Filed under Current Affairs

Criminalization of Cash?

Just a thought… Could cash ever become criminal?  I read an article this a few days ago and it’s not a ludicrous question.

Money has dramatically changed in my lifetime.  Many of us keep some cash in our pockets but most of our money is “out there” in some form or another in a digital world.  Do you really even know how it all works or how it is tracked? Sure you get a statement each month but so what – Bernie Madoff’s clients had statements and Jon Corzine said he didn’t lose a billion and a half bucks – he can’t find it.

In 2010 Italy banned cash transactions over 5000 euros in the name of austerity.

In 2011 Italy lowered that to 1000 euros.

In 2012 Spain banned cash payments in excess of 200 euros.

On another side, big exchanges of money such as purchasing a home or payroll are handled by direct bank to bank transfers and direct deposits.  Even micro payments are now handled digitally with things such as Square.  Paypal is now commonplace – I remember not too long ago when even this was weird – even people who used it sometimes wondered how your email could tie to your credit card or bank then magically money would move.

The next widely accepted step even beyond Square is surely is payment via cell phone – go to the store, bump your phone, payment happens, digits move.  This is all convenient but who would have an interest in being able to track every single financial transaction in your life?  Who out there would like to control this?  The answer of course is governments.   People are sovereign beings – that is they are responsible for their own governance at the individual level.  More often than not the one thing in the way of individual sovereignty is government.  Governments want to look at the world as a collective and their objectives are to try to manage overall society.  This is fine until it becomes more important than the individual where it becomes OK to steal from one individual to give to another without the consent of the first.

This doesn’t square well if you are an individual, especially if you are an individual who has the gall to believe that you are first and foremost in charge of your own governance. So what does the everlasting discussion between individual and government have to do with cash?  Given that our governments are led by people who create more problems than they solve (then campaign to get re-elected to solve the problems they created….) and need you cooperation in order to accomplish whatever it is they want to accomplish, it’s not out of the question that one day cash transactions would be illegal because cash (cold hard cash) is the last tool that allows the individual his/her own sovereignty.

Individuals are going to have to start strategizing for a future reality.  What do you do?  Where do you live? Passports?  Proxies?  It’s already started – thanks to overbearing laws, regulations, and outright theft by governments, people are looking at the world and looking for intelligent ways to deal with this.  Even back in 2009 Tim Ferris had a blog post on “How to Become Jason Bourne” and there are many sites on how to manage a world where government is too big for it’s britches.

In a world where everything is online and going online and where everything is tracked down to the I.P. address and beyond in order to discern patterns, is it that ridiculous of a premise to say that one day money will not be outlawed by cash money would be?  What would happen if that happens?  Could it evolve a private currency among like-minded individuals on a local level (your immediate community)?  Would there possibly be a private form of currency between individuals on a national or international level?  A million things I never thought would happen in my lifetime have happened just in the past five years and boldly – who can say what solutions will present themselves to sovereign individuals down the road.

Governments the world over print money and we throw around the terms millions, billions, and trillions now almost interchangeably – people become numb to it and corruption happens right in front of your eyes.  Taxpayers are bailing out governments who in turn bail out taxpayers who in turn pay taxes to send back to governments who then bailout companies and on and on.  For example, American taxpayers bail out the bankrupt FHA which in turn set rules on lending to the same taxpayers that just bailed it out.  What is happening from Greece to Italy to Spain, to Portugal to Germany to the USA and a host of countries in between is the lenders and the borrowers have become the same people.

That can’t last – at some point the volleyball hits the sand and when governments go into existential crises they do (and will do) whatever they have to in the name of self preservation.  So in an age when you don’t actually need cash to pay for something,  the last step a government can take in completely having control over an individual is to criminalize cash (in the name of convenience, obscurity, or some other innocuous stated purpose).  Fiat currencies are losing the faith of the holder and at some point we’re going to have to actually make fiat currency solid again.  And even though we might not “need” hard cash, a world without that tool of exchange would not be good.

Here’s a scene from the future if cash is criminalized  - Let’s say you’re a “problem” citizen who still thinks individual rights hold substantial weight –  On Monday you have money in the bank and on Tuesday with the push of a far away button you don’t.

Why I Deleted My Facebook Data


I have to admit that Facebook is a pretty cool platform – you can connect with your old friends far away, see families grow, get funny jokes passed around, and see real time photos of what’s going on in the lives of your friends and family. That’s all nice but I’m not Facebook’s customer, the businesses that Facebook sells advertising to are their customers.  I don’t pay to use Facebook, if I did I would be the customer.  Instead what Facebook is depending on is the egos of their users to voluntarily pony up the almost complete database of their lives. For me “Timeline” was the final blow.

