January 6 and the Problem of Political Ignorance


Capitol-riot-1-6-21-Newscom-5
The Attack on the Capitol. January 6, 2021.

 

A number of factors helped inspire the attack on the Capitol that took place one year ago today. But one big one was ignorance: The rioters believed that Donald Trump was the real winner of the 2020 election, and that Joe Biden has “stolen” it through fraud. They clung to this belief, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including numerous court decisions rejecting GOP claims of fraud, many of them authored by conservative, Republican-appointed judges.

Sadly, this delusion is not limited to the comparatively small group of extremists who actually participated in the January 6 attack. Polls consistently show that a large majority of Republicans still believe that Biden did not win the 2020 election legitimately. This despite the fact that the evidence against that view is even stronger today than it was a year ago. For example, it has been augmented by an investigation conducted by GOP members of the Michigan state legislature. In Arizona, an audit conducted by the “Cyber Ninjas” – consultants hired by pro-Trump Republicans hoping to find evidence of fraud – actually concluded that Biden won by a larger margin than the official vote tally indicates.

The persistence of the Trumpist “Big Lie” about the election poses obvious dangers. Among other things, it increases the chances that similar violence might recur in future elections, should Trump – or some other GOP candidate – again lose. After all, violence might well seem justified to people who believe that the opposing party “stole” the election from their candidate. In addition, the belief that the opposing party is trying to steal an election might well lead partisans to support similar efforts to by their own party, such as Trump’s attempts to pressure state officials into falsifying the vote count in his favor. Some Republicans are planning more systematic efforts of this kind for future elections.

Why do so many Republicans believe blatant falsehoods about the 2020 election? The answer is rooted the broader problem of political ignorance. Because there is so little chance that any one vote will make a difference to the outcome of an election, most people are “rationally ignorant” about politics and government policy. They spend little time seeking out relevant information, and are often ignorant of even basic facts about the political system, such as the names of the three branches of government. Such ignorance makes people more susceptible to lies and conspiracy theories, including those about the 2020 election.

I summarized the connections in a November 2020 post, in which I first warned about the dangers of Trump’s lies about the election:

In [my book] Democracy and Political Ignorance, I described how belief in conspiracy theories is partly fueled by general public ignorance about government and public policy. Most of the public has little understanding of government and political institutions. They thus underestimate the extreme difficulty of planning, coordinating, and covering up large-scale conspiracies. Birtherism, trutherism, and Covid conspiracy theories are all more prevalent among people with relatively low levels of education and political knowledge. The less you know about government, the easier it is to believe that events are controlled by a shadowy cabal of ultra-competent evil-doers who can skillfully cover up their misdeeds.

But the popularity of conspiracy theories is also boosted by partisan and ideological bias. In assessing political information, most people act not as objective truth-seekers, but as “political fans” who tend to overvalue any claims that cohere with their preexisting views, and downplay or ignore any that cut against them. Much like sports fans, who tend to be biased in favor of their preferred team and against its rivals, political fans are highly biased in favor of their preferred party and ideology, and against its opponents.

Thus, it is not surprising that trutherism was especially popular among Democrats (many of whom hated George W. Bush), birtherism appealed primarily to Republicans (many of whom hated Obama), and Trump’s election conspiracy theories appeal almost exclusively to his own supporters. Particularly in an era of severe polarization, partisan bias has a big impact on voters, leading many to believe ludicrous claims they might otherwise reject.

For much the same reasons as they have little incentive to seek out information, most voters also have little incentive to objectively evaluate the information they do learn. They instead often indulge ideological, partisan, and other biases – a phenomenon economist Bryan Caplan dubbed “rational irrationality.” These dynamics are pretty obviously at work when it comes to many GOP partisans’ beliefs about the 2020 election.

As I emphasized in the November 2020 post and in many other writings, ignorance and bias of this kind is far from unique to Trump supporters or to the right side of the political spectrum. There is no shortage of left-wing examples, including widespread belief in 9/11 “trutherism,” referenced in my earlier post. Social science evidence indicates that partisan bias in evaluation of political information is widespread among both liberals and conservatives, with neither side being significantly better or worse than the other. It would be a mistake for liberals (or anyone else) to assume that ignorance and bias are problems confined to the other side of the political spectrum, to which their own side is blissfully immune. Politicians across the political spectrum routinely exploit voter ignorance and partisan bias –  a problem that long predates Trump. Barack Obama, for example, did so with his strategy of using a blatant lie to sell the Affordable Care Act to the public.

