July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [IP] Re: Madness: Bailing Out Greed in Wonderland
by Russ Nelson 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Frode Hegland writes: > Ok, pop quizz: Which economy is doing better at the moment: the > socialist economy in China or the free-ish market in the US? Huh? Do you mean the free-ish market in China or the socialist nationalization of banks and insurance companies in the US? > Get over it, the US century was nice. It's over. There is a lot of ruin in a nation. Here is the $20 Austrian economist's version of what has happened, and what will happen: When I say "only", "all" and "no", I am exaggerating for the sake of understanding. It's easier to understand how things work when you take them to their limits. Free markets respond to their version of planning: prices. For this to work, prices need to be accurate. The supply of money needs to be constant (no, Mr. Bernanke, not inflating at whatever you guess to be the growth of the economy; constant). Government needs to not frick with things. No policy-based taxation, quotas or tariffs. No minimum or maximum prices. No bailouts of companies "too big to fail." No rules against monopolization. If these rules are observed, then companies that make their customers happy will succeed, and those that do not will fail. When no company makes their customers happy, customers will not spend money. They will save their money, instead. This will drive down the cost of money. Companies will have more money available to them to create new products that make customers happy. Alternatively, when all companies are making their customers happy, the cost of money will go up, and only those customers making their customers happiest will be able to afford new investment. What happens when those rules are broken? First, if you create new money which has no value to buy with it, you have made the cost of money go down temporarily. This leads companies to invest in new products, which they expect customers to be willing to buy with the money they've saved ... only this new money didn't come from saving. It was created from nothing. It was a lie. What has happened in the U.S. is that the Fed created new money starting in 1997. This led to the dot-com boom. People spent money to create businesses they thought would be huge hits. They thought there was lots of new money to build businesses and later buy the products. There wasn't. Same thing in 2003. It was very cheap to borrow money and build houses. The homebuilders did very well. Unfortunately, they were building them for people who hadn't really saved, and couldn't really afford them. Every time the central bank creates a boom, it MUST be followed by a bust. The boom creates incorrect investments, and the bust consists of revaluing those investments to their new, lower value. Companies go bankrupt and their assets are sold off. Homeowners cannot pay their mortgage and lose their house (which isn't such a bad deal for them since they had no money down, were renters before and will be renters again). Government bail-outs interrupt this process by stopping the revaluing. Only when the assets have been revalued, and sold off, will the economy recover as those assets are applied to new productive purposes. Prices are information and communication; interfering with them by applying arbitrary value is just another form of government censorship. It destroys market planning and substitutes central government planning (and we all know how well THAT works). Where did the Fed get the money from to do these failouts? By printing up new money. This is EXACTLY the wrong thing to do. It will send the wrong signal to companies and individuals. It will be that much longer before assets get repriced. Banning shorting of financial stocks is more censorship. If you have money, and think a stock is going to go down, and you short a stock, you borrow somebody's stock and sell it. That drives the price down, which reduces other people's interest in shorting the stock. It also brings tomorrow's price into the present. If you're wrong in your guess, and the stock price goes up, you lose your money and cannot make these bets again. If you're right, and the stock goes down further, you have done the market a service and you get rewarded for it. Prices are speech. -- --my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com | Unregulation is a slippery Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | slope to prosperity and 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | freedom. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

1 0

[IP] Re: Madness: Bailing Out Greed in Wonderland
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

None
by Mads Rasmussen 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Gecko/20040803 To: Eric Rescorla <ekr(a)rtfm.com>, cryptography(a)metzdowd.com Subject: Re: SHA-1 rumors Sender: owner-cryptography(a)metzdowd.com Eric Rescorla wrote: >P.S. AFAIK, although Dobbertin was able to find preimages for >reduced MD4, there still isn't a complete break in MD4. Correct? > > Dobbertin published a complete break of MD4 (namely, a breaking algorithm and some collisions found with it) in the Journal of Cryptology. Mads --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

[IP] The second sincerest form of flattery
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

------ Forwarded Message From: Matt Blaze <mab(a)crypto.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:53:58 -0500 To: David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> Subject: The second sincerest form of flattery One of my research interests is applying the principles of "human-scale" security (such as mechanical locks and alarm systems) to computer science. Although human-scale systems are almost always imperfect, their failure mechanisms are often much more gradual and more predictable than their information systems counterparts, and I believe that by better understanding why this is we might be able to build computer systems that behave in similar ways. Several particularly interesting illustrations of the phenomenon of gradual and predictable security failure can be found in safes and vaults. I'm working on a survey paper, tentatively entitled "Safecracking for the computer scientist," that I hope will stimulate other researchers to think along similar lines. Last month I finished a first draft and put it on my web site. (For those who've not seen it, it's at http://www.crypto.com/papers/safelocks.pdf ) Although the paper is only of rather narrow interest, a couple of weeks ago the wildly popular "Slashdot" news site discovered and linked to the draft; somewhere around 50,000 people downloaded the (large) pdf file that weekend. My web server survived Slashdot's attention, but I was somewhat taken aback by what happened next. A couple of years ago I wrote a paper about weaknesses in the keyspaces of master-keyed mechanical locks (it marked the beginning of my understanding of the similarities between information and physical security). Some locksmiths were outraged that I would publish a paper "revealing" security vulnerabilities in what they believed to be a closed field. See http://www.crypto.com/papers/kiss.html for details, but to make a long story short, some locksmiths do not approve of disclosing vulnerabilities in locks to the "general public," on the grounds that open discussion aids the bad guys more than it helps the good guys. (I don't agree -- and the scientific method's requirement for open scrutiny and debate does not provide an exemption when the subject involves security -- but that's another story for another time.) Perhaps predictably, there has been a similar reaction to my recent draft on safe locks. Shortly after Slashdot linked to the paper, one or more locksmithing trade groups discovered it as well . The response of some locksmiths to the draft has been at least as negative as it was to my master keying paper. I've received quite a bit of uncomplimentary email from locksmiths, and I'm told that locksmithing message boards have recently been abuzz with messages about what a scoundrel I must be to again have written such an "unethical" and "irresponsible" paper. Ironically, the theme of my safecracking survey is that while safes aren't perfect, they largely meet their requirements, and indeed, computer security would do well to emulate their security principles. Nothing in my paper (and indeed, no techniques of which I'm aware) allow one to quickly open decent quality safes. The paper's conclusion is that even if one is fluent in the (not very) secrets of the safecracking trade, the measurable security of even relatively modest safes allows them to be used quite effectively for their intended applications (especially as part of larger security system that complement the safes' limitations). I certainly don't think it would have been unethical to have published an analysis that reached a different conclusion, of course, but my paper as written could hardly be considered an attack against the safe industry or its products. As with the reaction to my master keying paper, many of the complaints I've received are self-contradictory and emotionally charged, often invoking "homeland security" in unspecified but ominous ways. I've developed a thick skin against this sort of thing, and I try not to take it personally (although it's a bit disturbing to have so many people so angry with me over my work). It's rather like being accused of witchcraft; many of the complainers don't seem to be seeking a reasoned debate but are instead venting a broder range of unspoken frustrations that go well beyond either me or my papers. There is simply no effective way to debate on these terms against an angry mob. In any case, some locksmiths are apparently trying to organize a letter writing campaign aimed at various officials at my university, and I'm told that my department chair, my dean, the provost, and the head of campus security have each received (a handful of) letters complaining about me. While Penn's support for the basic principles of academic freedom would protect me even if these officials agreed that my paper was somehow inappropriate, some of the letter writers seem to have unwittingly stumbled upon a weapon that could potentially be very effective (in other contexts) at silencing Internet-based debate. They have accused me of copyright infringement. My paper is heavily illustrated with photographs of safe locks and their components. Several letters have (accurately) pointed out that these photographs are protected by copyright and that by distributing my paper I'm also distributing copyrighted material. This, I must admit, is entirely correct. But I created every one of the images myself, in my own studio, and with my own materials, cameras and computers. I arranged the subjects, lit them, and photographed them. The results are copyrighted, to be sure, but I hold the copyrights. Fortunately, my university is not in the habit of removing the online papers of its faculty without checking with us first, and my paper has remained on my web site unmolested by these spurious copyright claims. But it occurs to me that, given the relevant provisions of the DMCA, a more timid ISP might have reacted quite differently, choosing instead to take down the controversial content until I could prove (or at least assert) that I have the rights to the images in question. This could take days or even weeks, depending on the level of proof demanded. Such a tactic could be a very effective way to harass or suppress authors of contraversial material, and, if done with the sort of vague wording used in the letters about me, would appear to leave the author with no recourse against anybody. The letter writers didn't actually claim copyright, but simply raised the issue. An ISP (had it over-reacted) could plausibly claim that they were simply protecting their interests in quickly taking the questionable material offline. I suspect that, in my case, the organizers of the letter-writing campaign were not dishonestly attempting to exploit the DMCA, but instead genuinely assumed that I had copied my images from some commercial source. A friend suggested that I should take this as a compliment; after all, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, perhaps being accused of copyright infringement is the second sincerest. Matt Blaze 19 January 2004 ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0

