What We Learned on Reddit: Will New York Squash Bitcoin?

On Thursday, New York State's top financial regulator, Benjamin Lawsky, hosted a two-hour "Ask Me Anything" chat on Reddit to provide "a window" into some of his thinking on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Last month, LawskyBenjamin Lawsky on Reddit ||| hosted a two-day fact-finding hearing on the topic, and New York State will likely come out with new regulations later this year. "Right now, the regulation of the virtual currency industry is still akin to the Wild West," Lawsky said in his opening remarks at the January 28th hearing. "That lack of regulation is simply not tenable for the long-term."

In Thursday's Reddit chat, Lawsky reiterated his view that the government needs to step in to combat illegal uses of cryptocurrencies. He also expressed an appreciation for Bitcoin's potential to drive innovation. For example, when asked what Bitcoin could mean for banking in the developing world, Lawsky replied:

I think this is an extremely exciting aspect of Bitcoin that holds huge potential. Many people don't realize how so many parts of our world do not have modern banking systems. Separately, Bitcoin holds the potential to bring the costs of international transactions way down. That could be huge for the thousands and thousands of New Yorkers who today send money back to their families in their home countries at great expense.

The best questions came from Bruce Fenton, the founder of the investment firm Atlantic Financial and a self-described "Bitcoin fanatic." Fenton asked Lawsky to clarify one of his more controversial statements at the regulatory hearing in January:

[Y]ou said "The choice for the regulators is: permit money laundering on the one hand, or permit innovation on the other, and we’re always going to choose squelching the money laundering first. It’s not worth it to society to allow money laundering and all of the things it facilitates to persist in order to permit 1000 flowers to bloom on the innovation side.” To be honest this statement is rather concerning .....do you really mean this?...Couldn't you stop a great deal of money laundering tomorrow by simply regulating all the existing Wall Street banks out of existence?

Lawsky responded by backing away from his statement: "I was giving a hypothetical at the hearing that used a very stark choice in order to underscore how important it is for all of us that we get the balance right and ensure that we have appropriate bsa-aml protections in place while at the same time not stifling innovation."

Then Fenton asked:

The UN states that over a trillion dollars per year is laundered through mainstream financial systems....over 100 times the size of all Bitcoin in existence....is it worth so much effort to regulate a new fledging technology which could create jobs compared to focus[ing] on existing banking systems?

Lawsky responded that "the two aren't mutually exclusive."

When "TeamCoinMKT" asked: "How do you plan on balancing the need for [a] regulatory framework with allowing entrepreneurship within the digital currency space to flourish?" Lawsky responded: "That's the million dollar question we wrestle with everyday."

How he plans to strike that balance? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • RishJoMo||

    Those idiot New Yorkers need to mind their own business.
    Hi,

    www.Anon-Works.com

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Look, anonbot, sometimes you jsut have to roll with it.

  • Almanian!||

    Wow. Jack Frapp is not gonna like that one bit.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Is he the guy who could eat no fat?

  • General Butt Naked||

    HA!

    Fist takes the weekend off and has his spot taken by a lousy ad-bot. Serves him right.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Firsting a weekend thread is like kissing your sister.

  • General Butt Naked||

    What's like making out with your mom, because that's what I'm doing?

  • ||

    Well it beats making out with Epi's mom.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "That lack of regulation is simply not tenable for the long-term."

    Freedom. Horrible, horrible freedom.

  • LarryA||

    Must! Have! Control!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, whenever they say wild wild west like it's a bad thing you know a little Mussolini is talking. That always mean's anything they don't have absolute power over. Frickin' prick.

  • GroundTruth||

    Spoken like a true fascist.

  • UnCivilServant||

    +1 I was going to say that.

  • SweatingGin||

    "The choice for the regulators is: permit money laundering on the one hand, or permit innovation on the other, and we’re always going to choose squelching the money laundering first.

