Leading the Revival of Individualism & Self Reliance

Five Ways Blockchain Technology Is Changing the World

/in /by

Banking

Those of us living in economically advanced countries can take for granted how easy and inexpensive it is to transfer money between individuals. With payment platforms like Venmo and Paypal readily available, sending and receiving payments is as simple as tapping your smartphone screen a few times.

But for those from poor countries who have left their families and communities behind in search of a more opportunity-rich life in America, sending large sums of money back home comes with a hefty price tag. In fact, by the time the money actually crosses borders and reaches its recipients, between eight and ten percent of the funds have been lost to service fees.

Fortunately, the popularity of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology are revolutionizing the MSB sector and giving the underbanked populations the opportunity to get ahead economically.

Read more here.

Investment Opportunities for the Middle Class

At the moment, Bitcoin is by far the most recognizable cryptoasset. In fact, there are now more Google searches for “Bitcoin” than there are for “Beyonce,” proving just how mainstream it has become. And while many average Americans have heard murmurings about it for years, few understand what exactly it is or how it works. And that is completely fine.

The beauty of Bitcoin and cryptoassets, in general, is that their potential is not limited only to the tech-savvy. One does not need to work in Silicon Valley or understand blockchain technology in order to utilize these transformative mediums of exchange. All you really need is a digital wallet.

For middle-class participants of the crypto economy, the decentralization and anonymity of the blockchain world may not be a primary motivator like it is for libertarians and other decentralization enthusiasts. But what does resonate with this crowd is the ability to invest and make money outside the world of established financial institutions: the same institutions that have been stacked against them for far too long.

Read more here.

Privacy

We live in a world where our personal data is collected by both governments and private companies alike. Since most of our lives are now conducted online, every time we shop for something, communicate with someone or search Google, we are making ourselves vulnerable to data mining. And with data collection, comes the fear over the security of that information.

To call the blockchain anything less than revolutionary would be an understatement. Not only is this technology striking a blow to traditional financial and banking institutions with various cryptocurrencies, it is also allowing individuals to make private transactions, free from government intrusion. And that is where data collection comes in.

By utilizing the blockchain as a means of storing personal data, you keep it safe. But there is more to it than that. Just as cryptocurrencies can be sent and received on the blockchain, so can data. And since this is both anonymous and secure, you do not run the risk of having this information intercepted, and then stored, by either private companies or governments.

Read more here.

Art Ownership

A new trend in the world of fine arts is utilizing blockchain technology to decentralize art and make it more accessible to more people. One example of this is Maecenas , which refers to itself as “ a decentralized art gallery, democratizing access to fine art investment.”

Just as holders of cryptocurrency can own fragments of one full token, say one Bitcoin for example, so can investors own portions of artwork through Maecenas. And while each partial investor cannot hang the work of art in question in their homes, they do benefit.

This means that if a gallery utilized Maecenas to save costs, someone owning only a small portion of the artwork is still earning interest on their initial investment. This means that all parties benefit. And, in a very tangible sense, it is creating wealth in new areas. More people have access to art investments and galleries are saving money acquiring new pieces, which allows them to lease even more works of art.

Read more here.

Passion Projects

For decades, many liberty enthusiasts have dedicated themselves to academia, think tanks, or grassroots activism. And while each of these roles is essential to spreading the precepts of liberty, they do not often come with outrageously high salaries. There is absolutely no shame in choosing to pursue your passions rather than to seek only financial gain. But there is also no shame in choosing to do both. And now that many liberty activists have made a small fortune on crypto investments, having the money to fund passion project is becoming a reality.

Since the government has a monopoly on force, we may never be able to achieve success through the legislative process. But each time a crypto activist uses their money to further decentralization, liberty wins. Any doubt of this can be cleared up by considering the fear expressed by many regulators and statist economists every time crypto breaks through another barrier.

Bitcoin and other crypto assets are tipping the established balance of power. And where so many other ideologies demonize wealth, libertarians understand how this can be used to promote change. As the fictional Atlas Shrugged hero Francisco D’Anconia says in his infamous “money” speech, “Your wallet is your statement of hope…”

One way some investors are putting this into practice is by participating in an effort to rebuild Puerto Rico’s economy.

Read more here.

Spontaneous Order Is Optimism, Central Planning Is Pessimism.

/in /by

Optimism, how perfectly human. It’s the attitude that tomorrow will be better, and that the outcome of a specific endeavor, or outcomes in general, can be positive and desirable. But there’s also pessimism, the anticipation of undesirable outcomes from a given situation. Perhaps Voltaire was thinking of both extremes in his classic novella Candide, when he wrote “If this is the best of possible worlds, what then are the others?”

Pessimism and optimism display themselves in economics, irrespective of whether you believe it is a science or not. Pessimists dismiss economics as the dismal science. Thomas Carlyle coined the term, and said economics was dismal in “finding the secret of the Universe in “supply and demand”, and reducing the duty of human governors to that of letting men alone”.

The optimists say that “letting men alone” is the whole point. They embrace economics as the science of human achievement, the science of life. In supply and demand terms, optimists are the supply siders and pessimists are the demand siders. Optimists favor free markets, have faith in individuals, get excited about the future, and in times of crisis: stay out of the way. Pessimists get excited about catastrophe because it gives them the chance to intervene to fix things. Never letting a crisis go to waste means confiscate, spend, and grow power.

Spontaneous Order Versus Crisis Management.

The difference between the two sides can be summed up as spontaneous order versus crisis management. As social researcher Peter Saunders explains:

Nobody planned the global capitalist system, nobody runs it, and nobody really comprehends it. This particularly offends intellectuals, for capitalism renders them redundant. It gets on perfectly well without them.

The crisis management folks remain nonplussed. They refuse to acknowledge spontaneous order or the sheer complexity of economic systems. So who’s right?

A great place to observe economic complexity is the financial markets. There are historical data sets available that detail trillions of transactions effected by millions of people. Financial scientists have analyzed the data and their groundbreaking research has earned Nobel Prize recognition. We now know the research as Modern Portfolio Theory, the Capital Asset Pricing Model, and the Efficient Market Hypothesis. These theories embrace the spontaneous order idea that all the information in markets is embedded in prices, and that analysis of prices and price trends and price relationships can point to where value creation will occur. Understanding markets comes from such analyses.

