msgnet's Comments

msgnet.org : Humanitarians for Sweatshops

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 01:39:05 +0000

You got it!

Naked Security : Bitcoin currency collapse - where next for digital cash?

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:44:02 +0000

Yes, the amount of Bitcoins in existence is controlled by a
predetermined algorithm.

I'm just saying that the failure of Mt. Gox has a small negative
effect in the short term (one guy lost about $1000, the value of
Bitcoin as measured by the price on functioning exchanges dropped
~25%). But in the long term this will make the ecosystem stronger
through competition. I don't think it's possible for the whole
Bitcoin infrastructure to improve if some players don't fail along the
way.

But I'm not sure what your point is about the Bitcoin supply being
regulated and how that pertains to faith in the ecosystem. Could you
expand on that?

Naked Security : Bitcoin currency collapse - where next for digital cash?

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 04:42:45 +0000

Umm, no. You're confusing the currency with the exchange. This was a Mt. Gox problem, not a Bitcoin problem. People are likely going to move from Mt. Gox to a competing exchange like Tradehill (where Bitcoins continued to be traded even after Mt. Gox went down). Other exchanges will pop up. They will all compete to earn your trust and this in turn will make them all more secure. This is exactly what you'd expect from a libertarian-style market. So is this an "enormous blow to the sustainability of the Bitcoin experiment"? I don't think so. It will only serve to make Bitcoin infrastructure more secure. Mt. Gox indeed may go away and get replaced by something better. But Bitcoin lives on....

msgnet.org : Too Many Gadgets?

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:31:41 +0000

Perhaps, but I wouldn't even consider BlackBerry as being an audio player substitute for iPod.

msgnet.org : Tom Ashbrook - Biased?

Mon, 31 May 2010 18:29:07 +0000

Did voters want politicians to move in the direction of massive fiscal deficits? In terms of fiscal policy, government generally moves in the direction of more handouts to special interests that have the political clout.

The acts you cited were successful at imposing a cost on business to counteract the externalities they were imposing on the public through pollution. I wouldn't use these as examples that we can regulate anything successfully. It is more of an example of enforcing property rights. In order to protect the property of individuals, the government should impose rules that make people accountable for their externalities, and this is entirely consistent with a free market.

\"The industrial revolution is a perfect example of what a lack of regulation will get you (i.e. child labor, cheap labor from women, long work days/weeks, filthy/dangerous/unhealthy working conditions, etc.)\"

Let me just say that there is no developed economy in the the world that has not gone through this stage of economic development. The industrial revolution is a perfect example of how economic growth results in millions of ordinary people escaping generations of poverty and misery.

msgnet.org : Tom Ashbrook - Biased?

Tue, 4 May 2010 14:43:10 +0000

In all honesty, I just really started listening to Ashbrook around the time of the financial crisis, but I was astounded at how fast he jumped to certain conclusions. Within a couple days of Bear Sterns going down, he was echoing the "free market failed, deregulation is bad, regulation is good" mantra. If a caller or guest came on the show and said the free market failed, we need more regulation - that point of view would at the very least go uncontested. If someone tried to defend free markets, and blamed that government for the crisis, that person would just get blasted. On the regulation matter, I think it's nonsense to say that because we deregulate, people take advantage of the system - as if people don't take advantage of regulated systems! For any proposed regulation there is absolutely a special interest, usually backed by corporate dollars, who stands to benefit from that regulation. Elected officials are not angels who are looking out for our well being - they are looking to secure enough money and votes to win the next election. So do regulations really stop businesses from "taking advantage of everyone"? Or do they enable them?! I think you're taking a whole lot for granted when you leave it in the hands of some politicians to set the rules of the game.

http://republicanwhip.house.gov/blog : Post

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:36:56 +0000

I am deeply concerned, but are there any more details? What is the specific abuse of power?

msgnet.org : Reagan Was Right

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:12:51 +0000

Figured you would, despite this: http://www.reason.com/news/show/132972.html And his outrageous budget: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&a... And his position on this! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12181550246722255... Can't really find anyone reputable who likes his bank plan either: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/opinion/23krugm... Cap and trade is terrible too - just passing on $650 billion to US consumers. It's not going to end until he loses re-election or the congress gets flipped around. Seriously!

msgnet.org : Tom Ashbrook - Biased?

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:37:24 +0000

Despite all of those things, I still think it's a great show. It's just frustrating that he's not as neutral as he should be. UPDATE: I just listed to the show with Dambisa Moyo on aid to Africa. Excellent discussion, thanks for the heads up.

Change.gov : The President-elect's plan | Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:57:25 +0000

The most important thing I want to know is, where is the money going to come from? Are we going to borrow it from foreign countries, the American public, or is the Federal Reserve going to create (print) the money needed. If it's a combination of the three I'd like to know the relative weighting.