    I was looking for that quote last month after catching it watching the hearing. This guy thinks he is being a moderate, but he sounds like a Randian villain.

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    When I say things like that, people call me names. The very nicest comments accuse me of hyperbole.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I think the rest of the quote is even worse:

    It’s not worth it to society to allow money laundering and all of the things it facilitates to persist in order to permit 1000 flowers to bloom on the innovation side.

    He'll grind progress to a halt if it means he can succeed in punishing those that trade without his approval. And all for society's supposed benefit, though he doesn't elucidate how the cost of stifling innovation for reduced laundering is a net benefit to us.

  • GroundTruth||

    +1

  • Sevo||

    "It’s not worth it to society to allow money laundering and all of the things it facilitates to persist"

    Uh, "money laundering" is what the prosecutors nail someone with when they can't find anything else.
    I'd say it's to society's advantage to wipe "money laundering" off the books and make the prosecutors do the job they're paid for.
    So, no, there is no 'trade off' here.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    He's like every other statist, closeted or out in the open: that which has not yet come to pass is irrelevant. I've tried arguing by asking at which point in the past would they have clamped down as they want now, at which point would they have gladly traded progress for stasis, and there is no answer. But because tomorrow's progress is unseen, it is unworthy of consideration.

  • Jerryskids||

    It’s not worth it to society to allow money laundering and all of the things it facilitates to persist in order to permit 1000 flowers to bloom on the innovation side.

    I don't know that I've ever seen a more nakedly statist statement than that. Who are you to decide if it is or is not worth it to society? How about we throw it out there in the marketplace and just see whether or not society decides it's worth it? My guess is that society doesn't give a rats ass about money-laundering - it's the State that finds untaxed and unregulated commerce so abhorrent.

  • ||

    Pretty sure the state of New York can't regulate Bitcoin for the whole world.

    The aragance of it all is appalling.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Many Top Men from CA would agree.

  • Agammamon||

    Many Top Men in CA have found that their attempts to regulate the world fail when manufacturers just make a separate model for CA and charge more for it.

  • Sevo||

    They also find that there are fewer jobs in CA than there were.
    Except for the cronies at, oh, Tesla.

  • ||

    Tesla really turned themselves around. First the EPA gives them a huge ticket for not doing emissions tests.

    Why would an electric car need emmisions tests? you might ask. Well let me tell you.

    Cuz Democrats need money.

    So Tesla pays the ticket and pays off some democrats and the next thing you know they are swimming in government grants, government subsidies and government loans.

    Really a class A company for inovation.

  • Ted S.||

    Except for the cronies at, oh, Tesla the next Solyndra.

  • Ted S.||

    (There probably should have been a snarky "fixed it for you" comment appended, but I didn't intend to add anything else.)

  • newshutz||

    When they remake "Back to the Future", the time machine will be a Tesla

  • Paul.||

    Many Top Men in CA have found that their attempts to regulate the world fail when manufacturers just make a separate model for CA and charge more for it.

    To CA Top Men, that's a success.

  • ||

    I think what is missing here is simply looking at New York and its interests.

    This is nothing more then regulatory capture.

    Lawsky's definition of money laundering:

    Any money that transfered without first going through New York and its banks.

  • The hand that whips the orphan||

    That lack of regulation is simply not tenable for the long-term.

    Explanation needed.

  • Almanian!||

    "Because fuck you, that's why! Next question?"

  • The hand that whips the orphan||

    I love how they're so comfortable now throwing statements like that out there as though it's just self-evidently obvious.

    Libertarians need to start doing that, just nonchalantly during an interview throw in "Yea we should abolish all drugs and cut government spending by 50%", and just blow off the interviewer like they're some kind of crazy extremist for questioning it. It'll get people accustomed to the rhetoric and treating it as though it's not insane.

  • Cytotoxic||

    This is my MO to the letter. It helps that I'm an insensitive asshole. This is how you desensitize the public to your ideas and make 'more reasonable' semi-libertarians palatable. Like the relationship between 'extreme' Greenpeace and 'reasonable' Sierra Club.

  • GroundTruth||

    Oooo, thank you for that comparison between the Green Terrorists (Greenpeace) and the Green Statists (Sierra Club). I just had to stifle my laughter before I started choking.

    Well phrased!

  • C. Anacreon||

    John Muir's home is a National Historic Site just a few minutes from where we live; we visited it last weekend. It was a bit difficult to read the laudatory display about how he was the first president of the Sierra Club, seeing what they have become from their noble initial goals of such things as creating national parks like Yosemite.

    Interesting sidebar -- if you look out Muir's bedroom window you have a spectacular view of a Chevron station. Savor the irony.

  • playa manhattan||

    Weird. There wasn't a Chevron station there last time I went. But that was a lifetime ago.

  • SForza||

    Weird. His home is a few minutes from us, too. The local hero worship of him annoys me, much as the hero worship of Jefferson used to annoy me when I lived in Charlottesville.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I guess the possibility of it occurring to you that it just might turn off the public to your ideas and any like it altogether is cut off by your first and second sentences.

  • Cytotoxic||

    We wouldn't want to offend anybody like the hard left did in the 1960s and has done since. Look at how little progress they've made!

    I should have figured the Area Concern Troll would be like a moth the flaming brilliance of my post.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I would say the hard left's antics in the 1960's is why so many more people identify as conservatives as liberals, and why the rather dominant FDR coalition has been shattered.

    Offending people rarely wins them over, but if, as you say, it is just your nature I guess I am not going to convince you otherwise with any actual argument or observation.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You don't have any actual argument or observation, as usual. Environmentalism in particular was advanced by the good cop-bad cop routine played by 'reasonable' and 'extreme' types respectively. Changing the culture requires breaking what people consider 'normal' versus beyond the pale. Have fun being lame.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    My argument and observation was a general one-offending people rarely wins them over, and a specific one-the antics of the hard left made this a relatively conservative country in terms of self identification.

    But keep raging against the machine there!

  • ||

    While its true that it rarely wins them over, it also makes someone who comes along and says "let's reschedule marihuana and cut spending by 10%" sound downright reasonable.

  • SForza||

    Hey Bo, fuck off!

    There, did that win you over?

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    I think both sides have good points here. There's a reason Milton Friedman was always decent and fair to opponents when making the case for libertarianism. People shut down when you yell or are generally awful to them. But if you don't stretch the limits, reasonable positions are going to seem extreme.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You can be as pleasant as Friedman while advocating extreme ideas. BCE is beating a strawman.

  • Agammamon||

    Because if *this* can be done without regulation - imagine what the proles might want to do next!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Opening up banks in and making loans from their own garages?

  • ||

    The Horror!

  • CE||

    When all you have is a hammer...

  • Almanian!||

    NY just keeps giving people like me more reasons not to visit, much less move there.

    Really, guys, you can stop! We know NY state is a statist paradise - and NYC all that and more! No additional jack bootedness needed! Really!

  • ||

    NY just keeps giving people like me more reasons not to visit, much less move there.

    Actually it makes me want to close any accounts i have with banks that operate in NY.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Argument by assertion

    This may be the singular tragedy of the Obama administration. Five years later, it is clear to all fair-minded economists that the stimulus did work, and that it did enormous good for the economy and for tens of millions of people. But because it fell short of its goals, and was roundly ridiculed by Republicans and inadequately defended by Democrats, who should have trumpeted its success, the president’s stimulus plan is now widely considered a stumble.

    This enabled Republicans to champion an austerity policy that produced deep reductions in discretionary spending, undoing many of the gains begun in 2009. The result has been a post-stimulus recovery that remains weak and struggling, undermining an economic legacy that should be seen as a remarkable accomplishment.

    The stimulus was awesome. If we had spent twice the money, we could have reaped four times the benefit. That's how economics works.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    This enabled Republicans to champion an austerity policy that produced deep reductions in discretionary spending, undoing many of the gains begun in 2009.

    You see children, things were going great in 2009 and 2010 until the Teabaggers took over and tore it all down!

    And I'm right because just look at the the Great Depression that didn't happen!

  • General Butt Naked||

    Some people say "Thank God for Barack Obama" and I say "Thank Barack Obama for Barack Obama". He saved us from a fate worse than death.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    By the time the Teabaggers took over the House both the stimulus (with the tax cuts) and the ACA (with Medicare Advantage cuts) had already passed.

    Teabaggers rival the OWS idiots in bluster but not in brevity.

  • ||

    By what measure was the stimulus a success?

    A blind dog could tell you how it wasn't.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Annualized GDP for the two previous quarters was -8.9% and -6.2% just befroe the stimulus. Then after passage it jumped into positive territory and has remained so - now about +3%.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Increase government spending and a measure that includes government spending increases as well?

    AMAZING!

  • Cytotoxic||

    Surprise surprise PB does not understand the difference between correlation and causation and that the former does not imply the latter.

    deep reductions in discretionary spending, undoing many of the gains begun in 2009.

    WTF is this asshole talking about? And I'm guessing it's Krugabe.

  • Sevo||

    WTF is this asshole *LYING* about?
    Pretty sure that's closer.

  • Paul.||

    Annualized GDP for the two previous quarters was -8.9% and -6.2% just befroe the stimulus. Then after passage it jumped into positive territory and has remained so - now about +3%

    So.. the government shutdown worked. Huh.

  • Ted S.||

    By what measure was the stimulus a success?

    If the stimulus wasn't passed, unemployment was going to reach 8%!

  • John C. Randolph||

    the Teabaggers took over the House

    ...and you wonder why nobody will ever take you seriously.

    -jcr

  • Snark Plissken||

    No, it doesn't wonder about this.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    "By the time the Teabaggers took over the House"

    I remember that day. Pigs were flying. Joe Biden had just joined MENSA. Alec Baldwin was teaching his highly successful Anger Management class. It was sunny in Seattle.

    A 16 year old fantasizing about banging a Penthouse Pet is more in touch with reality than you are.

  • playa manhattan||

    By "the editorial board". In other words, another bullshit unsigned editorial.

  • Jerryskids||

    Paul Krugman is the editorial board now?

  • General Butt Naked||

    The legacy of that policy, detailed by the White House last week in its final report on the effects of the stimulus...

    I know I trust this administration to accurately and honestly gauge it's positive impact on history. I mean, what possible reason would they have to lie?

  • Agammamon||

    If we had spent twice the money, we could have reaped *1.26* times the benefit.

  • Agammamon||

    It also frustrating how he simply asserts that the stimulus helped *tens of millions* but then simply ignores how many people were hurt by it. Or even the HUNDREDS of millions that got no benefit at all for the money spent.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Your ignorance is showing now.

    The stimulus of 2009 contained a payroll (FICA) tax cut which went directly to the bottom line of 70 million or so workers.

    No one has been hurt (as of now) by the direct $500 billion of spending because we borrowed that (just like the trillions we borrowed to pay for the Bushpig's programs).

    Will the Obama .5 trillion and the many trillions borrowed by the Bushpigs eventually hurt?

    Only if you are stuck with the bill.

  • ||

    I will enjoy watching the other posters destroy you. Unless they just ignore you, which will also be funny.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    PB, I am not a fan of W. Bush, but you are comparing the trillions of spending he ran up over eight years to the half a billion Obama ran up with the single stroke of a pen.

  • Sevo||

    "PB, I am not a fan of W. Bush, but you are comparing the trillions of spending he ran up over eight years to the half a billion Obama ran up with the single stroke of a pen."

    PB's a lying piece of shit, so that's expected.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    PB, I am not a fan of W. Bush, but you are comparing the trillions of spending he ran up over eight years to the half a billion Obama ran up with the single stroke of a pen.

