could it be made profitable by incorporating green energy and focusing solely on mining crypto's. Crypto mining operations, unlike most energy intensive ventures, is not geographically limited and can be established and run anywhere on earth with a decent internet connection. Being able to select location, most mining operations already opt for green energy providers such as hydroelectric power which provide electricity at lower cost per watt than coal based alternatives. In short, this means most miners already take advantage of low carbon footprint, green energy, alternatives rather than relying on oil or coal to provide energy. It could probably be acknowledged as an industry standard. The biggest gains in crypto mining are likely to come from samsung, nvidia and intel entering the ASIC market which should help to decentralize mining operations, reduce the cost of mining as well as increase hash rate while reducing watt consumption per hash as silicon etching processes switch to smaller nanometer scale. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind discussing examples commonly utilized in an effort to compare capitalism versus socialism.  Pundits often look at healthcare in an effort to gauge capitalism vs socialism. They cite universal healthcare in europe and canada as being superior to capitalist healthcare in the united states. Its a flawed comparison. Both universal healthcare and american healthcare are monopolies and both are in dire circumstances being underfunded, extremely expensive while providing subpar care to patients. American healthcare is composed of a system of state based monopolies with it being illegal for consumers to venture out of state for coverage. Universal healthcare is a monopoly as the government is the sold provider and has no competition to incentivize industry wide innovation, lower prices or progress. They're essentially the same thing. Comparing healthcare in this manner is a flawed comparison and a poor choice for comparing socialism vs capitalism. Pundits also often compare capitalist USA with its population of 300+ million with socialist nations like norway which only have a population of around 5 million with a population density 2-3 times lower than america. The differences in wealth distribution, health and other factors are better attributed to differences in climate, population density and overall population size than they are either capitalism or socialism. The disparity between "socialist" norway and "capitalist" america is like comparing crime rates between a rural town and a big city like new york. Its yet another flawed comparison biased in favor of promoting socialism. A better example of socialism is NASA's Ares I rocket versus Elon Musk and Space X's Falcon Heavy rocket. NASA spent upwards of $60 billion dollars developing the Ares I and still don't have a working prototype. Space X spent $150 million to develop the Falcon Heavy. What we have here is an example of capitalism and the private sector developing the same thing socialism and NASA tried to develop at 100 times lower cost. This is the type of counter argument to socialism which should be standard in schools but for whatever reason its ignored in favor of pro socialist perspectives which never pan out. |
|
|
|
|
Socialism describes a centralized paradigm where the state owns and controls everything. This tends to be a bad arrangement as it gives governments a monopoly which leads to greater fraud, abuse and inefficiency than free markets which are incentivized by competition to be more efficient, less wasteful and more fair to consumers and the public.
Capitalism describes a decentralized paradigm where ownership and power is shared between a state and its people. Many of the advantages people have witnessed from bitcoin becoming more decentralized over time apply to capitalism. As samsung, nvidia, intel, russia and others enter the ASIC market, this application of free markets has a high potential to reduce the price of ASICs while providing far greater performance as well as other benefits. This example applies to capitalism where the competition between corporations like "intel vs AMD" or "coke vs pepsi" has a great potential to offer better terms to consumers and the public than heavily centralized abstracts like socialism where there is no competition to incentivize progress. With socialism stagnation, waste and abuse become the norms as there are no alternatives to compare centralized state ownership/management to.
