5 ms·

From a history perspective : the hyperinflation leading up to the 3rd Reich.

bko 7y ago
Which is one reason why capital controls are so destructive. Allowing denizens to keep their savings in whatever form they so choose is a human right. Libra will afford people the option to invest in and use a token that is backed 1 for 1 to a basket of global currencies and government bonds at a low cost.
- gzer0 7y ago
  The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
  - bko 7y ago
    Giving people an option to invest in a basket of relatively safe investments and currencies is growth of private power that will lead to fascism?
    - oblio 7y ago
      You're assuming those people are not forced, tricked or otherwise persuaded by a company worth hundreds of billions of dollars, to use Libra. And that company has every incentive to do what I listed above. It also has very shady morals, as proven repeatedly. Yes, it's a small individual loss (not being to invest in Libra) but probably a big collective gain.
      - bko 7y ago
        > You're assuming those people are not forced, tricked or otherwise persuaded by a company worth hundreds of billions of dollars, to use Libra Anybody who creates a product tries to persuade people to use their product. You can be a cynic and just attribute ill intent of basically everything but it's not really productive Facebook doesn't control Libra. They have a non-controlling stake in the Libra Foundation, a non-profit.
        JAlexoid 7y ago
        Facebook has the power of market to force you to use Libra. Just like Apple had the power to introduce NFC payment terminals in US. That's fundamentally anti free market.
        erikpukinskis 7y ago
        It’s interesting because I agree with you and those are good examples, but there seems to be a contradiction here. What you’re advocating for is a market with very clear boundaries, where everyone has equal access to the market but no one is allowed to do the things outside the market. So it’s a “free market” in that no one has special powers. But it doesn’t make my American “freedom hairs” tingle because there’s a ton of stuff the government is telling you not to do. I won’t make any argument as to which kind of freedom is more important in this case. But I do want to suggest that the more stuff you put in the “not allowed because the market can’t be administered fairly” bucket, the more of your GDP you cede to criminal organizations. Because once it’s illegal, that’s just a big monopoly you handed to organized crime. And yes, organized crime does exist in Europe, and does control money supply. So you have to be careful, there’s a devil’s bargain in both directions.
        K0SM0S 7y ago
        Minor technical remarks: 1. Since when is a currency a "product"? Did I miss a macroeconomics memo? — This statement is antithetic to the structure of modern economies, or to Facebook's claims about Libra for that matter. 2. As for cynicism, if you look at Facebook's history and mindset, their decisions and policy... I feel like "cynicism" qualifies as an appropriate response. — for reference: an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism.
  - simplecomplex 7y ago
    Preventing people from preserving their wealth and the fruits of their labor is not liberty. It’s a restriction of liberty. Capital controls have historically been associated with despotic governments. Why shouldn’t I be able to put my wealth where I want ?
    - azernik 7y ago
      They've also been associated with places like Finland, Israel, France, and the UK. Capital controls are just a necessary enforcement mechanism for attempts to control the exchange rate of a currency.
    - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
      Can I invest in Cocaine or LSD? What about enriched uranium?
      - wnkrshm 7y ago
        Organs are good investments these days.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    You could argue democracy is in danger for small countries. Large multinationals have more power than those governments. It does not matter how their electorate votes.
    - Can_Not 7y ago
      There is already examples of large multinationals (including Amazon) bullying and overriding democratic municipalities in the US.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  You can do that without Libra, just buy the equivalent basket, you're even getting real assets instead of something like tether
- Legogris 7y ago
  If this was purely launched as an investment vehicle that people could put their savings in, I am not certain that the regulatory response would be the same. This is a mischaracterization of what Libra even intends to be. It's marketed as a new financial system if you read their whitepaper.
- insulanus 7y ago
  > Libra will afford people the option to invest in and use a token that is backed 1 for 1 to a basket of global currencies and government bonds at a low cost. That part sounds good to me - tying together the international money and trade system has reduced the threat of war. But that argument doesn't imply the need for a foreign (or domestic) corporation to administrate your currency.
- qtplatypus 7y ago
  However its never been the case that people are allowed to keep their savings in whatever form they wish. I'm not permitted to for example save all my money in a ponzi scheme or invest it in a futures contract backed by the afghan opium crop.
throwaway744678 7y ago
That, my friend, is very close to a Godwin point. Let's be careful here.
- wyattpeak 7y ago
  The original comment is about German attitudes towards the accumulation of power, which are a direct product of their experiences with Nazism. Germans don't want uncontrolled groups accumulating power precisely because it could lead to a situation like Nazi Germany. Once Godwin's law became a meme it outlived its usefulness. Yes, people tend to hyperbolically compare things to the Nazis. But the Nazis were a real thing that happened in the real world, not some platonic ideal of evil to which nothing compares. Shutting down any comparison to Nazism is absurd, doubly so when discussing German policy.
  - insulanus 7y ago
    I hereby nominate posts discussing actual deeds of actual Nazis to be exempt from Godwin's law.
  - repolfx 7y ago
    I agree with the rest of your points, but: Germans don't want uncontrolled groups accumulating power precisely because it could lead to a situation like Nazi Germany Uh huh. Really. Germans totally hate uncontrollable groups trying to take over Europe? Please spare me sanctimonious Germans claiming some sort of moral high ground they don't have. In fact from a British perspective it appears Germany has learned nothing from its experiences at all. It's actually quite amazing how desperate they seem to repeat history over and over. Germany is by far the biggest and staunchest supporter of the EU, which is literally an uncontrollable group accumulating power as fast as possible. It is partly because of hardline EU supporters like Merkel and Macron that both Switzerland and the UK are hurtling towards all out trade war with the rest of Europe, and why UK/EU talks have gone nowhere. The EU is building its own army, its democracy is a sham and it treats its own citizens with contempt, as can be seen in this remarkable blog post by the Commission (it has to be quoted now because the backlash was so huge it got taken down) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190215/18005841607/eu-commission-decides-to-mock-public-insists-fears-about-eu-copyright-directive-are-all-myths.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190215/18005841607/eu-co... The reason the French and German governments hate Libra is threefold: 1. They are very easily manipulated by their local press barons who perceive Facebook and Google as business threats. See the old link taxes that became Article 13 at the EU level. 2. They are institutionally cynical about their own citizens, who they see deep down as basically being stupid sheep. This shines through in their writings (see the link above) but has the more insidious effect that nobody in EU power structures really believes their own country could ever create a Google or a Facebook. So from their perspective, constantly attacking these firms is pure win: it creates an external enemy in a world without many, and these firms are usable as cash machines to keep the EU budget afloat. 3. One way the EU controls its southern member states is by letting pro-EU governments effectively buy votes by running huge deficits, financed by money printing by the ECB. If a country elects an anti-EU government, the ECB threatens to turn off the money supply until they do (this is very visible in Italy). In other words the EU's power comes at least partly from manipulating the currency supply. This is bad for the typical German citizen who tries to save money, but good for the project of uniting Europe under a dictatorship: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/08/europe-central-bank-interest-rates-recession-germany https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/08/europe-cent... Germany has recent experience with governments that try to take over Europe and governments that manipulate the money supply for political purposes. Indeed ECB policy is very unpopular with the Bundesbank and German government. But they can't do anything about it because their ideological commitment to EU domination overrules everything else, and the head of the EU Commission controls the ECB. Ultimately, Germany's experience with hyperinflation, Naziism and the DDR has apparently left it convinced the moral thing to do is support a power structure that's taking over Europe as fast as possible, printing huge sums of money to do so, which is engaged in a power struggle with Britain, and which is run entirely by people who aren't elected.

