"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." --Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
I'm a free trader - a real free trade agreement would indeed be great.
But I don't understand how the New York Times (or anyone) can expect a deal negotiated in secret - BUT with lots of input from "interested parties" - to be anything but a candy bowl for special interests.
I sympathize with the desire of trade negotiators to avoid confronting economically ignorant protectionist know-nothings (who don't understand what is in their own best interests).
But the only solution is economic education, not secrecy - because human nature ensures that secrecy will lead directly to conspiracy against the public.
3) Unearned income = income that I didn't think of a way to get
4) I want there to be a stigma to "success" if "success" means I look bad in comparison. It's all about me looking better to the ladies - how am I supposed to compete against the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs?
5) So, everybody would be poor. So what? The main thing is how I look to the ladies.
Not enough people in this debate are emphasizing this.
When somebody says "people will die" as a justification for curtailing liberty, the correct response is "what are you suggesting - that liberty isn't worth dying for? That those who sacrificed their lives for our freedoms made the wrong choice?"
If a US person does any kind of international wire transfer using a personal account, the bank is going to ask about it. I think they're required to under money laundering laws.
I suspect this is all that happened here - the guy transferred dollars and got asked the usual questions (same questions he'd have been asked if he bought a house via international wire transfer).
Bank: I have to fill out paperwork about your transaction about...umm let me see...says "bitcoins". Personal or business? Etc.
Nothing out of the ordinary here.
(Personally, I don't think banks should be allowed - let alone required - to snoop this way. But I suspect this has nothing to do with Bitcoins in particular. Just the usual nosy snooping Feds, "Know Your Customer", etc.)
Can somebody explain how the bank (any bank) can tell when a customer does Bitcoin transactions?
I don't mean transferring dollars/euros/yen to/from a broker (like Mt. Gox) - obviously they can see that.
But once you have Bitcoins in a wallet, how can they tell if there are transactions to/from a wallet stored in your computer/phone/whatever? I can't imagine how this is even possible. Unless the wallet itself is stored with the bank? (Who would do that?)