Friday, December 15, 2017

Why Bars Should Turn Off the Sports Channel


I am a connoisseur of American bars. 

Be it the hoity toity bars sitting atop skyscrapers in downtown areas, serving $300 pours of scotch,
The run of the mill franchise bars such as Applebee's and Ruby Tuesday that dot the suburbanite landscape,
The classical dive bars that have hide out in the country's major metros, yet to be affected by gentrification,
Or the quiet token VFW or corner bar that every prairie state small town must have,

my motorcycle adventuring combined with alcoholism has ensured I've sampled my fair share of bars in these United States of America.

But one thing has remained consistent.  A universal constant that you will find in every bar in America, whether you're in the desolate prairies of North Dakota or the schwankiest of schwank bars in the up and coming hipster area of New York City.  You apparently need to have the sports channel on.

I find this annoying on several levels.

First, just because ESPN or Sports Center is on, doesn't mean there's an actual sport being played.  Much worse are the limitless number of post-post-pre-post-pre sports shows that analyze either a game that was just played or speculate about one that is about to be played.  If it was just one show immediately before or after a game was played, I could understand.  But these channels manage to speak blather 24-7, whether or not there is something worth talking about. 

Second (and worse), sports commentators put on the veneer that what they're talking about is important or some kind of science. There's analysis, graphics showing the projection of the ball as if the quarter back did some geometric calculations before throwing it, and my favorite, where old retired players go out onto the field in suits (and tennis shoes) and explain to the arm-chair slob the "science" behind some kind of play re-enacting it with their knee replacements.  This is only outdone with the quasi-political sports analysis show where they cover the latest news in the sports world as if it were "This Week in Washington."  It's so painful I've often asked the bar tender to turn off the television or change the channel to AMC.

Third, though I appreciate a good game, much like political talk shows, female day time talk shows, or CNBC, 75% of sports channels' programming is just mind-numbing drivel.  And I don't mean to say it's boring.  I mean it's MIND NUMBING.  It's painful.  It's painfully pointless, it goes nowhere, it does not feed your soul or even slightly entertain your mind.  It does nothing to advance you or improve your life.  Now, admittedly I'm not your rank and file normie who wears another man's jersey drinking light beer at the local sports bar, horking down wings.  Nor am I a dude bro who actually thinks there's a science or some kind of important analysis being conducted as I stroke my chin and call into sports talk shows to share my opinion why I think Bart Starr was a better quarterback than Brett Favre, as I contemplate majoring in Sports Management.  But though I'm in the minority when it comes to America's obsession with sports, you can't tell me that the majority of men (and women) sitting in bars today are watching, even paying attention to what is being said on these various sports channels.

Finally, sports channels lessen the "bar experience" at certain types of bars. 

If you run a designated "sports bar," then of course, the whole point and purpose of your bar is to show the game, the pre-game show, the post-game show, and the pre-pre-post-pre-post-post game analysis show.  Open up the bloody mary bar, get out those wings, sell light beer at a discount special and open up the door for the hoards of other-mens'-jersey-wearing-men and they cheer on "their" team.  But for the remaining 75% of bars out there, sports channels are lessening the experience. 

I go to a bar to converse with my friends.  Whet my whistle after a long stint on the motorcycle.  To appreciate the wood work of the actual bar and the architecture of the bar itself.  Often times just to see what the locals look like so I get a better feel of America.  I even appreciate how they stack the bottles of booze to make an almost cathedral like work of art (eg. below, the St. Paul Hotel's bar in St. Paul, Minnesota)



All of that is ruined if you have the sports channel on, just like a loud thunderous fart in church.  Sports analysis shows, faux sports "analysts" and "sports news coverage," and pre-pre-post-post-post-pre game shows ruin the ambience, ruin the experience, detract from people's intelligent conversation, prevent people from bonding, and lessen the overall bar-going experience.  You are introducing a low-brow, idiot-talking heads level variable into what is likely a 115+ IQ environment.  At best people ignore it, but most cannot help but look at the TV since it's being shoved right in their face.

But there is another more compelling reason for non-dedicated sports bars to consider turning off the sports channel, or perhaps ditching the TV altogether.  Social media and smart phones. 

I don't know if you noticed but your younger bar-goers are not watching the TV as much as they are their smart phones.  And even if Jimmy McShootzemgood is providing his analysis of the recently completed Vikings Bears game, they really do have more important stuff to attend to on their smart phones.  This doesn't mean your older clientele won't occasionally look at the TV, perhaps show up if there's an actual game on, but how much money would you save if you got rid of the score of flat panel TV's you have in your bar and got rid of your cable subscription?  And would it cost you more in lost customers because you "didn't have the game on?"  Admittedly many bars' business models rely on having the game on and showing sports to the bread-and-circus-consuming masses, but out of pure curiosity and experimentation could you just try turning off the sports channel for a week?  Could you switch it to AMC or the cartoon network?  I think you might be surprised, especially if you're a higher end bar, just how little sports brings in customers, and how much money you'd save on a cable bill.

Again, this is not a call for all American bars to turn off the TV's.  I understand the Normies of America need there "sportzball" and the critical analysis thereof the sports channels provide.  But for those of us who just want to have a drink, chill out at an old oak bar, talk to the patrons at the American Legion, or not have our eyes and minds raped with the stupidity that is the sports channel, would you mind just changing the channel or turning off the TV just once to see what happens?


Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Curse Free Podcast #30 - "Basic Bitch White People Parties" Episode

Corporate holiday parties are murder.
Silicon valley hiring whores to attend parties.
Women should have children into their 70's.
Basic Bitch White People.

And MORE!!!

In THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast!

Direct MP3 link here.

RSS feed here.

Monday, December 11, 2017

I Don't Want to Bail Out Students OR Bankster Scum

You're both idiot parasites who don't deserve bailouts.

Dear Politicially Undecided: Where is America's Political Insanity Coming From?


I told the story before, but I'll tell the story again, but many years ago when Cappy was but a young 20 something in Minneapolis, it was a near-guarantee he would be the only non-leftist at the various house parties he attended.  In part because of his peer group's age, in part because of Minneapolis' politics, he was almost always guaranteed to be the sole non-left at a party.

Sure enough this presented some social hurdles to clear in that sooner or later, usually in the midst of macking on some girl, a pansy, limp-wristed guy would come up to the Captain and tell the girl he was trying to woo that "did you know he's a REPUBLICAN!!!!???"  Sure enough this would bring Cappy's Cary-Grant-level romantic advances to a screeching halt as the object of his affection would then start to interrogate him instead of waiver between going home with him.

To combat this the Captain would burn CD's (because that was the technology in the day) with various economic data so when the party he was at decided to gang up against him, he could point to the data, charts, and graphs empirically proving he was right, they were brainwashed, and perhaps they could reconsider their political and philosophical positions in life...and that cute redhead would go home with him.

Fat chance.

All that would happen is not much different than what happens today.  If you didn't go with the crowd, if you didn't believe in socialism, if you didn't vote DFL/democrat, then you were a racist, hated women, murdered kittens, and punched puppies.

And so I learned early on that you simply cannot convince leftists or any ideologue who subscribes to a particular political religion because they did not go out and study charts, graphs and data like the humble Captain did.  Just like religion, they CHOSE to believe in said unsubstantiated political-religion and there's no way to convince somebody when they simply "choose."

Therefore, I'm laying down a challenge to those of you who are undecided, centrists, or are just apolitical.  And that is to simply entertain...

one
simple
painfully clear

observation.

"Where on the political spectrum is America's current day political insanity coming from?"

Taking politics out of it, you have to admit that it seems American politics has become increasingly insane.  Everyday in the news the internet seems to drudge up ever increasing and ever-more political insanity that not only makes you shake your head, but makes you worried about America's future.  And though there is no way to neatly categorize these news stories, after some thought and consideration I've managed to come up with roughly 4 general categories you're almost guaranteed to see a new news story about insanity in American politics.

The first category is feminism.

