Filed under Rational Thinking

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

Why is Greater than How or What

My whole life I’ve always been more concerned with the personal or business mission at hand rather than the tools used to get it done. There are a lot of ways to accomplish a goal but it’s far more important to understand WHY you’re going for it in the first place.

For example, in the late eighties while bored one day in college, I scribbled on a piece of paper the then population of the world (it was about 5 billion). Then I wrote down the population of the USA (then about 250 million). I divided one into the other and came up with 5%. I had an immediate realization in my late teens that 95% of everything that happens happens someplace else. That may sound funny today in our highly interconnected world, but in 1988 on the shores of Lake Erie that was a fairly big realization for a teen whose world generally went maybe 30 miles in any direction. In that time there was no global news, no web, no social media, and certainly no phone calls in multiple time zones each day. It was just three main channels on TV and news at six and eleven.

It was at that moment sitting in Buffalo, NY without ever having traveled overseas that I decided to make it my life’s professional focus to get involved in international business. That realization became my “Why” and since then everything I’ve done has orbited that rationale. A year later I was living in Rome, Italy – a decision that changed my life forever for the good.

In that vein, here is a really excellent video I recently discovered from Simon Sinek that takes a great shot at explaining what differentiates successful people or companies from all the rest. It’s an idea so simple that at first you’ll say to yourself “anyone could come up with that” – but as you’ll see and recognize, the most influential people and companies in the world own that space not because of What they do, or How they do it, but precisely Why they do it. It is the “Why” that makes you leap higher and farther. It is the “Why” that is the core energy that propels you to reach farther, motivate, inspire, and influence others, and otherwise write a much bigger story that what you do or how you do it. People don’t follow you because of what you do, they follow you because of why you do it, the underlying reason and message. They do it for themselves.

Pay particular attention to the last two minutes which really nails it.

Tagged

Misdirected Arrows

Having just seen last year all of the occupy demonstrations, my wish for the new year is that more people worldwide, and especially in the USA, will realize that the economic problems we are seeing in the world stem not from Capitalism but from Government and government intervention in what should be free markets.

While I get the beef the occupiers have, I have it too (anger at crony business for example), but so many people have their anger focused on the wrong place.  It is ignorance in the most caring sense of the word.

The occupy crowd (and the population in general) should not be upset at Capitalism or at the too easily contrived “fat cats”, they should go to the source of the problem which is Government.

Markets naturally self-regulate.  Why?  Because Buyers and Suppliers of anything have to both agree before any product or service can be bought or sold.  If one or the other cheats, lies, or otherwise doesn’t offer value they will naturally be eliminated or otherwise ignored.   The good and the bad word gets out.

The minute an outside party to the transaction gets involved and alters the relationship (screws with the free market) it is no longer a free market but a manipulated market.  Look around – do you not see Government intervention and manipulation in markets almost everywhere?  Housing, Health Care, Food, Labor, Stocks, Banking and on and on.

Look at the United States – we have a Constitution, a founding document of the nation that sets forth not what the Federal Government can do but rather what it cannot do.  This is somewhat unique to the USA and what has up until now set the USA apart from the rest of the world by levels of degrees when it comes to economic productivity.  The first job of the government is to protect your liberty, life, and property rights, and the first job of the President is to defend the Constitution.  We have a Congress that passes laws that regularly interfere  with your liberty and property rights and a current President that routinely tramples on the Constitution.

The problems we’re seeing in the USA and in many parts of the world are not stemming from Capitalism – on the contrary – its the lack of Capitalism that is pushing everything down.  When Capitalism flows freely the markets would take care of themselves.  If Government would get out of the way of interfering in markets so many of the nations economic issues would naturally resolve themselves.  Resolving economic issues leads to resolving many social issues.