|
|
|
|
For far too long, American workers and businesses have received the short end of the stick when it comes to international trade. In fact, the United States has run an annual trade deficit since 1975, and our 2017 deficit with China rose to a record $375 billion. This prolonged period of importing more goods than we export, exacerbated in part by unfair trade practices such as Chinese steel dumping, has decimated industries and led to economic hardship for entire regions. China is easily the largest steel producer in the world, accounting for nearly half of global production. The Chinese must export between 10 and 15 percent of their steel, and a flood of excess global capacity has driven steel prices downward as supply outstrips demand. The central element in the case against Chinese steel dumping lies in the fact that the Chinese government has made a strategic decision to dominate the global steel market by heavily subsidizing production. This subsidization is an enormous threat to our nation’s security, as the United States has steadily become more reliant on foreign sources of steel to supply our military and infrastructure needs. The international community has finally taken notice of the risks associated with a single country having a quasi-monopoly over the global steel market. Just last year, the European Union imposed stiff tariffs on Chinese steel in an attempt to combat dumping and excessively low prices. The Obama administration did the same in 2016. These efforts, however, have done little to slow the flood of Chinese steel into the marketplace. China produces the same amount of steel in a single year as the entire world generated in the year 2000. Negative impacts associated with these unfair trade practices have manifested across whole swathes of the United States. Once-thriving factories have been forced out of business, and thousands of workers have lost their jobs. Decades of neglect from politicians in Washington sent these forgotten Americans to the polls in droves in the 2016 election. It should come as no surprise, then, that many workers in the Rust Belt breathed a collective sigh of relief earlier this month when President Trump announced his proposal to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. These tariffs will undoubtedly bring prosperity to regions of the country that have been left behind by previous administrations. Moreover, the president’s proposal reinforces the importance of steel and aluminum production in our nation’s infrastructure and national security efforts. Our reliance on foreign nations for critically important resources such as steel and aluminum is deeply troubling. Some leaders, however, even within my own party, have slammed the president’s actions, calling them “protectionist” and citing concerns over starting a trade war. Nevertheless, my colleagues offer no solutions. As a matter of policy, I am a strong advocate of free trade, but we need to ensure our trade relationships are fair for American workers and friendly nations with which we trade. We should not punish our allies by lumping them in the same category as the bad actors, who are the root of our most serious trade problems. These tariffs should be targeted against the true culprits of trade manipulation—namely China. President Trump announced his tariff plan in a manner true to his history as a blunt, no-nonsense businessman and politician—he came out swinging and threw his best punch by proposing tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports. Given that the president now has the world’s attention, he has since stated that the tariff policy is subject to certain carve-outs, and that nations may request exemptions. In doing so, the president has sent the message that the U.S. is open for business and trade, however our partners must play by the rules. While many are skeptical of the tariffs and their impacts on downstream users of steel and aluminum, I am confident in the president’s ability to negotiate with our partners to foster true fair trade for everyone and ensure that American industries can compete on a level playing field across the globe. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/379615-steel-aluminum-tariffs-necessary-to-fight-tradeTried to bold some of the better points. The entire thing is worth reading though. Yet another perspective on tariffs specifically metals markets and the danger of foreign countries like china dumping cheap metal in an effort to wipe out competition and centralize markets under their control. It could be deemed a threat to national security and give china control of raw materials like steel which are necessary for the manufacture of infrastructure, weapons and other areas critical to ensuring prosperity and standard of living. I was not aware the european union and Obama administration had previously hiked tariffs against china in an effort to prevent the worst case eventuality. Perhaps what Donald Trump is doing isn't so different from previous administrations and foreign ally foreign policy after all. |
|
|
|
A lot of people have benefited from the cryptocurrency investment. But Shiller would still like to see it as a psychology experiment. “It is more psychological than something that could be explained by the computer science department,” He said. Bolded: it sounds like Robert Shiller is claiming blockchain has no real world application in computer science, security, finance or otherwise legitimate software engineering fields. Almost as if Shiller doesn't realize shipping firms and many others are utilizing blockchain technology in ledgers and banks are being forced to rollout faster transactions with lower fees to better compete with bitcoin, after decades of industry wide stagnation. Perhaps this serves as a real world example why armchair economists should not comment on things they do not understand or have experience with. It also sounds like Shiller is claiming neither bitcoin nor crypto currencies have anything of value to offer the world. As an economist he should appreciate the thought experiment bitcoin and crypto currencies offer in terms of decentralization, deflation, limited supply, algorithmically limited production of assets and other interesting and thought provoking discussions which bitcoin brings to the table. Lastly, Shiller should appreciate the high growth of bitcoin/crypto users worldwide. Robinhood trading platform gained near to 1 million new sign ups after announcing crypto currency support. Bitcoin could offer a safe haven for consumer wealth in the event of a worst case scenario where the dollar or euro default. They also offer financial services to many poor demographics who could not afford a bank account or platform which allows them to electronically execute transactions or transfer money. Shiller sound more like a youtuber who attacked bitcoin only because they were paid to than he does someone speaking as an objective and independent economist here. The same might be said of Paul Krugman and many other economists who have commented on bitcoin. |
