Why do you thinkd Brexit and Trump happened? Watt's Up With That?

[The_Doc_Man]

Strictly virtual. Our government hates it because of the difficulty in tracking it, and some hackers require it as a medium of payment for un-hacking your computer.

 

[youyiyang]

"City employees in Vicco, Kentucky could be receiving their paychecks in the form of bitcoin as early as this month after officials there agreed on Monday to begin compensating the chief of police with the emerging crypto-currency.

City officials said on Monday this week that there won’t be a problem with paying Vicco Police Chief Tony Vaughn electronically using Bitcoin, an online-only digital form of currency that has in recent months been accepted at an increasing number of retailers around the world.

Bitcoin allows users to securely pay for goods and services with near total anonymity, all while avoiding the regulations and restrictions often imposed by state-controlled currencies, such as the dollar.

Cris Ritchie for Kentucky’s Hazard Herald reported on Wednesday that Vaughn made his request last month, and this week city officials said they finished their research and would be willing to pay the chief’s salary in bitcoin if that’s his preference.

"We done a checkup on it, and that's the way he wants paid, and that's the way the city is going to pay him," City Commissioner Claude Branson told the Herald.

“Basically his next paycheck” could be in bitcoin, Mayor Johnny Cummings said to the paper. “They've set up the accounts for Vicco and for Tony, so it can be transferred.”

"We just want to be on top of things, and up-and-coming and more progressive as a city," the mayor added.

All applicable federal and state taxes will still be chopped from the top of Vaughn’s salary each pay period, Cummings added, but the remainder will be electronically converted and put in the control of a city-run bitcoin account where funds will then be instantaneously transferred to Vicco’s own digital wallet.

"I'm excited about it; it's a first for Vicco again," Vaughn told Richie, referring to an ordinance passed by the city earlier this year that outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation. Last month, the United States Senate approved of a similar bill that functions on a federal level — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA — but that act has yet to clear Congress.

But while the EDNA may eventually make its way to President Barack Obama’s desk and be signed into law, no measures whatsoever have been proposed in Congress just yet that would require the government to pay federal employees in bitcoin. Meanwhile, though, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke wrote to the Senate recently that virtual currencies, like bitcoin, "may hold long-term promise, particularly if the innovations promote a faster, more secure, and more efficient payment system."

One bitcoin is currently worth US$1,230, up from $240 just one month earlier. Earlier this year a Canadian man attempted to sell his Alberta home for bitcoin, and the University of Nicosia in Cyprus recently became the first institution of its type to accept the virtual currency for tuition."

from https://www.rt.com/usa/vicco-kentucky-bitcoin-salary-725/ which i just found in the internet.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I'm generally against it at this time. Bitcoin isn't backed by anything that I know and has no country to be responsible for its stability, value, or acceptability. It is in essence an unregulated currency and that makes it unacceptable to my limited viewpoint. It has NO safeguards against collapse, repudiation, or other ills of trade based on a country's declared currency.

As the article states, it is being accepted in many venuws but the problem is that most countries have laws mandating the nature of their medium of exchange. If BitCoin were to become the primary currency of the world, I would expect a collapse of some businesses and a massive price issue for others.

A nation can already do stupid things to devalue its currency. We don't need external forces to pressure currencies into oblivion.

OK, I'm a dinosaur on some subjects. Can't help it.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Just a quick re-visitation here. I read an article yesterday about how the Brexit voters are beginning to vacillate in their viewpoints. The UK PM who was pushing the split is suddenly not in such good shape. Do any of our UK friends care to comment about this from a more local perspective than mine?

 

[CJ_London]

As usual, the Tory manifesto was long term in it's outlook whilst the Labour manifesto is short term.

May wanted to use the election to strengthen her hand on brexit negotiations and basically gave little thought to the presentation of her manifesto, thinking it would all be about brexit. There was relatively little discussion on brexit and the voters perception of her 'dementia tax' disenfranchised the older generation whilst Labours promise to abolish tuition fees appealed to the younger generation who were also disenfranchised about a hard brexit and motivated them to register and use their vote this time.

Those two 'normal' manifesto type pledges overrode other aspects of the election around defence (Trident) and combating terrorism, the latter of which rose its ugly head twice through this election.

The brexit remainers continue to fight to weaken the UK's negotiation position almost guaranteeing the UK will struggle to get a good deal. To my mind they are acting like spoilt children whereas they should be working side by side with the leavers to secure the best possible outcome for all of the UK - but then would you want a non believer on your negotiating team?

May started from a strong position in the polls - unfortunately the only way from there was down. Corbyn started from a very low position with the expectation he would stay there, but he did in fact do a good job and 'rallied' the troops. So better than expected but from a low initial bar.