I only use Facebook as an entertaining tool to keep in touch with my close friends and family – if I don’t know you or if we were sort of acquaintances back in high school I don’t make the connection.  The settings are private, it’s not pushed to search engines, and I don’t connect there with anyone I don’t know well.   LinkedIn is a different story – I use LinkedIn as a business tool and am connected to over 1000 people there – but that’s totally different not only because I pay LinkedIn, but also because it’s an effective business tool that provides real value.

Since I’m only dealing with family and friends on Facebook do I really need to tell them what college I went to or what are my favorite books, or indicate my “likes” – they know me, they generally know my likes without me have to actually “like” it.  I generally know theirs.  We’re friends after all.  This is key because Facebook per se doesn’t care what my “likes” are, they care that their advertisers know what my “likes” are as well as what the “likes” of the network of my family and friends.

But really the finally straw for me was the map that Facebook instantly produced based on past “check-ins” I did (there were 12 of them).   This map showed every single place where I checked in on a full map of the world.  Sorry Facebook – I am not interested in the least in this feature.  Why would I be?  Here I was and with a detailed map showing where I was and a timestamp of exactly when I was there.  I had to asked myself whose for exactly whose benefit was this information?  I mean – I know where I was and I know who I was with –  but to have these steps captured and published on a map was simply a bridge to far.

Of course I fully understand I have full control of this simply by not “checking in” and so going forward I see no value in me actually checking in anywhere – if I’m there, I’m there, and I’m not really interested in feeding this information any longer to Facebook.

I did not delete my account but I did delete all of my basic data to “devolve” the profile.  I removed schools, work, quotes, books, and photos (I run a photo travelogue on WordPress where I publish anything I want anyway, if somebody wants to see them they can go there).  It’s all gone except for the raw minimum needed to maintain a Facebook account – name, birthday, and email address.  If Facebook’s advertisers would like to know about me, they can visit me on my homepage.

I wonder if I’m not the only one?  Check out this NYT article published today as well.

Tagged

Grateful for Entrepreneurs

Going into 2012 and looking back on the past few years, I have to say that I am grateful that we still have entrepreneurs in the USA, and more of us (especially the occupy crowd) should also reconsider just how lucky this country is that so many people start businesses.  The funny thing about starting a business (I too have done this and it is NOT easy), is that when you’re starting up you have to struggle and fight for every inch, every client, every deal but when you make it somehow “everyone” thinks it was overnight and that life is then so easy.  The whiners don’t see the years of toil, sweat, worry, sleeplessness, risk, and tuna sandwiches – they only see the “today” and think somehow it’s not fair.

Entrepreneurship is hard and it’s not for everyone, but at least be thankful for those who trail blaze instead of vilifying them.  The occupy crowd whines about how things aren’t fair while they drink lattes and make cell phone calls.  They don’t have a clue about fairness.  You know a place where everything’s fair?  North Korea.

The President (and many other leaders) so often preach about the honor of public service, even to the point where they propose special school loans that an be forgiven if you choose to go into public service.   Why not flip this around and offer loan forgiveness for those that start businesses and employ others?  That’s public service.  People that start companies are pillars of public service – not the guy at the DMV.

In the next round of Congressional and Presidential elections I hope we get back to electing into office representatives that understand  that this country can be stronger and more stable through entrepreneurship, and we put in place a general attitude that thanks those that start companies and employee others rather than punish them with over the top regulation and taxes.   Imagine a country with no entrepreneurs.  What would you have?  How would you grow – hell how would you eat!   

I am grateful for those among us that took the chance to start companies that ultimately went on to employ so many.  That is what we should be encouraging in this country.  So this holiday season and into the New Year, let’s hold entrepreneurs up with reverence and put gratitude where it belongs – in the hands of those that make lifestyle possible for so many others.  If you ever start a company you’d want the same treatment.

 

Language and Politics

For a while now it has seemed to me that in the USA (and perhaps to some degree in other countries) the two main political parties, Republicans and the Democrats, have been using almost the exact same language to describe the other party and themselves.  Republicans come to the arena with the idea of less government and less taxation while Democrats generally show up with the idea of larger government and higher taxes. Then there is the Tea Party that comes in to the Right of Republicans and advocates MUCH less government and MUCH less taxes. These are very different schools of thought but nonetheless when I hear Republicans and Democrats talk, they all seem to be packaging themselves and the other side using virtually the exact same language.