Traditional investment managers however were skeptical; they didn’t buy the efficient market theory. They are stock pickers after all; their job is to find value in so-called mispriced assets, and outsmart the market’s perceived inefficiencies. If they bought in to efficient market theories, it would render them redundant. Their value is their forecasting acumen and company research. They present themselves as smart guys and gals delivering an information advantage to their clients, as they are expected to do. And for those that do it well, it works a little more than half the time, hopefully net of fees.

Entrepreneurial Initiative Tests Who’s Right.

To prove their point, some of the academic researchers decided to put their spontaneous order theories to the test. They became entrepreneurs. They tested their ideas in the real world of competition, transactions, and liquidity. They created an investment company and deployed real capital from real investors in real time. Competitive pressure would mean relentless scrutiny; success and failure would be rewarded accordingly. They were successful – business was good, very good. The industry was finally forced to sit up and take notice. Many firms have since introduced similar strategies known as smart beta and factor based investing. The optimists were proven right in the marketplace, and consumers won via greater choice and lower prices for investment services.

These innovative analysts were focused on the price mechanism, not forecasts. They knew that everything worth knowing about a stock is built in to its price. The goal is to identify the dimensions of return that are baked into financial markets, that can be easily harnessed, and get out of the way. They don’t waste money making predictions or buying advertising. They are advocates for complexity and its spontaneous order. Here economist Donald Boudreaux compares complex economies to the natural world:

The same wisdom that guides our understanding of biology all too often abandons us when we contemplate the economy. Attempts to intervene into market economies are very much like humans’ attempts to fly by dressing like birds and flapping fake wings.

Pessimists Beg To Differ.

Yet pessimists refuse to permit the free operation of markets. They regard free people trading value for value, and their resulting prosperity, as materialism and greed. Like Carlyle, they see an undesirable outcome:  plunder scammed from the disadvantaged. Redistribution is their moral undertaking. They promote the pessimistic idea that the future would be catastrophic without their wise intervention. But their real fear is being rendered redundant. There is no place for them in the optimistic world of spontaneous order.Their economist with the loudest megaphone is Paul Krugman. To him, if all-out war is necessary to stimulate demand, so be it. We “needed Hitler and Hirohito” to get us out of depression, he said. Talk about a dismal science.

On the bright side, economist Brian Wesbury reminds us that optimists are concerned with what people can produce, how inventions raise productivity, and how the world works. And as economist Friedrich Hayek observes about human betterment, “society arose through the discovery that men can live together in peace and mutually benefiting each other without agreeing on the particular aims which they severally pursue.” The optimist only asks, just please get out of our way.

Thanks to Blockchain Technology, Everyone Has Access to Fine Art

/in /by

A new trend in the world of fine arts is utilizing blockchain technology to decentralize art and make it more accessible to more people. One example of this is Maecenas , which refers to itself as “ a decentralized art gallery, democratizing access to fine art investment.”

One of Maecenas founders, Marcelo Garcia Casil, started out in the financial world. But as a techie, he saw that there was a demand to digitize assets. Casil began thinking how this could apply to art as well. Casil expressed his frustrations with the world of fine arts in a Medium article, saying:

“ We learned about the fine art market and how it was crippled by manipulation and monopolies; how it lacked transparency and how players struggled to even transact with each other.”

Named for the Roman patron of arts who aided destitute poets, Maecenas would help struggling artists connect with those looking to invest in fine art. Explaining how Maecenas actually work, the website explains how its exchange can help different types of investors.

Speaking directly of art galleries, the site states:

“Chelsea Gallery wants to acquire a $3m piece to expand its Warhol collection.

Instead of getting a 3-year art-secured loan at a 13.5% annual interest, it can raise funds from Maecenas investors by listing some of their artwork at a 6% one-off fee.  

This represents a saving of over $400k in fees for the gallery.”

Giving another example of how Maecenas helps investors, the site says:

“James is a Modern Art collector who needs to finance the purchase of a new Jeff Koons sculpture worth $120k.

Instead of selling items from his collection, or getting an expensive loan, James gets the required funding by listing in Maecenas 20% of one of his flagship pieces of art.

James gets to keep his collection intact and can raise the needed capital at a much lower rate.”

In a review given on Crush Crypto Maecenas’ work is summed up by the following:

“On the platform, Maecenas divides artworks into fragments and users can invest and trade those shares. Users can now own a fragment of an artwork, whereas in the past they could not afford the whole painting or sculpture.

Users on the platform can also trade the shares between each other to create a liquid secondary market for those artworks. With Maecenas, artworks can be traded like stocks.”

Just as holders of cryptocurrency can own fragments of one full token, say one Bitcoin for example, so can investors own portions of artwork through Maecenas. And while each partial investor cannot hang the work of art in question in their homes, they do benefit. As Crush Crypto continues:

“Fractional owners cannot enjoy the artwork because it is not physically with the owners. However, there will be a leasing fee so that the investors are paid for use of the artwork in the gallery. The leasing fee is typically 2-3%, but it depends heavily on the type of artwork, the type of exhibition, etc.”

This means that if a gallery utilized Maecenas to save costs, someone owning only a small portion of the artwork is still earning interest on their initial investment. This means that all parties benefit. And, in a very tangible sense, it is creating wealth in new areas. More people have access to art investments and galleries are saving money acquiring new pieces, which allows them to lease even more works of art.

The entire platform functions with a coin called ART. Explaining how ART plays into Maecenas, Casil writes:

“These smart contracts that we’re creating, including the Dutch auction contract, require ART to operate. ART is like the fuel of the decentralized Maecenas machine. Any fiat or crypto amounts being invested through smart contracts are converted to ART first. Having our own token allows us to collect income from these smart contract activities.”

The world is changing and it is only a matter of time before blockchain is a part of almost every aspect of our lives. And by making out lives more decentralized than ever before, we are truly free to seek our own passions and pave our own way in life. Through blockchain, the road to individualism is secure.

Why “Neutrality” Is Nonsense.

