Ethereum as a bonded sidechain of Bitcoin with advantages over RootstockIn more recent news:
What is a sidechain?
According to block stream:
A sidechain is a blockchain that validates data from other blockchains
Ethereum already does that with BTC Relay. So how about pegged assets?
This is an idea for an Ethereum contract that makes Bitcoin-backed tokens without any softfork or trusted Bitcoin multisig managers. Instead, Bitcoin IOU's are created on the Ethereum blockchain and backed by Ether bonds which are governed by Ethereum contracts like BTC Relay or price oracles. The Bitcoin IOUs are backed by Bitcoins held by the escrow managers but if they steal/lose the Bitcoins (or refuse to redeem them) the Bonded Escrow Contract will observe their naughty behaviour and sell their Ether bond to redeem the Bitcoins from someone else!
- Two-way peg refers to the mechanism by which coins are transferred between sidechains and back at a fixed or otherwise deterministic exchange rate.
- A pegged sidechain is a sidechain whose assets can be imported from and returned to other chains; that is, a sidechain that supports two-way pegged assets.
Rootstock vs Bonded Escrow Contract on Ethereum
There are two methods that Rootstock developers plan to use for issuing Bitcoin IOUs (called "Roots") on their Bitcoin "sidechain". AFAIU the first involves merged mining and a multisig wallet that entrusts a quorum of Bitcoin miners with the entire basket of Bitcoin eggs that were "moved" to the Rootstock chain. The second method requires softforking the Bitcoin blockchain for a two-way peg.
Pseudonymous, distributed, untrusted issuers
Rootstock dev maaku7:
“It's a known trade-off made by any presently deployable implementation of the 2-way peg. It's also something that we were very upfront about in the sidechains paper, and part of the reason why many of us are so concerned about decentralization of bitcoin mining.says this about sidechain security:
In any non-SNARK, non-extension-block version of the 2-way peg a bitcoin node does not perform full validation of the sidechain as part of the consensus rules. Therefore it is perfectly possible (by design) for a threshold majority of the miners / signers to steal the coins in the peg pool, and censor any attempt to stop them. Why by design? Because that's the promise of sidechains: performant permissionless innovation at the cost of SPV trust in the honest majority of signers / miners.
Sidechains we are working on (e.g. Alpha, Liquid) and Rootstock, by the looks of it, make use of a fixed set of signers instead of or in addition to reliance on >50% honest hashpower. This is because while less pure, it is ultimately safer to work with known, contracted entities as functionaries rather than 50% hashpower which at the moment is just a small handful of unaccountable people.
EDIT: Although obviously the ideal end goal is fully decentralized mining, where creating a 50% hashpower cabal requires organizing thousands of people at minimum. In such a case we may be able to consider a pure SPV peg to have a reasonable security model. But we're a long way from there yet...”
“In any non-SNARK, non-extension-block version of the 2-way peg a bitcoin node does not perform full validation of the sidechain as part of the consensus rules. Therefore it is perfectly possible (by design) for a threshold majority of the miners / signers to steal the coins in the peg pool, and censor any attempt to stop them. Why by design? Because that's the promise of sidechains: performant permissionless innovation at the cost of SPV trust in the honest majority of signers / miners.”Ether bonds can remove most of the need for this trust and allow pseudonymous, permissionless participation in issuance and escrow management. Without anonymous, untrusted validators, distributed around the world, Bitcoin is looking more and more like Chinese Liberty Reserve or E-gold. …
Bonded sidechains decentralize pegged assets
Even with a Bitcoin softfork, Rootstock has just one Bitcoin IOU with all the Bitcoins sitting like a duck in one "wallet". Since Roots are just one Bitcoin IOU from one issuer, they can't be used to back/bond IOUs the way Ether can. If Rootstock's multisig/SPV wallet is robbed by it's signers/miners or (as they always say) hackers, the value of Roots become "zero" along with any asset or contract using Roots. Ether continues to have value if Bitcoins are stolen. Theft just thins out the herd and makes people more cautious. Ether bonds make issuers mostly responsible for their IOUs with IOU holders assuming some risk if Ether loses too much value to Bitcoin.
Issuing servers and indie issuers
A basic Bonded Escrow Contract is practically complete since BTC Relay does the difficult part. "Bonded Escrow Contract" is completely decentralized and requires no modification to Bitcoin. It would allow anyone to "anonymously" manage Bitcoin escrow wallets or issue Bitcoin IOUs. They only need to obtain Ether for the bond, send it to the Bonded Escrow Contract along with their Bitcoin escrow address and the terms of the IOU they wish to create. Indie issuers don't have to babysit a "server" (that needs to be online all the time) if they create IOU contracts that won't have harsh penalties if they take some time to redeem the tokens. IOU buyers who want faster redemption can buy IOU's from issuing servers. Issuers are free to choose alternatives to SPV such as prediction markets, to verify Bitcoin transactions.
Bonded Escrow Contract options
Here are some options that the Bonded Escrow Contract could make available: * Designate how much Bitcoin the IOU tokens are to be worth and how much Ether will back them. This may be a fixed rate or it may be based on other Ethereum price oracle contracts. If a price oracle is used the issuer may have to add Ether to prevent the IOU from going into default if the Ether price goes down relative to Bitcoin. * Set exchange or rental rates for the Bitcoin IOUs. These rates may be in Ether and/or Bitcoin and could be based on oracle/derivatives contracts.
When IOUs aren't redeemed (right away)
What happens if the IOU's are sent back to the issuer but the Bitcoins aren't released right away?
- Set grace period where there is no penalty. After this you have these options.
- Set the rate of an Ether stream that is sent slowly from the escrow contract until the value of the bonded Ether gets too close to the value of the Bitcoins in escrow. At this point, all the Ether is transfered from the issuer to the "creditor" (or to another contract).
- The user who is waiting on the Bitcoins may choose to take some of the bonded Ether instead. This option sets the rate to buy some of the bonded Ether from the Bonded Escrow Contract instead of waiting for the Bitcoins.
- The contract may automatically use the Ether to buy Bitcoins from a more reliable issuer. Or the creditor may be given the option to do this manually.
Add to this is that Ethereum's PoS will be far more scalable, with Casper development reaching high levels of sophistication.
- 2-way decentralized pegs do not yet exit.
- People are not going to be very elated about the FedPeg, but I don't suspect this will do much to inhibit RSK token exchange. ShapeShift will for instance allow for an RSK to BTC exchange.
- It merge mines with Bitcoin. OI VE! Talk about an anti-feature. This exposes RootStock to all the problems associate with the great firewall while trying to accomplish sub 10sec block times? What if it becomes obvious that RootStock is now worth more than Bitcoin and Bitcoin becomes this empty shell that does nothing but "burn" Bitcoins into RootStock?
- RSK trades at 1:1 to the Bitcoin. Think about this for a second. It's like going to college, studying a medical degree for 10 years and then equally distributing your income to all your family members and extended family. Even if RootStock is faster, better, more secure than Ethereum. This one single "feature" cripples it. The RootStock ecosystem will never see most of this value. They are giving all their money to rich Bitcoiners who took no risk building their network. ...
- It doesn't much matter that it is EVM compatible. I can launch another Ethereum blockchain today with no token value. The problem isn't compatibility but the value of the state of the blockchain. IE Digix will not only have to relaunch their network on RSK but they'll have to import and close off their state on Ethereum or write and move to Bitcoin.
- All the features they build can be forked by building a network that isn't 20% more expensive to fund it's development. RootStock will basically get a RootStock of its own.
"That said, counterparty is more closely linked to the bitcoin blockchain, so it's easier to make crowdsales that accept bitcoin directly; that's the primary point in favor of a bitcoin blockchain-based metacoin. Though now btcrelay makes up for quite a bit of that difference."
