This is a fascinating tweet from Balaji Srinivasan, and take note of who he's responding to. Neither of these guys are sloppy with money or their words—

Counterargument: BTC just passed the ruble in “market cap” according to fiatmarketcap-com, and may be in their top five currencies by the end of this run.

It’s not that small anymore. And it’s the obvious long-term alternative for every country not named America or China.

But please read enough to understand what BTC means as people are losing faith in institutional authority on a global scale. And I think you should read scare pieces about BTC with an especially sharp eye for the author's incentives.

This clear-language cartoon describes the workings of Bitcoin for people without graduate degrees in math.

Here's a folksy discussion of what it means to have a bitcoin 'account':

"Okay, so let's just, before we go, check out some numbers the world has never seen before. Here's another one, here's another one."

New Rule from Bill Maher:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hem8RG0tsUw

It's mostly about the hypocrisy of pandemic gratitude, but in the last two minutes, he talks about how single people are a much larger demographic now and how he's sick of people like Mitt Romney refusing to respect that.

And I wish Maher would follow that up.

New Rule: "If you're the type who's always complaining that poor people shouldn't have babies, you don't get to complain that the American birth rate is too low. In this have-it-all society, anyone who doesn't already have a kid or a pet Shouldn't Have One."

Ever heard of the mythical bunnerfly?

https://twitter.com/heathersketcher/status/1332391947575599104

@Crid,

Whenever a major bank -either a central one or multinational one- starts whining all over the news about how Cryptocoins are the root of all evil and that their collapse is imminent. The first thing I check is how much of said thing they own.

There's a good chance they're using the media as scare tactics to lower the value of them buy them at a much lower price.

I want to tell you a story. It illustrates the low level, but unpleasant hassle faced by academics holding views deemed unacceptable by self-appointed defenders of public safety. I'm not going to name names. I'm not interested in facilitating a pile on. The abused is>>

https://twitter.com/OxSoc/status/1363175379142328324

She must be from the same tribe as Elizabeth Warren's

https://twitter.com/lporiginalg/status/1363602501094662145

When the special ones are afraid of not being it anymore:

https://twitter.com/chadfelixg/status/1357478581773996033

Well, whaddya know? Bitcoin is down six percent today!

Like I said, if you hear from some clown on in blog comment that the sun is coming up tomorrow, BUY CANDLES.

The sensible thing to do is to buy Dogecoin when it plummets, and then wait for Elon Musk to post a meme of it on Twitter when it will skyrocket and you can sell it at quite a cozy profit.

Afraid that ship has sailed, dear man.

> to lower the value of
> them buy them at a much
> lower price.

First of all, sailor, I like the cut of your jib. You're right! Don't trust those people. In 2021, you deserve a lot of evidence before you trust anyone, and those fuckers haven't offered any.

I remember economic convulsions in three particular years... 1981, 1987, and 2001-ish.

Kidding! I was too poor to care about recession in 1981. And the stock crash of 1987 didn't affect someone who was too dumb to own stock. And by 2001 I had a few investments, but none in tech.

But Sixers, this is one of the great passages of literature in our lifetimes. Read the book:

On the surface, these big Wall Street firms appeared robust; below the surface, Eisman was beginning to think, their problems might not be confined to a potential loss of revenue. If they really didn't believe the subprime mortgage market was a problem for them, the subprime mortgage market might be the end of them. He and his team now set about searching for hidden subprime risk: Who was hiding what? "We called it The Great Treasure Hunt," he said. They didn't know for sure if these firms were in some way on the other side of the bets he'd been making against subprime bonds, but the more he looked, the more sure he became that they didn't know either. He'd go to meetings with Wall Street CEOs and ask them the most basic questions about their balance sheets. "They didn't know," he said. "They didn't know their own balance sheets." Once, he got himself invited to a meeting with the CEO of Bank of America, Ken Lewis. "I was sitting there listening to him. I had an epiphany. I said to myself, 'Oh my God, he's dumb!' A lightbulb went off. The guy running one of the biggest banks in the world is dumb!" They shorted Bank of America, along with UBS, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, and a few others. They weren't allowed to short Morgan Stanley because they were owned by Morgan Stanley, but if they could have, they would have.

The book illuminates the lives of some of the most gifted and interesting men in our generation in a pivotal hour. It describes them with nuance and tender personal insight.

The movie is a stupid cartoon version, made mostly from the ignorant presumptions of actors who wanted a chance to chew the ugliest scenery in the history of Hollywood. Because they thought you were too stupid to appreciate the truth.

Read the book. If you send your USPS to CridComment at gmail dot com, I'll send you a copy. Anyone.

> New Rule from Bill Maher

That's a fine clip and there's much to admire about Maher...

...But there's this sneaking fear that if forced to make a choice between getting a cackle from an audience and speaking an unpleasant truth, he'll always go for the wokie joke.

That's what made Jon Stewart and his twin whatsizname intolerable to watch.

