Only buy Bitcoin if you're OK with losing money

MtGox CEO Mark Karpeles faces charges of embezzlement 

Like many people, I've been tempted to look at Bitcoin. Look at those prices! $7000, $8000, $9000, every day is a new peak! But seriously, is it a good idea to put your money in Bitcoin? You can lose money just through the daily price seesaw. Some even say the only winners are the early adopters that came in (either by buying or mining) around 2010-11?

Bitcoin is not supported by a government/central authority, but the fact that there's no federal/insurance backing is considered a positive to some eco-anarchists. If that even makes sense at all? So the chances of losing most/all of your money are very real.

Recent news reports shed light to how this works in the real world. There's no widely-accepted way to maintain Bitcoins, much less purchasing them, that nicely balances convenience with safety/security.  Wired's Mark Frauenfelder is a security-freak, so he put his $30,000 Bitcoin wallet offline in an super-secure USB disk -- which he promptly lost the passcodes to. He had to jump through so many hoops: he basically hired someone to hack into his own encrypted drive.

Consider the previous guy lucky: at least he eventually got his Bitcoins back. Gizmodo's Nick Douglas just wanted simplicity, so he invested with the largest global Bitcoin exchange at the time… which was OK until MtGox collapsed amid millions of dollars of Bitcoin theft (theft or criminal misconduct? yes please!).

So yeah, you shouldn't invest in Bitcoin -- it's just not investment-grade yet.  You may consider buying Bitcoin, but only if you know and are mentally prepared if you lose all of it.  Some even say, Bitcoin is just like the dotcom bubble, if people in 2000 didn't know what the internet was for.

More on Trickle-Down Economics

How the GOP sees the world

The GOP tax "reform" plan -- in quotations because yes, it's basically a tax cut (POTUS45 doesn't have the attention span to manage a major reform) -- doubles down on trickle down economics: that giving more money to rich people and corporations will drive broader benefits for everybody else.  No serious economist believes this.  Even Wall Street is skeptical of the plan; they worry about hot money inflows, appreciation of the US$, inflated asset prices, impact on consumption and housing prices, and how it eventually may trigger another recession(!!!).

New Yorker's John Cassidy summarizes the counterarguments in his article covering a Reuters panel discussion featuring several experts.  Ex-Federal Reserves board member Alan Blinder and Moody's chief economist Mark Zandi showed charts showing no correlation between GDP growth and tax rates - -  something that everybody outside the White House readily points out.  Another economist showed that tax cuts have historically gave more money to shareholders (i.e. dividends and buybacks), as opposed to making new investments or giving increased salaries to employees.  Moreover, across-the-board profitability has been high and corporate borrowing costs have been low for some time; companies that wanted to invest would likely have done so already.

The final panelist, billionaire investor Mark Cuban, makes the point from a job creator's perspective: taxes are not the primary driver of hiring, salary or capex decisions; the most important business considerations are always supply-demand dynamics and competition.  Technology is another major factor: in the past 25 years we experienced two rounds of digital revolutions: internet boom of the '90s and smartphone boom of the 2000's, which birthed new industry giants such as Google, Alibaba, and Tencent.  These days a neighborhood store owner isn't losing sleep over tax rates, she is worried Amazon is eating her lunch!  Another round of technological dislocation is at our doorstep, as autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence/machine learning, and advanced manufacturing robotics become the norm.  These are guaranteed to create backlash and discomfort as many industries will be upended, putting many inappropriately-skilled workers out of comfy jobs.

Cuban also hits another common-sense point: if the intent is to give more money to the working class, why not cut payroll taxes, which costs the average family 15% of their hard-earned dollars (as opposed to income taxes, which not everybody pays)?

Cassidy summarizes as follows:

"... The Republican tax plan is based on false premises; it won’t give the economy much of a boost; it will raise the deficit; it will primarily benefit corporate shareholders and C.E.O.s.  And, as Cuban said, it is a distraction from the great policy question of the day, which is how to insure at least a modicum of shared prosperity in an economy being roiled by technological change, global competition, and demographic transformation. [...] If Trump wanted to help out the working stiff, why didn’t he take Cuban’s advice and call for a cut in the payroll tax? To pay for the reduction, he could also have proposed abolishing, or substantially raising, the payroll tax’s upper-income threshold, which enables someone who earns a million dollars a year to escape the tax on about seven-eighths of his income. Such a policy package could have boosted take-home pay, financed itself, and also helped to reduce income inequality."