OK, so Bitcoin focused smart contracts and LISK are bad ideas, but sometimes bad ideas win, after all, bla bla "network effect"
- Not to mention that the LISK contracts will be stored in plaintext, which means they'll be vastly more expensive to publish.
|Rate (per day)||0.89||157.49|
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
|Rate (per day)||2.75||467.46|
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats
Playlist with Andreas Antonopoulos as well as a few other classics. Is meant for people completely new to bitcoin.
Took quite awhile to assemble this playlist. Playlist is in chronological order. Watch in that sequence. Adjust playing speed in youtube to suit your needs.
Consider this page 1 in a series. May be updated from time to time.
Who is in control
- What is Bitcoin? (v2) 1min36
- The real value of bitcoin and crypto currency technology - The Blockchain explained 6min15
- Bitcoin Cryptocurrency Crash Course with Andreas Antonopoulos 1h12
- Introduction to Bitcoin 37min16
- Bitcoin 101 | Balaji Srinivasan 28min
How does it work
- Bitcoin Q&A: Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? 4min16
- Open source watch till 6min11
- Bitcoin Q&A: Is Bitcoin development centralised? 2min06
- Bitcoin Q&A: Is Bitcoin a democracy? 7min58
- Who is in control watch till 23min19
- Governance watch till 14min39
Security (and who's backing it)
- The Essence of How Bitcoin Works (Non-Technical) 5min24
- Ever wonder how Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) actually work? 26min20
- What is Bitcoin Mining? 1min55
- Bitcoin Q&A: What is mining? 3min10
By the love of God, watch first video entirely (click link in description once you understand). Don't be goxxed!
- JOE ROGAN ASKS ANDREAS ANTONOPOULOS "CAN BITCOIN BE HACKED?" 9min01
- KEVIN ROSE ASKS ANDREAS ANTONOPOULOS ABOUT QUANTUM COMPUTING 8min58
- Talking Bitcoin With the Winklevosses | Disrupt SF 2013 25min13
- Bitcoin Fireside Chat with Marc Andreessen and Balaji Srinivasan - Coinsumm.it watch till 24min08
- Bitcoin: Where the Laws of Mathematics Prevail 23min47
Some videos about bitcoin being a bubble
- Not your keys? Not your Bitcoin. Featuring Andreas Antonopoulos
- ROGAN & ANDREAS: BITCOIN | MT. GOX | BANKING | FEDERAL RESERVE 14min07
Some basic economics
- Bitcoin 101 - Why Bitcoin's Growth is Normal & The S-Curves You Could Never See 20min46
- BITCOIN BUBBLE - Andreas Antonopoulos 4min38
- Don't Buy Bitcoin. It's Going To Crash!!! 55s
- 21 Inc. CEO: Bitcoin Is Still Alive 2min56
- Michael B. Casey article concerning the gartner hype cycle
- The paradox of value - Akshita Agarwal 3min45
- Bitcoin Q&A: Price volatility, pegging, stability 9min14
- JOE ROGAN ASKS ANDREAS WHY DOES THE PRICE OF BITCOIN FLUCTUATE SO MUCH 9min05
- Bitcoin Q&A: Price premiums and arbitrage 7min03
- How to value a bitcoin 8min54
Altcoins vs Bitcoin
- ANDREAS ANTONOPOULOS EXPLAINS TO JOE ROGAN WHY BITCOIN IS SO IMPORTANT 18min18
- Bitcoin Q&A: Crossing the chasm of theoretical vs. real need 9min33
- The Value In Cryptocurrency Explained By A Crypto Hedge Fund CIO 4min58
- Why Jamie Dimon Called Bitcoin A Fraud - Ari Paul 1min19
- The Economics Of Bitcoin And Why It’s A Long Term Asset - Simon Dixon Interview 57min22
Worried about high fees or the slow transactions? See the motivation behind the fee structure (pay special attention to the last video)
- Bitcoin Q&A: Do altcoins threaten to replace bitcoin? 4min49
- Altcoins and the scaling debate 10min05
- Bitcoin Q&A: Unstoppable code 8min31
Important classics about the theory of money
- ANDREAS EXPLAINS TO KEVIN ROSE THAT BITCOIN TX'S WILL BE 100X VISA'S 16min12
- Bitcoin Q&A: Governance and the transaction fee market 5min53
- Bitcoin Q&A: Fee markets, SegWit, and scaling 7min51
- The Debate Within Bitcoin: Jameson Lopp vs. Roger Ver on Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash 56min36
- Delivering Liberty, at Scale 30min15
Early classics (last video is gold :p)
- The Stories We Tell About Money 47min27
- Erik Voorhees - The Role of Bitcoin as Money - Bitcoin 2013 Conference 33min25
- Why Bitcoin is Better Than Gold, with Wences Casares 7min17
- The Killer App: Engineering the Properties of Money 29min14
Important backdrop for why bitcoin emerged starring Stefan Molyneux and Mike Maloney
- Bitcoin 101: What Happens When We Decentralize Money? 20min42
- Everything You Need to Know About Bitcoin: VICE Podcast 027 1h01
- Max Keiser - Bitcoin, Bernanke & Buffett | London Real watch till 1h02
Bitcoin's larger importance with Andreas Antonopoulos
- The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind - Hidden Secrets of Money 4 29min34
- Janet Yellen doesn't want the Fed audited. Buy Bitcoin. 2min (pay attention when you reach 1min13)
- Bitcoin: The Psychology of Money - Stefan Molyneux speaks at the Texas Bitcoin Conference 41min36
- The Truth About Bitcoin 51min
Banking and Blockchain with Andreas Antonopoulos
- KEVIN ROSE & ANDREAS ANTONOPOULOS TALK BITCOIN AND DECENTRALIZATION 20min27
- 2015 Andreas Antonopoulos - Bitcoin - PART 1/2| London Real 46min46
- 2017 Andreas Antonopoulos - The Death of Money - PART 1/2 | London Real 47min52
- Singularity | Andreas Antonopoulos: Bitcoin isn't currency; it's the internet of money! 1h23
- Immutability and Proof-of-Work - the planetary scale digital monument 1h16
- Andreas M Antonopoulos - The Future of Cryptocurrencies 51min17
- "Moore's Law" with Andreas Antonopoulos (from Joe Rogan Experience #490) 8min57
- Bitcoin and the Banks - Five Stages of Grief by Andreas M. Antonopoulos 19min29
- Deloitte | Andreas Antonopoulos: Bitcoin isn't currency; it's the internet of money! 37min14
- "Blockchain" or Bitcoin: Understanding the differences 30min19
- Bitcoin Q&A: What will replace our current banking system after the currency crisis? 3min14
- Bitcoin Q&A: Why are decentralised networks resistant? - Inefficiency is the Price of Freedom 8min08
- Bitcoin Q&A: Irreversibility and consumer protection 4min22
- Hard Promises, Soft Promises: Promoting Autonomy instead of Authority 24min26
- Andreas Antonopoulos: The Case Against Reputation and Identity Systems 10min36
- Balaji Srinivasan at Startup School 2013 16min29
- [The Currency Wars and Bitcoin's Neutra...
