This is not a political site. This is an anti-political site. We agree with the goals of individual liberty, free markets, and peace.


Bitcoin Revisited - A Simpler Explanation

Just click the picture to see the current price

By Grant Davies

Some of you still seem to be confused about Bitcoin. I'm not sure why because we covered this in an earlier post.

But not to worry, your old trusty blog master has hunted the internet to find this really short and concise explanation. After you see this, the light will go on and you'll probably get on board.

It won't cost many US dollars as you can plainly see by the price above. And the picture is also a handy link to keep track of the price going forward as it has it's small fluctuations. For some reason the short video below can't be embedded so you'll have to watch it by clicking the picture below.

The rude Facebook page that produced the video probably didn't want me stealing their stuff. Stingy bastards.

Click the pic


There Should be a Tax on Disingenuous Analysis

Editors note: This post, by our guest blogger Seth, hits the target. As usual. The title of this post is mine, not his. His title is "Needs More Work". Precisely.
By Seth
This article on is disingenuous and not persuasive. It’s headline: The Republican tax bill punishes American families who use public schools.
Under both the GOP Senate’s nearly 500-page bill (pdf) and the House version, the amount that US households pay in state income taxes (which can be as high as 13% in states like California) and local taxes is no longer deductible on federal income tax forms, with the exception of property taxes up to $10,000.
Making state and local taxes no longer deductible from federal income taxes essentially subjects US households to “double taxation,” by taxing them twice on the income they earn, according to a report (pdf) from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), a non-partisan group of state and local finance professionals from the US and Canada.
Why do I think the article is disingenuous? For a few reasons.
First, they don’t tell us how many people will be affected. Only about 30% even claim this deduction.
Second, they don’t mention that what people lose from this deduction, they will gain some, all or more back in the changes in the standard deduction and tax rates.
Third, they don’t mention how many taxpayers will still get to deduct up to $10,000 in property taxes.

When you take the above into account, I suspect that the impact of the change is minimal.
The authors also claim that the removal of this deduction will pressure citizens to lower their taxes, which could be devastating to school district budgets.
That made me LOL.
First, because I highly doubt that would happen. By the time you take the factors I mentioned above into account, it wouldn’t be worth enough people’s time to do that.
Second, if they did pressure local school districts to lower taxes, good for them. They should hold their school districts accountable. This is how the world should work.
Finally, the authors don’t even mention that one of the 2nd or 3rd order consequences of this deduction is already offset in higher home prices, which is a pretty well-known and accepted fact in the economics world.
So, if you do pay more taxes because of losing this deduction you will likely gain it back in home affordability.
Overall, I suspect the individual impact of this change in the tax code will have a minimal financial impact on most folks.

I could be convinced otherwise. But, this article falls well short of making that case. This article is a good example of the type of paper my high school composition teacher would have handed back with “Needs More Work” written on it. Unfortunately, the standard teachers used to hold students to, don’t seem to apply in journalism these days.

Seth has a wonderful blog. You can reach it using the link on the right. I suggest you do.


By Grant Davies

Is Bitcoin fools gold? Is Bitcoin a new paradigm? Is it understandable? Are most people disregarding it because they don't understand it? Are many people disregarding it because they don't like change? Are governments terrified of it? If so, why? So many questions. So few answers. I certainly don't have them.

Recently a guy named Stiglitz proved that Nobel Prizes ain't what they used to be when he weighed in on whether the governments who control all the money should outlaw Bitcoin (of course) to avoid losing power. (That's not exactly his stated reason, but in my opinion, it's the actual reason.) If I ruled over everyone else's money to my own great advantage I'd be contemplating that challenge to my power as well. The poor over-educated, but confounded, old guy doesn't even understand that trying to outlaw it is as futile as abolition was.

That introduction aside, let's take a peek at a YouTube presentation that attempts to explain some things about Bitcoin. It's worth the trouble because if we are still very confused after watching it, we won't be worse off. I'm a bit on an expert in confusion myself. Sadly there is no Nobel Prize for that.

A friend, Bill Ulivieri, who does understand a thing or two about Bitcoin, posted the video on his Facebook page and I thank him for being able to present it here for your contemplation.

No matter what you conclude about Bitcoin, I bet you never imagined a future that looks like the one described in the presentation. Mankind never seems to see the big changes coming.

If you win the bet, I might pay you in something.......


The Donner Party

By Grant Davies

The Pelosi/Conyers affair (as I have just named it) is the equivalent of a Political Donner party.

As long as your fellow travelers are dead anyway you may as well eat them to save your own skin.

This is what just happened as Pelosi threw her old buddy John Conyers under the pictured bus because the people paying her fare on the bus might stop doing so if she didn't solve the conundrum of being loyal to her cabal or staying politically viable.

She chose to eat Conyers. Wise move.

PS  I couldn't resist delighting in some snarky fun when I came across the picture below even though it's in bad taste. I guess I ain't very PC.


Three Card Monty

By Grant Davies

Very few would be surprised to learn that I'm not a Trump admirer. Having said that, maybe I don't give him enough credit for political savvy.

His incessant tweets and adolescent behavior may indeed be a grand strategy of perpetual distraction from actual important topics and events. The media sure falls for it like a bunch of rubes watching a three card Monty game. 

All politicians try to do this. Some are better at it than others. Trump may be making it into an art form.

I'm not saying it's so, merely that it might be.