Global Intel Hub

Global Intelligence

aanalysis

What If… We’re Right About Bitcoin? | ZeroHedge

by Leave a Comment

From: zerohedge

 

 

Authored by Aleksander Svetski via BitcoinMagazine.com,

THE HUMANITY-ALTERING POTENTIAL OF BITCOIN

As we enter 2022, we should all stop and marvel at how far Bitcoin has come over the past 13 years. What started as a white paper has grown through infancy and into a healthy, robust, adolescent global phenomenon.

Against the backdrop of clown world simulation shifting into ever-higher gears, Bitcoin has become a heartbeat and source of truth and sanity for millions around the world. The sheer importance of an individually-enforced, voluntarily-sought, collective and objective truth cannot be overestimated.

But, despite the very real, practical and undeniable progress that has been made, there are many who will continue on with their salt-laden disbelief and yell at clouds with uninformed variants of the same, tired anti-Bitcoin arguments.

"What if [insert uninformed China FUD]?"

"What about [insert uninformed energy FUD}?"

Look at [insert pointless tea-leaf chart FUD]?"

I can only watch on as the naysayers, FUDsters, fraudsters and fiaters do their best to confuse others and themselves on their way to economic irrelevance. And while I am now immune to their stupidity, I cannot help but feel sorry for them, or perhaps pity their lack of hope and faith.

It reminds me a little of the scene in "The Matrix Reloaded" where the team is preparing to enter the matrix so that Neo can go meet the Architect. Morpheus, in appropriate form, is conducting a sermon, reminding everyone that where some might see coincidence, he sees providence.

"I do not see coincidence, I see providence. I see purpose. I believe it is our fate to be here. It is our destiny," he

says

.

Source

Niobe then asks:

"I keep thinking, what if you're wrong? What if all this, the prophecy, everything is bullshit?"

And Morpheus replies:

"Then by tomorrow, we'll all be dead."

Then more importantly,

he follows up with

:

"Now consider the alternative. What if I am right? What if the prophecy is true? What if tomorrow the war could be over? Isn't that worth fighting for? Isn't that worth dying for?"

Source: "The Matrix"

This scene reminds me of the hope that Bitcoin represents against both, a) the tired pessimism that most intelligent but well-meaning people display, and(b) the empty nihilism of the rest of humanity.

Bitcoin is a noble, moonshot attempt at building a parallel world on a sound foundation, because the alternative, the status quo, is a complete mess.

By no means does Bitcoin just blindly "fix" everything, but by tying human action to some form of real economic consequence, it for damn sure aligns individual behavior to a more‘"natural" order.

In this way, we have a much better shot at moving the world not just closer to "heaven" but at the very least, off the pathway to hell, which we are currently both on and accelerating through.

If Bitcoin does not succeed, then much like Morpheus' sentiment above, we're largely fucked. Society will regress until all of the capital we've built in the preceding millennia has been depleted and society collapses, or we reside in sterile, technocratic dystopias, until the centrally-planned system cracks, tears and collapses atop everyone -- at which point primitive humans like Equality 7--2521 in Ayn Rand's novella "Anthem" must re-emerge once more to rebuild.

Either way, in the absence or failure of Bitcoin, the world is a bleak, dark, cold, empty and sterile place where the worst form of parasitic behavior is incentivized and the very spirit of progress, diversity and life is extinguished under the guise of "equality."

Now… think of the alternative.

WHAT IF BITCOIN DOES SUCCEED?

What if we are right and the organic emergence of a sound money helps to transform individual behavior toward morality, lower time-preferences and further sightedness? What if this monetary standard introduces shorter, faster and higher fidelity feedback loops for the actions taken by individuals, corporations, cities and nations?

What if these enhanced feedback loops turn into faster corrections of poor decisions, alongside the doubling down of actions that result in true progress? What if this turns into more accurate value judgements in the aggregate such that society becomes more prosperous, moral and forthright?

What if this new money, fixed in supply and fixed in its rules, makes inflation a thing of the past, and brings about an age where the costs of products, goods and services decrease in lockstep with the increased efficiency and efficacy we can produce and deliver them with?

What if this then translates into a meritocratic society in which both social and economic mobility are possible, where productivity and value creation is what enables one to climb, while wastage, poor judgement and parasitism lead to downward motion?

What if this is how we can transform society into an organic, dynamic 80/20 distribution instead of a cancerous, static 99.9/0.01 distribution where the poor can never climb, the parasitic elite can never fall and the productive middle has to carry the entire load?

