Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Category: economics

Give People Money: How a Universal Basic Income Would End Poverty, Revolutionize Work, and Remake the World” (Crown), by the economic journalist Annie Lowrey, is the latest book to argue that a program in this family is a sane solution to the era’s socioeconomic woes. Lowrey is a policy person. She is interested in working from the concept down. “The way things are is really the way we choose for them to be,” she writes. Her conscientiously reported book assesses the widespread effects that money and a bit of hope could buy.

It has enthusiasts on both the left and the right. Maybe that’s the giveaway, Nathan Heller writes.

Read more

Recorded at “Contra Krugman: The Economic Myths of the 2016 Election”: the Mises Circle at Seattle’s historic Town Hall, on 21 May 2016.

Presidential candidates promise everything from living wages to free health care and college. Proposals about how to run whole segments of the economy are made with a straight face. The most tired and hackneyed ideas about income equality, corporate greed, creating jobs, and paying one’s fair share of taxes are trotted out. And millions of voters apparently believe it all, falling for the same promises of free stuff and prosperity from Washington.

How do political candidates get away with this nonsense, year after year and election after election? More importantly, what can we do as individuals to fight the entrenched economic illiteracy that keeps politicians in business?

Full talk, licenced under creative common: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6KQY5gbEAM

–
If you like the content, subscribe!

Read more

Much Worse than that. And, thankfully, They are too foolish and greedy to stop.

Artificial intelligence is coming for the service economy, according to Allstate Corp. Chief Executive Officer Tom Wilson.

“It’s going to rip through this economy like a tsunami,” Wilson said Thursday in an interview on Bloomberg TV from Aspen, Colorado.

Automation will affect a wide swath of workers, from traders to taxi drivers. McKinsey & Co. estimates that more than 400 million people worldwide could be looking for work by 2030 because technology took their jobs.

Read more

I get this question a lot. Today, I was asked to write an answer at Quora.com, a Q&A web site at which I am the local cryptocurrency expert. It’s time to address this issue here at Lifeboat.

Question

I have many PCs laying around my home and office.
Some are current models with fast Intel CPUs. Can
I mine Bitcoin to make a little money on the side?

Answer

Other answers focus on the cost of electricity, the number of hashes or teraflops achieved by a computer CPU or the size of the current Bitcoin reward. But, you needn’t dig into any of these details to understand this answer.

You can find the mining software to mine Bitcoin or any other coin on any equipment. Even a phone or wristwatch. But, don’t expect to make money. Mining Bitcoin with an x86 CPU (Core or Pentium equivalent) is never cost effective—not even when Bitcoin was trading at nearly $20,000. A computer with a fast $1500 graphics card will bring you closer to profitability, but not by much.

The problem isn’t that an Intel or AMD processor is too weak to mine for Bitcoin. It’s just as powerful as it was in the early days of Bitcoin. Rather, the problem is that the mining game is a constantly evolving competition. Miners with the fastest hardware and the cheapest power are chasing a shrinking pool of rewards.

The problem arises from a combination of things:

  1. There is a fixed rate of rewards available to all miners—and yet, over the past 2 years, hundreds of thousands of new CPUs have been added to the task. You are competing with all of them.
  2. Despite a large drop in the Bitcoin exchange rate (from $19,783.21 on Dec. 17, 2017), we know that it is generally a rising commodity, because both speculation and gradual grassroots adoption outpaces the very gradual increase in supply. The rising value of Bitcoin attracts even more individuals and organizations into the game of mining. They are all fighting for a pie that is shrinking in overall size. Here’s why…
  3. The math (a built-in mechanism) halves the size of rewards every 4 years. We are currently between two halving events, the next one will occur in May 2020. This halving forces miners to be even more efficient to eke out any reward.
  4. In the past few years, we have seen a race among miners and mining pools to acquire the best hardware for the task. At first, it was any CPU that could crunch away at the math. Then, miners quickly discovered that an nVidia graphics processor was better suited to the task. Then ASICS became popular, and now; specialized, large-scale integrated circuits that were designed specifically for mining.
  5. Advanced mining pools have the capacity to instantly switch between mining for Bitcoin, Ethereum classic, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash and dozens of other coins depending upon conditions that change minute-by-minute. Although you can find software that does the same thing, it is unlikely that you can outsmart the big boys at this game, because they have super-fast internet connections and constant software maintenance.
  6. Some areas of the world have a surplus of wind, water or solar energy. In fact, there are regions where electricity is free.* Although regional governments would rather that this surplus be used to power homes and businesses (benefiting the local economy), electricity is fungible! And so, local entrepreneurs often “rent” out their cheap electricity by offering shelf space to miners from around the world. Individuals with free or cheap electricity (and some, with a cold climate to keep equipment cool) split this energy savings with the miner. This further stacks the deck against the guy with a fast PC in New York or Houston.

Of course, with Bitcoin generally rising in value (over the long term), this provides continued incentive to mine. It is the only thing that makes this game worthwhile to the individuals who participate.

So, while it is not impossible to profit by mining on a personal computer, if you don’t have very cheap power, the very latest specialized mining rigs, and the skills to constantly tweak your configuration—then your best bet is to join a reputable mining pool. Take your fraction of the mining rewards and let them take a small cut. Cash out frequently, so that you are not locked into their ability to resist hacking or remain solvent.

Related: Largest US operation mines 0.4% of daily Bitcoin rewards. Listen to the owner describe the effiiency of his ASIC processors and the enormous capacity he is adding. This will not produce more Bitcoin. The total reward rate is fixed and falling every 4 years. His build out will consume a massive amount of electricity, but it will only grab share from other miners—and encourage them to increase consuption just to keep up.