Like the other three categories there is a limitless number of examples of political insanity.  There was the pussy hat protests where women knitted pink hats, made to look like a woman's vagina, and they marched on DC to protest the election of Donald Trump.  Closely related are slut walks that have nothing to do with the election of Donald Trump but is a favorite past time of feminists where they dress like sluts and march in public because women should be allowed to wear whatever they want without attracting the attention of men, specifically in the form of sexual assault and harassment.  There's the fake rape epidemic epitomized by the University of Virginia's false rape accusation further perpetrated by an article in Rolling Stone magazine.  But this should have been prevented had you followed Antioch's sexual consent policy where a man must ask, at each stage of sexual progress, permission to hold a girl's hand, put his hand on her shoulder, kiss her, and (GASP) maybe even fornicate!  To top it all off, then there's feminists just yelling and screaming at the sky when Trump is elected, or (if you wish to be more formal about it) you put together an event where you communally yell at the sky to commemorate Trump being elected.

Second, and somewhat closely related, the ever increasing number of sexes.

10 years ago there was straight, bi and gay. Today, 63.

There are, of course, not 63 genders.  There are three.  Straight, bi and gay.  The remainders are variations, derivations, and permutations of the aforementioned, introducing concepts like "sapio sexual" (being attracted to intelligent people) which are nothing more than splitting hairs.  But while you'd think nobody would really believe in these ever-increasing number of genders, oh how mistaken you were.  For not only does creating new genders make worthless academics feel like they're doing something for that taxpayer government grant you gave them, it also gives valueless people something to glom onto providing them false worth.

"I'm a pansexual androgine lesbian!"
"I'm a Masculine Bisexual Androfemale!"

Well good for you. Do you have a job?  Do you support yourself?  Are you majoring in engineering?  Do you pay taxes?

And what you'll find out is they don't...but they do have that obscure gender nobody else does!  And that's gotta count for something!  Right???

The result is largely what you're witnessing among confused millennials where you have emasculated men, masculinized women, nobody having dates or sex, and an explosion in other forms of differentiation (yet no production).  Tattoos, piercings, and (my all time favorite form of body mutilation) ear gauges.

This would be funny if it weren't for the fact these people insist on foisting their religion of pseudo-gender on the rest of society via law.  Do you remember the transgender bathroom fiasco Americans were forced to endure?  What about that bakery that was forced (then fined for not) baking a cake for a gay couple on religious grounds?  It's all cute fun and games until you're forced through law NOT to acknowledge their sexual preference (which you should), but rather to obey these people's pseudo-gender religion and dance to their tune.

Third, racism and sexism any one?

The pinnacle example is privilege.  It originally started with "white privilege" and "male privilege," but soon rapidly expanded (just like the number of genders) to include any other traits or variables normal, middle of America, Americans had.

Able-bodied privilege.
Mental health privilege.
Financial privilege.
Christian privilege.
Hetero privilege.

The insanity gets to be so much that unless you are a minority, non-straight female (or hermaphrodite) in a wheel chair who is not a Christian or hails from wealth...

then you should feel ashamed, guilty, and need to pay more in taxes.

Examples of political racism/sexism borne insanity doesn't end there.  If you're part of BLM you apparently have the right to block interstates.  Women will never seem to stop complaining about the wage gap, just as they never seem they'll ever be willing to major in subjects that will actually CLOSE the wage gap.  We're going to remove George Washington's pew from a church because he owned slaves 250 years ago.  And apparently women are so oppressed they can't afford birth control, so you better afford it for them.

This isn't to say racism and sexism hasn't existed in the history of this country or the world, but the above have nothing to do with race, but mental illness mixed with entitlement and a professional level of playing the victim for preferential treatment while cowardly hiding behind the genuine suffering of those who genuinely endured racism and sexism in the past.

And perhaps the most psychotic of them all - academia.

Here (like sexual harassment complaints) you can find a new and exciting example of mental illness coming out of America's colleges and universities EVERY DAY.

"Safe spaces," "triggering," "micro-aggressions," the aforementioned false rape accusation epidemic, all while you the taxpayers are guaranteeing these kids' worthless degrees.

