http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25617931
Bitcoin Crosses $1,000 on Zynga Move
Impressive. There is no denying that since the conception of the Bitcoin, its value has followed a not so steady upward trend. The road to this value has been rocky, especially after last year's crash from over $1,200. The result of the crash came from China, who implemented tactics and spoke out against the Bitcoin due to its lack of centralization. The response from the Chinese government wasn't a surprise. The European Banking Authority issued a statement regarding the safety and security of the Bitcoin. They basically said that if the Bitcoin holder loses a huge sum or any sum of money, it is entirely the fault of the holder because Bitcoin clearly isn't stable. These statements do have merit due to the anonymous and decentralized nature of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is not regulated, so there is plenty of criticism of the currency, but there is no disputing the fact that it is becoming an adopted form of transaction among businesses. Zynga recently decided that it would accept the Bitcoin as a form of payment. Zynga is an online social media gaming website that releases games on sites such as Facebook. With the news of the Zynga acceptance, the value of the Bitcoin climbed its way over the $1,000 mark. I think that companies adopting the Bitcoin are definitely acting as progressives. They're supporting the technology and the innovativeness of the Bitcoin, but I'm not sure how many of them are actually going to stick to it fully. I have a feeling that many companies will just accept Bitcoin as a marketing strategy and to reach a wider audience, but I believe many of them will just exchange them for money. Reading about the Bitcoin, I was unsure of where it would fall into our country's GDP. It can be treated as an investment. If you were to buy a Bitcoin when it was valued at $100 and then sold it today at $1000 you would've made a hefty profit. Is Bitcoin considered investment spending? Or is it considered consumer spending? It may not have much of an impact considering its only a 5 billion dollar market, but you never know how much bearing it will have someday.
- David Gerhart
Monday, January 13, 2014
The Dollar Will Never Fall to Bitcoin
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-24/the-dollar-will-never-fall-to-bitcoin
The Dollar Will Never Fall to Bitcoin
I loved this article. In our class, we learned about the uses of money and characteristic of good money. This article describes Bitcoin in comparison to the dollar based on the uses of money. My opinions on Bitcoin have now changed dramatically. I like it a lot more after reading this article and understanding how it protects against inflation. In my research I learned how Bitcoin was "inflation-proof" and how it may be the best currency we have seen to date. The latter piece of the the last sentence is not something I agree with, but I do think the Bitcoin has merit, and I support it more now than I did before. I think this article is particularly interesting due to the fact that it relates directly to what we did in class over the past few days and hits on money, inflation, and money supply.
The article was kind of eye opening in the fact that my reasons for supporting Bitcoin were contrasting with this author's reasons. In class we all tended to agree that the Bitcoin was an absolutely awful store of value due to its tendencies to rise and fall violently. We also agreed that it was a fairly decent unit of account if it would be more widely known. It isn't that hard to say a television is worth one Bitcoin. I did agree with the author in the fact that Bitcoin is a great medium of exchange. The author compares the Bitcoin to awesome gold. Basically, the Bitcoin is inflation proof because the "Bitcoin supply" in the global economy will only ever be 21 million BTC. Ever. It will never exceed that. For this reason, Bitcoin is deemed as an excellent store of value by the author. BTC is a solid medium of exchange due to its instantaneous nature and its security. Now, for the deal breaker for many economists: BTC is not a unit of account. You can't easily value a carton of eggs in terms of Bitcoin. For this reason the author believes that the Bitcoin will never beat the dollar. I'm not sure I agree with everything the author says, but I would love to hear what you think.
- David Gerhart
The Dollar Will Never Fall to Bitcoin
I loved this article. In our class, we learned about the uses of money and characteristic of good money. This article describes Bitcoin in comparison to the dollar based on the uses of money. My opinions on Bitcoin have now changed dramatically. I like it a lot more after reading this article and understanding how it protects against inflation. In my research I learned how Bitcoin was "inflation-proof" and how it may be the best currency we have seen to date. The latter piece of the the last sentence is not something I agree with, but I do think the Bitcoin has merit, and I support it more now than I did before. I think this article is particularly interesting due to the fact that it relates directly to what we did in class over the past few days and hits on money, inflation, and money supply.
