I need bitcoins now. PLEASE HELP!!

Buying some bitcoins is still very difficult. There is still so much to learn and understand about Bitcoin, but as the price is going up daily the panic and need to getting some bitcoins quickly gets more urgent and desperate.

The fastest and safest way to start owning bitcoin is to buy a mining contract from Genesis mining. https://www.genesis-mining.com/  You will receive a small amount bitcoins daily into your account.

Right now you can purchase 1 Tera Hash of mining power for $150 USD and you can charge it against your credit card. This will give you 0.00032 Btc a day which is about 38 cents USD. At this rate it will take more than a year to recoup your investment.

However 2 things are happening. 1 The price of bitcoin is still going up and is in a very strong bull phase. This means the bitcoins that are credited to your account will appreciate in value. Secondly as the price increase mining cost decreases which means a bigger payout until the mining difficulty catches up. Thirdly transaction fees are also becoming more significant which improves the possiblity of a higher payout. All these factors means that the payback time will be shorter than you think as long as the bull phase continues. The contract is non terminating meaning that you will continue to receive some bitcoin daily forever. Considering that transaction fees will replace new coins issues, this is possible.

If you want to just purchase cloud mining on Genesis Mining go to this link
https://www.genesis-mining.com  Use my affiliate code aOi345 and get 3.5% discount on your purchase. Purchasing cloud mining with your credit card is also a way to convert your fiat money into bitcoins quickly while you figure out other ways like Local bitcoins.

Read More

A public finance case for keeping the Fed's balance sheet large

Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke recently asked a question concerning the optimal long-run size of the Fed's balance sheet (Should the Fed keep its balance sheet large?). Bernanke comes down on the side of "keeping the balance sheet close to its current size in the long run." While he does not explicitly say how "size" is defined, I think it's clear he means the size of the balance sheet measured relative to the size of the economy (say, as measured by nominal GDP). According to this measure of size, the Fed would have to grow its balance at the rate of nominal GDP growth.

In addition to the reasons reported by Bernanke, I think there's a public finance argument to be made for keeping the Fed's balance sheet large--at least, under certain conditions--like ensuring that the inflation mandate is met. Let me explain.

Let's begin with a picture that most people are familiar with. 

Prior to 2008, the Fed's balance sheet was under one trillion dollars in size. Prior to 2008, it grew roughly at the same rate as the economy. Most of these assets consisted of short-term U.S. treasury securities. Most of these asset acquisitions were financed with zero-interest money (currency in circulation). Since 2008, the Fed's balance sheet has grown to 4.5 trillion dollars. The composition of assets has moved away from short-term government debt to longer-term debt and mortgage-backed securities. Most of these asset acquisitions were financed with low-interest money (reserves).

Is 4.5 trillion a big number? Well, yes. But then, the U.S. is a big economy: the U.S. nominal GDP for 2016 is close to 19 trillion dollars. So in measuring the size of the Fed's balance sheet, it probably makes more sense to measure size as a ratio. The following graph plots the size of the Fed's balance sheet as a ratio of nominal GDP.

Prior to 2008, the size of the Fed's balance relative to the economy averaged about 6%. The balance sheet size peaked in 2014 at just over 25%. Note that by this metric, the Fed's balance sheet has been contracting since 2014.
 
For the record, note that the large expansion in the supply of Fed money was associated with historically low rates of inflation:

Now let's talk about the business of banking. I like to think of a bank as an asset transformer: a bank converts relatively illiquid assets into relatively liquid liabilities. The Fed buys relatively high-yielding (but safe) securities, like U.S. treasury bonds and AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities. It pays for these acquisitions by issuing liabilities (printing money) in the form of low-interest reserves.
The Fed transforms high-interest government debt into low-interest Fed liabilities (money).

The difference between the interest the Fed earns on its assets and the interest it pays on its liabilities is an interest rate spread. Isn't it wonderful to be able to borrow at low rates and invest at high rates? This is precisely what the Fed did with its large scale asset purchase (LSAP) program. Apart from any other effects that this intervention had on the economy, it resulted in huge profits for the Fed. Keep in mind that any profit made by the Fed is remitted to the U.S. Treasury (and thus, ultimately, to the U.S. taxpayer).

So just how much money does the Fed return to the treasury each year? I'm glad you asked, here you go:

In recent years, the Fed has been returning about $80-90 billion per year to the U.S. Treasury. While interest rates were higher in the past, the Fed's balance sheet was much smaller--and so while the profit margin was high, the volume was low. Today the profit margin is smaller, but the balance sheet is much larger. (The distance between the red and blue lines represents the Fed's foregone profit since it started paying interest on reserves in 2008).
 
What sort of rate of return does the Fed make on its portfolio? The following graph plots Fed payments to the Treasury as a ratio of the Fed's assets.

Since the bulk of the Fed's assets are in the form of U.S. government bonds, it should be no surprise to learn that the rate of return has generally followed the path of market interest rates downward. Still, in recent years, the annual rate of return is about 2%. Given that the Fed is presently financing these assets with cash (0%), ON RRP (0.25%) and IOER (0.50%), the profit margin is still significantly positive (though one wonders about the scope for further policy rate hikes if market rates remain low).

In light of this analysis, why are some people calling for the Fed to reduce the size of its balance sheet? Usually the concern is that a large balance sheet portends higher future inflation. But we've been living in a world of lowflation for many years now and we're likely to stay there for the foreseeable future (though central banks should of course remain vigilant!). There is, in fact, some theoretical support for the notion of reducing the Fed's policy rate (subject to the dual mandate and financial stability concerns); see, for example: The Inefficiency of Interest-Bearing National Debt.

Reducing the Fed's balance sheet at this point in time seems like a needless loss for the U.S. taxpayer. Given that the Treasury is marketing a bond, who do you want to hold it? If the debt is held outside the Fed, the government needs some way to pay the 2% carry cost of the debt. The government will in this case have to reduce program spending, increase taxes, or increase the rate of growth of debt-issuance. Alternatively, if the Fed holds the debt, the carry cost is generally much lower. This cost-saving constitutes a net gain for the government. So why not take advantage of it?

***
P.S. I realize there are some who argue that a central bank enables big government. Since the government is too large, we need to end central banking and, in this manner, starve the beast. But this argument amounts to "let's make the government less efficient in terms of financing their operations--that'll force it to get smaller." This line of argument strikes me as naïve--I'm not sure what would prevent the government from simply substituting into different methods of finance. If you want smaller G, then lobby Congress to make G smaller. But given that smaller G, it should still be financed in the most efficient manner possible. And that means following the prescription above.

Read More

How to use mariadb and liquibase together with maven on jboss

First you must define the needed dependency in your pom file.

<profile>
 <id>mariadb</id>
 <activation>
  <property>
   <name>env</name>
   <value>mariadb</value>
  </property>
 </activation>
 <properties>
  <db.driver>org.mariadb.jdbc.Driver</db.driver>
  <db.url>jdbc:mariadb://localhost:3306/mariadb</db.url>
  <db.username>mariadb</db.username>
  <db.password>mariadb</db.password>
 </properties>
 <dependencies>
  <!-- Dependency for liquibase plugin -->
  <dependency>
   <groupId>org.mariadb.jdbc</groupId>
   <artifactId>mariadb-java-client</artifactId>
   <version>1.5.4</version>
  </dependency>   
 </dependencies>
</profile>

Then we need to configure jboss datasource

<datasource jta="true"
     jndi-name="java:jboss/datasources/MariaDBAdminDatasource" pool-name="MariaDBMariadb"
     enabled="true" use-java-context="true" use-ccm="false">
 <connection-url>jdbc:mariadb://127.0.0.1:3306/MariaDB</connection-url>
 <driver-class>org.mariadb.jdbc.Driver</driver-class>
 <driver>mariadb-driver</driver>
 <pool>
  <min-pool-size>2</min-pool-size>
  <max-pool-size>20</max-pool-size>
 </pool>
 <security>
  <user-name>MariaDB</user-name>
  <password>MariaDB</password>
 </security>
 <validation>
  <validate-on-match>true</validate-on-match>
  <background-validation>true</background-validation>
  <check-valid-connection-sql>select 1</check-valid-connection-sql>
 </validation>
 <statement>
  <prepared-statement-cache-size>10</prepared-statement-cache-size>
  <share-prepared-statements>false</share-prepared-statements>
 </statement>
</datasource>

<drivers>
 <driver name="mariadb-driver" module="org.mariadb">
  <xa-datasource-class>org.mariadb.jdbc.MySQLDataSource</xa-datasource-class>
 </driver>
</drivers>

And finally inside jboss modules folder we need to create a new folder: org\mariadb\main with mariadb-java-client-1.5.4.jar and module.xml. Content of module.xml is:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<module xmlns="urn:jboss:module:1.0" name="org.mariadb">
  <resources>
    <resource-root path="mariadb-java-client-1.5.4.jar"/>
  </resources>
  <dependencies>
    <module name="javax.api"/>
    <module name="javax.transaction.api"/>
  </dependencies>
</module>

Read More

Feilinformasjon fra Statens Vegvesen.

Tromsø kommunes beslutning om å gå for 15 bomstasjoner spredt rundt i Tromsøs bydeler betyr altså at 600 millioner vil brukes bare til drift. Men det er altså fullt mulig å finansiere bymiljøavtalen ved å øke den lokale drivstoffavgiften til tre kroner.

Dessverre driver Statens Vegvesen feilinformasjon om denne løsningen i sin utredning om saken. Siden politikerne sannsynligvis stoler på at vegvesenet er en nøytral fagetat er jo ikke dette uproblematisk. Her er et par eksempler fra utredningen:

Statens Vegvesen: «For å oppnå tilnærmet de inntektene som er nødvendig for finansiering av pakken kreves det en økning av avgiften på om lag 15-20 kr pr liter forutsatt dagens drivstoffomsetning i Tromsø.»

Fakta: 4 kroner i avgift vil gi samme inntekt som bomringsystemet. Jeg tror 4 kroner vil kunne gi en viss handelslekkasje og foreslår derfor en strammere prioritering (1,5 millarder). Eventuelt kan det settes opp bommer på de mest trafikkerte stedene der det faktisk er en grunn til å redusere trafikken.

Du kan selv sjekke at 4 kroner er det korrekte tallet ved å endre avgiften fra 3 til 4 kroner i dette regnearket. Da øker inntektene til over 6 milliarder (inkl. statlig tilskudd), som er nok til å dekke alle tiltakene utenom Kvaløyforbindelsen, som bør være selvfinansierende.

Statens Vegvesen: «Ett fortrinn for drivstoffavgift er de lave innkrevingskostnadene for å kreve inn pengene, men i motsetning til bompenger er drivstoffavgift momspliktig og momsen på 25 % av de innkrevde avgiftene vil tilfalle staten.»

Fakta: Prop. 113 S (2011–2012):  «I tråd med gjeldande praksis er det lagt til grunn at meirverdiavgifta blir refundert gjennom løyvingar over statsbudsjettet. Dette er stipulert til om lag 5 mill. kroner per år. Denne praksisen er etablert etter som ordinære bompengar er fritatt frå meirverdiavgift. Inkludert denne refusjonen er det føresett 40 mill. kroner i statlege midlar til Tromsøpakke 3, trinn 1, for perioden 2013-2016.»

Jeg tror det kan være en fordel om Statens Vegvesen i fremtiden hovedsakelig holder seg til fakta i sine utredninger, slik at vi slipper å dobbeltsjekke rapportene derfra.

Read More

...or, how I learned not to be a jerk in 20 short years

People who are accomplished in one field of expertise tend to believe that they can bring unique insights to just about any other debate.
I am as guilty as anyone: at one time or another, I aired my thoughts on anything from
CNC manufacturing, to
electronics, to
emergency preparedness, to
politics.
Today, I'm about to commit the same sin - but instead of pretending to speak from a position of authority, I wanted to share a more personal tale.

The author, circa 1995. The era of hand-crank computers and punch cards.

Back in my school days, I was that one really tall and skinny kid in the class. It wasn't trying to stay this way; I preferred computer games to sports, and my grandma's Polish cooking was heavy on potatoes, butter, chicken, dumplings, cream, and cheese. But that did not matter: I could eat what I wanted, as often as I wanted, and I still stayed in shape. This made me look down on chubby kids; if my reckless ways had little or no effect on my body, it followed that they had to be exceptionally lazy and must have lacked even the most basic form of self-control.

As I entered adulthood, my habits remained the same. I felt healthy and stayed reasonably active, walking to and from work every other day and hiking with friends whenever I could. But my looks started to change:

The author at a really exciting BlackHat party in 2002.

I figured it's just a part of growing up. But somewhere around my twentieth birthday, I stepped on a bathroom scale and typed the result into an online calculator. I was surprised to find out that my BMI was about 24 - pretty darn close to overweight.

"Pssh, you know how inaccurate these things are!", I exclaimed while searching online to debunk that whole BMI thing. I mean, sure, I had some belly fat - maybe a pizza or two too far - but nothing that wouldn't go away in time. Besides, I was doing fine, so what would be the point of submitting to the society's idea of the "right" weight?

It certainly helped that I was having a blast at work. I made a name for myself in the industry, published a fair amount of cool research, authored a book, settled down, bought a house, had a kid. It wasn't until the age of 26 that I strayed into a doctor's office for a routine checkup. When the nurse asked me about my weight, I blurted out "oh, 175 pounds, give or take". She gave me a funny look and asked me to step on the scale.

Turns out it was quite a bit more than 175 pounds. With a BMI of 27.1, I was now firmly into the "overweight" territory. Yeah yeah, the BMI metric was a complete hoax - but why did my passport photos look less flattering than before?

A random mugshot from 2007. Some people are just born big-boned, I think.

Well, damn. I knew what had to happen: from now on, I was going to start eating healthier foods. I traded Cheetos for nuts, KFC for sushi rolls, greasy burgers for tortilla wraps, milk smoothies for Jamba Juice, fries for bruschettas, regular sodas for diet. I'd even throw in a side of lettuce every now and then. It was bound to make a difference. I just wasn't gonna be one of the losers who check their weight every day and agonize over every calorie on their plate. (Weren't calories a scam, anyway? I think I read that on that cool BMI conspiracy site.)

By the time I turned 32, my body mass index hit 29. At that point, it wasn't just a matter of looking chubby. I could do the math: at that rate, I'd be in a real pickle in a decade or two - complete with a ~50% chance of developing diabetes or cardiovascular disease. This wouldn't just make me miserable, but also mess up the lives of my spouse and kids.

Presenting at Google TGIF in 2013. It must've been the unflattering light.

I wanted to get this over with right away, so I decided to push myself hard. I started biking to work, quite a strenuous ride. It felt good, but did not help: I would simply eat more to compensate and ended up gaining a few extra pounds. I tried starving myself. That worked, sure - only to be followed by an even faster rebound. Ultimately, I had to face the reality: I had a problem and I needed a long-term solution. There was no one weird trick to outsmart the calorie-counting crowd, no overnight cure.

I started looking for real answers. My world came crumbling down; I realized that a "healthy" burrito from Chipotle packed four times as many calories as a greasy burger from McDonald's. That a loaded fruit smoothie from Jamba Juice was roughly equal to two hot dogs with a side of mashed potatoes to boot. That a glass of apple juice fared worse than a can of Sprite, and that bruschetta wasn't far from deep-fried butter on a stick. It didn't matter if it was sugar or fat, bacon or kale. Familiar favorites were not better or worse than the rest. Losing weight boiled down to portion control - and sticking to it for the rest of my life.

It was a slow and humbling journey that spanned almost a year. I ended up losing around 70 lbs along the way. What shocked me is that it wasn't a painful experience; what held me back for years was just my own smugness, plus the folksy wisdom gleaned from the covers of glossy magazines.

Author with a tractor, 2017.

I'm not sure there is a moral to this story. I guess one lesson is: don't be a judgmental jerk. Sometimes, the simple things - the ones you think you have all figured out - prove to be a lot more complicated than they seem.

Read More