Die Hard Economics vs Bitcoin

Whilst changing to a connecting flight in Zurich, one overheard from the men’s wash basin that “John McLane from Vienna is asked to make his way and board his connecting flight to Miami”, the thoughts of mass panic and chaos swelled into the Gothic Economist’s mind. Gliding out of the bathroom, with the swing of a Black aluminium case and looking like the perfect 21^st century terrorist with some electronic body dance moves thrown in. He thought to himself; where would John McLane be needed soon?

The word Bitcoin very few may of heard up until recently, when it’s price surged from 11$ in 2011 to over 200$ this year. The fundamental laws that govern this virtual currency are beautiful, from freedom, to the potential downfall spike of a financial market.

The Dark Past

No one knows who the creator or creators of this virtual copper really are… Though tales are told in the Far East; and it is said to have originated from a hacking liberal collective known as Satoshi Nakamoto. This possible origin inspires the use of Bitcoin as pure freedom, so in a way this would make sense for its origin. But trusting the algorithmic workings of a hacking community for  what is now by investors seen as a very real object in the currency market, for me does spark concerns. More so are these concerns set ablaze with the value of this virtual coin being at over the $100 apiece.

No Monetary Policy, No Problem

If you are loathing of central banks and the continuous tax avoidance cleansing has rattled you to the puzzlement. The trust of your wealth management intermediary is in question? Then look no further!

The currency, being digital is not guaranteed or controlled by anything up to the heavens other than the free market. Hence for tax avoiders and people looking to acquire new safe havens, Bitcoin could prove to be fruitful. The work which occurs within Bitcoin is supply increase. There is cap currently on the currency until 2050, but until then it is up to you to solve algorithmic puzzles in order to win a few of the coins, by downloading ‘Bit miner’

Taxation & Stealth

Her majesty’s government met with figures from taxation to the online intelligence service (GCHQ), in order to discuss the problems of the new coin.

The central problem which the UK government and many others become sour at, is the notion that Bitcoin is near completely untraceable in transaction origin, and is impossible for any governing body other than the demand & supply of the free market to control. These founding rules have made this meeting turn to the operation of most likely bending these two main principles and eventuallz when they are bent, or with the help of some other countries broken, then taxation will be most likely to occur.

Uses and Commodity problems

Currently the uses of the coin movements are speculative and most likely large untraceable transactions, though rapidly online shops and services that are beginning to accept it. The only current backaches are the fears of Bitcoin becoming a commodity currency. The limiting factors of algorithms prove a big issue in dealing with this.

The coin I believe is a great step into the new way the world now works as more transactions become electronic. The frustrations I believe will come as countries try to file away at these, and then Bitcoin may take a turn for the worse.

So as we see that governments try their best to cling onto the new ounces of digital power, how will they send John McLane in, even if he ends up on the wrong side? Possibly using the powers of Tron, he will visualise into an arcade game and with 8 Bit explosions and Tetris pack punches he will fight the new virtual blanket of crime. At least Sir Mervyn King can now breath easily, that these and the remaining issues of monetary policy are not his problem anymore...Please insert coin here^^

How to dismantle an atomic Eurozone, Putin Punches & Barrels of Black

After some weekend back pressure, Spain eventually retracted from their denial, they needed money.However... the speed in which it took, was like a bullet leaving a gun, when comparing it to the other euro-bailouts, which leaves our dear Gothic analyser in pondering. How long till the others start renegotiating their bailouts after Spain's easy cash injection?

The weakness of Europe couldn't be better portrayed this week as the value of currency continues to fall, as the markets speculate the eventual truth...The euro-zone will never be the same.

On Tuesday it was announced that the banks of Europe will now be interlinked into a european banking system infrastructure that could be complete by January next year, though that is to say that we will still be looking at the same Europe by then. The banking entwining is just an extra stepping stone in the pond towards the european fiscal union. But like so many european policies an extra stepping stone might just be delaying, the eventual splash and dampness of the ever so deep Stygian pond.

Taking a leap to Syria and we see the real site of Strategic economics and Geo-political heavyweights Russia, not leaving any breathing space and taking full advantage of gaining more political might in the middle east by the revealing of arms and now helicopter gunships support to Syria. This is nothing new for Russia to supply Syria even before the Arab spring uprising first began.

