12 ms·

>suppose we were starting from scratch "What-ifs" are always an interesting game but practically we're veeeery far from starting from scratch with the economy.

by simias 9y ago

>suppose we were starting from scratch "What-ifs" are always an interesting game but practically we're veeeery far from starting from scratch with the economy. But okay, I'll play. >user signs transactions that authorize transfers with specific recipients and amounts Great, but you've only secured one tiny part of the "earn money/spend money" loop. What if the service/goods you buy turns out to be a scam or something defective? What if my company stops paying me? What if the government starts unfairly taxing me and threatens to throw me in jail if I don't comply? Our current economy is a lot more than just adding a value on one counter while decrementing an other. It's a complex web of laws, regulations and arbitrations that mean that I can buy something on Amazon without having to cross my fingers that I'll get what I paid for. That's where this whole libertarian wet dream collapses for me. The whole argument behind bitcoin seems to be "what if your government turns into a fascist state, do you really want them to control your money?" And clearly the answer is no, but if we end up in this situation my savings account might not be the first of my worries. Nor would having my money in bitcoins prevent me from being thrown in jail if I refuse to yield my secret keys to the neo-gestapo. On the other hand if the government is benevolent and works for the good of the people then I really want it to be able to control the currency, be able to cease the money generated by illegal activities and tax legitimate income fairly in order to build roads, hospitals, schools, the police and firestations (amongst other things). I don't want to live in a society where I can't trust my democratically elected government. So maybe we should work on fixing that rather than coming up with incomplete workarounds. "Hey, my sister got detained for thought crime yesterday, but at least I can send her Bitcoins to prison unhindered! Take that Ür-Hitler!"

rothbardrand 9y ago
That's not the whole argument, by a long shot. The dollar has lost %99.99 of its value, and in my opinion has had %100 inflation in the past 10 years (not each year but over the decade) so is effectively half as valuable again. This is theft from the people. Even Keynes recognized this. Bitcoin is an exit from that system. It has lot of other features like the ability to send money across borders which is harder to surveil and stuff like that. I'm also tired of people rationalizing taxes by talking about things like roads which get almost no money-- taxes pay for dropping bombs on brown people. That's the vast majority of where the money goes. If you're pro-tax, you're pro-murdering brown people. fullstop.
- simias 9y ago
  TFA points out that it's true that the dollar lost 99% of its value over the last century. "However, if you held your money in anything interest-bearing, including short-term Treasury bills with no-credit-risk, you’ve at least almost doubled the purchasing power of your money!" I'm not sure I agree with the argument that inflation is theft from the people, or at least we have to define what's "the people". Poor people who earn their salary and spend most of it within the month are not really victims of the inflation unless their wage doesn't increase proportionately with the inflation year after year. And while it's not a perfect match, salaries now are definitely not what they were in 1920. A quick google gives the average salary in 1920 at $1236 although I can't seem to find a decent source for that. Clearly the workforce's purchasing power did not collapse during the past century. "The people" who are losing money are wealthy folks (or "whales" in bitcoin parlance) who hold onto huge amounts of currency. Those would've lost 99% of their fortune if they kept dollars in their mattress for a century. So what should they do instead? Invest that money to fuel the economy.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    "And while it's not a perfect match, salaries now are definitely not what they were in 1920. A quick google gives the average salary in 1920 at $1236 although I can't seem to find a decent source for that." Interesting. This: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/20soirepar.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/20soirepar.pdf looks like a fascinating document with lots o' fun data. It gives $3269 for the 7million who filed income tax returns. A couple of inflation calculators at https://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_calculators/inflation_rate_calculator.asp https://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_calculators/in... give $41,000-42,000 for the inflation adjustment.
- mcguire 9y ago
  "If you're pro-tax, you're pro-murdering brown people. fullstop." Is there any chance we could keep this civil?
- rphlx 9y ago
  > dropping bombs on brown people. That's the vast majority of where the money goes. Military spending is about 7% of the Federal budget. But roughly 50% is used for social transfer payments, which is - to keep your phrasing - a net transfer of money to brown people, including ones who are not even US citizens. Of course it's also a substantial transfer to relatively asset-rich, old, white people via social security and medicare. In any event the claim that US military adventurism is a primary or majority use of tax receipts is simply wrong.
DennisP 9y ago
> What if the service/goods you buy turns out to be a scam or something defective? Reputation systems reportedly have worked well on darknet markets, but it's also simple to do third-party arbitration; when the two parties agree, the arbitrator doesn't even have to be aware of the transaction (or get paid). > What if my company stops paying me? You sue or quit, just like now. Fiat has no particular protection here. I'm arguing for a payment system, not a new judicial system. > What if the government starts unfairly taxing me and threatens to throw me in jail if I don't comply? I don't advocate cryptocurrency as a way to avoid taxes. However, if they did make our existing taxes hard to collect, various other taxes could be used instead. E.g. I'm a fan of carbon taxes at major point sources; just count tons of coal coming out of the mine. The remaining paragraphs argue with points I didn't make. However, I'll mention that capital controls and confiscation are not that uncommon in emerging markets, and while your money might not be your biggest problem in that scenario, it can sometimes help solve your other problems.