/in /by

“Neutrality” is one of the freshest words on political agitators’ shortlists, and remains one of the more easily understandable… for now. Today, the word is frequently used in reference to “net neutrality”: government dictates on how ISPs should operate data channels.

But in the realm of politics, what would such a thing really entail?

Let’s define the word neutral, while we still can. According to Merriam-Webster, neutral means “not engaged on either side; specifically : not aligned with a political or ideological grouping.”  Neutrality – not to be confused with equality – involves not aligning with, or against, any side in a conflict of interest. Yet in politics – the organized control of a group of people – it’s not only impossible to achieve, but ultimately meaningless to us.

On The Road Again.

Here’s a simple example: on New Jersey’s Garden State Parkway, traffic is treated unequally. For trucks, tolls correspond to number of axles, and buses are charged a high flat rate. Also, vehicles over 10,000 pounds are prohibited north of Tinton Falls. There are a few obvious reasons for these inequalities:

  1. Heavier vehicles emit more kinetic energy into the road, causing more wear and tear.
  2. The old infrastructure doesn’t handle heavier vehicles very well, anyway.
  3. The northern section of the Parkway is primarily a commuter route into New York. Large vehicles would back traffic up, reducing labor productivity – and inciting political pressure.

This all make sense. But let’s say that trucking managers become sick of having to exit so early… so they march into the NJTA’s Woodbridge office, demanding to have their range extended, to have their tolls lowered, to be treated equally, for two reasons:

  1. Even with a few more backups and extra road work, the economic benefits of trucks – which carry large amounts of cargo – justify extra maintenance costs. Encouraging truck travel, even just one exit further, could grow the state’s tax base.
  2. It’s unfair to be treated unequally to car drivers.

The second “reason” is an emotional front for the first. As for that one, the managers contend that millions of trucks blaze down I-78 every year, sharing the road with commuters – why should the latter get all the love on the Parkway? Why aren’t the rules more neutral?

There’s no way to figure out the “right” answers to these questions, especially concerning long-term economic impacts on individuals. The Parkway began as a scenic express route, morphing into its current condition by millions of very consciously biased, purposive choices – to get to work more quickly. It isn’t too drastic of a change, but its status as the busiest toll road in America was unforeseen by the planners. Widening projects and infrastructural updates have been enacted over time, along with restrictions on commercial vehicles – not to mention “modest” speed limit violations being largely ignored by police.

Even in a political decision as simple as constructing a highway, neutrality has turned out to have no place – or meaning.

Social “Science”.

The drive for “political neutrality” is near the heart of socialist philosophy. Socialism aims to treat society as a science experiment, in which its subjects – human minds – are closed to unforeseen changes in information. Since we humans cannot immediately “explain ourselves,” socialism has to envision the world as a completely static picture. This is the only way political “neutrality” – in fact, omnipotence over a system, and the ability to make “objective” decisions about it – can be exercised. So, socialism prescribes… by proscribing even the possibility of outside innovation, from statistical “outliers.”

This “omnipotence of planners” is socialism’s end game. As shown in Orwell’s 1984, however, it is a fantasy. Past The Party’s almost-unconscious destruction of all outside information, Big Brother is portrayed as its “neutral” outside controller – but is strongly implied to be nothing more than an image, of the collective results of The Party’s actions. Nobody acts purposively, but at the same time, nobody can exist beyond the system – proles aside.

Capitalism is the antithesis. It allows everyone to act purposively, giving outliers the chance to run free.

Slipping Through The ‘Net.

Politically, the concept of “neutrality” is deceptive. Take the issue of net neutrality, for instance – not quite Big Brother, but founded on similar principles of the planners’ detachment, and superiority.

Without the regulations in place, big data devourers, like Netflix bingers, bear the consequences of their actions. They may be charged higher fees, or experience slower download speeds, so that other ISP customers don’t need to undergo similar inconveniences. Lighter users, in other words, don’t need to subsidize heavier users. What we call bandwidth is a scarce resource, like any other commodity. This is understood not only by the big industry players, but also by smaller ISPs, both of whom have opposed the regulations.  Not even the inevitable reduction of competition – from increased costs to enter the industry – is enough to convince the former.

These regulations force the same rates, for customers, regardless of individual usage. (In reality, only supply and demand can determine rates.) They also pave the way for monstrosities like SOPA, which would have had a much easier time being implemented in the midst of more FCC oversight.

Many net neutrality proponents accuse ISPs of condoning censorship. They forget that the federal government is by far the most ardent supporter of censorship, even into the recent past. ISPs, in their private, limited, and competitive services, aim to turn profits – and nothing eliminates profits quite like arbitrary restrictions.

But the overarching point is that “net neutrality” is an impossible oxymoron. Of the profit-seeking ISP managers, web-surfing consumers, and power-hungry government officials, none can avoid immediate, purposive, and consciously biased action – no matter how intelligent they are.

No Neutral Ground.

Political “neutrality” is impossible, both in definition and in action. We do not and cannot know our ultimate destinies – individually, or as a people – with certainty. The vast majority of government decisions are literally immoral, purposively acting in the absence of all necessary information: to avoid harming some in a nation, as others are boosted ahead of them. In order to cover this weakness, standards of morality are necessary. A philosophy of individual liberty is thus the most moral system, free from all arbitrary and harmful mandates.

 

 

Liam Munz writes at liammunz.com

 

How the Free Market Is Innovating Emergency Services

/in /by

There is a growing trend of late, where individuals seeking emergency medical attention have opted to use ridesharing services to transport themselves to the emergency room instead of relying on a traditional government ambulance.

While this market alternative has been a huge money saver for those whose ailments have provided the “luxury” of being able to wait a few extra minutes before reaching the hospital—one trip in an ambulance has been known to cost upwards of $1,500— medical “experts” are now warning that individuals may not be capable of choosing their own means of transportation and should instead stick to what the government has provided.

“If you go to the wrong hospital because of self-transport or Uber or Lyft – that hospital will then call 911. And that difference of 30 minutes or more could mean the difference between life and death,” Los Angeles City Fire Department medical director, Dr. Marc Eckstein stated.

Dr. Eckstein’s statements are understandable especially when considering his role as medical director and his trust in the system he oversees. After all, ambulances are equipped with EMTs and medical supplies that could potentially mean the difference between life and death while in transport to the hospital.

