Andrew_Quentin

Since 1917? I'd think quite a few

Arguably the whole programme is illegal.

Who said it is legal or illegal?

If some law contravenes the constitution that law is not legal therefore whatever the law says should not be done is legal.

You boil a frog slowly. If such thing as torture, surveillance, indefinite imprisonment without trial, secretive kill list, secretive removal of right (no fly list) etc, become normalized and accepted, then a huge part of what forms a free society is already gone.

This is 1953 though, a time when cars were still a very new and sometimes unreliable thing.

The next question is, why is it so much higher in America?

Homelessness is a moral as well as practical problem. How can more than half a million people have no home in the richest country on earth?

How can they just be put under a gag order? Can you challenge these gag orders? If not then surely they are unconstitutional so you can just go ahead and break them.

Squares or city centres are a good place, the Times Square being probably the best.

That seems to be no different than the law applied to any citizen.

You are mistaken. There are polls which show that the majority of Americans care far more about privacy than fighting terrorism.

It is a rhetorical tactic of whisking the issue away. Hey guys, this is old news, lets not talk about it.

I think there's a difference between the media and the populace.

How can they rule the justification as unconstitutiona when the judges were giving court orders under that justification?

More broadly though, I don't understand how you can possibly have secret courts. Justice not only must be done but must be seen to be done, otherwise its not justice.

Hey man, do something about the UK market. Brits are starving for Bitcoins and that means a lot of money for you.

But, they don't have a way to track your bitcoins. They can see how much is in each address, but they do not know whose address it is, etc.

You said the government would need to make all wallets that are not registered with some central authority illegal. That would be the same as you paying someone in cash if cash was made illegal. You would be doing something illegal in both situations. However, what is the government going to do about it if they do not know who you are?

Not to mention that making cash illegal would be a highly political issue and quite unpopular due to concerns with privacy, etc. The same would apply if the government wished to request some centrally controlled management of people's bitcoin account.

Well, the government could make undeclared cash illegal.

lol, being republican is insane now?

I don't think your maths is correct. If the currency is deflating at 2%, it is deflating regardless of whether it is the lender or the borrower holding it. If therefore this is lent at 1%, the real return is 3%, 2% by deflation, 1% through the interest rate. Hence it is more profitable to lend than hold.

Yes but, regardless of the nature of the currency, investing in stocks etc is an investment with a higher return than simply holding.

"An economy is a closed system - if some are saving, others have to spend to keep the music going."

You mean they have to spend more than they can afford? Otherwise, what exactly do you mean by they have to spend? Obviously they have to buy a house, a car, a phone, a computer, electricity, etc. I would think most people save what is left over if you like.

12 years later!

I would have thought they would have searched the whole area, at least within half a mile, to find debris.

Now you guys invent a time machine and come to tell us which of these two commenter is right.

Although technically they both can be right, what we are interested to know is if you future guys, like us, consider the right to a free trial as a fundamental and unbreachable right in any circumstances.

Sure, we believe you can kill enemy combatants, but if they surrender, we believe they have a right to a free trial within 60 or 90 days of detention.

So come back and tell us how our government is able to flounder the most fundamental rules and principles of law.

I don't think mainstream US and UK economics is dominated by Keynesianism. A good example is the current debate about cutting spending. The Uk has conservatives in power and they are cutting spending which is deflationary. The US has democrats in power and they aren't cutting spending but maybe even increasing it which is inflationary. Keynes would definitely recommend to increase spending or at least not cut it while Hayek the opposite.

Well, I suppose you could try reading this:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1cahbk/today_i_lear...

or this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5548095

Wouldn't - if bitcoins was to become mainstream - wouldn't there be a need for bitcoin debit or credit cards though and atms and banks. So realistically we are only limited to comparing it to actual transaction costs.

Prices would go down to compensate for the higher value of money therefore stabilise any deflationary pressure.

But yes, the difference between gold and fiat is that the general tendency in a hard currency economy is slightly deflationary while in an fiat currency it is slightly inflationary. Hayeks seems to believe that slight deflation is better than slight inflation, while Keynes the opposite.

So basically which is better depends on your values. Since conservatives want a small government and to reward savers, slight deflation is better - hence the reason for cutting spending in the UK. While democrats prefer big government and to rewards borrowers so for them slight inflation is better - hence no spending cuts in the US yet.

That is a bit like having to register your bank account with the government. The opposition I can envision to that is considerable.

Moreover, what happens if everyone decides to ignore it? After all downloading copyrighted material without a license is a crime.

deflation - Hayeks

volatility - infancy

but no less anonymous, maybe more so.

I think the problem isn't distributivity but decentralisation.