by simias 9y ago

rothbardrand 9y ago

That's not the whole argument, by a long shot. The dollar has lost %99.99 of its value, and in my opinion has had %100 inflation in the past 10 years (not each year but over the decade) so is effectively half as valuable again. This is theft from the people. Even Keynes recognized this. Bitcoin is an exit from that system. It has lot of other features like the ability to send money across borders which is harder to surveil and stuff like that. I'm also tired of people rationalizing taxes by talking about things like roads which get almost no money-- taxes pay for dropping bombs on brown people. That's the vast majority of where the money goes. If you're pro-tax, you're pro-murdering brown people. fullstop.

simias 9y ago
TFA points out that it's true that the dollar lost 99% of its value over the last century. "However, if you held your money in anything interest-bearing, including short-term Treasury bills with no-credit-risk, you’ve at least almost doubled the purchasing power of your money!" I'm not sure I agree with the argument that inflation is theft from the people, or at least we have to define what's "the people". Poor people who earn their salary and spend most of it within the month are not really victims of the inflation unless their wage doesn't increase proportionately with the inflation year after year. And while it's not a perfect match, salaries now are definitely not what they were in 1920. A quick google gives the average salary in 1920 at $1236 although I can't seem to find a decent source for that. Clearly the workforce's purchasing power did not collapse during the past century. "The people" who are losing money are wealthy folks (or "whales" in bitcoin parlance) who hold onto huge amounts of currency. Those would've lost 99% of their fortune if they kept dollars in their mattress for a century. So what should they do instead? Invest that money to fuel the economy.
- mcguire 9y ago
  "And while it's not a perfect match, salaries now are definitely not what they were in 1920. A quick google gives the average salary in 1920 at $1236 although I can't seem to find a decent source for that." Interesting. This: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/20soirepar.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/20soirepar.pdf looks like a fascinating document with lots o' fun data. It gives $3269 for the 7million who filed income tax returns. A couple of inflation calculators at https://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_calculators/inflation_rate_calculator.asp https://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_calculators/in... give $41,000-42,000 for the inflation adjustment.
mcguire 9y ago
"If you're pro-tax, you're pro-murdering brown people. fullstop." Is there any chance we could keep this civil?
rphlx 9y ago
> dropping bombs on brown people. That's the vast majority of where the money goes. Military spending is about 7% of the Federal budget. But roughly 50% is used for social transfer payments, which is - to keep your phrasing - a net transfer of money to brown people, including ones who are not even US citizens. Of course it's also a substantial transfer to relatively asset-rich, old, white people via social security and medicare. In any event the claim that US military adventurism is a primary or majority use of tax receipts is simply wrong.

DennisP 9y ago

> What if the service/goods you buy turns out to be a scam or something defective? Reputation systems reportedly have worked well on darknet markets, but it's also simple to do third-party arbitration; when the two parties agree, the arbitrator doesn't even have to be aware of the transaction (or get paid). > What if my company stops paying me? You sue or quit, just like now. Fiat has no particular protection here. I'm arguing for a payment system, not a new judicial system. > What if the government starts unfairly taxing me and threatens to throw me in jail if I don't comply? I don't advocate cryptocurrency as a way to avoid taxes. However, if they did make our existing taxes hard to collect, various other taxes could be used instead. E.g. I'm a fan of carbon taxes at major point sources; just count tons of coal coming out of the mine. The remaining paragraphs argue with points I didn't make. However, I'll mention that capital controls and confiscation are not that uncommon in emerging markets, and while your money might not be your biggest problem in that scenario, it can sometimes help solve your other problems.