If for example, someone suspects they may be having a heart attack, it may be in their best interest to call an ambulance instead of waiting 15 minutes for an Uber. Either way, that choice is still the individual’s to make and having Uber as an option for others is truly a market win.

However, Uber did make the following statement:

“We’re grateful our service has helped people get to where they’re going when they need it most. However, it’s important to note that Uber is not a substitute for law enforcement or medical professionals. In the event of any medical emergency, we encourage people to call 911.”

But while Uber and Lyft might not be the greatest alternatives for those who need lifesaving treatment immediately, it would likewise be false to claim that federally funded ambulances are the only suitable game in town when it comes to emergency medical situations.  

Who Will Build the Roads and Provide the Ambulances?

Aside from the never-ending inquiries about who will build the roads if the state ceased to exist, another commonly posed “gotcha” question intended to stump the liberty- minded is interrogation over the use of state-sponsored emergency services.

“You individualists all claim to be against government intervention until you find yourselves in a situation where you need to call 9-1-1 for an ambulance,” they might scoff, thinking as though they have finally managed to unravel the very seams that hold the sentiments of liberalism together.

Unfortunately for those who see the state as the sole solution to every problem, they neglect to acknowledge the plethora of information that surrounds them daily, proving that just because the government does offer a service, doesn’t mean they should, nor does it mean they are the most competent at doing so.

“Help! I’ve Fallen and I Can’t Get Up”

Between commercials for “The Clapper” and “Crystal Pepsi,” Americans in the 1990s knew that at least once an evening during their regularly scheduled programs, they were going to hear that famous phrase as their televisions displayed a fragile elderly man dramatically falling down stairs.

Just when it appeared that all was lost for the elderly in crisis, a button is pushed on a  medallion worn around his neck and the magical words are uttered: “Help! I’ve fallen and I can’t get up!”

Suddenly, an operator on the other end of the line assures the man that help is on the way. There is an over-acted sigh of relief from our senior citizen that signifies that everything is going to be okay.

Life Alert accidentally became a household name because of the significance its tagline had on 1990s popular culture. But while it was quickly becoming a favorite phrase of the decade, the “personal emergency response and home medical alert company” was also saving hundreds of thousands of elderly lives performing the same services performed by an ambulance, but at only a fraction of the cost.  

In 2016 alone, the company claims it can take credit for saving as many as 4,600 lives.

Life Alert, and other similar companies, charge a monthly rate for their services starting somewhere around $50 on average. An entire year’s worth of monthly payments for this type of emergency service is still less than half the cost of a ride in a traditional ambulance and offers more services such as home invasion protection.

Today, Life Alert is just one of many private emergency services that provide prompt aid to Americans.  

However, unless the person in need of emergency assistance is already aware of a specific private service option, it is unlikely that they will stop to do that research during a time of crisis. Life Alert was fortunate enough to get a boost in recognition thanks to the popularity of its commercials, but few other private emergency services have been able to become household names, which is one of the many reasons why the government still holds a comfortable monopoly over the paramedic industry.

Additionally, when children are taught repeatedly in government schools that all they need to do is dial “9-1-1” if there is an emergency, it becomes difficult to remind people that there are other—much cheaper options available.  

Governments Always Resort to Force

In addition to the typical ambulance experience being costly, to say the least, there is also the most problematic issue which is at the end of the day these services are state entities and as such, operate through the use of force.

In 1997, the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) was curious about the rising number of ambulance services being used for seemingly simple cases, specifically in instances involving children. After conducting a study on the matter, the NCBI found that within the sample group provided:

“Most (61%; 56/92) transports were considered medically unnecessary.”

While this particular study was limited to pediatric cases, its findings raise a larger question as to why ambulances are used so often in instances where they are unnecessary?

The specific statutes vary from state to state, but because paramedics are government agents, once an ambulance is called, whether warranted or not, the EMT on the scene actually has the authority to force a person to ride in the ambulance against their will and stick them with the bill later.

While the government asserts that you do have the right to refuse medical services from an EMT, that request is not as simple as it sounds and usually involves requesting an opt-out form from the paramedic, something few people even know exists.

In many emergency—or non-emergency— situations, 9-1-1 is often contacted by a bystander or third party member and not someone involved first-hand with the crisis in question. When the paramedics arrive on a scene, they are intervening based on the information given to them by the caller and not by the actual facts behind the emergency.

For those living with epilepsy, this is a situation dealt with all too often. While epilepsy is an extremely serious condition that should not be taken lightly, many of those who suffer from frequent seizures have dealt with their condition long enough to understand when a trip to the emergency room is needed, and when it is not.

However, that doesn’t stop nosy neighbors from calling 9-1-1 every time they suspect their neighbor could be in trouble. Since seizures are such a serious concern and each paramedic has to worry about their own job being put at risk if something serious were to occur after leaving the scene, in many instances, even if a false seizure was accidentally reported, epilepsy patients are forced to ride in the ambulance and foot the bill.

There can be no denying the lifesaving work performed each day by government-funded ambulances and paramedics. However, one of the most undeniable qualities of the market is the freedom and ability to constantly improve its consumer products and services. The ability to freely take risks and innovate becomes extremely restricted as bureaucracy —inherent and inseparable from any government entity—gets in the way.

What Professional Wrestling Can Teach Us about Individual Value

/in /by

Examples of economic principles exist all around us. But perhaps the most unlikely teacher of economics comes in the form of entertainment wrestling, where creating individual value is of the utmost importance. Prior to my research into the economic wonders of the WWE, I thought the entire business was able to thrive off of a handful of young rowdy boys and “backwoods” folk who were easily impressed by the “fake” fighting occurring in the ring.

But after I had more exposure to the truly unique industry of entertainment wrestling, my assumptions were not only proven wrong, but I also learned that the WWE pay structure is brilliantly modeled in a way that allows value to be traded for value on an individual basis.

The Hustle Never Ends

When I entered the Verizon Center in Washington, D.C for my first live wrestling event years ago, what first caught my eye was all the “side hustling” going on by the older wrestlers.