Nonetheless, the persistence of the Big Lie about the 2020 election is a particularly dangerous example of this broader phenomenon. The risk is that it could lead to actions that gravely undermine the basic structure of liberal democracy – ironically, in the name of saving it. That makes it more dangerous than a lie that “merely” facilitates the enactment of a specific dubious policy.

There is no easy or quick solution to the problem. Some possible paths to undermining future elections can be closed off through legal and institutional reforms, such as fixing loopholes in the Electoral Count Act. It also helps that a large majority of Americans reject the Trumpist take on the election and hold Trump at least in large part responsible for  the events of January 6, even as a majority of Republicans continue to believe in the Big Lie. Elsewhere, I have argued that the best long-run antidote to political ignorance is to limit and decentralize political power, and expand opportunities for people to “vote with their feet.”

Nonetheless, there is still a risk of further violence and attempts to undermine elections so long as the base of one of the two major parties persists in this kind of delusion. Breaking that delusion, once it has become widely established, is a difficult task.

“Mainstream” media and public policy experts can continue to debunk Trump’s lies. But, for a variety of reasons – both good and bad – most Trump supporters have little faith in these sources. Many (like most other voters) probably don’t even pay much attention to the details of media and expert analyses of election issues.

Both common sense and some empirical research indicates that people are more likely to accept unpalatable political truths when those are presented by people they perceive to be on “their” side. Thus, Republicans may be more likely to accept that the 2020 election wasn’t “rigged” if they hear it from leaders or experts who are themselves conservative Republicans. But most GOP politicians are wary of angering Trump and the Party’s base. Those who have spoken out – like Wyoming Rep. Lynne Cheney – have faced ostracism from the party as a result.

Today, big-name Republican political adviser and pundit Karl Rove performed a potentially useful service by publishing a high-profile Wall Street Journal article denouncing both the January 6 attack and lies about the election outcome. Rove urges fellow Republicans to join him in speaking out. Whether they heed his call remains to be seen.

In sum, this will be a difficult challenge to overcome. But the beginning of wisdom is to at least recognize that the problem is rooted in the broader dynamics of political ignorance and bias – dynamics that are far from unique to Trumpist Republicans, or to this specific issue. We should also recognize there is room for incremental progress through institutional reform and other measures, even if we cannot quickly achieve a comprehensive solution. In the long run, we should also work towards restructuring the political system in ways that reduce the influence of public ignorance, and empower people to make decisions in settings where there are much better incentives to seek out information and use it wisely.

 

The post January 6 and the Problem of Political Ignorance appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3qSXi1F
via IFTTT

US Stocks Erase All 2022 Gains As Fed Rate-Hike Expectations Soar

US Stocks Erase All 2022 Gains As Fed Rate-Hike Expectations Soar

Short-Term Interest-Rates (STIRs) continued their hawkish push higher today after The Fed’s Jim Bullard noted that FOMC could start raising policy rates as soon as March and shrinking the balance sheet will be the next policy step…

The market is now pricing in an 86% chance of a March rate-hike and fully pricing in 3.5 rate-hikes by the end of 2022…

Source: Bloomberg

And as STIRs have ripped, so US Mortgage rates surged to their highest since May 2020…

Source: Bloomberg

Small Caps outperformed on the day as The Dow lagged with Nasdaq and S&P failed to hold unch…

And today’s Dow weakness pushed it top join the rest of the US majors in the red for 2022…

The S&P bounced perfectly at its 50DMA today…

“Most Shorted” Stocks continue to slide, now back at one-year lows…

Source: Bloomberg

Hedge Fund VIP stocks bounced hard after 2 really ugly days…

Source: Bloomberg

Another mixed (but violent) day in bond-land today with the short-end getting monkey-hammered this time and the long-end flat (30Y -1.5bps, 2Y +6bps)…