|What say you about the Austrian School of Economics? As an econometrics guy, you don't seem to have that in common, but you have seemingly come to largely the same conclusions, i.e. free markets, free trade, etc.||I am new to Austrian economics. I got all the way through undergraduate and PhD work and had never heard of Hayek, Mises, or Rand. When I finally heard the Austrian perspective, I was amazed -- using philosophical tools, the Austrians reach the same conclusions that I reached using econometric tools. I believe economics should be taught, at the undergraduate level, from an Austrian perspective. The graphs and equations that populate the standard undergraduate texts speak only to small subset of students. The Austrian approach, however, speaks to a broad audience and provides a solid intuitive understanding of economics that is very difficult to get from a picture.|
|What specific public policy change in the US do you think would most benefit society in the short and long term?||What the US needs to do is something like the following (I've run the numbers, so what I'm about to say is approximately correct)...|
|(1) Cut federal spending by 10%. If you want to avoid cutting something (e.g., Social Security), then cut something else by more, but the total must come out to a 10% cut. (2) Hold spending constant (no adjustments for inflation) for four years. (3) At the end of year 5, we'll have a balanced budget. From that point forward, the growth in government spending must not exceed the growth in real GDP.|
|Why would getting a balanced budget help us in the short term?||The problem is the debt. As it continues to grow, we approach a point at which the interest payments eat so much of our tax revenue that there is little money left to do the things government needs to do.|
|Balancing the budget would cause the debt to stop growing.|
|The CBO estimates that in the next decade, interest payments as a percent of GDP will be no higher than it was during the Bush years. Tell me again why getting a balanced budget will help us in the short term?||I've done an analysis of historical CBO forecasts. Of the available 170+ times they have forecasted, they overestimate tax revenues 75% of the time, underestimate spending 80% of the time, and underestimate the debt 90% of the time.|
|Thank you for all the work you do over at Learn Liberty and for doing this AMA.||I don't agree. Sometimes, the economy is like a tube of toothpaste. The government can push down on one end and all that happens is that the other end bulges. In this case, there is no question that the bailout saved jobs in Detroit and saved us the immediate pain of car companies and their suppliers and finaciers going bankrupt.|
|Today, the conventional wisdom seems to be that the financial and automotive industry bailouts bailouts averted an even worse crisis and saved us from an awful depression.||However, what the bailout ultimately did was to keep a large chunk of our scarce resources tied up in industries that have demonstrated their inability to use those resources in the best possible way. So, a decade or two or three from now, we're going to be right back to the dealing with the same problem because we didn't address the disease. We addressed the symptom.|
|What is your position on the bailouts? And what do you believe would have happened if they had not been implemented?||Think of it as a law of conservation of economic pain. The government can't make the pain of wasted resources go away -- it can only shift the pain to the future.|
|I've seen some of your videos concerning the national debt/budget deficits. What's your prediction on the outcome? Will we see any policy changes before it's 'too late'? And what does it look like when it is, in fact, 'too late'? High inflation? Hyperinflation/currency crisis? A major change in the way government works?||I'll give you my personal prediction, though I'm not yet comfortable enough in it to write about it in the press.|
|I predict the following sequence of events: (1) The economy begins to pick up and the Fed, fearing inflation, starts to let interest rates rise; (2) The federal government -- the largest borrower in the U.S. -- can't afford higher interest payments, so it puts pressure on the Fed to hold interest rates low; (3) Some compromise is reached and the result is a mix of some increase in interest rates and some inflation; (4) Let simmer for a while; (5) Government spending reaches a point that there is no option left by monetizing the deficit (i.e., the Fed prints money to fund deficit spending); (6) The dollar ceases to be the global reserve currency; (7) We start to talk about replacing the dollar with a New Dollar.|
|As a liberal type of guy I often look at talk of hyperinflation and debt crises in general as a lot of hot air. However, I also understand theoretically how extreme debt can cause a number of problematic issues, including high levels of inflation. What are some real world examples of Western/Industrialized economies that succumbed (or almost succumbed) to hyperinflation in the post-WWII era?||Think of borrowing and saving as moving consumption and income across time. When I borrow, what I am really doing is consuming now money I will earn in the future. When I save, what I am really doing is consuming later money I earn now.|
|When a country does this, it is transferring the consumption and income of the taxpayers across time. So, by accumulating $16 trillion in debt, what the US has really done is to take $16 trillion of consumption away from future taxpayers and give it to today's taxpayers. IMHO, that's an extreme example of taxation without representation.|
|How would you look at the returns on that $16 trillion dollar consumption? Like surely our military spending, infrastructure or any spending now, has a return for the citizens down the road.||You are correct, sometimes it is better to borrow and buy things now because the benefit we get from having the things now outweighs the cost of paying for them later. For an individual, college loans are a good example. For a country, military spending is probably a good example. There are probably others.|
|There is a serious difference, however, between the decision the individual faces and the decision the country faces. The individual compares the benefit of consuming now to the cost of paying later and judges whether to borrow or to save. At a country level, we can't do the same thing because the people who borrow are not the people who are paying back. It would be like your neighbor deciding whether he should borrow to buy a new car, knowing that he would be able to use the force of law to require you to pay back the money he borrowed.|
|Professor Davies, Thanks for taking time to do this AMA! What do you think current Federal monetary policy & financial law says about citizenship in America today? Duties? Expectations? Allowed Behavior?||It seems to me that the duty of an American citizen is to respect other people's property rights (I use the term "property" broadly to include not just people's objects but their lives and well-beings). To that end, anyone who is willing to come here and so live should be considered a citizen.|
|If you could automatically remove one United states policy what would it be and why? Also if you could make one United states policy what would it be and why?||As a homerun, I would remove the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. As a second best, I'd repeal the 17th Amendment so that Senators would be appointed by the state legislatures. A third idea I've been wondering about recently is how things would be different if the states appointed the Supreme Court Justices -- e.g., election by the fifty state governors.|
|A freshman econ major here, just so you know. I've noticed in some of your articles you've been critical of Obama's economic policies, notably his stimulus package. However, it seems you fail to address some of the benefits of the stimulus, such as its investment in human capital and the effect it had on aggregate demand and consequently the recession as a whole. Taking these into account, doesn't it lend some merit to Obama's decision? Furthermore, do you believe that the economy would be better off now if Obama had gone with austerity instead?||The question is never does a policy have positive effects (which is the way politicians describe policies), but rather, do the positive effects of a policy outweigh the negative effects of that policy. I tell my students that economists don't care about individuals. What I mean by that is, economic policy is not designed for individuals but for the economy as a whole. So, when an economist thinks about policy, he has to think about the effect on the economy as a whole.|
|If people measured one's preferred form of governance on a scale of 0 to 100 (0= anarchy, 100= dictatorship), what would be your number?||My preference is 0, though I could live comfortably with the 1 to 10 range.|
|On a scale of one to ten, how dumb are you?||On a scale of one to ten, how badly do you need me to pay your phone bill this month?|
|Do you think that financial crisis like the fall of the banks is an intrinsic part of a growth based economy, or was that just a hiccup that we can fix? And if we can fix it, what steps should we take to make sure that doesn't happen again?||The financial crisis was very much the result of government intervention. Since the 1970s, Congress has been pressuring banks to extend loans to low-income and risky borrowers. The banks (because they had to bear the cost of failed loans) largely resisted. That all changed when Congress ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ramp-up.|
|The way it is supposed to work is that banks have a profit motive to loan money and a loss motive to avoid loaning money to people who won't pay it back.|
