Bitcoin in turmoil?

Anyone watching the crypto market this morning will know bitcoin and ethereum have tanked against fiat currencies. This is likely caused by the issues of a delayed hard fork and rumours that the Chinese market is moving to litecoin. This makes now a great time to diverge your investments and buy up the altcoins. We're seeing less damage happening to the little guys. So who are the players?

Litecoin (LTC)
The Chinese coin has made since great advances in the last couple of days. Looking at the market history though its done this before and really shit itself afterwards. This is essentially a bitcoin clone but with more grey areas. Personally I won't trust a coin I can't find a white paper for. Not the best bet to go with.

Bytecoin (BCN)
The little coin that can. Bytecoin has weathered today's storm really well, loosing about 5% and getting back to yesterdays 80 satoshi, but over time its not made great gains compared to others and this is down to the lack of a road map for any usable tech. It's all been currency focused and no one will use it until it gets a higher value. In saying that it's been known to get to 100 satoshi which is a healthy 20% to make.

Digitalnote (XDN)
Saving the best for last. Another low value coin but with excellent potential. Whilst its taken a hit today its increases over the last few months show it has potential, making it a great medium to long term investment. The developers have been active this year with wallet updates and an anonymous messenger scheduled for Q4 of this year, once that's in use the coin and miners will be in high demand. They've also broken the mold with an Initial Crowd funding Coin Offering, the first of its kind attempt to gather coin from miners and traders to offer to larger investors at prices that won't cause a market explosion.

Government Incentives

"The government should..." is generally the opening of a bad idea. This post I'm going to take apart government incentives.

Lets start with the first time buyers grant 5% rebate on a home up to €500,000 that's €25,000. Sounds great right? Well no, the market reacts to the available funds of the buyer, lenders were happy to give 5% extra and sellers rose the price to the available funds of the buyers. Which is why we've seen an increase on first time buyers homes by 5%, that brings first time buyers back to square 1 and not able to afford houses.

Lets look at the limitations on rent, landlords cannot raise rents by more than 4% from January of this year. Which saw a drastic increase in rent before January. Furthermore it petty much guarantees rents will increase by 4% per annum, in 12 years rents will have doubled. Given wages increase by 2% per annum and people are already paying over half there wages we could reach a critical mass for wages to rent within 20 years. I'm theory the market should stabilise before that critical mass hits, in theory landlords won't let it get to that point as they'll end up in a position with no one to rent to. Unless another government incentive kicks in.

Essentially what we see with any state incentive to relieve the market only works for a short period until the market increases to take advantage of the extra available funds of the consumer. The rules of supply and demand lead to the funds of the consumer dictating the price a product will be sold for, essentially no vendor will price themselves to a point of no sale. This has to be taken in balance with how essential the product is.

Now lets throw on the conspiracy hat. A number of politicians are property owners. If they're in a position to regulate their market upward then they likely will. Even worse they're doing it with tax payers money. This is even further reason government has no place in the marketplace.

A Ramble on Co-ops

A co-op is business made of workers with customers who are members with voting rights on how the business runs, so the shareholder is the consumer.

Having shareholders as the ultimate recipient of the goods or services cuts out some of the dangers I've highlighted before about shareholder based businesses but not all of them but consumers can be sheep like wanting what someone else has and not focusing on what could be, ultimately stifling development. Voting itself is flawed as people will likely vote with the crowd not wanting to be on the losing team. In circumstances where tough decisions have to be made the executive committee will likely have a tough time convincing people or needs be done and possibly lose favour ultimately costing them their place on the committee.

Worker run will hit problems if things get tough for the business, when sacrifices need to be made they won't make them. A lazy worker won't be focused on quality just the sale whilst riding on the back of the more efficient or skilled worker, attempts to compensate for that risk will demoralise the skilled worker and they may end up being labelled a Koulack. The worker will lose when they don't/can't work unless the co-op has some level of personal indemnity insurance which will hurt profits or the worker risks only being paid for what they produce. If sales are seasonal they will risk low income in off seasons.

