UHD Blu Ray is a different format from Blu-Ray in the same way HD-DVD differed from DVD and DVD differed from CD-Video. I was initially confused how a feature that apparently only existed in 2016 was needed to play Blu-Ray when my machine that I built in 2013 can play them fine.
Second: The SGX Extensions are used by commercial Video playback software as it is a requirement of the attached licenses. Basically, the license requires additional DRM protections which uses SGX to use an isolated environment to make the DRM more "secure".
However, it is not actually a requirement to perform the AACS Decoding. It is possible to have programs like VLC Play UHD Blu Ray (just as one can get them playing Blu-Ray discs), which as far as I can tell, doesn't use the SGX Extensions.
tldr; A group of Wikipedia editors has voted not to categorize NFTs as art. The editors chose not to include Beeple and Pak on the free encyclopedia’s list of the most expensive art sales by living artists. "Wikipedia really can’t be in the business of deciding what counts as art or not," one editor wrote.
This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.
I mean, NFTs are a wide body of things, not just images of apes or whatever it is that people are buying in hopes of flipping for a profit. It would not be logical to classify NFTs as art, because there are many things that could be NFTs that nobody would ever consider to be art.
Without delving into the usual crypto flamewar, most NFT's are a method of tracking ownership of an item. They're closer to a Certificate of Authenticity than a piece of art in and of themselves.
Even if someone put the image itself on the blockchain, I still think the blockchain serves as a storage mechanism rather than an inseparable part of the artistic work. The image could be copied off the blockchain onto a flash drive without changing the artistic value of it.
To me, the portions of a thing that are "art" are attributes that change the artistic value of a thing. The artist is an inseparable part. The frame on a painting might be an inseparable part. The location of the thing is not art, because it has the same artistic value whether it's sitting in the Louvre or in someone's attic. The NFT is like the location; it doesn't change the artistic value of anything, it only changes the monetary value of it.
There could be art where the blockchain is an inseparable part of the work, but NFT's aren't it. E.g. in architecture, the location of the building is absolutely part of the "art", even though it isn't for something like a painting.
The crypto community needs to slow down and understand what "Wikipedia works off of precedent" actually means.
If the crypto community wants NFTs classified as art, then they need to convince other artists, art journalists, and academics that they are art. Then, when the art community has reached sustained consensus and agrees with the crypto community that NFTs are art, Wikipedia will follow, because by design Wikipedia pays attention to the art community for judgements on what is and isn't art.
I see Beeple's Everydays and Pak's think are now in Wikipedia's art works list. I think it would be silly not to include Beeple's - it's obviously art and the technology of sale should not really change that.
If a cartoon drawing can be art, then NFTs can be art. "Fine art," even if it's Andy Warhol's soup can, are generally judged by a higher standard, even if the standard has to do with the concept more than the execution.
Sure, you can call anything art. But in that case, what's not art? There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Just because a bit of graphics is popular and draws in a lot of money doesn't mean diddly.
This is a hotly debated topic even before NFTs. I for one respect and agree with Wikipedia's decision.
If the NFT is the artwork, what does that make any images that the NFT points to?
If the NFT is the artwork, can the hosting providers generously hosting images that the NFT points to rent free remove them or replace them with ads without adversely affecting the NFT?
Or is it that the NFT and hosted images together form the artwork? In which case, did you buy an artwork if you only bought the NFT portion of it? Or did you buy a share in it? And is the image itself a separate artwork in its own right, even if it was included in a combined NFT/image artwork?
Personally, I'd say a NFT sale would deserve to be on the list if the NFT sale also conferred ownership over a piece of artwork. In which case, the NFT portion is just as irrelevant as a VISA transaction receipt. Keep the artwork, sell the receipt to a sucker while they are still there. Maybe get sued for fraud by someone who thought they were buying the artwork.
> In the curiously designed sale, which brought in $91.8 million, 28,000 buyers bought 266,445 units of a Pak artwork that could, in theory, be combined into a single NFT owned by a single buyer worth the eye-popping, multimillion-dollar total.
Ignoring the Wiki debate... It's a bit ridiculous to count all these pieces as one piece of art because they could theoretically be owned by one person. That doesn't magically make them into one art piece.
> Wikipedia is a global source of truth. Having NFTs categorized as ‘not art’ would be a disaster!
So the 'global source of truth' says that NFTs is not art and the web3 crowd take that one central source as 'the truth'. I thought web3 was supposed to be 'decentralised' and 'DAO' driven, but why not keep relying on web2 services for your definitions instead of using multiple sources that have a common definition.
I would meet both the Wikipedia editors and the NFT artists half-way and classify NFTs as contemporary art - also abbreviated as 'con-art', since literally anything can be 'art' these days.
Mayor of Rio de Janeiro wants to apply part of Rio's Treasury in cryptocurrency and give discount to property tax paid in bitcoin https://t.co/uulVoijFEt
alex van de sande (4 character handle ? me : bot) - @avsa5 days ago
Rio de Janeiro mayor:
🏢 wants to encourage crypto companies to move to Rio
🏦 promises to invest 1% of treasury in cryptocurrencies (plural)
💰will give a 10% discount if the annual property tax is paid in Bitcoin
On unrelated news: @ETH_Rio March 14
It looks like this post is about taxes. Tax laws vary between countries, so you may get more helpful replies if you specify the place you are asking about.
Please note that Rule #4 does not allow for Tax Evasion. This is a site wide rule and a subreddit rule. Do not endorse, suggest, advocate, instruct others, or ask for help with tax evasion. Do not be coy and sarcastically recommend against it or suggest using a privacy coin in response to an IRS inquiry.
Note: Tax discussion is allowed as long as the above rules are not violated.
Consider visiting r/CryptoTax for your tax inquiries.
Hey look! Bitcoin mining is great for maintaining healthy energy grids! Demand response is important, even Bitcoin skeptics agree. (JP might tell you this is about forcing the miners to stop during emergencies but similar arrangements are now voluntary in Texas). https://t.co/xIPVC5VBXp