Static, fixed classes on the left. Dynamic, permeable classes on the right.

What if the absence of mindlessly borrowing from the future, of forced taxation and involuntary theft via inflation makes those who govern accountable for their actions? What if it transforms the relationship between the government and the governed to one where the former is a customer-service provider, instead of the current subject/overlord status quo?

What if Bitcoin, through its effect on human behavior, kick starts the next phase of natural evolution in the human genus? What if over generations of more far-sighted, low-time preferring and productivity-oriented behavior, we begin to bake morality into our DNA and evolve into a more majestic, noble species of human? Homo bitcoinicus, perhaps?

What if Bitcoin is the most important discovery since fire because it allows us to encode the product of our labor into high-fidelity information and either store it forever or transmit it at the speed of light? What if this ability ushers in a new renaissance of collaboration, cooperation and productivity?

What if Bitcoin is our path through the great filter?

More on this in The Bitcoin Times, edition four

Isn't this something worth fighting for? Isn't this something worth dying for? Isn't this something worth living for?

I truly believe so, in my heart of hearts.

How many of these "what ifs?" are possible? What will the near- and longer-term futures look like?

Of course, I do not know. None of us do. We can use first principles, intuition, instinct and experience to make estimations, but in order to discover it, we must create and build it.

This is why free, independent, entrepreneurial, productivity- and creation-oriented people will thrive on a standard in which this kind of behavior is incentivized. In other words: on a Bitcoin standard.

And getting there will require a large dose of faith and hope, because the clarity needed to make accurate value judgements and calculate economic costs is still emerging (Bitcoin).

A creator is he who brings forth that which does not yet exist. This is why today's message is one of hope. We must forge ahead and bring about a world we can be proud to not only live in, but to pass onto our kin. We must hope, and hope in the highest sense of the word. In its shadow form, it can be seen as a weakness. Something which is flaccid, impotent and merely waiting for another to come save or protect you.

The "Hope" I speak of is capitalized. In its light, it is one of our greatest strengths.

"Hope, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness."

--The Architect, "The Matrix Reloaded"

Bitcoin is Hope and I want to take a moment to thank Michael Saylor for pointing that domain to the right source.

"

Bitcoin Is Hope"

So…

Please don't waste my time or anybody else's with, "What if Bitcoin doesn't work?" Neither pessimism nor nihilism help.

Spend your time actually bringing forth a new Bitcoin standard, because even if it delivers on a fraction of what I've stated above, it is a monumental step change to the current alternative; a globalist faux dystopia blending slavery, lies, bugs, pods, bondage, serfdom and sterility.

As Eminem said

, we have one shot, one opportunity to seize everything we ever wanted. Are we going to capture it, or just let it slip?

So, join me. Join us, as we venture forth into 2022.

Love, truth and Bitcoin shall prevail! For they must prevail.

 

Arabica Coffee Set For Largest Annual Increase Since 1994 | ZeroHedge

by Leave a Comment

From: zerohedge

Arabica Coffee Set For Largest Annual Increase Since 1994 | ZeroHedge

Arabica coffee futures are about to register their largest annual gain in a quarter-century due to a global deficit. 

Arabica coffee futures jumped 78% to about $2.30 per pound in New York this year, putting it on track for the best year since 1994. 

"Severe weather in Brazil, the world's largest arabica supplier, decimated coffee plantations, contributing to a global shortage just as demand for the high-end variety of beans expanded. That coincided with supply chain bottlenecks including container shortages and longer shipping times," 

Bloomberg

 explained. 

We first documented the tightening of global supplies on Mar. 25 in a commodity note titled 

""Nightmare" Of Factors Pushing World Into Coffee Deficit."

 Since then, the situation has become even more severe.  

So what does this mean for the wallets of US consumers?

According to a recent Barclays note, US importers like Starbucks are hedged out for more than a year to deal with price fluctuations. Though JM. Smucker, which owns the Folgers and Dunkin' coffee brands, recently warned that supply chain disruptions are rising costs that will impact its business.

It's only a matter of time before coffee inflation strikes consumers in 2022. 

China Launches Mineral Hunting Satellite To Maintain Rare Earth Monopoly | ZeroHedge

by Leave a Comment

From: zerohedge

China is believed to control 90% of global supplies of rare earth metals. In maintaining its monopoly on rare earth metals for the production of microchips, electronics, and electric motors, Beijing launched a mineral hunting satellite to explore the planet for new resources.