|
|
|
That said, my one friend traded $400 and made $20,000 or more by December, but the bear market took his "investment" value down to something below $10,000. He didn't pay/file crypto taxes because he said capital gains tax has a minimum threshold where if you don't meet it, then you don't have to report it (please don't take this sentence as legal advice). I think the minimum for tax reporting in some US states is around $600 income/year. If someone profits $599 or less (whatever the minimum cutoff number is by individual state) they don't have to report their taxes. Otherwise I think they're required to file. The $10,000 number is the amount some platforms like crypto exchanges or casinos are required to fill out a tax form for and forward to the US government( if my information is correct) although there are supposed to be secondary measures in effect to catch tax evaders who attempt to avoid the $10k number in reporting. An example of this occurs in casinos where people might win more than $10,000 and cash out their chips in increments smaller than $10k to avoid having their winnings be put on file. Capital gains taxes are a touchy subject. I think with stocks capital gains taxes are not incurred until after the stock is sold. If a stock is held(HODL'ed) longer than 1 year a lesser tax percentage is paid than with stocks that are bought and sold within 12 months. Uncertain as to whether bitcoin or crypto currencies need to be exchanged for fiat in order to be taxed in a similar manner. That's a grey area for me and one I would be interested in seeing someone more knowledgeable comment on. |
|
|
|
If the government still doesn't know how to put down all cryptocurrencies(or maybe they're still figuring how to tax users), why wouldn't they create an exchange and get some profit from it? Rather than legalize marijuana, governments of the world could create their own marijuana farms and sell "green gold" to the public. I would guess they choose to legalize and tax weed for the same reasons they would not choose to pursue owning and operating a crypto exchange. States, like people, may choose a path of least resistance and stick to things they have experience or competency at rather than branching out into areas they are unfamiliar with. Learning curves can be frightening things and economically it often can be better for people to invest time and energy into things they have a higher probability of being successful with based on a higher degree of familiarity. The push in politics appears to be for banks to own and regulate crypto exchanges with goldman sachs recently buying poloniex through circle--one of the small satellite companies it owns a controlling interest in. Sectors like crypto being regulated by the private sector is fairly common and perhaps a more efficient, cost effective and reliable arrangement. In the USA many regulators like the CDC are privately owned rather than state owned and operated. |
|
|
|
|
Does anyone find it strange how the european union and united states turn a blind eye to issues like spies stealing technology? They collectively spend trillions of dollars/euros on "anti-terrorism" measures, under which theft of technology and intellectual property could be categorized. They build intricate and comprehensive surveillance networks, in theory, to prevent things like this. Then when we have overwhelming evidence that things like this happen, its completely ignored by governments and the media with people saying: "its impossible to prevent things like this, so we shouldn't even try" even though trillions in fiat money, privacy and freedom were sacrificed supposedly so governments could combat these types of things which reduce standard of living and economic prosperity.
Its almost like governments and the media collectively support china's theft of technology/intellectual property/patent and copyright protected things and try to bury the issue.
There's a lot of evidence technology theft occurs. And no evidence that terrorists use crypto currencies to launder money. Does anyone find it strange how the "we have to regulate bitcoin to prevent money laundering" issue is pushed so much harder than legitimate issues like china stealing trillions of dollars worth of technology?
|
|
|
|
What if, back in 2008, when Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and many others were toppling like dominoes, someone said to you: “If you think this is bad, wait another decade, and an even bigger financial crisis will loom.” It would have been hard to believe, but it would have been correct. The same policies that created the 2008 crash were adopted and an even bigger bubble is now here. Ron Paul discusses. AFAIK the context of this is. A bubble describes a significant sector of an economy being overvalued with the inevitable negative price correction expected to cause an economic downturn which will generate decreased tax revenues and possibly require additional state spending if institutions are being bailed out at taxpayer expense. Many current sectors in the global economy are overpriced and expected to lose value on diminishing demand. We currently see this happening with the car loan subprime market. Living expenses and inflation are growing at a much faster pace in relation to wages. Inevitably we will reach a point where consumers can't afford things like real estate whose respective value will plummet as liabilities generally outpace the growth of assets. (Although in nations like the united states this trend is being offset by foreigners buying up US real estate, which will help to mitigate the damage but likely will only decrease the final dreaded outcome over the short term.) No one may want to admit it but Ron Paul is probably right. The real question may be when these things will happen moreso than whether or not they'll occur eventually. |
|
|
|
|
I haven't given the US vs China "trade war" much thought.