The result is a generation of both professors and students who just refuse to adhere to reality or grow up, living in a state of perpetual adolescence.

Evergreen College's "day without whites."
Mizzou's racist temper tantrum in 2015 over...well, whites and privilege.
Dr. Jordan Peterson's refusal to use fake "zhe/zher" pronouns "triggered" precious Canadian college students.
And you just have to consult The College Fix to see a well-documented litany of higher education's complete unhinging from reality and its further sinking into the depths of insanity.

Now, I could go on, but, my fine centrist, politically undecided friend, riddle me this....

from where in the political spectrum is this literal mental insanity coming from?

I know, I know, back in the 80's you had to worry about the "religious right."  Nancy Reagan might have told you not to do drugs and Christians prefer you not abort your children.  And I know, I know, some right wing idiots protested in Charlottesville several months ago.

But in the totality of mental illness and insanity this country is drowning in, is it coming from the right or the left?  The democrats or the republicans? The socialists or the capitalists?

The answer is simple.  The left has a COMPLETE monopoly on the political mental illness that is currently infecting (or trying to infect) the country.  The left TOTALLY owns the insanity you see coming across the news wires daily.  It is the left that screams at the sky, feeds their infants all vegan diets, claim "Baby It's Cold Outside" is rapey, conjure up ideas like "safe spaces, ne'er leave academia to work in the real world, force people to use transgender bathrooms, force people to violate their religion, force people to use "genderless pronouns," and in general act like the world's most spoiled group of insolent, petulant little brats it has ever known, AND if you don't obey them, they threaten you with fees, fines, jail, the law, and force.

This is not an argument that you should all go out and become card-carrying republicans today.  Nor is it to say the right is not without its problems.  I am merely trying to point out which side of the political spectrum is leaving you alone to do as you please, while the other is demanding you do things for them, pay things for them, even demanding you THINK like them and if you don't, they will punish you.

Consider this the next time there's an election.
______________________
This Christmas consider making all your online purchases via Cappy's Amazon Affiliate program.  Just click on the pretty girl below and start shopping!  Or consider purchasing one of Cappy's books!

https://www.amazon.com//ref=as_sl_pc_tf_lc?&tag=captaicapit0b-20&camp=216797&creative=446213&linkCode=ur1&adid=1S7AXCQE92QD6T9J58C5&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fcaptaincapitalism.blogspot.com%2F


Sunday, December 10, 2017

When the Mainstream Media Says There's a Bubble in Bitcoin....Is There?


Another curious observation I had about bitcoin. 

It's meteoric rise recently has made every MSM outlet an expert and alarm sounder about bitcoin, it's risks, and how bubbly it is.  But then it dawned on me...

Wasn't it these same people that couldn't see the housing bubble right in front of their faces in 2007?
Weren't these the same guys that would laud the latest Dotcom IPO, measuring its value in terms of Price to SALES because there were no earnings or profits in 1999?
Isn't is the same people who painfully, tooth-pullingly, are sheepishly admitting in 2017 that there MAY just be an education bubble?

You have the New York Times, Fast Company, even TIME for god's sake, nearly every tapioca pudding, dying MSM rag warning about bitcoin...

but these guys couldn't tell you when there WAS an actual bubble the past three times when these bubbles were slapping their dicks in these journalists' faces.

This makes me wonder, since their ability to predict and identify bubbles is so bad, wouldn't this actually be a GOOD sign for Bitcoin?  A vote for the camp that bitcoin is NOT a bubble?

The reason I bring this up is because journalists and journalism majors are horrible economists.  They're bandwagoners.  They're not capable of genuine thought and haven't been since the damn 60's.  This doesn't mean that I don't think bitcoin is in a bubble (I frankly have no clue what the price should be), but I do know your average journalist banging out these dire warning articles about bitcoin doesn't understand how block chain technology can revolutionize the world's financial system, doesn't understand the economics behind currencies, and sure the hell can't grasp the concept of a digital ledger system. 

So why (aside from a classical exponential price) do you think it's a bubble?

