5 ms·

I genuinely hope this takes off. The idea of breaking the government money monopoly is very appealing to me.

by rufusroflpunch 7y ago

colechristensen 7y ago
You prefer government by Facebook shareholders instead of democracy?
- sp332 7y ago
  I'm not a fan of Libra. But I don't think I would call the "Federal" Reserve a democracy.
  - ameister14 7y ago
    The Fed is not in itself a democracy. Why would anyone think that it is? The US government is, though, and the Fed is managed by and subject to the government.
    - andreilys 7y ago
      Although an instrument of the US Government, the Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.
      - Tasboo 7y ago
        The federal reserve was created using laws passed through legislation. Legislation can modify any rules that have been set for it.
    - nishmastime 7y ago
      So, if nobody votes the way I do, I should be happy that I got to vote even though I will never get the thing I want. I don't see why that's better than having that plus other options that help me today.
      - nfoz 7y ago
        I'm from a smaller country than the US. My democratic involvement doesn't begin and end at the vote. I'm a participant in the culture that collectively makes these decisions. I feel that I'm a part of "our" decision on most matters, even if I sometimes don't like our collective choice. I expect that my fellow citizen is reasonably competent and in good intention. Seems like Americans have a very low opinion of their "collective" and are simultaneously fearful of its power over them. If that's more generally true in USA than elsewhere, then I wonder if it's just a product of the country's size, or if people can feel differently about this regarding their state vs. country.
    - sp332 7y ago
      If the Fed does something I don't like, and I write to my representatives about it, what can they do? It's pretty independent. Even the board members can be removed only by the President and only "for cause". It's not funded by Congressional appropriations. In addition, though the Congress sets the goals for monetary policy, decisions of the Board--and the Fed's monetary policy-setting body, the Federal Open Market Committee--about how to reach those goals do not require approval by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm
      - colechristensen 7y ago
        Are you arguing for more government control of monetary policy through regulating Facebook or less government control of monetary policy through Facebook's competing currency? It seems like Facebook is worse in both directions. Both serving the interests of activist regulations and governed by a corporation with it's own interests first.
        sp332 7y ago
        More regulation of Facebook. I mean we don't normally let companies or individuals create their own currency right?
        nybble41 7y ago
        > I mean we don't normally let companies or individuals create their own currency right? Actually that happens all the time; for example we have store credit, loyalty points, virtual "gold" in games, poker chips, and a long list of community currencies[1] like BerkShares. Why wouldn't companies or individuals be able to create their own currencies? In the end it just means people are discussing and reaching consensus on the ownership and value of some common unit of account, which is a direct expression of the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and ownership of property. (And by "property" I'm referring only to what is being bought or sold, not the currency itself, which in the case of virtual currencies or cryptocurrencies might not even be property, just pure information about a completely theoretical system which people happen to agree on, which is 100% a matter of speech.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_i...
    - filleokus 7y ago
      > Fed is managed by and subject to the government I guess that depends on how you define managing. I mean, the Fed couldn't do exactly whatever they wanted, the government would step in if it got too crazy. But on the other hand, separating the government from the central bank is a fundamental idea in the whole central banking argument. If it indeed was completely managed by and subjected to the full political influence of the government the US would probably have higher denomination bills [0]. [0]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zimbabwe_$100_trillion_2009_Obverse.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zimbabwe_$100_trilli...
      - colechristensen 7y ago