The article was kind of eye opening in the fact that my reasons for supporting Bitcoin were contrasting with this author's reasons. In class we all tended to agree that the Bitcoin was an absolutely awful store of value due to its tendencies to rise and fall violently. We also agreed that it was a fairly decent unit of account if it would be more widely known. It isn't that hard to say a television is worth one Bitcoin. I did agree with the author in the fact that Bitcoin is a great medium of exchange. The author compares the Bitcoin to awesome gold. Basically, the Bitcoin is inflation proof because the "Bitcoin supply" in the global economy will only ever be 21 million BTC. Ever. It will never exceed that. For this reason, Bitcoin is deemed as an excellent store of value by the author. BTC is a solid medium of exchange due to its instantaneous nature and its security. Now, for the deal breaker for many economists: BTC is not a unit of account. You can't easily value a carton of eggs in terms of Bitcoin. For this reason the author believes that the Bitcoin will never beat the dollar. I'm not sure I agree with everything the author says, but I would love to hear what you think.
- David Gerhart
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Bitcoin May Be the Global Economy's Last Safe Haven
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-28/bitcoin-may-be-the-global-economys-last-safe-haven
Bitcoin May Be the Global Economy's Last Safe Haven
Interesting fact about Bitcoin: Nobody knows the real name of the creator (or creators). We have no clue who did it, other than the person goes by Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin is still very small in comparison to other companies. Yes, an entire "currency" has a smaller market value than many single companies. The value of one Bitcoin is about $78 dollars (March 2013) and in March there were 10,952,975 Bitcoins in circulation. A thought behind the Bitcoin is an interesting one, with the entire world using the Internet, isn't the Bitcoin a step towards a global currency?
What makes the Bitcoin different from PayPal? Bitcoins are purchased using the U.S. dollar, the Euro, or whatever the currency in an area is. The same thing happens on PayPal. PayPal keeps track of things in terms of the currency being used. Everything is not done in the U.S. dollar on PayPal. With Bitcoins, everybody is using the same currency even if they purchased something with euros or dollars. One person in Brazil can buy something from a person in Pakistan that is selling something for two Bitcoins. There wouldn't be an issue with exchange rates. The person simply now has two more Bitcoins. People tend to question the legitimacy of the Bitcoin. It was created by an anonymous person. No one knows who it was, but let's face it, Bitcoin works. There has been speculation that Bitcoin was just a joke that was meant to satire the global economy, but that joke has made people seriously consider its possibilities. the technology to back it has been flawless, so if it was in fact a joke, it's gotten a little more serious. The ideas of global currencies have been explored before with much rejection, but this seems to be working. What do you think?
- David Gerhart
Why Isn't Bitcoin Interesting To Leading Economists?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/11/18/why-isnt-bitcoin-interesting-to-leading-economists/
Why Isn't Bitcoin Interesting To Leading Economists?
I think that the entire concept of the Bitcoin is perplexing. Cyber currency wasn't even an idea just a few decades ago, and now here it is, valued as a 5 billion dollar piece of our economy. The author of the article steps back and looks at the Bitcoin and why it has not been researched much by our respected economists. The author states that the answer to that question is simple: 5 billion dollars isn't a lot of value. If you think about it, that is the same size as a single mid-cap stock. One company. Bitcoin is as valuable as one decently sized corporation. That's why economists don't focus on Bitcoin that heavily YET. Economists are more interested in all of the firms instead of just one, moderately large corporation.
Bitcoin is, however, a currency market. Currency markets are usually looked at by economists. Economically, Bitcoin is no different than any other currency. It will have inflation just like any other currency, in fact, the inflation is actually easier to predict than the value of the dollar because every transaction is so easily monitored. But, it is hard to study Bitcoin transactions from an economic standpoint because the transactions are anonymous in the sense that we don't know what demographic is buying the product. Economists study who buys and sells, with no method of determining that, how can they see what's going on? Bitcoin is still relatively small in terms of the entire economy, but who's to say it can't make an impact someday? That day just hasn't come yet.