Truth is I own some bitcoin, but it's more like a lottery card for me.  A bit of fun to see where this technology might go and someday I can tell my grandnieces when "ole Uncle Clarey owned bitcoin."  But if it's the industry wide consensus amongst journalists that Bitcoin is overvalued, I can hardly think of a better endorsement that it isn't.

https://www.amazon.com//ref=as_sl_pc_tf_lc?&tag=captaicapit0b-20&camp=216797&creative=446213&linkCode=ur1&adid=1S7AXCQE92QD6T9J58C5&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fcaptaincapitalism.blogspot.com%2F



Saturday, December 09, 2017

Do Your Christmas Shopping Today

Thru Cappy's Amazon Affiliate program.  All you have to do is click here and start shopping.  That's it.

Friday, December 08, 2017

How Valerie Johnson Perfectly Defines White Privilege


If you didn't know, one of the local suburban mayors here - one Valerie Johnson - had a meltdown when she was challenged on "white privilege" during a city council meeting.  There's not much to say about her (as there's surprisingly little about her on the internet),  but I am not here to analyze her politics or to administer her The Clarey Test.  There is more important role she serves and that is she allows us to truly understand what "white privilege" is so that instead of rolling your eyes the next time a leftist brings it up or blindly believing it as a liberal or leftist, we know exactly what we're talking about and we can actually move the concept forward and make tangible progress in improving race relations.

First, notice it is largely leftist white people who are the most ardent supporters of white privilege.  Certainly non-whites may believe in the concept, just as women would be prone to believe in "male privilege," but when it comes to race notice it's most ardent cheerleaders are not blacks, hispanics, latinos, or Asians, but whites, typically in public positions.  Mayors, congressmen, professors, university administrators, media types, even white people on social media.  As long as the spot light is on them, they all eerily seem to really care about "white privilege."

This should raise the hairs on non-whites who believe in "white privilege" and raise the eyebrows of nearly everybody.  Why is it white public figures all of the sudden have jumped on the white privilege bandwagon these past 5 years, while nearly no white person when asked in private believes in white privilege.  There is something about being in public that forces you to believe in white privilege, bringing up the prospect that you really don't believe it deep down inside at all.  And that missing variable is "acceptance."

Acceptance for what?

Well acceptance for your own personal advancement.

For example, it's very clear why mayoral candidates and other politicians claim to believe in white privilege - it gets them the minority vote.  Notice how the entire New Brighton City Council is all white.  Or how Minneapolis' former mayor was white too (but couldn't shut the f up about "privilege" her entire administration).  Odd they believe so much in white privilege because if they did, they'd give up their seat and allow some non-whites to serve.

But it's not relegated simply to candidates for public office paying lip service to minorities to win their vote (the democrats have been doing that to blacks for years!).  Take for example universities.  Universities have be lauding their white-privilege and diversity credentials for about the past 2 decades under the premise they want to help minorities close the wage gap.  And they intend to do that by providing minorities college educations that will lead them to great careers.

But do they?

In reality universities, and ESPECIALLY programs like "African American Studies" completely scam minority students out of their money simply to enrich themselves. I  don't have to highlight the score of articles written about some poor minority college student who wasted $150,000 on some worthless liberal arts degree or got some kind of law degree in "social justice" endebting them an additional $200,000 in debt, and now can't find a job.  Up front and with all the lip service, yes, these university professors and administrators all seemed to want to help non-whites, because.. "well of course!  They SAID they believe in white privilege!"  But in hindsight they simply robbed minorities (and especially women I might add) out of 100's of thousands of dollars and 4 to 8 years of their youth.  The ulterior motive of public white people who stand by "white privilege" could not be any clearer.

And then there's just popularity.  This is more the domain of social media and celebrity types.  Angelina Jolie and others who adopt minority children are merely virtue signaling to show you what good, open-minded, non-racists they are (even though they don't give a damn about the children).  The infamous Amy Biehl murder, whose parents forgave her black murderers, is another example of putting your popularity above...well, nearly everything else.  But more commonly you just have to go to your average white woman/girl under 30's social account and she will more than likely, and loudly, proclaim how much she believes in white-privilege and can't wait to welcome some refugees into the country.  Again, the hair on the back of your head should go up when a drunk white girl tries to tell you how much you're oppressed and how much she loves minorities because she's doing it for popularity and herself, not you.