        The Fed is governed by laws Facebook isn't and it's board is appointed by the government. The Fed has clear interest and motivation to have priorities in line with the country. Facebook absolutely does not. What happens when Facebook goes under and private capital bleeds it dry? (cough Toys R Us). I don't think Bain Capital's monetary policy would be good for us.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > I guess that depends on how you define managing. The Board of Governors are government employees appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate; the Fed is as much part of the government as any of the other “independent” executive board/commissions/agencies.
        filleokus 7y ago
        I might have extrapolated a bit too much from my much deeper knowledge of my countries central bank system. But I gess it's fair to ish compare Supreme Court justices to fed governors (not easy to fire and long terms)? My point was more that colechristensen's "appeal to democracy" seemed somewhat misguided. Both the Fed and the Supreme Court seems like the least "democratic" government institutions, in some sense. Not that it's bad, nor that I think that FB would be a better guardian of our money supply, but still.
      - gowld 7y ago
- sidr 7y ago
  Facebook shareholder*. Zuck has 60% of voting power.
- nishmastime 7y ago
  Having more than one option is worth infinitely more to me than just one option I can vote on. It's not like the US dollar is going away. You present a simple example of false dichotomy rhetoric which hurts discussion and is uncharitable to the reasons someone could see the upsides of having Libra around.
  - colechristensen 7y ago
    Libra becoming a significant amount of trade takes soverenty away from governments. Giving it to Facebook is not giving it to the people, it's transferring it to a corporation. There's no dichotomy there, but straightforward transfer of soverenty to a corporation.
    - rock_hard 7y ago
      You could also argue that some competition in the currency space could lead to start governments to innovate again in that space
      - nfoz 7y ago
        If we want governments to innovate in the currency space then let's pay more in taxes to let them do that.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Well, government in many countries is getting so detached from constituents that some people start to believe that unrestrained greed from corporations is the more dependable option. At least they behave in a predictable way that can be accomodated. This comment may contain unrestrained cynism.
mola 7y ago
Yeah replace a monopoly you have a vote and moral grounds to demand changes in, with a dictator...eh.. a single board member majority ... Great idea, monarchy was so awesome!
- nishmastime 7y ago
  Nobody said "replace."
smolder 7y ago
This genuinely confuses me. It’s not decentralized, Facebook and friends just become the new government, with no accountability when it counts.
tathougies 7y ago
The government money monopoly is mandated by taxation, a defining feature of government. Without a money monopoly of some kind (including a demand that taxes be paid in a certain currency), there would be no government.
- javert 7y ago
  That's not the case. The government could choose to tax in gold, bitcoin, a foreign currency, or whatever. There does not need to be a "government money monopoly" to have taxation and a government.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    I very clearly worded my statement. I said "including a demand that taxes be paid in a certain currency". I didn't say 'a demand taxes be paid in a currency owned and controlled by the government', I said a currency. This is a very clear statement that already captures my thoughts on all the various media of exchange you mentioned. If a government only accepts taxes in gold, then it is still demonstrating it has a monopoly on currency, because now gold becomes something everyone must own and thus will serve as a commonly accepted means of exchange for all those subject to taxation from the same government. EDIT: For example, Ecuador uses the US Dollar, but don't be fooled to think the Ecuadorian government doesn't have a monopoly on the use of the dollar within Ecuador.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      I don't understand what you're saying. Why couldn't the government accept taxes in e.g. gold as well as USD?
      - tathougies 7y ago
        because the amount of gold the government is willing to accept gives the value to the gold, not the other way around. The gold would still be denominated in some government set standard and thus subject to governmental discernment in how much it's worth.
pretendscholar 7y ago
1836 called and they want their wildcat banking back.
- dang 7y ago
  Please make your substantive points without being snarky on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - qqn 7y ago
    Oh come on. This comment was great, to the point, and led me to learn something new. OP's just calling it a financial Wild West but with historical backing of when it's been done before.