Initially, I'm thinking the USA representing the largest consumer market in the world gives it a significant advantage over china. The US doesn't necessarily need china to supply goods. There are suppliers that are geographically nearer to the USA who could ship goods over shorter distances incurring shorter travel penalties along with projecting a smaller carbon footprint on decreased fuel consumption. Savings in shipping and fuel could be enough to offset whatever advantages china once had. Chinese labor is more expensive these days and doesn't necessarily represent a quantum leap of an advantage which lured investors there initially.
China could be disadvantaged in that it needs the US consumer market to buy a significant percentage of its goods. China lacks other options or a "plan B". China needs the USA but the USA doesn't necessarily need china which could mean china has already lost this "trade war" before the first shot has been fired.
One might compare it to walmart not needing middle men in their supply to distribution chain which allowed them to eliminate non essentials in their business model abstract. Suppliers needed walmart and lacked alternatives. On the flipside walmart didn't need suppliers. This gave walmart all the leverage they needed to restructure things in a way better suited to them.
These are my initial thoughts... I haven't thought about it much and could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
According to a recent article on CNBC, Tom Lee is attributing the current price weakness to selling by American consumers and crypto exchanges to satisfy tax liabilities. At least this is an interesting theory, but keep in mind he's only speculating like everyone else. Key (speculative) points from Lee: - U.S. households likely owe $25 billion in capital gains taxes for their cryptocurrency holdings
- Additional selling pressure by crypto exchanges sitting on over a billion dollars in profit denominated in btc/eth and are converting to USD to satisfy tax obligations
- tax-related selling represents a massive outflow from crypto to USD and historical estimates are each $1 of USD outflow is $20-$25 impact on crypto market value
- Expects btc to find footing after April 17
- Expects btc to reach $20,000 by mid-year and $25,000 by year-end
Src: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/wall-streets-tom-lee-predicts-massive-outflow-from-cryptocurrencies-ahead-of-tax-day.htmlHe's got three essentially short term predictions that will be easy to track, which is the part I'm most interested in. Bolded: that's an excellent theory to explain our last btc price decline. Merited. There are likely many bitcoin HODL'ers who realized suddenly they needed to pay taxes on the $100,000 bitcoins they were holding. A btc selloff to cover last minute tax payments could easily be mirrored in btc's latest negative price trends. The surge in btc price prior to april 17th could also represent a buy-in phase, where investors are expecting the price to increase around the time the majority of tax payments are collected. $25 billion dollars in capital gains taxes could be tantalizing enough for some states to support bitcoin legalization similar to how marijuana legalization has been supported in some states, possibly incentivized by the tax revenues states could bring in. Even if some countries initially ban bitcoin or crypto, if recession or economic stagnation sets in, the lure of increasing tax revenues via legalizing bitcoin could be too powerful a lure to be ignored, if bitcoins market cap continues to increase which could suggest even larger potential taxation. It is also possible the $25 billion dollar figure is exaggerated. |
|
|
|
^ Gaethje is too tough for his own good. His style isn't sustainable... If he continues to fight like that he'd have a brain injury or some sort of head complication within 5 years imho.
But what a war. I hope to see Poirier vs Ferguson and McGregor vs Khabib in one event.
Yeah. Even the Diaz brothers aren't crazy enough to fight the way Gaethje does and they're notorious (no pun intended) for being exciting brawlers with fan friendly styles. It is hard to say what the limitations of the human body are. Boxers like Bernard Hopkins and Roy Jones Jr. and other greats might have spent literally decades beating each other up in the gym to learn their craft, absorbing literally thousands if not millions of punches in their lifetime. And so perhaps concerns with concussions and brain damage could be exaggerated. I think NFL players suffer worse traumatic brain injuries on average and absorb more significant blows to the head. The main issue with MMA could be fighters cutting significantly higher quantities of weight. Even though they have 24 hours to re-absorb water, dehydration can contribute towards making it easier for fighters to sustain concussions or other brain injury. Also MMA fighters tend not to use headgear or other protective measures. Unfortunately there are some like Martin Kampmann and Chris Holdsworth who have had their MMA careers cut short due to them having issues with injuries to the brain. |
|
|
|
|
CNBC isn't that much more accurate than weather forecasts these days. One second they say it will be snowing tomorrow, the next second they say tomorrow will be sunny. CNBC appeared thoroughly convinced bitcoin was a bubble. Now they're saying bitcoin's price will appreciate to $250,000 by 2022. Its hard to know who to trust or believe with everyone saying the opposite today of what they were saying yesterday.