|Here's how it did work. Banks would lend money to people. FM and FM would immediately buy the mortgages from the banks. End result: The banks had still had a profit motive to loan money to people, but they no longer had the loss motive to avoid loaning money to risky people. By purchasing the loans, FM and FM took the risk away from the banks. Since FM and FM were backed by the US government, that risk got foisted on taxpayers.|
|The end result was predictable. Notice that the problem wasn't greed. Banks were greedy before. The problem was that the government removed the penalty for greed (loan defaults) so as to encourage banks to make loans that they otherwise would not have made.|
|What do you think about the role of "Bitcoin" in society?||Bitcoin is absolutely the right idea. It is an easily stored and exchanged currency that can't be inflated. It also has the astoundingly beautiful property of being untraceable. If bitcoin (or something like it) takes hold, it will be a huge blow to government controls everywhere.|
|As far as I know, it isn't strictly untraceable. Also, the exchange rates can still wildly fluctuate, as we have recently seen with the popping of a bitcoin bubble.||How do we know that it is the value of the bitcoin that is wildly fluctuating or the value of the dollar? :)|
|Do you view taxation as a necessary evil?||Wow. That's a hard question. Any tax that pays for something that could otherwise be provided by the private sector is probably an evil tax. So, school taxes are evil. Transportation taxes are probably evil.|
|So, I suppose the question boils down to, "is there anything the government does that could otherwise be provided by the private sector?" I don't know. I think of myself as a "soft anarchist." By that, I mean, while I'm not ready to say that we can survive without government, I haven't yet heard a compelling argument as to why we do need government.|
|Do you count the national defense as something that could otherwise be provided by the private sector? Private companies already can fulfill many if not most functions of our military.||Probably not. However, the "we need government because we need national defense" argument ends up being circular. (1) I need government because I need an army. (2) But, I only need an army to protect me from your army. (3) You are able to have an army because you have a government. Conclusion: The purpose of government is to protect you from government.|
|What would you say is the book that everyone should read to understand economics?||I always recommend The Armchair Economist (Landsburg, Freedom Press) and Eat the Rich (O'Rourke). The former can be read as individual chapters; the latter is a narrative. Both are excellent.|
|Will the dollar collapse? And if so, when and why? Also, what are your thoughts on the origin of natural rights?? Most explanations I've read from people like Locke tend to explain it through God which seems like a cop out to me.||There are good arguments for the origin of natural rights that don't invoke God. Being a theist, I find the ones that do invoke God more satisfying. I find the philosophical discussion fascinating, but I'm not adept enough to be able to reproduce it.|
|1) Do you think Keynesian multipliers ever exceed 1?||I haven't done the calculations myself, but I've seen estimates in studies that range all the way down to less than one. I'm not a fan of the multiplier, but in its defense, it has been abused by politicians. Politicians quote Keynes' prescription for increasing government spending so as to spur economic growth. But they don't quote Keynes' next statement which is, after the economy picks up, return government spending to its original level.|
|2) What are your thoughts on the Chicago School vs. the Austrian School?||I dislike the idea of "schools." It gives the impression of mutually exclusive sets. There's a lot in the "Chicago school" that is good, so too in the "Austrian school." There's also error in both. My tendency is to approach economics from the Austrian school because the Austrians begin with a first principle (people own themselves), and then construct subsequent principles by applying logic to the first principle. I like that approach.|
|3) There is quite a bit of derision in the /Economics sub about the Austrian school as being outdated and not quantifiable. What would you say in response to that criticism?||I disagree. My training is in econometrics and I find a wealth of quantifiable stuff in Austrian economics.|
|Do you think cutting entitlement spending could ever be politically viable? There seems to be entire blocks of voters who base their entire vote on 'don't touch my medicare'.||The interesting thing here is that whether it becomes politically viable is moot. We are going to reach a point (my guess is not sooner than 5 years nor later than 20) at which it becomes mathematically impossible to continue entitlement spending as it is now. At that point, it won't matter whether there is a political will to cut spending any more than it matters whether there is a political will for gravity to pull downward.|
|What single math principle would you want all politicians to understand?||I believe the problem isn't understanding but communication. I would want no politician to offer something to voters without clearly defining the costs. For example, to ask, "Do you want the government to provide you with health insurance?" is (to many people) a no-brainer. But the question doesn't capture the reality of what's being asked. What's really being asked is, "Do you want the government to provide you with health insurance in exchange for lower quality health care and increased unemployment?"|
|What got you into economics?||My mother. She told me to study it. Always listen to your mothers.|
|What is the most mind-blowing economic fact/theory that you know?||Link to www.antolin-davies.com|
|Have any post WWII Western/post-industrial economies collapsed as a result of debt or inflation?||Not to my knowledge, though Cyprus and Greece might become the first examples.|
|Hello Dr. Davies, what are your thoughts on the Gold Standard?||Any system that holds the supply of money relatively constant is good. It doesn't have to be gold. A water standard or a land standard might work just as well. Many advocates of the gold standard go awry when they claim that we need a gold standard because gold is inherently valuable and we need something with inherent value to back the dollar.|
|This is incorrect. The reason a gold-backed dollar has value isn't because it is backed by gold. It has value because you can hand it to a bartender and he'll give you a beer.|
|Would prosecuting the ring leaders of the biggest banks, or breaking the too big to fail banks up have a significant impact on the economy? Or is Holder just lying...again?||The ring leaders were Congress and the Federal Reserve. Absolutely, banks were acting like corner drug pushers. But it was Congress and the Fed that were the drug cartel.|
|Do you think the national debt can be repaid without heavy inflation to reduce its effective size?||No. For the moment, it is political impossible. In about five or ten years, it will become mathematically impossible.|
|Which economic school do you lean towards more? Chicago? Austrian?||Austrian -- no question.|
|Whose your favorite George Mason Economic Professor and why?||Rob Raffety. He adjuncts in the law school and was a student of mine as an undergrad.|
|What do you like best about your job?||Variety. It's most of the joy of being self-employed without the risk. Probably only half of the educating I do now is done in the classroom. The rest is via videos, opeds, invited lectures, and venues like this. It's gotten even more interesting in the past couple of years as people seem to be waking up to classical liberal thought.|
|Regarding public policy, what is your stance on immigration? What is your utopia with respect to immigration, and then what kinds of reforms should Congress seek that are practical with today's government and/or society?||Peaceful people should be allowed to cross boarders freely. Immigration is really a violation of your economic freedom. Suppose I own a house and a person from Mexico wants to buy it. Were it not for immigration law, we could come to an agreement and freely transact the exchange. When the government prevents the person from coming into the country, it has the same effect as telling me to whom I can and cannot sell my property.|
|If you had the chance to scrap our tax system, would you? what system would you go to?||Absolutely. I'd replace it with an 18% consumption tax -- no exceptions. I'd also accompany it with a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Historically, regardless of tax rates, the government collects total revenue equal to about 18% of GDP. So this tax would generate the same revenue as the government has now. The balanced budget amendment would force politicians to make tradeoffs among spending rather than tradeoffs between spending and tax increases.|
|What is your response to criticisms of the Austrian School of economics? Also, should children be a part of the free market? Do infants have self-ownership? I would also like to know if you have any responses to this or this.||To my knowledge, no philosophical system has yet been able to deal with the "children" question. A philosopher friend of mine once said that parents don't own children, they own the right to parent the children. The way I explain it to my own children is that I make for them the decisions I believe they would make for themselves if they had my knowledge and experience.|
|Professor I have a question for you. I'm Braziliand and we have a conditional assistance program. We don't give welfare to everyone, in fact the only welfare people get is through work, but we do have free healthcare.||Technically, you don't have free healthcare. Rather than paying hospitals for healthcare, you pay the government and the government pays the hospitals.|