bko 7y ago

Which is one reason why capital controls are so destructive. Allowing denizens to keep their savings in whatever form they so choose is a human right. Libra will afford people the option to invest in and use a token that is backed 1 for 1 to a basket of global currencies and government bonds at a low cost.

gzer0 7y ago
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
- bko 7y ago
  Giving people an option to invest in a basket of relatively safe investments and currencies is growth of private power that will lead to fascism?
  - oblio 7y ago
    You're assuming those people are not forced, tricked or otherwise persuaded by a company worth hundreds of billions of dollars, to use Libra. And that company has every incentive to do what I listed above. It also has very shady morals, as proven repeatedly. Yes, it's a small individual loss (not being to invest in Libra) but probably a big collective gain.
    - bko 7y ago
      > You're assuming those people are not forced, tricked or otherwise persuaded by a company worth hundreds of billions of dollars, to use Libra Anybody who creates a product tries to persuade people to use their product. You can be a cynic and just attribute ill intent of basically everything but it's not really productive Facebook doesn't control Libra. They have a non-controlling stake in the Libra Foundation, a non-profit.
      - JAlexoid 7y ago
        Facebook has the power of market to force you to use Libra. Just like Apple had the power to introduce NFC payment terminals in US. That's fundamentally anti free market.
        erikpukinskis 7y ago
        It’s interesting because I agree with you and those are good examples, but there seems to be a contradiction here. What you’re advocating for is a market with very clear boundaries, where everyone has equal access to the market but no one is allowed to do the things outside the market. So it’s a “free market” in that no one has special powers. But it doesn’t make my American “freedom hairs” tingle because there’s a ton of stuff the government is telling you not to do. I won’t make any argument as to which kind of freedom is more important in this case. But I do want to suggest that the more stuff you put in the “not allowed because the market can’t be administered fairly” bucket, the more of your GDP you cede to criminal organizations. Because once it’s illegal, that’s just a big monopoly you handed to organized crime. And yes, organized crime does exist in Europe, and does control money supply. So you have to be careful, there’s a devil’s bargain in both directions.
      - K0SM0S 7y ago
        Minor technical remarks: 1. Since when is a currency a "product"? Did I miss a macroeconomics memo? — This statement is antithetic to the structure of modern economies, or to Facebook's claims about Libra for that matter. 2. As for cynicism, if you look at Facebook's history and mindset, their decisions and policy... I feel like "cynicism" qualifies as an appropriate response. — for reference: an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism.
- simplecomplex 7y ago
  Preventing people from preserving their wealth and the fruits of their labor is not liberty. It’s a restriction of liberty. Capital controls have historically been associated with despotic governments. Why shouldn’t I be able to put my wealth where I want ?
  - azernik 7y ago
    They've also been associated with places like Finland, Israel, France, and the UK. Capital controls are just a necessary enforcement mechanism for attempts to control the exchange rate of a currency.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    Can I invest in Cocaine or LSD? What about enriched uranium?
    - wnkrshm 7y ago
      Organs are good investments these days.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  You could argue democracy is in danger for small countries. Large multinationals have more power than those governments. It does not matter how their electorate votes.
  - Can_Not 7y ago
    There is already examples of large multinationals (including Amazon) bullying and overriding democratic municipalities in the US.
raverbashing 7y ago
You can do that without Libra, just buy the equivalent basket, you're even getting real assets instead of something like tether
Legogris 7y ago
If this was purely launched as an investment vehicle that people could put their savings in, I am not certain that the regulatory response would be the same. This is a mischaracterization of what Libra even intends to be. It's marketed as a new financial system if you read their whitepaper.
insulanus 7y ago
> Libra will afford people the option to invest in and use a token that is backed 1 for 1 to a basket of global currencies and government bonds at a low cost. That part sounds good to me - tying together the international money and trade system has reduced the threat of war. But that argument doesn't imply the need for a foreign (or domestic) corporation to administrate your currency.
qtplatypus 7y ago
However its never been the case that people are allowed to keep their savings in whatever form they wish. I'm not permitted to for example save all my money in a ponzi scheme or invest it in a futures contract backed by the afghan opium crop.

