Skip to main content

February 26, 2018

From The Economist:
An equity is a claim on the assets and the profits of a firm; a bond entitles the investor to a series of interest payments and repayment on maturity. Bitcoin brings no cashflows to the owner; the only return will come via a rise in price. When there is no obvious way of valuing an asset, it is hard to say that one target price is less likely than another. Bitcoin could be worth $10 or $100,000.
One argument made by bitcoinnoisseurs is that it is a type of “digital gold”. Stores of value are supposed to keep their value; bitcoin, by contrast, is extremely volatile. Its code ensures that no more than 21m coins can ever be created; that sets bitcoin apart from fiat money, which central banks can create at will. Yet being limited in supply is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for having value; signed photographs of Economist journalists are rare but, sadly, of negligible worth. Nor is supply really limited. Plenty of other cryptocurrencies exist.
If the bitcoin boom looks like a mania, calls for it to be banned are also over the top. Regulators are right to watch “initial coin offerings”—attempts by companies to raise money by issuing digital tokens of their own. They are right, too, to warn retail investors about the dangers of a thinly traded market for an asset with no inherent value and scant recourse if things go wrong. But it is hard to see how the currency is a source of systemic risk; by one measure, the value of bitcoin is less than half that of Apple’s market capitalisation. Real economic damage occurs when a plunge in asset prices is combined with the widespread use of money that has been borrowed, particularly by banks. These elements are not yet present.
For those who believe that cryptocurrencies could be the next big thing, buying bitcoin is like an option contract: it might just pay off. For everyone else, the wise course is to watch.

From The New York Times (Brian Selznick on "Which recent children’s books would you highly recommend?"):
Anything by the mysteriously named French illustrator Blexbolex is an event. One of my favorites is called “Ballad” in English. Kelly Bingham and Paul O. Zelinsky’s “Moose” books are great for a laugh, and “Toys Meet Snow,” Paul’s book with Emily Jenkins, is one of the most beautiful picture books published in the last few years.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

February 24, 2018

From The New York Times : We are willing to pay a premium for convenience, of course — more than we often realize we are willing to pay. During the late 1990s, for example, technologies of music distribution like Napster made it possible to get music online at no cost, and lots of people availed themselves of the option. But though it remains easy to get music free, no one really does it anymore. Why? Because the introduction of the iTunes store in 2003 made buying music even more convenient than illegally downloading it. Convenient beat out free. As task after task becomes easier, the growing expectation of convenience exerts a pressure on everything else to be easy or get left behind. We are spoiled by immediacy and become annoyed by tasks that remain at the old level of effort and time. When you can skip the line and buy concert tickets on your phone, waiting in line to vote in an election is irritating. This is especially true for those who have never had to wait in lines (whic...

February 28, 2018

From The New York Times : [Steven] Pinker’s philosophical lens prevents him from seeing where the real problems lie. He calls himself an Enlightenment man, but he’s really a scientific rationalist. He puts tremendous emphasis on the value of individual reason. The key to progress is information — making ourselves better informed. The key sin in the world is a result either of entropy, the randomness that is built into any system, or faith — dogma clouding reason. The big problem with his rationalistic worldview is that while he charts the way individuals have benefited over the centuries, he spends barely any time on the quality of the relationships between individuals. That is to say, Pinker doesn’t spend much time on the decline of social trust, the breakdown of family life, the polarization of national life, the spread of tribal mentalities, the rise of narcissism, the decline of social capital, the rising alienation from institutions or the decline of citizenship and neighbor...