In a way it is an inevitability that Russia would do this, as it is in a current position of just turning into a fuel supplier if it were not to challenge itself to keeping the fight in its corner of the ring, plus with a troubled financial world it's the best time for Russia to do it's dirty deeds.

At the same time OPEC meets in Vienna to see what to do about the collusion oil breakers Saudi Arabia, that has continued to break its quota on oil production, though as markets predict economic slowdown. Mr Gothic economist can only say, that it could be in your interest to fill up your tank before the week is out, as Saudi Arabia will either reduce its supply; or the others will.

I had a befuddled moment of clarity, where I remember how god had created economists to make weather forecasts look good. In economics we can an only assume; and as a Gothic economist I can only assume the worst, Good day to all

P.S. Do not prithee peace, it shall not be soon!

2025...The period for nuclear & renewable energy

I'm taking a mini break from the EU as the Financial Times this week has been reporting on the nuclear debate going on around the world currently, after the Japanese earthquake produced our second largest nuclear energy industrial incident. Not only that I was also invited to attend an ecological economics speech yesterday where nuclear was condemned (as well as positive economics & monetarism which is really two my economic areas). So I thought about giving my opinion, mixed in with scientific facts.

We cannot smell it, feel it; though we breath it in, it tans our skin, it's in the food we eat; it is there and that is what radiation is, the invisible particles of life. It has been there all our lives, from the sun, the earth, from atomic testing to the medical industry, but why are we scared of it?

My main three points about why people are against anything with the elements, are nuclear waste and nuclear destruction, be it weapons or meltdown. Though I feel a lot of the science is left unspoken, and facts can be larger than words, so here I go at trying to balance out the atomic debate with some economics as well.

The Science
Background radiation is everywhere and the biggest contributor is Radon, which comes from decaying elements in rocks within the earth's crust. Radon is approx 50% of background radiation and gamma and beta from the same decaying in the ground is 14%. 12 % is internal, what this means is we are technically radioactive as we have carbon -14 inside us, not only that, but what we eat has C-14, radioactive potassium as well as other radioactive elements inside. The next is the Cosmic, that's 10% contributed by space.
So...we have approximately 86% of radiation today being non-man made.

Man Made Radiation
The biggest man-made contributor of radiation is the medical industry...12%.

Air travel contributes 0.4%, fallout 0.4% occupational 0.2% and nuclear waste <0.1 %. This is all by the way up to present day factual numbers, from the UN, NAEA.

• NAEA 

The Dangers
I really hate going into this topic as it is very sensitive for me on both sides valuing any loss in life is worrying area for me, but sometimes it has to be shown.
There have been many more and troubling disasters outside nuclear energy, the nuclear medical industry and other areas are much more worrying, here are examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_radiation_accidents
My point here is that medical contributes more to background radiation, though we don't scrutinise x-rays, cat scans or cancer treatment?
And the horrible summary is that I have seen what oil has done to some poorest areas of the planet pollution wise in real life. We don't want to see it, smell it, touch it though we are addicted, that is what oil is for modern society and how many people have died due to it?

The Economics
My main concern is Germany's promise to scrap nuclear reactors by 2020. The funny thing is, to make up for that loss in nuclear, you have to build more coal fire power stations, which actually give out more radiation than a nuclear power station as well as carbon dioxide which then in turn goes in global warming. They are creating more wind farms and other renewable sources, but the energy production of wind turbine is so small, compared to energy demanded, it is an unrealistic approach and is very expensive contributor to the rise also in energy companies increasing their bills, as well as the price of oil being more susceptible to shocks and increasing due to demand and supply.
People right now and in future years cannot afford this until technology in the renewable sector improves and governments can afford to run deficits.

Conclusion
My goal is not to say we should be Nuclear forever, but when you have depleting highly demanded natural resources. A society which is going through depleted income, that will eventually have to pay more continuously for energy. A time where new nations demand more energy, and geopolitics becomes more powerful... To look away from Nuclear is really a scary mistake I feel.

Renewable energy is the future beyond a doubt, within 5-10 years we most likely will have fusion near perfected for power generation testing, and wind energy being actually cheap in a competitive market. That is where the future lies, but to jump on the green band wagon completely does not make sense from an environmental and economic point of view.