The satellite, called "Ziyuan-1 02E" or "five-meter optical satellite 02," was launched on Sunday that can take pictures of the ground with a resolution of five meters, according to the China National Space Administration.

Ziyuan-1 is equipped with infrared, near-infrared, and hyperspectral sensors that will help China's geological environment engineers identify places around the world rich in rare earth minerals.

China is believed to control up to 90% of global supplies of rare earth metals and is responsible for almost two-thirds of global production in 2019.

Some say China's control over the global market for rare earths is diminishing, but the truth is this is only slightly true (read:

"China Creates New State-Owned Mining Giant To Tighten Control Of Rare Earth Supplies"

).

Infographic: China's Rare Earth Monopoly is Diminishing | Statista

While the US and Australia ramp up the production of rare earths, China dominates the production of this space and continues to search for more minerals worldwide now using a high-tech satellite.

 

Where Do Your Christmas Decorations Come From? | ZeroHedge

by Leave a Comment

From: zerohedge

Where Do Your Christmas Decorations Come From? | ZeroHedge

Billions of dollars worth of Christmas decorations are exported around the world each year. And while they adorn many homes across the globe,

Visual Capitalist's Raul Amoros notes

you may be surprised to know that a majority of these decorations are manufactured in just a handful of countries.

Using data from the

UN Comtrade Database

, this festive visualization highlights the world's top exporters of Christmas decor.

Ranked: Top 10 Exporters of Christmas Decorations

China accounts for 87% of global Christmas decoration exports (excluding candles, electric lighting sets, and natural Christmas trees), with a total export value of $6.62 billion in 2020.

Here are the top 10 countries by export volume:

China's market share dwarfs its competitors. Netherlands comes a distant second, capturing only 3.95% of the market, while Poland is third with just 0.91%.

Another interesting fact we can extract from the data is that the top 10 countries own a 96.91% share of the Christmas decoration export market, which leaves just 3.09% of the market to the other 185 countries around the globe.

The Other Side of the Coin: Imports

We've covered who the biggest exporters of Christmas decorations are, but this begs the question--which countries are importing all of this festive fare?

Here are the top five countries by import volume:

The United States is by far the biggest importer of Christmas decorations, importing 57.34% of the total market share of Christmas decorations with a total value of $3 billion. The top five importers have a market share of 73.33% with a total value of $3.9 billion.

Why Are Christmas Decorations More Expensive This Year?

Yiwu, a Chinese city situated 175 miles southwest of Shanghai, is the world's biggest hub for manufacturing Christmas decorations, accounting for nearly 80% of the Christmas products exported from China.

Factories in Yiwu are suffering a shortage of raw materials which is causing an increase in production costs.

On top of that, since mid-October, Yiwu, like many other cities, has been affected by China's ongoing electricity shortage, which has forced manufacturers to install power generators or even stop their manufacturing activities altogether.

As if that wasn't enough, shipping from China has become a lot more expensive in 2021. Over the past year, it's become 4x more expensive to ship a standard container from China to Europe.

FDA Releases More Data On “Adverse Reactions” To Pfizer Vaccine | ZeroHedge

by Leave a Comment

From: zerohedge

 

 

As the FDA prepares to approve Pfizer's new pill for treating high-risk patients infected with COVID, more information about dangerous side effects tied to its vaccine are coming to light.

Just yesterday, we reported

another death tied to the vaccine

in New Zealand. Now, documents released by the FDA reveal that drugmaker Pfizer recorded nearly 160K adverse reactions to its COVID vaccine in the initial months of its rollout.

The data were obtained by a group of doctors, professors, and journalists calling themselves Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency. They filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FDA asking for their release. And the first tranche of documents revealed that, as of February 2021, when Pfizer's shot was being rolled out worldwide on an emergency basis, the drugmaker had compiled more than 42K case reports detailing nearly 160K individual adverse reactions to the vaccine.

The data show the bulk of the adverse event cases, both serious and non-serious, were classified as "general disorders".

Among the more common conditions reported were fevers (pyrexia), fatigue, and diarrhea, among others.

But perhaps the most surprising number in the entire report is that more than 1K of these cases were fatal in the US. All told, more than 3K deaths have been linked to the vaccine, something that's in line with the company's own data. Critics have argued that some of the deaths can't be conclusively linked to the vaccine, but others have instead insisted that the number of deaths might still be underreported.