I genuinely hope this takes off. The idea of breaking the government money monopoly is very appealing to me.

colechristensen 7y ago

You prefer government by Facebook shareholders instead of democracy?

sp332 7y ago
I'm not a fan of Libra. But I don't think I would call the "Federal" Reserve a democracy.
- ameister14 7y ago
  The Fed is not in itself a democracy. Why would anyone think that it is? The US government is, though, and the Fed is managed by and subject to the government.
  - andreilys 7y ago
    Although an instrument of the US Government, the Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.
    - Tasboo 7y ago
      The federal reserve was created using laws passed through legislation. Legislation can modify any rules that have been set for it.
  - nishmastime 7y ago
    So, if nobody votes the way I do, I should be happy that I got to vote even though I will never get the thing I want. I don't see why that's better than having that plus other options that help me today.
    - nfoz 7y ago
      I'm from a smaller country than the US. My democratic involvement doesn't begin and end at the vote. I'm a participant in the culture that collectively makes these decisions. I feel that I'm a part of "our" decision on most matters, even if I sometimes don't like our collective choice. I expect that my fellow citizen is reasonably competent and in good intention. Seems like Americans have a very low opinion of their "collective" and are simultaneously fearful of its power over them. If that's more generally true in USA than elsewhere, then I wonder if it's just a product of the country's size, or if people can feel differently about this regarding their state vs. country.
  - sp332 7y ago
    If the Fed does something I don't like, and I write to my representatives about it, what can they do? It's pretty independent. Even the board members can be removed only by the President and only "for cause". It's not funded by Congressional appropriations. In addition, though the Congress sets the goals for monetary policy, decisions of the Board--and the Fed's monetary policy-setting body, the Federal Open Market Committee--about how to reach those goals do not require approval by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm
    - colechristensen 7y ago
      Are you arguing for more government control of monetary policy through regulating Facebook or less government control of monetary policy through Facebook's competing currency? It seems like Facebook is worse in both directions. Both serving the interests of activist regulations and governed by a corporation with it's own interests first.
      - sp332 7y ago
        More regulation of Facebook. I mean we don't normally let companies or individuals create their own currency right?
        nybble41 7y ago
        > I mean we don't normally let companies or individuals create their own currency right? Actually that happens all the time; for example we have store credit, loyalty points, virtual "gold" in games, poker chips, and a long list of community currencies[1] like BerkShares. Why wouldn't companies or individuals be able to create their own currencies? In the end it just means people are discussing and reaching consensus on the ownership and value of some common unit of account, which is a direct expression of the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and ownership of property. (And by "property" I'm referring only to what is being bought or sold, not the currency itself, which in the case of virtual currencies or cryptocurrencies might not even be property, just pure information about a completely theoretical system which people happen to agree on, which is 100% a matter of speech.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_i...
  - filleokus 7y ago
    > Fed is managed by and subject to the government I guess that depends on how you define managing. I mean, the Fed couldn't do exactly whatever they wanted, the government would step in if it got too crazy. But on the other hand, separating the government from the central bank is a fundamental idea in the whole central banking argument. If it indeed was completely managed by and subjected to the full political influence of the government the US would probably have higher denomination bills [0]. [0]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zimbabwe_$100_trillion_2009_Obverse.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zimbabwe_$100_trilli...
    - colechristensen 7y ago
      The Fed is governed by laws Facebook isn't and it's board is appointed by the government. The Fed has clear interest and motivation to have priorities in line with the country. Facebook absolutely does not. What happens when Facebook goes under and private capital bleeds it dry? (cough Toys R Us). I don't think Bain Capital's monetary policy would be good for us.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > I guess that depends on how you define managing. The Board of Governors are government employees appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate; the Fed is as much part of the government as any of the other “independent” executive board/commissions/agencies.
      - filleokus 7y ago
        I might have extrapolated a bit too much from my much deeper knowledge of my countries central bank system. But I gess it's fair to ish compare Supreme Court justices to fed governors (not easy to fire and long terms)? My point was more that colechristensen's "appeal to democracy" seemed somewhat misguided. Both the Fed and the Supreme Court seems like the least "democratic" government institutions, in some sense. Not that it's bad, nor that I think that FB would be a better guardian of our money supply, but still.
    - gowld 7y ago
sidr 7y ago
Facebook shareholder*. Zuck has 60% of voting power.
nishmastime 7y ago
Having more than one option is worth infinitely more to me than just one option I can vote on. It's not like the US dollar is going away. You present a simple example of false dichotomy rhetoric which hurts discussion and is uncharitable to the reasons someone could see the upsides of having Libra around.
- colechristensen 7y ago
  Libra becoming a significant amount of trade takes soverenty away from governments. Giving it to Facebook is not giving it to the people, it's transferring it to a corporation. There's no dichotomy there, but straightforward transfer of soverenty to a corporation.
  - rock_hard 7y ago
    You could also argue that some competition in the currency space could lead to start governments to innovate again in that space
    - nfoz 7y ago
      If we want governments to innovate in the currency space then let's pay more in taxes to let them do that.
raxxorrax 7y ago
Well, government in many countries is getting so detached from constituents that some people start to believe that unrestrained greed from corporations is the more dependable option. At least they behave in a predictable way that can be accomodated. This comment may contain unrestrained cynism.

mola 7y ago

Yeah replace a monopoly you have a vote and moral grounds to demand changes in, with a dictator...eh.. a single board member majority ... Great idea, monarchy was so awesome!

nishmastime 7y ago
Nobody said "replace."

smolder 7y ago

This genuinely confuses me. It’s not decentralized, Facebook and friends just become the new government, with no accountability when it counts.

tathougies 7y ago

The government money monopoly is mandated by taxation, a defining feature of government. Without a money monopoly of some kind (including a demand that taxes be paid in a certain currency), there would be no government.

javert 7y ago
That's not the case. The government could choose to tax in gold, bitcoin, a foreign currency, or whatever. There does not need to be a "government money monopoly" to have taxation and a government.
- tathougies 7y ago
  I very clearly worded my statement. I said "including a demand that taxes be paid in a certain currency". I didn't say 'a demand taxes be paid in a currency owned and controlled by the government', I said a currency. This is a very clear statement that already captures my thoughts on all the various media of exchange you mentioned. If a government only accepts taxes in gold, then it is still demonstrating it has a monopoly on currency, because now gold becomes something everyone must own and thus will serve as a commonly accepted means of exchange for all those subject to taxation from the same government. EDIT: For example, Ecuador uses the US Dollar, but don't be fooled to think the Ecuadorian government doesn't have a monopoly on the use of the dollar within Ecuador.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    I don't understand what you're saying. Why couldn't the government accept taxes in e.g. gold as well as USD?
    - tathougies 7y ago
      because the amount of gold the government is willing to accept gives the value to the gold, not the other way around. The gold would still be denominated in some government set standard and thus subject to governmental discernment in how much it's worth.

pretendscholar 7y ago

1836 called and they want their wildcat banking back.

dang 7y ago
Please make your substantive points without being snarky on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- qqn 7y ago
  Oh come on. This comment was great, to the point, and led me to learn something new. OP's just calling it a financial Wild West but with historical backing of when it's been done before.