Blockchain Republics: good news?

 

 image credit: takeneo.com

I would not have been able to define the word “blockchain” before reading J B Shurk’s column at American Thinker.  Here’s how he describes it -- and why it makes him optimistic:

. . . blockchain is a decentralized database of transactions, and the rate of its adoption around the world is occurring twice as fast as the internet's during its genesis.  It is transforming the world of finance by introducing the existence of digital cryptocurrencies and other financial instruments that cannot be controlled or manipulated by central banks or government spendthrifts.  It will not stop there.  It represents a revolutionary redesign in the ways information, wealth, and governance function by undercutting centralized authority and empowering everyone else.  It is the ultimate tool for slicing and dicing international authoritarianism into parts too dispersed for search engine and social media censors, corporate news propagandists, central bank thieves, or one-world government oligarchs to control.

If you have wondered why totalitarianism has come back into fashion and why Western leaders have spurned freedom for talk of wobbly notions of "democracy," it is because the decentralizing benefits of blockchain technology have the potential to flip the hierarchy of power on its head.  Imagine a future where banks become unnecessary, central banks become obsolete, trade of goods and services no longer requires third-party lawyers or brokers, and personal wealth is secure from the snooping eyes of State agents.  Imagine if Google's search engine, Twitter's and Facebook's fake "free speech" platforms, and breaking news websites could not be manipulated by corporate intermediaries working to stifle certain points of view and push others.  Imagine if services once traditionally left to the government sphere could be contracted among private towns and citizens without any space for regulators or lawmakers to intervene.  Imagine a world in which free speech and free trade are truly free, private property is secure from government taxation, Election Day votes are all easily verifiable through a public ledger, and people can choose to share information and ideas without the cultural Marxism of political correctness turning rights into liabilities.  Moving away from transactions controlled and monitored by "elites," corporations, and governments and toward blockchain transactions that are "housed" nowhere, cannot be altered, and remain secured from bad actors means a system where censorship, coercion, and government monopoly fade away.  

In other words, blockchain technology is the mother of all nuclear warheads against the Davos crowd's dreams of global empire and domination.  No wonder we've had to go into medical lockdown for two years while the super-secret 1% of the 1% figure out how to "Great Reset" the world before the world figures out how to great reset them.

I remain convinced that we are on the threshold of a renaissance for freedom that cannot be terminated early by the collection of corporate, banking, and government powers working so hard today to maintain total control over their populations.  . . .

Read the full column here.

# # #

Financial Reform causes Decline in Free Checking

Thanks to Congresswoman Betty Sutton (OH-13) & Congressman Dennis Kucinich (OH -10) supporting the over-reaching and restrictive financial reform bill it looks as if Free Checking at your local bank may go the way of the free toasters banks used to give away.

From National Association of Federal Credit Unions --

Aug. 27, 2010 – A new study indicates that the number of U.S. banks and credit unions that offer free checking declined by 11 percent from one year ago, with the new Wall Street reform law cited as one reason.

Moebs Services, an economic research firm in Lake Bluff, Ill., reported Wednesday that 72.5 percent of the institutions it surveyed offer free checking accounts to consumers compared with 83.5 percent from last year. The company said that the data reflect the realities of the economic downturn, the shift away from free checking among Wall Street banks and concerns about new regulations under the Wall Street reform law.

Of the three types of financial institutions surveyed – Wall Street banks, community banks and credit unions, Moebs Services found that credit unions rank first among institutions that offer free checking: 73.4 percent of credit unions indicated that they offer it (down from 89.3 percent in 2009). That compares with just 63.6 percent of Wall Street banks (down from 92.6 percent in 2009) and 71.7 percent of community banks (down from 78.3 percent.)

In announcing the data, Mike Moebs, economist and CEO of Moebs Services, said that free checking offers have generally risen over the past 10 years, with just an occasional drop. “We saw a slight fall in 2002 and again right before the mortgage bubble burst in 2006,” Moebs noted. “Some depositories have stopped offering free checking as a way to reduce costs in light of overdraft and financial regulatory reforms. Others face low earnings and a shortage of capital, so lower expense and higher revenue are needed to rebuild their capital position, especially at Main Street
institutions.”

Stop the Financial Regulation Bill

Patriots,

Congress has returned from their mini-recess and we need to burn up the phones, faxes & emails again! Harry Reid has stated the Senate WILL pass the compromise House/Senate version of the Financial Regulation Bill this week! If needed, Reid stated they will work through the weekend to get it passed.

Patriots -- you know what to do!

Financial Regulation Bill, S.3217

This bill cements into place the “too-big-to-fail” corporations that leave taxpayers on the hook yet again. It does nothing to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it allows unelected “regulators” to decide who wins and who fails.

It’s important to note that this bill has passed both the House and the Senate. The conference committee bill, which is the House/Senate compromise, will be going back to both chambers for an up-or-down vote. The House has the votes, so we must stop this in the Senate. Once the bill passes the two chambers, it gets signed into law by the President.

Reasons to reject S.3217

• Having permanent bailout authority
• Trusting the same regulators that failed last time
• Creating brand new innovation-killing regulations
• Micromanaging the market
• Having Fannie and Freddie forever (This is possibly the most egregious part – they refuse to protect taxpayers from Fannie and Freddie's "risky behavior.")
• Mandating that all regulatory agencies with economic jurisdiction hire employees based on gender and race

Information resources for S.3217

Heritage Foundation
“The Dodd-Frank Assault on Economic Recovery”:

http://bit.ly/9uPa1o
“Financial Reform in Congress: A Disorderly Failure”: http://bit.ly/cGm0Xz

FreedomWorks
“Wall St. plans payback for reg. reform”: http://bit.ly/csud4s

Real Clear Markets

"Race & Gender Quotas in Finance Bill": Click here to read

According to the New York Times, "The bill, completed early Friday and expected to come up for a final vote this week, is basically a 2,000-page missive to federal agencies, instructing regulators to address subjects ranging from derivatives trading to document retention. But it is notably short on specifics, giving regulators significant power to determine its impact.’ In other words, this law is going to be continually rewritten by federal bureaucrats for years to come. And the continued uncertainty it will create is just the beginning of its faults...”

Call these senators for the Financial Regulation Bill

As of yesterday, Senators Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins have said they will be voting YES for the Financial Regulation Bill. That puts the count at 59, so they're just waiting for Byrd's replacement.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Phone: (202) 224-3441 / Fax: (202) 228-0514 / E-mail: maria_cantwell@cantwell.senate.gov
Reason: She recently changed her NO vote to a Yes.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Phone: (202) 224-5323 / Fax: (202) 224-2725 / E-mail: http://feingold.senate.gov/contact_opinion.html
Reason: He says he’s voting NO, but may be pressured into voting YES.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA)
Phone: (202) 224-4543 / Fax: (202) 228-2646 / E-mail: http://scottbrown.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contactme

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Phone: (202) 224-5344 / Fax: (202) 224-1946 / Email: http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorSnowe.Email

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Phone: (202) 224-2523 / Fax: (202) 224-2693 / E-mail: http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCollins.EmailIssue&CFID=42880122&CFTOKEN=39747274

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Phone: (202) 224-3744 / Fax: (202) 224-6020 / E-mail: http://grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Sen. George Voinovich
DC Phone: (202) 224-3353
Cleveland Phone: (216) 522-7095 / Cleveland Fax: (216) 522-7097 / E-mail: http://voinovich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Sen. Sherrod Brown
DC Phone: (202) 224-2315 / DC Fax: (202) 228-6321
Cleveland Phone: (216) 522-7272 / Toll-Free: 888-896-6446 / Cleveland Fax: (216) 522-2239 / E-mail: http://brown.senate.gov/contact/

Should there be Race & Gender Quota's in the Finance Bill?

The below was found on the Tea Party Patriots Facebook Page...

While racial and gender quotas may or may not be a good idea, they really shouldn't be in a financial reform bill designed to prevent further financial decline.

From New Patriot Journal via Real Clear Markets --

What one finds when reading congressional legislation is invariably surprising. Take the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill, for instance, which was created by merging Senate and House bills. When the Senate returns from recess one of its first actions will be to vote on the bill, which passed the House on June 30.

I was searching the bill for a provision about derivatives. What did I find but Section 342, which declares that race and gender employment ratios, if not quotas, must be observed by private financial institutions that do business with the government. In a major power grab, the new law inserts race and gender quotas into America's financial industry.

In addition to this bill's well-publicized plans to establish over a dozen new financial regulatory offices, Section 342 sets up at least 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion. This has had no coverage by the news media and has large implications.

The Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks, the Board of Governors of the Fed, the National Credit Union Administration, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau...all would get their own Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.

Each office would have its own director and staff to develop policies promoting equal employment opportunities and racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of not just the agency's workforce, but also the workforces of its contractors and sub-contractors.

What would be the mission of this new corps of Federal monitors? The Dodd-Frank bill sets it forth succinctly and simply - all too simply. The mission, it says, is to assure "to the maximum extent possible the fair inclusion" of women and minorities, individually and through businesses they own, in the activities of the agencies, including contracting.

How to define "fair" has bedeviled government administrators, university admissions officers, private employers, union shop stewards and all other supervisors since time immemorial - or at least since Congress first undertook to prohibit discrimination in employment... read more HERE.

Will we get a Minister of Finance?

Call it what you want, Finance Super Cop, Minister of Finance or Banking Czar - it is nothing more than - 'more' government intrusion into the private market....

The Federal Reserve could become the supercop for "too big to fail" companies capable of causing another financial meltdown under a proposal being seriously considered by the White House.

The Obama administration told industry officials on Friday that it was leaning toward making such a recommendation, according to officials who attended a private one-hour meeting between President Barack Obama's economic advisers and representatives from about a dozen banks, hedge funds and other financial groups.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other officials made it clear they were not inclined to divide the job among various regulators as has been suggested by industry and some federal regulators. Geithner told the group that one organization needs to be held responsible for monitoring systemwide risk.

"Committees don't make decisions," said Geithner, according to one participant.

Officials from the Treasury Department and National Economic Council, which hosted the meeting, told participants that the Fed was considered the most likely candidate for the job, according to several officials who attended or were briefed on the discussions.

The administration officials said a legislative proposal would likely be sent to Capitol Hill in June with the expectation the House Financial Services Committee, led by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., would consider the measure before the Independence Day recess.

The officials requested anonymity because the meeting had not been publicly announced and they were not authorized to discuss it.

A Treasury Department statement provided to The Associated Press on Friday confirmed Geithner's position that he wants a "single independent regulator with responsibility for systemically important firms and critical payment and settlement systems."

A spokesman said Geithner also is open to creating a council to "coordinate among the various regulators, including the systemic risk regulator."

The Fed itself hasn't taken a position on whether it should have the job, although Chairman Ben Bernanke has said the Fed would have to be involved in any effort to identify and resolve systemwide risk. (Yahoo News)