Friday assorted links

by on November 3, 2017 at 12:07 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ November 3, 2017 at 12:16 pm

7. I don’t like blockchain because it is an incredibly energy-inefficient path to security, but .. sometimes you want the heat:

https://qz.com/1117836/bitcoin-mining-heats-homes-for-free-in-siberia/

Reply

2 Careless November 3, 2017 at 1:09 pm

The actual tweet in 7 is really stupid. She quotes someone saying that it could be profitable to use as much energy as Nigeria mining Bitcoins, then concludes that miners do use that much energy.

Reply

3 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ November 3, 2017 at 1:13 pm

It is kind of one of a theme. I liked this one:

https://twitter.com/mims/status/926137475713683457

Reply

4 Floccina November 3, 2017 at 5:05 pm

Yes It’s an interesting thing, that if you have electric heat and your heat strips are on, you get to use electricity for other things free, if the heat pump is on you get it at half price.

Reply

5 Cisco November 3, 2017 at 12:23 pm

*Religious* Catholics are probably already a minority. This is just ground-level anecdotal evidence (I’m a Brazilian atheist, but I have relatives who provide services to the church), but religious Catholics in Brazil have a demographic similar to print newspaper subscribers.

Reply

6 Mark Thorson November 3, 2017 at 12:38 pm

And landline telephones, no doubt.

Reply

7 A clockwork orange November 3, 2017 at 6:03 pm

very good.

Reply

8 Efim Polenov November 3, 2017 at 9:07 pm

whereas very traditionalist Catholic couples, with their average of 6 children per family, will have, a few generations from now, 1, 296 new descendants (6*6*6*6), while the average post-Vatican II Catholic couple will have, if lucky, 16 (2*2*2*2).

Reply

9 bob dylan November 3, 2017 at 11:23 pm

Yes, I concur.

10 Hazel Meade November 4, 2017 at 7:53 am

You’re assuming all their descendants will remain traditionalist Catholics.
But kids raised in strict religious families frequently rebel. (Speaking as an atheist who was raised Catholic, here … none of my four siblings are particularly religious, only one is even nominally still Catholic.)

11 Efim Polenov November 4, 2017 at 12:14 pm

Good point Hazel. Highest multi-generational retention rates (among major religious groups) that I am aware of in the USA are Hasidic Jews, then the Amish/Mennonites (there is a study or two out there, with real numbers, this is just my guess). There have only been at most 2 full generations of traditionalist Catholics (as defined by regular attendance at a Latin Mass parish, let’s say) and I doubt they will have the same retention rate as the Hasidics or the Mennonites, but if they are even close, they will be extremely populous.

12 John E November 3, 2017 at 12:23 pm

7. The author of that article failed to differentiate mining a new Bitcoin vs transferring an existing Bitcoin from Wallet A to Wallet B. He mentions 300k “Bitcoin transactions” per day. This is a correct statement, but in point of fact the 300k ‘Bitcoin transactions per day’ represents transfers of existing Bitcoins and *not* new Bitcoins being mined. I don’t know how many Bitcoins get mined per day but there’s about 17 million in circulation right now and a hard cap of 21 million. Someone smarter than me can do that math, but there’s nowhere near 300k Bitcoins being *mined* per day.

Mining a new Bitcoin might take as much energy as a house uses in a week. Transferring an existing Bitcoin is probably more akin to using an ATM machine or paying a bill online with respect to energy use.

Reply

13 Careless November 3, 2017 at 1:18 pm

In fact, the article is undercounting the amount of energy per transaction, because you need to divide the amount of energy used to create all Bitcoins in existence by the amount of transactions to get the number he wanted, not the amount of energy used in a year.

Reply

14 John E November 3, 2017 at 1:58 pm

I still say that ‘energy per Bitcoin transaction’ is a meaningless statistic.