The bigger stars were nowhere to be found—most likely backstage getting preparing for the show—but many of these wrestlers had retired years ago and live events gave these “has beens” the opportunity to make a few extra bucks selling autographs and pictures to nostalgic older fans and wrestling fanatics.

However, while all the wrestlers were allowed to be there thanks to WWE, each was acting as his own promoter, responsible for marketing his, or her, own products. The WWE might be the platform where they rose to fame, but each was responsible for marketing his or her own individual brand.

The next thing that caught my eye, but which could hardly be missed even if I had tried, was the size of these crowds. Where had all these people been hiding? I had no clue there were so many wrestling fans, and this was just one venue!

Thus, the more money you bring in, the more money you make.

Trying to find my seat among a sea of excited fans comprised of excited young children, men of all ages, veterans groups, and yes, even a few women, was daunting, to say the least.

I was then terrified to learn I had been given floor seats just three rows from the actual ring. If there was one thing I did understand about wrestling, it was that that folding chairs were always the first objects to go flying into the audience once things started heating up. I had no intention of getting whacked in the head with a folding chair—at least not during my first event.

Within the first hour, I knew my prejudices had been wrong.

Not only were these wrestlers real athletes taking real hits and falls that were anything but fake, they were doing it night after night.

Aside from the clear talent and stamina possessed by each one of the athletes, there was something else about their showmanship that I found equally thrilling. They were, in many ways, fighting for their financial livelihood.

Popularity Hunger Games

To clarify, WWE does not engage in any Hunger Games activities, at least not to my knowledge, but each athletic entertainer is, quite literally, fighting for more ring time and thus, higher pay.

This is because in the WWE universe, a personality’s contracted rate of pay is directly correlated to the success of his or her character. In other words, if your character brings more value to the company, you will most likely earn more than other characters who are not as successful.

Just as a capital good’s price point in a free market would be based on its marginal productivity, in wrestling, pay is based on the character’s popularity with the audiences and their ability to sell merchandise, which, at the end of the day is making more money for the company.

Thus, the more money you bring in, the more money you make.

So, as far as market value is concerned, Ryback simply has it wrong.

While loyalty to the company is certainly appreciated in other ways, it has almost nothing to do with a salary of a WWE athlete, which has angered some long-time employees.

You Get What You Bring 

WWE star “Ryback” created waves last year after canceling his appearance on a wrestling program after a salary negotiation dispute.

Expressing his anger on Tumblr, Ryback said:

“It blows my mind how in a sport which is predetermined from a company standpoint winners are paid so much more than the losers. Every single person who works for WWE from top to bottom is absolutely just as valuable as the next. The winners cannot win unless the losers go out there and agree to lose to them.”

True, WWE’s outcomes are predetermined but that doesn’t make the conventional “loser” any less valuable than the winner, especially to Vince McMahon, the company’s CEO.

In fact, the heel characters—the bad guys who set up the plot and make the heroes look even better— often become some of the most popular—and best-paid—WWE personalities because they put on such a good show for their audiences.

Legendary characters like Macho Man Randy Savage, Ric Flair, Triple H, and even Hulk Hogan were all heels at some point and each lost his own fair share of matches. But they sold tickets and merchandise in droves, because they each branded their characters in a unique manner that resonated with their audiences. As a result, they were compensated accordingly.

It is hard for someone to hear that they may not be as valuable as someone else, but with that knowledge, and especially in the WWE, this information can be used to incentivize a person to work harder or maybe rebrand their character.

There is no set caste system in the WWE. You are constantly fighting for your place in McMahon’s kingdom, but that also means there is a constant opportunity to grow and be noticed.

Yes, we all know wrestling matches are scripted, but the business of wrestling certainly is not. The performers selected to be used in those big headline matches are based on who is able to cultivate their characters and fill arenas—and sometimes the losers are better than the winners.

How the Blockchain Protects Your Privacy

/in /by

We live in a world where our personal data is collected by both governments and private companies alike. Since most of our lives are now conducted online, every time we shop for something, communicate with someone or search Google, we are making ourselves vulnerable to data mining. And with data collection, comes the fear over the security of that information.

And while this data gathering has benefited the consumer by offering individualized suggestions for future purchases, it still puts them at risk. All this information has to be stored somewhere, and this means physical hard drives and servers, each susceptible to hackers. And though this personal data collection is of huge concern, it isn’t nearly as concerning as the government’s store of personal data.

In the post-9/11 world, our bank records, travel records, and phone records are all being collected by the government under the guise of national security. Of course, none of this is news in 2018, but it wasn’t so long ago when this concept of mass data collection seemed positively Orwellian. But in 2013, the magnitude of massive state surveillance and data collection became known to the American people through the Edward Snowden leaks.

Not only was the government spying and collecting our own personal data, it was also storing this personal information. This also means that every single person whose information was stored, which is virtually everyone, is vulnerable to having their information accessed and stolen by hackers. The government having access to it is bad enough.

But blockchain technology has presented new avenues for data security that could protect data from all prying eyes, whether government or otherwise.

Enter Blockchain

To call the blockchain anything less than revolutionary would be an understatement. Not only is this technology striking a blow to traditional financial and banking institutions with various cryptocurrencies, it is also allowing individuals to make private transactions, free from government intrusion. And that is where data collection comes in.

By utilizing the blockchain as a means of storing personal data, you keep it safe. But there is more to it than that. Just as cryptocurrencies can be sent and received on the blockchain, so can data. And since this is both anonymous and secure, you do not run the risk of having this information intercepted, and then stored, by either private companies or governments.

Explaining how this works, Forbes writes:

“Imagine you and a million friends are able to make copies of all your files, encrypt them with special software, and save them in each other’s digital bank vaults (computers) all across the internet. That way even if a hacker breaks into, steals, or destroys your computer, they can’t interpret your data, and your network of friends still have 999,999 backups of your files.”

No one can read your data unless you give them access to it. Even if there is a breach, the personal information is safe behind its layers of encryption. And this can be used to store and transfer all kinds of information. For example, many in the medical field are intrigued by the prospect of potentially storing medical records on the blockchain.