[IP] WORTH READING "Total Information Awareness" - secretly funded in defiance of Congress]]
by Dave Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [IP] "Total Information Awareness" - secretly funded in defiance of Congress] Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:02:20 -0500 From: Peter Harsha <harsha(a)cra.org> To: dave(a)farber.net References: <43FF92D2.1050908(a)farber.net> Hi Dave, I blogged a bit about this way back in April 2004, noting some of my frustration that the rush to kill TIA would kill the privacy and security research that was underway and drive the more potentially nefarious bits of the program deeper into the black, hidden from view. http://www.cra.org/govaffairs/blog/archives/000069.html The post was in the context of a review of some of the interesting sessions I'd attended at the Computers Freedom and Privacy conference that year, but here's the relevant bit about TIA (see the blog for all the embedded links): A number of speakers made the point (though Doug Tygar probably made it most emphatically) that the government spends a disproportionate amount of its IT privacy and security research funding on security rather than privacy. Given the current state of funding for federal cyber security R&D (see previous blog entry), that's a sobering thought. But the frustrating part for me is that many of the same people at CFP who are now clamoring for more federal R&D for privacy related research were among the loudest voices calling for cancellation of DARPA's TIA project (I'm not including Tygar in this, as I don't know where he stood on TIA). Let me explain. DARPA's Total Information Awareness (pdf) project was an attempt to "design a prototype network that integrates innovative information technologies for detecting and preempting foreign terrorist activities against Americans." In order to do this, DARPA was funding research into a range of technologies including real-time translation tools, data mining applications, and "privacy enhancing technologies" including development of a "privacy appliance" that would protect the identities of all individuals within any of the databases being searched until the government had the appropriate court order to reveal them. At CFP, Philippe Golle, from Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center, described one such project at PARC (led by Teresa Lunt), that DARPA agreed to fund for 3 years as part of TIA. The plan was to create a "privacy appliance" that owners of commercial databases of interest to the government could deploy that would control government access to the databases using inference control (deciding what types of queries -- individually or in aggregate -- might divulge identifying information), access control and an immutable audit trail to protect individual privacy. Really neat stuff. Anyway, the idea that the government might one day deploy a TIA-like system before all of the privacy and security challenges had been sorted out and thereby imperil American civil liberties and security was worrying to a great many people and organizations, including CRA. However, there seemed to be a number of different approaches among the various people and organizations to deal with the concerns. There was a vocal contingent that believed Congress should cancel TIA outright -- the threat the research posed was greater than any possible good. CFP participant Jim Harper, of Privacilla.org, addressed this approach directly at the conference, saying the reason groups like his try to kill government programs when they're still in R&D and small is because they're too hard to kill when they get big. CRA had a more nuanced view, I believe, that argued that the challenges that needed to be overcome before any TIA-esque system would ever be fit for deployment were large and that CRA would oppose any deployment until concerns about privacy and security were met. However, we also argued that the research required to address those concerns was worthy of continued support -- the problems of privacy and security (as well as the challenge of ever making something like TIA actually work) were truly difficult research problems..."DARPA hard" problems -- and so we opposed any research moratorium. Unsurprisingly, the "nuanced" position failed to carry the day once Congress got involved. At about the same time Congress was deciding TIA's fate, stories broke in the press about DARPA's FutureMAP project -- which attempted to harness the predictive nature of markets to glean information about possible terrorist activities -- and JetBlue airline's release of customer data to the Defense Department (in violation of their privacy policies) that helped cement opinion that DARPA was out of control. It also didn't help that the TIA program resided in DARPA's Information Assurance Office, headed by the controversial Adm. John Poindexter. TIA's fate was sealed. Congress voted to cut all funding for the program and eliminate the IAO office at DARPA that housed it. However, Congress also recognized that some of the technologies under development might have a role to play in the war against terrorism. They included language in the appropriations bill (Sec 8131(a)) that allowed work on the technologies to continue at unspecified intelligence agencies, provided that work was focused on non-US citizens. As a result, much of the research that had been funded by DARPA has been taken up by the Advanced Research Development Agency, the research arm of the intelligence agencies. Because it's classified, we have no way of knowing how much of TIA has been resurrected