A successful co-op will still need a hierarchical system of control, executive committee, treasurer etc. but they're more likely to be voluntary which may mean lower quality. Without a executive committee it will fall into disarray and risk more embezzlement than without out but even with a committee there's a risk of embezzlement.

That's the negative down what's the benefits?
As the consumer is the benefactor and the democratic force they have more control over what they can buy and where there business goes. They will pay a lower price for there goods. They can inflate their sense of altruism and feed their ego too.

The worker gets more of the profit from sales. They can choose their working hours and rate of production. Knowing the product innately allows for better sales and gives greater satisfaction for selling it. As co-ops are often require membership to be a customer this gives a reasonably locked in customer base.

I'll argue co-ops will work best in a deregulated capitalist free market but that does open them up to liability for bad goods which will damage the co-op as a whole. In a free market they will be a cornerstone to generate competition, forcing "owner run" businesses to compete on price, quality and first to market products/services. So any socialists reading this are probably frothing at the mouth over this, "B-b-buh worker owned" so what? Any socialist regime has not been run by workers, it's always bureaucrats disconnected from the industry running operations. The workers are just the tool to get those bureaucrats in power. They will regulate co-ops into inoperable circumstances and favor government markets/places of sale over anything that can compete or highlight their incompetence.

Why Corporatism isn't Capitalism

Corporatism
The control of a state or organization by large interest groups.

Capitalism
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

The above are the Googled definitions, I feel capitalism is missing that it should be a deregulated market. That is essential, regulations are made by the government. If you take the power to control the markets from the governments then you remove the drive to have business based lobby groups, only social matters lobby groups need exist.

This stems from a comments socialists tried to make, first about banks being the epitome of free market yet when they deregulated they failed, therefore free markets will fail. Which isn't quite right, they failed when they got greedy and try invent value where there was none by loaning to themselves. Whereas credit unions don't take those risks, when one credit union does take that risk the league of credit unions is able to manage the problem and it teaches a lesson to the other credit unions, keeping them all in check. A capitalist market would have let those banks fail and taught the public to be careful who they trust with their money.

What about intellectual property? What about it? How's that working out for the human race with pharmaceuticals? Personally I suffer from chronic pain and I'm financially restrained this leaves me unable to afford the latest medications because there's no competition in creating them, the IP holder is allowed a have a monopoly. As we see with Martin Shkreli and some secondary level science students without that regulation there could be a competitive market see here for an example. But that will stop people wanting to develop. Not true, there will be a significant period of time between release and another body recreating the product, this should allow for reasonable profits to be made to fund the next round of R&D for the next product, with a reasonable percentage going to the business or business lenders (see here for why shareholders are a bad idea).

Markets operate under natural laws, before you think you've got me, a natural law is not a regulation, it's an observable effect. For example the law of gravity, we don't need taxes going to gravity police for gravity to be enforced, you try break the laws of gravity you fall on your face. Want more examples? Evolution is probably the best place you can observe markets in action, an animal develops a trait that is successful, it eats more or survives better and therefore gets to pass on its genes to the next generation who then have those traits. As they're natural laws they can be observed and people can learn what limitations to operate within.

When deregulation happens development can prosper, a company can release a product to the market if it works out, it does well and others will try do the same either cheaper or better. This causes a cycle of development, constantly driving down costs for the consumer. If it fails, then back to the drawing board. If you don't think that's the case then look at the evolution example above (and stop skipping paragraphs).

What about dangerous products? Let's start environmentally, individuals and organisations will still be expected not to intentionally cause harm to others, as per the NAP If your pollution damages property that isn't yours then you need to pay for the repair. Make companies culpable for the damage they cause.
Health similar to the above if it causes harm to someone other than the user then it could be regulated, that's not to say addictive substances should be banned because people steal to get them, people shoplift clothes for the sake of it and no one calls for the ban of clothes. Essentially it's the right of any adult to choose there conscious state. To dictate someones conscious state is to tell someone how to think. This act of deregulation brings drugs out of the hands of criminals into a openly competitive market where clean cheap drugs will win out. A company selling quantities likely to cause overdose should face prosecution.

