3 ms·

We can and should change the fact that people can move money around in the blink of an eye. Only then can we rebalance trade in a way that is optimal f

We can and should change the fact that people can move money around in the blink of an eye. Only then can we rebalance trade in a way that is optimal for the global economy. I feel like this is a freedom/rights question vs general good. Does the freedom to do what you will with your property supersede the demand to take care of your neighbor (and is there some other system, like philanthropy that actually does the latter?)

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
The fact the money is fungible should not be allowed to obscure the fact that money (the form in which capital is moved around) is a complex social agreement that exists only because of a highly evolved and history-dependent set of rules. Talking about money as "your property" typically bypasses the real nature of money, and encourages people to uncritically buy into a conservative/libertarian perspective that plays with people's sense of fairness to the interest of only those in positions of existing wealth and power. The fact that one can "move capital" to other countries at all is not some law of nature, but a deliberate political choice. Had the choice been made in some other direction (such as taxing currency conversions), a totally different pathway would emerge. The fact that one choice appears to involve "removing" constraints and the other appears to involve "adding" constraints makes it appear as though one of them is somehow closer to the natural order or things. But the very existence of money at all is not part of the natural order of things, and the preference for choices that avoid constraints just favors the status quo over change.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Feudal economies were famous for encouraging their elite to acquire and store wealth in the form of real estate, which (unless one is a border lord) is not easily moved to another jurisdiction.
- maerF0x0 6y ago
  > is a complex social agreement that exists +1 agree this is a massively important distinction in a fiat currency world. Money was property when it was Gold (+gold backed). Now it's more social than that. Unfortunately it seems people are up/down voting me, presumably, on what they think is true and where they think I land on the choice set proposed (Social good vs freedom)
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    Gold may have the appearance of property, but just like fiat money, this is still due to a complex set of social conventions and agreements. Gold does not have much practical use for most of the things that people do in life, but a reality-based consensus that it is relatively rare and a human-psychology driven fascination with shiny and malleable materials has led us to agree to place value in it. Even that took some effort, such as when gold-centric cultures and silver-centric cultures encountered each other.
Sargos 6y ago
This is a nice thought but that ship has sailed especially with the invention of things like Bitcoin. Capital naturally moves wherever it's best used and there's no way for a government to really prevent that.
- maerF0x0 6y ago
  Government can use its pseudo-monopoly on violence to deter anything it chooses to.
  - Sargos 6y ago
    I don't think that's true and history has shown it isn't true. The US couldn't stop alcohol consumption during prohibition even using all of its power and a full conditional amendment at its back. The war on drugs has also similarly failed. China has the most power of any country in the world and they cannot stop capital flight or transactions they don't approve of. If the two most powerful countries can't do it then what chance do the rest of them have?

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

The fact the money is fungible should not be allowed to obscure the fact that money (the form in which capital is moved around) is a complex social agreement that exists only because of a highly evolved and history-dependent set of rules. Talking about money as "your property" typically bypasses the real nature of money, and encourages people to uncritically buy into a conservative/libertarian perspective that plays with people's sense of fairness to the interest of only those in positions of existing wealth and power. The fact that one can "move capital" to other countries at all is not some law of nature, but a deliberate political choice. Had the choice been made in some other direction (such as taxing currency conversions), a totally different pathway would emerge. The fact that one choice appears to involve "removing" constraints and the other appears to involve "adding" constraints makes it appear as though one of them is somehow closer to the natural order or things. But the very existence of money at all is not part of the natural order of things, and the preference for choices that avoid constraints just favors the status quo over change.

082349872349872 6y ago
Feudal economies were famous for encouraging their elite to acquire and store wealth in the form of real estate, which (unless one is a border lord) is not easily moved to another jurisdiction.
maerF0x0 6y ago
> is a complex social agreement that exists +1 agree this is a massively important distinction in a fiat currency world. Money was property when it was Gold (+gold backed). Now it's more social than that. Unfortunately it seems people are up/down voting me, presumably, on what they think is true and where they think I land on the choice set proposed (Social good vs freedom)
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  Gold may have the appearance of property, but just like fiat money, this is still due to a complex set of social conventions and agreements. Gold does not have much practical use for most of the things that people do in life, but a reality-based consensus that it is relatively rare and a human-psychology driven fascination with shiny and malleable materials has led us to agree to place value in it. Even that took some effort, such as when gold-centric cultures and silver-centric cultures encountered each other.

Sargos 6y ago

This is a nice thought but that ship has sailed especially with the invention of things like Bitcoin. Capital naturally moves wherever it's best used and there's no way for a government to really prevent that.

maerF0x0 6y ago
Government can use its pseudo-monopoly on violence to deter anything it chooses to.
- Sargos 6y ago
  I don't think that's true and history has shown it isn't true. The US couldn't stop alcohol consumption during prohibition even using all of its power and a full conditional amendment at its back. The war on drugs has also similarly failed. China has the most power of any country in the world and they cannot stop capital flight or transactions they don't approve of. If the two most powerful countries can't do it then what chance do the rest of them have?