- David Gerhart
- David Gerhart
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Brazil debates internet law in wake of NSA scandal
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24899396
Brazil debates internet law in wake of NSA scandal
GOOD FOR YOU BRAZIL. We finally have that country that says stop trying to be a policeman and let us handle our own business. Brazil officials describes their feelings towards the NSA scandal as outraged. They should be. I guarantee you if the tides were turned the United States would not be sitting back doing absolutely nothing about a foreign nation stealing the information of our people. There is not a chance that we would ever let that slide. We would preach how our country was founded off of freedom and that privacy needs to be maintained. As soon as things are reversed we are the first ones to say that privacy can only be pushed to a certain limit, and that we are protecting our people.
Many Brazil citizens are talking about taking their web usage away from US infrastructure. I can't blame them. Would we continue to use a Russian internet if we knew that our information was being compromised? No. What is even worse is the fact that our relations with thought to be friendly nations are now on thin ice. You can't steal information from unknowing citizens and expect to get away with it. I also think it is ridiculous that the NSA ever expected this to stay secretive. When a violation of privacy and promise is happening on this large of a scale, a red flag is bound to be raised in someone's mind. But instead the NSA is sitting idly thinking they would've gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling Snowden. In a time when international relations are so important, why would we jeopardize our ties with our allies simply to have "access" to everybody. Everybody isn't your threat.
- David Gerhart
Many Brazil citizens are talking about taking their web usage away from US infrastructure. I can't blame them. Would we continue to use a Russian internet if we knew that our information was being compromised? No. What is even worse is the fact that our relations with thought to be friendly nations are now on thin ice. You can't steal information from unknowing citizens and expect to get away with it. I also think it is ridiculous that the NSA ever expected this to stay secretive. When a violation of privacy and promise is happening on this large of a scale, a red flag is bound to be raised in someone's mind. But instead the NSA is sitting idly thinking they would've gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling Snowden. In a time when international relations are so important, why would we jeopardize our ties with our allies simply to have "access" to everybody. Everybody isn't your threat.
- David Gerhart
The NSA overreach poses a serious threat to our economy
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/20/jim-sensenbrenner-nsa-overreach-hurts-business
The NSA overreach poses a serious threat to our economy
"I don't care if the NSA steals my information because I have nothing to hide." This is a typical quote from a huge amount of Americans regarding the recent NSA information scandal. The National Security Agency basically told all of our nation's information giants that they needed to hand over private consumer information to the government for "security reasons." With this force applied by the government, our tech giants had no choice but to hand out private information about not only American consumers, but also foreign consumers. Apple and Google are not restricted to just America. Users all over the world buy, use, and trust our companies, until now. This serious lack of trust that will come from the NSA scandal will most certainly impact not only our nations information pioneers, but also our workers and eventual consumers. People getting paid by these giant companies are many times consumers of technology products.
In foreign nations, if a consumer "does not like" the product from America they often have another option. Other than a few circumstances, our American companies produced a superior technology product in comparison to one produced by Russia or Brazil. Now that the people heard about the NSA scandal and know that A FOREIGN NATION is looking at all of their information through these products, the foreign consumer may be less willing to buy that product. In fact, with Cisco Systems we have seen just that. Cisco is projecting that revenue will drop up to 10%. Cisco has also seen new orders decline by 25% in Brazil and 30% in Russia. This market increased by 8% in the previous quarter, so it is no coincidence that the drop and the NSA issue were synchronized. With this huge projected decrease in revenue, the company will have less money. With less money, the amount of employees that can be paid to work decreases. When people are out of work, they have less money. When people have less money, they don't buy as many things. When people don't buy as many things, businesses have less money. Attention businesses and consumers: don't have less money. By not allowing the NSA to continue its power search, we can protect big business and save billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.
FYI - Yes, that was a very bad attempt at a Geico advertisement in case you caught on.
- David Gerhart
The NSA overreach poses a serious threat to our economy
"I don't care if the NSA steals my information because I have nothing to hide." This is a typical quote from a huge amount of Americans regarding the recent NSA information scandal. The National Security Agency basically told all of our nation's information giants that they needed to hand over private consumer information to the government for "security reasons." With this force applied by the government, our tech giants had no choice but to hand out private information about not only American consumers, but also foreign consumers. Apple and Google are not restricted to just America. Users all over the world buy, use, and trust our companies, until now. This serious lack of trust that will come from the NSA scandal will most certainly impact not only our nations information pioneers, but also our workers and eventual consumers. People getting paid by these giant companies are many times consumers of technology products.
