Sunday, December 10, 2017

My Current Thoughts On Bitcoin

Something is different about this Bitcoin correction. It is going up now on higher volume. The difference between this correction is huge because back in the old days Bitcoin would rapidly collapse to as little as .2 of its former high value. It is not doing that this time. Possibly, I haven't given it enough time, but I'm sticking to my thesis, hopefully for a future paper, of this:
At the beginning of the financial crisis in 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto began putting out messages on a cryptography message board. In 2009 Satoshi Nakamoto (a pseudonym for a Japanese intelligence group) put out the code at the beginning of the end of the financial crisis. On May 9, 2009, the U.S. stock markets turned higher. Barak Obama announced that everyone should buy stocks. At that point, the markets grew to where they are today from central banks printing money and allowing corporations to buy back their stocks. The ECB, BOJ and the FED have been monetizing the debt ever since 2009. At the end of 2011, it became apparent to me and others that the central banks were actively purchasing stocks through some clandestine means or another. The monetization of debt can't continue forever. Japan has the highest debt to GDP ratio, and other Western states are not far behind. The U.S., the E.U, and Japan all remained open to the trading of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. In 2017 Japan made Bitcoin legal tender. In 2017 on December 10 (Sunday) Goldman Sachs will begin backing the clearinghouses of the CBOE and the CME for Bitcoin futures. The above sequence of events may be explained in either of two ways. As synchronicity as defined by Jung as an acausal connecting principle or as causal. To me, it is a causal sequence of events. Thus, Bitcoin is the result of a coordinated effort between intelligence agencies as a plan B to the attempt to create a one world government. The first attempt was to use corporate domination over so-called democratic nation-states. Since cryptocurrencies also provide that same ultimate conclusion as corporate domination and since corporate hegemony did not work cryptocurrency is the route currently being taken by the Western elite. The flow of capital across National borders decentralizes all nation-states effectively into one large Western financially connected populace which if bound by a common form of capital allows any elite entity in control of that capital control over those that use it.

Friday, December 8, 2017

New York City - The Art Is Back

This video is an example of the state of the art world in NYC. My brother Walter Steding plays the violin in the video, Robert Aaron is on sax, Emma Zararevicious on vocals (she is the lead singer for Crazy Mary and appears in the beginning of the video), Charles Kibel plays lead guitar, Armand "The Wizard" Milletari on bass, Nick Raisz on drums, Zandrina Stewart backup vocals, Jo Marie Moldovan backup vocals, and others are listed in the credits. Time may have removed many from the 1980's "in crowd," beats descendants, but the art never stopped. I wish I could have presented this video to my colleagues in my advanced rhetoric class, but I did not know of the video until today. From the days of Andy Warhol through to today the statement, if you might imagine such as an aesthetic snapshot of that time as the statement, Lou Reed, and the Velvet Underground along with all the denouncements of a world caught up in Baudrillard's 3rd stage of the simulacrum through until the now, well, that snapshot is the same statement of this video. We love; you ART.

Monday, December 4, 2017

On Academic Curriculum

Based on recent class discussions and this week's readings, what do you think should be the major agenda for English studies, broadly, or English language /literacy/literary studies? Why?
Walkowitz makes it fairly easy to answer the above prompt. She asks, "Is the immigrant in immigrant fictions like the English in English studies? Does it name a kind of writer? A kind of book? A kind of writing? A kind of criticism" (534). My answer is the immigrant in immigrant literature is the subject of the literature of migration. English is a language. To make a simile of the two is speculation and beyond my ability to deem a worthy conjecture. English is a language that English majors study, analyze, critique and use as an attempt to convey meaning. You may answer yes to all of the author's questions, and likewise, you may find a way to answer yes to the following: Does English name a kind of writer? A kind of book? A kind of writing? A kind of criticism? But, an immigrant is a person and English in the sense that it is used is a language. There are probably millions of analogies that may be made by way of simile to English in English studies, but that never implies that English is something other than what is taught in English studies. Unless of course, you wish to change what the subject of English studies is. Pathos may be used to persuade some which seem to be the author's method, but the logos of her argument is faulty based on the words used. I'm reminded of John Timbur's essay where he played up the emotional senses of the reader by bringing the history into the present to suggest that introducing multilingualism policy will halt the trajectory of past wrongs and mediate ambivalence. If professors wish to teach something other than English why don't they apply for funding to do that rather than attempt to steal it through deception from an existing discipline? 
My answer to this week's prompt is fairly straightforward. I enrolled in English studies to study English as in the Oxford English dictionary and nothing else. If I signed up to take French, I would expect to be taught French and nothing else. Anything less seems to me to be a draft into something else and a trick played on students by those with more power and influence. There is so much that I did not have a chance to learn because of academic policy. I confess that I feel somewhat cheated, but at least I know what to look for in the library.
The outcome of teaching multilingualism in the U.S. is unknown and it is quite possible that the outcome if pursued will be as Ricento quotes Williams in Language Policy about learning English rather than becoming proficient in local languages. In other words, multilingualism will prove "to be a barrier to education, rather than a bridge. Students [may] fail to acquire language capital, so human capital [may not be] accumulated, and no economic capital [may] accrue" (Ricento Language Policy 294). I advocate that students acquire English as language capital (I'm thinking English majors here) as a local language to ensure the accumulation of human capital and economic capital. After all that we've read it should be apparent that those that have command of the English language are those that potentially have the most opportunities. As a student, this is what I am after. I want that which will give me the greatest opportunities in my business endeavors. That is why I study English. 
But, from taking world Englishes and the books we have read, especially, Language Policy & Political Economy and Globalization and Literature, I learned what I'm more interested in than English, which is the political and economic operations within the world and big data. People will always learn whatever language is needed to adapt to political and economic conditions even if it is C++, python, and java. Studying English to create policy is not something that is needed in the U.S. the way that I see it. Soon artificial intelligence language interpreters/translators will provide services to allow most to speak in their native languages. The market is too vast to go unnoticed by corporations, and the tech is nearly there. I'll admit I'm biased because of seeing all the social transformations made possible by tech. 
So the first agenda for English studies should be to give students the ability to use the English to the best of their knowledge. We do not teach math majors poetry and neither should we teach students of English other languages or other kinds of literature. Although, the varieties of English and the transformations of English makes an excellent elective to English studies. 
English should be taught to synthesize with the waves of changes that flow from the past into the future; looking away from the past, to concentrate on the now, always remaining on the cusp that breaks into the future. We pretty much all know history or can read about it if we choose to but can we position English to expand the bleeding edge at the front of technology or frame the legal structure of technological change with English rhetoric, and in that way help form the future of the world? Can rhetoric be taught that helps students to know how to frame what it means when our identities are being reduced to a microchip; such that they may argue against it?
What good is bringing back historical, cultural language-related topics when the actual world is transforming into something new at ever-increasing rates of speed? If students are to be successful, it will not be with academia in the future. Soon the printing of fiat currencies will reach its limits and academia will see a sudden and vast decline in employment. Ponzi financial schemes such as the student loan program only work for so long.
If students learn to be fluent in their rhetorical discourse during a time when anything and everything may be simulated as real or simulated to a point where the simulation is indiscernible from the real, then the reality will be the words of the best rhetorician since all else may be taken to be in doubt. The greatest advantage to any student of English is their ability to have a fluidity of situation and the command of the English language and not some intellectual's critical theory about identity politics or what is fair, the rights of the other or some such social justice cultural Marxist nonsense. Post-colonialism is not. We are being fleeced by the wealthy elite--a corporate hegemony--today more than at any time in the past.
We are all people, and all have the same rights unless academia can, with the help of cultural theorists, convince students that they are not equal. I see such abuse of critical theories (which have been used in the past to take down nations such as South Africa. This is only to say that critical has enormous power and not that such a thing is good or bad) being taught in colleges today at a time when people should be putting themselves to good use sharing and learning skills that will allow them to live better lives than their parents. Think of it, at this time when a general sense of doubt prevails, how valuable it is for someone with the command of the English language and the skills of a rhetor to lead us out of that doubt. When Fake News and propaganda and concentrations of wealth, think tanks, government policies all work to destabilize a person out of their money people need affirmation that their lives are meaningful. An English major should be able to provide that service to people and businesses and thereby impute meaning into the social.
Teach English majors to be the best rhetoricians: those that define, frame, and explain the new reality that every next day brings.
 On a final note, I found the mention of "worldwide CNN broadcasts . . . in the former slave ports of Africa" so representative of the horrific ongoing colonialism (Walkowitz 540). But, the author instead of speaking to the ongoing colonialism, plays up Phillips's postcolonial consciousness. How is it that people are so preoccupied with the past when the worst is upon them?

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

A Response About What I Liked In Native Speaker by

I liked the way the author created his protagonist as the epitome of identity to show that identity is many things including the understanding of oneself. Native Speaker allegorically unmasks tribalistic identity to reveal the individuation function of the psyche. Through Henry’s ability to manipulate language in conjunction with his outward appearance as Korean, he fools his closest associates into thinking that he is someone other than who he is. But, the trick played on others through the manipulation of his persona cost his friends dearly, as in the case of Luzan. At the time when Henry realizes that he might put Kwang through the same outcome as Luzan, identity plays the critical role of defining who Henry is to himself. His decision to withhold information about Kwang from Hoagland personally redefined Henry’s identity as someone more worthy to himself. Once the, what I call moral, decision materialized Henry further solidified his commitment to himself and his direction in life by quitting the company. To me, as a long-time adherent to Jungian psychology, I understand Henry’s decision, and for that matter, Lee’s exposition of identity through the character of Henry, to be a work that illustrates the function of the process of individuation. Lee shows that things such as identity politics, cultural heritage, sociological identification are subordinate in meaning when compared to what the psyche demands of us as individuals.

In her essay “‘This doesn’t Mean What You’ll Think”: Native Speaker, Allegory, Race’” Tsou states “Henry’s various endeavors . . . illuminate the novel’s use of allegory and Asian America to vex normative expectations about referentiality” (577). My interpretation of her statement is that Lee makes fools of those that surface read the novel and then go on to critique it according to “normative expectations of referentiality” (577). She states that "Native Speaker makes a commentary on seeing and reading that exceeds the specific context of Asian America because it gives these questions a particular form (racialized, gendered, and classed)” (577). She goes on to say “Reading for allegory “denaturalizes the assumption that race and ethnicity are a priori facts reflected by language” (578). I agree with Tsou, that whiteness [Leila] disguised as the abstract citizen in opposition to the Asian American figure [Henry] “destroys the normal expectation we have about language, “‘“that our words mean what we say”’” (578), but I believe this to be Lee’s style to say let us not take identity so seriously or abstractly that we overlook the qualities that make us human. By “speaking literally” the novel “contrives to speak otherwise” (580). It narrates great detail about Korean culture and identity connected to ethnicity but uses the language allegorically to get to the message of the meaning of personal identity and the moral choices that personal identity requires of us. Tsou further states that “[c]alling back is a movement that resembles looping, in the sense that it too doubles back on (betrays) its original referent. The referent for these modes is not the Asian American subject but that abstract, forgotten antecedent--you?” (584). Tsou’s essay emphasizes how Lee’s narrative turns and loops back on itself like Henry’s and his father’s exploitation of Asian Americans. To me, this is how Lee unmasks identity to show that individual identity, the “you?” takes precedence: decisions acted upon that one might call “moral” in their ability to provide the way to a more dynamic personality.

Ultimately, human relationships define who we are to ourselves. But, without having an identity true to our nature, the conflicts within often prevent further dynamics of psychological development from unfolding. This is not to say that a person should be any one way or another only that in the case of Henry the conflicts that arose in his life began to detract from the dynamics of his character qualities. He could have unfolded as a different identity to himself by choosing to have a hand in Luzan’s boating accident, and by providing the information to Hoagland about Kwang. Later in the story, he could have gained ownership of Hoagland's company. And, for some such-like version of Henry, these kinds of choices might be considered “moral” because they allow for the unfolding of that type of individual to achieve the full potentialities of their process of individuation. The “moral” choices that I’m speaking about have only to do with the decisions and actions one takes to reach a complete state of psychological development. In Henry’s case, he realizes that cultural, financial, patriotic, ethnic, qualities and so on, are not as important as the qualities that he needs as an individual to proceed down life’s path. And, at the end of the book, as Henry helps Leila with the school children that is the image that we get--human relatedness as the result of Henry’s individuated identity. Henry needed to know himself, to become conscious of himself, to continue down life’s path. He dismantled the abstractions of identity, relied on his personal moral decision, carried that weight and finally settled for human relations which are the most important and real things that a person can know.

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Native Speaker by Chang-Rae Lee -- My Critical Response to a Quote

I turn but do not extricate myself, Confused, a past-reading, another, but with darkness yet. --Walt Whitman from the Epigraph to Native Speaker

Critically comment on the following: “I am to be a clean writer, of the most reasonable eye, and present the subject in question like some sentient machine of transcription. In the commentary, I won’t employ anything that even smacks of theme or drama” (203).

Henry’s thoughts in the sentences above indicate how he will write the notes that he sends back to Dennis Hoagland about John Kwang. “I” refers to the protagonist Henry--both his and our “I”dentity--and carries with it all of the details in the book that as narrator he voices. The “I” also relates to what the other characters think of Henry. The tone and meaning in the philosophical musings of the prose in certain chapters’ concluding paragraphs characterizes these attributes into the “I.” Additionally, the “I” relates to Henry’s identification with his job, and to the meaning of “I” within the entire context of the book. Finally, to some extent, the “I” relates to the qualities of the author that enabled Lee to write the character behind the “I,” and the “I” relates, as well, to the reader’s identification with Henry.

The sentences as a whole imply an intelligent, objective rendering, such as a “sentient machine,” or what a video camera-recording of a person’s life might convey rather than an interpretation (203). Henry goes on to state that “he will simply know character. Identity. That is all” (203). The rest of the chapter then describes how Henry appears to be an accomplice to the unstated murder of Luzan. The quote above is Henry’s moment of clarity; his realization that he is a destroyer of people that he identifies with. The sentences also contain a bit of anger over having to resolve the conflict within himself as an intelligent but emotionless machine.

To me, the value of the book is that it documents the mind’s identity function and those that manipulate it, including oneself. Lee explicates “identity” through the use of metaphor later in the chapter during the narration of the last meeting with Luzan. The unstated harm to Luzan as a psychologist, one who understands identity more than others, suggests that killing an understanding of identity--unmasking--results in the sense of guilt. It also suggests that Lee by way of reader identification with Henry wishes his audience to know that. Although Henry does what he does because it is his duty to his job, and thereby part of his identification, Henry also identifies with Kwang’s “leap of . . . character” by which he recreated his identity as an “American” (210-11). The value in the sentences being analyzed as it relates to the rest of the chapter is that it presents the rise of morality within an identity, an individual, to a greater level of consciousness by way of conflict-of-character, which often during the coming to consciousness transition phase carries with it the weight of guilt. Thus the understated guilty tone of the quote implied through the use of the word “smacks” carries with it the burden of consciousness.

I believe that the point that Lee makes is that metaphorically killing somebody (and I don’t know for sure if Luzan or Kwang dies) is true of everyone in that a person takes what is unknown about someone and molds it into what they see whenever they meet somebody--the first impression. They kill the real by bringing it close to them, by forming concepts, impressions, which have nothing, or only a symbolic relationship to the actual “identity” of a person. And further, that “identity” is a construct subservient to the identity function which provides for human relatedness and survival. Henry encounters conflict because of his inability to justify his identity as moral, because of what he has done, and chooses to reduce the human relationship overtones--“anything that smacks of theme or drama”--out of the narration that he sends back to Hoagland. He wishes not to be a part of a moral crime against Kwang. But we cannot censor away the injustice that we do to others during our interpretation of them. The rise of morality within us avails us not of that weight. We cannot free ourselves from guilt by merely reporting to ourselves this is who they are, and this is who we are. Identity, since it is a product of a psychological function, may only be known indirectly through constructs, even to ourselves, but the identity function may be strengthened to produce a more dynamic and fulfilled personality.

The Henry character as spy, son (including inherited traits), father, husband, and partner in Native Speaker epitomizes identity but the way that Henry’s identity/personality matures though tragic events in a poetic roundabout manner prove that the identity function is more than a matter of identity. During partial complex seizures, people experience the loss of the identity function, and they enter into a state of fight or flight. In the quote of our analysis, in addition to a sense of resignation in regard to a moral choice and a sense of frustration over having to submit to duty, the reader also senses a bit of fight or flight from not knowing which way Henry will turn as his identity, his symbol producing system, his terministic screen, is threatened.

Although the identity function is objectively undefinable and our opinions of others and ourselves necessarily biased, by morally carrying that, let us say knowledge of not knowing, that “darkness yet,” we may build more conscious and meaningful relationships (Whitman). In the previous chapters, Lee’s exposition of identity separates many of the masks from the individual characters to show that a person’s identity is unstable and dependent on constructs. But, identity is also much more than that because it may be shaken when the masks are removed and a person is left with an identity in relationship to another as indicated in the last paragraph of questions about describing Kwang: “Where are you to begin, and where are you able to end?” (211). It is the human connection between Henry and Kuang out of which the morality of Henry as an individual is questioned juxtaposed to a hypothetical “sentient machine” narrative of Kwang’s identity that Henry’s boss wants to know. So, a mature identity, the more real manifestation of the identity function which cannot be fully known may be partially understood as a moral relationship to another and by reflection on the loss of that sense of identity when human relatedness ends.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Global Cryptocurrencies and Language

This overview of cryptocurrencies and decentralization offers additional components of influence into the debate about language and economic policy. In Language Policy & Political Economy (2015) Thomas Ricento argues that “language policy scholars’ lack of sophistication in political economy impacts their ability to critically address the effects of neoliberal economic policies on the status and utility of both global languages, such as English, and non-global languages that could play an important role in local economic and social development in low-income countries. The author addresses three “competing views on the role of English in non-English countries in the world as (1) a form of linguistic imperialism, (2) a vehicle for social and economic mobility, or (3) a global lingua franca necessary for a global demos necessary to achieve global justice” (Ricento 28). He then argues “that the economic dimension of neoliberalism in the world system today and its role and relationships with flows of opportunities that might advance or retard the interests of differently positioned individuals in various contexts, globally, informs all of the[se] positions” (Ricento 33).

I argue that a proper understanding of Ricento’s concerns must include the impact of the distribution of capital across national borders via cryptocurrencies. The reason this is important is that (1) blockchain technologies disintermediate the need for governments “to secure and distribute fairly the liberties and economic resources individuals need to lead freely chosen lives”--communitarianism (“communitarianism”), (2) cryptocurrencies give people with low net worth ability to become share owners of corporations with voting rights at reduced costs, and without intermediaries, and (3) cryptocurrencies allow for the creation of blockchain based economic zones that operate under common law and thereby lessen the need for acquiring a lingua franca or national language. The decentralizing nature of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies makes it possible for local communities to secure and distribute fairly without a trusted third party such as a government or central bank. Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund seemed to indicate as much “while addressing a conference in London on Friday, [Sept. 29, 2017.] Lagarde said virtual currencies, which are created and exchanged without the involvement of banks or government, could in time be embraced by countries with unstable currencies or weak domestic institutions. ‘In many ways, virtual currencies might just give existing currencies and monetary policy a run for their money’” (Pylas).

To conceptualize the transformations now underway I offer a synopsis of the history and philosophy behind open source software and cryptocurrencies, and the growth rate of cryptocurrencies. Additionally, I include the rhetoric of open source developers promoting the decentralization of the centrally controlled--government sanctioned--monopolies as well as quotes from present banking representatives to show that the war of words is not much different now than during the buildout of the Internet: between open source software developers and Microsoft. And finally, I describe a symbiotic cryptocurrency / blockchain technology counterpart to Ricento’s communitarianism alternative to orthodox neoliberalism and the role of language(s) on social justice (33), namely Startup Societies.

The open source software known as Bitcoin carries with it an often forgotten philosophy defined by Richard Stallman, a visionary and founder of open source software programs. According to the website on September 27, 1983 Stallman wrote, “Starting this Thanksgiving I am going to write a complete Unix-compatible software system called GNU (for Gnu's Not Unix), and give it away free to everyone who can use it.” In a copyrighted article in 1996 Stallman defined Free Software:
Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price . . . as in freedom . . . We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power. (Stallman)
Stallman’s operating system combined with the Linux kernel developed by Linus Torvald’s open source project became known as Linux. Stallman’s philosophy gave birth to the thousands of open source software projects that quickly developed the Internet into a freely distributing information system. The fact that open source software such as Linux and the Apache Web Server software power Google and Facebook, and the fact that Apple’s operating system comes from an open source version of Unix called FreeBSD verifies the transformative social power of open source software. Again, to quote LaGarde, "’Not so long ago, some experts argued that personal computers would never be adopted, and that tablets would only be used as expensive coffee trays, so I think it may not be wise to dismiss virtual currencies’" (Pylas).

The combination of proprietary corporate interests with open source software historically parallels today’s cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies. Bitcoin moves Stallman’s philosophy from the free flow of information to the world of finance and implies the free flow of capital. In 2008 a paper published under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto titled “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” Nakamoto wrote: “What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party” (Nakamoto 1). By the beginning of 2009, the open source Bitcoin network arrived via a posting to a cryptography mailing list by Nakamoto:
Bitcoin v0.1 released
Satoshi Nakamoto Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:05:49 -0800
Announcing the first release of Bitcoin, a new electronic cash
system that uses a peer-to-peer network to prevent double-spending. It's completely decentralized with no server or central authority. (Nakamoto)
The phrase “completely decentralized with no server or central authority” is the focus of debate between governmental banking systems and the fintech community, and it exists by virtue of Stallman’s philosophy and open source software.

Although various coin or token based payment systems for online gaming predated Bitcoin, by combining open source software with cryptography Bitcoin spread to become the first global digital currency. The blockchain ledger, a type of hacker-proof cryptographic distributed database of transaction record keeping is trustless: it requires no third party such as a bank to verify that currency transactions take place. Although cryptocurrencies do carry a small transaction fee, like open source software they are easily distributed and available. Another parallel to Stallman’s philosophy is that many open source cryptocurrency projects are controlled by democratic voting rights based on the number of coins held. As in the free market, the Neocoin Project refers to their Coins as shares. Therefore, open source cryptocurrencies cannot be used as instruments of “unjust power.” Cryptocurrencies’ rapid acceptance as an investment vehicle and thus their increase in capitalization, results from their trustless quality, low transaction fees and their availability of open source code to other developers.

The growth in cryptocurrencies parallels the growth of the bubble of the late 1990s and until very recently has only entered the regulated and sanctioned domain of the world’s stock markets. According to a paper from the Cambridge University Judge Business School, Centre for Alternative Finance, titled “Global Cryptocurrency Benchmarking Study” by Dr Garrick Hileman & Michel Rauchs (2017), “[t]he total cryptocurrency market capitalisation has increased more than 3x since early 2016, reaching nearly $25 billion in March 2017” (Hileman and Rauchs 16). As of this writing, according to, seven months later in October 2017 the total market capitalization of approximately 1000 different cryptocurrencies stands at $174 billion. Bitcoin grew at a rate of 800% over the last year to a price per coin of $5,787. According to, “in April, [Japan] passed a law recognizing bitcoin as legal tender (Graham). In, Stockholm, Coinshares, a professional cryptocurrency investment company comprises two exchange traded bitcoin notes (COINXBT & COINXBE) and according to
No longer limited to OTC and/or other potentially "shady" exchanges, investors who want direct exposure to [E]ther[eum] [a token carrying contract cryptocurrency] can now trade via a broker platform; Notably, the 2 listed trackers are the only route for European investors to add ether to their portfolio via an established exchange. Today's launch means that the NASDAQ [Stockholm] now has 2 crypto-assets listed, Bitcoin and Ether, making it the only established exchange with multiple crypto-investment vehicles. (Durden)

Although the growth rate appears to mirror the growth of the Internet during the tech boom it is important to distinguish the difference between the growth of technology for the distribution of information and the growth rate of the distribution of capital. Whereas the control over information distribution relates to the ability of corporations and governments to persuade citizens through media and politics to particular and questionable neoliberal narratives of benefit, the distribution of capital is inseparable from the socio-political power structures and treads upon the very foundation of neoliberal policy. What does it mean to imply that neoliberal policies help to provide economic justice in third world nations when the capital from first world nations begins to flow transparently across borders directly into the pockets of third world citizens and for that matter lower and middle class first world citizens? A recent ICO--Initial Coin Offering--of a project called Airswaps announced 85% [of its coins] sold out [to ‘9,447 people from 135 countries’] in the first minute, and the rest [of the ICO] was sold over the course of 15 minutes” (Airswaps). The attention of central bankers who traditionally control the flow of capital now take note of the rapid expansion of cryptocurrency throughout the world.