throwaway744678 7y ago

That, my friend, is very close to a Godwin point. Let's be careful here.

wyattpeak 7y ago
The original comment is about German attitudes towards the accumulation of power, which are a direct product of their experiences with Nazism. Germans don't want uncontrolled groups accumulating power precisely because it could lead to a situation like Nazi Germany. Once Godwin's law became a meme it outlived its usefulness. Yes, people tend to hyperbolically compare things to the Nazis. But the Nazis were a real thing that happened in the real world, not some platonic ideal of evil to which nothing compares. Shutting down any comparison to Nazism is absurd, doubly so when discussing German policy.
- insulanus 7y ago
  I hereby nominate posts discussing actual deeds of actual Nazis to be exempt from Godwin's law.
- repolfx 7y ago
  I agree with the rest of your points, but: Germans don't want uncontrolled groups accumulating power precisely because it could lead to a situation like Nazi Germany Uh huh. Really. Germans totally hate uncontrollable groups trying to take over Europe? Please spare me sanctimonious Germans claiming some sort of moral high ground they don't have. In fact from a British perspective it appears Germany has learned nothing from its experiences at all. It's actually quite amazing how desperate they seem to repeat history over and over. Germany is by far the biggest and staunchest supporter of the EU, which is literally an uncontrollable group accumulating power as fast as possible. It is partly because of hardline EU supporters like Merkel and Macron that both Switzerland and the UK are hurtling towards all out trade war with the rest of Europe, and why UK/EU talks have gone nowhere. The EU is building its own army, its democracy is a sham and it treats its own citizens with contempt, as can be seen in this remarkable blog post by the Commission (it has to be quoted now because the backlash was so huge it got taken down) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190215/18005841607/eu-commission-decides-to-mock-public-insists-fears-about-eu-copyright-directive-are-all-myths.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190215/18005841607/eu-co... The reason the French and German governments hate Libra is threefold: 1. They are very easily manipulated by their local press barons who perceive Facebook and Google as business threats. See the old link taxes that became Article 13 at the EU level. 2. They are institutionally cynical about their own citizens, who they see deep down as basically being stupid sheep. This shines through in their writings (see the link above) but has the more insidious effect that nobody in EU power structures really believes their own country could ever create a Google or a Facebook. So from their perspective, constantly attacking these firms is pure win: it creates an external enemy in a world without many, and these firms are usable as cash machines to keep the EU budget afloat. 3. One way the EU controls its southern member states is by letting pro-EU governments effectively buy votes by running huge deficits, financed by money printing by the ECB. If a country elects an anti-EU government, the ECB threatens to turn off the money supply until they do (this is very visible in Italy). In other words the EU's power comes at least partly from manipulating the currency supply. This is bad for the typical German citizen who tries to save money, but good for the project of uniting Europe under a dictatorship: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/08/europe-central-bank-interest-rates-recession-germany https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/08/europe-cent... Germany has recent experience with governments that try to take over Europe and governments that manipulate the money supply for political purposes. Indeed ECB policy is very unpopular with the Bundesbank and German government. But they can't do anything about it because their ideological commitment to EU domination overrules everything else, and the head of the EU Commission controls the ECB. Ultimately, Germany's experience with hyperinflation, Naziism and the DDR has apparently left it convinced the moral thing to do is support a power structure that's taking over Europe as fast as possible, printing huge sums of money to do so, which is engaged in a power struggle with Britain, and which is run entirely by people who aren't elected.