|Anyway we have a program that distributes between 20-80 dollars per family below the poverty line, which is substantial for many of them, and costs a bit more than our outrageous senate.||I'm usually skeptical of inequality concerns though not of poverty concerns. No one every died of inequality, but far too many people die of poverty.|
|Link to en.wikipedia.org.||I believe that every person has a moral obligation to care for the poor. But to coerce action is to remove the moral component. If a government forces its people to care for the poor, then you have indeed fed the poor, but the feeding is not a moral act since moral actions require free will.|
|As it turns out these people spend this money in their local environment, local stores, local markets, in the poorer neighborhoods.||So, while I can think of several effective ways the government could use its coercive power to fight poverty, I could not say that any of them are legitmate.|
|Isn't this a legitimate tool for social mobility and a mini-stimulus package which does wonders for the people? I am quite fond of Hayek's theories but in my country we have such an absurd social inequality that initiatives like these make perfect sense to me.||One effective way is a negative tax. That is, everyone pays a fixed percentage of their income and everyone receives a fixed check from the government. For example, suppose we all paid 10% of our incomes in tax and received $10,000 from the government. A person with no job would pay $0 in taxes and receive a $10,000 check. A person who earned $200,000 would pay $20,000 and receive a $10,000 check.|
|econometrics? I've just started a job in econometric modeling so I would love a good reference!||The gold-standard is Econometrics by William Greene, but it is extremely heavy mathematically. You need a solid background in linear algebra to get through it.|
|What do you think of the transaction tax? specifically Link to thetransactiontax.org.||One great danger with a tax like this is that if we don't amend the Constitution to get rid of the income tax at the same time that we enact a transactions tax, we will end up with both.|
|A potential problem is that a transactions tax (as opposed to a sales tax) might require the government to monitor transactions as opposed to sales. I'm not overly comfortable with that.|
|So let's say we must cut government spending. IMO we should cut off federal funding for states that vote against spending, since they want smaller government. This would probably start with farm subsidies to mid-western states like OK. The free market will provide America with enough food right? What would you cut first?||If you're concerned that we won't have enough food because we aren't subsidizing farmers, fear not. We are already paying a lot for our food, but we pay in two forms. One is payment to the farmers when we buy stuff. The other is payment to the government so it can subsidize farmers. Without the subsidies, farmers would get less money from the government and so might have to charge us more. But we would not be paying the government to pay farmers and so our total cost might not be that different. IOW, removing subsidies is less about how. Much we pay farmers than how we pay farmers.|
|Glad to catch ya mr. davies! Just quick question: If America were to legalize every drug and regulate said drugs, how do you think this would effect the economy?||Putting aside drugs that are instantly addictive (they are a problem because they call into question whether the person has freedom of choice), the government would spend a lot less because we wouldn't have a huge portion of our society locked up. Those people who are locked up for drug offenses would then be free to work -- that would be a huge increase in a valuable resource. All told, I believe that economic growth would accelerate.|
|What are your thoughts on Distributism?||I don't know much about it. I understand that it derives from Catholic social thought. CST is often (IMHO) abused by statists. For example, the directive that we have a responsibility to care for the poor is usually interpretted as a call to government intervention. But the Church doesn't say the government has a responsibilty to care for the poor. It says we have a responsibility to care for the poor.|
|One way to find common ground between Catholic social thought and classical liberal thought is to think of CST not as recipe for how to fix society but as a description of how a fixed society would look.|
|As someone who just graduated with a bachelors in Economics/ Int'l Business, what do feel is the current atmosphere for new hires? Any specific sector standing out to you? I have an interview with a company in ATL this coming August.||I tell my students that employers don't need you to know how to do things. They'll teach you what you need to do. Employers need you to know how to think clearly and communicate concisely. To that end, emphasize your skills in mathematics, statistics, logic, speaking, and writing, and you'll find employers across a broad range of industries will be interested in you.|
|Where are the checks and balances on deregulated capitalism? At what point does the free market and the desire to maximize profit influence unethical behavior that may impede on the personal liberties of others (i.e. prison profiteering, military contractors, disaster capitalism)?||"Deregulated" is a misnomer. All industries are regulated. The question is whether they are regulated by consumers freely choosing to hand over their dollars for the things the industry produces, or regulated by bureaucrats and politicians.|
|Is it true that this year’s deficit is greater than the total taxable income of Americans earning more than $100,000?||Not greater than their taxable income, but about equal to the amount of taxes they paid. This year's numbers are still in flux. I believe that last year's deficit was around $1.1 trillion. The latest breakdown of federal tax receipts by income group was for 2009. In that year, everyone earning $100,000 and up paid a combined (approximately) $1.2 trillion in federal income, payroll, capital gains, estate, etc. taxes.|
|I'm confused by your philosophy on too big to fail. You seem to think congress is to blame for our current economic crisis. But I see congress as more of a symptom of institutions being to big to fail. Congress is paralyzed because the institutions have become so powerful that they control congress. If the institutions were smaller they would not have as much clout over congress. Can you comment on this?||I believe you have the causality backward. The problem isn't that institutions are so large that they can control Congress. The problem is that Congress has become so powerful that it is worth controlling.|
|What's your opinion on the Rogoff/Reinhart situation, and did it cause you to change your philosophy?||I haven't read the paper. My understanding is that it was a calculation error that changed the results quantitatively but not qualitatively.|
|Who do you think was the most handsome economist in history?||Lord Acton had a rockin beard. Jeffrey Tucker has a rockin tie.|
|Y...you think that it's a good idea to repeal the 17th amendment?||The point (prior to the 17th) was to encourage separation of power between the federal government and the states by making the Senate answerable to the states.|
|Hello Mr.Davies, As someone who knows nothing about economics and business (I am a welder), what is the best way to break into such fields of work? Education is a must I assume, but are certain universities more valued? Which degrees or majors are more in demand? Are there specific things to learn, do, or specialize in to stand out? How do mentor ships work? How can I meet a mentor and build a relationship with them?||Normally, you'd need a bachelors degree in economics at the least. Typically jobs that carry the title "economist" (as opposed to "analyst") require a minimum of a masters degree. If you want to try and break in without getting the formal degrees, you'd need to be extremely good at higher level statistics (e.g., I'd recommend two semesters of stats, one of econometrics, one of advanced econometrics), mathematics (e.g., minimum calculus II), and basic economic theory (e.g., intermediate micro, intermediate macro). Your writing skills would also have to be top notch. Without the degree, you'd also need a goodly piece of luck because it will be hard to convince an employer to take a chance.|
|Dr. Davies: Given the the United States has previously held a price floor on wages slightly higher than 30% of GDP/hour worked with no significant disemployment effects, (late 1960s) and Canadian minimum wages are currently in the 20-23% range, and yet manages a higher 16-64 employment rate than that of the United States, can you tell me if you believe that an increase in the minimum wage from 12% to 15%, as the President proposed, would have significant disemployment effects, and if so why?||I don't know what "no significant disemployment effects" means. The right way to measure the effect of the minimum wage is to compare the unemployment rate at various points in time with the relative minimum wage (i.e., the minimum wage as a ratio of the average hourly wage) at those points in time.|
|You can see that comparison here: Link to www.antolin-davies.com|
|Why do you feel comparing the minimum wage to the average hourly wage is correct? Won't that make attempts to suppress wages generally appear as though the minimum wage is higher in real terms than it would otherwise be?||It's the correct measure because what is important is the degree to which the minimum wage is distorting the price of labor. For example, if the average free market wage is $10 an hour, I would expect that a minimum wage of $11 an hour won't have much effect. However, if the average free market wage is $5 an hour, I would expect that a minimum wage of $11 an hour would have a huge effect. Conclusion: What matters is the ratio of the minimum wage to the average wage.|
|Why would you refer to the labour market, a market characterized by weak monopsony and employer-enforced information asymmetry, as a free market?||You are correct. I am using the average market wage as a proxy for the free market wage. It's not perfect, but for our purposes isn't a bad proxy.|
|Is it pronounced "Du-shane" or "Dju-kane"?||Du-Kane.|
|Is Grove City College a good school?||I have no first hand knowledge of the college. I know some of their students and faculty and none has ever failed to impress me as good and intelligent.|
|I think he's saying that there is still an inflection point where debt/GDP ratio causes negative growth. It might not be at 90%, but it will certainly still exist at some point.||You are correct.|
|My wife is a musician and she is concerned about someone stealing her music at a concert and selling it to a movie maker. The "thief" would then be receiving royalties for music she created. Do you have any articles/research I could share with her to show her that a) royalties are a product of copyright and b) people stealing/copying her music would be a good thing for her? Any other suggested readings for her?||Copying information is not stealing; your wife still has her music. What she really means is: the guy who makes a profit playing a versio nof her music, is "stealing" from her, the money he makes from customers. But that means that she has a property right in the money in the pockets of his customers. BUt she does not. This is just free market competition.|
|What about the cost that goes into the finished product? as a professional musician, without the (meagre) stream of income from royalties, merch, and performances, the level of possible exposure for my work and the amount of time I can focus on my art would plumet. Innovation becomes harder to come by when your means and efforts are limited by the costs of living, making profits off someone elses art (and more importantly the time they put into creating it) without their consent is no different than stealing a chair from a craftsman's warehouse in my eyes. Why do you believe that the intangibility of music makes the time put into it less valuable?||You don't own value. value is what others think about your stuff. you have no proeprty in that. the law should not give you a property right in that. besides, if the state stopped taxing you, you would be 8 times richer immediately, an could afford to do your music.|
|I' m entirely in favor of reworking the whole copyright/patent system, with much more reasonable time limits for the protections, but abolish entirely? Why would people make anything? Why would a pharma company spend hundreds of millions of dollars produce some medication only to have some other company take the formula and just produce the same medication without the development costs?||The purpose of law is not to make sure people make enough pre-ordained things. it is justice, to protect property rights. IP invades property rights. it's very simple. Your asking a question "why would people make things" is not an argument. A question is not an argument.|
|This seems like a very odd answer to my question. I don't think you've actually answered it.||But you are asking your question as if makign a rhetorical poitn: "how would people be incentivized to do X?' implies that we all agree that the state ought to make laws to make sure we have x and that if my answer is insufficient, then my arguemnt against the law fails. So it is question-begging; I refuse to be trapped. I will not permit people to engage in equivocation.|
|How do we balance the need for individuals who invest great amounts of time in techniques and technologies that don't have the ability to go to a broad market with those who do? The best illustration would be someone like Edison who had the connections to get things to the world but didn't necessarily invent them. If we keep technologies secret until we figure out how to make money off of them - might we miss out on much? It seems like the patenting ability gives legal protection to put your ideas out there. And an NDA doesn't seem the same as worldwide patent protection. Of course, there is much potential benefit I see from so many who have put all of their plans and ideas out there (free music for one that leads toward concerts, etc). Seems like with the current system the little guy benefits at a certain point and then begins to lose out at a certain point to the big guys... What is your basic philosophy on how to get ideas to the marketplace?||The purpose of law is to protect property rights, not to ensure entrepreneurs of every type can make a profit; that is their job. but for some ideas of what is possible, see Link to c4sif.org|
|Why "acquire" it from a previous owner? Why not just steal it then?||Some people want to justify their actions, or come up with justifiable meta-rules. Others do not.|
|I am a regular Joe. After working in a car garage for 20 years I invent a new type of tool that allows my work to go about three times faster. I try to sell it to make some money on the side, only a couple of local garages due to my lack of budget and I get some good reception. In your world I can't apply for a patent for my new idea and try to sell the rights to someone for even more money. Three weeks later, a large auto manufacturer is making a tool that is almost identical to my tool, but there is nothing I can do to stop them due to the fact that there are no patents. Now what?||Yes, if you try to sell a product and if it is popular, you have to expect competition. there is nothing wrong with this. you have to have high quality, rely o your first mover advantage, your band name or reputation, or keep innovating, if you want to keep making profit. Profit is unnatural, and is gradually reduced by competition. Everyone who is for patent is against free market competition. See Link to archive.mises.org They admit this. They say "Governments adopt intellectual property laws in the belief that a privileged, monopolistic domain operating on the margins of the free-market economy promotes long-term cultural and technological progress better than a regime of unbridled competition." -- What kind of libertarian or free market advocate is against unbridled competition??!! 'If a man scatters money in the street, he does not thereby formally relinquish title to it … but those who pick it up are thereafter considered the rightful owners…. Similarly a man who reproduces his writings by thousands and spreads them everywhere voluntarily abandons his right of privacy and those who read them … no more put themselves by the act under any obligation in regard to the author than those who pick up scattered money put themselves under obligations to the scatterer.'|
|Can voluntary user agreements create results similar to copyright/patents? If not, how? If so, are they consistent with you free market principals?||No, they cannot. Contracts are just transfers of title to owned scarce resources, and they cannot, in any event, affect third parties. I deal wit this in the reserved rights section of Against Intellectual Property, at www.c4sif.org|
|I am a research scientist, planning on filing a patent application for a new type of plastic solar cell. I don't know yet for sure if it will work, but if it does work the way I think it does, it could be an enormous boon to humanity. However, if someone with more funding than me can simply steal my idea, where is my motivation to invent this thing? I suppose there is altruism and doing it for the good of mankind and all that. But altruism won't put food in my belly. What do you think of people in my position?||No one can steal your idea. They can learn from you. But you still have your idea. So be precise. What you mean is: htey are stealing the money you could extort from people if you had the right to sue for patent infringement; you are claiming a property right in the money of third parties that you can force to buy from you if you can outlaw competition. But you don't have a natural claim to or property right in the money in these potential customers' pockets.|
|So you'd see a return to a world of commissioned works?||I'd like to abolish patent and copyright and let hte market work. I can't predict or guarantee the consequences of liberty.|
|Stephan, two part question, your answer to the first affects the second, if someone buys computer software and 'accepts' the EULA that states they must not copy or distribute the software, have they then not entered into an agreement that puts them under the same obligations as IP laws?||Contracts can never recreate IP b/c IP is "in rem"--good against the world--and contracts only affect the parties, not third parties, unlike real or in rem rights. Plus, such contracts are unlikely to be widely adopted for a variety of reasons: if hte penalties are small, they will not deter copying; if they are large, people will refuse to sign them, or only a marginalized ghetto subset of people will sign them. And as for fine print and EULA's -- see Link to archive.mises.org|
|If this were to happen, then obviously anyone could legally sell on pirated computer software at a fraction of the price the official developers would be charging (or give it away for free) without paying any royalties to the developers themselves without fear of any legal repercussions. In such an environment, would anyone really want to invest millions of dollars in developing software that we all need?||People invst money in develping products to make a profit. easy. Are you saying there would be some profit, but not enough? what is enough?|
|Do you think the current gun ownership by 3D printing will lead to the first state intervention? Edit: Just realized why that didn't get the response I wanted, because I can't English good. Should be: Do you think the gun ownership by being tied to 3D printing will lead to the first state intervention of printers as some companies have even pulled printers because of this?||The state will try to find a way to stop 3D printing on gun or Ip grounds, just like it is using IP, child porn, piracy, terrorism, etc. excuses to limit internet rights.|
|Can you explain the technological advancement gap between countries and regions with strong IP laws (US, EU, Japan) and countries that don't? How does this trend work in the mind of a person who wants to abolish patent law?||Sure--we have stronger property rights in general. we have more prosperity because of property rights laws, and despite IP laws. Correlation is not causation. After all the US is warlike and imperialist, has has slavery, institutionalized racism and misogyny, the drug war, controls on immigration, tarriffs, but only a dunderhead would say these are the cause of our prosperity. We are prosperous despite these measures, despite the state, not beacuse of it. Without the state we would be immeasurably richer. as for backup for my "8 times richer" comments -- see l. neil smith Link to www.stephankinsella.com|
|I'll be the jerk. What about Georgism bothers you so extensively? I've only seen you point to Rothbard's refutation, which has had many responses itself.||Who is going to enforce the tax? how much is it? why does society have a claim on land it never homesteaded? Why is land special--after all it's just another type of scarce resource. etc.|
|How will copyright reform trickle down to aid regular folks who can't afford much of anything these days? Do you see any kind of wealth distribution changes and if so, what?||Movies, music, will be more plentiful, more diverse, and much cheaper.|
|I guess a situation could be that I am a pioneer in a vast expanse of unowned land. I find a nice clearing and build my house and a farm in it, and later, more people show up and homestead around me (or someone who really hates me shows up one night and doughnut holes me).||If that is a real risk, move away or buy an exit route. but in reality this is rarely ap roblem. the real problem comes from the state, which is often suggested as a way to solve these non-problems.|
|How hotly are patent legislations and infringements pursued by big companies? How much money is pumped into these things by companies?||My guess is $200 billion a year or even more is wasted as a dead cost in the US economy alone, b/c of patents. Link to blog.mises.org honestly I think it's impossible to figure out exactly, and I would not be surprised if it is a trillion a year.|
|Stephan- do you believe IP should be abolished cold turkey or phased out? ___ For those who would like an ebook of Kinsella's book, Against Intellectual Property is available for free at mises.org. It's also my understanding that the LvMI copyrighted this publication without his permission.||Abolished immediately, cold turkey. IT is the 6th worst statist policy, and thre is not a single good thing about it. Link to c4sif.org|
|Intellectual property rights is a very broad topic. For example, even without the state a shopkeeper who brands his goods with a trademark will try to defend his trademark from use by others by letting others know of the misuse, ostracism, and possibly through courts (or even through violence!). That's a form of intellectual property. I believe a free society will have this type of intellectual property -- even in the lawless markets of Africa we see this form of intellectual property defended. In a stateless society I see the free market developing some kind of an intellectual property system based on the values of the people in that society. Would you be against such a system of intellectual property rights even though it doesn't involve coercion or the state, or do you think it's impossible for it to happen in a free market?||I am totally against patent, copyright, and also tradmeark and trade secret. Trademark law should be replaced with fraud law only. Trade secret should just be a private contract. Easy.|
|I think the anti-IP crowd spends too much time claiming that IP is dumb because it's not scarce||IP are the legal rights attempting to provide property protection in non-rivalrous resources. IP is not nonscarce; it's the resources that it tries to protect that are nonscarce. The problem is not that it's "dumb"; it's that legal rights to nonrivalrous things can never be justified, since that always necessarily implies invasion of property rights in scarce resources.|
|As a free market economist, do you completely reject the idea of 'stimulus spending'?||Yes.|
|Do you reject all norms regarding intangibles?||Of course not; it is immoral to insult your grandma gratuitously.|
|I am a huge fan. Will you come to our Decline to State show for a fun interview?||Sure, just text me on fb or email me.|
|Is this the response you are talking about? Link to www.stephankinsella.com.||That's one.|
|Givem your complete rejection of Rothbard's ideas regarding the feasibility of market based copyright, and its potential consistency with respect for property rights, do you think there would be a market mechanism for serving similar purposes as copyright? And what I'm more interested in; do you think that such a market mechanism would be the most economically efficient, if not as a general rule, then in some cases? Would you for instance reject it a priori, in all cases, as economically retarding?||I think people might use trade secret, when necessary, or non-disclosure agreements. and other things like subscriptions, etc.Other than that, I thnk in the long run the whole closed model is done for.|
|No, I don't. Any contratual scheme would be limited to a small number of people and so it would collapse. I think people will just realize information is good share and that society depends on learning and increasing the store of human knowledge, and that emulation and copying are just a natural part of competition and the free market.|
|To what extent do you oppose IP?||I am totally opposed to defamation law. I view it as a type of IP. It is based on the same conflicted idea that there is a property right in value.|
|Should slander or libel be punishable offenses?||Slander and libel (defamation) are types of IP and should be abolished. so should patent, copyright, trademark. The former is discussed in Rothbard's Ethics of liberty, free online.|
|If I were to do an AMA claiming to be you, and then also claim (as you) to have committed disgusting crimes that end up being attributed to you even after it's discovered that I am an imposter, would that be a crime on my part?||The AMA thing you mention has nothing to do with any of these things or with IP; at most it is a blend of fraud, contract breach, and plagiarism. None of which have to do with IP.|
|How can you be a patent attorney and advocate the abolition of patents? Isn't that position directly contrary to your ethical duty to zealously represent your client? EDIT: Do you disclose to your clients that you are in favor of abolishing patents?||There is no contradiction any more than an oncologist who hates cancer or a lawyer defending people from incarceration for tax evasion or drug crimes who opposes such laws. I do not hide my views, but my clients do not care; they want competence only. Some of them like that i hate IP, esp. if they are being persecuted. For more: Link to www.stephankinsella.com and Link to c4sif.org and Link to c4sif.org and Link to c4sif.org and|
|Do you agree with this Mises.org ethics position that "the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children" and "the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die." Basically, should the law be forbidden from punishing a parent who allows their child to stave to death, based on the arguments from the linked article?||No, i believe in positive obligations assumed by virtue of actions like siring a child -- see Link to www.mises.org|
|What are your opinions on the Rothbard vs David Friedman private law debate? I think that Rothbard is right fundamentally, but Friedman's arguments seem more likely to apply in the real world where people don't necessarily care/know about natural rights.||I agree. Rothbard is better but Friedman is perhaps more persuasive to the typical person who is somewhat unprincipled, pragmatic, and utilitarian.|
|Given that you think the state should be abolished, yet believe in free market capitalism, who do you believe would protect everyone? Wouldn't corporations take on state like behavior?||I don't grant you the right to your "yet" as i don't see an incompatibility; in fact I see that libertarianism and free markets imply anti-statism. the very purpose of being libertarian is because of opposition to aggression; but if you oppose aggression you have to oppose the state.|
|No, in a free market no agency could act like the state because it would be widely regarded as acting in a criminal manner; it would immediately lose customers and be viewed as a hostile actor by all the other, civilized, agencies.|
|Is it true that Keynesian climb trees while Austrians hide under rocks?||Yes.|
|Will we see a more libertarian government in our lifetime?||Not sure. maybe. but despite the state, not because of it; and not because of electoral politics or activism.|
|What does your employer (clients?) that pays you to help them with patent law think about your extra-curricular activities working to abolish patent law?||They don't care; they just want competence and professionalism. I mean do you care what your airplane pilot or heart surgeon's religion is?|
|How do you personally come to terms with the fact that you're an anti-IP crusader who makes his living helping a company protect its IP?||I only do defensive IP. I refuse to cooperate in helping aggressively assert IP. But companies need to have IP and patents, if only to defend themselves if they are sued. I have various posts on this at stephankinsella.com and c4sif.org.|
|Do you believe that the abolishment of patent and copyright would stifle free market innovation?||No, I think we woud have far more innovation in a free market with no IP.|
|Hmm i often see IP as a big incentive for people to go and develop these great things, services and products. You think that IP is incompatible with this? Id love to see hear your take. I just see the need to protect one's own work as an incentive for putting the work. I think many authors, artist and other folks would be less likely to put so much work and time into their works if there was a possibility of straight out plagiarism, or others exploiting their work for their own gain. Things like pharmaceuticals that spend hundreds of millions would have little to no incentive in having the groundwork done, if anyone could just come and steal the work?||It's not an incentive; or, rather, it's an incentive that comes with other disincentives. In any case, whether it is an incentive or not, it's not justified. the purpose of law is not to tweak incentives. and copying and competing with others is not "stealing" anything. You don't take anything from th person you are competing with. They still have their "work" as you call it.|
|I wish you could have posted this AMA before I submitted my thesis! I wrote about how (in Australia) our conception of copyright relies on an ideology of Romantic authorship which ignores not only the realities of textual production (art is never a solo endeavour, many people contribute to the end result) but also ignores the post modern realisation that originality as a concept is flawed. My question to you is how you feel about the movement towards Creative Commons liscencing and whether you feel this will become the new norm in copyright and perhaps even patent law?||I don't see CC pervading patents that much, just like it does not work well for software; but someting like the defensive patent license has a greater chance, though it still faces hurdles. Link to c4sif.org|
|Cc is a second best. far better to not have copyright, or at least permit us to do CC0 or opt out. Link to c4sif.org But in the meantime I do suspect CC will spread among academics at least.|
|Late to the game here, but I'll give it a shot anyway. What are the biggest challenges you've found trying to earn a living while refusing (as much as possible) to use the power of the state to enforce IP on your content in a market filled with people using it? I'm an Ancap musician/music teacher, convinced by your position on IP about three years ago. I create music, instructional articles, and videos, and I'd like to just ignore the state's power to enforce my copyrights and earn my money other ways: teaching, performing, selling merchandise, etc. Am I on the right track?||And yes, I think you should put cC-BY on all your work and make it available for free, or sell access to it if you want, and use it in other ways. see my posts at Link to c4sif.org about how authors and creators can make money absent IP, conversation with an author, etc.|
|Out of curiosity... why is everyone referring to Kinsella as "Dr. Kinsella"? I've NEVER heard an attorney refer to themselves as "doctor." Even if it was because he was a professor, that usually comes with the "professor' appellation.||It's probably out of respect or deference, but though I have a JD whcih entitles me to the doctor title (Link to www.stephankinsella.com I do not ask for or insist on it. I will say that it's nice for europeans and students to be humble and respectful and to give me the compliment of assuming i must have a PhD, even though I don't. I'd rather people give me that naturally, than get a PhD that no one respects.|
|Do you know Ron Paul?||I've met him but not sure if he knows who I am.|
|Hi, I'm a Computer Science major in my freshman year and currently am looking at intellectual property law as my main career interest. I read Against Intellectual Property on Mises.org and have been a huge fan of yours since. I guess my question for you is if you have any career advice about intellectual property law. Additionally, do you believe that the eradication of intellectual property is feasible (as in can we actually get there from here)?||I have some crude advice here Link to www.stephankinsella.com but it is a big dated, and I am not sure what to tell people now. I tend to think that law is a difficult career to go into--you should not go into it unless you LOVE law and want to do it no matter what; or you are confident you can be top 3% of your class and get a top job, and don't think you'll hate it.|
|And I think IP is here for a while unfortunately.|
|What are your thoughts about bitcoin?.||I am hopeful about it. In some ways it's the perfect or ideal money.|
|Whats your favorite type of ice cream?||Pecan crunch.|
|I realize only now that I am waaay too late, but I love your work; I read the Mises blog (now Circle Bastiat) all the time, and I really enjoy getting into debates with my fellow lawyers who went into IP law. If I have one question for you it is this: have you heard of John Hospers?||Sure, I've read Hospers. early LP guy. but I think by our modern radical standards--well he was kinda randian and pro-war etc., no?|
|I agree with your position. How do you convince people who don't. Preferable through a practical, rather than moral, lens.||That's hard, but there are countless examples of abuse and obvious injustice. You can also put the burden of proof on the IP advocates. If they claim that it's necessary to have IP to have invention and innovation and artistic creation, point to examples that preceded modern IP and ask them how this was possible. And ask them where the stoppoing point is--some alleged libertarians actually support tax funded subsidies for innovation. where is the stoppoing point? Link to www.againstmonopoly.org|
|Keep up the good work. Feel free to frequent /Anarcho_Capitalism and /Libertarian whenever, they will no doubt enjoy discussing stuff with you.||Danke.|
|Do you believe in private contracts between companies and individuals stating that they won't copy each others work as some sort of voluntary substitute for the patent system.||Yes, but I think they are largely impracticable--hard to enforce, pointless, and can't affect third parties. IP needs to ensnare third parties.|
|Consider as a customer: some publisher offers a text book on amazon for $30. to buy it you hvae to sign an agreement saying you will pay the publihser $10M if he can prove you copied the book or showed it to a friend or used the ideas in it. Who would sign this? not many people. Most peopld would move on to the next seller.|
|OMG. We have the same first [email protected]#!! Sorry but I've never met anyone with the same first name as me.||Hello, my brother from another mother.|
|When it comes to pharmaceuticals, how would you keep companies investing in research and development without patents. If i can remember an equation from my econ law class a few years ago, i believe the basic equation is profit x length of patent - cost to develop, or the YK value.||See chapter 9 of Boldrin and Levine's Against Intellectual Monopoly, at www.c4sif.org/resources. they explain the flaws in this view. The main costs of pharma are not those protected by patents; it's marketing, etc. And the other costs are imposed by the goddamned state via the FDA, taxes, etc. If you want innovation then get the state out of the goddamned way. don't ask it for more interventions.|
How Much is a Bitcoin Worth. As we can see on the infographic, the global value of Bitcoin accounts for ~60% of the overall cryptocurrency value or 1/70 of the global gold reserve value (this is why the Bitcoin vs gold dominance is clear). The US dollar’s total value is 14 times bigger than Bitcoin’s total value. At this point, there is no evidence of Bitcoin being used for nefarious purposes that's as strong as what Bharara claims to have on Liberty Reserve. On May 28, he said that prosecutors had seized ... Each Bitcoin address has associated with it a pair of keys, one public and one private. Only someone who knows the private key can spend Bitcoins associated with the address to which that key is related. This protects Bitcoin users, as long as they can keep their private key secret. Bitcoin fits the definition of an account-based system. The ... The Takeaway. Bitcoin prices have more than doubled in 2019, far outpacing the 31 percent return for U.S. tech stocks, which Goldman Sachs deems the best-performing asset class year-to-date. Liberty Reserve, Bitcoin, and the US Bank Regulatory Dog That Didn’t Bark. Posted on September 2, 2016 by Yves Smith. By Clive, a bank information technology professional and Japanophile. Perhaps readers are familiar with the Sherlock Homes story The Adventure of Silver Blaze, more particularly the famous plot device of the dog that didn’t bark. What our sleuthing hero was able to deduce ...
[index]          
US DOLLAR RESERVE CURRENCY HOW BITCOIN TAKES OVER - Duration: 15:09. ... Altcoin Trading Pairs - USD vs Tether vs Bitcoin/Satoshi Value Clearly Explained - Duration: 6:13. Nugget's News 18,085 ... Bitcoin Q&A: Who determines the value of bitcoin? by aantonop. 2:39 . Bitcoin Q&A: What is the role of nodes? by aantonop. 8:17. Bitcoin Q&A: Net Neutrality and open blockchains by aantonop. 4:32 ... Over the past year the price of BitCoin has soared from tens of dollars to over a thousand at its peak. Bitcoin boosters keep telling us that we are in a new age in which crypto-currencies will ... Intrinsic value vs intrinsic utility. Bitcoin's value lying in it being non-physical. Systems which use money with intrinsic value end up not being very good money because it dilutes the purpose ... 2018 for bitcoin wasn’t something we expected, but there is the reason why it happened what it happened. Bitcoin was in the bubble in 2017, it skyrocketed by 1,800% reaching its all time high ...