6 ms·

If non-professional investors start putting their life savings into Bitcoin and it crashes, the government can't just say "though break, you will starve on reti

If non-professional investors start putting their life savings into Bitcoin and it crashes, the government can't just say "though break, you will starve on retirement"

dmichulke 9y ago
Why can't they? Surely they can indebt every person with accumulating govt deficits (currently 62k in the US) so what's different? https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_per_capita_public_debt https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_per_capita_public_debt
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Because those people vote.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Because a) this debt at least pretends to pay for the comforts of their lives like infrastructure, security - and in some countries - education and healthcare; and b) national debt does not work the same way a private individual's debt works.
  - dmichulke 9y ago
    a)So taking on debt pretending to do something good is fine? What if I say they do something bad with that debt too, is it still OK? b) Interest rates are being paid for decades via taxes, money that could have been put to use much better. I'd say it's similar enough and don't think "it works differently" is an argument here
    - exelius 9y ago
      It works differently because the US can just issue more currency to pay off debt. Honestly sovereign debt is a currency manipulation / money supply tool more than anything.
      - DennisP 9y ago
        Yes but sooner or later we all pay when they do that.
- pc86 9y ago
  What does per capita public debt have to do with someone losing their life savings?
  - dmichulke 9y ago
    It's inconsistent that the govt "saves" you from losing your life savings yet indebts you with a nontrivial amount plus lifelong interest rate payments. Put as question: how much would you like legally binding financial advice by someone up to their ears in debt?
    - pc86 9y ago
      I don't owe $60k because the USG has $60k in per capita debt. Nobody's coming to me for that. The mental gymnastics you need to go through just to equate the two is exhausting. "Legally binding" and "advice" are mutually exclusive concepts. And it's 100% possible you can give great financial advice and be in debt. "Max out your 401k and a Roth IRA" is great advice in 99% of circumstances. Just because someone is paying off high interest credit cards instead doesn't make the advice invalid or their choice of priorities incorrect.
      - eberkund 9y ago
        I can see where @dmichulke is coming from, nobody is going to come to your door looking for that money in the fashion you describe but you are paying for it one way or another. Who knows, maybe if the debt levels weren't so high the US would be able to afford a healthcare system like the rest of the developed world.
        paulmd 9y ago
        > Who knows Anyone who has applied a modicum of thought to the issue. The US already has more per-capita public funding going to healthcare than any other nation, we simply don't get a good return on it because that is perceived as "socialism". And pursuing a highly conservative fiscal policy (far off the right side of the Overton window) is not going to change that, nor advance the cause of said "socialist" policies. It's flabbergasting that you would suggest that as any kind of a reasonable cause-and-effect.
- freehunter 9y ago
  I'm not on the hook for "my share" of the national debt. The government isn't going to knock on my door with a $62k tax bill next month. That's the government's debt, not mine. If I spend all my money but still owe creditors more, that's what I'm on the hook for. That's real debt.
  - abcdefghijklm 9y ago
