I think an objective summary is going to be hard to come by.
The only thing I can add is that this view is common throughout history - think Shylock in the Merchant of Venice. The stereotype of Jewish people as being involved in the processes of finances and money lending may have been one seed for this.
In many places in 17-18th century Europe, foreigners (which usually included Jews and gypsies among others) were forbidden from owning land and engaging in quite a few honorable jobs.
Jewish practice converged to require praying from a book, so the literacy rate was extremely high (not so much among the general population, especially in Eastern Europe), and as a result of both this and the restrictions, Jews were constrained to jobs like trade, bankers, lawyers, doctors, which later became much more desirable than the (previously) more honorable jobs and ownership positions that they couldn't take.
IIRC, at some point in the late 19th century Germany, Jews were ~3% of the population, but were about 30% of the doctors and 70% of the lawyers; they were also over-represented among the rich. (Can't find a reference right now, so numbers might be off - but I'm quite sure about being over-represented in lucrative and rich circles).
I have no idea if a percentage of jews involved with finances (among all jews) was high; But they were definitely over-represented among finance people.
And besides, hating someone who's different is an established tradition among the people of the world.
I don't think it is entirely irrational to suspect a group that has non trivial dealing with the land's finances, law and health - yet is distinct, marries among itself, has its own "secret" languages and rituals, and has a demonstrated history of moving around and rotating loyalties. (My statements are not politically correct, I'm afraid)
I don't think it's a stereotype. In the Middle Ages Christianity and Islam both had strict usary laws forbidding the charging of interest on loans. Judaism only forbade it amongst fellow Jews so they could charge interest to followers of other religions. This allowed them to afford to make loans where others could not. Obviously they also became the focus of anger when people could not repay the loan and the subject of jealousy when they became rich from loaning money. This is probably the root of many historic pogroms.
Some countries like New Zealand and Australian have these - called Marine Reserves and limit commercial activities. They normally are in areas of great diversity (Milford Sounds) or international importance (great barrier reef).
or, like here in Perth, just off the coast of a major city.
There's a lot of local controversy because people believe that sharks living in the protected reserves are a danger to the people swimming off the city's beaches.
But politically this sort of conservation is very fragile. It's fine as long as no-one with any power wants to do anything profitable in the protected areas. But previous governments have caved in easily under commercial pressure.
One of the last times this popped up, I printed it out and annotated it. I wanted to see if it was possible to take something so different to my working world (risk management) and apply it. Annotating it for my situation made it clear that this document should be seen as more far-reaching than just differentiating product managers. It really is pointing out the difference between good workers and bad workers in any organisation.
Every single point made has an element that can be applied to any organisation and career; Productive workers understand the context of business ("Good PMs take all important factors..."); successful workers solve the issue, not the symptom ("Good [PMs]...proper deeper into the [problem]"). Sometimes I look back at my annotated pages and score myself about whether I fall to "Bad" or to "Good". I'm still working at it.
I urge everybody to read, and apply this to their own careers. Don't pigeonhole this document just because it is defined as important to product managers. I see this as just as influential as Ray Dalio's Principles (http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgew...)
This article basically just outlines regulatory capital and (I think) avoids economic capital. In very very shorthand - regulatory capital is the capital needed to comply with local regulations (with guidance from BASEL and BIS), while economic capital is the more nuanced calculation used to calculate the risk of capital using the bank's own deduction and modelling. A great metaphor for the actual difference is "Regulatory Capital is to Economic Capital as Road Test Is to Driving" (http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/regulatory-capital-r...). Good banks use both, alongside other metrics to evaluate deals.
Economic capital takes into account the particulars of individual companies, while regulatory capital takes a broad brush approach. In reality, using reg capital leads to set ratings without taking into account the actual risk of the asset to the company. I would argue that the best approach would be economic capital as the main capital calculation with review and monitoring by regulators of the model and its assumptions.
I don't know if there is an engineer who is able to invent a new form of energy and a complete weapon while captured by the taliban, so no I do not think there is an exact analogue.
Yes, there is no exact model of Tony. But I am not asking for one. Yes, Elon Musk is quite the real-life iron man, except inventing a ground-breaking energy technology, and a hi-tech death machine. Plus, he is more of a science guy turned entrepreneur.
I only ask about the engineering mind set and skills that a person needs to tinker and invent at a sophisticated level.
Oh that first answer is very interesting - my thoughts at the moment is when/if is this technology going to be included by governments alongside their currencies. Eg each currency being "digitised" alongside standard paper currency. Doing some background reading, this reads as the opposite of the goal of bitcoin/blockchains.
I feel as if a more achievable goal would be not to have a blockchain as a currency or reserve currency, but rather a settlement mechanism shared between banks and individuals (who don't have direct access to ACH etc). That means the coin would be the vehicle of transmission and record. Is this a common viewpoint?
The blockchain offers many possible uses. What you describe is one. As for bitcoin, it's meant to replace fiat. It's not controlled or manipulated by any authority. What you describe sounds more like Ripple.
The blockchain is one part of the Bitcoin (with a capital B) protocol. The digital currency part (bitcoin with a small b) is what makes the blockchain run. The two are inseparable. That's my understanding.
EDIT: Ripple is an extremely revolutionary project in its own right. If anything, it's too far ahead of its time. Or maybe not.
Part of my questions were piqued by this blog post (https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/08/07/on-public-and-private-b...) which defined a private blockchain as a "blockchain where write permissions are kept centralized to one organization". I think that it might be the case of people piggy backing on the buzzword and that people are using blockchain as a sort of computerized ledger.
So, generally speaking, a coin with a larger number of loyal miners will be more resilient than another with less loyal miners?
I think I made a mistake with the rising transaction costs - in USD they have risen with the price of BTC but have been rebased a few times.