Suppose that when it comes to automobiles there are only two types of ‘transactions’-building a car and honking the horn. For a given car, it will get built exactly once. The horn could get honked hundreds or thousands of times. Building the car will take way, way, way more energy than honking the horn.

How valuable of a statistic would ‘amount of energy used per automobile transaction’ be? It would be meaningless.

Reply

15 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ November 3, 2017 at 2:10 pm

“How valuable of a statistic would ‘amount of energy used per automobile transaction’ be? It would be meaningless.”

Then why are taxis now hybrids?

Reply

16 Careless November 3, 2017 at 2:51 pm

The “transaction” there is honking the horn. If the amount of electricity used in building cars divided by the much, much more common activity of honking horns was measured in megawatts, that really would be stunning and meaningful.

Granted, in that case what we’d really be saying is “holy shit, building cars is energy intensive!”

Reply

17 Careless November 3, 2017 at 8:42 pm

But I believe, assuming the author wasn’t just being stupid, is that the point is this: for only 300,000 transactions a day, they’re using a heck of a lot of energy. Bitcoin production:Bitcoin transactions is not similar to Car production:car honking, but car production:car miles driven. And if someone told you that your car, while it got 30 MPG, used so much energy in being built that its effective MPG was only 1, well, that would be very interesting, no?

18 dearieme November 3, 2017 at 12:24 pm

6. By 2030, will religious Catholics be a minority in Brazil?

They are a minority now, being much outnumbered by superstitious Catholics and lip-service Catholics.

Anyway, why pick on Brazil? Indeed, why pick on Roman Catholics?

Reply

19 AnonFrogger November 3, 2017 at 12:27 pm

7. In a few decades there will be econ-blogs where commenters will be saying “hey, bitcoin couldn’t have been that bad, I mean that’s all so irrational.” Yes: it is that bad.

Reply

20 Mark Kirker November 3, 2017 at 12:36 pm

How much energy can the distribution, creation, production, protection, and destruction of paper and coin currency uses? Armored vehicles are not the greenest around last time I checked?

Reply

21 AnonFrogger November 3, 2017 at 12:46 pm

You have to account for the fact that paper currency is several orders of magnitude more common than bitcoin. And if central banks held reserves in crypto-currency, how would they protect their private keys? Armored vehicles, security teams to protect the people who know the keys, and cyber-security to protect the central bank computers.

Reply

22 think for one minute November 3, 2017 at 1:51 pm

about the difference in mass between data and physical currency.

Moving one ton of pennies valued less than $4,000 costs a lot more energy than physically transporting a wallet key containing the same value the same distance, if only because less mechanical work is being done.

Reply

23 AnonFrogger November 3, 2017 at 3:16 pm

OK, all of us who aren’t copper industry lobbyists can agree that pennies are dumb, and nickels too. Pennies are dumb because it costs more to make them than they are worth, like bitcoin, where the cost to make them approaches what they are worth and is much, much more than the cost to print a million dollars and drive it across the country back and forth many times. And remember that only a small percentage of money is actually physical, the rest is electronic, numbers in an account.

Reply

24 AnonFrogger November 3, 2017 at 12:39 pm

4.

Now, a new study suggests that being penny wise and pound foolish is not so much a failure of judgment as it is a function of how our brains tally the value of objects that vary widely in worth.

Researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis have found that when monkeys are faced with a choice between two options, the firing of neurons activated in the brain adjusts to reflect the enormity of the decision. Such an approach would explain why the same person can see 20 cents as a lot one moment and $5,000 as a little the next, the researchers said.

… “This paper explains where those judgments originate. The same neural circuit underlies decisions that range from a few dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars. We found that a system that adapts to the range of values ensures maximal payoff.”

… A similar process likely occurs as people make decisions, the researchers said. But what happens to firing rates when a person stops thinking about ice cream and starts thinking about houses? A house might be hundreds of thousands of times more valuable than a cup of ice cream, but neurons cannot fire pulses 100,000 times faster. The speed at which they can fire maxes out at about 500 spikes per second.

