4 ms·

> governments will be in full control of consumer spending by influencing interest rates that are charged by the Libra system How can governments be in full co

> governments will be in full control of consumer spending by influencing interest rates that are charged by the Libra system How can governments be in full control if there's a private partner/consortium/whatever that controls the technology? This seems akin to the whole "drive for Uber and be your own boss" argument.

I_am_tiberius 6y ago
Sorry, obviously "full control" is the wrong expression. But you get my point I guess.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  That’s just it though, I disagree that governments will have “full control” in that situation, they can only lose control as this technology becomes adopted. They gain nothing while taking on a private partner, one that has an abhorrent history of privacy abuse. It’s so hard to see the benefit for anyone other than Facebook in this
  - I_am_tiberius 6y ago
    Please consider that just because Facebook is allowed to trade dollars in a digital way, it doesn't mean that they can produce dollars. Production is still in the hands of governments. Privacy wise I'm full on your side. But I still think it's also a benefit for governments - they'll lose on one side but gain on the other. Cash is a burden for them.
    - save_ferris 6y ago
      Maintaining cash currency will cost the US roughly $877M[0], out of the Federal Government’s $4.7T budget, or 0.01% of the Federal budget. So in your view, sacrificing people’s privacy by giving this sensitive data to Facebook and ceding the government’s distribution control for what amounts to minuscule savings is worth it? Just for scale, if you were operating a $100k budget, you’d be saving $10 while giving a private company immense control of the financial system. How do you justify that? 0: https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12771.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12771.htm
      - I_am_tiberius 6y ago
        Sorry, I don't understand your answer as I'm clearly against Facebook's strategy. And so are you as I understand.

I_am_tiberius 6y ago

Sorry, obviously "full control" is the wrong expression. But you get my point I guess.

save_ferris 6y ago
That’s just it though, I disagree that governments will have “full control” in that situation, they can only lose control as this technology becomes adopted. They gain nothing while taking on a private partner, one that has an abhorrent history of privacy abuse. It’s so hard to see the benefit for anyone other than Facebook in this
- I_am_tiberius 6y ago
  Please consider that just because Facebook is allowed to trade dollars in a digital way, it doesn't mean that they can produce dollars. Production is still in the hands of governments. Privacy wise I'm full on your side. But I still think it's also a benefit for governments - they'll lose on one side but gain on the other. Cash is a burden for them.
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    Maintaining cash currency will cost the US roughly $877M[0], out of the Federal Government’s $4.7T budget, or 0.01% of the Federal budget. So in your view, sacrificing people’s privacy by giving this sensitive data to Facebook and ceding the government’s distribution control for what amounts to minuscule savings is worth it? Just for scale, if you were operating a $100k budget, you’d be saving $10 while giving a private company immense control of the financial system. How do you justify that? 0: https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12771.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12771.htm
    - I_am_tiberius 6y ago
      Sorry, I don't understand your answer as I'm clearly against Facebook's strategy. And so are you as I understand.