    No, they won't knock on your door with a tax bill. Because it's easier to tax you through inflation to finance that debt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage#Seigniorage_as_a_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage#Seigniorage_as_a_t... "Economists regard seigniorage as a form of inflation tax, redistributing real resources to the currency issuer. Issuing new currency, rather than collecting taxes paid out of the existing money stock, is then considered in effect a tax that falls on those who hold the existing currency."
    - danblick 9y ago
      Eh. But inflation only affects nominal assets like bonds and bank account balances. Real assets like houses or stocks (to a degree) would be expected to rise along with inflation. That makes inflation distortionary, not some ideal tax on wealth. Governments can't just run away with inflation as an alternative to tax.
indubitable 9y ago
I think this almost certainly is not the reason. You can take something as simple as lotteries to show this. Lotteries specifically target and exploit lower income individuals who we can say are probably not 'professional investors.' And they're huge money. In 2016 $80.55 billion was spent on lottery tickets in state lotteries in the US. [1] That's hundreds of dollars per person if each and every adult in the US bought exactly an equal share of all lottery tickets. In reality only x% of people play and the distribution is going to he heavily distorted. Lotteries are a major drain on society, but government's love the 'free' money. So we have them. [1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/215265/sales-of-us-state-and-provincial-lotteries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/215265/sales-of-us-state...
- chii 9y ago
  but people don't usually put their entire life savings into lottery. but may be they could with Bitcoins...
  - slowmotiony 9y ago
    I don't understand your point at all, what is stopping me from using my life savings on lottery?
    - BoorishBears 9y ago
      You don't understand the point, or you don't agree? Because to me it should be easy to understand that Lottery isn't marketed/treated as an investment (crypto has started to be legitimately treated as such), and historical returns don't suggest it would work. Crypto is just attractive enough it could pull the wrong type of attention from everyday people acting as investors. I don't agree with direct regulation, but I can definitely see why the government would be worried.
  - indubitable 9y ago
    The data would beg to differ. You have to keep in mind the demographic makeup of the US. More than half of Americans have less than $1,000 in savings - total. [1] Only 15% of Americans have more than $10k saved. Now take that $80 billion figure from the lottery. There are currently about 245 million adults in the US. About 49% of Americans play state lotteries. [2] Now let's do the math. That's $80.55 billion / (245 million * 0.49) = $671 spent on lotteries on average!! It is very safe to say that there are alot of people spending all, or near all, of what could be their life savings on lottery tickets. Lottery tickets are almost always negative expected value which means you're basically lighting money on fire, and governments worldwide love them. More generally the US government acts as an oligarchy. Government self interest, followed by special interests are what generally drive government action. Public utility (and opinion) play a very minor role. And yes, I even have a source for this as well as I understand this is not what many people want to believe. [3] [1] - https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-average-american-have-in-their-s.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-... [2] - http://news.gallup.com/poll/193874/half-americans-play-state-lotteries.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/193874/half-americans-play-state... [3] - http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materi...