It’s unsurprising that neurons can’t fire 100,000 faster, it’s also unsurprising that the same “neural circuitry” is used to analyze decisions involving differing amounts of value. That is not “irrational,” it doesn’t cost you anything to use your neural circuits to analyze the difference between 3.40$ and 3.60$. “It’s a small value, who cares” would be the irrational way of thinking, since decisions like that can add up over time. I’ll accept that they can “explain where those judgments originate,” when they can use their brain scanning to predict people’s decisions.

Reply

25 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ November 3, 2017 at 12:49 pm
26 The Other Jim November 3, 2017 at 1:54 pm

Yes, I’m pretty sure Trump became President just so he could climb his way out of poverty.

Reply

27 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ November 3, 2017 at 2:07 pm

Trump is fatiguing, and that is one of the things that makes responding to him so difficult. His Overton Window is a jagged tear on American Constitutional government, but also tiresome, repetitive, stupid.

(Tweets today are all about a US President wanting to micro-manage the Justice Department to his own ends.)

It would be tiring for us all to begin each day with Good Housekeeping for American values, but the tragedy is that it might be needed.

Specifically on tax, do you really want government by the elites for the elites? Is that what you asked for in November 2016?

Reply

28 Anon7 November 3, 2017 at 8:47 pm

This has been the standard GOP view on taxes since Reagan (and likewise criticized as “tax cuts for the rich” yadayadayada). But you don’t deserve government subsidies to fund treatment for your Trump Derangement Syndrome, so have at it. It’s amusing.

Reply

29 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ November 4, 2017 at 8:57 am

It was sad in 2016 when accurate analysis was called “derangement,” but what is it now?

Something below tragic.

30 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ November 4, 2017 at 9:00 am

BTW, the proper comparison is not between the old left wing *criticism* that the Republicans only care about the rich. It is against the Trumpian *claim* that they were something new, for the disenfranchised right wing working class.

Saying “haha, we really are just for the rich” is not a win in that setting.

31 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ November 3, 2017 at 2:14 pm

FYI

“House Republicans have put forward a plan to fundamentally revamp the tax code and provide large tax breaks to the highest income Americans through rate cuts on business income and repeal of the estate tax. However, House Republicans have also claimed that the plan provides significant tax breaks to middle-income families. It turns out, though, that those tax breaks for the middle are small as compared to what’s offered to the top, and disappearing.

In rolling out their plan, House Republicans focused on an example family — a married couple making $59,000 per year and with two kids. They said that family would get a tax cut of over $1,182 in 2018 (compared to what they paid in 2017). But, what they didn’t say is that a family making $59,000 would face a tax increase by 2024 relative to current law, with the tax increase potentially rising to nearly $500 by 2027. This is even as tax cuts for those at the top are maintained.”

https://medium.com/@kamin_83016/how-a-tax-cut-turns-into-a-tax-increase-960c32d1ba82

Reply

32 msgkings November 3, 2017 at 2:17 pm

It’s pretty obvious why Trump ran for president. The main reason of course being his galactic narcissism, along with wanting to stick it to the elites who look have looked down on him his whole life. But certainly getting the estate tax repealed for his kids’ benefit was in there too.

Reply

33 Bob from Ohio November 3, 2017 at 4:57 pm

“But certainly getting the estate tax repealed for his kids’ benefit was in there too.”

The GOP has pushed for repeal of the Death Tax for decades. It shrunk and then disappeared for one year in 2010 as part of the 2001 Bush tax cuts.

Trump has nothing to do with the GOP push for this popular [54-19 according to 2016 Gallup poll] reform.

Reply

34 Bill Kilgore November 3, 2017 at 6:23 pm

You’re not one of those fools who thinks that people with substantial wealth actually pay the inheritance tax are you? Trump’s assets will be held in Trusts such that the tax wont affect his children in any substantial way.

