6 ms·

This is something we're going to have to get way better at.. ...government created markets. Modern governments run many monopsonies, sectors where they are the

This is something we're going to have to get way better at.. ...government created markets. Modern governments run many monopsonies, sectors where they are the only buyers. Spacex is selling to such a monopsony, for example. It seems that there, a simple change from cost-plus to fixed-quote pricing system made a huge difference. A bigger example is roads, comm cables and a lot of "infrastructure" generally. These are sectors with a centralize core, and less centralized layers above it. Generally, the centralized layer is publicly run, contracted or highly regulated. Lending/money markets are a big example. Central banks at the core, large banks in the next layer, consumer financial services above that. This sounds like an example of a centralized-core market. There are just tons of example of things I would class as designed markets. Private companies can design/control markets too, the app stores are an example. The difference between a well designed/managed market and a badly designed one is huge. In this example, how does it work? You need (or at least, they opted for) a centralised core: the part that keeps track of users, balances and allows transactions to happen. If there is to be a layer built onto this core, it needs to be well designed and designed for openness. We also can't expect competition or market forces to fix problems with the central core, at least unless that competition can be designed in. We're really bad at this. Governments today do a lot of this, it's a core instrument. The difference between being good or bad at this is tremendous. One way or another, it'll need to improve.

meric 9y ago
Federal reserve bank isn’t owned by the government. The federal reserve is owned by commercial banks who receive dividends. It does report to the government and pays the treasury excess earnings. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm
- dalbasal 9y ago
  I wasn't referring to the US system in particular. But regardless of the particulars, there's a centralized core in US banking and in many other industries.
- BinaryIdiot 9y ago
  > The federal reserve is owned by commercial banks who receive dividends. This isn't correct by your own link's information (it says no one owns it). However the Federal Reserve is run by a government appointed group who then oversea the various Federal Reserve Banks, each of which are incorporated and have stock which is what the private banks own. It does seem a bit convoluted though.
  - meric 9y ago
    Oh I thought stock implied ownership. Maybe it doesn’t mean that in this case.
    - BinaryIdiot 9y ago
      Not sure. I mean it might but that would be individual Federal Reserve Banks and not the Federal Reserve itself. I find it a bit confusing, heh.
    - stephen_g 9y ago
      The shares that the commercial banks own are pretty much entirely symbolic. I believe they have no voting rights, for instance. The US Government considers the federal bank “independent within the Government”. The Fed derives all its authority from the Federal Reserve Act, legislated by Congress, and it’s run by a board appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
      - dd36 9y ago
        It’s like owning stock in the Green Bay Packers.
        erichurkman 9y ago
        The Packers are the only publicly owned, non-profit team in the league [0]. They are effectively privately held shares: you can't sell them (you can gift them to family members only), you get no dividends, you get no rights except the ability to vote. It's the only reason the Packers are still in Green Bay: to move or sell, you'd have to convince 350,000 die hard Packers fans to vote in favor of a move/sale. It's one of my favorite stocks: I never have to worry if the value is going up or down. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc.
- tallanvor 9y ago
  The Federal Reserve system is quite complex, but the 12 banks are not owned by the banks. They are chartered and organized by the US government, so they can't change their mission without convincing the government to change the laws around them. Nationally chartered banks are required to be members of one of the Federal Reserve Banks, and have to own "stock" equal to 3% of their capital and surplus. State chartered banks are not required to be members, but may do so under different rules. The banks receive a 6% divided of their stake, with the remaining profits going back to the government. The numbers aren't clear, but it looks like the system made over $92 billion for their 2016 year, and over $91 billion of that went to the government.
syshum 9y ago
>>This is something we're going to have to get way better at.. ...government created markets. The goal should be to eliminate government created markets not get "better" at creating them... > You need (or at least, they opted for) a centralised core: That is the problem they opted for the centralized management, one does not need it for EBT, they choose it because they wanted control over how and where the money was spent which means they needed a contractor they controlled. >We also can't expect competition or market forces to fix problems with the central core, at least unless that competition can be designed in. In this case it comes down to data ownership. Like so many other things in modern society in the US we have a warped sense of ownership where a company that collects information about you owns that information, you do not own your own information. Until we change that these types of issues will continue to arise As the article stated commercial banks attempted to shut down services like MINT for people until a law was passed requiring the banks to allow users to access their own data with 3rd party services like Mint. This type of legal requirement should be expanded to all personal information
- adrianN 9y ago
  There will always be government created markets. Who else should pay for infrastructure for example? Do you want to privatize all of that?
  - syshum 9y ago
    >>There will always be government created markets. Maybe, maybe not, but that was not my point. The Goal should be to eliminate as many of those as possible. >Who else should pay for infrastructure for example? Depends on what infrastruture you are speaking of, Roads are often an example but you do understand there are private roads, probably more than you think. "But who will build the roads" is a tired dead horse in libertarian circles, that problem has been solved countless times >Do you want to privatize all of that? Again that depends on what you mean by "Privatize", I believe goods and services are best when the consumers that consume them directly pay for them. My goal would be to have the payment for goods and services as close to the consumption of those goods and services as possible. The more people and organizations you put between a consumer and vendor the more quality suffers, and prices raise.
lr4444lr 9y ago
Private prisons and munitions manufacturers, too. Your general point speaks to a major source of corruption in the United States, which is often glossed over when well-meaning people push for increased government spending that will go to service providers rather than recipients directly, and is IMHO a vastly underappreciated argument in support of UBI.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  Dunno if it's underappreciated. I appreciate it for this reason, and similar ones. I assume this is why the idea resonated/s with the likes of friedman and also left-libertarian leaning thinkers. I don't think all problems can be solved quite this way, and I don't fundamentally have a problem with secondary currencies as an instrument, as long as they work good. In this case, taking the premise as is (food stamps should exist and apps should exist to make them work better), what you inevitably have is an artificial market. It's not impossible to have a core system onto which independent developers can build apps.
  - lr4444lr 9y ago
    Incidental to your point about apps, I wonder if Propel can't deliver a devastating blow with a digital records FOIA request. Conduent will fight it tooth and nail, and it may be worth Propel's while to put some professional legal help on it, but since the data is being paid for by the taxpayer, as long as it can be redacted so that personal information isn't shared (which Propel could be required to pay for), Conduent may have no recourse to keep their data under lock and key. App users could be shown how to request their primary key or some other permissible identifier under FOIA from Conduent, and then they'd be reduced to a mere primary data warehousing and collection outfit.
    - mcherm 9y ago
      > I wonder if Propel can't deliver a devastating blow with a digital records FOIA request I wouldn't think so. Propel needs current data, and taking a month or two to respond to each FOIA request would make the data untimely even if the FOIA request is deemed to be valid. > App users could be shown how to request their primary key or some other permissible identifier under FOIA from Conduent, and then they'd be reduced to a mere primary data warehousing and collection outfit. If I understand the article correctly, Propel already knows the individual's primary key and their app was working fine. Then Conduent stopped responding to API calls from Propel's app. Knowing the ID doesn't help with that problem.
mattmcegg 9y ago
saying governments created markets is like saying rapists created sex.
Abekkus 9y ago
Every market is a designed market. Markets aren't a natural dynamic system.