I think that they might be encouraging a bitcoin price rise in anticipation of their next dump which could be accompanied by a short selling leveraged position on CBOE futures. They don't necessarily have to kill bitcoin, outright. They only have to kill public confidence in bitcoin as a vehicle for building long term value under a HODL model. If that's the case buying in, then selling. Then short fading when bitcoin reaches what appears to be a high position could be the go-to strategy for trading btc over the short term.
There is also a chance that with liquidity in fiat markets dwindling on high student loan debt and credit card debt the wealthy may have decided to move on to tap crypto liquidity as the logical avenue in order to keep demand a steady constant and prevent price/value declines fueled by diminishing affordability propped up by by wage/wealth inequality.
|
|
|
|
OP,this is old news.It`s not a secret that China is stealing and copying patented technologies from the USA and EU countries during the past 25 years.Even all the foreign investors,who have factories in China complain that their chinese workers steal the know-how and technologies and copy them into other factories,owned by the Chinese government.There`s no way that the US counterintelligence could stop this theft.It will cost billions of dollars and the US federal budget ahs a huge deficit.
I think politicians in the USA and europe sell out their own people and help china steal technology and other vital information. Hillary Clinton's email server she deleted 30,000+ emails from could have been full of classified information she secretly sold to china and other countries for profit. You're right it is nothing new. There isn't much discussion on these types of topics however which could make it a neglected point worth mentioning. As said, this could be a unifying point for the USA and other nations of the world to hike tariffs against china and force china to adopt fairer trade policy worldwide. This is basically just another angle (which isn't being mentioned much) to the USA / china trade dispute. That's where its relevence might factor in. |
|
|
|
Hey strangers (sorry no friends yet) i am SupremeTime and i will make an attempt to reach 1 BTC from 1 mbtc. I think some books reduced their betting minimum to 0.1 mbtc. That might be a good starting point, better than 1 mbtc on reduced risk. With betting it could be more about percentage gains than unit gains. Many hedge fund managers only manage a 5% ROI(return on investment). If a gambler can consistently deliver greater than 5% returns, they're essentially ahead of the game. I've seen some gamblers like Vegas Dave have more than 5 TV's mounted on one wall and they have sports games playing on every single tv which they watch and analyze simultaneously. At the upper end of the spectrum things can get crazy with sports betting. The best I've done is 16x what I started with. But that's a very aggressive strategy which may not be sustainable. The best strategy could be to bet between 1% and 5% increments of your bankroll and try to win via attrition and hope you come out on top with a positive win / loss record. At least that's the strategy I see a lot of people use and be successful with. High returns might be correlated with high losses. There have been times when I've doubled my money in one day but being that aggressive makes it easy to take big losses, playing things safer could be the way to go. |
|
|
|
I wish Gaethje would fight more technical. He doesn't have to absorb or slip every punch his opponent throws. I'm surprised Dustin Poirier was able to absorb that many leg kicks and still fight effectively. Both guys were tough as nails, it was almost like watching two superheroes fight where they batter each other mercilessly. If DP vs Gaethje happened in a movie, people would say its fake as the human body "can't" withstand that much punishment, the way that people said WWE/WWF wrestling is fake. Lauren Mueller was very impressive in her fight as was Israel Adesanya. My gambling and picks aren't going too bad at the moment. I profited the last 4/5 weeks. Still thinking about what I'll do in regard to that thread I made in the gambling section awhile ago. Nothing definite yet. I'm trying to learn some CNC and DIY stuff. Diversifying in case bitcoin or my gambling fails, maybe both. Next weeks card should be fun. Hopefully, everyone will do better with that event. |
|
|
|