Lesser of Two Evils

Vote!

In light of the Roy Moore scandal, the important lesson is to NOT choose the Lesser of Two Evils(TM).  NEVER abandon your principles in the face of bad choices.

From Michael B Dougherty (National Review):

"...Telling yourself that 'this is war, and in war you have to make less than ideal choices' is a great way to excuse the destruction of your charity and the lifting of restraint, with collateral damage to your integrity.  Choosing the lesser of two evils is a fantastic way to prepare yourself to do worse and worse evils.  And following it to the end is a bitter fate indeed.

The worst tragedies of recent history were driven by masses of people giving in to existential fear and hatred.  There are many alive today in Central and Eastern Europe who made themselves into Fascists or Communists in order to resist or avenge the Communists and the Fascists. But the names we remember and revere are those who carefully and bravely stood apart. It’s time to think about where the line in the sand will be. What behavior won’t you excuse? Where won’t you follow your party? Because the way things are going, these questions won’t be hypotheticals."


From David French (also at the National Review):

"... I keep hearing these words from Evangelicals: 'We’ve got no choice, the Democrats are after our liberties. They’re seeking to destroy our way of life.'  Some even say that even if the allegations against Moore are true, they’ll still hold their nose and put him in office to keep [Doug] Jones from serving in the Senate.  Sorry Evangelicals, but your lack of faith is far more dangerous to the Church than any senator, any president, or any justice of the Supreme Court. Do you really have so little trust in God that you believe it’s justifiable — no, necessary — to ally with, defend, and even embrace corrupt men if it you think it will save the Church?

Yes, I know there are many instances in which godless kings did good things for God’s people. God can turn the heart of any man. But there is a vast difference between seeking favor from an unrighteous ruler and choosing, defending, and embracing the unrighteous ruler from the start. Evangelicals, you’re putting people like Donald Trump and Roy Moore in office. You’re declaring to the world, “He’s our man.” In graver times, God’s people have demonstrated much greater faith.  We stumble when the stakes are comparatively low.  Our failures will come back to haunt us. There will be woe to those who’ve compromised with evil through lack of faith. A reckoning is coming. May God have mercy on us all."

-*-

Lessons from the Harvey Weinstein scandal

Writing this blog ruined potted plants for me

Harvey Weinstein's sexual assault scandal, which spanned decades before it blew open in October thanks to dogged reporting by Ronan Farrow, is a case study on how the rich and powerful shield themselves from accountability. They use power, intimidation, and money to pressure victims into silence, bystanders into enablers, and the rest of the world into apologists:

LESSON 1: Abuse their psyche

Weinstein, Brett Ratner, and Louis CK not only physically hurt their victims, they also target them psychologically.  They allegedly forced women to watch while they masturbate.  Experts say these exhibitionists purposefully look to shock their victims.  Because they are angry, they are acting revenge against women, imposing “sexualized hostility” or “eroticized rage” against their prey. That look of horror or humiliation on women is arousing to them.

LESSON 2: Implicate the victim's self-worth.

Weaponization of sexual assault for political goals

The cruelest thing about these acts is the way that they entangle and contaminate everything about the victims and their self-esteem:

"If you’re sweet and friendly, you’ll think that it’s your fault for accommodating the situation. If you’re tough, well, you might as well decide that it’s no big deal. If you’re a gentle person, then he knew you were weak. If you’re talented, he thought of you as an equal. If you’re ambitious, you wanted it. If you’re savvy, you knew it was coming. If you’re affectionate, you seemed like you were asking for it all along. If you make dirty jokes or have a good time at parties, then why get moralistic? If you’re smart, there’s got to be some way to rationalize this."

Apologists often diminish the 'assault' portion of sexual assault, saying something like: "the actress is only mad because it's ugly Weinstein, if Brad Pitt asks the same woman for a massage, she would probably say yes".  It's worth noting that massages are the mildest among the acts the guy allegedly did.  When abusers can become bigtime Hollywood producers, Oscar-winning directors, Senate frontrunners, and even President of the United States, what's there left to say; sexual assault has been weaponized in 2017.