meric 9y ago

Federal reserve bank isn’t owned by the government. The federal reserve is owned by commercial banks who receive dividends. It does report to the government and pays the treasury excess earnings. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

dalbasal 9y ago
I wasn't referring to the US system in particular. But regardless of the particulars, there's a centralized core in US banking and in many other industries.
BinaryIdiot 9y ago
> The federal reserve is owned by commercial banks who receive dividends. This isn't correct by your own link's information (it says no one owns it). However the Federal Reserve is run by a government appointed group who then oversea the various Federal Reserve Banks, each of which are incorporated and have stock which is what the private banks own. It does seem a bit convoluted though.
- meric 9y ago
  Oh I thought stock implied ownership. Maybe it doesn’t mean that in this case.
  - BinaryIdiot 9y ago
    Not sure. I mean it might but that would be individual Federal Reserve Banks and not the Federal Reserve itself. I find it a bit confusing, heh.
  - stephen_g 9y ago
    The shares that the commercial banks own are pretty much entirely symbolic. I believe they have no voting rights, for instance. The US Government considers the federal bank “independent within the Government”. The Fed derives all its authority from the Federal Reserve Act, legislated by Congress, and it’s run by a board appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
    - dd36 9y ago
      It’s like owning stock in the Green Bay Packers.
      - erichurkman 9y ago
        The Packers are the only publicly owned, non-profit team in the league [0]. They are effectively privately held shares: you can't sell them (you can gift them to family members only), you get no dividends, you get no rights except the ability to vote. It's the only reason the Packers are still in Green Bay: to move or sell, you'd have to convince 350,000 die hard Packers fans to vote in favor of a move/sale. It's one of my favorite stocks: I never have to worry if the value is going up or down. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc.
tallanvor 9y ago
The Federal Reserve system is quite complex, but the 12 banks are not owned by the banks. They are chartered and organized by the US government, so they can't change their mission without convincing the government to change the laws around them. Nationally chartered banks are required to be members of one of the Federal Reserve Banks, and have to own "stock" equal to 3% of their capital and surplus. State chartered banks are not required to be members, but may do so under different rules. The banks receive a 6% divided of their stake, with the remaining profits going back to the government. The numbers aren't clear, but it looks like the system made over $92 billion for their 2016 year, and over $91 billion of that went to the government.

syshum 9y ago

>>This is something we're going to have to get way better at.. ...government created markets. The goal should be to eliminate government created markets not get "better" at creating them... > You need (or at least, they opted for) a centralised core: That is the problem they opted for the centralized management, one does not need it for EBT, they choose it because they wanted control over how and where the money was spent which means they needed a contractor they controlled. >We also can't expect competition or market forces to fix problems with the central core, at least unless that competition can be designed in. In this case it comes down to data ownership. Like so many other things in modern society in the US we have a warped sense of ownership where a company that collects information about you owns that information, you do not own your own information. Until we change that these types of issues will continue to arise As the article stated commercial banks attempted to shut down services like MINT for people until a law was passed requiring the banks to allow users to access their own data with 3rd party services like Mint. This type of legal requirement should be expanded to all personal information

adrianN 9y ago
There will always be government created markets. Who else should pay for infrastructure for example? Do you want to privatize all of that?
- syshum 9y ago
  >>There will always be government created markets. Maybe, maybe not, but that was not my point. The Goal should be to eliminate as many of those as possible. >Who else should pay for infrastructure for example? Depends on what infrastruture you are speaking of, Roads are often an example but you do understand there are private roads, probably more than you think. "But who will build the roads" is a tired dead horse in libertarian circles, that problem has been solved countless times >Do you want to privatize all of that? Again that depends on what you mean by "Privatize", I believe goods and services are best when the consumers that consume them directly pay for them. My goal would be to have the payment for goods and services as close to the consumption of those goods and services as possible. The more people and organizations you put between a consumer and vendor the more quality suffers, and prices raise.

lr4444lr 9y ago

Private prisons and munitions manufacturers, too. Your general point speaks to a major source of corruption in the United States, which is often glossed over when well-meaning people push for increased government spending that will go to service providers rather than recipients directly, and is IMHO a vastly underappreciated argument in support of UBI.

dalbasal 9y ago
Dunno if it's underappreciated. I appreciate it for this reason, and similar ones. I assume this is why the idea resonated/s with the likes of friedman and also left-libertarian leaning thinkers. I don't think all problems can be solved quite this way, and I don't fundamentally have a problem with secondary currencies as an instrument, as long as they work good. In this case, taking the premise as is (food stamps should exist and apps should exist to make them work better), what you inevitably have is an artificial market. It's not impossible to have a core system onto which independent developers can build apps.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  Incidental to your point about apps, I wonder if Propel can't deliver a devastating blow with a digital records FOIA request. Conduent will fight it tooth and nail, and it may be worth Propel's while to put some professional legal help on it, but since the data is being paid for by the taxpayer, as long as it can be redacted so that personal information isn't shared (which Propel could be required to pay for), Conduent may have no recourse to keep their data under lock and key. App users could be shown how to request their primary key or some other permissible identifier under FOIA from Conduent, and then they'd be reduced to a mere primary data warehousing and collection outfit.
  - mcherm 9y ago
    > I wonder if Propel can't deliver a devastating blow with a digital records FOIA request I wouldn't think so. Propel needs current data, and taking a month or two to respond to each FOIA request would make the data untimely even if the FOIA request is deemed to be valid. > App users could be shown how to request their primary key or some other permissible identifier under FOIA from Conduent, and then they'd be reduced to a mere primary data warehousing and collection outfit. If I understand the article correctly, Propel already knows the individual's primary key and their app was working fine. Then Conduent stopped responding to API calls from Propel's app. Knowing the ID doesn't help with that problem.

mattmcegg 9y ago

saying governments created markets is like saying rapists created sex.

Abekkus 9y ago

Every market is a designed market. Markets aren't a natural dynamic system.