4 ms·

Different people in the U.S. government will embrace bitcoin, because they are the people trading bitcoin now. The wealth will bring the influence and the influ

Different people in the U.S. government will embrace bitcoin, because they are the people trading bitcoin now. The wealth will bring the influence and the influence will bring the power. Some people were flabbergasted when the Fed was buying Mortgage-Backed Securities off the open market, practically giving one group of people money, under the guise of stimulating AN economy. Different people are going to be flabbergasted when the Fed, under a different group's leadership, starts buying cryptocurrencies by the $ billions every month, practically giving another group of people money, under the guise of stimulating AN economy. And it will still be unaccountable to anyone that cares. The European Central Bank buys junk corporate bonds simply because a Goldman Sachs alumni wanted to. The Swiss National Bank buys equity, straight off the New York Stock Exchange, at valuations it can never make a profit from dividends from. The Central Bank of Japan buys equity and bonds. These institutions are funded by the future productivity of tax payers and can be exposed to heavy losses. It isn't out of the question that they will buy the spot market in crypto commodities in the future just because someone familiar with that market is heading the bank.

alexasmyths 9y ago
"practically giving one group of people money, under the guise of stimulating AN economy." It wasn't under the guise of anything but saving the US economy from a wicked meltdown of epic proportions. The dominos were set to all go down, the Fed kept a few of them up by rebalancing wealth. As you point out - viciously unfair - but better in the long run. FYI - a 'strict currency' is perhaps worse; crisis will happen. Strict currencies ties our boat to the dock, too much or too little water and we're all smoked. Moreover - outside of crises, the economy is dynamic - growing and shrinking, monetary policy helps manage that. A strict currency is better than a poorly managed currency, but a well managed currency is better than a strict currency.
- etr-strike 9y ago
  > As you point out - viciously unfair - but better in the long run. That's your opinion, not fact. Banks are larger than ever. Inequality higher than ever. Housing more expensive than ever. The world is more unstable now than it was in 2008. Your definition of "better in the long run" is quite odd.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    No, it's a fact, and a very simple one. The economy is very intertwined, with the banks at the centre. If they start to go down - everything starts to do down. It's as factual as saying if you choke and engine of oxygen, that it will stop burning. It's simple cause and effect. Yes - we understand very well the long-long term moral dilemma of 'too big to fail' - this is a well known issue. And as I mentioned it was 'viciously unfair' - by the way - when the Fed absorbed those mortgages, they were saving millions of American homeowners as well. A 'market correction' would have implied massive foreclosure across the US. The 'winners' of the bailout were Banks AND those who owned homes. ALL American home values were propped up. the 'losers' of the action were non-property owners. 'The more debt' people were carrying, specifically, 'mortgage debt' - the 'more free money' got from the Feds actions.
    - etr-strike 9y ago
      Still your opinion. In order to accomplish the above, monetary experiments at a level never before seen were needed. The QE experiment is, at best, half over (they still need to get rid of all the assets they purchased). Driving interest rates below the rate of inflation has caused debt to accumulate in all areas of the economy. The fact that you think the impacts of the financial crisis are behind us is hilarious. Just wait till the municipal debt starts to crumble. Places like Chicago and Puerto Rico have only been able to sustain themselves because of the low interest rates on debt. The actions of the Fed didn't fix anything, they just kicked the can down the road.
    - jnordwick 9y ago
      I don't think you understand the difference between a theory and a fact.

alexasmyths 9y ago

"practically giving one group of people money, under the guise of stimulating AN economy." It wasn't under the guise of anything but saving the US economy from a wicked meltdown of epic proportions. The dominos were set to all go down, the Fed kept a few of them up by rebalancing wealth. As you point out - viciously unfair - but better in the long run. FYI - a 'strict currency' is perhaps worse; crisis will happen. Strict currencies ties our boat to the dock, too much or too little water and we're all smoked. Moreover - outside of crises, the economy is dynamic - growing and shrinking, monetary policy helps manage that. A strict currency is better than a poorly managed currency, but a well managed currency is better than a strict currency.

etr-strike 9y ago
> As you point out - viciously unfair - but better in the long run. That's your opinion, not fact. Banks are larger than ever. Inequality higher than ever. Housing more expensive than ever. The world is more unstable now than it was in 2008. Your definition of "better in the long run" is quite odd.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  No, it's a fact, and a very simple one. The economy is very intertwined, with the banks at the centre. If they start to go down - everything starts to do down. It's as factual as saying if you choke and engine of oxygen, that it will stop burning. It's simple cause and effect. Yes - we understand very well the long-long term moral dilemma of 'too big to fail' - this is a well known issue. And as I mentioned it was 'viciously unfair' - by the way - when the Fed absorbed those mortgages, they were saving millions of American homeowners as well. A 'market correction' would have implied massive foreclosure across the US. The 'winners' of the bailout were Banks AND those who owned homes. ALL American home values were propped up. the 'losers' of the action were non-property owners. 'The more debt' people were carrying, specifically, 'mortgage debt' - the 'more free money' got from the Feds actions.
  - etr-strike 9y ago
    Still your opinion. In order to accomplish the above, monetary experiments at a level never before seen were needed. The QE experiment is, at best, half over (they still need to get rid of all the assets they purchased). Driving interest rates below the rate of inflation has caused debt to accumulate in all areas of the economy. The fact that you think the impacts of the financial crisis are behind us is hilarious. Just wait till the municipal debt starts to crumble. Places like Chicago and Puerto Rico have only been able to sustain themselves because of the low interest rates on debt. The actions of the Fed didn't fix anything, they just kicked the can down the road.
  - jnordwick 9y ago
    I don't think you understand the difference between a theory and a fact.