6 ms·

> we need the financial industry Do we, though? I don't know whether the answer is distributed blockchains, or the Department of the Treasury creating an API f

> we need the financial industry Do we, though? I don't know whether the answer is distributed blockchains, or the Department of the Treasury creating an API for USD, or both; but the current banking system seems to me like the legacy code of feudal landed aristocrats. (I will never stop being disappointed that we didn't let the financial system crash in 2009.)

chrisco255 6y ago
An API for USD centrally controlled by the Treasury? Kiss your financial freedom goodbye. You gotta demand it be distributed blockchains or you'll be living in chains.
- ballenf 6y ago
  At least you'd have due process and couldn't be deplatformed for legal activity. Now you have neither. The current system has zero privacy, so no change there. Not seeing the downside. Federally illegal activity like marijuana wouldn't benefit, but most things would.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Technically, any occurring "federally illegal" activity is just not successfully policed criminal activity. (States can't actually make something legal the federal government says is not legal. They can just decline to use their own resources to police it.) Generally speaking, most people would consider "not usable in crime" to be a feature rather than a bug. ;)
    - sneak 6y ago
      I don’t think there is as quite widespread consensus that all federal crimes are legitimately crime as you seem to think. Marijuana sales, for example, seem extremely popular. Just because there’s a law in place at some remote level of jurisdiction doesn’t mean it’s just, or has popular support.
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        Widespread consensus doesn't determine what is and isn't a crime. The law does. Until the federal law changes, marijuana sales are a federal crime. Technically speaking, no state can actually "legalize" it.
        sneak 6y ago
        You’re absolutely right, of course. Widespread consensus heavily influences prosecutorial discretion though, which determines in practice what is or isn’t permitted by society. The law is not a computer program, and it is applied entirely arbitrarily.
      - rumanator 6y ago
        > I don’t think there is as quite widespread consensus that all federal crimes are legitimately crime as you seem to think. Your comment makes no sense at all. For something to be a crime it has to be explicitly defined in law. Consensus has zero to do with it. Either there is a law, or there isn't. The whole point of rule of law is that you don't get to pick and choose which law applies to you in a given day of the week.
        sneak 6y ago
        There are many marijuana shops in the United States, and many millions of customers of those shops who disagree with you. Also, Prohibition. The law is not some inviolate thing in a society. Many millions will happily ignore unjust laws if they feel they shouldn’t be laws. More alcohol was consumed during Prohibition in the US than before it was banned.
        krageon 6y ago
        > The whole point of rule of law is that you don't get to pick and choose which law applies to you in a given day of the week. If the law is not enforced, then it does not exist. The only real law is the one that you see day-to-day. So shooting black people is fine (in the US), and you can buy weed in shops (in a few places).
  - orangecat 6y ago
    At least you'd have due process and couldn't be deplatformed for legal activity. The feds are very much into deplatforming people for legal activity, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > At least you'd have due process and couldn't be deplatformed for legal activity. Now you have neither. I don't understand your train of thought. I mean, you are arguing for a monopoly controlling a centralized service just because one of the many freely available payment platforms you personally choosed may have terms of service you might break? How is that a solution? It seems you are not arguing for a solution to the problem you framed. You're instead confusing wishful thinking with a solution to the problem. I mean, your suggestions don't even qualify as unintended consequences: they are only unrealistic and absurd expectations from a reform that has absolutely no relation to the problem.
- andrewflnr 6y ago
  It would be cool to also have an API for USD.
- colechristensen 6y ago
  There are already two APIs operated by the Fed (not the treasury) Fedwire and ACH. The problem is the account. I do not want an account in the federal reserve or anywhere so closely coupled with the government. Nor do I want an account with a public ledger or any way distributed which doesn’t allow for transaction reversals (theft) which rules out blockchain. Actual banks are necessary.