Do you really need a far-away Federal bureaucrat deciding for you what you should buy, when, and for how much?  If you support this sort of a world, maybe there are a few countries for you where you could relocate, but the Constitution in the United States lays out the terms and conditions of the country.  It is clear that many people also confuse the role of the Federal government with the role of the States (ex. Dept of Education).  So many people lose their minds when you say we should get rid of the Federal Dept of Education – but think about it, what business does the government have being in the business of educating children?  That is not a role of the Federal government.  (As a side note, if you think about it again, you’ll realize why the Federal government like to have a hand in education.)

So while nobody like crony capitalism (hardly a free marketplace either), the occupy Wall Street Crowd and most Liberal Democrat voters have their arrows and frustrations pointed in the wrong place.  They should really take a clearer look at from where these problems stem and if they want to occupy something they ought to direct their energy at voting out people in the Federal government that are creating the policies.   The Federal government is the entity creating the problems then coming forth with “solutions” for the problems they create.  Enough – just vote out the wrong people and do your best to vote in the right people.  When you elect people like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Barack Obama, and the like, you get what we have now.  I’ll even throw in George W. Bush because he too abandoned free market principle as she said “to save the free market“.

So in this theme, spend 15 minutes checking out the above insightful video from Peter Schiff who went down to one of the occupy protests to see if he could have a dialogue with the people there.  You can see in the video that the crowd wants to just spout out quick slogans or blame zillionaires for making too much money, but Schiff sympathizes with them, calmly shoots straight with them, and shows them that their anger really needs to be put squarely on Washington DC and the politicians who create policies that do not let markets self regulate.  He is fair in his analysis and I hope here in 2012, in what is easily the most critical election year of your lifetime, more people everywhere understand that free Capitalism is the solution, not more Government.

Remember that at least in the USA the government governs at the consent of the governed.  How many Americans no longer consent to the current state of the Federal government and will vote out the wrong people this year?

Video from Reason.tv

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.

An Interview with Daniel Hannan

Q. I’ve seen your speeches and have heard you presenting facts and sounding the alarms.  However it seems to me Europeans (politicians and citizens alike) just trod along as if the house is not actually on fire.  Is anybody listening to you over there in Europe where it counts?

A. No one is listening at all – except the majority of the electorate. A rift has opened up between politicians and people on the issue of the EU. Almost every time there is a referendum on closer integration, in pretty well any country, people vote ‘No’; yet their parliaments are usually in favour by around 80 per cent. Britain is typical. According to most opinion polls, roughly 60 per cent of voters want to leave the EU, but that position is shared by only 3 per cent of MPs. Why the division? Because politicians make the mistake of believing that, since the Brussels system has been kind to them personally, it must be good for their constituents. As Upton Sinclair once observed:’It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends upon not understanding it’.

Q.  Why do the Eurocrats insist on bailing out Greece?  Do they really think that the Greeks are going to change their view of the world or their behavior simply because some Eurocrat in Frankfurt or Belgium demands they do so? (or the Italians, the Spanish and so forth) or is something else going on here?

A. The priority here is not to bail out Greece, but to bail out the euro. The people in Greece don’t believe that they’re being rescued. They understand perfectly well that the bailout money will go to European bankers and bondholders, but the repayment will come from ordinary Greek taxpayers. No wonder they are protesting. They – and the Irish, and the Portuguese – are being sacrificed in order to keep the euro going.

Q.  What’s the worst that could happen if we simply dissolved the Euro and went back to Francs, Drachmas, Lire, Guilders, and Marks ? – They were more romantic anyway.

A. More romantic and more efficient, since they allowed each country to set its interest rates and exchange rates according to its own needs. There are some technical difficulties in returning to national currencies – people would rush to put their savings in whatever money they thought less likely to devalue – but a partial and orderly unbundling of the euro is clearly a lesser evil than the generational poverty which keeping it going implies.