China is engaged in large-scale theft of American research and technology from universities, using spies, students, and researchers as collectors, experts told Congress on Wednesday. Compounding the technology theft, the administration of President Barack Obama weakened U.S. counterintelligence efforts against foreign spies by curbing national-level counterspy efforts, a former counterintelligence official disclosed during a House hearing. Michelle Van Cleave, former national counterintelligence executive, said shortly after the creation of the office of the director of national intelligence in 2004, a national counterspy program against foreign spies was restricted during the administration of President George W. Bush. "Unfortunately, the backsliding continued under President Obama," Van Cleave told two subcommittees of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Van Cleave said a directive issued by then-DNI James Clapper in 2013 and still in force reduced the national counterintelligence program authority by directing all counterspy programs to be run by individual departments or agencies. "The national head of counterintelligence was rebranded director of a security and CI center, his duties further dissipated by the fixation on leaks and insider threats driven by the grievous harm done by Snowden, Manning, et al," Van Cleave said, referring to intelligence leakers Edward Snowden, an NSA contractor, and Army Sgt. Bradley Manning. "Gone was any dedicated strategic [counterintelligence] program, while elite pockets of proactive capabilities died of neglect," she said. "Read between the lines of existing CI guidance and you will not find a whiff of a national-level effort left, other than caretaker duties such as taking inventory and writing reports." Several intelligence and security experts testified during the hearing that China poses the most significant threat of technology theft from an estimated $510 billion spent annually on U.S. research and development. "China has a government-directed, multi-faceted secret program whose primary task is technology acquisition, as well as a highly refined strategy to develop and exploit access to advantageous information through the global telecommunications infrastructure," Van Cleave said. Along with Russian intelligence agents, Chinese technology spies have developed specific lists of technology for theft. Beijing uses clandestine agents, front companies, and joint research ventures in the theft program. "Indeed, the United States is a spy's paradise," Van Cleave said. "Our free and open society is tailor-made for clandestine operations." Michael Wessel, chairman of the congressional U.S.-China Economic Security Review Commission, testified that the Chinese are focused on stealing American advanced technology related to artificial intelligence, robotics, and other cutting edge technology. Beijing has national-level programs to obtain advanced technologies with both military and commercial applications. They include acquisition of know-how related to new energy vehicles, advanced information technology, biotechnology, new materials, aerospace, ocean engineering, railway systems, robotics, power equipment, and agricultural machinery. "In the case of robotics and AI, two fields of study with the potential to fundamentally change the international economy as well as the future of war-fighting, China has released the Robotics Industry Development Plan and Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan with the goals of China assuming global leadership in the coming decades," Wessel said. China also is infiltrating American universities by funding language and cultural centers called Confucius Institutes that are being used as cover for technology theft. About 100 of the institutes are operating on American campuses and use their funding as part of "soft power" efforts in the United States. China is also using some of the 350,000 Chinese students in the United States for intelligence work. Chinese spies recruit students with appeals such as "can you help China?" Wessel said. Recent spy cases have included an electrical engineering professor at the University of Tennessee, John Reese Roth, who in 2008 was convicted of illegally sending defense technology through Chinese students back to China. In 2009, Ruopeng Lieu, a researcher at Duke University, passed sensitive technology data to China. The information helped Beijing create the Kuang-Chi Science Ltd, a multibillion metamaterials company engaged in wireless internet and mobile payment fields. In 2015, Chinese professors were among six defendants charged with economic espionage by the Justice Department. An indictment charged stolen American trade secrets were used to assist Chinese universities and state-run companies in China. Wessel said 20 percent of those working on advanced artificial intelligence at the Berkeley Artificial Intelligence Research Lab are Chinese nationals. Also, 30 of the 38 post-doctorial researchers at the University of Maryland's Bing Nano Research Group are from China, he said. "While we should continue to work to contribute to the world's efforts to address the most vexing problems facing the world, we must take greater steps to protect the fruits of our work," Wessel said. "Efforts to infiltrate our universities and labs and exfiltrate their work must be a greater priority." Van Cleave, the former counterintelligence official, said greater efforts are needed to stem the loss of technology to China. "Counterintelligence—identifying, assessing, and neutralizing foreign intelligence threats—has been little more than an afterthought in U.S. national security strategy, a legacy of neglect that has cost us dearly in lives lost, resources squandered, and dangers unchecked," she said.