    Obama inherited an economy in disaster with record bank failures and corporate bankruptcies not seen since the 30's. Just in 2008 alone the US citizenry lost $14 trillion - about 1/6th of all public wealth.

    Imagine that - 1/6 of private wealth was lost in a single year.

    Personally, I credit the Bernanke far more than I do Obama for turning the Bushpig's shithouse around. But so what?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not see what that has to do with the fairness of equating the spending Bush did in eight years with the spending Obama did with a single bill.

    Again, no fan of Bush (I consider the Iraq War & Nation Building Futility Exercise to be the second most abhorrent, foolish thing our federal government has done in recent times, right behind the ACA), but that is not a fair comparison.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I do not see what that has to do with the fairness of equating the spending Bush did in eight years with the spending Obama did with a single bill.

    Not "equating" - I am pointing out the relatively small expenditure compared to the massive waste of the Bush years when the only seeming emergency was those "scary Mooslims".

  • Cytotoxic||

    And I will point out that it wasn't small at all you lying sack of shit.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Again, of course it is relatively small in comparison since we are talking about one program in the Obama administration relative to all the spending in the Bush administration over an eight year period.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    relative to all the spending in the Bush administration

    That is the point. Bush layered on one new spending program after another.

    NCLB
    Medicare Part D
    Home downpayments $10,000 per house
    Iraq war
    TSA
    Homeland Security
    TARP
    the $300 per person stimulus of 2007
    AIDS in Africa
    Afghan war
    Nation building all over

    The GOP went totally insane then - Obama is a fucking Calven Coolidge in comparison.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    PB, according to the information found in the link below the government under Obama has spent more money in any year of his administration than was spend in any year under the Bush administration.

    http://www.usgovernmentspendin.....l_Spending

  • Sevo||

    "Obama is a fucking Calven Coolidge in comparison."

    Man, licking that ass after a shit is really your fave, isn't it?

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    No, Bill Clinton is Calvin Coolidge by comparison. Obama is a Bushpig wannabe when it comes to spending. But he outdid Nixon in terms of sheer corruption and complete disregard for the constitution, so that's something.

  • Sevo||

    "Not "equating" -"

    You're right. You're lying.

  • Sevo||

    "Personally, I credit"

    Whatever the shipile posts is a lie, so anything following that is worthless.

  • ||

    I love that you're such a demfag that Obama gets a partial when Bernake is in charge of the Fed, but Bush gets all the blame WHEN THE SAME EXACT GUY was in charge.

    Never mind that the collapse was predicated on the democrats feel good politics and regulations.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Huh? Bernake was not in charge of the Fed under Bush, right?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Bernanke took over for Greenspan in early 2007.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Will the Obama .5 trillion and the many trillions borrowed by the Bushpigs eventually hurt?

    Only if you are stuck with the bill.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Will the Obama .5 trillion and the many trillions borrowed by the Bushpigs eventually hurt?

    Only if you are stuck with the bill.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "Only if you are stuck with the bill."

    WHICH WE FUCKING ARE YOU STUPID FUCK.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well, at least he does seem able to post correctly...

  • Cytotoxic||

    Squirrels. Fuck off.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Those squirrels just do not like you I guess.

    Must be that offensive personality.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    WHICH WE FUCKING ARE YOU STUPID FUCK.

    I know that, asshole. But Obama has been a tightwad compared to 2001-09 when spending went from $1.9 trillion to $3.5 trillion (where it remains today).

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|2.23.14 @ 8:54PM|#
    ..."But Obama has been a tightwad compared to 2001-09 when spending went from $1.9 trillion to $3.5 trillion (where it remains today)."

    Shitpile obviously has me on ignore, which is not surprising, since I call him on his constant bullshit.
    But notice how Obo is a tigtwas only spending the most in the entire history of the US!
    See how wonderful shitpile's commnets are?

