4 ms·

Oligopolies do sometimes end when conditions change. People once thought that TV news, highly regulated by the government, would have an indefinite monopoly. Cr

by tlb 7y ago

Oligopolies do sometimes end when conditions change. People once thought that TV news, highly regulated by the government, would have an indefinite monopoly. Credit cards irritated incumbent banks in the 60s. It’s not inconceivable that banking’s control of money could end.

hinkley 7y ago
It's common trope in the history of revolutions for the lower upper class (or if available, the middle class) to position themselves as the heroes or the voices for the oppressed. Once the mob has displaced their 'betters' they step in to take over, becoming the new upper class. Technically the oligopoly is overthrown. Practically, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
yingw787 7y ago
When you're talking about using a different currency, you're not replacing Bank of America or JPMorgan Chase. You're replacing the Federal Reserve, Bretton Woods, and the U.S. government. Government's grasp on what money should mean is one of the primary ways democratic governments exercise power.
- svd4anything 7y ago
  > Government's grasp on what money should mean is one of the primary ways democratic governments exercise power. Could you explain that statement? I can’t help but counter that isn’t often the government’s control of money that enables the rise of authoritarian governments! Perhaps privatization of currency might strengthen democracy not undermine it.
  - kyshoc 7y ago
    You're not wrong, but here's the problem: government can become autocratic, and private companies will become autocratic. At least with a government you have a shot at being ruled by something other than a private entity's self-interest.
  - yingw787 7y ago
    ...I really don’t agree with that counter. Many, and probably most, governments on this earth today have divergent understandings of money and power. You can be rich in Russia, but that money can be easily rendered worthless by somebody pointing a gun at you or your family. There is no comfort in being rich if you are not politically connected, and even then you have to be more connected than the other guy otherwise you are dead. Stalin didn’t even carry a wallet; why bother when you can just say “see that rich guy? Kill him and bring me his money, I want to buy a bagel”. In the U.S., there’s corruption and racism sure, but by and large money and power are congruent. The business community opposed Trumps’s response to Charlottesville because a rich black man stood up and said that’s not okay. That’s because democratic governments follow rules. You have green paper; here’s a coffee. Oh you’re black and it’s 1960? Let’s change the written rules so you can get coffee in any shop. Authoritarian governments have “rules” and rules. You have green paper? Too bad, you said something in newspaper and I am afraid of the government, so no coffee for you. That’s what really grinds my gears about people breaking a societal paradigm like currency. Not just a fundamental misunderstanding of micro and macroeconomics (one guy on another thread said stealing money from a crypto exchange reduces the money supply and can be monetary policy), but also increasing the amount of societal chaos. How do you advance in life when common law will not protect your property?
    - abecedarius 7y ago
      I don't understand how your point of view conflicts with the parent's. Are you saying that yes, power over money can be used to tyrannical ends, but real tyrants needn't bother?
      - yingw787 7y ago
        What I'm getting at is in closed societies, power and money are different things. In open societies, money is power. Parent says government control over money incentivizes authoritarianism. I'm arguing authoritarians have no need to control money to exercise power, because they have multiple ways to do the latter. For instance, during the Cold War the Soviet ruble was not convertible to U.S. dollars or British pounds, because the Soviet government didn't exercise power through open trade/commerce/finance, but rather through organizations like COMECON (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comecon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comecon). Money's power is observable, decentralized, and fine-grained, everything an economic pact is not.
Spearchucker 7y ago
Only when (and if) the majority of places we pay accept the new form of payment. Someone was frothing at the mouth the other day about being able to send cash to family in Africa using this. Not realizing that a toll must be paid to convert back to cash. Which is about all that works in many places there.
epiphanitus 7y ago
I'm speculating here, but I think this isn't about challenging the monetary oligopoly as much as it is about Amazon. FB isn't funding this project because it's a libertarian thought experiment. FB is funding it because it makes business sense. FB's business model is using data to sell ads. Amazon.com's dominance in ecommerce- and it's entry into the ad market - puts pressure on FB's business if advertisers move their buys to Amazon.com. But I imagine if FB is able to directy connect social interactions to purchasing decisions, that's something that retailers that compete with Amazon are going to be interested in.