Counterspy efforts currently are divided among the FBI, CIA, and Pentagon. The division has created gaps allowing foreign spies to operate in the United States with impunity.
Congress passed the Counterintelligence Enhancement Act in 2002 to fix the problems, but intelligence bureaucracies resisted the reforms and as a result counterspying has been weakened, not improved, Van Cleave said."U.S. counterintelligence is finely tuned to work individual cases, but it is not postured globally to detect, deter, or disrupt the intelligence activities of China or any other foreign power, or to execute strategic counterintelligence operations," she said. "We know surprisingly little about adversary intelligence services relative to the harm they can do." Van Cleave urged going on the offense against foreign spies by penetrating and disrupting foreign intelligence organizations before they reach the United States. The goal is to degrade foreign spy services and their ability to conduct operations against the United States. "We can chase individual spies or technology thieves case by case, or we can target the services that send them here," Van Cleave said. "In short, we can go on offense but national leadership must be willing to direct and empower America's counterintelligence enterprise to carry out that vital mission." Joel Melstad, a spokesman for the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, did not directly address Van Cleave's criticism. But he said: "Our workforce remains strongly focused on strategic counterintelligence capabilities." Melstad said that other than the name change, counterintelligence authorities of the director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center remain the same as those under the 2002 law. "And while we must respond to demand signals from our government partners concerning important issues like insider threats and leaks, we have not lost sight of the larger strategic CI goal," Melstad said. The hearing was a joint session of the committee's research and technology subcommittee and oversight subcommittee. Oversight subcommittee chairman Ralph Abraham (R., La.), told the hearing China is the most aggressive at stealing U.S. technology but the problem involved other foreign nations as well and the activities must be stopped. "Essentially, China steals our fundamental research and quickly capitalizes by commercializing the technology," he said.
Research and technology subcommittee chairman Rep. Barbara Comstock (R., Va.) said the theft of American technology is a serious problem.
"It is imperative that our academic institutions not close their eyes to the very real threat posed by foreign intelligence spies," she said. "They cannot be blinded by naiveté or ignorance when distinguishing between friend and foe."http://freebeacon.com/national-security/chinese-spies-engaged-massive-theft-u-s-technology/.... This is intriguing and should emerge as a relevent point during the USA versus china "trade war". I think that japan and other european nations have similar complaints towards china, which could unify them and serve as a motive to crackdown on china for these types of practices. If you've noticed the tendency china has to pirate video game consoles, hand held devices, electronics, CD's, DVD's or anything else. That technology pirated by china represents billions if not trillions of dollars of lost revenue globally. On top of that china has been known to steal defense technology, patented and copyrighted intellectual property and many different types of things which the united states, japan and other nations have spent large sums of money to develop. It will be interesting to see how things progress. I think that perhaps americans and others should be mad that china steals many of the things their taxpayer dollars are spent towards developing. For example the stealth technology in the F-22 and F-35 fighters which were developed with taxpayer funding were stolen by china years ago. The news story is easy to find via search engine. |
|
|
|
 (Dwindling confidence in the fed? Say it ain't so! By the way guys, is the feds current raising of rates hurting our economy right now?)  (I don't remember where or when I found the above graphic but I think I've had this for 10 years or more. Overspending was a huge issue 10+ years ago, fast forward 10+ years and not much has changed.)  (Minimum wage troubles.) This thread is intended for discussing and sharing comics, memes, charts, infographics -- any images that are related to economics, finance, trading, crypto currencies et al. Sometimes pictures speak louder and make a point better than words. Have any good images to share? Post them, please. If anyone posts good bitcoin or crypto related images, I'll merit you. |
|
|
|
BTCbitcoin prices moving due to technical analysis or fundamental analysis???!!!!!BTC Its difficult to utilize either technical or fundamental analysis with crypto being that there is no P/E ratio and not much in the way of established deterministic observation revolving around relationships invoking price, value and other variables. I think more time will be required for good mathematical models and solid historical precedents to develop. What also makes things hard is crypto's constant evolution. Only a few years ago, crypto was heavily centralized in china and may have relied upon silk road to generate demand. Today its far more decentralized and no longer relies as much upon dark web markets for value. There's a constant evolution crypto is undergoing and there are many paradigm shifts which are occurring such as the transition from bitcoin representing long term HODL value to the more recent trend where it has become more an instrument of speculation across futures markets. Exchanges are becoming more regulated and there are many changes occurring all of the time which could make it hard to establish a set of rules or paradigms which determine crypto price movements considering the game is always changing. |
