5 ms·
> All that said, I think issuing some sort of government-backed currency might be one way of experimenting with implementing a universal basic income, in order
by kome 9y ago
> All that said, I think issuing some sort of government-backed currency might be one way of experimenting with implementing a universal basic income, in order to combat poverty among your citizens. But I don't see that discussed in the article.
It's funny, because we already have a "government-backed currency" but we prefer to bail-out the banks instead of bailing-out individual in distress... I mean: it's not a problem of technology, it's the lack of political will. Crypto-currencies are not different from any other type of currency in this respect. I don't see why they are better fitted to implement a Universal Basic Income. I perhaps see reasons why they are worse than actual money (technological divide, lack of acceptance in shops, difficult to understand).
- danieldw 9y agoActually one good thing would be if there is a real technological divide unemployed people would be forced to become better with tech to claim their welfare, which in turn increases their chances to find jobs. Disabled or old people should not be left out because of this and should be handled in a way.
- runeks 9y ago> It's funny, because we already have a "government-backed currency" but we prefer to bail-out the banks instead of bailing-out individual in distress... What, exactly, does “bailing out individuals in distress” comprise?
- tomrod 9y agoI would imagine the standard social safety net: food, unemployment insurance, parental leave, and so on.
- walshemj 9y agobecause catastrophic bank failures effect every one
- PeterisP 9y agoThat would be if you let the bank go bankrupt but instead compensate the individual depositors up to a certain limit. That won't leave anyone in distress although it will decimate the savings for quite a few people who had a lot of them. The main reason not to do this is because that would usually mean severe distress for many employers whose working capital would be lost and day-to-day business disrupted, possibly (especially during an economic downturn) bankrupting them; causing a ripple throughout the economy as a major bank going down takes down also many unrelated companies, their employees, their suppliers, etc, and possibly toppling the next weaker bank(s) as well.
- tom_mellior 9y agoI agree. The point is, they might not have the funds or the "political will", as you say, to implement a UBI in Euros. They cannot print Euros. But if they can issue "tokens" out of thin air and encourage network effects that lead to some acceptance in shops etc., that might be a different way to go.
- kome 9y agogood point.
- dalbasal 9y agoIt's a problem of god-knows-what. You can talk to a lot of people that have clear opinions on bank failures, bank runs, inflation and such. I'm not one of them. Bank runs have been happening since the neolithic. The money is always made up, usually it's debt. Even gold inflates, when banks start issuing loans. Sometimes it crashes. I think it's something we just don't quite understand. Cryptos are good for reasons other than whatever macroeconomic theory is built into bitcoin. They're digital. That's useful. The digital economy needs better ways of moving around money. At present, if you want to run a digital "market" where money goes in and out it must be "thick". Chargebacks, fraud & transaction costs will add up to 5%. That means thin or fast are not options. For thin and/or fast (eg online securities trading or currencies), they need to already have all your money or trust that you'll pay. That's why you need an account with a brokerage. In other words, there is no digital cash. How do you build a patreon without a "man-in-the-middle?" Can Estcoin do it? How do you trade currencies without some random institution holding your money. How do you do micropayments. I think we need a separate bitcoin for building stuff on, away from the crazy currency trading. Government backed seems like a good way to go. I'd even recommend a central bank, just call it something less scary. Edit: I don't get the downvotes. If people like the bitcoin "macroeconomic theory," that's great. You have bitcoin. Why can't we have 2?
- pjmorris 9y ago> I think it's something we just don't quite understand. There was a period of relative calm between the instantiation of post-1929-crash banking regulations and the repeal of Glass-Steagall (Gramm-Leach-Bliley) and the deregulation of derivatives (CFMA) in the late 90's/early 2000's. Perhaps finance is better understood than is recognized.
- ch4s3 9y agoI have a dim view of the repeal of Glass-Steagall, but it had little to do with sub-prime lending, CDO, et. al. The 2008 crash was because of shoddy lending underwriting, mass speculation in real estate, and some fraud like collateralization. The economy didn't fall over because banks were dealing in both retail banking and investment banking. I mean I could be wrong in my assessment, but I think I remember it well enough. The truth is that crashes are cyclical... for reasons that are poorly understood. There are probably ways to manipulate cycles, but eventually human psychology takes over and people start acting irrationally en masse. What we can do, I think, is focus on how we respond to down turns.
- zeckalpha 9y agoAuroracoin was kind of an attempt at this, though it stopped distributions.