May has achieved a (fragile) five year term for the Tory party which should take them through the negotiations and provide a couple of years to 'settle the ship' given the new world we will find ourselves in. Whether she will survive as PM remains to be seen. If there is another leadership contest, it is possible there will be yet another general election

 

[youyiyang]

Yes, @The_Doc_Man, the Bitcoin may be judged by different countries, but do you know something about the "BLOCKCHAIN"? A blockchain is a public ledger of all Bitcoin transactions that have even been executed. It is constantly growing as "complete" blocks are added to it with a new set of recordings. The blocks are added to the blockchain in a linear, chronological order. Each node (computer connected to the Bitcoin network using a client that performs the task of validating and relaying transactions) gets a copy of the blockchain, which gets downloaded automatically upon joining the Bitcoin network. The blockchain has complete information about the addresses and their balances right from genesis block to the most recently completed block.
So the blockchain technology would be using broadly in the very near future, especially in these 4 ways firstly: distributed cloud storage, unbreakable contracts, the end of patents, electronic voting.
In the future, people would say to each other: "Have you BLOCKCHAINED?" instead of "Have you Googled?"
!!!

 

[isladogs]

@CJ_London

I agree with much of your post but have to take issue with 2 points you made:

As usual, the Tory manifesto was long term in it's outlook whilst the Labour manifesto is short term.

Included in the Labour manifesto were promises to restore police numbers and focus on strengthening the NHS. Neither of these are short term issues.

Both manifestos included points designed for short term impact but the Tories failed miserably to involve the wider electorate with the most inept campaign by either party for years - possibly since Labour in 1983

The brexit remainers continue to fight to weaken the UK's negotiation position almost guaranteeing the UK will struggle to get a good deal. To my mind they are acting like spoilt children whereas they should be working side by side with the leavers to secure the best possible outcome for all of the UK - but then would you want a non believer on your negotiating team?

Not true. The Brexit vote was a single question & as such the terms of Britain's departure were not covered.
For example, some who voted to leave want to stay in the single market.

Perhaps the issues boil down to peoples' perception of Britain's world status in the long term.
There seems to be a major divide between that perception in different age groups.

Some believe Britain remains a world class power that will be stronger on its own.
Others believe Britain has not had that status for decades and will be immeasurably weakened by leaving the single market and drastically curtailing freedom of movement.
Each side is rightly trying to influence how Britain tries to play the negotiations.

Expecting the EU to 'roll over' to our demands is a guaranteed way of ensuring that the 'UK will struggle to get a good deal'

 

[Rx_]

Yep, the blockchain will be the revolution. I am working with a group on that now that uses advanced graphic cards (with the next generation memory) as the basic CPU to run it more efficiently and faster.
Foreign countries should use it for their voting as the US is well known for its efforts to influence the elections. It is an old tradition! LOL
Found a extremely great video training series that explained BlockChain.
But, I better not list it and risk promoting a product!

 

[Rx_]

RE: A nation can already do stupid things to devalue its currency. We don't need external forces to pressure currencies into oblivion.

So can a State. Looks like the State of Illinois went below junk bond status. That is horrible news for anyone who thought they had a pension. Looks as if 6 more states may follow in 2017.

The nations pretty much gave up the right to regulate currencies and handed it over to some Central Bank monopoly. That is what I feel the Brexit was about, regaining the right to national control over some non-responsible Central Bank.
Central Banks are not generally recognized for making decisions for morality, social, legal, or environmental reasons.
The central bank in the US needs a war to survive. As we watch the roulette wheel spin, what country will it stop on?
We are all just observers now as the big powers of banks, politics, and deals interact.

 

[jlavin]

Where are those term limits for sitting senators and representatives? Keep our government fresh and sharp, new ideas, out with the good ol boy network. People being voted in 5 terms, 8 terms is crazy. They have figured out how to rig the system by then or did something stupid and are using our tax dollars to keep people quiet. 2 terms max. That is 12 yrs. I think that is even generous.

That is why we are where we are. Fix it now so our children and their children don't have to deal with this fiasco.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

jlavin,

I am with you on term limitations for all elected federal officials. It used to be that Sen. Robert Byrd of W. Virginia had so much power that there was no way to get a road appropriation for any other state unless your appropriation had something in it for West Virginia. That was how you bribed him to get his vote on your bill.

There are quite a few things I would rather see happen to Congress. One that will never be passed unless by Initiative and Referendum would be that all Healthcare decisions made by Congress for the USA citizens would HAVE to also apply to them. I.e. if WE have to swallow Obamacare, THEY should have had to swallow it, too. They are too insulated from their own decisions sometimes.

