"Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others" Professor of Philosophy: “I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” But he reveals himself, it's only a perverse anticapitalist mindset: “we could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to elite family relationships.” I truly understand a professor who don't have to care about the real world saying such nonsense. I'm a professor myself, I know what I'm talking about. But I can't swallow people doubting themselves because of pompous titles. This is how the reporter finishes her article. "In general, I tend to believe that focusing on improving things for the less fortunate is a better way to advance our society than purposely making things worse for those who have more, but what do I know? After all, it’s not like I’m a philosopher or anything." Come on, you see something is wrong and you doubt yourself instead of questioning it? This is just an anecdote that shows why traditional media is so doomed.

National Review

Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others | National Review

According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly...

Bitcoin is a debit card? That's how a dear colleague is trying to argue against my position that Bitcoin can become money someday. A debit card is just a messaging system, a kind of voucher that is redeemable for the underlying currency, which is Reais or Dollars, or any modern fiat. There existed this kind of stuff during the gold standard (not electronic, but in actual paper and in balance sheets) and it is estimated that it was more prevalent than barter and gold itself, coins being reserved for transactions with strangers, and bank notes for distant fairs and for large transactions. I highly disagree that Bitcoin is a debit card, but I'm curious about the rationale behind this position. Bitcoin is a messaging system in its core, just like a debit or credit card system, indeed. But it is not debit from someone else like in a debit (or credit) card system, it is the asset itself and the underlying "physical" phenomenon associated with this asset is being able to send new messages in this system. Yes, it looks like fiat in the sense it's not redeemable for an underlying commodity, but it is intrinsically different from fiat for it is an entitlement for sending messages in a real system that (some) people decided (in the market) to value. Lawrence White, in Better Money, argues that the difference in nature between fiat and Bitcoin is government coercion. I understand there's more to it. You may argue that Bitcoin is not money since it is not widely accepted as a medium of exchange. I'll agree with that. But for something to become money, it has to not be money before (like gold, silver, and fiat). Also, there's no accepted theory for how something becomes money. So, we may be witnessing the monetization of this thing (or not, who knows?). I'm betting in the monetization of this thing for more than economic reasons. I may be wrong, time will tell. --- You can see the discussion on LinkedIn:

Review Better Money by Lawrence White | Edil Medeiros posted on the topic | LinkedIn

New paper coming out soon. This time an extended review of Better Money, a book by Lawrence White that compares the gold, fiat, and bitcoin standa...

I recently finished reading Better Money: Gold, Fiat, or Bitcoin?, by Lawrence White. While I’m preparing a proper academic review, maybe someone will appreciate some of the book’s main points. - Strong historical material explaining different implementations of money. - Quite basic supply-and-demand methodology for comparing gold, fiat, and Bitcoin. Yet, the common ground makes for a conscientious analysis, especially for pointing that Bitcoin’s purchasing power volatility is inherent to the system from an economic perspective. Take aways: 1. “A gold standard has the advantage that the global stock supply curve for monetary gold is non-vertical in the short run and nearly horizontal in the long run, providing responses in the quantity that stabilize the purchasing power of gold, but the disadvantage that the supply curve can occasionally shift.” 2. “A fiat standard has the potential advantage that its supply can be deliberately managed to stabilize the price level both in the short run and in the long run, but the disadvantage that has seldom been managed that way in practice, due to the incentives that accompany government control over the quantity of money.” 3. “A Bitcoin standard has the advantage that the Bitcoin supply curve does not shift, but the disadvantage that the supply curve is vertical in both the short run and the long run, implying unstable purchasing power in the face of money demand variations.” White is skeptical about a Bitcoin standard because of purchasing power volatility. He argues that people preferred stable monies over time and that the costs associated are high. “My prediction is that BTC is unlikely to become a commonly used medium of exchange for the same reason, namely that its purchasing-power risk and transaction costs make it unattractive to use as a medium of exchange.” My main critique: fiat money was created by governments (White explains the mechanics of this movement) and they have a higher cost over society in the form of inflation (as he argues with historical evidence). It was done because of political reasons, not economical. I would not overlook people coming to accept higher purchasing power volatility of an eventual Bitcoin standard if governments stay in the last century’s track of increasingly assault over the institution of private property. Does it worth reading? Definitely, it will expand your knowledge about monetary systems and understand some fair critiques about Bitcoin.