I doubt that. He's made plenty of tasteless jokes that got at least semi-negative reactions from his studio audience. Plus, he loves any joke that allows him to flaunt his immature side - unless that's just his public image.

(He doesn't pretend to be an intellectual, so I can never quite tell just how much he means it on those occasions when he demands that college students and other adults spend more time on serious reading. For all I know, he's just trying to get viewers to take him more seriously when he does that. As I've mentioned, he's juvenile in a way that George Carlin never was; it's one reason I miss him so.)

We have vastly differing recollections.

I remember Carlin's capacity for infantile moaning as vast and expansive. It was a personal characteristic which diminished the might of his humor profoundly… Over time he migrated from the corruptions of language by which the guy on the street deludes himself about his own decency to snarling resentment at the (often imaginary) Man for being so mean and conniving.

Listen, the guy turned pathetic. By his own estimation he was, by the 1980's, in contention with Richard Pryor for depth of crippling drug dependence. It's less common to hear this said nowadays, but that's worth some opprobrium… Especially if a generation or two of fans across America have given you the affection and support to live a life of ease. Football players, singers, janitors, whoever: Drug dependence brings weakness. And golly, his problem blossomed in his life in almost the precise years that his eye for the gleaming edge of manipulative language was lost in his act. How about that.

And then he got into tax trouble, again as if mocking the gentle life that fans (we) had offered him. And he whined, squeakingly, about the cruelty of the tax collector.

I miss Carlin at his best, too… But it had been forty years,

The only issue I have with the Maher clip is the end. His smarminess about being single and never having to change a diaper, share the remote, endure mid-night feedings, or have a relationship talk smacks of immaturity -- i.e., selfishness and ego.

And yes, Bill, we do want to make space and allowances for people raising the nation's children. We need a growing population to sustain the country's economic development (see books by Porter, Michael) and we won't get that development through a population growth driven entirely by immigration.

So, revel in your lack of diaper changes, being able to sleep through the night, avoiding relationship talks, and sole possession of the remote. But don't begrudge the people doing the work of raising the next generation, the one funding your generation's retirement, some relief. You want that next generation to grow up to be healthy, happy, and well-employed.

Crid, somehow I never heard Carlin complain about the IRS. I DO remember his nasty remarks about the police, but since it took me ages to hear about his drug abuse, it wasn't until the last two years of his life - or later? - that I realized that that was his indirect way of saying "damn you cops; why won't you just stay out of my way when I want to score some coke!"

But...when he complained about his pet peeves (or put down environmentalists), I could usually tell he didn't really mean it and was just being a comedian, because I knew from watching him in interviews - and from meeting him - that he was (mostly) mature enough to prioritize his peeves like an adult. With Maher, that isn't the case. I never really got the impression (even when I read his book When You Ride Alone You Ride With Bin Laden) that he's capable of putting anyone above himself - or his peeves. Sort of like Scarlett O'Hara, who was still a spoiled teenager at age 28, by the end of the book.

(Btw, a lefty friend of mine, whom I admire because he refuses to idolize anyone who happens to be famous, is convinced Maher would be a nobody if it weren't for his writers.)

Conan, I admit the clip was a bit odd - in that Maher contradicted himself. That is, he also mentioned women's biological clocks, so he was admitting that you can't just look at single, childless people and assume they WANT to be single.

(Also, as anyone living just above the poverty line in 2019 will tell you, there are plenty of economic barriers to having and raising kids in a good neighborhood - not just the pandemic. As I've mentioned, I know two well-educated, never-married, childless men in their 50s who have had to struggle to make ends meet for years.)

But I'm sure Maher was pretty well aware of all that - as well as what you said - and was just going for an easy laugh, since he didn't try to argue that "the more singles, the better for our future."

Also, I suspect he picked Romney as his target not because Romney said anything ridiculous, but because Romney is simply better known than the politician what's-his-name who, last year (I think), had the utter gall to suggest that couples who WANT family planning services should be DEPRIVED of them - because the economy supposedly thrives better with every new, unwanted, abused child! Excuse me?

Btw, just to clarify, my Feb. 22 8:25 a.m. post was by me, not Maher's writers.

...because the economy supposedly thrives better with every new, unwanted, abused child! Excuse me? ~ Lenona at February 23, 2021 9:32 AM

Economies actually do better with a larger population coming behind the current one - workforce dynamics, population pressure, etc. At least that's what the research of Michael Porter, Harvard professor of economics, seems to indicate.

Even the abused and unwanted children have to make their way in the world, pressuring the older folks ahead of them in the economic buffet line to move along or be pushed aside.

The US has historically been able to off-set declining birth rates with immigration and assimilation, bypassing the usual economic declines set in motion by declining birth rates (see Japan in the '80s). The assimilation part of that equation is important, as an unassimilated population is a dependent or disruptive one and does not generally contribute to economic dynamism, acting instead as a drag chute.