 

[jdraw]

Doc, I agree with your point on Healthcare. It should apply more generally ---that is, if elected officials are voting on something that applies to the public at large, the resulting decision should include them. Too often elected officials seem to be, and act, entitled with a status above the ordinary citizen. We might see more cooperative, productive bilateral analysis and design if they were affected by the results.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Yes. Or even >>>gasp<<< cooperation.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Just as a quick FYI - under current law, Congress and its staff are actually REQUIRED to get their health insurance from the Marketplace (aka Obamacare).

Nearly every iteration of the current GOP tax cut for rich people (aka AHCA), on the other hand, removes that requirement.

Also, not only did the Republican party do nothing but obstruct government in every way they possibly could since Obama first won the White House (remember that tape that got leaked of them agreeing to block everything and anything the Dems tried as long as Obama was in office?), but they've made clear since Trump's election that even a semblance of bipartisanship is a complete non-starter. Just look at McConnel - his very phrasing when he talks about working with Democrats shows that he considers bipartisanship a desperation move, not something to be done as a matter of course.

Hell, the entire reason the Democrats changed the rules to disallow filibusters on cabinet officials was because the GOP abused it to the point of Obama not being able to get ANY nominations approved, no matter how centrist.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Don't disagree as to who started it, Frothy. I just wish there was a way to end it, and I think term limits (as suggested by jlavin) would be a step in the right direction. I just doubt the ability of Congress to limit itself in this way.

For one thing, the big-ticket vote buyers would HATE it because it would mean that every so often they would have to buy someone else. With the status quo they only have to "really" buy someone once and then just pay maintenance.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The Republicans could have had a massive win. Had they just waited until the higher premiums from Obama care kicked in. People would have demanded relief, but the dumbasses will probably get blamed for that too.

I say leave it alone.

 

[Steve R.]

There is an overlooked aspect in the ACA debacle. Yes, the Republicans are involved in a civil-war and are apparently paralyzed. That is actually "good" in terms of how a democratic society is supposed to operate.

Contrast this with the Democrats who march in lock-step blindly implementing Party talking points. The Democratic party is acting as a monolith, no dissension allowed. From the perspective of how a democracy is supposed to operate that is "bad".

Furthermore, note that the Democrats are essentially standing in the background and not offering any proposed solutions for fixing the ACA. There is nothing preventing them from either introducing legislation and/or having a very public news conference where they lay out a draft for fixing the ACA. In fact they could probably make some good political points with such a strategy. The fact that the Democrats are locking themselves out of any proposed solution, implies that they are purposely sabotaging the legislative process for their own self-serving benefit. Seems that the Democrats would rather let their "baby" drown instead of jumping in the water to save it.

PS: Schumer, on TV just claimed, that the bi-partisan door is open. But Schumer, if one reads between the lines, implies that the door is open only if the Republicans acquiesce to work with the Democrats as opposed to the Democrats mutually working with Republicans. Furthermore, Schumer did not disclosing what (if any) the Democrats would be willing to put on the negotiating table. Based on verbal gymnastics, Schumer is only suggesting faux negotiations, nothing substantive.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Don't disagree as to who started it, Frothy. I just wish there was a way to end it, and I think term limits (as suggested by jlavin) would be a step in the right direction. I just doubt the ability of Congress to limit itself in this way.

For one thing, the big-ticket vote buyers would HATE it because it would mean that every so often they would have to buy someone else. With the status quo they only have to "really" buy someone once and then just pay maintenance.

For once, you and I agree on something!

 

[AccessBlaster]

...And I think we're probably in that position where we'll just let Obamacare fail. We're not going to own it.

Smart move. Take the hit on the failed promise, and move on.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I recall a part of this thread discussed bitcoin. Hate to say my predictions were right, but then again, if I don't blow my own horn now and then, nobody else will unless it is part of a eulogy - and who wants to wait THAT long?

Bitcoin and the other digital currencies (now numbering four total) have started to tank because

(a) the computation required for long-chain blockchain computations is expensive, and therefore so is the electricity for it, so its use can become prohibitively expensive in upkeep costs.

(b) since it is unbased, it is essentially another "bubble" that was waiting to burst. If it is unbased, it is too easy to debase.

(c) many governments in the far east no longer trust it and therefore are either suspending or formally outlawing trading in virtual currency. They are concerned over its security. The fact that both China and South Korea (politically very different) have taken steps means they have seen a fundamental problem. I'm guessing that they are trying to prevent a shadow economy that they cannot control or track.