The health care industry is so diverse and vast, it becomes difficult to keep track of patients who move or switch health care providers. But by utilizing the blockchain, records can be kept track of and stored on the blockchain. This also means that transferring these records is more secure than it is today. Currently, obtaining or sending medical records usually means having to track down a fax machine and then send extremely personal information, not entirely sure who will be waiting on the other end of the transaction.

Blockchain is bringing us into a new era, where personal data is more protected than ever before.

What Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Understand About Employment Growth

/in /by

There is a great deal of wisdom in the old saying, “there is no such thing as a free lunch.”And while most, if not all, of our elected officials would do well to remember this piece of advice, Bernie Sanders appears to need constant reminding.

Sanders has made a habit of trying to make federal programs more akin to the Oprah Winfrey Show, promising to provide market commodities, like health care and college, for free in the same way Winfrey gives away cars and gifts to her audience members. But unlike the Oprah Winfrey Show, which was responsible for its own funding during its 25-year run, the government pays for its programs by levying taxes on the people. Of course, this small fact has not prevented Senator Sanders from continuing his quest to make all things “free.”

During his presidential run in 2016, Sanders made “free” college a staple of his campaign. He has even gone on record saying, “Education should be a right, not a privilege.” He has also been a proponent of “free” health care, which he also believes is a right. Echoing his sentiment towards higher education, Sanders commented on health care saying, “Health care must be recognized as a right, not a privilege.”

Given this track record, which also happens to seem a lot like a broken record when it comes to how Sanders feels about “rights” and “privileges,” it should shock no one that just a few days ago Sanders announced that he will soon be unveiling his federal jobs proposal to guarantee every single American a job. While this is almost identical to the plot of an episode of House of Cards, Sanders’ comments are somehow more terrifying than Frank Underwood’s for the mere fact that Sanders is not a fictional character. But even though Sanders is a figure in the real world, that doesn’t make his concept of full employment anything more than a fairy tale.

Jobs Aren’t Created out of Thin Air

When it comes to the specifics of this lofty proposal, Sanders says he is still in the very early stages of crafting his plan. In fact, no one on the Sanders team has given any indication as to how such a proposal would be funded, which seems to be the running theme in most of Sanders’ grand schemes. But it is suspected that like many of his other projects, the jobs plan will be funded by ending tax breaks given to American business owners.

But since this project specifically aims for increased employment, it would be a bold move to end the tax breaks given to those responsible for creating American jobs. Jobs are not created out of thin air. Jobs are a response to market demand and when there is a need for new jobs, they are created and filled. No matter how much government may wish it could control every aspect of the market, it cannot control demand without facing economic implications. Jobs created for the sake of jobs simply do not help the economy because there is no reason for their existence to begin with.

When the government does step in and create new jobs, the economy suffers. FDR’s New Deal was supposed to end the Great Depression and raise employment rates across the country by creating new federal programs and infrastructure. But that is not exactly what happened. As economist Henry Hazlitt wrote in his book, Economics in One Lesson:

“For every public job created by [a] bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else. We can see the men employed on the bridge. We can watch them at work. . . . But there are other things that we do not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come into existence. They are the jobs destroyed by the $10 million taken from the taxpayers.”

As Hazlitt reminds us, there are always economic implications that are unseen, even when the government may boast of apparent growth. Employment is no exception. Even is Sanders is able to create jobs, since these positions do not arise from real market demand, but instead by government mandate, the growth is not only artificial, but also extremely costly.

But as is par for the course, Sanders never dwells too much on economic realities.

Occupational Licensing Needs to Be Fixed, Not Funded

Another aspect of the plan promises to provide free training to those who are trying to find a job, but are prevented from doing so because of barriers like occupational licensing. To give credit to Sanders, these hurdles standing in the way of would-be workers are a huge problem. Currently, more than 22 percent of the American workforce is impacted by occupational licensing. And given the fields that these licenses are prevalent in, this number poses a huge problem.

Licensure is usually for entry-level occupations. For those just beginning their careers, access to these jobs is integral in their success. If someone is looking for a means to escape poverty, but then is prevented from doing so because an entry-level job requires costly state training and licensing, it becomes harder to break the cycle.

One mother, for example, was prevented from earning a living washing hair in a salon because the state said she must first obtain an occupational license. We each wash our own hair on a regular basis without serious incidents occurring. However, that hasn’t prevented some states from requiring as much as 1,500 hours of training and charging $125 for the actual “license to shampoo.” And while that money may not seem like a lot to some, for those just barely managing to scrape by, $125 is a lot to ask for such an arbitrary regulation.

And while Sanders clearly recognizes the impact these state-required training and licensing laws have on those looking for work, his solution to the problem is severely lacking because he doesn’t understand the cause. Using federal funds to pay for these training makes absolutely zero sense when most, if not all, are completely arbitrary, to begin with.

If Sanders concentrated his efforts on eliminating these barriers to employment, rather than crafting a proposal that would fund these training with federal dollars, more Americans would have access to jobs.

There can be no doubt that Senator Sanders has only the best of intentions when it comes to his employment proposal. Most of us would all like to see lower rates of unemployment across the country. But that does not mean we ignore economic realities in order to chase the dream of “employment for all.” And by offering to pay for training instead of addressing the real problems standing in the way of employment, like the existence of occupational licensing, this proposal will do nothing more than put a band-aid over substantial issues.

Social Networks Are Not Socialist, And Socialism Is Not A Network.

/in /by

The shared meaning and precise definition of words are crucially important for intelligent and meaningful dialogue. Unhappily, those two conditions seldom exist in the contexts in which we conduct public debates and discussion today.

One of those debates is about socialism. We are informed that young people express greater support for socialism than for capitalism, and that socialism or communism are viewed by Millennials as a better alternative to the disasters capitalism has created.

What’s The Definition Of Socialism?

The official definition of socialism by economists is the ownership of the means of production by the state. This means the government owns steel mills (China), oil companies (Venzuela) and transportation systems (USA). But young people expressing support for socialism are usually not being so precise. They think about redistribution of income and wealth, free education and free healthcare. They fantasize about better and more equal outcomes for all, and what they see as the well-deserved punishment of the large corporations and institutions that provide us with those services.

Maybe they think of the word “social” embedded in the concept of socialism and see it as a good thing. After all, social networks embrace that word, and social networks are warm and fuzzy and all about sharing with your friends. What if the whole of society were just one big fuzzy social sharing mechanism? Wouldn’t that be better?