Keep in mind, these data were used by the FDA to declare the Pfizer jab safe, which it did for Americans aged 16 and older in August. It has since been approved for children as young as five, along with booster doses for people aged 16 and up as of last week.

Readers can find the complete breakdown of data from Public Health and Medical Professionals For Transparency below:

5.3.6 Postmarketing Experience

on Scribd

nullhttps://www.scribd.com/embeds/548614177/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-IYQrKXSOi9sR1Iesdxv8

 

Spending on infrastructure seems good… But it isn’t

by Leave a Comment

Infrastructure spending can be of great benefit to the economy. But it is quite unfortunate that the type of “spending” proposed by the Democrats will not benefit the economy.

For clarity's sake, let us start our conversation with the definition of “infrastructure"

Infrastructure is the general term for the basic physical systems of a business, region, or nation. Examples of infrastructure include transportation systems, communication networks, sewage, water, and electric systems. These systems tend to be capital intensive and high-cost investments, and are vital to a country’s economic development and prosperity.(Investopedia)

Let us continue by breaking the above definition down into its most important components:

■Basic Physical Systems

■Transportation system, Communication networks, Sewage, Water, and Electric systems

■Capital Intensive

■High-Cost Investments

The last component is the most significant – “investments.”

According to Economists, an investment is the use of an existing resources to create an additional income.

So, a well acceptable definition of infrastructure is:

An investment into the basic physical systems of the nation with the goal of generating income to pay for the capital intensive expenditure.

As Fortune recently said:

Like all humongous-scale legislative efforts, the Biden administration’s new $2.2 trillion infrastructure plan contains surprises—unrelated provisions that are hitching a ride on a juggernaut. In this case, they’re not like barnacles on a giant ship. Some of these surprises are surprisingly large.

At present, there is a very small bipartisan infrastructure bill in the pipeline. Meanwhile, Democrats seek to deploy the “reconciliation” process to pass the full “social spending plan” mentioned above.

“The Senate may work into its August recess to pass both a bipartisan infrastructure plan and a budget resolution that would allow Democrats to enact a range of priorities without Republican support, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said recently.

According to CNBC, in a letter written by the New York Democrat to his caucus, Schumer said senators were collaborating with White House to turn the $1.2 trillion infrastructure structure into legislation. The Senate Budget Committee is also putting in place a measure that would permit Democrats to pass into law a sprawling child-care, health-care and climate policy arrangement without a GOP vote.

Irrespective of which bill passes, our general focus is on "infrastructure” spending.

Debt And Additional Debt

As the Cato Institute explained about the original bill.

It moves entirely in the wrong direction by increasing subsidies and centralizing power. A better approach would be to end federal subsidies and decentralize infrastructure ownership and decision making.

Notwithstanding, one of the important points ignored by both the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation is the total plan must be funded by debt expansion.

Now, let’s go back to our definition of “infrastructure.”

Since the outset of the pandemic-induced economic closedown, Government's intervention has been through massive debt expansion. It was hoped that the increase in debt would prevent the economy from sliding into an economic recession that is deeper.

But debt was already increasing sharply since President Obama assumed office in 2009. The irony of the situation is that the lingered expansion of government interventions did not bring about an organic economic growth. On the contrary, the more the debt moved up, the more debt it incurred to keep afloat the weak economic growth rates.

Debt-Growth Analysis

As said above, since debt must be used to fund “infrastructure” spending, the debt must be self liquidating. This means that every project must produce a stream of revenue through fees, taxes or duties, to payback the debt-funded capital investment over time.

Dr. Brock, an economist who possesses 5-degrees in Math and Economics, and doubles as the author of “American Gridlock” explained this succinctly with the below example of two countries.

Country A expends $4 Trillion with $3 Trillion receipts. By implication, Country A is left with a $1 Trillion deficit. In a bid to offset the difference between the spending and the income, the country must incur $1 Trillion new debt. The new debt is used to augment the excess expenditures, but yields no income, thereby creating a future gap that must get filled.

Country B expends $4 Trillion and gets $3 Trillion income. Meanwhile, the excess of $1 Trillion which was financed by debt is invested into projects, infrastructure, that yields a positive rate of return. So, there is no deficit because the rate of return on the investment funds the “deficit.”

There is no discrepancy about Government's need to spend. The disagreement has to do with its abuse and waste.

