BitCoins: The World's 1st Digital Currency

With the current world economic climate, it's becoming clear that the American dollar, among other currencies, is becoming weaker and weaker as our domestic and foreign policies continue to falter. As this happens, inflation rises, prices go up and income goes down, the world looks for a new way to acquire goods. In the beginning days, everyone provided for themselves, and bartered for everything else. If you didn't have it, someone else did, and you'd better have something that they wanted if you wanted it. Then came bullion or gold used as a medium for transaction, where the weight of the gold indicated its value. As the world began to run short of gold, they began using fractional value to create the paper money that we use today. Finally, as paper money grew thin, the credit market arose so that if you didn't have it now, you could pay it back later (debatable). Now that the credit market is beginning to fall apart due to speculation and over-borrowing, it seems as if online is the way to go, as is the case with most things nowadays.

Enter BitCoins: the world's first digital currency. The coins are generated through an algorithm that will only allow for 21 million by 2040. Additionally, bitcoins can’t be frozen (like a PayPal account), can’t be tracked, can’t be taxed and have extremely low costs as opposed to credit. The resulting feeling is that bitcoins will be a viable alternative to physical or credit-based money, given the world governments don't crack down on them, which is becoming more likely as of late. PayPal and the credit card companies have already halted their transfer, as they cannot (or do not want to) exchange currencies legally. Additionally, governments seem poised to take action against them because bitcoins completely eradicate the need to use gold or federally-based forms of currency. Also, at around $6.70 per bitcoin, the average person would never take that risk. Yet the idea is an enthralling one. It's taking the power away from the government and putting it in the hand of the user. Also, it can be used on the black market to buy anything from drugs to playing poker, so the government also has vested interest in taking them out. Overall, I can see this idea only taking shape if governments are willing to admit that their money is losing its worth. Maybe by that time, I'll have saved up enough bitcoins where I won't need dollars...

Dear GOP

via The New York Times:

The Obama administration said Monday that it would ask the lame-duck Congress next month to approve a $50 billion down payment on his long-range initiative to improve the nation’s roads, railways and air systems and to find savings to offset that cost, suggesting a new urgency to create jobs after last week’s disappointing unemployment report.

President Obama met at the White House with mayors, governors and current and former transportation secretaries of both parties to promote the infrastructure initiative, which he first proposed in September. Afterward, Ray LaHood, his transportation secretary and a former Republican congressman, told reporters that the lame-duck session would present an “upfront opportunity” to pass the $50 billion measure. Before then, however, the midterm elections on Nov. 2 are all but certain to expand the size of Mr. Obama’s Republican opposition for the new Congress that convenes in January. So Republicans returning later in November for unfinished business are likely to be in no mood to compromise with the White House when they will have the strength of greater numbers in the new year.

Approving $50 billion more for construction projects would be difficult enough, given that many Democrats have shied away from supporting more economic stimulus spending and that Republicans have convinced many voters that Mr. Obama’s initial two-year stimulus program, which included roughly $40 billion for transportation projects, failed to create jobs. But trying to agree on offsetting savings also would be contentious.

It's been said in numerous political arenas that the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Some take this to mean that the government should provide aspects of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness such as health care, education and protecting citizens. At the same time, oters feel that this tenet shouldn't include much at all. GOP, you're really taking this 'we hate big government' thing a little too far. President Obama introduced a $50 million bill that would jump-start initiatives to rebuild America's infrastructure, including its roads, railways and air systems. And you guys are doing what you've been doing for the past two years under Obama: say 'no'.

GOP, in what universe is improving a nation's infrastructure considered frivolous spending or too much interference from the government? I thought the government was supposed to regulate things of that nature and improve those systems when they begin to deteriorate. In terms of roads and railways, we're slowly falling behind other countries. In Japan and Europe, high-speed rails have all but replaced the Amtrak-style trains that have not only become ridiculously expensive, but also lag behind buses in efficiency. In terms of roads, every US city has thousands of miles upon miles of roads that are dilapidated and in desperate need of repair. Airline travel has become an inefficient luxury because of lack of regulation and airlines constantly folding. And you'd rather be a roadblock (no pun intended) to improving those systems for some vain reason, than just work to do... something with your power? Come on, son...

The thing is, these initiatives proposed by the Obama administration would cost us virtually nothing compared to the dearth of wealth we've just tossed away trying to 'rebuild' Afghanistan and Iraq. The transportation initiative is even going to create jobs, something that your policies have yet to do. Yet and still, you guys continue to say 'no'. Why? What is the point of saying 'no' for the sake of saying 'no'? Something as rudimentary as infrastructure-building shouldn't be a political divider, no matter how much contention or animosity there is between the parties. President Obama is trying to do an Eisenhower-esque overhaul of our outdated infrastructure. Are you really going to stand in the way of that, cutting corners for the sake of an outmoded platform? Midterms are probably going to shift the tides of Congress back your way. You've already fudged up the health care and stimulus bills. Don't stymie the arteries of our nation...

Europe, According to the United States

Outward perceptions when it comes to interpersonal relationships usually don't mean much considering that no one can truly tell what another person is like unless they... know. On a much grander scale, such as national perception, it's easier to let one's perceptions turn into full blown stereotypes. Such is the case with Yanko Tsvetkov's maps of international perceptions of Europe, starting with the stigmas attached to the old world by us, the United States. The results are hilarious, if not hurtfully true to what a hefty amount of Americans really think of our neighbors across the pond. Tsvetkov did 'stereotype maps' for Great Britain, France, Italy and a few other European countries (see them here), but the US one really was an eye-opener. See if your preconceived notions match up with the map...