[permalink]1 Trillion Coin? Wat dacht je van 'decimal pound'!
2021-10-03 21:30
1e12USD
[permalink]
Het idee zou dus zijn om een munt te slaan van een biljard dollar. Of dat nu in platinum moet of niet, speelt geen rol, het gebruikte gaatje in de wet is dat het verschil tussen de kost om de munt te slaan en de aangeduide waarde van de munt niet bij de totale staatsschuld moet worden geteld. In de praktijk kan de VS er ongeveer van uitgaan dat die op de internationale markt vlot extra krediet kan aanspreken, hoewel dat politiek moeilijk ligt, en waarschijnlijk ook geen goed idee is om daar de limieten van te gaan opzoeken. Een vreemd idee, maar één dat misschien kan werken.
Hier is een ander idee — en misschien eentje dat wel al eens in een gelijkaardige vorm is gebruikt, denk maar aan de ECU als voorloper van de Euro — stel dat ze een 'decimale pond' (want blijkbaar was dat een probleem vroeger) invoeren in het kader van hun groot infrastructuur-plan die ze momenteel proberen goedgekeurd te krijgen. Die zou enkel dienen om de grote infrastructuur-werken die er komen om niet alleen de economie te spijzen, maar tout-court gewoon het land te heropbouwen. Dat zijn allemaal grote dingen, dus laat ons zeggen dat ze de nieuwe pond initieel aan $1000 per £1 rekenen, en uitsluitend gebruiken om de betrokken bedrijven te vergoeden. Deze bedrijven kunnen de nieuwe pond in hun boekhouding opnemen, maar slechts beperkt omzetten in gewone dollars om aankopen te doen en lonen uit te keren. Er is een dagelijkse limiet voor wat de staat wil omzetten in dollar per dag, enkel verhoogd met wat andere partijen aan dollars aanbieden voor deze nieuwe ponden. Want als de koers — eventueel later pas — wordt overgelaten aan de wetten van vraag en aanbod, gaat dat vanzelfsprekend gepaard gaan met die vraag en aanbod, al was het om te speculeren, of om risico te spreiden over verschillende dingen om liquide middelen te parkeren. Ik ben geen boekhouder, maar heb er ongeveer wel al zoveel over begrepen.
De beperking is er vooral om de munt te blijven kunnen gereserveerd gebruiken voor het grotere werk, zoals aanbestedingen van staatswege. Ik blijf er bij dat als de volledige economie van een staat ongeveer gelijk verspreid over twee valuta met iets uiteenliggende eigenschappen, dit de centrale instanties een extra controle-knop heeft om de gezondheid van die economie te kunnen bijsturen. Alleen is dat natuurlijk niet vanzelfsprekend, moet dat in een gepast wettelijk kader, en vooral met de nodige limieten van in het begin al duidelijk. Die dagelijkse limiet zou moeten voor het ergste beschermen, maar opnieuw ik ben geen expert natuurlijk. En het uitwerken van de nodige wetteksten is op zich ook al een uitdaging voor zowel legislatieve als econo-theoretische specialisten. Maar ik blijf het me afvragen of het wat zou kunnen zijn.
Nu ik er over denk, misschien was dat de bedoeling van de groene-stroom-certificaten... En de consumptiecheques... Maar toch lijken me die probeersels slachtoffers te zijn geweest van een te beperkte politieke visie. Naar mijn bescheiden mening, maar ik ben geen expert natuurlijk.
Google is too big! Time to split it up in pieces.
2020-12-18 23:42
splitgoog
[permalink]
I've tought and written before about splitting up Microsoft. With the recent lawsuits against Google, there's talk about splitting up Google. But how? My mind starts to wonder. If you would ask me, this is what I would say, based on what I know (which may not be the full picture, but I'm just trying to do the same to Google what I did to Microsoft before, let's see where it takes us.)
Department: Advertising
Products: online ads and banners
Revenue: price per exposure
Let's start with the cash cow. I know there's a bit if 'advertising' tied into 'selling' keywords with the search results, but I'm not considering that in this department. So specifically the online ads and banners shown on all kinds of websites, should separate into something independent. The sweet talk that proclaimed benefit from keeping it tied into the big mix is about being able to offer you more relevant ads, but we know what that means. Your e-mails and search queries go through a farm of computer centers, and you get advertisements for the stuff you just bought. (Or a brand of dental prosthetics you're orthodontist doesn't even work with...) So back to basics, one trustworthy entity you can call upon to fill a side-bar of your website to show a marketing message of some other company (that's not on your black-list). (Or perhaps that is on your white-list, but I guess you would have to agree to review newcomers soon enough or your percentage might suffer, or something...)
Department: Android
Products: anything Android
Revenue: licensing
Open source and big companies are a complicated subject. If we stick to the basics, and perhaps compare to something different but somewhat similar, I still think an independant corporate identity could be the steward of the Android project and sell licenses to get permission to use the Android name, and get a hand on a curated build by the central authority of the project. If you really want, you can fork the project and roll it all yourself, but if you pay a reasonable price, you could get feedback if you're doing it right, get certifiers from the central authority to guarantee you the binding with your hardware devices is just right and is future-proofed for at least a version or three.
Department: Chromium
Products: Chrome, ChromeOS, (Fuchsia?)
Revenue: not for profit foundation
Google once decided the best it could do to be sure people could get the best possible access to their web services, is provide the best possible browser. It took an available HTML rendering engine that was the easiest to adapt (WebKit), an advanced new JavaScript engine that was beating benchmarks by compiling the hottest bits of code of a page (V8), did all the new things the others did also (tabbing, accept more than URL's in the address box), added sandboxing for security and a brute but effective technique to protect against a minor problem browsers sufferd from back then (process crashes, with a process per tab, only a tab crashes). It was a success. It may have been the beginning of the end for Microsoft's Internet Explorer, but it did re-heat the browser competition. It's sad maybe that Mozilla is having difficulty keeping up of late, but the fact that they're a not-for-profit, is something I guess would be a good setting for everything Chrome when Google would split. Microsoft, Brave, Apple (Safari), could all benifit from a central authority to work with and decide over important things about the internals of the generic browser experience. It should keep close ties to Mozilla and web-standards-workgroups, and perhaps even merge. But this may be wishful thinking on my part. There's also a thing called ChromeOS and Fuchsia, and I'm not sure if a full fledged operating system (built around a browser) would fit into this, but it might. Look at Linux, that's doing great as a set of non-profits, but with corporate backing here and there, right?
Department: Search engine
Products: search engine
Revenue: keywords auctioning
There's this story online of an ex-employee of a search service provider, that knew the end was near when fellow employees were using Google themselves. Search for it online, you'll find it. Google cut out the middle man and the search service market evaporated. It started with a thing called PageRank, but what it did was offer better results to anyone's search queries. If you take all the text on the web, and search for bits of text, you're off to one side of the ideal result set. If you think you could catalog all of the web in an extensive category system, you end up on the other side of the ideal result set. (And put a lot of effort in for limited returns.) You could try and build something intelligent that organically aims at this center sweet spot, but remember Goodhart's law. If you succeed, your new system will get gamed. In other words, SEO was born.
So the search engine part of Google living on its own could and should still offer to show 'paid for' search results on the keywords stakeholders select and/or organic statistics indicate as good candidates. Since there's money envolved, the engine needs to be transparent (of the crystal clear kind). In tune with the new spirit, it should be based on anonymity and respect privacy to a high degree. Even so, it could and should still actively promote societal inclusivity and combat (internationally?) criminal behaviour like enciting violence or popular misleading.
Department: Productivity Software
Products: G-Suite apps
Revenue: subscriptions
It will need a new name though. I guess it started with GMail (which itself may be a response to Outlook Web Access) that hit a sweet spot for people in search of a low bar to clear to get started with e-mail, and also with established users that appreciate improved defaults in e-mail handling. (Yes, Outlook has a threaded conversation view, but not by default, I remember it was buried in the custom column sort group view something in Outlook 2000.) A logical extension was a calendar and the rest of the usual apps in an office suite typical attachments are made with (word-processor, spreadsheet, slide show). That it would all get delivered through the browser, now looks like an evolution that would have happened anyway. But it may be easy to take heavy-hitting modern browsers for granted these days. Anyway, their office suite has managed to catch up fast and is almost feature complete with most other office suites out there.
Department: Cloud Services
Products: anything cloud
Revenue: pay for what you use
It takes a lot of resources and effort to put up all this machinery in data centers to churn away and convert network traffic to and from storage. It takes a specific organisation to make it all work, and it's inceasingly done with a distance to what it is you're clients are actually up to. As a provider you've got a set of virtual machines running, and everything everywhere has the hell encrypted out of it. In the ideal case, you couldn't even get to know what you're clients are actually working on if you really wanted to, by design. (Though some find this too ideal.) What I noticed is that much of the cloud offerings out there like AWS and Microsoft Azure, are getting a lot of parity: for everything cloud, there's a roughly similar offering from each of the providers. In an ideal world, you can mix and match to your benifit, but since they're still tied to the data-centers they run in, we're still stuck in one of the silo's unless we pay extra to set up a dedicated link between them.
Department: Research
Products: ?
Revenue: ?
Being Google, the research that's been done ends up all over the place, or nowhere (Wave? Glass?). They start a thing called SPDY (pronounced "speedy"), and it ends up parts in HTTP 3 and part in a kind-of successor to TCP? They're building cars, and also a boat, or is it a barge?
To their credit, it's actually OK that Alphabet Inc. was created as a group with Google as a member. It opens up the endeavours thet get 'promoted' into members of Alphabet of their own for a possible future on their own, or under another corporate parent. One of these is "X", which apparently handles any undefined research going on. Anyway, things like that may be going on in any large young tech firm, so why not out of one of the newly formed ex-Google-chunks outline above.
And I'm sure I forgot some things that Google is also doing, but I think I've listed the most important things here.
Microsoft is too big! Time to split it up in pieces.
2019-04-26 22:41
splitms
[permalink]
The Microsoft Corporation reached a valuation of $1·1012, this could mean the US dollar is losing its value and thus its international relevance, but more probably that the company is positively humungous. Just like the behemoths is has recently joined, it's a worldwide employer, does worldwide business and is sitting on a big pile of cash it's not quite clear even how it could spend it. So when things like this happens, voices speak up about splitting up in pieces. But how? I'm listing just a possible set of fraction lines here through the little I know of the enterprise and what I understand about it. Please feel free to differ, or revel at the level of insight of this outsider, whichever feels most appropriate.
Department: Hardware
Products: Surface, XBox, HoloLens, other peripherals (and what's left of Zune and Nokia)
Revenue: from selling devices
Operating system and out-of-the-box software would no longer be available from a source in-house, so they'll have to shop around like the rest of us, or (try to) go with freeware.
Department: Developer Tools
Products: Visual Studio, compilers.
Revenue: licensing
Do prices need to go up? Will this scare people away? Are the free community editions still possible? And what about Visual Studio Code? There's perhaps even a small chance of access to documentation turned into a payable service, but I hope it's clear that this most probably will scare away an important portion of the public. Anyway, this is where the true legacy of Microsoft lies, if you consider BASIC as one of early Microsoft's first successfull products, and the success of its compilers and platforms going hand in hand with the rise of Windows.
Department: Operating Systems
Products: Windows
Revenue: licensing
As I said before, Windows could do Coca-Cola and go open-source, and what people would be buying is the certified binaries to install, and — perhaps more importantly — a continuous stream of system updates refining (new) features and assuring better security. With an open-source Windows, one could go and try at it for oneself, carrying the full set of risks, and it's a big part of the equation if you're really sure that's what you want. Then again, it would open the playing field, and the few that could build up the substance to offer an alternative with a similar degree of dependability would at least get a fair chance. Don't forget, if this plays out and a few big ones compete like this, it keeps all of them on their tows, and typically will compete in innovative features and cooperate for collective security. Something that may regretfully be reverting in the field of web-browsers now that Microsoft too switched to a WebKit-derivative, and all we've got for technically true alternatives is Mozilla's offering.
Department: Productivity Software
Products: Office, Team System
Revenue: licensing
Microsoft has been accused before of having an unfair advantage from the people building Office sitting next door to the people building Windows, being able to open hidden undocumented features for exclusive use. To their credit, they have been able to disprove any such claim, and have opened up the documentation on both sides about how it's all done, and how anyone could do the same. Still, as separate corporate identities, this would truly open the market, and offer a chance of other players to form a collection of stake-holders to jointly push for required features and revisions the operating system should provide.
Department: Business Software
Products: SQL Server, BizTalk
Revenue: licensing
Much like with Office, the general public gains from having full transparency about how SQL Server embeds with the system. Unlike with Office, this hasn't been as much of a problem with SQL Server, perhaps because with advanced systems administration you naturally learn about the nooks and crannies of the system when it has to perform under load. Also with the port to Linux and other Unix-derivates complete, this is no longer an issue. What may be an issue in recent days — in my opinion — is the current pricing and how it may be employed to push people towards the cloud. I've heard from a number of instances in the field, that it's not working, and large projects are moving to PostgreSQL instead. Sometimes even also with a (partial) move to the cloud (and almost never Azure I noticed). But I could be wrong, and/or this could all be changing as cloud offerings are in continuous flux. But seperating this in to independent units would offer more operability and tranparency, I guess.
Department: Services
Products: Azure cloud
Revenue: cloud resource use billing
As with the hardware division, operation system and developer tools would no longer come from in-house, except perhaps the system modules and libraries used server-side specifically for running virtual payloads and managing the cloud services in use by the customers. But this also means that any services used and access to system internals provided by external providers, would be accessible to anyone else as well. Also as I've mentioned before, cloud offering is relatively new and in constant flux, and I expect an era of renewed interoperability between all kinds of cloud services of all providers. For now all we can do is frown upon vendor-lock-in very hard if we notice it, and only grudgingly accept if we really find no other viable alternative.
Department: Research
Products: ?
Revenue: ?
This is a hard one. If you split the research endeavour into a separate unit, it's not clear what you would expect of it. Research in hardware is important to advance the state of the art and develop new devices. Reasearch in development tools is important because of the constant influx of new developers learning to code and the quality of work we should be able to expect from them. Research in software is important because modern devices keep increasing performance and capabilities, and offers new options for human interaction that need to get developed. So each independent unit may need its specific research lab, but there's still a section of independent research done in the over-arching field of computer use, networking, man-machine psychology, how hardware and software could have less impact on the planet, etc. Where's the business model in this, I don't know, but if we have a peek over the fence, I guess the way ex-Google's X is managed by the Alphabet Corporation may serve as a nice example. Try new things here and there, and if anything sticks, spin it off, and house it with a different company in the group, or let it loose on the world on its own.
Open source is nice, but is the protocol also open (enough)?
2019-01-15 08:57
openproto
[permalink]
See, this is something I'm very very worried about: things like Bitcoin — big public successful open-source projects — have the appearance of being complete open and public, but the protocol isn't really.
When I was first looking into Bitcoin and learning what it is about, really, I'm quite sure this can only have originated out of a tightly connected bunch of people that were very serious about 'disconnecting' from anything vaguely institutional. Any structure set up by people to govern any kind of transactions between them, has the tendency to limit liberties of people, for the people taking part in the system and sometimes also for those that don't. So it's only natural that Bitcoin at its code is a peer-to-peer protocol.
But. How do people that value anonymity and independence from any system, even get to find each-other and communicate to build things together? Well, the internet of course. But perhaps more importantly — and also since long before the internet — cryptography. Encoding messages so that only the one with the (correct) key can decode and read the message, helps to reduce the cloak-and-dagger stuff to exchanging these keys, and enables to send messages in the open. To the uninitiated onlooker it looks like a meaningless block of code, and in a sense it's exactly that. Unless you what to do with it, and have the key — or would like to have it.
Another use of encoded messages is proving it's really you that originally encoded a message. It's what's behind the Merkle tree that the blockchain runs on. That way the entire trail of transactions is out there in the open, all signed with safely stored private keys. The reader can verify with the public keys, and in fact these verifications buzz around the network and are used to supervise the current state of the blockchain, building a consensus. Sometimes two groups disagree and the chain forks, but that's another story.
The protocol, or the agreement of how to put this into bits and bytes in network packets, can get quite complex. It needs to be really tight and dependable from the get-go, see the article I linked to above. You could write it all down and still have nothing that works, so what typically happens is you create a program that does it and test it to see how it behaves. In this case it's a peer-to-peer networking program so you distribute it among your peers.
But when things get serious, you really need the protocol written out at some point. If you try that and can't figure out any more what really happens, you're in trouble. The protocol could help other people to create programs that do the same, if they would want to. This was something the early internet was all about: people got together to talk about "How are we going to do things?" and then several people went out and did it. And could interoperate just fine. (Or worked out their differences. In the best case.) It typically resulted in clean and clear protocols with the essence up front and a clear path to some additional things.
The existence of the open-source software culture it another story altogether, but I'm very worried it is starting to erode the requirement for clean protocols more and more. If people think "if we can't find out how the protocol exactly works, we can just copy the source of the original client/server" nobody will take the time to guard how the protocol behaves in corner cases and inadvertently backdoors will get left open, ready for use by people with bad intent.
Don't panic: Bitcoin's usual pre-end-of-year dip is here.
2018-11-23 00:29
btceoy
[permalink]
Don't worry. The price is going down a bit, yes. But I think there's no reason for massive public panic and the cyber-world's equivalent of a run on the bank. The holiday season is here. Black Friday. We need presents for the family, and that costs money. We may have chosen to put the value of our earnings into this new thing designed especially for that, and now need to convert some back to good old local currency, so it probably pushes the exchange rate a bit down. It may even be a good sign of institutionalisation that automated agents kick in and join in on the selling, pushing rates even further down, dramatically so. But it's best for all of us if that's only a marginal effect. If I were speculating, I would guess it would start to look like a buying opportunity, if I could statistically detect when the bottom would come into view, but I am not. Actually I don't care. But since we're guessing, I guess things will bounce back in January. It did last January. Perhaps it won't get to the same levels as we had up till before this dip, but that's OK. If it's all rather stable for a few months, that would be good, but if it follows real events in the real world, that's also good. It's just normal. I'm not worrying. Perhaps next year we'll be paying Christmas gifts in bitcoin. (Though I wouldn't put money on that...)
ECB should plan to issue a digital currency!
2018-09-18 00:07
nodraghi
[permalink]
→ Reuters: ECB has no plan to issue digital currency: Draghi
Here's an idea. Just an idea, floating it here to see what you think, no concrete plans yet. The internet should float a new digital currency. "Wait, what? We have Bitcoin/Litecoin/Ether/... already, are those not internet's digical currencies?" I hear you think. Well, no. They're intended to perhaps become currency, but that kind-of totally failed. The world wasn't ready for Bitcoin when it hit us, and all the nice plans kind of prescribed to one day use bitcoin as currency, but as the hype and dust are now somewhat settling, it's clearly unfit for that purpose. It's still great at what it does though, and it could perhaps serve really well as something like gold: something that holds value you can buy and sell and will most probably get bought and sold in the forseeable future, according to current market behaviours. And there's the blockchain which it all runs on, it's a great proof-of-concept of a public ledger that some industrial settings could greatly benefit from, who knows perhaps in a slow movement from the fortified castle paradigm to the zero-trust concept.
But as a currency? No. Currency is allergic to strong ups and downs in the inherent value. "Didn't we have all this already, the US dollar doesn't have inherent value as well, since we've let go of the Gold Standard?" Well, no. The price of gold may now be free-floating, but since the entire US economy and a sizable part of the world's economy is running on US dollars, you could consider the entire economy as what's carrying the real value of all those dollars. I'm oversimplifying here, but some big large-scale economic metrics appear to work reversed for the US-dollar because of this. A currency as we know them now also had a central body that goversn both the internal use of it, and the powers that exert on it from outside, other currencies and macro-economic movements.
So here's my idea: because Europe is looking to do something about copyright on the web, and newspapers — and perhaps journalism in general — are struggling, something like the European Union should float a digital currency, specifically to make micro-transactions on the web. And I really mean micro. Listening to a song? Bam, something tiny moves from your online wallet to the musician(s). Viewing a video? Bam, something tiny moves from your wallet to actors, directors, lighters, screenwriters and background-painters. Read an article? Bam, you get the idea. How much? How many articles are in an avarage newpaper? How much does a regular newspaper cost? Calculate back from that to get a good first unit of value.
As an alternative way of payment, it could complement the Euro, and only later move up the ladder if there's a base of users with accustomedness. But to get there some important details need to be set up just right. It will need a governing something, but I wouldn't hand it over to Frankfurt. The time is right to involve the people. Bitcoin is doing just right without central oversight, but the required checks and balances need to be baked in. Anything new like this should also be design 'of and for the people'.It will need its proper legislation to get to serve as anything official, an get it accepted as a bearer of value, but by limiting who can exchange how much to and from real currency, for example a weekly global limit on conversion, could dampen the risk of large-scale mutations induced by panic. Or by limiting the maximum amount you could hold per user or per device or per account, could limit the importance of this new stream of cash in regard with the entire economy.
Also as an internet-centric application, every user wanting to participate needs to run the software, but it should be entirely open so each of us can govern that our security and privacy is catered for. Only then it's ready for designing the conduit with which you let the websites you visit know what credit you provide when consuming songs and articles. There needs to be something like a public ledger, since that would make it a new skool digital currency, but requiring every mobile device to keep a full copy of the ever growing full ledger is absurd. And it is also limiting the maximal number of transactions that can get processed in limited time, so that needs to get decentralised as well. I'm not sure how, but I'm sure there are people smarter than me that have been deep enough into the theoreticals that could draft what it takes.
But I'm just dreaming aloud here. Innovation hurts and is hard work. And there are always those that don't want anybody to challenge the status quo.
Update: look, look, this is also about something like that!
Twee munteenheden, maar dan niet zo!
2017-01-26 20:45
tweemunt
[permalink]
→ Marine Le Pen wil twee munteenheden in Frankrijk
Da's grappig. Ik deed laatst over de middag op het werk nog mijn uitleg over een ideetje waar ik mee speelde. Het gaat ook over twee munteenheden binnen een landseconomie, maar dan wel helemaal anders dan hier. Niekske protectionisme. Dus, als je even tijd hebt, je interesse is gewekt, en me het even wil laten uitleggen, hier komt het:
Stel, — de vraag is eigenlijk of een systeem zoals hiernavolgend uiteengezet hoegenaamd zou kunnen werken, en indien niet waar precies het op stuk loopt — we veranderen de landseconomie en de nodige wetgeving om te werken met twee munteenheden: de één is specifiek bedoeld voor handel in goederen, de ander is specifiek bedoeld (en gereserveerd) voor het vergoeden van werk. Ze zijn verhandelbaar aan een vlottende koers, en het omzetten naar elkaar gebeurt onder strikte regels. Doel van deze opstelling zou zijn om inflatie beter te kunnen beheersen, en de nood van een indexatieregeling weg te nemen. Ideaal is er geen inflatie op de munteenheid voor werk, of toch minder dan de andere. Werknemers en arbeiders krijgen dus een loon in werk-munt, maar wat betreft zelfstandigen, en in het algemeen handel in diensten ligt het mogelijk wat moeilijker. Momenteel, als je iets afneemt bij een zelfstandige is niet uitgeschreven precies welk deel van je vergoeding de aangekochte materialen dekt, en welk deel de gepresteerde tijd. Heel misschien wordt momenteel in bepaalde gevallen een soort fiscaal forfait gerekend om dit op te delen, maar als dit voorstel zou worden uitgewerkt, moet hier zeker duidelijkheid over komen. Om verder te gaan veronderstellen we voorlopig dat, mogelijk in samenwerking met verenigingen van zelfstandigen, per soort werk vooraf een aanvaardbare opdeling tussen de twee is afgesproken.
Een van de vele zaken die dan ook moet worden aangepast, zijn de maaltijdcheques. Als je ze ziet als een instrument van de staat om zeker een deeltje van de vergoeding van de werknemers sneller terug te zien in de vorm van BTW op voeding, dan kan je stellen dat zoals ze nu werken dit doel niet huldigen, al was het omdat ze nu 12 maanden geldig zijn. Gezien ze er ook voor zorgen dat een deel van de verloning zo niet meetelt voor persioenopbouw, geef je eigenlijk beter een rauwe belastingskorting. In het verlengde daarvan liggen ook andere denkoefeningen waar de staat zomaar aan elke burger een vast bedrag beschikbaar maakt. Of dit op grote schaal een basis-luiheid onder de burgerij zal losmaken, vernemen we mogelijk binnenkort naar aanleiding van praktijk-experimenten in Finland, Nederland en Zwitserland. In dit voorstel valt dat alles dus op de denkbeeldige breuklijn tussen de twee munteenheden. BTW hef je op de goederen-munt, en mogelijk niet meer op de werk-munt wat mogelijk de administratie sterk vereenvoudigt. Geld dat de staat normaal spendeert om de koopkracht te verbeteren, zou in dit model rechtstreeks worden aangewend om de koers te sturen tussen de twee munteenheden. Een vlottende koers staat rechtstreeks(er) in relatie met de tegenstrijdige belangen die hier spelen: door de werk-munt meer waard te maken in goederen-munt kan de koopkracht worden verhoogd, door de koers te drukken kan de staat waken over het draaien van de economische motor en zijn belastingsinkomsten verzekeren.
De Belg kennende zal er natuurlijk worden geprobeerd te foefelen. Je kan denken aan een belasting op omzettingen tussen de twee munten, maar dit is ten zeerste af te raden, want dan groeit er zeker een zwart circuit. Gezien voor de praktische uitwerking we op de (groot)banken aangewezen zijn, — in deze moderne tijden zou het toch moeten lukken om een extra munt volledig digitaal uit te bouwen? — zouden die waarschijnlijk ook graag iets afromen. Daar wordt best op aangeknoopt bij het lanceren van het systeem zodat het iedeen duidelijk wordt dat het loont om de aangeboden (officiële) kanalen te gebruiken. Dit kan door een structurele vergoeding uit te werken, die de kosten bij/van de bank(en) dekt, en aansluitingen bij boekhoudingen en fiscaliteit.
Misschien zijn er nog kansen om extra transparantie te bekomen, of administratieve vraagstukken zo op te lossen. Of heel misschien lijkt het wel een leuk idee, maar als je dit verder uitwerkt valt het ineen als een kaartenhuisje en is het in de praktijk volstrekt onwerkbaar. Wie weet, ik studeerde geen pol en sok. In elk geval staat het loodrecht op het voorstel van Le Pen, en gaan het niet tussen bedrijfen en het plebs, maar tussen werknemers en ondernemers gelijk, in de hoop voor iedereen voordeel en transparantie te bieden. En een extra bescherming tegen de grillen van de internationale economie.
2015-12-11 08:22
gfBTCEUR
[permalink]
Hee, sinds wanneer hebben ze deze toegevoegd?
https://www.google.com/finance?q=BTCEUR
Ik wil ook wel zo van die structurele maatregelen.
2013-03-21 23:00
i3066
[permalink]
Ik heb geen pol en sok gestudeerd. Ik ben helemaal geen expert. Ik heb iedere dag het gevoel dat ik nog maar net een beetje probeer de politiek te volgen. Ook belangrijk: ik baseer mij enkel op de zaken zoals ze via het 'normale' kanaal tot bij u en mij raken: nieuws op TV, radio, tijdschriften en internet. En toch...
Als het geld op is moeten ze er nieuwe bij drukken. De VS doet het. Groot Britannië doet het. Maar Europa? Ho maar. Ik veronderstel voorlopig even gemakkelijkheidshalve dat Merkel en Hollande dat niet wil. Als het moeilijk gaat, en je beschikt over een nationale munt, en met het sleutelen aan de percentages van dit en dat helpt niet meer, dan kan je gaan voor een devaluatie (een duur woord voor geld bij drukken). De mensen zijn even kwaad, de koopkracht schommelt een beetje, maar uiteindelijk keert er vanalles, doet iedereen verder en komt het goed.
Ik vermoed dat er iemand zal gedacht hebben misschien werkt het ook als we gewoon van iedereen een stuk spaargeld afnemen, dan daalt de koopkracht toch ook? In Cyprus zit zelfs veel geld van buiten Europa, dat is ook mooi meegenomen. Maar zo werkt het niet. Ik vrees dat een run-on-the-bank onafwendbaar is. Misschien zelfs trubbels met Rusland. Niet goed.
Intussen in eigen land vragen de banken of de staat toch niet wat langer zou willen schulden maken. Lijkt me geen zo'n goed idee, al was het voor de trubbels met Europa. Ze vragen 'structurele maatregelen'... Dat vond ik wel heel vreemd. Banken schreven meer leningen uit dan goed voor hun was, toegegeven vooral in de VS, maar die rommelkredieten worden in alle soorten en vormen herverpakt en doorverkocht, tot het boeltje ineenstort, ze straten en wijken met een keer iedereen uit het huis zetten (en niemand die wil kopen, lijkt me nog eens een slecht idee op zijn eigen) en dan lijken er wereldwijd banken of onderuit te gaan of het heel erg moeilijk te krijgen.
Maar da's intussen al een paar jaar terug. Intussen gaat het niet goed met het heropleven van de economie, dus houden ze de percentages laag. Wij krijgen minder dan de inflatie op spaargeld (handig voor de banken) en lenen zou moeten makkelijker om dragen zijn met zo'n lage rente, toch als de bank je wil lenen. Daar lijkt het te schorten als ik het zo hoor. Ze zijn nu plots wel heel streng om hun geld uit te geven. En ze vragen om 'structerele maatregelen', om wat precies? Of de staat zou willen borg staan voor de leningen voor deze heroplevende economie? Lijkt me wat vreemd dat de huizen die sterker uit de storm zijn gekomen zo bang zijn van een beetje risico.
In plaats van te liggen verhuizen, zouden de rijke mensen beter zelf schuldnota's uitdelen. Iets in de zin van 'deze bon geeft u in 2020 recht op 50 euro uit de pocket van rijke mijnheer of mevrouw X'. Daarmee betaal je dan je boodschappen. En dan zien we in 2020 wel om ze terug te betalen. Lijkt misschien vreemd, maar het totaal bedrag aan Amerikaanse staatsschuld lijkt me een groot genoeg bedrag om een volledig land uit te bouwen. En hoeveel de dollar waard is, is toch afhankelijk van hoeveel de Chinezen er voor willen geven, toch?
Maar ik ben geen expert. En ik probeer maar te volgen wat ik in het nieuws zie. Maar ik denk er toch het mijne van.
bitcoin: digital currency of the people (be your own bank)
2011-03-23 16:45
i2959
[permalink]
I've been asked if I accept donations for the freeware I make available over this website, but I don't. I don't have a legal entity to my name to accept any funds for work done, and frankly I don't even care for checking if and how I could get this in the clear with the tax services.
Today I read about http://www.bitcoin.org/ and this looks like exactly what I need. It's not that hard to set up, and the fact that no institute like a bank is envolved is really interesting. Even the 'funds' itself actually measures in 'mathematical solids in the digital world', so if I were to amass e certain amount of it, it would get financially interesting to check out these aforementioned tax issues (perhaps by an accountant...)
So, if anyone wants to wire me anything (even 0.01BTC just to check if it works) here's a bitcoin address:
1Q5omBMcpRQkx7WqPpHceM37ZBqpCgyrDB
2009-04-20 21:30
i1724
[permalink]
http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=sun+oracle
krijgen we na Microhoo en Yahoogle, dan nu Sunacle?
Is het trouwens door de krisies dat er zo van die grote IT bedrijven plots beginnen samensmelten?
Ah, de belastingsaangifte moet binnen zijn op 4 juli
2007-06-25 18:47
i1233
[permalink]
http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=UU1DANBN
2007-03-13 20:19
i1146
[permalink]
Slashdot | Best Presentation on Software Business and OSS
Af en toe heb je gewoon iets of iemand nodig om de ogen te openen... (en/of je aan het denken te zetten over dingen waar je anders niet bij stil stond)
2005-10-13 10:51
i299
[permalink]
TNET.BR: Basic Chart for TELENET GROUP HOLD - Yahoo! Finance
he hij staat er hier al bij...