To surmise, Corporatism is a system that allows those on top to stay on top when they don't belong there, whereas Capitalism is a system of greater flux that has more room for people to prosper as individuals.

Shareholder Returns Failing Business

This will be a short post. What's the harm in shareholders? Businesses owing to shareholders become focused on profits for a small group of people, trying to make a larger profit than the years before. Sounds like a good plan but that can't happen, there's a finite amount of resources and customers. It can be achieved through developing newer or better products but that requires funding R&D, something that doesn't always have a payoff as quick as needed to satisfy shareholders. This leaves the profit having to come from extra expense on customers and reduction in wages to the producers in a business. Adding expense on customers is a very short term benefit, usually giving any competitor an opportunity to undercut and take customers. Reducing pay and/or bonuses to staff is slightly better, given the cult of business people will find it hard to leave and when they do there will be someone willing to take the job to get there start even at a lower wage. Take out the shareholder and a business may expand slower but is more in control of its direction, its funding could be better supported through business loans, as long as it keeps up the minimum payment they've little to worry about and keeps its autonomy. Leaving it room to develop as a business that can benefit its consumers with products or services they want or need.

Why not co-op insurance?

Short post, a lot of people complain about high costs of insurance and it being forced on people. So why not co-op based insurance? Credit unions demonstrate a market for community based financial based institutions.

The biggest blocker is current legislation (in Ireland) requires an insurance company to have €1 million bonded in the country for the purpose of paying out on funds they may not have. As you know from my bio I'm strongly in favour of market deregulation and would happily see this go, consumers should demand companies prove ability to deliver the service. Without that my following loose idea should work.

Co-op insurance:
The core idea here will be community based. People who join the co-op do it for there own gain and to benefit their community, similar to the how and why credit unions operate. Essentially over a given number of people you can assume averages of what diseases will be prevalent so from the outset you can easily assume an average annual policy cost, this will give a baseline policy cost. Genetic testing would be essential here, this will cause an increase to premiums for the individual but being a community minded co-op most the cost should be spread across the consumer base, similar can be applied with pre-existing conditions. If the initial baselining was done accurately the mark up wouldn't be to great. Why the mark up for those more likely to have illness? It'll keep the costs down for the rest of the group and make the scheme more attractive to people less likely to require the insurance fund, the more people you have not needing the fund the cheaper it is for those who will be using it regularly.

Competitive medical market:
This hypothetical insurance co-op would benefit by encouraging people to find doctors. Give the customer a ball park cost for the procedure they need and keep a directory of doctors but not limit the customer to this doctors. Allow the customer to contact and negotiate the best price with simple haggling, call a few doctors find who has the best rate, use that to drive down costs with other doctors, this could be done by the co-op for a low enough administrative fee but complacency or back handers will happen.

So why not co-op insurance?

Methods of Control: Cults in Business

I write these to help people identify when they're being manipulated. Once you are aware of them you can protect yourself and make your own decisions rather be manipulated into making the decisions others want you to make.

The cult method:

1. Aim for people who feel marginalised, this is easier than it seems, practically everyone feels unique, that there's no one like them and no one really understand them.
2. Use language that makes them feel special.
3. Use words only the cult knows to get them curious.
4. Once they're in, be over stimulating, loud noises, chanting in groups, lots of cheering whooping and applause for the new initiates.
5. Next start degrading the target, make them crave the above praise.
6. Convince them the only support they get will be from the cult.
7. Convince them no one else understands them, this is reinforced by the language used by the cult.
8. Offer levels to go through to improve themselves as a reward system, give them the praise they crave.

Now to go through where these are used, now Scientology would be the obvious one to go for but I think it'll be more interesting to use business to demonstrate this. Six sigma will be the main one I use but not limited just to it.

• Marginalised people: aiming for people under pressure to make improvements. Management are a minority often disliked by those under them and pressured by those over them. The junior employee underpaid and desperate to get ahead. These are prime targets for indoctrination.
• Getting people into these methods appeal to peoples egos, telling them they're intelligent and their position makes them special.
• Six sigma and many other business methodologies are rife with there own words, SIPOC, Kaizen, MoSCoW and RACI. While others like Agile have scrums and waterfalls, which make sense outside the business world so have the hook to get people in.
• Once you join things turn in to a Tony Robbins seminar with cheering and applause for the new people. Reassurance that you can do it if you dedicate your time to it thus distracting you from alternatives.
• Then comes the degradation, convince people that what they've done so far is useless and that using their method is the only path to success.
• Dependency on the method, using the buzzwords show how things can only be achieved using their methods, use case examples from big name brands and companies to convince people their method is the only path to success.
• Support, convince the initiate that they can only use approved websites and reading materials, most of which require membership.
• Support of other members, once the initiate is indoctrinated enough they'll be using the methods language, the only people who can understand them are other initiates, this also convinces others they need to be indoctrinated.
• Levels, most notably with six sigma there's 2 grades. The tests for which need to be paid for, again using language people know but don't fit in the business world, green belt and black belt. The lower level green belt is a continuous certification, the exam isn't standard entrants must study together and develop together, this strengthens the cult situation, the exam then isn't about right answers but about prime having similar answers, showing a group mind not individual thought. The more illustrious black belt is tested the same but on a much harsher scale followed up with regular retesting based on project work from your given business.

Don't be mistaken six sigma isn't all bad and does have some useful elements but so do others like agile but they use cult methods to keep themselves relevant and in businesses, you shouldn't keep yourself limited to just one. I use business methodology to demonstrate the innocuous places methods of control happen. Thinking for yourself will always be more successful, common sense and thinking things through will always be a stronger than someone else's ideals. Be adaptable, be creative and be yourself.

The needless fear of automation

There's a lot of fear with automation going around. It'll be interesting to see how the next couple of decades to with it but the fear is over hyped, the looms didn't ruin textile industry neither did sheet music ruin live music.

Every time we've seen a major change in industry there's been massive leaps in safety and productivity. As we see regularly, artisan crafts remain popular and in demand. Home automation with IoT is a emergent field providing a market for many a start-up. There is still employment available, with any of these leaps in industry jobs have evolved out of what was new, there will obviously be a field for automation repair, work flow development and a perfect opening for kaizen process improvement.

Some benefactors of automation.
Agriculture:
High definition cameras in sheds save a farmer a lot of time in checking, similarly the user of drones checking livestock and searching for lost livestock, combined with RFID or similar the tracking could be made a lot quicker and easier.
Stock delivery:
Most large shops already use this, entering incoming stock in to there point of sale systems, tracking sold goods and triggering alerts when goods need to be replaced, but it could be expanding to when and which shelves need to be restocked. This can be extended to vending machines, using something small like the raspberry pi, stock can be monitored, fed back to a central server, where the person handling stock can download there orders and load their van with exactly what they need. This cuts back on excess fuel consumption and journeys to machines that don't need it.
Retail:
Very few 'bricks and mortar' retailers take advantage of reservations like Argos or Schuh. Whilst it's a natural extension of Argos' retail model, Schuh have blended convenience and consumers want to view, handle and try a product. This is a very simple integration into a shops POS and massively improves the consumers perception of a company whilst helping solidify there place competing in an internet environment.

The automation resistance seems like a reason to bring in universal basic income, UBI a rant for another post. I worry people will cheat themselves out of opportunity being co-opted in to opposing what should make there lives better.

Those who fight change will die out.