There Is No Such Thing As Society.

Here we find two dangerous errors.  The first is the use of the word society. It is often used as if there were a real entity called society, that could think and calculate and express its will and come to a shared point of view. No such entity exists. It is a fantasy, and an insidious one. If we are to use the word society, it can only be to describe a grouping of individuals, each pursuing their own goals and choosing their own means to do so. They help each other by finding ways of economic exchange that are mutually beneficial, but they are not in any sense a collective, where individual goals are sacrificed for the good of the whole.

Independent Individual Thought Is What Matters.

In fact, the idea of socially shared goals is not only absent in the free market exchange of goods, services and ideas that characterizes our society. The idea is actually incompatible and irreconcilable with free markets. It is independent individual thought applied in the pursuit of individual goals that brings intellectual, technical and economic progress to our dynamic society. To make it a condition of membership of society that everyone should approve of and support the shared ends of the members would eliminate the chief factor that accounts for advancement of such a society. It would become stagnant and unproductive and, subsequently, internally hostile. It is economic growth that keeps social groups focused on the benefits of participation; in stagnant economies, the groups tend to fight more over their share of the pie.

Socialism Is Hierarchical.

And, as a consequence, there is a second characteristic of socialist societies that the Millennials would not love if they understood it. If individuals are to subordinate their unique personal goals to the shared goals of the collective, who is to decide on which shared goals are adopted and on the means of achieving them? Someone must lead. Ludwig von Mises identified this problem of the group versus the collective.

But who, one must ask, is to be the leader? For many want to lead, and, of course, in different directions and toward different goals. The collectivists, who never cease to pour scorn and derision on the liberal theory of the harmony of interests, pass over in silence the fact that there are various forms of collectivism and that their interests are in irreconcilable conflict.

In other words, if there are groups within the society who can’t quite agree on exactly which shared goals– or which ideology, or which set of beliefs, or which economic system – someone is going to step forward and make, and then impose, the decision to break the deadlock.

Collectivism, in fact, can be stated in no other way than as partisan dogma in which the commitment to a definite ideal and the condemnation of all others are equally necessary.

 Social networks are, as the name implies, based on the network system. Each individual is a node, and tries to establish value to the other nodes by exchange of knowledge and services. The more value we create for others, the greater our value to the network, and vice versa. We earn value by creating value. The market decides.

Socialism is the opposite. It employs the hierarchy rather than the network, because someone at the top must decide on which goals to pursue and how to pursue them, and on the role of each participant in the collective endeavor.

So while Millennials may have a warm regard for the fuzzy idea of social sharing, and while they may casually link that idea with socialism in their minds, they are failing to think clearly because they are neglecting to define their terms with precision.

 

 

These Entrepreneurs Lived 90 Days Using Only Bitcoin

/in /by

Utah is known primarily for its annual Sundance Film Festival, its abundant Mormon population, and an affinity for Jell-O salad that even its residents don’t fully understand. But what is less known about the Beehive State is that it is often on the cutting edge of technological breakthroughs, and cryptocurrency has been no exception.

The newlyweds were about to spend the next three months living solely on Bitcoin.

In fact, the University of Utah was one of the first colleges to join ARPANET—an early form of the internet created exclusively for the Department of Defense— and served as a node in the network. Additionally, the state was one of the first to acquire the much sought after Google Fiber and has attracted tech companies like Adobe, as well as being the home of Overstock.com, one of the first major companies to accept Bitcoin on all purchases.

And while Utah is technologically savvy, the entire state still has a very simple hometown vibe. Its culture is rooted in tradition and its residents have been living a certain way their whole lives without any particular interest in seeing that change. It is for these reasons that this state offers such a compelling backdrop for a documentary on cryptocurrency.

The Bitcoin Frontier

Like most newlyweds, Austin and Beccy Craig were excited about returning home to Utah after their honeymoon and beginning their new life together. But unlike most couples who find their lives calming down after the chaos of wedding planning is over, the Craigs were about to embark on an adventure no one had ever attempted before: Beccy and Austin were going to spend the next three months living solely on Bitcoin.

The Life on Bitcoin Kickstarter launched in 2013, four years after the elusive Satoshi Nakamoto had published his treatise on Bitcoin and then walked away from the entire project and dissolved into anonymity. The timing of the film is also important, as it came right after Bitcoin had rallied and crashed and critics proclaimed that the currency was dead. But as Austin points out, “A lot of people were saying Bitcoin is dead, but it was ten times more valuable than before the rally started.” He continues, “I learned enough to know that this was a revolutionary technology… it was essentially a pandora’s box. There was no way to close it up and pretend it didn’t exist. Bitcoin wasn’t going away.”

And how did Beccy feel about Austin’s desire to be involved in a documentary about cryptocurrency? As Austin says, “To my great amazement when I asked Beccy about it she was onboard.”

The rules of the Life on Bitcoin documentary were relatively simple: Bitcoin would be the only medium of exchange permitted for all financial transactions made by the couple for 90 days. All cash, credit, and debit cards were to be confiscated and phones, internet, and any other accounts not currently set up to accept payment with Bitcoin would be shut off as well.

The Craigs have become modern pioneers in the world of cryptocurrency.

Each transaction made would also be limited to include only the buyer(s) and the seller, without a middleman exchanging US dollars for Bitcoin. For this experiment to really work and prove Bitcoin’s value as a form of real-world currency, it would need to be as practical as possible.

Using a third party to exchange Bitcoin for USD, and then giving the USD to the seller would be a mere currency exchange rather than an actual transaction of money in exchange for goods or services. So an intermediary was only permitted for transactions after all other avenues had been attempted.

Since Utah is a tightknit community where its members care for each other often without being asked, there were also rules placed on the ability of family and friends to help out the couple. Unless the family or friends in question had legitimate commercial businesses, they would not be allowed to assist the Craigs. The only two exemptions to these rules were payroll taxes withheld from the couple’s paychecks, and of course medical emergencies.

