7 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - profalseidol 7y ago
      I'd like to add. I think the 'open society' mentioned is simply not an opposite to 'closed society'. Imo, there is a big spectrum to how closed or open a society is. How open a society is, are efforts mostly paid in blood by the plebians. Those who look down on others and want control are the ones who probably makes society more 'closed'. Money is only a tool. A way to facilitate immoral exchange of earth's finite resources + human labour. My leftist ideals would say, we shouldn't deny a fellow human access to food or a vacation just because he doesn't have anything in exchanges. Especially today that we have a problem of overbundance, and we are not even optimizing our production, but for profit. The Anthropologist David Greaber in his book, we can observe this human compassion when in the park when some stranger kid is in danger, maybe drowning, we do not hesitate for a sec to help out, and we don't ask for anything in return.

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.
  - profalseidol 7y ago
    I'd like to add. I think the 'open society' mentioned is simply not an opposite to 'closed society'. Imo, there is a big spectrum to how closed or open a society is. How open a society is, are efforts mostly paid in blood by the plebians. Those who look down on others and want control are the ones who probably makes society more 'closed'. Money is only a tool. A way to facilitate immoral exchange of earth's finite resources + human labour. My leftist ideals would say, we shouldn't deny a fellow human access to food or a vacation just because he doesn't have anything in exchanges. Especially today that we have a problem of overbundance, and we are not even optimizing our production, but for profit. The Anthropologist David Greaber in his book, we can observe this human compassion when in the park when some stranger kid is in danger, maybe drowning, we do not hesitate for a sec to help out, and we don't ask for anything in return.