Q. What’s so good about Socialism?  Why is it that proponents of Socialism refuse to see its inherent problems?

A. Socialism has always struck me as being more about intention than outcome, about showing what a nice person you are rather than affecting real change. The survey that said it all was the one that showed that people who wear awareness ribbons and wristbands are less likely to give to charity than people who don’t. There’s always been an element of that in socialism. ‘Whaddaya mean, why don’t I give to charity? I’m already calling for higher taxes!’

Q.  Two of the best things to come out of the ascent (and failure) of Barack Obama is that more and more Americans are seeing (many for the first time) what it really means to have a man like this as President and many are now revisiting the question of exactly what is government supposed to do and what is it not supposed to do.  It reminds me a little of what happened in Spain with the Socialist Jose Luis Zapatero and his Socialists getting hammered in elections.  Is this a sign of hope for all of us?  Are the voters of the world finally realizing that Socialism simply doesn’t work or are we doomed to fight this charade forever?

A. I’m afraid it’s cyclical. Right-of-Centre governments generally win office when the other lot have left the treasury empty. They then patiently rebuild the nation’s credit, whereupon the electorate says: ‘Great – crisis over. Let’s have those nice, caring Lefties back again’.

Q.  Speaking of Obama, in 2008 Barack Obama won the American Presidency with millions of followers thinking he would deliver utopia.  Europeans swooned over him even thinking America had finally come to its senses and placed a “reasonable” man into the White House.   Not that is matters at all in our elections, but out of curiosity how do you think Europeans see Obama today now that he’s actually been in the White House for almost three years?

A. All American presidents end up being unpopular with the European Left. The same charges are thrown at Obama that were thrown at all his predecessors: the US is still in Afghanistan, Guantanamo is still open, the climate change treaties still unratified etc etc. The truth is that no country wins popularity by emulating its critics. You win respect by outperforming them. Or, at least, you did until your present leaders decided to spend, tax and borrow the US to ruin.

Q.  An England question.  England used to be a polite, mannered place with proud people.  Is it just my impression or does England seem rougher, more cynical, more tabloid.  What has changed in British culture over the past 25 years?

A. We’ve never been as polite as Americans think. We’re an earthy, violent, Hogarthian people, whose manners are simply a way of keeping our native bellicosity in check. One thing that has changed, though, is the expansion of welfare dependency. It has made us less independent, more whiney, less responsible. I hope, though, that that’s a remediable problem, and the current government is doing some useful things to free people from the squalor of reliance on benefits.

Q.  What open advice would you offer to American voters that think the European model of social welfare is the way to go?

A. It’s fine in the short term: long vacations, maternity and paternity leave, generous welfare entitlements. What’s not to like? The trouble is that, after a couple of decades, the money runs out. That’s the point we’ve reached now. In 1974, Western Europe accounted for 36 per cent of the world’s GDP. Today it’s 25 per cent. In 2020 it’ll be 15 per cent.

Q.  It seems to me Europe is cannibalizing itself.  With birthrates across Europe in decline, what kind of Europe are we looking at one or two generations from now?

A. We face a choice between massive depopulation and massive immigration. The former option needn’t be as calamitous as people think. Yes, the ratio of pensioners to working people will become harder to manage, but it’s much easier for a 70-year-old to carry on sitting in front of a computer screen than it was a hundred years ago for a 70-year-old to carry on mining coal. And, once that demographic bulge has passed, I can see advantages in Europe drifting back to the population level it enjoyed in the early twentieth century. My own constituency in South East England has become very crowded. Property prices are ridiculously high, people are having to commute for longer and longer, there is massive demand for schools and hospitals, the green spaces are disappearing under concrete. I could live with a slight easing of the population pressure!

Thank you Mr. Hannan for taking the time to sit for the Anthidote.com interview.  Poignant comments and please keep pushing.

Daniel Hannan is a writer and journalist, and has been Conservative Member of European Parliment for South East England since 1999. He speaks French and Spanish and loves Europe, but believes that the European Union is making its constituent nations poorer, less democratic and less free.  His latest book is “The New Road to Serfdom – A Letter of Warning to America

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 335 other followers