3 ms·

Decentralized consensus between untrusted parties is a world-changing concept. The fact that Central Banks / Governments have "chained the fire exits shut" to

Decentralized consensus between untrusted parties is a world-changing concept. The fact that Central Banks / Governments have "chained the fire exits shut" to keep people in their explosively bankrupt monetary systems is not a long-term viable situation. There are a multitude of problems with global consensus systems as monetary systems. But, something to consider is this: Two-thirds of the global population are not served by the present system. Focusing on how cryptocurrencies are "used by criminals" is astonishingly wrong-headed. Once the world's population has uniform access to viable, stable and useful money -- then I might start to consider how to help keep "bad people" off of cryptocurrencies. However, I think that the Gold Standard in international malfeasance will continue to be "suitcases full of USD or EUR $100 bills". As it is today. But, you don't see governments or central banks falling over themselves to fix that problem. Yet, they are actively preventing the unbanked from having access to viable money substitutes.

ChrisLomont 7y ago
>The fact that Central Banks / Governments have "chained the fire exits shut" to keep people in their explosively bankrupt monetary systems is not a long-term viable situation. The systems before them, where each local region, each business, each actor, could coin money via IOUs or other forms and trade was much more costly and corrupt than the current system. Local failures, actors running off with capital, low liquidity were rampant. There are decent empirical reasons the entire world moved off systems tied to how fast they could dig up metal - such systems have an impedance mismatch with productivity, for example, hindering growth when useful and flooding the markets with new gold finds when the markets don't have matching growth. These led to boom and bust cycles. With the introduction of the US Fed, recessions became less frequent, less damaging, so much so that the period called the Great Moderation still has economists working on exactly how come the previous boom and bust cycle got so smoothed. After the Great Depression and the resulting solid evidence that non-fiat exacerbated the problem across dozens of countries, every economy in the world move off them. The evidence was that solid. >Focusing on how cryptocurrencies are "used by criminals" is astonishingly wrong-headed. Yet it's backed up by factual behavior. >Two-thirds of the global population are not served by the present system. Citation? I can find nothing near this claim to be supported by any evidence I can find. From what I can find, a large majority of the world's population has access to and uses bank accounts, and the vast majority of the rest use cash to transact wages and purchases. If pretty much every person on the planet uses some form of govt issues money, how is that not being served? They're pretty much all capable of local barter, yet choose this other system. Maybe it's better for them? At least they're choosing it. It is true that a decent chunk of the world has no access to a cell phone or internet. How will cryptocurrencies serve such people? >Once the world's population has uniform access to viable, stable and useful money Which cryptocurrencies are anywhere near as stable as a modern first world currency? By stable, I mean the usual financial measure of price volatility against a reasonable basket of goods. Last I checked, BTC, for example, was about the least stable investment one could make. Volatility has serious costs throughout the economy - predictability is vastly better for making contracts like employment or rent or mortgage.
- tuberelay 7y ago
  > With the introduction of the US Fed, recessions became less frequent, less damaging, so much so that the period called the Great Moderation still has economists working on exactly how come the previous boom and bust cycle got so smoothed. Well, this was the narrative up until 2008. > From what I can find, a large majority of the world's population has access to and uses bank accounts, and the vast majority of the rest use cash to transact wages and purchases. All of which are at the mercy of whoever is in power at the time. In the past few years: - 80 million turks have lost 80% of the value of their cash savings - 40 million argentines have lost 90% of the value of their cash savings - 30 million venezuelans have lost 99% of the value of their cash savings Many other countries have high single digit or double digit true rates of inflation. Even the US rate of inflation is likely double what the official measures are. You think this is good?
  - pjkundert 7y ago
    Not to mention the Great Depression and two world wars, all under the tender ministrations of the US Federal Reserve...
    - ChrisLomont 7y ago
      Are you claiming the Fed caused the wars? Do you care to contrast your implications to periods without the Fed? How many depressions? How many wars? The Great Depression showed pretty conclusively the folly of a non-fiat currency, since the Fed was still tied by the gold standard, as were many other countries. The distinction between length of depression with and without fiat money was the nail in the coffin for things like gold standards. The results of modern monetary policy during the Great Depression is what led to every single country in the world dropping the gold standard. Evidence beats speculation in the long run every time.
  - ChrisLomont 7y ago
    >Well, this was the narrative up until 2008. It's still the narrative. 2008 was the biggest since the GD in 1929. Here's a list [1] of all US recessions. There's no question volatility has been reduced since the introduction of the Fed. And the same has been demonstrated in dozens countries. >80 million turks have lost 80% of the value of their cash savings - 40 million argentines have lost 90% of the value of their cash savings - 30 million venezuelans have lost 99% of the value of their cash savings And billions of people have not lost their savings, and billions have been removed from poverty. Cherry picking outliers does not make your case very persuasive. There's 7+B people on the planet. Demonstrate that your tiny number is worse than before central banking then you will have some room to complain. The vast literature on this shows the evidence to be otherwise. >Even the US rate of inflation is likely double what the official measures are. Yeah, this is nonsense, propagated by places like ShadowStats. There are ample other groups measuring inflation, such as the Billion Prices Project [2], and they obtain the same numbers. If inflation were lied about, there would be ample ways to game various commodities and make a pretty hefty profit. Yet no one I've known in trading has ever heard of such a thing, despite many people trying to do so. And the most compelling way is you can check it yourself. Take BLS reported inflation for the past few decades. Pick a basket of goods similar to theirs. Measure local prices in a spreadsheet. Now go to your local library or the web and find old ads from decades ago, which is easy to do now. Compute the basket value then. Even a percent off over a few decades would vastly skew prices. I've done this legwork out of debunking ShadowStats to someone I know that believes their nonsense. You can do it, and disabuse yourself of such unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense. >Many other countries have high single digit or double digit true rates of inflation. ... You think this is good? Yes, it's better than a deflationary spiral. Single digit inflation, if somewhat stable, is vastly better than previous boom bust cycles. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_Unit... [2] http://www.thebillionpricesproject.com/ http://www.thebillionpricesproject.com/

ChrisLomont 7y ago

>The fact that Central Banks / Governments have "chained the fire exits shut" to keep people in their explosively bankrupt monetary systems is not a long-term viable situation. The systems before them, where each local region, each business, each actor, could coin money via IOUs or other forms and trade was much more costly and corrupt than the current system. Local failures, actors running off with capital, low liquidity were rampant. There are decent empirical reasons the entire world moved off systems tied to how fast they could dig up metal - such systems have an impedance mismatch with productivity, for example, hindering growth when useful and flooding the markets with new gold finds when the markets don't have matching growth. These led to boom and bust cycles. With the introduction of the US Fed, recessions became less frequent, less damaging, so much so that the period called the Great Moderation still has economists working on exactly how come the previous boom and bust cycle got so smoothed. After the Great Depression and the resulting solid evidence that non-fiat exacerbated the problem across dozens of countries, every economy in the world move off them. The evidence was that solid. >Focusing on how cryptocurrencies are "used by criminals" is astonishingly wrong-headed. Yet it's backed up by factual behavior. >Two-thirds of the global population are not served by the present system. Citation? I can find nothing near this claim to be supported by any evidence I can find. From what I can find, a large majority of the world's population has access to and uses bank accounts, and the vast majority of the rest use cash to transact wages and purchases. If pretty much every person on the planet uses some form of govt issues money, how is that not being served? They're pretty much all capable of local barter, yet choose this other system. Maybe it's better for them? At least they're choosing it. It is true that a decent chunk of the world has no access to a cell phone or internet. How will cryptocurrencies serve such people? >Once the world's population has uniform access to viable, stable and useful money Which cryptocurrencies are anywhere near as stable as a modern first world currency? By stable, I mean the usual financial measure of price volatility against a reasonable basket of goods. Last I checked, BTC, for example, was about the least stable investment one could make. Volatility has serious costs throughout the economy - predictability is vastly better for making contracts like employment or rent or mortgage.

tuberelay 7y ago
> With the introduction of the US Fed, recessions became less frequent, less damaging, so much so that the period called the Great Moderation still has economists working on exactly how come the previous boom and bust cycle got so smoothed. Well, this was the narrative up until 2008. > From what I can find, a large majority of the world's population has access to and uses bank accounts, and the vast majority of the rest use cash to transact wages and purchases. All of which are at the mercy of whoever is in power at the time. In the past few years: - 80 million turks have lost 80% of the value of their cash savings - 40 million argentines have lost 90% of the value of their cash savings - 30 million venezuelans have lost 99% of the value of their cash savings Many other countries have high single digit or double digit true rates of inflation. Even the US rate of inflation is likely double what the official measures are. You think this is good?
- pjkundert 7y ago
  Not to mention the Great Depression and two world wars, all under the tender ministrations of the US Federal Reserve...
  - ChrisLomont 7y ago
    Are you claiming the Fed caused the wars? Do you care to contrast your implications to periods without the Fed? How many depressions? How many wars? The Great Depression showed pretty conclusively the folly of a non-fiat currency, since the Fed was still tied by the gold standard, as were many other countries. The distinction between length of depression with and without fiat money was the nail in the coffin for things like gold standards. The results of modern monetary policy during the Great Depression is what led to every single country in the world dropping the gold standard. Evidence beats speculation in the long run every time.
- ChrisLomont 7y ago
  >Well, this was the narrative up until 2008. It's still the narrative. 2008 was the biggest since the GD in 1929. Here's a list [1] of all US recessions. There's no question volatility has been reduced since the introduction of the Fed. And the same has been demonstrated in dozens countries. >80 million turks have lost 80% of the value of their cash savings - 40 million argentines have lost 90% of the value of their cash savings - 30 million venezuelans have lost 99% of the value of their cash savings And billions of people have not lost their savings, and billions have been removed from poverty. Cherry picking outliers does not make your case very persuasive. There's 7+B people on the planet. Demonstrate that your tiny number is worse than before central banking then you will have some room to complain. The vast literature on this shows the evidence to be otherwise. >Even the US rate of inflation is likely double what the official measures are. Yeah, this is nonsense, propagated by places like ShadowStats. There are ample other groups measuring inflation, such as the Billion Prices Project [2], and they obtain the same numbers. If inflation were lied about, there would be ample ways to game various commodities and make a pretty hefty profit. Yet no one I've known in trading has ever heard of such a thing, despite many people trying to do so. And the most compelling way is you can check it yourself. Take BLS reported inflation for the past few decades. Pick a basket of goods similar to theirs. Measure local prices in a spreadsheet. Now go to your local library or the web and find old ads from decades ago, which is easy to do now. Compute the basket value then. Even a percent off over a few decades would vastly skew prices. I've done this legwork out of debunking ShadowStats to someone I know that believes their nonsense. You can do it, and disabuse yourself of such unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense. >Many other countries have high single digit or double digit true rates of inflation. ... You think this is good? Yes, it's better than a deflationary spiral. Single digit inflation, if somewhat stable, is vastly better than previous boom bust cycles. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_Unit... [2] http://www.thebillionpricesproject.com/ http://www.thebillionpricesproject.com/