Source: Bloomberg

This flattened the yield curve dramatically as fears rebuild of a big Fed policy error…

Source: Bloomberg

The dollar chopped around again but ended unch after tagging Tuesday’s highs…

Source: Bloomberg

Cryptos extended yesterday’s big losses but bounced back during the day session…

Source: Bloomberg

WTI Crude topped $80 briefly today – erasing all Omicron and Biden SPR Release losses – before fading back a little…

Gold was clubbed like a baby seal today, back below the $1800 Maginot Line…

Lumber prices are soaring to start the year (highest since June of last year)…

Source: Bloomberg

It has never been this high at this time of year.

Finally, on a random side note, while yesterday was a shock to many, it was a mere fleshwound of a reaction to Fed Minutes when compared to the carnage in Oct/Nov 2008…

And still there are talking-heads today claiming that this 2% drop from All-Time-Highs is enough to prompt Powell to panic and flip-flop already. Simply put, if he did, it would be far worse an outcome in the long-run than if he actually shows the market he has a pair…

And TINA just got punched in the face.

Source: Bloomberg

Treasuries are the ‘cheapest’ to stocks since May 2019.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/06/2022 – 16:01

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3f0MzN8 Tyler Durden

“Massive Meltdown”: 40% Of Nasdaq Companies Are Down More Than Half From Their Highs

“Massive Meltdown”: 40% Of Nasdaq Companies Are Down More Than Half From Their Highs

In a testament to the narrow breadth of the Nasdaq, and the broader market in general, where as a reminder 51% of all market gains from April through December were just from the five most popular tech names – AAPL, MSFT, NVDA, TSLA, GOOGL – Sundial Research notes that a near-record number of tech stocks have plunged by some 50%, a number that was only surpassed by the March 2021 crash and the global financial crisis.

Roughly four in every 10 companies on the Nasdaq Composite have seen their market values cut by 50% or more from their 52-week highs, while a vast majority of index constituents are mired in bear markets, according to Jason Goepfert, chief research officer at Sundial.

“Whatever the fundamental and macro considerations, there is no doubt that investors have been selling first and trying to figure out the rest later,” Goepfert said in a note and first noted by Bloomberg.

It’s also why hedge fund holding all but the largest companies have had a miserable year, and why as we noted earlier, hedge funds had already undergone some of the biggest selling and degrossing in the past decade ahead of yesterday’s FOMC minutes rout.

“Valuations are at historical highs, companies are raising billions based on fairy dust, and the Fed is signaling a tightening cycle,” Goepfert said. “All of these are scaring investors that we’re on the cusp of a repeat of 1999-2000.”

Tech stocks have been under especially heavy selling pressure since the start of the year amid a bond-market rout that’s sent 10Y TSY surging as high as 1.75% on Thursday, surpassing the highest level of 2021. The carnage accelerated after the latest FOMC minutes pointed to earlier and faster rate hikes, suggesting to some that the central bank became more hawkish quicker than many had expected. As a result, traders were quick to dump high-duration tech shares, whose high valuations become harder to justify in a rising-rate environment.

The Nasdaq index is on pace for its biggest weekly decline since November, even as it rose in the New York afternoon trading session Thursday. A 3.3% fall Wednesday marked its worst single-day session since February last year. However, the drop has been relatively contained thanks to the continued support of the big five generals, which have so far been resistant to wholesale selling.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/06/2022 – 15:52

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3zvBNIe Tyler Durden

Royal Caribbean Shares Fall After Hindenburg Research Discloses Short Position

Royal Caribbean Shares Fall After Hindenburg Research Discloses Short Position

Shares of Royal Caribbean are under pressure after noted short-seller Hindenburg Research announced in a series of Tweets that it was shorting the cruise line. 

In a series of tweets, Hindenburg said that RCL was one of the most dislocated “re-opening” stocks on the market today and said that the outlook for the cruise industry “is far more grim than other hospitality and leisure” industries.

Hindenburg pointed out the company’s ballooning liabilities and share count, saying the company’s current debt would be “extremely difficult to service, almost necessitating extensive dilution of existing shareholders”.

The firm also pointed to increased fuel costs, vaccination mandates and the CDC’s Conditional Sailing Order as headwinds.

As far as low hanging fruit for short sellers as part of the post-Covid re-open trade, Royal Caribbean may be at the top of the list since it returned 3% in 2021, while Carnival and Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings fell 7.1% ad 18% respectively, according to Bloomberg.

The stock traded down more than 3% following the report before recovering some losses.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/06/2022 – 15:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3qSTuxu Tyler Durden

Omicron vs. the Unvaccinated and the Vaccinated


ShotsNewscom

The highly contagious omicron variant of the COVID-19 virus often does an end run around the immunological protections of vaccination or prior infection. But recent data from the U.K. and Canada indicate that these breakthrough omicron infections are much less dangerous than first-time infections in unvaccinated people.

Ontario public health authorities report that as of yesterday, 2,093 and 288 people are being treated for omicron variant infections in hospitals and intensive care units (ICUs), respectively. The hospitalization rate per million among unvaccinated people stands at 532.7; it’s 105.9 for folks vaccinated with at least two doses. This means that the reduction of hospitalization risk for those inoculated with at least two doses is 80.1 percent.

The ICU occupancy rate per million is 135.6 for unvaccinated people and just 9.2 for those who have gotten two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. So vaccination reduces the ICU risk by 93.2 percent.

An analysis by the United Kingdom Health Security Agency (UKHSA) similarly found that “the risk of being admitted to hospital for Omicron cases was lower for those who had received 2 doses of a vaccine (65% lower) compared to those who had not received any vaccination.” The risk “was lower still among those who had received 3 doses of vaccine (81% lower).”

The UKHSA report also parses the effectiveness of the vaccines against both the delta and omicron variants. Two vaccine doses essentially maintain their effectiveness against the delta variant over time, but protection against the omicron variant wanes fast. That said, a third shot significantly boosts the immune system’s ability to fend off and reduce the severity of omicron infections for about 3 months. The good news is that the vaccines’ protection against hospitalization is much greater than their protection against symptomatic disease. And with a booster dose, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization is close to 90 percent.

These British and Canadian findings mirror those most recently reported by the New York State Health Department. It finds that the daily rate per 100,000 of COVID-19 hospitalizations stands at 4.56 for fully vaccinated people, compared to 58.27 for unvaccinated people. That means vaccinations are 92.3 percent effective at preventing hospitalization from COVID-19.

Other data from around the U.S. are in line with these findings. For example, in Greenville, North Carolina, The Daily Reflector reports that out of the 120 COVID-positive inpatients at Vidant Health hospitals, 101 had not been vaccinated; 30 out of the 34 COVID ICU patients were not vaccinated. Similarly, Block Club Chicago reports that 85 percent of people hospitalized for COVID in Illinois—and 90 percent admitted to ICUs—are unvaccinated. In Louisiana, the state health department says that 76 percent of the people hospitalized for COVID-19 infections were unvaccinated. In the Baystate Health system in Massachusetts, around 70 percent of COVID-19 patients are unvaccinated.

Some good news for both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated is that the omicron variant seems to cause less severe disease than earlier versions of COVID-19. Still, given the steep rise in the omicron wave, it would be wise for the medically eligible unvaccinated to now take responsibility to protect themselves, their families, their friends, and their fellow Americans by getting their shots.

The post Omicron vs. the Unvaccinated and the Vaccinated appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3zLqjRf
via IFTTT

Omicron vs. the Unvaccinated and the Vaccinated


ShotsNewscom

The highly contagious omicron variant of the COVID-19 virus often does an end run around the immunological protections of vaccination or prior infection. But recent data from the U.K. and Canada indicate that these breakthrough omicron infections are much less dangerous than first-time infections in unvaccinated people.

Ontario public health authorities report that as of yesterday, 2,093 and 288 people are being treated for omicron variant infections in hospitals and intensive care units (ICUs), respectively. The hospitalization rate per million among unvaccinated people stands at 532.7; it’s 105.9 for folks vaccinated with at least two doses. This means that the reduction of hospitalization risk for those inoculated with at least two doses is 80.1 percent.

