Australian Data Retention Proposal = Stalin's Wet Dream [updated]

I barely have time to look up these days but when I do it's normal to discover Australian Politicians finding new ways to waste public money on inefficient and unecessary things. The 'data retention' scheme is one such, with the added of bonus of highlighting what an oppressive communist country we have become. It's back in the news because our government has estimated the cost - they want to spend over AUD$400 Million to systematically retain national communications 'metadata'¹ for a period of two years. Exactly which element about the proposal most offends me is difficult to determine ... possibly that whoever has the motive to circumvent the monitoring will definitely have the means to do so, and that for the most part the ability to track all this stuff is already in place and can be obtained should the target be important enough. The cost is apparently an ongoing one, in terms of sheer economic brilliance it's right up there with Kevin Rudd in 2008 giving out free 'stimulus' money to everyone including backpackers and some on temporary work visas.

Facebook and Hyperinflation (observation)

Different Names,
Same Product.
Same as Countries,
in our Modern World.

Currently all the major platforms seem to be scrambling to 'Become Facebook' to the extent that it is starting to annoy me. Google+, LinkedIn, Yammer, Sharepoint ... (if I've missed any please add to the comments). Recently shared on g+ by Mr Hackswell was a recent Martin Armstrong article, I checked it out - titled 'Defining Hyperinflation - The coming new currency'. Being time poor, I haven't read any good hyperinflation debate for a while, but was incredibly disappointed because it brought nothing new to the table and in my mind muddied the waters of definition about key terms.

Many folk (especially Marty himself) keep returning back to Martin's 'the core economy does not hyper-inflate', which is a good observation but I really have to say I think his obsession with the United States is somewhat overdone. Although I'm influenced by my own special exposure to globalism, country boundaries are acting more like a 'brand' these days - I personally think the new core economy is the massive commerce transaction network which now spans the globe - you know, the one which allows you to use a Singapore-bank-issued credit card while you're in London from an American website to buy a product made in China and get it shipped to Australia. Having been involved in a work project recently I'm simply amazed at what's in place to allow a merchant to accept payment in virtually any currency. While I realize those networks don't necessarily constitute the big trade, the providers which make it all happen have their systems tuned and my observation is that they would function fine even with a hyper-inflationary collapse of a single node (in fact it would be really smooth because all the exchange rates would operate with split-second accuracy).

Of course, I'm no economist but I just wanted to point out what I see as a basic flaw in Armstrong's argument - if he's saying the 'The NEW CURRENCY will most like ... an electronic reserve currency whereby each nation will still retain its own currency' and 'This will eliminate the dollar as the reserve currency', then I'm scratching my head on that one because I'm left wondering what happens to all those dollar-denominated claims out there, it's my impression (under that scenario) they are subject to less demand and therefore get returned to the country where can be redeemed, reducing the purchasing power of that currency and forcing that local government to print more to maintain status quo, further devaluing that currency. Is Martin saying there would still be a debt market for the US-dollar? Is he saying that the USA will be able to still issue the new reserve country? What happens to pricing of oil? Lots of questions unanswered. If anyone has any clarifications, please let me know because I got even more confused when I read his article.

p.s. yes I realize each of those technology platforms each have their own point of distinction, my point is they are scrambling madly to remake themselves into all becoming Facebook to avoid being left behind. It's certainly a new evolutionary path, but I think it's as lazy as Microsoft copying Apple ... a false innovation.