by tlb 7y ago

hinkley 7y ago

It's common trope in the history of revolutions for the lower upper class (or if available, the middle class) to position themselves as the heroes or the voices for the oppressed. Once the mob has displaced their 'betters' they step in to take over, becoming the new upper class. Technically the oligopoly is overthrown. Practically, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

yingw787 7y ago

When you're talking about using a different currency, you're not replacing Bank of America or JPMorgan Chase. You're replacing the Federal Reserve, Bretton Woods, and the U.S. government. Government's grasp on what money should mean is one of the primary ways democratic governments exercise power.

svd4anything 7y ago
> Government's grasp on what money should mean is one of the primary ways democratic governments exercise power. Could you explain that statement? I can’t help but counter that isn’t often the government’s control of money that enables the rise of authoritarian governments! Perhaps privatization of currency might strengthen democracy not undermine it.
- kyshoc 7y ago
  You're not wrong, but here's the problem: government can become autocratic, and private companies will become autocratic. At least with a government you have a shot at being ruled by something other than a private entity's self-interest.
- yingw787 7y ago
  ...I really don’t agree with that counter. Many, and probably most, governments on this earth today have divergent understandings of money and power. You can be rich in Russia, but that money can be easily rendered worthless by somebody pointing a gun at you or your family. There is no comfort in being rich if you are not politically connected, and even then you have to be more connected than the other guy otherwise you are dead. Stalin didn’t even carry a wallet; why bother when you can just say “see that rich guy? Kill him and bring me his money, I want to buy a bagel”. In the U.S., there’s corruption and racism sure, but by and large money and power are congruent. The business community opposed Trumps’s response to Charlottesville because a rich black man stood up and said that’s not okay. That’s because democratic governments follow rules. You have green paper; here’s a coffee. Oh you’re black and it’s 1960? Let’s change the written rules so you can get coffee in any shop. Authoritarian governments have “rules” and rules. You have green paper? Too bad, you said something in newspaper and I am afraid of the government, so no coffee for you. That’s what really grinds my gears about people breaking a societal paradigm like currency. Not just a fundamental misunderstanding of micro and macroeconomics (one guy on another thread said stealing money from a crypto exchange reduces the money supply and can be monetary policy), but also increasing the amount of societal chaos. How do you advance in life when common law will not protect your property?
  - abecedarius 7y ago
    I don't understand how your point of view conflicts with the parent's. Are you saying that yes, power over money can be used to tyrannical ends, but real tyrants needn't bother?
    - yingw787 7y ago
      What I'm getting at is in closed societies, power and money are different things. In open societies, money is power. Parent says government control over money incentivizes authoritarianism. I'm arguing authoritarians have no need to control money to exercise power, because they have multiple ways to do the latter. For instance, during the Cold War the Soviet ruble was not convertible to U.S. dollars or British pounds, because the Soviet government didn't exercise power through open trade/commerce/finance, but rather through organizations like COMECON (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comecon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comecon). Money's power is observable, decentralized, and fine-grained, everything an economic pact is not.

Spearchucker 7y ago

Only when (and if) the majority of places we pay accept the new form of payment. Someone was frothing at the mouth the other day about being able to send cash to family in Africa using this. Not realizing that a toll must be paid to convert back to cash. Which is about all that works in many places there.

epiphanitus 7y ago

I'm speculating here, but I think this isn't about challenging the monetary oligopoly as much as it is about Amazon. FB isn't funding this project because it's a libertarian thought experiment. FB is funding it because it makes business sense. FB's business model is using data to sell ads. Amazon.com's dominance in ecommerce- and it's entry into the ad market - puts pressure on FB's business if advertisers move their buys to Amazon.com. But I imagine if FB is able to directy connect social interactions to purchasing decisions, that's something that retailers that compete with Amazon are going to be interested in.