The ICU occupancy rate per million is 135.6 for unvaccinated people and just 9.2 for those who have gotten two doses of COVID-19 vaccines. So vaccination reduces the ICU risk by 93.2 percent.

An analysis by the United Kingdom Health Security Agency (UKHSA) similarly found that “the risk of being admitted to hospital for Omicron cases was lower for those who had received 2 doses of a vaccine (65% lower) compared to those who had not received any vaccination.” The risk “was lower still among those who had received 3 doses of vaccine (81% lower).”

The UKHSA report also parses the effectiveness of the vaccines against both the delta and omicron variants. Two vaccine doses essentially maintain their effectiveness against the delta variant over time, but protection against the omicron variant wanes fast. That said, a third shot significantly boosts the immune system’s ability to fend off and reduce the severity of omicron infections for about 3 months. The good news is that the vaccines’ protection against hospitalization is much greater than their protection against symptomatic disease. And with a booster dose, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization is close to 90 percent.

These British and Canadian findings mirror those most recently reported by the New York State Health Department. It finds that the daily rate per 100,000 of COVID-19 hospitalizations stands at 4.56 for fully vaccinated people, compared to 58.27 for unvaccinated people. That means vaccinations are 92.3 percent effective at preventing hospitalization from COVID-19.

Other data from around the U.S. are in line with these findings. For example, in Greenville, North Carolina, The Daily Reflector reports that out of the 120 COVID-positive inpatients at Vidant Health hospitals, 101 had not been vaccinated; 30 out of the 34 COVID ICU patients were not vaccinated. Similarly, Block Club Chicago reports that 85 percent of people hospitalized for COVID in Illinois—and 90 percent admitted to ICUs—are unvaccinated. In Louisiana, the state health department says that 76 percent of the people hospitalized for COVID-19 infections were unvaccinated. In the Baystate Health system in Massachusetts, around 70 percent of COVID-19 patients are unvaccinated.

Some good news for both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated is that the omicron variant seems to cause less severe disease than earlier versions of COVID-19. Still, given the steep rise in the omicron wave, it would be wise for the medically eligible unvaccinated to now take responsibility to protect themselves, their families, their friends, and their fellow Americans by getting their shots.

The post Omicron vs. the Unvaccinated and the Vaccinated appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3zLqjRf
via IFTTT

Here’s The One Thing Traders Want To Know After Biggest “Rate Shock” Selloff Since 2016

Here’s The One Thing Traders Want To Know After Biggest “Rate Shock” Selloff Since 2016

Just how bad was yesterday’s market rout? According to quants at Morgan Stanley, it was worse than every selloff in the past 5 years, including the March 2020 crash.

As Morgan Stanley’s QDS team notes, flows were aggressively for sale post 2pm when the FOMC Minutes hit, with signs of selling from both institutions and retail:  as shown in the chart below, S&P 500 futures Trade Pressure hit negative $13 billion, the most for sale since at least 2016…

and QDS also estimates retail supply post 2pm was the 4th largest for that time frame in the last two years, with most of the retail selling in Tech, where daily supply was the biggest of the last year, perpetuating the painful rotations even as the stress spilled into the S&P 500.

So while yesterday’s selling was clearly panicked, furious and indiscriminate, the question on all traders’ minds is simple: is the rout finally over?

In response, Morgan Stanley’s quants write that whether investors overreacted today or there is more to come will depend on whether yields continue to rise… and if rates do move higher, the drawdowns in equity indices could only be 40 to 50% done if history is a guide. 

QDS calculates that in five prior “rate shocks” over the last five years, the S&P 500 typically moved down ~5%, while right now SPX is only 2% off the highs.

That said, some corners of the market may be reaching selling exhaustion, notably baskets like MSXXCRWD (crowded longs) and MSXXEVSA (expensive Tech) which are currently down 80 to 85% as much as in prior rate shocks – and that is only accounting for the moves since yields started to rise since mid-December (when MSXXCRWD was already down 18% and MSXXEVSA was already down 24% from the highs), supporting a view that broader indices could have more downside than the underperformers of the last few months (alternatively, the trade here is to short the S&P or Nasdaq while going long the most beaten down stocks).

A detailed breakdown of trough-to-peak increases in yields and corresponding drawdowns is shown below.

While history suggests more pain at the index level, a similar picture emerges when looking at flows and positioning where there is a risk of further supply from both institutions and retail from here, according to Morgan Stanley’s quants.

For institutions, QDS estimates systematic strategies will have $15 to $20bn for sale over the next week on the back of yesterday’s gap lower – not a particularly significant amount, but this can build if realized vol rises further (see slide below).  And the continued weakness in crowded longs and long duration Tech (MSXXCRWD -6% YTD, MSXXUPT -11%, MSXXEVSA -12%) is a drag on HF P/L, where according to Goldman, hedge funds had already undergone some of the biggest selling (and degrossing) in the past decade ahead of the FOMC minutes.

This matters because as QDS notes, the early year hits to P/L are having a big impact on sentiment and investors’ likelihood of adding or even holding risk, particularly coming off the poor alpha of 2021. This leaves Morgan Stanley concerned about overall equity exposures having to come down, particularly given that US L/S nets came into today in the 70th %ile per the MS PB Content Team even while grosses are at a relatively light 36th 5-year percentile.

What about retail traders? Here, flows have been choppy: Tuesday was a strong buy day but retail was light both today and Monday.  This comes on the back of the lightest buying in December since March 2020 (and all of the buying was in ETFs while stocks have been for sale), plus negative P/L in many names retail is active in.

And while retail flows can be volatile and could quickly turn positive again – after all JPM’s Marko Kolanovic has often turned bullish expecting strong retail inflows –  so far retail flows are not following the normal strong January seasonality, which to MS suggests retail will be slower to buy this dip than they have been historically.

One place where there was a surprisingly calm response was in vol: despite the sharp spot moves lower after the Minutes, implied volatility was relatively well behaved, and VIX rose just 2.82 points, relatively in-line with the normal 1.5x ratio of VIX moves vs SPX returns.  One reason for this is that market makers remain short downside vega, a byproduct of cliquet flows, but end user demand for volatility was relatively light so those short vega positions weren’t squeezed. According to QDS, for vol to gap higher the market will likely need sharper moves lower to force a scramble from investors to buy hedges. For now dealer long gamma balances which remain > $5bn / 1% help cushion against sharper moves, but as seen several times last year, that gamma can evaporate quickly in a down market.

Putting it all together, Morgan Stanley’s QDS says that much will depend on what yields do going forward but at this stage its base case is for modest further downside in SPX and NDX over the next ~2 weeks, and believes that rallies should be sold: “The Fed is steadfast in telegraphing a hawkish tone which is unlikely to change in the very near-term, while there is little in terms of positive catalysts for investors to latch on to” according to the MS quants, which also note that “earnings may provide some respite if growth proves strong enough to pair off against the Fed’s hawkishness (but isn’t too strong…), but again that is still several weeks away.”

That leaves technical and positioning to play a larger role near-term, and given the negative P/L to start the year, it may be easier for investors (both institutional and retail) to sell rather than buy.
 
Finally, the QDS desk notes that while near-term technicals are worrisome, returning to the impact of prior rate spikes on equities, the bank notes that all of those events were relatively brief, and also had relatively modest impact on stocks (with the exception of 4Q18, which also coincided with slowing growth expectations and was followed by rate cuts). 

So unless growth quickly slows at the same time, QDS expects similar modest drawdowns as equities absorb this rate shock as well, and hence continues to favor put spreads in SPX or NDX to hedge downside over the next few weeks. On the other hand, a slowdown now appears increasingly likely since the US consumer is once again largely tapped out (most if not all excess savings for the middle class have been spent) and we expect this to materialize in economic data, forcing the Fed to comprehensively rethink its tightening bias.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/06/2022 – 15:21

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/33bFc2E Tyler Durden

Bitcoin Doesn’t Care About Your College Degree


8142689_thumbnail

“When you have the federal reserve, you have something that’s not auditable, right? It’s a monetary system that is completely opaque to everybody,” says Jimmy Song, an author, podcaster, and computer programmer who runs two-day seminars all over the world training coders to work in the bitcoin industry. “With bitcoin, you have the ability to actually go audit this stuff yourself, and this is what I’m teaching to my students.”

Song’s course, Programming Blockchain, is a 16-hour seminar consisting of lectures and hands-on exercises. He used to teach the same material as part of a semester-long course at the University of Texas at Austin. “When I was teaching that one semester, I had some pretty brilliant…grad students in electrical engineering, computer science, and business,” he says. But they didn’t have the same drive and motivation as his seminar students, who are paying out of pocket just to learn. The UT-Austin students “cared very much about their grades and…getting the right credential.”

New Zealand native Rigel Walshe took Song’s seminar in Australia in 2018 when he was changing careers. An ex-cop, he got interested in bitcoin thanks to the Silk Road, the “dark web” e-commerce site that allowed users to buy drugs, or pretty much anything else, until it was shut down in 2014. Silk Road users paid for their black market goods with bitcoin, and the website was essential in bootstrapping the bitcoin network in its early years.

The Silk Road “operated for over two years, right under the noses of American law enforcement agencies, and there wasn’t anything they could do about it,” Walshe says. “I just don’t think most people really comprehended just how big of a deal that was.”

Today Walshe works as a software developer at the online exchange Swan Bitcoin, which he describes as a “dream job.”

In addition to teaching and writing, Song contributes to “Bitcoin Core,” an open-source project for researching, testing, and upgrading the software that people all over the world use to connect to this decentralized monetary network.

Anyone can participate in the process of submitting and reviewing new code, no matter who they are, where they live, or what degrees they hold. Since bitcoin is open-source software, the rules governing how it functions are also fully transparent.

Walshe and Song say that this spirit of radical transparency and emphasis on demonstrated skill over credentialism are central to what they love about bitcoin. “Anyone can create anything,” Walshe says. “All the code and all the information you need is there for free online, [and] anyone anywhere in the world can read that and participate.”

Reason sat down with Jimmy Song in October at the 2021 Oslo Freedom Forum, which brought the human rights community together with the bitcoin community for a two-day conference in Miami. We talked about his recent book, Thank God for Bitcoin: The Creation, Corruption and Redemption of Money, about his disdain for traditional education, and the ways he thinks bitcoin complements Christian theology.

Written, shot, and produced by John Osterhoudt. Additional Graphics by Lex Villena.

The post Bitcoin Doesn't Care About Your College Degree appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3pZuCEV
via IFTTT

Watch: CNN Medical Ethics ‘Expert’ Calls For Denying Health Insurance To Unvaccinated “Jerks”

Watch: CNN Medical Ethics ‘Expert’ Calls For Denying Health Insurance To Unvaccinated “Jerks”

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

This is CNN. The network wheeled out professor of bioethics Arthur Caplan Wednesday who called for a raft of extreme actions to be taken against the unvaccinated, including denying them the right to buy affordable medical insurance, and increasing hospital bills.

Caplan declared that the time has come to “shame and blame” the unvaccinated and “penalize” them for not taking COVID shots.

We’re fighting a war and need all hands on deck. I don’t want to reject those who still haven’t done the right thing. I’ll condemn them. I’ll shame them. I’ll blame them, but I don’t want to exclude them,” Caplan stated, adding “we can’t write them off. We can penalize them more.”

“We can say you will have to pay more on your hospital bill. You can’t get life insurance or disability insurance at affordable rates if you aren’t vaccinated,” the medical ethics ‘expert’ proclaimed.

“Those companies should not treat us as equals in terms of what the financial burdens are that the disease imposes,” he continued.

Caplan also stated that the strategy should be to “shift the moral ground” against those who cite “autonomy, and liberty” as a reason for choosing not to take vaccines.

“We’ve got to start praising people who do the right thing (by getting vaccinated). Not saying, well, there’s a tradeoff of values. Some people are going to help their neighbor[,] orient toward the community, try to protect one another. And then there are going to be jerks who aren’t going to do that.”

CNN anchor John Berman responded, “It’s the unvaccinated who aren’t wearing masks. It’s the unvaccinated who aren’t social distancing. It’s the unvaccinated going to crowded indoor events.”

“So there’s this bizarre irony where the ones who are behaving are the ones being told to behave 10 times more so,” the host further complained.

Watch:

The comments dovetail with those of a leftist reporter who asked White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki Wednesday “Why hasn’t the president focused more on scolding the unvaccinated?”

The discussion arose after comments made by French President Emmanuel Macron, who vowed to “piss off” unvaccinated “non-citizens” as much as possible by limiting their freedoms and coercing them into taking shots.

Of course, all of this ‘punish the unvaccinated’ rhetoric completely ignores the fact that the vaccinated are also spreading the virus, particularly the newest varient, as noted by former White House COVID task force czar Brett Giroir.

“I think it’s a disservice to say it’s just … the unvaccinated because it’s telling the vaccinated that you don’t have a problem, you’re not subject to Omicron and that’s false,” Giroir stated.

He continued, “It’s not only incorrect information, I think it’s doing a disservice to public health by blaming it on the unvaccinated people.”

“This is a problem we all have to face … vaccinated unvaccinated, we need to get our booster, we need to have plans that if we do get sick, particularly in a high-risk group, that we can get antibodies or we can get those oral antiviral therapies.”

Watch:

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 01/06/2022 – 15:01

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3n5BDCn Tyler Durden

Bitcoin Doesn’t Care About Your College Degree


8142689_thumbnail

“When you have the federal reserve, you have something that’s not auditable, right? It’s a monetary system that is completely opaque to everybody,” says Jimmy Song, an author, podcaster, and computer programmer who runs two-day seminars all over the world training coders to work in the bitcoin industry. “With bitcoin, you have the ability to actually go audit this stuff yourself, and this is what I’m teaching to my students.”

Song’s course, Programming Blockchain, is a 16-hour seminar consisting of lectures and hands-on exercises. He used to teach the same material as part of a semester-long course at the University of Texas at Austin. “When I was teaching that one semester, I had some pretty brilliant…grad students in electrical engineering, computer science, and business,” he says. But they didn’t have the same drive and motivation as his seminar students, who are paying out of pocket just to learn. The UT-Austin students “cared very much about their grades and…getting the right credential.”

New Zealand native Rigel Walshe took Song’s seminar in Australia in 2018 when he was changing careers. An ex-cop, he got interested in bitcoin thanks to the Silk Road, the “dark web” e-commerce site that allowed users to buy drugs, or pretty much anything else, until it was shut down in 2014. Silk Road users paid for their black market goods with bitcoin, and the website was essential in bootstrapping the bitcoin network in its early years.

The Silk Road “operated for over two years, right under the noses of American law enforcement agencies, and there wasn’t anything they could do about it,” Walshe says. “I just don’t think most people really comprehended just how big of a deal that was.”

Today Walshe works as a software developer at the online exchange Swan Bitcoin, which he describes as a “dream job.”

In addition to teaching and writing, Song contributes to “Bitcoin Core,” an open-source project for researching, testing, and upgrading the software that people all over the world use to connect to this decentralized monetary network.

Anyone can participate in the process of submitting and reviewing new code, no matter who they are, where they live, or what degrees they hold. Since bitcoin is open-source software, the rules governing how it functions are also fully transparent.

Walshe and Song say that this spirit of radical transparency and emphasis on demonstrated skill over credentialism are central to what they love about bitcoin. “Anyone can create anything,” Walshe says. “All the code and all the information you need is there for free online, [and] anyone anywhere in the world can read that and participate.”

Reason sat down with Jimmy Song in October at the 2021 Oslo Freedom Forum, which brought the human rights community together with the bitcoin community for a two-day conference in Miami. We talked about his recent book, Thank God for Bitcoin: The Creation, Corruption and Redemption of Money, about his disdain for traditional education, and the ways he thinks bitcoin complements Christian theology.

Written, shot, and produced by John Osterhoudt. Additional Graphics by Lex Villena.

The post Bitcoin Doesn't Care About Your College Degree appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3pZuCEV
via IFTTT