Latest news with #economicfreedom
Forbes
4 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
False Choice Between Bitcoin's Store Of Value And Medium Of Exchange
Bitcoin's Store of Value A debate has raged in Bitcoin between its two primary use cases, store of value and medium of exchange. This debate has waged on since its inception, though the contours of the debate have waxed and waned over time. In fact, Satoshi was likely aware of Bitcoin's bottlenecks to scaling, given that the original implementation of off-chain payments using the frequency field of transaction outputs was part of Bitcoin's original design. Payment channels in the Lightning Network eventually became a better way to achieve off-chain payments, and by 2015, the Lightning white paper planted the flag for Bitcoin as a vehicle for payments. In the last four years, however, the narrative has shifted towards Bitcoin as a store of value. At the same time, Bitcoin also had its roots as a form of digital gold, evident from the early connection between Bitcoin and Bitgold. The early conversation on the Bitcoin talk forum certainly makes reference to a digital version of gold, and the miners do the hard work of extending the chain and bringing new Bitcoin into circulation. I saw the debate in sharpest contrast in February at the Presidio Bitcoin launch event, where Jack Dorsey and Michael Saylor gave alternate opinions on this. Dorsey talked persuasively about Bitcoin's utility in the developing world, where reliance on third-party payment providers like Visa and Mastercard imposes real economic costs and infringes on freedom. Bitcoin's high value over time will come from its utility, which is a medium of exchange. Bitcoin still has a long way to go for broad use as payment, and the Bitcoin community can't give up on making real the original vision of the white paper. Saylor offered an equally convincing defense of Bitcoin as a store of value. The vast majority of capital in the world is not used for payments but for storing and preserving value. For Bitcoin to succeed, it must gain market share against the major asset classes (equities, bonds, and real estate). Saylor takes a broader definition of peer in the white paper. A peer need not be an individual, but could be an institution, a bank, a corporation, or a city. Not every person in the world needs to run nodes, but maybe the big institutions do. Just like gold, bitcoin can become the reserve asset of the world and a settlement layer between financial institutions. They both are. I believe Saylor and Dorsey are each advocates for the world as they see it. Saylor and Dorsey are both articulating a vision where they believe the marginal resources and time should be spent. And their views reflect their own backgrounds, with Dorsey emerging from the payment space and Saylor operating in the fiat capital markets. In the short term, there may be a trade-off between these two use cases of Bitcoin, as companies and individuals need to decide how to allocate their own time and resources. But in the long term, there is room for both. The real competition is not between Saylor and Dorsey, but between Saylor plus Dorsey and the rest of the tech industry. That industry is many, many times larger than our little Bitcoin bubble. Maybe I am copping out by saying we don't have to pick between Bitcoin as a store of value and medium of exchange. But really, I'm saying that all use cases of Bitcoin reinforce each other. When the world turns to bitcoin as the best investment, it will naturally want to transact in bitcoin. Similarly, if bitcoin wins the race for the best global payments, that will marginally induce more people to acquire and hold bitcoin. The real opportunity on the technology side is to more deeply integrate Bitcoin with AI. AI agents need deep ways to interact and engage with Bitcoin. We already have AI agents that can pay each other through Lightning invoices. But we need neural networks to trade and negotiate with each other using the kind of higher-dimensional transactions that Taproot was designed for. As for stores of value, AI can help design new custody solutions and more complex, useful tools as the next generation of banks holds bitcoin as their reserve asset. So, I am optimistic. And who knows, once Bitcoin achieves a store of value and medium of exchange, all that's left is the last item on the list, the unit of account.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Tariffs and price-fixing? It's time to make Republicans conservative again
If we're ever going to make America great again, we apparently need to trade protectionism, price controls and profligate spending to make happen. That's the kind of message I expected during President Barack Obama's administration. Yet here I am in 2025 being told by Washington Republicans that our path to victory is paved with big government policies—just as long as it's our big government, aimed squarely at "owning the libs." As a long-time conservative with a healthy dose of libertarian skepticism, let me tell you: Government power is and will always be the problem. The fleeting satisfaction of political wins from an overpowered executive branch only primes the weapon for the next liberal executive's use. We must be honest about what we're seeing from Republicans. Some of it is absolutely consistent with timeless principles of limited government, economic freedom, and fiscal responsibility. For example, the Trump administration's dogged adherence to the rule of law with respect to immigration is a refreshing change from countless lawless administrations who either ignored border security or engaged in selective immigration enforcement. But some of Trump's ideas are, simply put, progressive liberal priorities. "He's playing five-dimensional chess!" some will exclaim, assuring me there's a masterstroke afoot that my simple, principle-based brain can't comprehend. Others will shrug and say, "Well, he's a billionaire, so he understands economics better than you.' Perhaps more to the point, "He doesn't need anyone's money, so there's no corruption!" If triggering the opposition is the cardinal metric of success, then mission accomplished. #Winning Opinion: What's an oligarchy? With Trump's 'Big, Beautiful' bill, we're living in one. I understand the visceral appeal. Through media, business, and government, progressives have repeatedly shown a willingness to hammer Americans into believing, thinking, and feeling as they do. I can't tell you how many times I've explained federalism to my progressive friends only to be told that everyone in America deserves a one-size-fits-all policy from Washington. They certainly don't seem to like that answer now. Yes, government as a populist cudgel occasionally feels good for Republicans. We're simultaneously contorting ourselves to justify policies that would make Ronald Reagan or Milton Friedman spin in their graves. Let's start with something that should make any free-market advocate's skin crawl: government price-fixing. President Trump signed an executive order trying to tie American drug prices to those in other countries. I'm all for finding ways to lower drug costs, but government-mandated price controls? That's a funny way to champion free enterprise. Here's the real kicker, the part that should be a five-alarm fire for conservatives: None other than progressive Representative Ro Khanna, D-California, offered to introduce President Trump's drug pricing executive order as legislation, verbatim. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, chimed in with his support as well. Opinion: Don't call me a Republican. I'm a conservative. Trump and his MAGA GOP aren't. When Democrats are unreservedly eager to codify "conservative" policy, it's time to seriously re-evaluate whose playbook we're using. Price controls have a nasty habit of stifling innovation and leading to shortages – ask anyone who lived through Nixon's wage and price freezes. If we want cheaper drug prices, Congress should tighten up patents, radically improve the ability of Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate, and create a more reasonable regulatory process. Then there's the whole tariff saga. We were promised that "trade wars are good, and easy to win." How's that working out? As a strategic tool to enhance free trade, I understand, or at least thought I understood, Trump's gamble. While risky, slapping the globe with tariffs as a tool to get them to drop their tariffs on American goods and services makes a lot of sense. Then Trump could roll back American tariffs and take a victory lap for the greatest American economic windfall in several generations. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. If the U.K. trade deal is any indication, that's not what we're getting. In fact, the average effective tariff rate Americans will pay is about nine percentage points higher than before Trump's 'Liberation Day.' Let's be clear: tariffs are taxes. They are taxes paid by American importers, who then pass those costs on to American consumers. In the name of being tough, we ended up taxing ourselves. Consumers should decide what we want and what we're willing to pay, not politicians. Republicans have also forgotten a healthy skepticism of authoritarian foreign powers with a checkered past. No, I'm not talking about Vladimir Putin this time. President Trump accepting a luxury jet from Qatar, a nation that has a documented history of funding groups hostile to the United States, sends a profoundly disturbing message. It suggests that access and influence in the White House can be bought, or at least heavily swayed, by those with deep pockets and questionable motives. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be. Aren't we supposed to be draining the 'swamp'? How can we credibly criticize Hunter Biden's influence peddling if we're turning a blind eye to similar behavior on our own side? Help me understand how $TRUMP cryptocurrency run by Donald Trump Jr. is any different than the younger Biden's artwork. It has no real value beside what people are willing to pay for it. Some folks might tell you that conservative principles are old-fashioned, dusty concepts from a bygone era. They'd have you believe we must "evolve" past them to win. But let's be clear: principles don't have an expiration date. They aren't fads that come and go like our politicians. They are the difference between a society that cherishes liberty and one that stumbles blindly into a thousand years of darkness. USA TODAY Network Tennessee Columnist Cameron Smith is a Memphis-born, Brentwood-raised recovering political attorney raising four boys in Nolensville, Tennessee, with his particularly patient wife, Justine. Direct outrage or agreement to or @DCameronSmith on Twitter. This column first appeared in the Tennessean. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Trump's tariffs and plan for drug prices lean liberal | Opinion
Mail & Guardian
21-05-2025
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
Budget 3.0 tentatively accepted by some political parties
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) led the charge against the latest version of the 2025 Budget, dismissing it as an 'austerity budget' that offers no meaningful relief to poor and working-class South Africans. Political parties remain divided over the revised Budget 3.0, tabled by Finance Minister The Speaking outside parliament, EFF leader Julius Malema said the ANC had failed to use the revision as an opportunity to steer the economy in a more equitable direction. 'The ANC is stuck. They cannot grow the economy,' Malema said. 'This is an austerity budget. They failed to increase the list of zero-rated goods. We don't accept this budget.' In a statement, the Red Berets said the revised fiscal plan was out of touch with the lived realities of millions of South Africans grappling with rising unemployment, poor public services and stagnant wages. They criticised the ANC government for ignoring proposals from opposition parties and civil society during the adjustment process. 'This is a budget that ignores the worsening unemployment crisis, fails to address poor economic growth and continues the failed orthodoxy that has plunged our country into austerity, despair and underdevelopment,' the party said. The EFF also accused the government of misleading the public about the reasons behind the dropping of the proposed VAT increase. According to the party, this was not the result of stakeholder consultation but rather the outcome of a legal challenge initiated by the Democratic Alliance (DA). 