4 ms·
Deduce just a bit more, and see that I meant you can tax literally anything until it is worthless. I think you already knew what I meant but just wanted to nit
by rybosworld 6y ago
Deduce just a bit more, and see that I meant you can tax literally anything until it is worthless.
I think you already knew what I meant but just wanted to nitpick.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y agoBut that is absolutely not the point, and it is not a nitpick. The real argument is that Bitcoin has negative value if you include externalities, and that is not the case for most assets.
- nicoburns 6y agoThe cost of releasing carbon into the atmosphere is there whether or not you price it into the market by use of a tax. Value is not limited to monetary value.
- lordnacho 6y agoIt's not a nitpick, he's referring to Pigovian Taxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax It's obvious that you can tax anything by some amount to eat up the value. He means if you tax it according to the amount of unaccounted-by-the-market negative value, it comes out negative.
- rybosworld 6y agoRight, that's fair to say. But the economist in OP is essentially ignoring where bitcoin actually get's it's value from and only focusing on it's electrical consumption. Bitcoin means different things to different people. But many see it as the single best hedge against modern monetary policy.