  • ||

    And yet again Obama gets a pass for not reducing spending back to $1.9TT, erasing the bushpigs out of control spending.

    God you are one mendacious twat.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    And yet again Obama gets a pass for not reducing spending back to $1.9TT, erasing the bushpigs out of control spending.

    HA HA HA SHIT!

    Yo think government ever SHRINKS??! !!!!

    Are you that naive??????

  • Sevo||

    "Yo think government ever SHRINKS??! !!!!"

    Here's shitpile's excuse when he's caught with his tongue on Obo's boots:
    'It's not Obo's fault! He doesn't have the power to do anything!'

  • Ted S.||

    If the president doesn't have any power, how was BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!111!!! able to get the country in such a mess?

  • Sevo||

    "If the president doesn't have any power, how was BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!111!!! able to get the country in such a mess?"

    'Cause he has MAJICAL POWERRRS! He still makes Obo do BAD THINGS 5 years after Obo has been in office!
    Shitpile isn't real bright.

  • ||

    So Obama's hands are tied and he can't possibly offer up a budget at the level it was before Bush?

    At least if he did that, you'd have a reason to suck his dick.

  • sarcasmic||

    But Obama has been a tightwad compared to 2001-09

    BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-

    *stops for air*

    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

    *wheeze*

  • GroundTruth||

    Sad part of the above BS is that they can cut the discretionary spending by 100%, and we're still going to go broke PDQ.

    Again and again and again, it's the "entitlements" that need to be cut, massively.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Indeed. We are seeing both parties fall over themselves to undo a 1% cut in veteran pension colas, so what hope massive cuts in entitlement programs?

  • Sevo||

    "Sad part of the above BS is that they can cut the discretionary spending by 100%, and we're still going to go broke PDQ."

    Yep, we could stop defending the world and still go bankrupt.

  • Cytotoxic||

    On the one hand, sad. On the other hand, hopeful, because it means spending WILL be cut. What is unsustainable always ends. Government will shrink.

  • sarcasmic||

    Only with hyperinflation.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No. Canada shrunk government spending without hyperinflation.

  • sarcasmic||

    That's Canada.

  • Paul.||

    What is unsustainable always ends. Government will shrink.

    Not before the gulag everyone who's not on board with the vision or until morale improves.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Again and again and again, it's the "entitlements" that need to be cut, massively

    True.

    I was disappointed to see Obama retract COLA cuts this week but the GOP had ignored those same cuts in his previous budgets so why bother?

    Neither party is interested in spending cuts in reality.

    But many of the Peanuts here say NOT SO! THE GOP WON'T LET ME DOWN AGAIN!

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|2.23.14 @ 8:52PM|#
    ..."I was disappointed to see Obama retract COLA cuts this week but the GOP had ignored those same cuts in his previous budgets so why bother?"

    Yes, you really wanted to go lick his ass again, but BOOOOSH!

  • ||

    Not a single fucking poster here has said anything anywhere near that.

  • sarcasmic||

    Not a single fucking poster here has said anything anywhere near that.

    Quiet! He's got the straw man on the ropes!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Many posters here seem to think the GOP is going to make things better.

  • Sevo||

    Bo Cara Esq.|2.23.14 @ 9:13PM|#
    "Many posters here seem to think the GOP is going to make things better."

    Which is not anywhere close to shitpile's statement, is it?

  • sarcasmic||

    Many people believe the GOP's lip-service to liberty.

    The Democrats are openly hostile to the idea.

    So it's not so much that people thinking the GOP will make things better as much as choosing lip-service to liberty over open hostility.

  • ||

    Tulpa and John don't count as "many".

  • Cytotoxic||

    John doesn't really say these things. Tulpa doesn't either he's just a slavish TEAM RED supporter for other reasons.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tulpa and John and Cytotoxic don't count as "many".

    ftfy

  • MJGreen||

    As I recall, the strongest growth since 2009 came after the "austerity" started.

  • Agammamon||

    Are you tired of that quirkily homogeneous mass of humanity?

    How can you be quirkily homogeneous?

    Do writers read what they write?

  • General Butt Naked||

    I think you pantsed the link.

  • Agammamon||

  • Agammamon||

  • Agammamon||

    Motherfucker.

  • ||

    The first link worked fine for me.

  • CE||

    I really wonder sometimes why they don't just outlaw cash. (Not that I want them to.) More money is laundered with cash than with everything else put together. They must be doing something shady with it in the background, or they would have taken it away from us years ago.

  • sarcasmic||

    They don't outlaw cash because even they know it would be completely unenforceable.

  • Ted S.||

    They could just stop printing money. ;-)

  • Snark Plissken||

    Actually, Sweden *is* trying to do this.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sw.....s-economy/

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Amazon is the worst corporation in the world!

    As with Walmart so at Amazon, there is a quasi-religious cult of the customer; Amazon “cares about the customer,” and “everything is driven” for him or her.

    Amazon’s larding of its customer cult with the moral language of “care” and “trust” comes with a strong dose of humbug because Amazon’s customers are principally valued by the corporation as mainstays of the bottom line, and not as vehicles for the fulfillment of personal relationships.

    The profit motive is bad? Then I trust this guy shall give his book away for free.

    Should these marginal benefits to customers really be purchased at the price of a system that treats employees as untrustworthy human robots and relies on intimidation to push them to the limit, while denying them the rewards of their own increased efficiency? In quantitative, monetary terms, the cost to Amazon customers of a benign reengineering of the company would far outweigh the monetary benefits to employees. But what is the real value of such customer inconvenience when set alongside the value lost with the millions of lives damaged by Walmart, Amazon, and their ilk?

    Has your life been damaged by Wal-Mart or Amazon? Cast off your chains!

    You can buy this dude's book on Amazon, it's linked to the website at the end.

  • SweatingGin||

    Read the opening and tried to guess the site. I figured Jacobin, or something openly Marxist. Salon, though. Nice.

    Need a deal with the author. Amazon makes their business about their low quality robots (workers), and then Salon pushes for a bailout when they go elsewhere.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    That bolded sentence really shows how a leftist values intentions and the right thoughts above anything practical.

    Amazon could cure cancer and sell it for $99 and the leftists would think it's evil because they're motives are wrong.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    *their motives

    I hate making that typo.

  • playa manhattan||

    My life is unquestionably better because of Amazon. If I look at my Quicken spending cloud, probably 10 percent of my purchases are at Amazon or through their marketplace.

  • Ted S.||

    and not as vehicles for the fulfillment of personal relationships.

    Does this writer think I'm supposed to get head from Amazon or something?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I think he longs for some mythical golden age where unionized shops produced happy workers and local, mom-and-pop small businesses fostered community relationships through lack of competition.

    Ironic that progressives are the ones that find themselves looking backwards economically.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Ronald Reagan's daughter Patti Davis loses insurance under Obamacare. A liberal, she is shocked.

    http://bit.ly/1cFJlcb

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "A liberal"

    This is what happens when you raise your children in liberal Hollywood.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    From her Wikipedia profile:

    "In 1994, she appeared nude in Playboy magazine.

    "In 2013, she published a fictional work called Till Human Voices Wake Us, a love story between a woman and her sister-in-law."

  • The Late P Brooks||

    In quantitative, monetary terms, the cost to Amazon customers of a benign reengineering of the company would far outweigh the monetary benefits to employees. But what is the real value of such customer inconvenience when set alongside the value lost with the millions of lives damaged by Walmart, Amazon, and their ilk?

    Was this written by the head of the UAW?

    "Fuck the customer; we should be running the joint for the benefit of the employees. What are they going to do, buy BMWs?"

  • Agammamon||

    Then they wonder, when *every* car costs as much as a BMW, why no-one wants to buy their crap.