  - kilburn 6y ago
    I often see US citizens being very wary of the government. Would you care to explain why is that so? In cases such as this one it strikes me as really odd: I would say that as citizens you have much more leverage over the government's actions than over whatever bank does (including handing over your data to the government). Thus, how is it better to have an account in some random bank than in the federal reserve (or whatever)?
    - colechristensen 6y ago
      Simple fear of authoritarian government oppression. It was also decided in the very early days of our government that a national government bank wasn't constitutional. With Snowden's revelations of things we mostly already knew, we can see that we don't really have much leverage over government abuse of power to collect and misuse data. The government is already doing broad data collections from private companies using secret courts... it would be a whole lot worse if the government already possessed the data. With private banks, I can choose which one I use. There is at least some motivation for that bank to be on my side, and I don't have to wait for an election cycle and hope that my issue fits in with my side on other issues and that side gets >50% after 2 or 4 years ... my bank does something I don't like and I can switch today. I don't trust my government to do a good job doing anything, or for anything my government does to not be vulnerable to political destruction (just look at the post office).
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    The concern is pretty strange since they already have that information thanks to banking regulations. There is nothing more to lose by doing it directly.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
In much the same way that people will tell you there's not enough land in cities when their actual concern is that there aren't enough residences, we "need" the financial industry in the sense that other financial services are illegal, not in the sense that the financial industry is the only way to handle things. You may not like Wells Fargo, but they have a banking license.
haltingproblem 6y ago
We do. The scale of financialization of our lives, our society is pervasive, invisible and touches every aspect of our lives. Our housing. Our utilities. Our communications. Our food. Everything is financed. There is debt financing these companies. Many of whom would not exist. As one of my professors told me - you see a building, I see a mortgage. Most of our economy would vanish without credit. Take a look at Islamic economies where debt and credit is fairly circumscribe and you see they much much smaller economies (ex-petro-dollar financed economies). Block chain is just a payment mechanism? It is not even that, yet. There is a LOT more to finance than moving money around. That is maybe generously speaking 5% of global finance. I would say say more like 1%. Sigh.
rumanator 6y ago
> Do we, though? Why, yes? Isn't it blatantly obvious? What exactly leads you to believe we don't? > I don't know whether the answer is distributed blockchains, or the Department of the Treasury creating an API for USD, or both; I'm dumbfounded how someone even comes close to believe that any one of these ideas comes even close to provide the service that financial institutions provide. Either you have a very specific and very niche usecase in mind, or maybe you have absolutely no idea about the services that financial institutions provide to society. > but the current banking system seems to me like the legacy code of feudal landed aristocrats. This comment leads me to believe that you are confusing stuff that has no relation whatsoever. Your dislike of caricatures and ideological strawmen you associated with financial services has absolutely no relation with the services provided to society by the whole banking industry. Just because you don't like Scrooge McDuck that doesn't mean most of us don't depend on loans to, say, buy a house or a car or store our savings or pay for everyday stuff.
- errantspark 6y ago
  We don't need usury. I'm confident we could figure out how to make things work without it.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    We know how it works without it - stagnation and the those currently at the top staying there due to lack of capital. Usury is a religious fundamentalist term divorced from the systemics and the reality of what works and what doesn't.
    - krageon 6y ago
      > those currently at the top staying there And you're sure you're not describing the current day, but instead some hypothetical bad scenario if we had no financial sector? It seems to me that if we have this problem now and without a financial sector, that's not really related to them at all.
- bartvk 6y ago

chrisco255 6y ago

An API for USD centrally controlled by the Treasury? Kiss your financial freedom goodbye. You gotta demand it be distributed blockchains or you'll be living in chains.

ballenf 6y ago
At least you'd have due process and couldn't be deplatformed for legal activity. Now you have neither. The current system has zero privacy, so no change there. Not seeing the downside. Federally illegal activity like marijuana wouldn't benefit, but most things would.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Technically, any occurring "federally illegal" activity is just not successfully policed criminal activity. (States can't actually make something legal the federal government says is not legal. They can just decline to use their own resources to police it.) Generally speaking, most people would consider "not usable in crime" to be a feature rather than a bug. ;)
  - sneak 6y ago
    I don’t think there is as quite widespread consensus that all federal crimes are legitimately crime as you seem to think. Marijuana sales, for example, seem extremely popular. Just because there’s a law in place at some remote level of jurisdiction doesn’t mean it’s just, or has popular support.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      Widespread consensus doesn't determine what is and isn't a crime. The law does. Until the federal law changes, marijuana sales are a federal crime. Technically speaking, no state can actually "legalize" it.
      - sneak 6y ago
        You’re absolutely right, of course. Widespread consensus heavily influences prosecutorial discretion though, which determines in practice what is or isn’t permitted by society. The law is not a computer program, and it is applied entirely arbitrarily.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      > I don’t think there is as quite widespread consensus that all federal crimes are legitimately crime as you seem to think. Your comment makes no sense at all. For something to be a crime it has to be explicitly defined in law. Consensus has zero to do with it. Either there is a law, or there isn't. The whole point of rule of law is that you don't get to pick and choose which law applies to you in a given day of the week.
      - sneak 6y ago
        There are many marijuana shops in the United States, and many millions of customers of those shops who disagree with you. Also, Prohibition. The law is not some inviolate thing in a society. Many millions will happily ignore unjust laws if they feel they shouldn’t be laws. More alcohol was consumed during Prohibition in the US than before it was banned.
      - krageon 6y ago
        > The whole point of rule of law is that you don't get to pick and choose which law applies to you in a given day of the week. If the law is not enforced, then it does not exist. The only real law is the one that you see day-to-day. So shooting black people is fine (in the US), and you can buy weed in shops (in a few places).
- orangecat 6y ago
  At least you'd have due process and couldn't be deplatformed for legal activity. The feds are very much into deplatforming people for legal activity, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
- rumanator 6y ago
  > At least you'd have due process and couldn't be deplatformed for legal activity. Now you have neither. I don't understand your train of thought. I mean, you are arguing for a monopoly controlling a centralized service just because one of the many freely available payment platforms you personally choosed may have terms of service you might break? How is that a solution? It seems you are not arguing for a solution to the problem you framed. You're instead confusing wishful thinking with a solution to the problem. I mean, your suggestions don't even qualify as unintended consequences: they are only unrealistic and absurd expectations from a reform that has absolutely no relation to the problem.
andrewflnr 6y ago
It would be cool to also have an API for USD.
colechristensen 6y ago
There are already two APIs operated by the Fed (not the treasury) Fedwire and ACH. The problem is the account. I do not want an account in the federal reserve or anywhere so closely coupled with the government. Nor do I want an account with a public ledger or any way distributed which doesn’t allow for transaction reversals (theft) which rules out blockchain. Actual banks are necessary.
- kilburn 6y ago
  I often see US citizens being very wary of the government. Would you care to explain why is that so? In cases such as this one it strikes me as really odd: I would say that as citizens you have much more leverage over the government's actions than over whatever bank does (including handing over your data to the government). Thus, how is it better to have an account in some random bank than in the federal reserve (or whatever)?
  - colechristensen 6y ago
    Simple fear of authoritarian government oppression. It was also decided in the very early days of our government that a national government bank wasn't constitutional. With Snowden's revelations of things we mostly already knew, we can see that we don't really have much leverage over government abuse of power to collect and misuse data. The government is already doing broad data collections from private companies using secret courts... it would be a whole lot worse if the government already possessed the data. With private banks, I can choose which one I use. There is at least some motivation for that bank to be on my side, and I don't have to wait for an election cycle and hope that my issue fits in with my side on other issues and that side gets >50% after 2 or 4 years ... my bank does something I don't like and I can switch today. I don't trust my government to do a good job doing anything, or for anything my government does to not be vulnerable to political destruction (just look at the post office).
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  The concern is pretty strange since they already have that information thanks to banking regulations. There is nothing more to lose by doing it directly.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

In much the same way that people will tell you there's not enough land in cities when their actual concern is that there aren't enough residences, we "need" the financial industry in the sense that other financial services are illegal, not in the sense that the financial industry is the only way to handle things. You may not like Wells Fargo, but they have a banking license.

haltingproblem 6y ago

We do. The scale of financialization of our lives, our society is pervasive, invisible and touches every aspect of our lives. Our housing. Our utilities. Our communications. Our food. Everything is financed. There is debt financing these companies. Many of whom would not exist. As one of my professors told me - you see a building, I see a mortgage. Most of our economy would vanish without credit. Take a look at Islamic economies where debt and credit is fairly circumscribe and you see they much much smaller economies (ex-petro-dollar financed economies). Block chain is just a payment mechanism? It is not even that, yet. There is a LOT more to finance than moving money around. That is maybe generously speaking 5% of global finance. I would say say more like 1%. Sigh.

rumanator 6y ago

> Do we, though? Why, yes? Isn't it blatantly obvious? What exactly leads you to believe we don't? > I don't know whether the answer is distributed blockchains, or the Department of the Treasury creating an API for USD, or both; I'm dumbfounded how someone even comes close to believe that any one of these ideas comes even close to provide the service that financial institutions provide. Either you have a very specific and very niche usecase in mind, or maybe you have absolutely no idea about the services that financial institutions provide to society. > but the current banking system seems to me like the legacy code of feudal landed aristocrats. This comment leads me to believe that you are confusing stuff that has no relation whatsoever. Your dislike of caricatures and ideological strawmen you associated with financial services has absolutely no relation with the services provided to society by the whole banking industry. Just because you don't like Scrooge McDuck that doesn't mean most of us don't depend on loans to, say, buy a house or a car or store our savings or pay for everyday stuff.

errantspark 6y ago
We don't need usury. I'm confident we could figure out how to make things work without it.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  We know how it works without it - stagnation and the those currently at the top staying there due to lack of capital. Usury is a religious fundamentalist term divorced from the systemics and the reality of what works and what doesn't.
  - krageon 6y ago
    > those currently at the top staying there And you're sure you're not describing the current day, but instead some hypothetical bad scenario if we had no financial sector? It seems to me that if we have this problem now and without a financial sector, that's not really related to them at all.
bartvk 6y ago