June 28, 2016

Bitcoin And Taxes

By Jerry Mooney

I’ve written quite a bit about the revolutionary implications of Bitcoin and the blockchain. In the evolution of money, from seashells to gold to EMV card technology, Bitcoin is not merely another electronic payment system like Paypal or DIY E-payment systems. Bitcoin is transformative. But its configuration, where the ledger is open and the identities of those on the ledger on all commerce create a system of anonymous users. This is exciting when considering the implications to cybercrime with the rise of the cybercriminal plus how it can prevent theft and identity fraud, but there is another implication that needs to be discussed. What are the tax implications?

Many Bitcoin enthusiasts point to the fact that our current tax system has devolved to taxation without representation in that the taxes are used to disproportionately fund the interests of deep-pocketed lobbyists and their interests. This has cultivated a sentiment that participation in the tax system promotes a power structure that is concentrated and centralized, which is opposite of the ethics of Bitcoin enthusiasts.

However, there are real implications to not having any tax revenue and with the anonymous configuration of Bitcoin many have speculated that it could circumvent taxation entirely. Currently, Bitcoin transactions are frictionless: not fees, no sales tax, no traceable method of taxation. But now that the Bitcoin network is transacting in the billions of dollars, the IRS is responding. According to Villanova University, tax law in 2016 will include new provisions regarding Bitcoin and taxes. The IRS has two problems with this though. First, the Bitcoin reporting will be completely on the honor system, much like the revenue from a yardsale or other unlicensed transactions. Again, the ledger of transactions is completely open, but the identities of those transacting is completely anonymous. Therefore, any attempt to trace revenue or sales is futile.

Secondly, the IRS has classified Bitcoin as both an asset and a currency for tax purposes, but they fall into a bind. If they tax Bitcoin as currency, that legitimates the currency and the way it was created. The Central Bank very much opposes this. But if they don’t they are limited to taxation bases on capital gains, which is only 15% and assuming they can collect. Either way, Bitcoin is disrupting the way in which money functions worldwide.

But before we hit the panic button on cryptocurrency and societal contributions, it is important to have some perspective. First, most money collected in taxes as well as charities goes to the bureaucracies that maintain them, meaning they have less effect. Secondly, Bitcoin are programmable. They are not merely money, but data, which can be delivered through the blockchain without various middlemen and bureaucratic hurdles taking their cut.

This means that if Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies were to open themselves to some forms of internal monitoring, they could make contributing to societal good less expensive, more efficient and more representative of those who participate. Imagine a system, where instead of giving our money to a central agency, like the Treasury Department and allow bought and sold ‘representatives’ to determine how to spend our money, the money is tied to a live system where issues can be decided in real time and distributed based on a consensus. If a hurricane hits Florida and a consensus of Bitcoin users agree that we should all contribute, a fraction of everyone’s Bitcoin could be sent for relief, arriving immediately and bypassing all of the expense and delay of bureaucracy. This might sound idealistic, but the decentralized distributed model is where the world is moving. Just look at email.

May 26, 2016

The Implications Of Digital Currency

By Jerry Mooney

When I first heard of Bitcoin my understanding of it was that it was merely a way to obfuscate illegal transactions on the deep web. I also thought you got Bitcoins by somehow ‘hacking’ bank accounts or some other dubious activity. Little did I know that it is a legitimate currency that is creating enormous ramifications to the way money is used and created world wide.

Some of the more obvious implications surround how digital currencies affect underground or illegal activities from drug sales to gambling to neighborhood yard sales. But the conversion requires a faith in the non-tangible or digital. And the faith extends to the fact that the currency is not backed by any conventional value, like gold or GDP. This means that Bitcoin has value because everyone believes it has value.

Although this is not completely dissimilar to current money, because it has little historical tradition, it currently has much greater value volatility than established currencies. This faith can be hard to come by when we’re talking about or money, but we currently use ATMs and online banking with near ubiquity, so the idea of a digital economy already largely exists.