under ARDA. We also have no way of overseeing the research, no way of questioning the approach or implementation, no way of questioning the security or privacy protections (if any) included. In short, those who argued in support of a research moratorium just succeeded in driving the research underground. Finally, one thing we do know about current TIA-related research efforts is that PARC's work on privacy-enhancing technologies is no longer being funded. --- I'm glad to see the National Journal article has the specifics on where much of that research actually went.... -Peter -- Peter Harsha Director of Government Affairs Computing Research Association 1100 17th St. NW, Suite 507 Washington, DC 20036 p: 202.234.2111 ext 106 c: 202.256.8271 CRA's Computing Research Policy Blog: http://www.cra.org/govaffairs/blog On Feb 24, 2006, at 6:12 PM, Dave Farber wrote: > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Fwd: [sv4dean] "Total Information Awareness" - secretly > funded > in defiance of Congress > Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:55:06 -0800 > From: Hasan Diwan <hasan.diwan(a)gmail.com> > To: dave(a)farber.net > References: <a1.70dbecb5.312ff09a(a)aol.com> > > For IP, if you wish. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Chinarock(a)aol.com <Chinarock(a)aol.com> > Date: 23-Feb-2006 21:16 > Subject: [sv4dean] "Total Information Awareness" - secretly funded in > defiance of Congress > To: sv4dean(a)yahoogroups.com > > *http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0223nj1.htm* > > *TIA Lives On * > > By Shane Harris <sharris(a)nationaljournal.com>, *National Journal* > (c) National Journal Group Inc. > Thursday, Feb. 23, 2006 > > A controversial counter-terrorism program, which lawmakers halted > more than > two years ago amid outcries from privacy advocates, was stopped in > name only > and has quietly continued within the intelligence agency now > fending off > charges that it has violated the privacy of U.S. citizens. > > Research under the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness > program > -- which developed technologies to predict terrorist attacks by > mining > government databases and the personal records of people in the > United States > -- was moved from the Pentagon's research-and-development agency to > another > group, which builds technologies primarily for the National > Security Agency, > according to documents obtained by *National Journal* and to > intelligence > sources familiar with the move. The names of key projects were > changed, > apparently to conceal their identities, but their funding remained > intact, > often under the same contracts. > > It is no secret that some parts of TIA lived on behind the veil of the > classified intelligence budget. However, the projects that moved, > their new > code names, and the agencies that took them over haven't previously > been > disclosed. Sources aware of the transfers declined to speak on the > record > for this story because, they said, the identities of the specific > programs > are classified. > > Two of the most important components of the TIA program were moved > to the > Advanced Research and Development Activity, housed at NSA > headquarters in > Fort Meade, Md., documents and sources confirm. One piece was the > Information Awareness Prototype System, the core architecture that > tied > together numerous information extraction, analysis, and > dissemination tools > developed under TIA. The prototype system included privacy-protection > technologies that may have been discontinued or scaled back > following the > move to ARDA. ..... > > Sharkey played a key role in TIA's birth, when he and a close friend, > retired Navy Vice Adm. *John Poindexter*, *President Reagan*'s > national > security adviser, brought the idea to Defense officials shortly > after the > 9/11 attacks. The men had teamed earlier on intelligence-technology > programs > for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which agreed to > host TIA > and hired Poindexter to run it in 2002. In August 2003, Poindexter was > forced to resign > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51578-2003Aug12>as TIA > chief amid howls that his central role in the Iran-Contra scandal of > the mid-1980s made him unfit to run a sensitive intelligence program. > ....etc. > > > Links to Democracy for America... > <http://www.democracyforamerica.com/> > <http://www.dfa.meetup.com/> > <http://dfasv.org/> > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > Presidential > election<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Presidential > +election&w1=Presidential+election&w2=Silicon > +valley&c=2&s=47&.sig=XVKuwwahoV8Hm_1e5O_oIw> > Silicon > valley<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Silicon > +valley&w1=Presidential+election&w2=Silicon > +valley&c=2&s=47&.sig=pIWbpNAt6BNx-rmFh-brVg> > ------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > - Visit your group "sv4dean <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ > sv4dean>" > on the web. > > - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > sv4dean-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com<sv4dean- > unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> > > - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> > . > > > ------------------------------ > > > > -- > Cheers, > Hasan Diwan <hasan.diwan(a)gmail.com> > ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as harsha(a)cra.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/ ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