Language is important to keep in mind in a time when anybody can manipulate almost anything to be in favor of or against even using the same set of data:

Look at these words and try to tell me if they are used by the Republicans or Democrats when describing the other:

decay… failure (fail)… collapse(ing)… deeper… crisis… urgent(cy)… destructive… destroy… sick… pathetic… lie… liberal… they/them… unionized bureaucracy… “compassion” is not enough… betray… consequences… limit(s)… shallow… traitors… sensationalists…

endanger… coercion… hypocrisy… radical… threaten… devour… waste… corruption… incompetent… permissive attitudes… destructive… impose… self-serving… greed… ideological… insecure… anti-(issue): flag, family, child, jobs… pessimistic… excuses… intolerant…

stagnation… welfare… corrupt… selfish… insensitive… status quo… mandate(s)… taxes… spend(ing)… shame… disgrace… punish (poor…)… bizarre… cynicism… cheat… steal… abuse of power… machine… bosses… obsolete… criminal rights… red tape… patronage

 

Now look at these words and tell me who is describing themselves:

share… change… opportunity… legacy… challenge… control… truth… moral… courage… reform… prosperity… crusade… movement… children… family… debate… compete… active(ly)… we/us/our… candid(ly)… humane… pristine… provide…
liberty… commitment… principle(d)… unique… duty… precious… premise… care(ing)… tough… listen… learn… help… lead… vision… success… empower(ment)… citizen… activist… mobilize… conflict… light… dream… freedom…

peace… rights… pioneer… proud/pride… building… preserve… pro-(issue): flag, children, environment… reform… workfare… eliminate good-time in prison… strength… choice/choose… fair… protect… confident… incentive… hard work… initiative… common sense… passionate

 

Who said what?  If you bend toward the Republican/Conservative school of thought you likely thing the first set was said by Republican about Democrats and the second set by Republicans about Republicans.  If you lean towards the Democrat/Liberal mentality you probably see those words in set one as perfect describers of the Republicans and the second set as a valiant choice of words to describe the Democrats.

In the end it’s marketing and packaging.  In order to cut through the noise you have to have a solid understanding of reality, or what works and what doesn’t at it’s most basic level.  More importantly when it comes to politics I think what you really need to understand is the concept of unintended consequences because politicians are big on pushing ideas that often in the end actually have the opposite effect of what they intended because they forget to factor in human behavior.  I let you try to figure out which party I’m generally talking about.

By the way – have you ever taken the world’s smallest political quiz?  Takes 30 seconds.  I’d bet no matter what you think you are you all come down on the same result.

Population, Technology, and Perception

Today all over the news we’re being told that the world population has reached 7 billion people.  That got me to thinking about what are the chances that you’re born in any particular country.  What are the chances that a baby born today will land in the USA, or Denmark, or Bangladesh?

This of course is an event of sheer chance.  When I travel overseas I think about the little kids in whatever country I find myself in and am always amazed at how their entire future is determined by where they first appeared on Earth.

A baby born today has a 19% chance of being born Chinese, and 17% chance of being born in India, and 4.5% chance of being American.   A baby born today has about a 41% chance of being either Chinese, Indian, or American.  Think about that, almost half the world’s population falls into those three countries.

After those top three it falls of quickly into the 4% and under levels.  You have (had) almost no chance of being born in a country such as Chile or Sweden (and many others).  The chances of the next baby being born in South Africa is about .73%. In Libya it is less that one tenth of one percent (.092%)!

Here’s the world population breakout with percentage of population by country.

The funny thing is most people go through life not seeing farther than the village they’re born into.  Today however with immediate inter-connectedness what happens 10,000 miles from your home is on your handheld device in seconds.

Kids born today will grow up in a world where the amount of knowledge and information they have to digest and process is so over and above what those of us that got to experience life “pre-personal techology” had to consume.

Sometimes it seems that with so much information coming in from all sides that the world is moving faster than ever, but I think I might disagree there.  If you were to right now go spend a few weeks living in the countryside of Colombia or Romania or a host of other countries,things still happen at a very slow speed – by and large the “outside” world doesn’t event enter into the scene.

I once spent nine months living pretty much in the countryside of Italy and mostly out of touch with the news during that time.  When I came back to the “real world” nothing really had changed and I wasn’t any worse for it.  On the contrary, the time away from the news cycle meant I was able to simply enjoy each day and focus on whatever it was I wanted to do without useless distractions from the news that in reality had no affect on my life in any way.

In the big scheme of things, I don’t think that things are actually that much different in most of the world today than how they’ve been for the past 50 years – it’s just that we know about it now.  When a train runs off the tracks in India we’re almost immediately told about the disaster on the news.  Trains ran off the tracks in far aways places also decades ago but it wasn’t newsworthy in Omaha – and vice versa.

I wonder if the current and next generations will use the emerging technologies to truly filter out what really has no practical informational use in their lives allowing them to get back to what actually matters to them individually and to their immediate family and community.

In the meantime I am using today’s technology to show my kids little by little how lucky they were to be born where they were born.  They’ve discovered Google Earth.