In foreign nations, if a consumer "does not like" the product from America they often have another option. Other than a few circumstances, our American companies produced a superior technology product in comparison to one produced by Russia or Brazil. Now that the people heard about the NSA scandal and know that A FOREIGN NATION is looking at all of their information through these products, the foreign consumer may be less willing to buy that product. In fact, with Cisco Systems we have seen just that. Cisco is projecting that revenue will drop up to 10%. Cisco has also seen new orders decline by 25% in Brazil and 30% in Russia. This market increased by 8% in the previous quarter, so it is no coincidence that the drop and the NSA issue were synchronized. With this huge projected decrease in revenue, the company will have less money. With less money, the amount of employees that can be paid to work decreases. When people are out of work, they have less money. When people have less money, they don't buy as many things. When people don't buy as many things, businesses have less money. Attention businesses and consumers: don't have less money. By not allowing the NSA to continue its power search, we can protect big business and save billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.
FYI - Yes, that was a very bad attempt at a Geico advertisement in case you caught on.
- David Gerhart
Thursday, October 31, 2013
NSA Eavesdropping Hurting U.S. Economy
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/9/wyden-nsa-eavesdropping-hurting-us-economy/
NSA Eavesdropping Hurting U.S. Economy
"If a foreign enemy was doing this much damage to the economy, people would be in the streets with pitchforks." That quote was said by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) in regards to the NSA scandal. Some companies working in global technology and communications were forced to adhere to the rules and regulations the NSA administered concerning what work they would be doing. Companies like Microsoft, Google, and Facebook were among many others in the NSA's army of information collectors. Based on opportunity costs, one can see that this is already a hindrance to the companies because their work is focused on something that isn't making them ridiculous amounts of money. The time and effort is taken away from what the companies do best, and it is put towards government responsibility. However, the other economic impact is even larger than the lack of production issue.
Foreign nations don't trust us anymore. Our own citizens don't trust us anymore. Look at the cloud computing industry; the Cloud preaches great security to all participants, but in reality, all of the information can be accessed. When this fact was released to the public, citizens were mad, and they stopped using the cloud. Some estimates predict a decrease of $35 billion in the cloud computing industry. As for foreign citizens, they simply don't want a foreign nation looking at their personal information. They lost trust in companies like Google and Facebook, both of which get 50% of their revenue from foreign consumers. If these consumers lose trust and stop using the products, it is easy to predict what will happen to the revenue of these companies. With the impact that the NSA has on tech companies, it is almost guaranteed that the rest of the economy will be on the receiving end of the financial burdens that may follow.
- David Gerhart
NSA Eavesdropping Hurting U.S. Economy
"If a foreign enemy was doing this much damage to the economy, people would be in the streets with pitchforks." That quote was said by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) in regards to the NSA scandal. Some companies working in global technology and communications were forced to adhere to the rules and regulations the NSA administered concerning what work they would be doing. Companies like Microsoft, Google, and Facebook were among many others in the NSA's army of information collectors. Based on opportunity costs, one can see that this is already a hindrance to the companies because their work is focused on something that isn't making them ridiculous amounts of money. The time and effort is taken away from what the companies do best, and it is put towards government responsibility. However, the other economic impact is even larger than the lack of production issue.
Foreign nations don't trust us anymore. Our own citizens don't trust us anymore. Look at the cloud computing industry; the Cloud preaches great security to all participants, but in reality, all of the information can be accessed. When this fact was released to the public, citizens were mad, and they stopped using the cloud. Some estimates predict a decrease of $35 billion in the cloud computing industry. As for foreign citizens, they simply don't want a foreign nation looking at their personal information. They lost trust in companies like Google and Facebook, both of which get 50% of their revenue from foreign consumers. If these consumers lose trust and stop using the products, it is easy to predict what will happen to the revenue of these companies. With the impact that the NSA has on tech companies, it is almost guaranteed that the rest of the economy will be on the receiving end of the financial burdens that may follow.
- David Gerhart
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)