This ultimately is what defines white-privilege (or any political concept of privilege).  It is a tool to win over non-whites so that that person may advance themselves individually.  The problem though is blaming white people does nothing tangibly to improve the plight of minorities (hello democrat party?  hello detroit?)  Worse, it wrongly diagnoses the problem minorities, women, or other victims of privilege face, ensuring their problem is never solved and their lives never improve.

For example, you can take the TOTALITY of ALL the written works about racism and white-privilege, be it academic studies, journals, news media, social media and political speeches, etc., as to why minorities (bar Asians and middle-easterners and a handful of other races) make less than whites.  It would be MILLIONS of pages long with hundreds of billions of words.  And you could take all of it that has been written, read, or discussed over the past 30-40 years.

None of that will help minorities as much as the following microscopic bit of advice:

Do not have kids you can't afford.
Do not major in stupid stuff.
Do not get in trouble with the law.
Get good grades.
Wait until you're married to have kids.

You could take the same totality of everything that has been written about men and women, and sexism and misogyny.  Which going back to the Susan B. Anthony/Elizabeth Stanton days would go back a hundred years.  All the books written, all the screeds on feminist pages, all the words women's studies professors have said as to why women are oppressed, and let's just throw in the protests and "slut walks" to boot.

None of that will help women as much as the following few bits of advice:

Don't become a single mother.
Don't major in stupid stuff.
Learn math, IT, STEM, and programming.
Stay in shape.
It's alright to want a husband and kids.
It's alright to be feminine.
Your beauty will leave you some day.

And these two different bits of advice for two presumably oppressed groups exposes "white privilege" (and the white people who ardently claim to believe in it) for what it truly is.

Cowardice.

I have absolutely no reservations about telling people, minority or not, female or not, the truth.  No matter how harsh, the truth is a better medicine than the most sweet tasting of lies because it is the truth.  It is reality.  And any decisions made from or based in truth is going to be infinitely better and more successful than decisions made in lies.  So the medicine may taste harsh, but it WILL solve the problem and it WILL, over the long run help out the intended recipient more than a lifetime of feelings-sparring lies.

But to tell the truth takes courage.  In the context of "privilege" you have to face accusations of racism or sexism if you don't tell a political group what they want to hear.  Heck, you can be part of the group yourself and you'll be called a traitor, an "Uncle Tom" even threatened and assaulted.  But liberal, leftist, democrat white people simply do not have the courage NOR DO THEY CARE ENOUGH ABOUT MINORITIES to take this risk and tell them the truth.  They are cowards.  And not only are they cowards, their ultimate goal, their ulterior motive was never about advancing or tangibly helping minorities or women.

It was just to get your vote, money, acceptance, or popularity from you.

Therefore, I ask any minority of female who believes in privilege to consider these things. I'm not saying you DON'T have to believe in privilege or certain groups of people have it better off than you. What I'm imploring you to do is ask what REALLY is driving this odd choir of democrat white people to fervently, and ironically, universally claiming to believe in white privilege.  They ultimately do NOT have your best interests at heart and Valerie Johnson epitomizes this, ultimately defining what "white privilege" is.
_________________________
https://www.amazon.com//ref=as_sl_pc_tf_lc?&tag=captaicapit0b-20&camp=216797&creative=446213&linkCode=ur1&adid=1S7AXCQE92QD6T9J58C5&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fcaptaincapitalism.blogspot.com%2F


Check out Aaron's other sites below!
Podcast
Asshole Consulting
YouTube Channel
Twitter
Books by Aaron  
Amazon Affiliate

Silicon Valley Paying Whores..Errr..Models to Show up to Christmas Parties

Remember ladies, these forward thinking, progressive companies care about you and CSR and diversity and women's rights so much.