Now, a farmer or small-business owner whose entire wealth is tied up in his enterprise, the inheritance tax can fuck them good and hard. But since those people ten d not to vote for the politicians you revere, I’ll bet you are completely OK with that.

Reply

35 msgkings November 4, 2017 at 3:02 am

Those folks can use trusts too.

36 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ November 3, 2017 at 2:32 pm

Holy cow, Robert Mercer’s Renaissance Technologies owes $7 billion in back taxes.

http://amp.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147454324.html

Funny that they can pull stuff off while calling college professors and editorial writers “the elite.”

Reply

37 rayward November 3, 2017 at 1:36 pm

1. What are Ray Dalio and the other hedge fund operators, who make money whether the market is going up or down (volatile) but not when it’s stable, going to do? What’s the Fed going to do to keep the economy growing if asset prices don’t continue to rise? What are investors going to do if they don’t expect another fool will come along and buy their stock at ever higher prices? I’m a conservative, which means I value order and stability. And personally, I don’t care for drama. Something’s terribly wrong when volatility means stability and stability means volatility.

Reply

38 rayward November 3, 2017 at 1:48 pm

5. The most important fact about pass-throughs, well the two most important facts, are that S corporations aren’t that tax efficient and partnerships for tax purposes are very efficient; indeed, partnerships are so efficient that many tax professionals joke that subchapter K (the partnership tax provisions) makes the income tax (and the estate tax) optional. The reference to S corporations is a diversion, so partisans can claim that they are helping small business and family farms, often S corporations, with their tax cuts. It’s nonsense. Their advisers to small business and family farms wouldn’t know how to help their clients exploit subchapter K any more than they know how to assist Silicon Valley billionaires how to build spaceships to Mars.

Reply

39 PD Shaw November 3, 2017 at 2:34 pm

Can you explain at least one easy trick for partners not to pay income taxes? ‘Cause I think your kind of full of it. Signed, former partner.

Reply

40 rayward November 3, 2017 at 3:08 pm

It’s not really a trick but rather a treat, it’s called carried interest, a gift to hedge fund operators, a great way to convert to ordinary income to capital gain. But carried interest doesn’t take an expert, only a government sympathetic to hedge fund operators and such. Partnerships, because they don’t pay taxes (unlike S corporations that do pay taxes on certain income including the appreciation in assets move out of the S corporation form), can move assets here, there, and everywhere without having to pay a toll charge, can add partners and more partners, can add layer upon layer of partnerships, can add class upon class of partners, again without having to pay a toll charge, and creating so much confusion among anyone who dare attempt to figure out the entire web of partnerships and owners that nobody would try. By contrast, the use of CFCs to shift income from the U.S. to a tax haven is a simple exercise, although it too depends on a sympathetic government, a government that would greet the tax avoiders as heroes when they appeared before Congress. Me? I’ve got friends in low places, where the whiskey drowns and the beer chases, my blues away, and I’ll be okay. I’m not big on social graces, think I’ll slip on down to the Oasis. Oh, I’ve got friends, in low places.

Reply

41 Matthew November 3, 2017 at 2:00 pm

1. Why on earth would a claim like “volatility crashed last month” be supported with a fuzzy, 30 year long graph that doesn’t even appear to have monthly granularity? As an options trader, I can assure you that volatility didn’t “crash” in October. It was really low. A record low, even, but there have been a few occasions where we hit record lows in equity volatility in 2017. October wasn’t very special.

Reply

42 rayward November 3, 2017 at 2:17 pm

6. Fundamentalist Protestantism is what’s growing rapidly down south. “Religious Catholics” are harmless, fundamentalist Protestants are not. I suppose the worst are the fundamentalist Catholics, former Protestant fundamentalists who become Catholics. Now that’s a scary breed of fanatics! I’m not naming names, but one works for a major American newspaper, spreading Protestant fundamentalist ideas as just harmless Catholic theology, purposefully agitating those in the pews who would otherwise be satisfied with the liturgy and ritual that the former Protestant fundamentalist considers nothing more than idolatry.