If non-professional investors start putting their life savings into Bitcoin and it crashes, the government can't just say "though break, you will starve on retirement"

dmichulke 9y ago

Why can't they? Surely they can indebt every person with accumulating govt deficits (currently 62k in the US) so what's different? https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_per_capita_public_debt https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_per_capita_public_debt

toomuchtodo 9y ago
Because those people vote.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
Because a) this debt at least pretends to pay for the comforts of their lives like infrastructure, security - and in some countries - education and healthcare; and b) national debt does not work the same way a private individual's debt works.
- dmichulke 9y ago
  a)So taking on debt pretending to do something good is fine? What if I say they do something bad with that debt too, is it still OK? b) Interest rates are being paid for decades via taxes, money that could have been put to use much better. I'd say it's similar enough and don't think "it works differently" is an argument here
  - exelius 9y ago
    It works differently because the US can just issue more currency to pay off debt. Honestly sovereign debt is a currency manipulation / money supply tool more than anything.
    - DennisP 9y ago
      Yes but sooner or later we all pay when they do that.
pc86 9y ago
What does per capita public debt have to do with someone losing their life savings?
- dmichulke 9y ago
  It's inconsistent that the govt "saves" you from losing your life savings yet indebts you with a nontrivial amount plus lifelong interest rate payments. Put as question: how much would you like legally binding financial advice by someone up to their ears in debt?
  - pc86 9y ago
    I don't owe $60k because the USG has $60k in per capita debt. Nobody's coming to me for that. The mental gymnastics you need to go through just to equate the two is exhausting. "Legally binding" and "advice" are mutually exclusive concepts. And it's 100% possible you can give great financial advice and be in debt. "Max out your 401k and a Roth IRA" is great advice in 99% of circumstances. Just because someone is paying off high interest credit cards instead doesn't make the advice invalid or their choice of priorities incorrect.
    - eberkund 9y ago
      I can see where @dmichulke is coming from, nobody is going to come to your door looking for that money in the fashion you describe but you are paying for it one way or another. Who knows, maybe if the debt levels weren't so high the US would be able to afford a healthcare system like the rest of the developed world.
      - paulmd 9y ago
        > Who knows Anyone who has applied a modicum of thought to the issue. The US already has more per-capita public funding going to healthcare than any other nation, we simply don't get a good return on it because that is perceived as "socialism". And pursuing a highly conservative fiscal policy (far off the right side of the Overton window) is not going to change that, nor advance the cause of said "socialist" policies. It's flabbergasting that you would suggest that as any kind of a reasonable cause-and-effect.
freehunter 9y ago
I'm not on the hook for "my share" of the national debt. The government isn't going to knock on my door with a $62k tax bill next month. That's the government's debt, not mine. If I spend all my money but still owe creditors more, that's what I'm on the hook for. That's real debt.
- abcdefghijklm 9y ago
  No, they won't knock on your door with a tax bill. Because it's easier to tax you through inflation to finance that debt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage#Seigniorage_as_a_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage#Seigniorage_as_a_t... "Economists regard seigniorage as a form of inflation tax, redistributing real resources to the currency issuer. Issuing new currency, rather than collecting taxes paid out of the existing money stock, is then considered in effect a tax that falls on those who hold the existing currency."
  - danblick 9y ago
    Eh. But inflation only affects nominal assets like bonds and bank account balances. Real assets like houses or stocks (to a degree) would be expected to rise along with inflation. That makes inflation distortionary, not some ideal tax on wealth. Governments can't just run away with inflation as an alternative to tax.

indubitable 9y ago

I think this almost certainly is not the reason. You can take something as simple as lotteries to show this. Lotteries specifically target and exploit lower income individuals who we can say are probably not 'professional investors.' And they're huge money. In 2016 $80.55 billion was spent on lottery tickets in state lotteries in the US. [1] That's hundreds of dollars per person if each and every adult in the US bought exactly an equal share of all lottery tickets. In reality only x% of people play and the distribution is going to he heavily distorted. Lotteries are a major drain on society, but government's love the 'free' money. So we have them. [1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/215265/sales-of-us-state-and-provincial-lotteries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/215265/sales-of-us-state...

chii 9y ago
but people don't usually put their entire life savings into lottery. but may be they could with Bitcoins...
- slowmotiony 9y ago
  I don't understand your point at all, what is stopping me from using my life savings on lottery?
  - BoorishBears 9y ago
    You don't understand the point, or you don't agree? Because to me it should be easy to understand that Lottery isn't marketed/treated as an investment (crypto has started to be legitimately treated as such), and historical returns don't suggest it would work. Crypto is just attractive enough it could pull the wrong type of attention from everyday people acting as investors. I don't agree with direct regulation, but I can definitely see why the government would be worried.
- indubitable 9y ago
  The data would beg to differ. You have to keep in mind the demographic makeup of the US. More than half of Americans have less than $1,000 in savings - total. [1] Only 15% of Americans have more than $10k saved. Now take that $80 billion figure from the lottery. There are currently about 245 million adults in the US. About 49% of Americans play state lotteries. [2] Now let's do the math. That's $80.55 billion / (245 million * 0.49) = $671 spent on lotteries on average!! It is very safe to say that there are alot of people spending all, or near all, of what could be their life savings on lottery tickets. Lottery tickets are almost always negative expected value which means you're basically lighting money on fire, and governments worldwide love them. More generally the US government acts as an oligarchy. Government self interest, followed by special interests are what generally drive government action. Public utility (and opinion) play a very minor role. And yes, I even have a source for this as well as I understand this is not what many people want to believe. [3] [1] - https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-average-american-have-in-their-s.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-... [2] - http://news.gallup.com/poll/193874/half-americans-play-state-lotteries.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/193874/half-americans-play-state... [3] - http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materi...