To keep the experiment both interesting and applicable to the real world of Bitcoin transactions, the experiment was set to grow as the Craigs achieved success. If the couple proved that they were able to master the art of using Bitcoin to pay for food, rent, internet, and all other bills in Utah, then the limits would be pushed to include interstate travel and then international travel.

Thanks to Austin and Beccy the small town of Provo, Utah has now become a Bitcoin haven. 

Crypto Pioneers

Both Beccy and Austin come from a heritage filled with religious pioneers who escaped tyranny and oppression from the Federal government by packing up their wagons and trekking from the East Coast all the way to the mountainous desert of the Salt Lake Valley on foot. It is extremely appropriate then, that the Craigs have become modern pioneers in their own right, venturing out into the uncharted territory of cryptocurrency and escaping the centralized banking institutions and their government partnerships that have brought us such financial catastrophes as the Great Depression, the Savings and Loan Crisis, and the Housing Crisis of 2008.

But Beccy and Austin were not the first to attempt such a venture. Prior to the Craigs, Bitcoin adventurer, Senior Online Editor for Forbes and self-proclaimed privacy pragmatist Kashmir Hill decided to conduct a smaller scale experiment, using only Bitcoin for one week in San Francisco.

Many might assume that San Francisco would be a more successful venue for this cryptocurrency experiment than Provo, Utah. But at the time Hill conducted her experiment, there were just not enough individuals using Bitcoin as a means of everyday currency and its value in USD was extremely volatile. As Dan Kaminsky, a network security researcher and Chief Scientist at Whiteops Security points out in Life on Bitcoin, “You want people exchanging currency as fast as possible. The faster they can spin that money around, the more wealth the overall society has.” But in the absence of a local Bitcoin community, living off the cryptocurrency for a week was nearly impossible.

In the film, Hill explains having to move out of her apartment after failing to convince her landlord to accept the cryptocurrency as payment. Hill also speaks of losing five pounds from not being able to pay for food with Bitcoin.

But while San Francisco is what Hill refers to as a “tech mecca,” the small town of Provo has surpassed the silicon valley in becoming its own cryptocurrency haven thanks to the Craigs.

After successfully convincing their landlord to accept rent in Bitcoin, the next priority for the Craigs was finding wifi. Since Bitcoin transactions rely heavily on wifi in order to transfer funds, having fast internet, as well as smartphones, was essential.

Once this need was met, the couple moved on to finding a gas station and a grocery store that would take their digital money. After several attempts, the couple was finally able to meet their needs as well as convincing several local restaurants into joining their experiment and taking Bitcoin as payment. In addition to getting a traditional grocery store on board, they were also able to convince several local farmer’s market vendors to accept Bitcoin, as well as community supported agriculture (CSA) projects.

Bitcoin continues to build its own reputation and relevance in the face of critics. 

The only financial obstacle the Craigs were not able to remedy with Bitcoin was the parking ticket they got while filming the documentary. The judge, however, allowed them to postpone paying the fine until the documentary was completed.

These local victories were somewhat short-lived however, as Beccy and Austin would now have to move on to the next challenger: cross-country travel and international travel.

While the Craigs succeeded in completing both a road trip across the country and traveling abroad, it would have been almost impossible for them to do so without the support of other early Bitcoin adopters who were also using the currency whenever and wherever possible.

Whenever the Craigs found themselves in a bind as they traveled outside the state and the country, there were always members of the Bitcoin community who were more than willing to assist the couple with whatever they needed.

Even as Austin and Beccy found themselves without transportation in Singapore, a local Bitcoiner was able to come to their rescue and help, reiterating the important role communities play in the adoption and expansion of cryptocurrencies. After their international trip was completed, the couple had spent a total of 101 days living solely on Bitcoin.

What Happens Next?

When the internet was starting to become a household commodity in the mid to late 1990s, critics scoffed and brushed off this revolutionary technology as a fad. Even economist Paul Krugman wrote an article saying:

“The growth of the Internet will slow drastically… By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.”

It should shock no one, then, that Krugman has also been an avid critic of bitcoin, lambasting those who are encouraged by its advent, even writing an article entitled, “Bitcoin is Evil.”  But while economists and central planners sit in their ivory towers condemning the use of a currency that, if successful, would diminish the need for the existence of central authority, Bitcoin has continued to build its own reputation and relevance and the Craigs have been major contributors to this cause.

While the Craigs have no regrets, they do admit that as of now Bitcoin is “not ready for primetime.” But this doesn’t mean that Bitcoin should simply be ignored in its infancy. In fact, without early adopters, the cryptocurrency would never have made it this far.

Sure, we may be years away from going to Starbucks and exchanging Bitcoin for our morning coffee, but that doesn’t mean Bitcoin has no relevance in our current world, nor does it take away from the impacts Bitcoin is already making.

In underbanked regions of the world, where banks are a luxury not afforded to the most impoverished, individuals are finally able to participate in the global economy of which they have been excluded for too long. Likewise, those sending money across borders to family members are now able to do so in Bitcoin to avoid costly service fees and currency exchange rates.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are changing the way individuals conduct financial transactions with each other. Governments have slowly taken our most precious rights to privacy away from us. Our bank accounts serve as self-incriminating logs of all our habits and vices, but the blockchain and cryptocurrencies are taking back the power by allowing individuals to make exchanges without government interference.

As Jeffrey Tucker says, “There is a chance that Bitcoin will give new life to the old-fashioned idea of the brotherhood of man from which nobody is excluded,” he continues, “This isn’t about people buying cool things on the internet; this is about the whole of humanity coming together and the great project of building prosperity.”

Reflecting on the experience, Austin said, “Even though we didn’t know if this would be possible, if we would really be able to live on Bitcoin we knew that even trying to do that, even the attempt would give us enough material to talk to a lot of people about Bitcoin.”

Without crypto pioneers like Beccy and Austin, Bitcoin would have never obtained the level of success it already has. It takes individuals, and the communities those individuals make up to change hearts and minds.

And as Austin says, “This movie is a bit of a trojan horse. People come to this to see the adventure of a young newlywed couple living on internet ‘funny money.’ But our goal, and my belief is that once people watch the movie, once the credits start rolling, they will understand the potential of Bitcoin and the implication of this technology that will be touching everyone’s life in the very near future.”

Write for CFI