* Several readers have pointed out that they have access to “free power” in their office — or more typically, in a college dormitory. While this may be ‘free’ to the student or employee, it is most certainly not free. In the United States, even the most efficient mining, results in a 20 or 30% return on electric cost—and with the added cost of constant equipment updates. This is not the case for personal computers. They are sorely unprofitable…

So, for example, if you have 20 Intel computers cooking for 24 hours each day, you might receive $115 rewards at the end of a year, along with an electric bill for $3500. Long before this happens, you will have tripped the circuit breaker in your dorm room or received an unpleasant memo from your boss’s boss.

Bitcoin mining farms —

  • Professional mining pool (above photo and top row below)
  • Amateur mining rigs (bottom row below)

This is what you are up against. Even the amateur mining operations depicted in the bottom row require access to very cheap electricity, the latest processors and the skill to expertly maintain hardware, software and the real-time, mining decision-process.

Philip Raymond co-chairs CRYPSA, hosts the New York Bitcoin Event and is keynote speaker at Cryptocurrency Conferences. He sits on the New Money Systems board of Lifeboat Foundation. Book a presentation or consulting engagement.

Ocasio-Cortez’s 100%-renewable plan puts her in agreement with a coalition of US mayors who have committed to the goal of complete decarbonization within their own cities. But Ocasio-Cortez, who has an economics degree, also couples that plank with an economic plan she is calling the Green New Deal.

In a major upset on Tuesday night, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old Latina democratic socialist from the Bronx, beat out the longtime US representative Joe Crowley in the New York primaries. In the overwhelmingly Democratic district, she is practically certain to win a seat in Congress during the general election in November.

Ocasio-Cortez’s climate-change platform would become the most progressive of that of any sitting Congressperson in the Democratic party—and her primary victory catapults that platform into the mainstream.

“We need more environmental hardliners in Congress,” she told In These Times magazine earlier this week. “We need a Marshall Plan for renewable energy in the United States. The idea that the Democratic Party needs to be moderate is what’s holding us back on this.”

Read more

The deadlines set for “singularity” are also seen by some as an attempt to scare and coerce governments into implementing the movement’s social and technological “agenda”. However, when the names of major tech corporations of the world like Google, Nokia and Tesla are associated with the transhumanist ideology, it is difficult to dismiss the premise and prospects of this new revolutionary socio-technological movement.

For several centuries, political movements have emanated from nationalist or religious convictions, socio-political and economic theories or even environmental concerns. However, issues of science and technology have rarely driven mainstream socio-political discourse as scientists have hardly ever indulged in propounding societal constructs for the future.

However, a technology-oriented intellectual movement may soon become the focus of political debate as 21st century science stands at the brink of reshaping human identity itself.

By the turn of the millennium, Transhumanism rose as a futurist social movement, led by some of the leading researchers and heads of global tech corporations (mostly based in the super-rich Silicon Valley), but has only recently gained greater media coverage and popularity apart from inspiring the plotlines for many Hollywood films.

Read more

Behind all this is a change in the way a lot of journals make their money. Over the past decade, many have stopped selling subscriptions. Instead, they charge authors a publication fee and permit people to read the result for nothing. This “open access” business model has the advantage of increasing the dissemination of knowledge, but it also risks corrupting the knowledge thus disseminated.

WHETHER to get a promotion or merely a foot in the door, academics have long known that they must publish papers, typically the more the better. Tallying scholarly publications to evaluate their authors has been common since the invention of scientific journals in the 17th century. So, too, has the practice of journal editors asking independent, usually anonymous, experts to scrutinise manuscripts and reject those deemed flawed—a quality-control process now known as peer review. Of late, however, this habit of according importance to papers labelled as “peer reviewed” has become something of a gamble. A rising number of journals that claim to review submissions in this way do not bother to do so. Not coincidentally, this seems to be leading some academics to inflate their publication lists with papers that might not pass such scrutiny.

Experts debate how many journals falsely claim to engage in peer review. Cabells, an analytics firm in Texas, has compiled a blacklist of those which it believes are guilty. According to Kathleen Berryman, who is in charge of this list, the firm employs 65 criteria to determine whether a journal should go on it—though she is reluctant to go into details. Cabells’ list now totals around 8,700 journals, up from a bit over 4,000 a year ago. Another list, which grew to around 12,000 journals, was compiled until recently by Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado. Using Mr Beall’s list, Bo-Christer Björk, an information scientist at the Hanken School of Economics, in Helsinki, estimates that the number of articles published in questionable journals has ballooned from about 53,000 a year in 2010 to more than 400,000 today. He estimates that 6% of academic papers by researchers in America appear in such journals.

Get our daily newsletter

Upgrade your inbox and get our Daily Dispatch and Editor’s Picks.

Read more

Space is the next frontier for war.

  • President Donald Trump’s proposed “Space Force” could help fuel the $1 trillion intergalactic economy, Morgan Stanley says.
  • The bank is tracking 100 private companies poised to profit from interstellar industries.

If President Donald Trump successfully organizes his so-called Space Force, it could speed up investment in what Morgan Stanley sees as the next trillion-dollar economy.

In a note to clients Friday, the bank doubled down on its intergalactic thesis from last October, saying the Space Force “could address critical vulnerabilities in national security, raising investor awareness in the formation of what we see as the next trillion-dollar economy.”

Read more