That's a bit like saying it's ok for one of your clients to stick to a fleet of cars and trucks that lack modern safety features such as seat belts, air bags, engineered crumple zones, etc. Sure it works and they could make deliveries with it. But it be very bad if one of those trucks got into a collision. Also, there would probably be issues finding affordable accident insurance.

BoA's model means that they want to sell you BitCoin at $1300. Anytime a bank puts a price on anything it usually means they are looking to sell it at that price. Afterwards they'll probably short it, but that's another story.

1. An "investment" vehicle that is based on an arcane mathematical model that nobody understands...check.
2. A gold rush mentality and lots of media interest...check.
3. Banks and other prominent "investors" that are saying that "this time it's different"...check.

“I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies but not the madness of people.” -Sir Isaac Newton after losing a fortune in the South Sea Company bubble.

There's more than one way of looking at it, and I'll try to explain it in a way that even the most neo-liberal, free-market capitalist would understand. Before Obama Care, back when Barack Obama was probably the name of somebody living in a cave in Afghanistan, the government was requiring those who sold a "product" (medical care) to give it away for free to those who could not or would not pay for it (the uninsured). Forcing "retailers" (hospitals) to give away their "product" (medical care) for free is not a sustainable business model, especially when in some "markets" (states), such as Texas, 20% of the population "cannot pay for the product" (is uninsured). But rather than go out of business, the "retailers" (hospitals) divided the cost of giving away their "product" (medical care) to "unpaying customers" (uninsured patients) and added it to the overhead payed by their paying customers (insured patients). The insurance companies turned around and increased the "price" (insurance premiums) they charged for "X product" (health insurance); thus making "product X" (health insurance) more expensive; thus resulting in more "unpaying customers" (uninsured patients) demanding "free products" (health care) from "retailers" (hospitals), thus further increasing the "price" (insurance premiums) charged for "X product" (health insurance) etc. etc. etc.

But comparing an inelastic market to a normal consumer product with elastic demand, is really as nonsensical as my post.

So should we cover old-roman construction in foam blocks and glue 10 mm brick-facade on it?

That may be the case. But spending the money has to make some economic sense, subsidy or not. As a home owner, the money saved doesn't make sense for the house I currently own. It would make more sense for new construction, or a complete restoration, OR if I could pass the cost on to some poor renters...and that is the problem.

German law allows land lords to pass on the cost of the KfW loan to their renters, even if the cost of the loan exceeds the cost of energy being saved. So a lot of property owners are using the KfW to subsidise modernising their rentals and then raising the rent accordingly. Then it becomes a rich-person subsidy, paid for by the working poor. I'm not against environmentalism, per se, and I know that global warming is a problem. But the way it's being done in Germany, from energy standards, to the EEG tax on electricity, it winds up benefiting about 3% of the population (those with more than one property) and being a poor tax for everybody else.

That's part of the problem. A lot of historic buildings are being changed irreversibly in order to make them comply with modern efficiency standards. It's almost a crying shame to see a late-19th century Grunderzeit villa facade get covered in foam blocks and painted over. In 30 years, people will regret a lot of the construction going on today, even if it saves a few thousand litters of heating oil.

I own a house in Germany, unlike most readers here. To be clear, the money from the KfW is a loan, not a subsidy. The subsidy, if there is one, is that most KfW loans are interest free for the first 10 years.

The irritating thing to this home owner is that there seems to be no end to home improvements that our German government would like for me to implement. Be it tripple-paned windows, foam insulation, solar heating, solar power, and now batteries. And my house is barely 20 years old. I'm not against somebody who wants to put all these things into their home, but for this home owner, none of these things make any economic sense - even with a zero interest loan. This home owner has decided to do exactly nothing. And that in and of itself saves the environment a lot of waste.

Yes, a certain amount of spying is expected and allowed. An ambassador is basically a legalized spy who has diplomatic protection and is allowed to work in the open.

The problem is that the NSA is not following the same priorities as the State Department. How many European political leaders will give the American diplomats their private phone number in the future? The NSA's spying on allies is destroying any future back channel communication abilities that we may have. The conspiracy theorist in me would be saying it's intentional so that the NSA becomes the ONLY source for intelligence gathering in the American government.

So after sorting out all that spam, the NSA is now busy creating files on people such as miss Wumi Abdul, the only Daughter of late Mr and Mrs George Abdul, whose father was a very wealthy cocoa merchant in Abidjan, the economic capital of Ivory Coast before he was poisoned to death by his business associates on one of their outing to discus on a business deal.

So Miss Wumi Abdul, if that's your real name, wherever you are, the NSA's on to you now.

Nope, the programs affected by the shutdown are discretionary spending, that means nice to have, but not essential. So if we open national parks, memorials, museums, etc. What would you suggest we close in its place? The military?

That's quite true, but even in the "olden" days, it was hard to downgrade because within about a year, most of your apps would have no longer been compatible, or the OS would no longer run the latest must-have apps or games.