for IP if you wish...Recipients of "Leaks" May Be
by TClaburn＠cmp.com 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Prosecuted, Court Rules http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/ recipients_of_leaks_may_be_pro.html Recipients of "Leaks" May Be Prosecuted, Court Rules In a momentous expansion of the government's authority to regulate public disclosure of national security information, a federal court ruled that even private citizens who do not hold security clearances can be prosecuted for unauthorized receipt and disclosure of classified information. The ruling (pdf) by Judge T.S. Ellis, III, denied a motion to dismiss the case of two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who were charged under the Espionage Act with illegally receiving and transmitting classified information. The decision is a major interpretation of the Espionage Act with implications that extend far beyond this particular case. The Judge ruled that any First Amendment concerns regarding freedom of speech involving national defense information can be superseded by national security considerations. "Although the question whether the government's interest in preserving its national defense secrets is sufficient to trump the First Amendment rights of those not in a position of trust with the government [i.e. not holding security clearances] is a more difficult question, and although the authority addressing this issue is sparse, both common sense and the relevant precedent point persuasively to the conclusion that the government can punish those outside of the government for the unauthorized receipt and deliberate retransmission of information relating to the national defense," Judge Ellis wrote (p. 53). The provisions of the Espionage Act are not impermissibly overbroad or unconstitutional, the Judge ruled, because they are limited by the requirements that the prohibited behavior be both knowing and willful. ... Thomas Claburn, Editor-at-Large InformationWeek, CMP Media, Inc. 600 Harrison St., 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 tclaburn(a)cmp.com 415.947.6820 http://www.informationweek.com http://www.thomasclaburn.com ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

[IP] Recipients of "Leaks" May Be Prosecuted, Court Rules
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

Re: [IP] Re: Madness: Bailing Out Greed in Wonderland
by Russ Nelson 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Frode Hegland writes: > Ok, pop quizz: Which economy is doing better at the moment: the > socialist economy in China or the free-ish market in the US? Huh? Do you mean the free-ish market in China or the socialist nationalization of banks and insurance companies in the US? > Get over it, the US century was nice. It's over. There is a lot of ruin in a nation. Here is the $20 Austrian economist's version of what has happened, and what will happen: When I say "only", "all" and "no", I am exaggerating for the sake of understanding. It's easier to understand how things work when you take them to their limits. Free markets respond to their version of planning: prices. For this to work, prices need to be accurate. The supply of money needs to be constant (no, Mr. Bernanke, not inflating at whatever you guess to be the growth of the economy; constant). Government needs to not frick with things. No policy-based taxation, quotas or tariffs. No minimum or maximum prices. No bailouts of companies "too big to fail." No rules against monopolization. If these rules are observed, then companies that make their customers happy will succeed, and those that do not will fail. When no company makes their customers happy, customers will not spend money. They will save their money, instead. This will drive down the cost of money. Companies will have more money available to them to create new products that make customers happy. Alternatively, when all companies are making their customers happy, the cost of money will go up, and only those customers making their customers happiest will be able to afford new investment. What happens when those rules are broken? First, if you create new money which has no value to buy with it, you have made the cost of money go down temporarily. This leads companies to invest in new products, which they expect customers to be willing to buy with the money they've saved ... only this new money didn't come from saving. It was created from nothing. It was a lie. What has happened in the U.S. is that the Fed created new money starting in 1997. This led to the dot-com boom. People spent money to create businesses they thought would be huge hits. They thought there was lots of new money to build businesses and later buy the products. There wasn't. Same thing in 2003. It was very cheap to borrow money and build houses. The homebuilders did very well. Unfortunately, they were building them for people who hadn't really saved, and couldn't really afford them. Every time the central bank creates a boom, it MUST be followed by a bust. The boom creates incorrect investments, and the bust consists of revaluing those investments to their new, lower value. Companies go bankrupt and their assets are sold off. Homeowners cannot pay their mortgage and lose their house (which isn't such a bad deal for them since they had no money down, were renters before and will be renters again). Government bail-outs interrupt this process by stopping the revaluing. Only when the assets have been revalued, and sold off, will the economy recover as those assets are applied to new productive purposes. Prices are information and communication; interfering with them by applying arbitrary value is just another form of government censorship. It destroys market planning and substitutes central government planning (and we all know how well THAT works). Where did the Fed get the money from to do these failouts? By printing up new money. This is EXACTLY the wrong thing to do. It will send the wrong signal to companies and individuals. It will be that much longer before assets get repriced. Banning shorting of financial stocks is more censorship. If you have money, and think a stock is going to go down, and you short a stock, you borrow somebody's stock and sell it. That drives the price down, which reduces other people's interest in shorting the stock. It also brings tomorrow's price into the present. If you're wrong in your guess, and the stock price goes up, you lose your money and cannot make these bets again. If you're right, and the stock goes down further, you have done the market a service and you get rewarded for it. Prices are speech. -- --my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com | Unregulation is a slippery Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | slope to prosperity and 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | freedom. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

1 0

[IP] Re: Madness: Bailing Out Greed in Wonderland
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

None
by Mads Rasmussen 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Gecko/20040803 To: Eric Rescorla <ekr(a)rtfm.com>, cryptography(a)metzdowd.com Subject: Re: SHA-1 rumors Sender: owner-cryptography(a)metzdowd.com Eric Rescorla wrote: >P.S. AFAIK, although Dobbertin was able to find preimages for >reduced MD4, there still isn't a complete break in MD4. Correct? > > Dobbertin published a complete break of MD4 (namely, a breaking algorithm and some collisions found with it) in the Journal of Cryptology. Mads --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0