'Not a single alternative revenue-generation mechanism proposed by any political party is present in this third budget, proving once again that the VAT increases were scrapped solely due to court intervention,' the EFF said. The party has called on the government to increase corporate and land taxes as part of a progressive tax reform agenda. Malema also urged the strengthening of the South African Revenue Service to address tax avoidance and illicit financial flows. In sharp contrast, the DA's Mark Burke cautiously welcomed the revised budget, describing it as a 'turning of the tide' towards greater fiscal responsibility. The official opposition, which took the treasury to court over the VAT increase earlier this year, claimed a win in the decision to drop the proposed hike. 'It is a victory for all South Africans that the mooted VAT hike has now finally been removed from the minister's revenue proposals, after the DA court action in this regard,' Burke said. He added that the absence of new bailouts for struggling state-owned enterprises, along with the maintenance of the current VAT rate, signalled a shift away from reckless public spending. 'Overall, we see this budget speech as a turning of the tide toward growth and investment. It is turning away from unchecked government spending funded by South African taxpayers,' George said. The Freedom Front Plus echoed the DA's sentiment, with party MP Wouter Wessels describing the budget as 'progressive' and appropriate under the current fiscal constraints. ActionSA said it was disappointed that there was no additional funding for the National Prosecuting Authority. 'South Africans are tired of paying more while government corruption, mismanagement and waste continue unchecked,' the party said in a statement. The party also criticised Godongwana's proposed inflation-linked increases to the levy on petrol and diesel to help offset revenue lost from the scrapped VAT hike and to narrow the main budget deficit, which stands at 4.5% of GDP, adding that it was not a pro-poor budget. The ANC, for its part, has defended the revised budget as a balanced and responsible response to a complex economic environment. Party spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu said the adjustments made between the initial budget and the revised version reflect the government's commitment to fiscal sustainability and public consultation. The finance minister's latest budget is the third version presented this year, following a series of criticisms and a public backlash over the initial revenue proposals. The revised document includes shifts in spending priorities but remains anchored in the treasury's medium-term fiscal framework, which prioritises debt stabilisation and constrained expenditure growth.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
JD Vance Defends Trump's Doll Talk — And It's Even Wilder Than You Think
Vice President JD Vance on Thursday defended President Donald Trump's statement that children will just have to deal with having fewer dolls as a result of his tariffs by offering parents a wild counterpoint: Those kids could go to war. 'What I'd ask people is not whether they want two dolls or five dolls or 20 dolls for their kids...,' Vance told Fox News' Martha MacCallum. 'I'd ask American moms and dads ... Would you like to — God forbid, if your country goes to war and your son or daughter is sent off to fight — would you like to know that the weapons that they have are good American-made stuff, not made by a foreign adversary.' Vance, who also diverted from the dolls talk by arguing that kids' prescription drugs could become more available in American pharmacies, noted that Trump's point was about 'bringing self-reliance back' to the U.S. economy. 'And that's not going to happen overnight, and that's not always going to be easy, Martha,' he said earlier in the program. Vance's comments come just one day after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News' Laura Ingraham that he would reassure a little girl with fewer dolls that they would have a 'better life' than their parents and experience 'economic freedom' thanks to Trump. Earlier this week, Mattel — the maker of Barbies and other popular toy lines — announced that it would hike prices on select products in the U.S. due to higher costs linked to Trump's tariffs. Social media users on X, formerly Twitter, swiftly clowned Vance over his war talk. Barbie Doll Maker Mattel Plans To Raise Prices In U.S. To Offset Trump Tariff Costs Trump Signals Openness To Higher Top Tax Rate On Millionaires Trump's Homophobic Diss At Pete Buttigieg Just Makes Buttigieg's Life Sound Idyllic
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
'Daily Show' Cuts Deep Into Trump Administration's 'Very Sad' Barbie Talk
'Daily Show' correspondent Desi Lydic on Wednesday clowned Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent after he defended President Donald Trump's comments that children may just have to live with fewer dolls as a result of his tariffs. Bessent — in a Fox News appearance on Tuesday — said he would reassure a little girl with two dolls instead of 30 that she'll have a 'better life' than her parents and will have 'economic freedom' because of the president. 'Yes, if there's one thing children love, it's the concept of economic freedom,' Lydic quipped. She added that it's 'very clear' that Bessent was never a little girl, as they would 'never be on board' with affording fewer toys. ADVERTISEMENT Lydic, doing an impression of a little girl, declared, 'I don't want that stuff, I want Barbies. You can't make economic freedom scissor each other.' She later identified the 'one job' Bessent would be 'even worse' at: impersonating Santa Claus. Moments earlier, Lydic noted that Trump's doll example wasn't hypothetical. Mattel — the maker of Barbies and other popular toys — announced this week it would raise prices on select products to offset higher costs tied to Trump's tariffs. 'Yes, they're raising prices on Barbie, even she has to cut back. She had to move out of Barbie's Dreamhouse and into Barbie's dream studio apartment with two roommates,' Lydic quipped. 'Her pink convertible is now a 2007 Toyota Tercel, it's very sad. Come on, don't make Barbie tighten her belt even more, she only has a one-inch waist.' ADVERTISEMENT Watch more of Lydic's Wednesday monologue on 'The Daily Show.' Related...