Reply

43 rob42 November 3, 2017 at 2:21 pm

#4 – Is that the right the meaning of the “penny wise, pound foolish” idiom? I’ve always thought it referred to when the “pennywise” decisions turn out to be more expensive in the long run than an up front more expensive investment.

Reply

44 mkt42 November 3, 2017 at 4:43 pm

I’ve always interpreted the phrase to cover both situations: save pennies in the short run but pay pounds in the long run. But also: save pennies by driving to the low price gas station, but pay pounds due to burning gasoline to get there (and pay thousands of pounds because you’re driving a gas guzzler instead of a hybrid or something).

Or ounce wise, pound foolish: drink diet soda and to help reduce your weight — but you’re drinking that diet soda while gorging at an all-you-can-eat buffet. Reducing ounces while putting on pounds.

Or andy other sub-optimal decision where you’re optimizing on some small thing while failing to optimize some bigger thing.

Reply

45 anon November 3, 2017 at 2:31 pm

7. It’s crazy how many technical deficiencies bitcoin has and still it keeps thriwing. I’ve been expecting a final crash for years, but at this point I’m willing to believe that maybe it will never come and the world really is this insane. Even among cryptocurrencies, bitcoin is not especially good from the technical point of view.

Reply

46 Floccina November 3, 2017 at 5:00 pm

The growth of pass-through businesses has also contributed to the erosion of the payroll tax base, which funds the Social Security, Disability, and Medicare trust funds.

If FICA is a tax, and I believe that it is, then Social Security is a welfare program (Government charity) rather than forced saving or a retirement account and so should pay out $240/week to all US citizens above 63 without regard to how much they paid in FICA taxes. Another possible way to go is divide the total FICA revenue by the number of recipients each week and pay that to each recipient. The current system makes no sense to me, I see no reason to give more to those who earned more. Some low earners get only about $600/month. The Government part of Australian pension system seems to work that way and most people there still support the system.

Reply

47 Harun November 3, 2017 at 6:18 pm

I have a pass through entity. It also pays me a W-2 salary. If I don’t pay myself a reasonable salary, I can get in trouble, according to my CPA.

We pay salary that is exactly where we get SS maxed out.

So, pass-through does not = no FICA.

We also pay for unemployment and never get that.

Reply

48 byomtov November 4, 2017 at 7:12 pm

Even if you don’t pay yourself the max FICA salary, and let the difference pass through, you will pay self-employment tax to make up for the FICA you don’t pay.

Reply

49 Jack PQ November 3, 2017 at 6:07 pm

(4.) This is fundamentally wrong. The car decision is once a decade, while grocery decisions are made every week of every year, so 520 times over the same span.

Reply

50 Matthew Young November 3, 2017 at 6:54 pm

Good point.

Reply

51 Matthew Young November 3, 2017 at 7:29 pm

Number four. Plainly speaking, neuroscientists know a lot less about brain functionality than they claim. They have very limited access to the pulse trains inside these actuators columns of cells.

They missed the whole bit about consciousness. Consciousness is just humans training themselves, as in sports or skills. We put ourselves through repetitive actions and watch what happens, it is why we have the dominant hand feature.

They have no memory theory. Most of our memories are inhibited actions triggered by objects in the environment. All of the upper cortex stuff is really about sequence matching neurons that trigger a neural column to generate a muscular action.
Simple stuff, including AI, just simple mechanics.

The real fun in neuroscience is the limbic system where pain and discomfort meet hormonal release. Chemistry meets neuron to achieve homeostasis for the body, really interesting stuff. It is where addictions lie.

Reply

52 Hazel Meade November 4, 2017 at 8:08 am

When I report business income from consulting on my taxes, is that a pass-through business?

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: