The crying of bitcoin lots

Sun Jul 6 17:13:17 CDT 2014

And, pre=K in NYC, though the governor, an apple that fell far from
his father's tree, refused to support the mayor's progressive
foundation. Still the Mayor in NYC did get ti and more affordable
housing and a near COLA for the workers, and the long over due monies
to the central park 5 and so on....so at the center of capital, NYC,
the conspiracy theory is not confirmed. It's far more complex than any
theory. It's people man.

On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 5:46 PM, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com> wrote:
> and Olympic games and FIFA....so.
>
> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 5:45 PM, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> That said, capital is certainly not what it was prior to 9-11. So much
>> has changed since then, and, as anyone who reads the newspaper knows,
>> the central banks of the major developed economies (Europe, the US,
>> Japan...) have engineered a coordinated effort to save the capital
>> markets, and the corporations have taken full advantage of this to
>> engineer purchases of their stocks through the issuance of cheap
>> credit. This has tightened all of the credit markets ( a bubble of
>> sorts) and helped to make funding or projects cheaper, so fewer tax
>> dollars are needed. What projects are started? Projects for? Well, we
>> need look no further than FIFA and Brasil to see what is being built
>> and why these projects will not make the citizens of the welfare state
>> very happy. But, as you say, there is always funding for rubber
>> bullets and riot gear.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 5:34 PM, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Funding is politics not economics.
>>>
>>> The fact is, there is never enough funding for anything, that includes
>>> war making, weapons systems, schools, roads, and so on...the welfare
>>> state.... That's government. It's not a trade or a balance sheet
>>> decision. It's not economics. It's politics. At the nation-state
>>> level, state level, municipal and local level, there is credit, and
>>> credit is secured, for the most part, by taxes and the ability to
>>> collect taxes in the future to meet credit obligations. If the Bitcoin
>>> undermines or even diminishes the tax revenue from the wealthy (who
>>> now enjoy low tax rates, though even with very low rate the richest
>>> 10% fund a a good deal of the government), credit would be more
>>> expensive, prohibitively so at some levels, painfully so at all
>>> levels. In the US, this would weaken the municipal credit markets and
>>> the states. Not sure that's what the rich want at all. It's a complex
>>> puzzle, and, of course, it's a several competitive markets, in capital
>>> credit, and no one, not even the Fed, controls or can take control of
>>> them. So, I doubt that a grand conspiracy of the forces of capital is
>>> actually operating outside of fiction.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 3:57 PM,  <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>> I agree that the untaxable bitcoin is a great development for super-wealthy individuals and global conglomerates. Along with politicians fighting the taxation of the rich, it's yet another nail in the coffin of the nation-state as we know it. If you're not bringing in any tax money, you don't have to fund schools, healthcare, or any of those other annoying public-minded programs, unless there's some private interest in funding it. Seems there's always funding for military, security, penal and surveillance programs. So the welfare state will wither away, to become the private security force of whichever global corporations are willing to pick up the tab.
>>>>
>>>> I've argued here in the past, to some ridicule, that two sides are shaping up: the forces of global capital - anti-tax, anti-tariff, unwilling to pay for the poor, but always with a keen willingness to endorse progressive outlooks that benefit profit-making, such as immigration (easy flow of exploitable workers across borders), gay marriage (more likely to be affluent than, say, single moms), abortion (religious folks being a drag on highly profitable areas of the commercialization of women's wombs, fetal stem cells, and such), and profit-making environmental enterprises (such as privatizing water, keeping it clean of pollution, then charging money for it).
>>>>
>>>> On the other side are some odd bed-fellows: progressives who believe in strong government to fund social programs, environmentalists who know that cleaning the environment is more likely to create the well-being of all rather than the profits of a few, right-wing nationalists, strong-government-minded fascists, religious extremists, and terrorists opposed to various aspects of the global culture. It's a confusing situation, because both sides have repellent and reasonable positions, and neither side is remotely homogenous. But it seems (to me, anyway) like a developing trend.
>>>>
>>>> Laura
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com>
>>>>>Sent: Jul 6, 2014 2:34 PM
>>>>>To: "pynchon-l at waste.org" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>>>Subject: Re: The crying of bitcoin lots
>>>>>
>>>> >From the POV of Krugman's brand of Keynesian economics, the Bitcoin
>>>>>will limit a government's taxing power, and then, presumably, its
>>>>>power use fiscal policy.
>>>>>
>>>>>What would, for example, the mayor of NYC do if the could not even
>>>>>collect the taxes on the wealthy he collects now? Consider how
>>>>>difficult it is to raise taxes on the wealthy to fund collapsing
>>>>>infrastructure, schools, etc...the proposed early childhood education
>>>>>plan. If the wealthy could avoid taxes with Bitcoin transaction, how
>>>>>would progressive government support the most vulnerable citizens.
>>>>>
>>>>>As things are now, the poor and ordinary, the working men and women
>>>>>are being steamrolled out of the cities they built, their pensions and
>>>>>job security, benefits cut.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ten years after had a good plan: Tax the rich. How ya gonna do that if
>>>>>the Bitcoin let the mother fuckers hide all that mad money they be
>>>>>making by making nothin but pain on the rest of us?
>>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 12:59 PM,  <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>> OK, Krugman doesn't like it because he's not clear what the basis of its value is. And he quotes some blogger who says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "BitCoin looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind—to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with that assessment. Whether one thinks this is a good or bad outcome, the bitcoin, by virtue of its untraceability,  is a menace to governments trying to tax their citizens' income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But then there's the US Marshall Service muddling things up by deciding the bitcoins have value and auctioning them off. Did they consult with the US Treasury, or just wing it on their own? Are they a rogue agency? If they did get a go-ahead from elsewhere in the government, well, that's interesting too. It could mean that the Treasury and/or other US agencies and/or officials have decided that bitcoins do have inherent value (but no inherent vice, given that they have no physical incarnation).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LK
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>From: alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>Sent: Jul 6, 2014 12:16 PM
>>>>>>>To: "pynchon-l at waste.org" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>>>>>Subject: Re: The crying of bitcoin lots
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm with Krugman. From a positive economics perspective I'm not
>>>>>>>convinced it has value. Sliding toward the normative economic point of
>>>>>>>view, I'm with Robert Shiller on the Bitcoin.  I find the science and
>>>>>>>culture of it fascinating, as I find Tulips fascinating too, and Gold,
>>>>>>>and, for different reasons, Yap, but I think it's a very good lesson
>>>>>>>in bubbles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Shiller, though most famous for his Housing Index, the Case Shiller,
>>>>>>>much to the surprise of his students and investment gurus the world
>>>>>>>round, claims that housing is not an investment. Nor is Gold,
>>>>>>>Tulips...Bitcoins.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I agree with him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbtVaTWs6II
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/bitcoin-is-evil/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-shiller-bitcoin-2014-1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/15/131934618/the-island-of-stone-money
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 10:16 AM,  <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> A story about how the U.S. Marshals Service auctioned off some of the bitcoins it "confiscated" from the deep web (or whatever you want to call it) Silk Road network:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/daily-report-winner-of-bitcoin-auction-seeks-to-increase-currencys-use-in-emerging-markets/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Technology&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What interests me is how the decision was made to auction the bitcoins, which obviously enhances their value. Wasn't the US government trying to squash the bitcoin? I think these supra-national currencies are the wave of the future, and mark the eventual, if not demise, then marginalizing of government-issued currencies. But what do I know. Alice, I'd actually like to hear your opinion on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Laura
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>>>-
>>>>>Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l