LESSON 3: Public humiliation

This has been the most-used defense against abuse charges.  "Why did she wait so long to come forward? Is she just doing it for the money/publicity? Isn't it more likely that she just slept with whomever to get big acting roles?"   However, this argument falls apart when the allegations came from Hollywood's most prominent, established female stars: Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie:

Paltrow was 22 when Weinstein “summoned her to his suite at the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for a work meeting” that culminated in Weinstein touching her, “suggesting they head to the bedroom for massages,” the Times reports. Paltrow was “petrified,” she says, and alerted her then-boyfriend, Brad Pitt, who in turn confronted Weinstein, who then came back to Paltrow to threaten her to tell no one else. Weinstein allegedly “made unwanted advances” on Jolie, also in a hotel room, in the late 1990s. As she told the Times in an email, “I had a bad experience with Harvey Weinstein in my youth, and as a result, chose never to work with him again and warn others when they did.”

It should be obvious, but apparently it bears repeating: It is rare that a woman would trade sex for professional success. It is the exceedingly common man who abuses women simply because he can get away with it.

LESSON 4: Private harassment. Throw money at the problem.

The Hollywood mogul hired spies and private investigators -- including ex-Mossad agents! -- to track and harass actresses and journalists who threaten to break the story open.  The Times of Israel tracked down Israeli Defense Forces veteran-turned-hired-spy Stella Pechanac aka Diana Filip, who met with Rose McGowan under false pretenses to extract information, determine whether she was planning to go public with her rape allegation against Weinstein, and even obtained the unpublished manuscript of the actress’s memoir. 

The filmmaker also hired Kroll, a corporate-intelligence giant, who was instructed to collect information on dozens of individuals, and compile psychological profiles including their personal or sexual histories. He also enlisted former employees to join in the effort, collecting names and placing intimidating phone calls.

When this didn't work, as a last resort the Hollywood mogul paid money to reach private settlements and entangle their victims in elaborate legal agreements to hide allegations of predation for decades.

LESSON 5: Charity as political cover

"The great mystery of evil is not that it persists but, rather, that so many of its practitioners wish to do so while being thought of as saints. Consider the fact that such a bizarre, oxymoronic accolade as the International Stalin Prize for Strengthening Peace Among Peoples once existed—and that it was created after his plans for agricultural collectivization resulted in the deaths of some four million Ukrainians. "

These people use wealth and charitable donations, often to progressive causes, for political cover.  Just like how Bill Cosby was a patron for Temple University, Weinstein was reported to have pledged US$5m to USC toward a scholarship fund for female filmmakers. He also championed Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, and donated to the campaign of Senator Elizabeth Warren. Weinstein’s palette of giving earned him the standing as a champion for progressivism.

LESSON 6: Admit defeat. Blame mental illness.

Louis CK blames his misunderstanding of the etiquette of masturbating in front of professional acquaintances.  A defender of Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore compared him to biblical figure Joseph seeking an underage Mary for companionship.  Weinstein? He just says he’s a sex addict.

James Hamblin in the Atlantic:

Weinstein posed the conflict as a sort of infection that could be cured: “My journey now will be to learn about myself and conquer my demons.” In doing so, he downplays his own active role in harboring or cultivating these demons. “I came of age in the ’60s and ’70s, when all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different.” The implication was that standards of decency and professionalism had shifted beneath his feet, and he is a naïve old dinosaur who can’t help how much he loves sex. The answer, apparently, is an overdue jaunt to rehab for “sex addiction.”

The acts detailed in the accounts of the many women reporting abuse by Weinstein were often tangentially sexual [....] But to consider these incidents sex is a mode of thinking that fell out of use even before the “’60s and ’70s.” Sex is defined by consent. This way of framing of Weinstein’s problem reflects no reckoning with the nature of the charges; it's a case of excusing something as sex when it is not sex. There are parallels in this misdirection to what happened with the Access Hollywood tape in which Donald Trump bragged about assaulting women, and it was reported in the news as “explicit sex talk.”

It's worth a final note that sex addiction is not real -- there is no such thing under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), the authoritative handbook for psychiatric diagnostics.  Regardless of the validity of sex addiction or how badly a patient wants to get better, mental health is not an excuse to sexually assault and shame and coerce victims into silence. 'Choosing therapy' is the powerful's way of admitting defeat, but in his own terms. If someone commits a crime, as Weinstein allegedly has, justice needs to be upheld.  Therapy is no substitute. 

Sex addiction is not real. Repercussions are.