As IF Times

As many may know, January is the beginning of award show season for those participants in the entertainment business.  Among the long list of award shows are:  the Golden Globes, then the Oscars, then the Grammys, then the Tonys, the Emmys, the critic’s choice awards etc., etc.  The actual complete list is actually about 3 times the ones just listed including of course the Dorian awards, given by the LGBTQ community.

Some may argue that these awards are frivolous and serve only to augment the fragile egos of those in the entertainment industry.  It certainly can’t compare to the prestigious awards given by the state for being not only famous but for also being an all-around great citizen.  In the UK, such an honor is designated by the honorific ‘Sir’ or ‘Dame’ bestowed upon the winners.  Thus we have Sir Paul McCartney and Dame Agatha Christie.

In the United States, the parallel honorific is the Presidential Medal Of Freedom, which is bestowed upon people deemed to have contributed in some significant way to the cultural enrichment of the nation.  As it happens, a very large number of the recipients have been involved with the entertainment business, so we can consider it to be a more prestigious version of the Academy Awards.  In the case of the Presidential Medal Of Freedom, the requirements are rather vague, as there is no peer committee to pass judgement on the merits of the inductee.  As far as we know, it’s totally discretionary on the part of the sitting President.  What we can note is that you cannot be a winner if you’re not famous.

Among the most recent recipients are the names Hilary Clinton and George Soros.  Their names were included with such as Denzel Washington and Michael J. Fox and others in this year’s inductee group. The names of Soros and Clinton may have irked some of the other winners in the same way that a desk jockey General displaying a chest full of notional medals is paraded among genuine soldiers receiving medals of valor. Hilary Clinton has as much to do with freedom as a turtle has to roller skates.

It’s human nature to want and grant recognition; this much is obvious by the many instances of contests and awards regimes we’re all exposed to during our lifetimes. Ribbons for this, medals for that, a gold star here, a statue there. .

As Sally Field exclaimed during her Oscar acceptance speech in 1985, “…You like me, right now, you like me!..”

It’s intensely ironic that the “Medal Of Freedom” was awarded to both Clinton and Soros, both of whom have been the strongest advocates of oppression for Americans, certainly not freedom.  Soros is widely reputed to have stated that his life’s mission is, “to destroy the United States”. Maybe he was misquoted and just misunderstood; the media can exaggerate so much these days. Remember what Abe Lincoln said about stuff you find on the internet.  But this is certainly the same Soros who was evicted from Hungary for his subversive activities there. Also the same Soros who funds the Open Society Foundations supporting all manner of anti-American causes. Of course you could argue that via his activities, Soros contributed to cultural enrichment of the US by funding such as Black Lives Matter.  Contrast this with the work of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden who have sacrificed their lives in the pursuit of freedom and transparency but who remain outcasts in society.

Among the crop of this year’s recipients is Lionel Messi, a soccer player.  He concluded that the whole spectacle was not his thing and decided not to attend. We don’t know his motives, perhaps he had a scheduling conflict.  Or perhaps he didn’t want to be accorded the same accolade as some of the other honorees.  It could be that he understands that it’s all theater and he isn’t in such need of attention.  His awards case is already full of real trophies.

It’s difficult to have a party conversation these days without someone bringing up the topic of crypto-currencies or meme tokens. If they’re not involved directly in some way, (and believe me, they would tell you if they were) they know someone who has become wildly wealthy on these products.  Bitcoin is certainly the most well-known of these products, but imitators and variants of all kinds appear like mushrooms after a summer rain.

Typically, the discussion falls into 3 camps.  One camp is pro, one is skeptical and the third has no clue how it works.  I suspect most people are still in group 3, but that’s likely to change in the next year.

In the skeptical camp are those wedded to the idea of fiat currencies, which is by and large how the world operates after the decoupling from the gold standard by the US in the 1960’s. Once there was no underlying exchangeable value between a given currency and something tangible, like gold, then the value of the currency became worth only what the issuing country said it was worth.  This works fine as long as they didn’t keep printing more of them with no underlying basis. It’s a bit like musical chairs but with more chairs added all the time and the music keeps playing.

The skeptics also point out that digital currencies are just air; that there is nothing behind them other than ‘scarcity value’.  In fact, today’s reality is that fiat currencies are also mainly digital and that any link to a physical asset is debatable.  While some may scoff, assigning value to a few pieces of government paper is pretty complacent too. While we no longer have to lug around a bag of gold or silver, increasingly, physical cash is also less and less used in our daily activities.  We use digital ledgers to record our transactions and bank balances for the most part…same as crypto.

Skeptics point out that a currency has a value based on the good faith and undertaking of the issuing government. While true, we’ve seen numerous instances of governments reneging on the value of their currency by devaluing them without notice. Savvy people realize that prices of things aren’t going up because of inflation, but rather that the purchasing value of the currency is going down because of devaluation.  Just ask Canadians.   It wasn’t long ago that the value of the Argentine peso was derived from its collective weight, not the nominal printed value.

In the case of digital or crypto currencies, no one authority determines the value of the currency; the value is kept by a common ledger which determines the value of the currency by aggregate supply and demand.  Of course, the downside is volatility since prices can be subject to crowd manias and panics.  But at least they aren’t subject to a small group of manipulators printing currency as it suits them.

With crypto, the issue is fungibility; that is the interchangeability of the currency. In the 1800’s it was common for individual US banks to issue their own currency notes which were not exchangeable for those of other banks.  As time goes on, all of the various crypto products will require some method of exchange.

The entire point of crypto currencies is to retain a storehouse of value when fiat currencies are debased by bad or incompetent state actors….as we’ve seen in many nations, including western nations over the past half century. In theory, this storehouse is immune from the confiscatory policies of governments.  As these policies become more evident, it’s likely that people will move some of their assets towards reserves of non-manipulated currencies. That doesn’t mean governments can’t get you.  They can still tax you.