|
|
|
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday that aims to add and strengthen work requirements for public assistance and other welfare programs. The order, signed in private, promotes "common-sense reforms" that policy adviser Andrew Bremberg said would reduce dependence on government programs. "Part of President Trump's effort to create a booming American economy includes moving Americans from welfare to work and supporting and encouraging others to support common-sense reforms that restore American prosperity and help them reclaim their independence," he said. The order focuses on looking for ways to strengthen existing work requirements and exploring new requirements for benefits such as food stamps, cash and housing assistance programs. Trump has long accused beneficiaries of abusing government assistance programs and has claimed many who have no intention of working make more in benefits than those with jobs. "I know people that work three jobs and they live next to somebody who doesn't work at all. And the person who is not working at all and has no intention of working at all is making more money and doing better than the person that's working his and her ass off," Trump said in November. During the campaign, he pledged that, under a Trump administration, families "trapped in welfare" would be "provided with jobs and opportunity." Most people who use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, who are able to hold jobs do work, but they don't earn enough to pay for food and cover other expenses. According to 2015 data from the Department of Agriculture, 44 percent of the total households using the SNAP program had someone in the family earning money. The administration has made several moves pushing work for Medicaid recipients and those who use the SNAP program. In January, officials announced that states would be able to impose work requirements for Medicaid. And they've proposed tightening the existing requirement that able-bodied adults who want to receive SNAP benefits for more than three months at a time must work in some capacity. The proposal would raise the age limit for recipients who are exempt from the requirement and restrict the ability of states to offer waivers. The Department of Agriculture has been soliciting public comment on the issue. The administration has also been exploring more stringent work requirements for those who receive assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, as well as minimum weekly work hours for those who receive housing assistance. The order gives various Cabinet secretaries 90 days to review the programs their agencies offer, and recommend possible changes. Advocates argue that, while encouraging people to work is fundamentally a good thing, imposing strict requirements on already vulnerable populations, particularly when coupled with an aggressive effort to slash funding and shrink public assistance programs, could be disastrous for those in need. Such requirements could have dire consequences for those already experiencing barriers to finding, and keeping, a job, including single mothers who can't afford child care, people who lack access to transportation and those who suffer from mental illness. Rebecca Vallas, vice president of the Poverty to Prosperity Program at the Center for American Progress, said Trump's executive order served to reinforce myths about poverty in the U.S. "By using dog-whistle terms like 'welfare,' Trump's trying to paint people who turn to Medicaid, SNAP, and other public programs as Reagan's mythical 'welfare queen' -- so we don't notice that he's coming after the entire working and middle class," Vallas tweeted. The White House had once identified overhauling the welfare system as one of its top two legislative priorities for 2018, along with a major investment in infrastructure. But GOP leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, told the president there was little chance of passing anything that needs Democrats' votes. Trump appeared to agree as he huddled with GOP leaders at the Camp David presidential retreat in January. "It's a subject that's very dear to our heart," Trump said then. "We'll try and do something in a bipartisan way. Otherwise, we'll be holding it for a little bit later." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-signs-executive-order-pushing-work-requirements-to-receive-welfare-benefits/.... It seems as if many americans hate the welfare system. Ironic considering the spread of christianity across the globe was fueled largely by christian communities having welfare programs which cared for those in poverty. Love or hate Trump, I would guess most support greater requirements for those on food stamps and other state run welfare programs. In the past there was a controversial issue where many illegal immigrants entering the country were be eligible for welfare. I'm not certain if those loopholes have been closed in sanctuary cities or areas with high statistics for immigration. If Trump is successful the budget may be groomed to be cleaner and more efficient which should help the longevity of the us dollar and its respective economy. But is it enough? What steps should be taken to reduce the deficit and improve the balance sheet of the nation to prevent what could be unsustainable precedent in terms of liability growth far outpacing revenue? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