So what are the pros and cons of digital currency? According to Northeastern University, the limitations of Bitcoin are mostly due to its relative newness to the economy, like value fluctuations, acceptance and its development is yet to be complete. The advantages, however are surprising. Because Bitcoin is not a ‘national’ currency like the dollar or even ‘regional’ currency like the Euro, transactions across borders can be made without exchange rates which can lower transaction costs. Also, because it is not tethered to central banks or governments, the value can’t be manipulated it can only fluctuate based on broad economic factors.

And like I mentioned, it can be used for anonymous transactions. This capacity is not merely to create an opaque world for criminal activity. People are becoming increasingly concerned with their identities being mapped by big data and predictive analytics, if not stolen outright. When Amazon suggests something for you to buy, it is because their algorithms have matched you with other predictable choices. This may seem innocuous, but many are growing uncomfortable with this level of privacy breach.

Because Bitcoin uses mathematics to create accounts it is substantially harder to hack than conventional accounts. This makes it more secure than conventional accounts. University of Cincinnati shows an audit of T-Mobile files that were hacked used personal data like names, addresses and driver’s license numbers to steal identities. The report also indicates that there is a growing number of accounts being hacked and even ostensibly secure companies like Yahoo, Target, Adobe Systems and SnapChat were victimized. This makes the crypto mathematics of Bitcoin more appealing because of its randomized creation doesn’t link the Bitcoin holder to any personal identity. And because of the complexity of the algorithms and identity signatures created, it would take a near miracle to counterfeit someone’s Bitcoin file.

Ultimately, money is a method of communicating shared value. Beyond this the details don’t matter and money has existed in the forms of broken sticks, promissory notes, metal coins, controlled paper, commodities and now electronic digits. And because money hasn’t had intrinsic value for centuries, there is no reason that digital money shouldn’t reflect the cultural changes of our society. And it could very well become a benefit.

April 27, 2016

Political Shenanigans Are Undermining Voter Confidence In The System

Political shenanigans are a historical reality. They have been a part of every democracy because that’s how the lust for power corrupts. But until recently, I’ve had a blind spot, thinking these practices were limited to Republicans and their kind. Nope.

Bernie Sanders is a disruptive candidate and as such has created a real movement that has energized the youth and brought in millions of previously estranged voters to the process. Normally this would seem like a good thing, but it has not been treated as such. The Democratic establishment clearly wants Hillary Clinton to win the nomination and will go to extreme lengths to ensure that outcome.

One tactic used in Philadelphia was omitting Sanders from the ballot completely, requiring Sanders supporters to write him in.

https://twitter.com/247BernieNews/status/724961747111661568

These things combined with voter suppression tactics, like reducing polling places in Arizona and New York despite increases in voter turnout along with counting early voting first and announcing the results created a culture like I’ve never witnessed in my nearly 50 years on this planet. There have long been jokes that there were attempts to affect elections. Slogans like vote early and vote often made fun of the potential for abuse. But this election cycle has brought real corruption to the forefront and those in charge seem unconcerned.

A problem with employing these strategies is that even if they only had marginal effects or no effects at all on the outcome, they allow the narrative to be proffered that the result is tainted and process is corrupt. And by being so blatant about it, it can no longer be talked about tongue in cheek as if it were business as usual. This now resonates as a political hijacking.

These narratives jeopardize participation in democracy because it fosters the sense that it doesn’t matter, the king makers will anoint who they want. Additionally, these tactics are, according to Portland State University, tantamount to white collar crime:

Governmental /state-corporate: activities committed on behalf of governments or by government officials, as well as white collar crimes committed in collusion with a corporate or organizational entity

But we all know that these ‘crimes’ will not be prosecuted. They will be dismissed as error and incompetence instead of manipulation. This plays easily into the hands of the orchestrated narratives that have been telling us who will be the nominee since last summer. In fact, The Peoria Report at George Washington School of Political Management was reporting that Hillary had the nomination locked up back in August. This was before the primary season even began. This casts shade on the shenanigans, because when they are pointed out, it simply looks like Sanders supporters are being sore losers.

Ultimately, these tactics are prevailing. Whether it is actual popular support or the tactics of the establishment's machinery Secretary Clinton took significant steps in winning the nomination yesterday. Unfortunately for all involved, we don’t know how much this is due to sincere broad based enthusiasm or manipulation.

In the previous 10 contests, 8 had been won by Bernie Sanders and the 2 he didn’t win, Arizona and New York, are under investigation. Not only is this disappointing as a Sanders supporter, it is tragic if you had any faith in American democracy or enthusiasm for bringing the youth into the process.

We can’t complain that young people don’t vote and then make their voices irrelevant at the same time. This simply creates a generational disenfranchisement. But the people who are using these tactics aren’t concerned with disenfranchising voters or about the integrity of democracy. They care about power.

April 21, 2016

They Just Don't Get It

Dr. Lara Brown, Director at George Washington School of Political Management recently wrote in the New York Times that Bernie Sanders should drop out of the race. Her contention is that his campaign has achieved its ideological purpose. Although she says that Sanders’ campaign helped prevent Hillary’s campaign from becoming a coronation, it appears that is exactly what she is advocating for.

There are three things that Dr. Brown is failing to consider in her analysis. First, the Sanders’ campaign for president is not merely a protest, but an actual and viable run at the nation’s top office. But, since before Secretary Clinton even announced she was running, pundits have been penciling her in as the nominee if not the actual president. But not everyone wants this. On the left, masses of voters want a candidate who is less hawkish and doesn’t think war is practical.

Secondly, there is a strong sense by millions of Americans that the economic and political are rigged along with the tax systems. Senator Sanders’ campaign is not merely to illuminate how this is true, but an attempt to breakdown the structures that have rigged the game. As his campaign has progressed, it has exposed major flaws in our system that suppress votes and prop up the presumptive candidates.

Third, if the timing of the campaign were changed to where the south didn’t vote as early, we would have a completely different frontrunner. And with a third of the delegates yet to be decided and 8 of the last 10 states having been won by Sanders’ the fact that shenanigans and suppression tactics handed the New York victory to Secretary Clinton is, by no means, a signal that the Sanders campaign should drop out. This is the narrative of those who do not like democracy. Of those who want to appoint the victor instead of the people’s voice determining it.

The old yarn about pivoting to the middle to focus on the general election is particularly hollow in this race. Secretary Clinton is already cast as the centric campaign and whoever wins the Republican nomination, likely Trump, will be so far from the center that whatever perception people have of the Democrat’s center will be meaningless.

So, no Dr. Lara Brown, Bernie Sanders should not drop out. Even if he needs to stay in the race to keep otherwise estranged voters, like millennials still engaged throughout the process, that is worth it. And the hypothetical cost rings hollow. When people outside of the radical Trump core evaluate him against any other option it will not matter when the Democratic nominee pivoted.

April 15, 2016

POLITICAL ME’S AND THE GREAT DILDO GRAB OF 2004

This week progressive groups are coming together in Washington to protest the loss of voter rights and demand campaign finance reform. They are mad and willing to block entrances to Congress and spend a little bit of time in jail for it. The progressives gathered there this week are taking a position against the political culture of ME, that is destroying American democracy.

Meanwhile, Republican dominated states continue to push so-called religious freedom laws (at least until large companies threaten to pull out) and further voter restrictions. The nomination processes on both the Republican and Democrat sides, have shown more this year than ever that they are a total sham.

Let's also not forget that it was revealed this week that Ted Cruz once argued against dildos by saying that the government has a genuine interest in “discouraging...autonomous sex” while serving as Solicitor General of Texas and arguing for a state law that banned sex toys. His brief went even further by stating, "There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship." Too funny that Ted’s roommate confirmed that he had no problem stimulating himself in college.

[link:http://www.zenruption.com/politicsareneverzen/4/14/political-mes-and-the-great-dildo-grab-of-2004|

April 14, 2016

Trump Calls Foul

When Donald Trump recently lost delegates to Senator Cruz in an underhanded fashion, he naturally cried foul, and even said, ironically, that the delegates were acquired in Gestapo fashion. Suddenly this flaw in our electoral process is being taken seriously, because the bombastic Republican candidate is demanding justice.

Although these are the same shenanigans that have been keeping Senator Bernie Sanders in the category of media afterthought, now that the Republican frontrunner has been victimized by these tactics, there is a new discussion. If there is one thing the outspoken presidential candidate is good for, it is getting attention and this rigged political process needs that.

[link:http://www.zenruption.com/politicsareneverzen/4/14/trump-cries-foul|

April 14, 2016

FIREWALKING AND REWIRING MY BRAIN

I’ve always been a little bit of a thrill seeker. I’ve skydived, kayaked class V whitewater, skied double black diamond slopes and all of these activities have profoundly awakened me to life. None of them, however, had as dramatic of an effect on me as walking on fire.

Unlike the other activities, I didn’t expect I would ever walk on fire. It sounded stupid, pointless and like a freak show. However, that all changed when I met a shaman named Wytomi at a sweat lodge and he planted a seed in my mind.

It started when I was exploring a path of self care and gratitude to improve my life balance, when I met Wytomi. He put us all through various rituals and it was mystical and interesting, but not cathartic. That day I was talking to the shaman and he brought up the power of fire walking. Just his mention of the activity made my spine crawl. It scared me. Merely talking about fire walking caused a panic inside of me that was so unfamiliar that I was baffled.

After that day I reflected on the shaman’s recommendation that I fire walk and how profoundly it upset me. Because simply talking about it created such deep anxiety, I decided I had to examine why. One conclusion I came to was where I put my faith. When I kayaked or skied, I put faith in my skills. When I skydived, I put faith in the equipment, i.e. the parachute and the harness. But I had no idea where I would put faith in walking on burning coals. My faith said, this will hurt and may injure me badly. Ultimately I determined that if something scared me this badly, it was something I simply had to do. I didn’t want to become a prisoner to my fears.

[link:http://www.zenruption.com/zenlife/3/19/firewalkl|

April 13, 2016

IT STARTED WITH THE CLOWN CAR CANDIDATES AND ENDS WITH THE VOTERS

In the past, the GOP candidates for the Presidency followed a pretty standard approach. The nomination process was spent appealing to the evangelical base that showed up en masse to vote in the primaries. Making it to the general election meant a swing to a more centrist position with the base having to accept the nominee, even if their views weren't totally reflected. It was an act of compromise by the voters, both centrist and right. The centrist voters had to forget the candidate’s previous catering to the far right and base voters had to excuse the candidate’s softening stance in the general election. All for the chances of the party to carry the Presidency and prevail in the national elections.

It changed this year. Big time. Sure, the candidates have been on a collision course, but in the end it will be the voters that tear the GOP apart. This year's crop of candidates, especially Trump, started to reveal the party polarization that previously existed and their supporters are going to take it the rest of the way.

[link:http://www.zenruption.com/politicsareneverzen/4/13/it-started-with-the-clown-car-candidates-and-ends-with-the-voters|

April 12, 2016

Black Lives Matter

I can’t always agree with the tactics that the Black Lives Matter movement has employed but the tactic of negating them with the statement All Lives Matter is detestable. Yes, all lives do matter and that is something that people can agree on as a universal tenant. To say that only some lives matter would be completely asinine. So yes, all lives do matter.

The point of Black Lives Matter was to highlight the injustice and inequity in the current system. No one would or should argue that if you ask a Black Lives Matter member if all lives matter, they would say yes. That some people utilized the statement All Lives Matter in the first place, was a move to discount the very important point of Black Lives Matter. It was using Fox News logic to attack an important issue.




http://www.zenruption.com/politicsareneverzen/4/5/all-lives-do-matter-but-the-terms-recent-use-says-that-some-matter-more