  • SweatingGin||

    Regulation in the US for bitcoin is pretty nutty. It would take millions in capital and years to get a money transmitter license -- in a field advancing daily.

    You essentially couldn't start an exchange in the US (without risk of prison).

    Startups are happening in other places, or tailoring business models to avoid regulation.

    There's a ton of VC trying to invest, as well, but a lot of that will be outside the US, too. A lot of VC is afraid to touch it still.

  • Ted S.||

    Isn't regulation for everything pretty nutty?

  • SweatingGin||

    Yea. It's just interesting to see it so up close, and so blatantly having an effect.

    A statist will say that no one gets hurt by a higher minimum wage, or a requirement to wear gloves. Most people won't see the hidden effects (the unseen). Even someone like me, who expects it, won't see it without looking.

    This, though, is something I'm more familiar with. I can see people starting to talk about a business, and then realizing the regulations stop them. I can do so myself.

    It's nutty to see it so close, and slowing down such a fast moving space.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Okay, True Detective may just be in the top 5 best series EVAH!

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    NO SPOILERS! Not watching until 9 PST.

  • playa manhattan||

    I'm watching last week's right now. I tried to bring it with me on my iPad this weekend, but it kept crashing...

  • Sevo||

    Francisco d Anconia|2.23.14 @ 10:47PM|#
    "Okay, True Detective may just be in the top 5 best series EVAH!"

    So it's not quite as good as an Archie comic book?

  • playa manhattan||

    Knock it off!

  • MJGreen||

    You should kill yourself.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    I agree. That Alexandra Daddario chick has quite a rack on her.

    Oh wait, you're talking about, like, the plot and stuff? OK then. I suppose I care enough to keep watching.

    Matthew McWhatever's dialogue is completely ridiculous, though. A homicide cop who talks about theoretical physics?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    A homicide cop who talks about theoretical physics?

    That's what makes his character fucking awesome!

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I think he comes across as a pretentious douchebag.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I actually feel Wood Harrelson's character is the more pretentious and deluded of the two.

    And the amazing thing about McConaughey's acting here is that he manages to straddle the line between being transfixing and self-indulgent. What he's actually saying is pretty profound philosophically and not just TV writer big talk mumbo-jumbo.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Matthew McWhatever's dialogue is completely ridiculous, though. A homicide cop who talks about theoretical physics?"

    It is not as if the character has more than a sophomoric understanding theoretical physics.

  • MJGreen||

    Ugh, and of course, since the show mentioned school vouchers, I can't talk about the show anywhere else on the Internet without seeing people blame vouchers for destroying education or some shit.

  • Paul.||

    It's definitely good.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Okay, definitely agree that this is a season of television for the ages. But it might not be entirely fair to compare an anthology series that manages to snag two A-list movie stars for one self-contained season with a traditional TV drama that has to sustain itself over multiple seasons.

  • Dumbass||

    It is really great stuff and in my insanity I thought googling for some episode reviews might reveal some details i overlooked during my viewing. Instead I found this infuriating crap:

    Episode 6 SPOILERS in link
    http://www.theatlantic.com/ent.....de/283996/
    "This is followed by a titillating and entirely unnecessary nude scene—I was about to use the term “sexposition,” but that would imply some narrative purpose. When did writer/creator Nic Pizzolatto bring in Game of Thrones’s 13-year-old script doctor as a co-writer?"

    the entire beginning of the discussion sounds like some gender studies majors trying to rally the troops against another imaginary slight they concocted. Can't they just check their politics at the door for an hour and enjoy a show with no obvious political message?

  • Sevo||

    OT:

    "CNN says Piers Morgan's talk show is ending"
    Yes, the twit had viewers staying away in droves:
    "Morgan,[...] was drawing lackluster ratings."
    Mostly among equally slimy turds like Tony, shreek and three of their buds.
    http://www.sfgate.com/entertai.....261075.php

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Night kids.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement