6 ms·

Libra feels to me as a step towards big companies trying to break free from governments. If they control the money supply the long term effect would most likely

Libra feels to me as a step towards big companies trying to break free from governments. If they control the money supply the long term effect would most likely be that they have the control of everything. I think Libra is very frightening and I hope it fails. I have nothing against decentralized systems, but centralized ones that is controlled by a few companies is very scary. I cannot read the article, since it's locked but you can get the gist of it and if companies are leaving the coalition it's probably for the best.

short_sells_poo 7y ago
Doubly so if the controlling entity is something like Facebook, which has given us zero reasons to trust them.
- diggan 7y ago
  I wouldn't say so. Doesn't matter who, if there is one controlling entity that acts as a business/corporation, it doesn't matter which one. They are all corruptible.
- krick 7y ago
  I would be glad to take an opportunity to insult facebook again, but actually I don't like this sentiment at all. It just happens so that facebook is among the least trustworthy companies at the time, but I wouldn't be more at ease if they had a good public image and its head would be a baby-kissing politician making donations left and right. Image is just that, an image, and if somebody manages to seem "good" for the public, it only makes them more dangerous and is more of the reason to be worried about them. Perhaps the only good thing about facebook is the public distrust of it right now. I hated it much worse when people unironically called Google "the good company".
- jorblumesea 7y ago
  Also a terrible, terrible track record of transparency and privacy. Any FB product is not to be trusted.
ptah 7y ago
yes, it is a step in the wrong direction. multinationals already have very little restrictions already as governments can only operate inside their jurisdiction. it's a bit like old tv shows where the bad guys get away by racing the cops across county line
_Understated_ 7y ago
No paywall: https://archive.fo/0tpBS https://archive.fo/0tpBS On that note though, I agree: I don't like it. I hate it in fact. No checks and balances like you get with government-backed currency. It brings to mind the Tom Clancy book, one of the Net Force ones I think with the online VR company that declared itself as its own nation state... didn't end well Edit: The book is CyberNation
pmlnr 7y ago
> a step towards big companies trying to break free from governments Welcome to cyberpunk.
- 0x445442 7y ago
  Welcome back to feudalism... But at least you're free, for now, to pick your fiefdom; FB, AMZN, GOOG, AAPL or MSFT.
piokoch 7y ago
Is that so much different from FED? In theory there is some dependency on US President, but that just a theory, practice shows that private banks owners are much more influential. Not that I like or trust Facebook or its owner, but maybe Libra will introduce some competition. For instance Libra might not suffer from inflation (which is just a tax on people savings), this could be much better way to store savings than fiat currencies.
- codyb 7y ago
  The Fed has very specific mandates, has several branches, and releases tons of really quality monetary information online. There’s no stock they’re beholden too, or billionaire boy genius running the entire operation, and they certainly don’t hold vast troves of information on billions of people. It’s a positive they’re divorced from politics, and they’ve done a pretty decent job keeping the USD a trusted currency for use nationally and around the globe with a track record approaching a hundred years. I’d say the Fed and Facebook are quite different.
  - CaptainZapp 7y ago
    And it's not only the Fed. You have, for example, the ECB, The Bank of England, The Swiss National Bank, etc, etc. All much, much more trustworthy institutions than any of those companies involved into the Libra project. And especially more trustworthy than Facebook could ever be.
  - 0x445442 7y ago
    You forgot the part about being able to conjure money out of thin air, loaning the conjured money and then collecting interest on the loaned money. Decentralized, open ledgers are the future and these folks are terrified their Golden Goose's days are numbered. And of course there's the implications the current system, and the push to get rid of cash, has on personal freedoms.
    - delfinom 7y ago
      Except Libra's entire scam was a. It was backed by the fiat put in b. They would collect all interest on the fiat for themselves, users did not see any kind of interest for holding the balance
narrator 7y ago
The banks already broke free of the government. Facebook just wants to get in on that action. What other business gets to make money out of nothing through fractional reserve banking and gets trillion dollar bailouts at taxpayer expense when it regularly overextends itself with all that newly created money?
- jameskilton 7y ago
  Lets make sure we're talking facts. The US Government made a profit off of the 2008 bailout[1]. I'm not an economist so I can't say much about the program but I'm lead to believe that had we not bailed out many banks the cost to tax payers would have been much, much higher. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/tarp-moves-into-the-black-as-some-loans-are-repaid/2011/03/30/AFDrEc6B_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/tarp-moves-i...
  - lawn 7y ago
    Yes, their gamble of buying extremely risky assets paid off. Similar to how you can "bet all on red" and manage to win. But that doesn't make it a good long-term plan. The incentives for banks are still unchanged: "heads I win, tails I get bailed-out". And of course even if they run the economy into the ground they still get their bonuses.
    - QuesnayJr 7y ago
      It worked out because the assets became risky from panic. The government is a large enough entity to stop the panic, and thus remove that risk.
      - lawn 7y ago
        The assets were always risky, way before the panic set in. I recommend the books After the Music Stopped or The Big Short for background on the crisis. (Also the movie The Big Short is excellent).
throwawaylolx 7y ago
> If they control the money supply How would Libra control the money suppply? Their reserve is described to be fully backed.
- w3rhn2j34oh5o 7y ago
  There are several things going on here -- Today, banking controls the monetary supply through creation of new dollars to be loaned. Being fully backed has less meaning in a continuously inflating fiat currency world. Being backed by gold, by computation, by proof-of-stake -- these are all much stronger measures than JP Morgan Chase's core banking database. Libra is control over monetary flows. Offend zuck, watch your public key added to the block list. Watch the balance drained from your account as the producers use 'admin' transaction powers to remove funds. Maybe the ledger maintainers simply block your transactions from being committed. And then we have currency controls in places other than the US, like India and China. Suddenly 'stablecoin's are more useful than bank account backed dollar holdings (outside the US). This is a power grab for the future currency of developing nations. The endgame is control of planet Earth's M1 currency supply.
  - baby 7y ago
    Added to what blocklist? Facebook is just one node in the network.

short_sells_poo 7y ago

Doubly so if the controlling entity is something like Facebook, which has given us zero reasons to trust them.

diggan 7y ago
I wouldn't say so. Doesn't matter who, if there is one controlling entity that acts as a business/corporation, it doesn't matter which one. They are all corruptible.
krick 7y ago
I would be glad to take an opportunity to insult facebook again, but actually I don't like this sentiment at all. It just happens so that facebook is among the least trustworthy companies at the time, but I wouldn't be more at ease if they had a good public image and its head would be a baby-kissing politician making donations left and right. Image is just that, an image, and if somebody manages to seem "good" for the public, it only makes them more dangerous and is more of the reason to be worried about them. Perhaps the only good thing about facebook is the public distrust of it right now. I hated it much worse when people unironically called Google "the good company".
jorblumesea 7y ago
Also a terrible, terrible track record of transparency and privacy. Any FB product is not to be trusted.

ptah 7y ago

yes, it is a step in the wrong direction. multinationals already have very little restrictions already as governments can only operate inside their jurisdiction. it's a bit like old tv shows where the bad guys get away by racing the cops across county line

_Understated_ 7y ago

No paywall: https://archive.fo/0tpBS https://archive.fo/0tpBS On that note though, I agree: I don't like it. I hate it in fact. No checks and balances like you get with government-backed currency. It brings to mind the Tom Clancy book, one of the Net Force ones I think with the online VR company that declared itself as its own nation state... didn't end well Edit: The book is CyberNation

pmlnr 7y ago

> a step towards big companies trying to break free from governments Welcome to cyberpunk.

0x445442 7y ago
Welcome back to feudalism... But at least you're free, for now, to pick your fiefdom; FB, AMZN, GOOG, AAPL or MSFT.

piokoch 7y ago

Is that so much different from FED? In theory there is some dependency on US President, but that just a theory, practice shows that private banks owners are much more influential. Not that I like or trust Facebook or its owner, but maybe Libra will introduce some competition. For instance Libra might not suffer from inflation (which is just a tax on people savings), this could be much better way to store savings than fiat currencies.

codyb 7y ago
The Fed has very specific mandates, has several branches, and releases tons of really quality monetary information online. There’s no stock they’re beholden too, or billionaire boy genius running the entire operation, and they certainly don’t hold vast troves of information on billions of people. It’s a positive they’re divorced from politics, and they’ve done a pretty decent job keeping the USD a trusted currency for use nationally and around the globe with a track record approaching a hundred years. I’d say the Fed and Facebook are quite different.
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  And it's not only the Fed. You have, for example, the ECB, The Bank of England, The Swiss National Bank, etc, etc. All much, much more trustworthy institutions than any of those companies involved into the Libra project. And especially more trustworthy than Facebook could ever be.
- 0x445442 7y ago
  You forgot the part about being able to conjure money out of thin air, loaning the conjured money and then collecting interest on the loaned money. Decentralized, open ledgers are the future and these folks are terrified their Golden Goose's days are numbered. And of course there's the implications the current system, and the push to get rid of cash, has on personal freedoms.
  - delfinom 7y ago
    Except Libra's entire scam was a. It was backed by the fiat put in b. They would collect all interest on the fiat for themselves, users did not see any kind of interest for holding the balance

narrator 7y ago

The banks already broke free of the government. Facebook just wants to get in on that action. What other business gets to make money out of nothing through fractional reserve banking and gets trillion dollar bailouts at taxpayer expense when it regularly overextends itself with all that newly created money?

jameskilton 7y ago
Lets make sure we're talking facts. The US Government made a profit off of the 2008 bailout[1]. I'm not an economist so I can't say much about the program but I'm lead to believe that had we not bailed out many banks the cost to tax payers would have been much, much higher. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/tarp-moves-into-the-black-as-some-loans-are-repaid/2011/03/30/AFDrEc6B_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/tarp-moves-i...
- lawn 7y ago
  Yes, their gamble of buying extremely risky assets paid off. Similar to how you can "bet all on red" and manage to win. But that doesn't make it a good long-term plan. The incentives for banks are still unchanged: "heads I win, tails I get bailed-out". And of course even if they run the economy into the ground they still get their bonuses.
  - QuesnayJr 7y ago
    It worked out because the assets became risky from panic. The government is a large enough entity to stop the panic, and thus remove that risk.
    - lawn 7y ago
      The assets were always risky, way before the panic set in. I recommend the books After the Music Stopped or The Big Short for background on the crisis. (Also the movie The Big Short is excellent).

throwawaylolx 7y ago

> If they control the money supply How would Libra control the money suppply? Their reserve is described to be fully backed.

w3rhn2j34oh5o 7y ago
There are several things going on here -- Today, banking controls the monetary supply through creation of new dollars to be loaned. Being fully backed has less meaning in a continuously inflating fiat currency world. Being backed by gold, by computation, by proof-of-stake -- these are all much stronger measures than JP Morgan Chase's core banking database. Libra is control over monetary flows. Offend zuck, watch your public key added to the block list. Watch the balance drained from your account as the producers use 'admin' transaction powers to remove funds. Maybe the ledger maintainers simply block your transactions from being committed. And then we have currency controls in places other than the US, like India and China. Suddenly 'stablecoin's are more useful than bank account backed dollar holdings (outside the US). This is a power grab for the future currency of developing nations. The endgame is control of planet Earth's M1 currency supply.
- baby 7y ago
  Added to what blocklist? Facebook is just one node in the network.