"Did you seriously just say something that exists only in the digital realm"

Seriously are we back in the 90's? Some of the most valuable things on earth only exist in the digital realm, see microsoft office and windows, google, and everything produced by the television and movie industries.

"which solves a cryptographic puzzle nobody actually asked or cares about"

The puzzle of money that can't be counterfeited, doesn't require inflation, and doesn't depend on a central bank? I'm not sure how that falls under a cryptographic puzzle nobody cares about. Using bitcoin to trade with the Chinese would certainly solve some massive problems for the US very quickly.

Technically true even if deliberately obtuse. I will amend myself. Innate value to people. Suddenly food, shelter, and short of globally reverting to a barter system, currency, qualify.

Other things that have innate value do if they didn't bitcoin wouldn't be unique and my argument would be invalidated. Things have an innate value "to people" (qualifier for the benefit of other dude who replied to you) because they have innate properties which make them useful to us. Short of reverting to a pure barter system we will always have need of a currency and if there is one thing with innate properties that makes it most useful to function as one it becomes innately valuable in that respect.

Well, I'd agree which extends the validity of my point beyond Argentina. But for now we are talking about Argentina and it's an easier case to make.

That is the price on the speculators market not the value. Most of those involved in those price shifts aren't even utilizing bitcoin and those markets only come into play when seeking liquidity in a secondary currency. Bitcoin has innate value as the only currency (along with clones):

1. Divisible to an infinite number of units so there are always enough pieces to grow to any transaction volume. (Gold has this flaw, there aren't small enough bits to use to transact in actual gold.)
2. No known method of counterfeiting.
3. Innately digital and transmittable in all major ways.
4. De-centralized system of initial creation and distribution.
5. Innate value in the sense of a useful commodity.
6. Is universal and requires no secondary currencies exchange once critical mass is achieved.

In other words, Bitcoin is the only currency that has innate value in the form of utility where that utility is to function as a quick assured universal means of value transmission where the assurance is not subject to the interests of a third party. Fiat currencies must be valued against other fiat currencies at critical mass. If bitcoin ever reaches critical mass it eliminates the utility of all other currencies except goods with valuations based on supply and demand so the speculative currency market becomes a non-entity.

If bitcoin can be spent at businesses you don't need to convert to pesos and that is the only point the government has visibility into things. Even if you do convert to pesos no government has the resources needed to trace every transaction in every business to determine if the bitcoin funds originally came from tourists vs locals.

This is an oppressive government with immoral laws that are being circumvented. It doesn't let them avoid reporting income altogether unless bitcoin usage reaches critical mass but it does circumvent being legally forced to rely on the corrupt Argentinian fiat system by the corrupt Argentinian government.

Yes, but they are both just different sides of the corporatist party. They divide on talking points, they each use a different flavor of spin to achieve the same objectives.

Look at healthcare for example. The US spends more tax dollars per capita providing no healthcare to it's citizens than most nations with total healthcare (including dental) spend per capita without providing notably better care according to any real objective metric. Implementing real state health care neither requires outlawing private medicine nor increasing taxes. The republicans lie saying it requires both, that's their flavor of spin, the Democrats also lie and promote models that both increase taxes AND funnel money to insurance companies.

Both flavors of spin are targeted at the same result, increasing profits for the big private medical industry at the expense of the citizens. It doesn't matter which rhetoric you buy into, they are just different spins on the corporatist agenda. There is no populist party in the United States and if there were they'd get no substantial mainstream media coverage or if so popular it couldn't be avoided would be a Ron Paul comical and dismissive spin on their coverage because the mainstream media is run by massive corporations.

If you pay attention you will see the "two parties" are divided on very very carefully chosen lines.

Actually most massive organizations do exactly this. In the private sector you will find two or three major competitors with the same major stakeholders. See pepsi & coke, visa & mastercard, etc.

Sure. But neither party actually wants you to end up with healthcare. Still it's a good example.

The actual information is that we provide a comparable or lower level of care for your average person in the United States than other developed nations. The UK spends less per person providing complete health and dental coverage than the United States spends in tax dollars per capita per person while the United States provides no healthcare. We accomplish nothing but a rigged and closed healthcare system with an FDA protection racket for pharmaceuticals companies and medical equipment manufacturers.

There is nothing magical about state provided healthcare that would suddenly make private medical institutions disappear. The costs would likely go up since you'd have reduced volume but you don't have to outlaw private medicine to have public medical staff.

The actual information is that the top 0.01 percent in this nation have 90% of the wealth in the United States, while the lower 99.99% generate 100% of that wealth and that 0.001% pay a tax rate comparable to or lower than that of the lowest income bracket. It's a bit misleading to target the top 1%, that drops the threshold low enough to include many engineers, doctors, and most lawyers. Those people work for a living, there is more than enough room to target the problem group and have a more reasonable distribution of wealth (and therefore power) without impacting those people.

The democrats are better at creating the illusion that they interested in fixing these problems than the republicans. Neither group actually wants that. Obamacare wasn't about giving everyone healthcare, obamacare was about putting money in the pockets of insurance companies while lowering the bar for the coverage they actually have to provide. Obamacare was about overpaying even more. And that is exactly how a free market system works in practice, the insurance companies can afford to buy more politicians and to pay lobbiest to whisper constantly in the ears of those politicians on every fine point of every bill than those who depend on insurance to pay their medical expenses therefore they get better representation. That is no different than someone who has more money getting better legal representation, superior medical care, or a superior education.

I think it's fair to say the republicans spew more blatant disinformation, the democrats spew more subtle disinformation and so what they are spewing will always be closer to actual information.

"To properly handle something like rainwater takes upfront design. Some kind of roof tank that can gravity-feed all house toilets, and outdoor hoses would be nice."

Until it springs a leak. It'd be great for construction companies repairing water damage. Insurance companies typically have rules against upstairs waterbeds just imagine what they'd think of a rooftop tank.

"As to crops, why don't they put down thick black plastic over the entire field. Then capture that water to a swimming pool sized holding tank, and pump it back out via drip/sprinkler systems to water their plants as needed. "

Because the sky provides a drip/sprinkler system already. All this would do is increase the energy consumption. The natural rainfall reduces the need for watering. If there were enough water landing on the field for the crops they wouldn't need to water them at all.

 

"The vending machines are there as a perk, similar to raising wages. They are not there to bolster Skittles sales."

They most certainly are there to bolster skittles sales. Paying for coffee pods and skittles (all with a markup that turns a profit) where you used to have free coffee and donuts is not a perk.

"Most companies obviously produce products their employees can buy only since most companies target the middle/working class because most people are in the middle/working class."

I wasn't talking about most companies. I was talking about Ford and Walmart. Both companies use their own staff salaries as a benchmark for their target market and both successfully managed/manage to get their labor pool to turn around and spend their salaries on their products.

"If you are saying Ford raised its wages"

I didn't say that at all. I said it was no coincidence that his workers could afford his product. That doesn't mean he raised the salary of his workers to enable them to purchase, it means he used his workers as a representative sample of his target market and priced his vehicles so that they could afford them.

"So, if they are happily opening offices overseas to save on tax anyway, why not employ workers in those companies and get them to collaborate with the parent company?"

Latency is a technical requirement. High salary tech workers need low latency connections to the services in the US. Additionally, most of the technical expertise is still in the US. You bring them in slowly, have the US tech workers with the knowledge and the skills train them. Then you use your high labor costs as an excuse to lay off the US tech workers you just had train the imports and get them fit for interacting with US management.

Are you at fortune 500 tech company?

"But this was a paper to test how well he learned his subject. He doesn't want to find out how dumb he is, therefore he cheats."

Or he sucks at taking tests. Most tests lose sight of determining if you've learned the subject matter, those tests are too easy to pass. Instead they focus on trick questions. This is why many test taking strategies exist. For example, a commonly taught technique on a multiple choice exam is to look for two or more similar answer choices to narrow it down... Did you ever stop to think what valid reason there is for having multiple similar answers to a question on a test? It's done to make the test harder but the only ones it will make the test harder for are people who learned the material and are able to apply that knowledge to quickly pick the correct answer from a list of other options that don't fit.