Photo Credit : Trey Ratcliff, stuckincustoms.com

The Social Contract

 

There is this myth out there that Conservatives are only for “the rich” and Liberal Democrats are always fighting for the “working class”.   Even though Liberals claim to be for the poor, or as they say the “less priviledged” and the “less fortunate”, it seems to me that Liberal Democrats don’t give a damn about the poor.  If they did, they wouldn’t continue to push policies that keep people down.

The policies that Liberals have put in place – and continue to push for do nothing but keep the poor poor.  When it comes to economics, Liberal policies and ideas do absolutely nothing to help the poor because all these policies do is maintain the poor.  Liberals are extraordinarily hypocritical – If anyone is for the “rich”  and priviledge it’s Liberals – just as long as they’re one of them.  Barack Obama is a perfect example – he’ll deride fat cats all day long then go meet them for dinner to collect cash.

But something Liberals tend to bring up over and over is this concept of the “Social Contract”.  Liberals want to engage in a system where people that have earned something are somehow obliged under some nebulous “social contract” to give up a portion of their wealth to others that don’t have wealth.

Look at Elizabeth Warren talking about this.  She’s just outraged that people that have produced something of value for their fellow men have not given a hunk of their wealth to the people.

She claims that “you built a factory out there?  good for you!

But then she says she “wants to be clear” talking to the presumed factory owner:

“You moved your good to market on the roads that the “rest of us” built.”

“You hired workers the “rest of us” paid to educate.”

“You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the “rest of us” paid for.”

Then she goes on to say..

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea, God bless…keep a big hunk of it, but part of the underlying “social contract” is you take a hunk of that an pay forward for the next kid that comes along.”

Are you kidding me?  First of all who is Elizabeth Warren to decide on behalf of anyone what “hunk” of their business they can keep?

Second of all, just what “social contract” is in place anyway?  A contract implies two or more parties coming together and AGREEING to terms of which all parties CHOOSE to participate.  Forcing one party to hand over some “hunk” of their efforts, brains, ingenuity, or otherwise when they have not agreed to do so is confiscation and there is no “social contract”.

Third of all she keeps saying “that the rest of us paid for“.  Really?  Has she seen who is paying Federal taxes in the USA?

Liberals love to tell you all about the rich and how much money they make, that it’s “disproportionate” and not “fairly distributed“. The somehow always forget to include the part of how much in Federal income tax is paid by the people that produce the wealth.

According to the IRS a few years ago the Top 50% of income earners pay 96.54% of all income taxes.  Last reviewed in 2010 it went up to 97.41%.  Here is the data (click the matrix for full view):

So if we are going to discuss income earned then we also need to discussed taxes paid.

With that in mind, let’s come back to this concept of a “social contract”.  Liberals always want to come at this this from only one direction.

  • What about the social contract where people who can’t afford health insurance rearrange their priorities to not purchase cool toys before taking care of the basics?  Sure it’s expensive but these are choices in life.  Part of the social contract is not obliging your fellow citizen to cover your butt because you chose not to.
    • What about people getting off this idea that someone else is going to pay for their mortgage and gasoline:
  • What about the idea of all American citizens paying something in taxes even if only a little.  When 50% of the country’s population pay absolutely nothing in Federal income taxes, they , as Ms. Elizabeth Warren likes to say so much are living in a society that the “rest of us paid for“.

The “Social Contract” is a two way street. If people of means would agree to “hand over” a hunk of their earned wealth, would it be too much to ask that those on the receiving end not abuse it and do everything possible to stand on their own two feet as best as possible?

The person that started his or her factory and did well did so because he or she delivered something of value to their fellow man who chose to purchase it in the free market – and yes Ms. Warren, the roads those product were delivered on were paid for in a much larger part by the same people that had the ideas, built the factories, and even employed others.

In short, the productive people of this world not only provide value to their fellow citizens, not only provide jobs to their local communities (and sometimes long distance communities), not only indirectly create whole new economies in the towns where they place their factories and offices, but they also paid almost all of the costs of putting the roads there, educating the workforce, and paying the taxes that provide local police and fire protection.

I have watch Elizabeth Warren’s announcement video and in all sincerity it’s pretty good, and she’s welcome to do what she thinks is right fighting for “working families” and fighting big lobby interests, but to attack productive people saying their goods were delivered on roads paid for “by the rest of us” is just factually incorrect.  The people setting up factories and other business are just as much a part of the working class as anyone – maybe even more so as there is no 9 to 5 in the world of the entrepreneur.

For Elizabeth Warren to come at this any other way is only to stir up false rage in some attempt keep class warfare alive.  Good luck up there in Massachusetts.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 335 other followers