3 ms·

It isn't illegal to circumvent the cabal by agreeing to use a different currency. The sole goal of currency is a common medium of exchange. If that common mediu

by yock 9y ago

It isn't illegal to circumvent the cabal by agreeing to use a different currency. The sole goal of currency is a common medium of exchange. If that common medium is being manipulated then the market will perceive that as damage and route around it.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>If that common medium is being manipulated then the market will perceive that as damage and route around it. Isn't that basically the problem with bitcoin though? We can't perceive if it's being manipulated or not. E: Actually that brings up another issue for me. Wouldn't that just be a run on the currency? So the last people to get out of manipu-coins are the ones stuck holding the bag?
- yock 9y ago
  The currency is still just a medium of exchange. If the value crashes and some are left "holding the bag" as you say, then those left holding currency could still exchange with one another. No system promises that its actors will behave morally. What we're talking about is whether or not you fundamentally believe that government can and should exert force on the market. Those of us who believe they should not don't see a perfect and moral market on the other side, we just would prefer to exchange problems of force and authority with problems of interpersonal relationships.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >No system promises that its actors will behave morally. Of course not, but government allows us to reach outside the system (in some cases) and set the rules for the system. Those rules can be used to help encourage more moral behavior and discourage less moral behavior. >Those of us who believe they should not don't see a perfect and moral market on the other side Okay but you can see how this language: >If that common medium is being manipulated then the market will perceive that as damage and route around it. does begin to imply a "perfect" market right? If something is manipulated then we just route around it. That phrasing seems to hide that the real cost in "routing around" a currency is that a lot of people lose all their money. >we just would prefer to exchange problems of force and authority with problems of interpersonal relationships. This wording seems to put force/authority and interpersonal relationships on opposite sides of the spectrum but that's obviously not true. Interpersonal relationships are one of the primary methods of using force and authority. Perhaps a more accurate representation of your views is that you would like force and authority to be only transmitted person to person?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

by yock 9y ago

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

>If that common medium is being manipulated then the market will perceive that as damage and route around it. Isn't that basically the problem with bitcoin though? We can't perceive if it's being manipulated or not. E: Actually that brings up another issue for me. Wouldn't that just be a run on the currency? So the last people to get out of manipu-coins are the ones stuck holding the bag?

yock 9y ago
The currency is still just a medium of exchange. If the value crashes and some are left "holding the bag" as you say, then those left holding currency could still exchange with one another. No system promises that its actors will behave morally. What we're talking about is whether or not you fundamentally believe that government can and should exert force on the market. Those of us who believe they should not don't see a perfect and moral market on the other side, we just would prefer to exchange problems of force and authority with problems of interpersonal relationships.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >No system promises that its actors will behave morally. Of course not, but government allows us to reach outside the system (in some cases) and set the rules for the system. Those rules can be used to help encourage more moral behavior and discourage less moral behavior. >Those of us who believe they should not don't see a perfect and moral market on the other side Okay but you can see how this language: >If that common medium is being manipulated then the market will perceive that as damage and route around it. does begin to imply a "perfect" market right? If something is manipulated then we just route around it. That phrasing seems to hide that the real cost in "routing around" a currency is that a lot of people lose all their money. >we just would prefer to exchange problems of force and authority with problems of interpersonal relationships. This wording seems to put force/authority and interpersonal relationships on opposite sides of the spectrum but that's obviously not true. Interpersonal relationships are one of the primary methods of using force and authority. Perhaps a more accurate representation of your views is that you would like force and authority to be only transmitted person to person?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]