The Democrat Whore Who Lied About Roy Moore

Uh oh!!!

You democrats just can't stoop low enough can you?  Looks like your little lady friend was lying about the groping allegations...

from 30 fucking years ago.

You don't say!!!???

Color me shocked!

When real rape and sexual assault victims are no longer believed because you leftist women cried wolf so many times, don't blame us.

Thursday, December 07, 2017

BLM Surprisingly Silent

Beause

1.  This isn't supposed to happen and
2.  It doesn't fit the narrative of professional victimhood.

Goodbye Al "Fuckhead" Franken

Sorry Al, if you were better looking and more charming like Bill Clinton you could have fucked whoever you wanted and the democrat women would have still loved you.

Or Maybe Laura Davies Should Just Raise Her Fucking Children

I love how the BBC doesn't provide the author's name in the article or allow for comments.

South America's Hillary Clinton

Though what originally attracted me to this story was that Kirchner (Fernandez) might actually get arrested, the story mentioned the ex-president was sworn in as a senator last week.  After her disastrous running of Argentina you'd think she'd retire and just go on off and enjoy her grandchildren and Botox, but no.  All evil people have in life is foisting their evil on others.

Wednesday, December 06, 2017

Episode #232 of The Clarey Podcast! Garrison Keillor Special!


If you can figure out Tinder, you can apply for jobs online.
Winter strikes Minnesota hard!
Garrison Keillor is out at MPR.
What will be considered "sexual harassment" 40 years from now?

AND MORE

in THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast!

direct MP3 link here.

Direct RSS feed here.

Tuesday, December 05, 2017

A Literal Economic Intepretation of Bitcoin

Participate with me, if you will, on a simple mental exercise about supply and economics. 

As bitcoin approaches $12,000 (may have even passed it by now) there is much hubbub and discussion about it, from some economists that are old and don't understand crypto-currencies to vested-interest parties who will champion cryptocurrencies to enrich themselves.  But to more simply understand bitcoin (or any crypto-currency) let us simply do what we all learned in the 4th grade and....

divide.

To be literal, the exchange rate for all currencies should be a simple division between the global supplies of currencies.  You take the number of yen, you take the number of dollars, you divide them into each other and you have the LITERAL exchange rate of the currency pair.  You take the number of Euros, the number of Rubles, divide and that's the literal exchange rate.  Naturally there's other future-looking variables that determine the value of a currency.  If you're a leftist moron living in Venezuela or an idiot tyrant who hates white people in Zimbabwe, you'll just print off more money (because that always worked) and that will negatively affect the exchange rate of your currency.  But in a literal sense the global supply of any two things should be their literal and mathematically precise exchange rate.

Carats of diamonds to tons of dirt.
US dollars to barrels of oil.
Silver to cement. 
It can be done for anything.

However, bitcoin presents an even easier calculation.  Whereas the amount of cement made and the ounces of silver mined is yet to be determined, bitcoin is finite in that there will only be 21 million of them ever in existence.  So you only need to take the supply of any currency and find out how many units of that currency there is globally per bitcoin and you in theory have a price (inter-currency demand differences duly noted).  And with roughly 4 trillion in US dollars in circulation that gives us

$186,000 US dollars per bitcoin.

Now there are other arguments as to why bitcoicn and cryptocurrencies have value.  And (though I own bitcoin) I'm not terribly sure it has yet reached the full faith and acceptance as a universally accepted medium of exchange.  But to introduce some simple math into the debate we need to realize we HAVE tripled the money supply since the financial crisis and the debate I contend is not so much the value of cryptocurrencies or bitcoin, but rather the declining value of paper money we keep printing off. 

This isn't to say that tomorrow the price of bitcoin should be $186,000.  It may or may not.  I'm merely pointing out there's 186,000 dollars out there in the world for every bitcoin...and that number is increasing as we print ourselves out of financial deficits.

I'll leave the speculation about bitcoin's price to the rest of you to discuss.

What Exactly Is "Net Neutrality?"

Matt Forney in a very empirical and logical approach answers with his excellent article at Return of Kings.