The dynamic interplay between the forces of governmental corporatism and the forces of the open source community as expressed in each side’s rhetoric enhances innovation of both the Internet and cryptocurrencies by preventing either side from getting the upper hand, and at the same time, allows each side to innovate according to the others’ developments. To quote Ben Bernanke, former Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in 2015:
[Bitcoin]'s interesting from a technological point of view. We’re in a world where the payments system is evolving quickly and new approaches to managing payments are proliferating, and some of the ideas around bitcoin will no doubt be useful in doing that. But I think bitcoin itself has some serious problems. The first is that it hasn’t shown to be a stable source of value. Its price has been highly volatile and it hasn’t yet established itself as a widely accepted transactions medium. But the real serious problem that it has is it’s anonymity, which is a feature, and is also a bug, in that it has become in some cases a vehicle for illicit transactions, drug selling or terrorist financing or whatever. And you know, governments are not happy to let that activity happen, so I suspect that there will be oversight of transactions done in bitcoin or similar currencies and that will reduce the appeal. (Phillips)
And according to Zerohedge, “Bernanke told an audience at Ripple's Swell event in Toronto today [Oct. 16, 2017] that: ‘. . . new technology like blockchain or electronic currencies can be used to improve’ global payments, and added that Ripple's technology is ‘promising" as they work with regulators’” (Durden). Ripple, a banking backed cryptocurrency, openly trades on cryptocurrency exchanges along with Bitcoin and others. Bernanke’s rhetoric persuades negatively toward open source cryptocurrency and emphasizes regulation. His rhetoric is similar to when “Microsoft operating system chief Jim Allchin said [in August 2001], ‘Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer. I'm an American, I believe in the American Way. I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done enough education of policymakers to understand the threat.’" His statement came at a time when Linux represented Microsoft’s biggest competitor. Of note here is that Microsoft incorporated open source software code into its operating system and Openoffice is an open source version of Microsoft Office.

Within this changing space, cryptocurrencies have the opportunity to influence global language(s). As the debate between those that want to regulate and those that believe in trustless (self-regulating) cryptocurrencies continues Startup Societies implement common law, blockchain technologies, and cryptocurrencies within economic zones. According to Michael Strong, Startup Societies are at the bleeding edge of technology but he envisions a time when “we will see thousands and thousands of governments [within economic zones], and communities, and cultures, and societies, that allow everybody on earth, seven billion, eight billion, nine billion to have an exponentially better quality of life.” Strong goes on to explain that “zones result in greater economic liberalization in China, Ireland, to some extent India, Mauritius, and arguably in a number of other countries.” He talks about how Dubai and Abu Dhabi have installed common law systems in economic zones that operate outside of the traditional Sharia legal system, how Honduras allows for common law to operate within economic zones, and how other nations are working to set up common law systems in economic zones. His argument is that bad governments and legal structures are directly responsible for poverty and “keep people unnaturally poor.” He thinks that “we can develop software in terms of [educational] governance and law that can outperform Hong Kong and Singapore.” Strong advocates for blockchain developers and more common law attorneys. Additionally, in support of promoting the power of cryptocurrencies and decentralization, the Startup Societies Foundation highlights decentralizing value, regulation, and energy and commodities via blockchain.

Whether or not Startup Societies or blockchain driven economic zones become an influence on income equality over the next decades, the fact that capital is flowing into cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies at an ever-increasing rate, both from the top and the bottom of the global social spectrum of people that invest into cryptocurrencies, implies to some extent the decentralization of the role of government, and the lessening of the forces behind learning a lingua franca or national language for upward mobility. Through the process of decentralization--localizing economic prosperity--the need for communitarianism to preserve economically beneficial local language(s) diminishes.

Works Cited
Airswaps. "Airswap Token Launch Report." Airswaps, Accessed 16 Oct. 2017.

communitarianism” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Durden, Taylor. “Bernanke Backs 'Ripple' At Blockchain Conference: ".The Tech Is Promising.’"
-. “Ethereum Goes Mainstream: First Ever Ether ETN Launched On Nasdaq
Stockholm.” Zerohedge, 11 Oct. 2017,” Accessed 16 Oct. 2017.
Graham, Luke. “As China cracks down, Japan is fast becoming the powerhouse of the bitcoin
Hileman, Garrick and Michel Rauchs. “Global Cryptocurrency Benchmarking Study.” Accessed 16 Oct. 2017.
Nakamoto, Satoshi. “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Cash System.”,
Accessed 16 Oct. 2017.
Oct. 2017.

Phillips, Matt. “Ben Bernanke on bubbles, bitcoin, and why he’s not a Republican anymore.” Qz,
anymore. Accessed 16 Oct. 2017.
Pylas, Pan. “IMF chief tells central bankers to not dismiss bitcoin.” USA Today, The Associated Press,
Ricento, Thomas. Language Policy & Political Economy: English in a Global Context. Oxford University Press, 2015.
Stallman, Richard. GNU. Accessed 16 Oct. 2017.
Strong, Michael. “The Rise of Startup Societies.” YouTube, uploaded by Startup Societies, 28 Aug.


My Current Thoughts On Bitcoin

Something is different about this Bitcoin correction. It is going up now on higher volume. The difference between this correction is huge be...