Social Welfare And Infrastructure Are Not The Same

For debt-funded spending of the government to be effective, the “payback” from investments created with debt must produce a higher rate of return than the debt used for funding the investment. Though Joe Biden’s plan has an iota of investment, it is just social welfare.

As Dr. Brock noted, there is a paradigm shift of government spending from productive investments, like the Hoover Dam investment which creates jobs (infrastructure and development) to social welfare and debt service, but has a negative rate of return.

As revealed in “Biden’s Stimulus Won’t Solve Poverty:”

According to the Center On Budget & Policy Priorities, in 2020, roughly 75% of every tax dollar went to non-productive spending.

In the fiscal year 2019, the Federal Government spent $4.4 trillion, amounting to 21 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). Of that $4.4 trillion, federal revenues financed only $3.5 trillion. The remaining $984 billion came from debt issuance. As the chart below shows, three major areas of spending make up most of the budget.'

Think about that for a minute. In 2019, 75% of all expenditures went to social welfare and interest on the debt. Those payments required $3.3 Trillion of the $3.5 Trillion (or 95%) of the total revenue collected.

Given the decline in economic activity during 2020, those numbers become markedly worse. As a result, for the first time in U.S. history, the Government will issue debt to cover mandatory spending.

As Dr. Brock explained above, the U.S. happens to be now “Country A.” 

“Today we are borrowing our children’s future with debt. We are witnessing the ‘hosing’ of the young.’” – Dr. Brock

Infrastructure Will Not Grow The Economy

Though the administration of Biden promises the “infrastructure” plan will offer jobs and grow the economy, in reality, it won’t.

As Mises Institute noted:

There is a fallacy that government spending, on infrastructure or anything else, creates jobs or economic growth in the aggregate. Murray Rothbard addressed the issue in great detail in his article ‘The Fallacy of the ‘Public Sector.’’ In summary, there is no such thing as the Infrastructure Fairy that takes government spending and magically turns it into economic growth.

As the Mises Institute explains, Government spending is    a “zero-sum” game given the money gets borrowed and gets repaid via collection of taxes.

The money spent on infrastructure must get borrowed, taxed, or printed (a tax not called a tax) out of the non-government economy. One minus one equals zero. That’s not conservative economics or liberal economics. It’s not Democrat economics or Republican economics. It’s just economics.

As depicted, there is no proof that additional money incurred and spent by the Government will bring about more robust economic prosperity.

A Diversion

The major issue with the proposed “infrastructure” spending is that the spending diverts jobs and investment away from the country’s  private sector.

While talking about the diversion, Cato Institute said:

The Tax Foundation found that Biden’s proposed tax increases would reduce private investment by more than $1 trillion. In addition, Biden’s proposed green and labor union regulations would further undermine infrastructure investment.

Corporations are already investing in activities favored by the Biden administration, such as electric vehicles, renewable energy, and broadband. Rather than subsidizing, Biden should reduce regulatory barriers to infrastructure investment and cut corporate taxes to increase investment incentives.

If we dig deeper into the realities behind government spending, however, we can see that an ‘infrastructure stimulus program’ would probably make matters worse than they are. After all, private investment is made with the goal of producing something that consumers want to buy, at a price that will generate a profit. These activities, if successful, would enable continued reinvestment in the same enterprise, and continued employment of the individuals therein.

Through taxation, the government manufactures something that the consumers have not already decided to purchase. If they were already manufacturing and purchasing such things, government intervention will not be “necessary.” 

The Solution

The answer here is to give allowance to private sector to perform it's function: efficient allocation of capital for profitable outcomes.

“We would get a real revolution in infrastructure by adopting reforms from abroad to privatize passenger rail, airports, seaports, air traffic control, water systems, and other facilities. There is no need to subsidize infrastructure if it can be moved out of the government and supported by user fees. Rather than spending $2 trillion, we should privatize infrastructure where feasible and cut taxes and regulations on the rest.” – Cato Institute

There is an easy definition for “infrastructure” that should be adopted by politicians – if tax credit or incentive is required to encourage people to use it, it is not infrastructure. But this is just the long and unprofitable history of the government choosing winners and losers in the economy. If there is a product, need or service, the private sector will discover how to manufacture it profitability. It will die naturally if it is not viable, according to the “Darwinian” nature of capitalism.

However, this lesson is always dismissed by politicians who are more concerned about winning the next election than delivering a prosperous economy for all.

Follow Global Intel Hub

Follow GIH and get free updates on Global Intelligence, Analysis, and more.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

s2Member®
%d bloggers like this: