teodesian

You must remember, however that money != wealth.

The money supply of a nation in no way represents the wealth generation going on in an economy. Printing an extra dollar does not mean the users of dollars became wealthier, it simply redistributes the existing wealth. Barter is also another factor that creates wealth, yet does not have anything to do with the monetary system.

Our growing wealth in many ways is in spite of our money and governments. It is worth noting that ever since the USD lost it's scarcity (with the closing of the gold window in the 70's) real wages and quality of life has gone down, not up.

Hoarding is relative. Whatever commodity has the highest velocity (most trades per day) is generally not considered hoarded.

Relative to dollars, nearly all commodities are hoarded, but that's because the entire money supply changes hands nearly 3 times a day on the currency markets (or at least used to). As bitcoin is backed by as much thin air as the other currencies, there is nothing to stop it's velocity from attaining the levels of the dollar.

Being as bitcoin is relatively new, its velocity is low; furthermore, as many vendors have not started accepting it, its velocity is further hampered.

The author suggests that it is mainly being used as a store of value, which is true. Any money that is not controlled by a government is generally a good store of value; and stores of value have their uses. Velocity is not everything.

It is worth noting, however, that throughout history "good money" (good stores of value) have always beaten "bad money" (bad stores of value) in the competition for velocity, all other factors being equal. The only place bitcoin has to catch up is in redeemability, otherwise it's suitability as a money is equal to the other fiat currencies. When it catches up there (and it will, since it obsoletes many taxes), expect it to really take off, unless governments start to get jealous and shove guns in everybody who tries to use it's faces.

Otherwise, most of his arguments are beaten by the infinite subdividability of digital currency.

I think what most of the critics of bitcoin don't realize is that soundness of a money is not dependent on it's backing or even how much is in circulation at any particular time. Who/what controls the issuance of the money is the most important factor; and the numerous hands on bitcoin assure things do not get out of hand.

1). "I haven't heard anything good" is not exactly a high bar either.

2). I don't care what people's agenda is if they do not advocate focribly making others conform to it. Thiel does not, ergo his views are not concerning. If you want to be a follower of his, you can be; if not, dont.

If you think people expressing a view without violating someone else's rights is somehow wrong and must be fought, your position is not keeping with the spirit of free speech.

3). The article is advancing the traditional statist viewpoint that the people would be lost without wise overlords; otherwise they would not be advancing the argument that "OH his nonviolent views he isn't forcing on anyone are bad". Such ideas do not need to be fought by anyone, as the good ideas will win without coercion involved. If his ideas are bad, he will fail all by themseves. No need for a hatchet job, ever.

Everything? You make it sound like he's a child rapist or something.

Has he ever tried to violently force his worldview on anyone? No. Is he a criminal? No.

Is he trying to advance his own agenda, like anybody else? Yes. This is the same kind of demagoguery used against rock and roll music; they're afraid his evil ideas will corrupt our poor citizenry!

It treats the reader as a mindless lump unable to think for himself. That might work on TV, but not on the internet.

The primary beef this seemed to have with Thiel was that he was "withdrawing consent" from democracy, believing it to be incompatible with liberty.

Not good for the writer of the article that Thiel is technically correct. Divine right of the mob is no better than the divine right of kings, oligarchs or whatever else.

Anyone can look around and see that democratic government is just as capable of genocide and police-statery as the next.

They go on to criticize him for committing heresy against public education and our university system. I'd think the users of HN would realize by now that a degree doesn't necessarily imply someone is smart or has skills needed to do some job.

They finish off with the usual "libertarians are all selfish" argument. They then hold up other members of the elite as an example of not being selfish >snicker<. Nobody's perfect, and you can always make anybody rich look like Satan.

This is clearly just a hit piece to make people holding a particular worldview feel good and find a new enemy to attack. There's no concrete criticisms here, nor is the interview here in depth enough for you to understand his context or worldview.

This guy does know he has a valid tort against this person, right? If he wants to discourage them from driving, he should sue her for damages. She was negligent, he was damaged while he had a reasonable expectation of safety (crossing walk sign gave the OK), and there were many witnesses. If that isn't a preponderance of evidence, I don't know what is.

Instead of taking responsibility for himself in the commonly established method of the tort, he wants to force the state to get involved. As if that would ever fly -- the old have a stranglehold on voting; getting the state to restrict their rights is a fantasy.

The author should stand up for his rights in an effective manner if his audience is to respect him.

I find all of this fuss quite humorous; the federal government has had basically the same law as Arizona on the books for nearly thirty years now. However, being the feds, they arbitrarily enforce laws as it suits them (mainly because they have so many criminal laws now that there is no way they could consistently enforce them all -- even if they press-ganged a tenth of the population into the US marshalls).

The issue here is that Arizona is deciding to enforce such an unjust law. Why is it unjust? Because it is a "positive" offense (I.E. it violates no one's natural rights) -- an offense that would not exist without government.

Traditionally, systems based on English common law restricted the punishment of "positive" offenses to fines (a tradition sadly abandoned by most Anglo nations now), regardless of whether said person was a "citizen" or not.

To be fair, the old English common law didn't have (or need) the concept of "citizenship" in the first place. Citizenship generally only enters into a society when there is special privilege associated (I.E. a leg-up on the rest of society) -- which is the main reason people are upset about "illegals", as they are partaking of pillage (aka entitlements) the citizens thought reserved unto themselves.

So what is the better alternative? Simplify the legal code, such that citizenship is irrelevant? Or have an even more complex system that requires such brutal enforcement to be held together? Or is it the one world government?

I would posit that the last two choices are inappropriate -- brutal enforcement and complex laws destroy trust in a society, while a one-world government cannot hope to meaningfully represent the diverse aims of man; it would be a sub-optimal outcome at best, and inescapable tyranny at worst.

However, no one will accept simplifying laws such that they are not an affront to justice and liberty, as those who have secured themselves entitlements and other powers will not release them without violence.

So, sorry guys. There's no solution to this problem that won't cause worse trouble down the line. To be fair, it's not like we have a choice in the matter anyways -- the only votes we ever had (or can ever have) is our money...and we gave away that control in 1913.

They are indeed metabolized differently, for the most part. The sugars in fruits will have higher concentrations of simple glucose (though they still have plenty of fructose) than a soda does. Fructose and Sucrose (depending on what is state-subsidized where you live) are likely the only sweetener in sodas, and they require extra processing (by insulin and others) to be useful.

Usually the body transforms Fructose/Sucrose into lipids instead of consuming them on the spot like simple glucose. I suppose the body is trying to save the sub-standard fuel for when it has no other choice. Not sure what this has to do with cancer, but I suppose if there are too many insulin needs in the body that the pancreas will break down eventually (and cells turn into cancer sometimes instead of dying when they wear out in rare cases).

I found Weatherford's "History of Money" to be a much better history of the subject.