==========

Leona, I get that Maher was going for the cheap laugh. He's at heart a comedian and not an insightful analyst of world events. He does usually get at the heart of the issue, however, and should be taken somewhat seriously as a talk show host, being one of the few willing to entertain guests of different political persuasions than his own. His smarminess aside, the US political scene is generally better off having Maher in it than not.

"Even the abused and unwanted children have to make their way in the world, pressuring the older folks ahead of them in the economic buffet line to move along or be pushed aside."

And an awful lot of them do so by turning to crime - or panhandling. Talk about a drag chute. (Many homeless people are also mentally ill.) Plus, they typically continue the cycle of abuse, with their children, wanted or not.

Even in prehistoric times, when having children was far more necessary for the common good, Mother Nature STILL didn't allow women to get pregnant in times of famine - ask anyone who works with anorexic women. Whereas an abundant food supply would result in a baby boom.

In the same vein, these days, it's against human nature for any unemployed person to CHOOSE to start a pregnancy.
Or to move out of a cozy location and into a trailer instead of waiting to start a family.
Or to give up a chance to get an Ivy League education.
Or to give up a baby for adoption when one can use contraception instead.

Etc.

Just because the average American tends to indulge in all sorts of short-term, disposable luxuries, that doesn't change the fact that living in a safe neighborhood can be pretty expensive. Plus the fact that cars, Smartphones, and laptops are not luxuries for many people seeking middle-class employment.

So, as I said yesterday, you don't judge anyone for not being a parent. For all you know, they wanted children but didn't think they could do right by them. (One son of a world-famous rock star implied as much, since his father divorced his mother when he was five and then more or less abandoned him - and the son, now in his 50s, didn't want to risk repeating that scenario.)

The whining was in an interview, text, 21st century. He talked in his act about the drug abuse.

I agree with you both about Maher.

> convinced Maher would be a nobody
> if it weren't for his writers

That always seemed to be the case with Dennis Miller as well, but he was pretty obviously pruning the files with a discerning eye. I always liked:

Growing up, my family wasn't very tight. We were more like a tour group with secrets.

you don't judge anyone for not being a parent. ~ Lenona at February 23, 2021 11:32 AM

For the most part, I don't judge anyone for choosing not to be a parent. I do, however, take exception to the claim that you are somehow are a better person than people who had children; as if your decision not to have children means, by default, that you've done more for the world, the country, or mankind than any parent has. I, myself, do not have children. How can I judge harshly anyone else, simply for making the same decision?

"I do, however, take exception to the claim that you are somehow are a better person than people who had children."

That claim is precisely what many conservative politicians make (if not in so many words) when it comes to those who live BELOW the poverty line - and who would have to go on welfare if they did have children.

But, again, those same politicians wouldn't be happy if all really poor people - married or not - stopped having children. How low would the American birth rate be then?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, Lenona. What "conservative politician" has castigated poor people for not having children? Or for having them? Which one(s) would be happy or unhappy if "all really poor people" stopped having children.

As for "married or not," having children out of wedlock is a recipe for disaster for the children, especially when done by parents living in poverty. On average, those children grow up to be less educated, more violent, and more prone to engage in illicit activity. The simple act of giving the child two parents actively involved in his/her life does wonders for the child's future.

Pretending that single parenthood is a legitimate choice for welfare-dependent single mothers has destroyed poor families and poor neighborhoods, condemning the poor to dependence on welfare and trapping them in poverty and violence. Most conservative politicians want to see the marriage rate rise, especially among those having children.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, Lenona.
__________________________________

What I said at 8:25 a.m. yesterday.
___________________________________

What "conservative politician" has castigated poor people for not having children?
____________________________________

They don't, of course. They wouldn't dare say it out loud. But we've all heard the terms "cannon fodder" and "wage slaves." Well-fed, well-educated young people aren't typically the ones who feel the need to join the armed forces - and they're not easy for politicians to manipulate either, when they insist on voting in higher and higher numbers. So whenever the ranks of the poor start to diminish sharply because of birth control or other reasons, that's bound to make politicians uneasy. But even married couples can be on welfare, last I heard, and conservatives traditionally resent ANY parent who's on welfare. I.e., politicians who exploit the poor naturally want to take more than they give.

Conservatives (politicians or not) DO, however, openly castigate married middle-class people who refuse to have children for financial or other reasons. Such scolds include fundamentalists Albert Mohler, Don Feder, and, IIRC, Glenn Beck, Rick Santorum and Paul Ryan. Not to mention T.R., back in 1906. Trouble for them is, deliberately having children you don't want just because of Genesis 1:28 no longer makes sense to educated people, as a rule.

So either we'll have to loosen the immigration laws, or be more helpful to lower-middle-class people who want children. Plus figure out how to make education more appealing to poor young men - and thus make them better candidates for marriage. One can't blame the poorest boys and girls for thinking of reproduction as the only good thing they can accomplish in their lives (see the book When Children Want Children) - or expect women desperate for children to get married first when the only men available to them are mostly career criminals.