5 ms·

So you'd rather a system where TPTB get to fudge the books as they see fit, impose taxes via intentional inflation, and keep tabs on your every transaction? Int

So you'd rather a system where TPTB get to fudge the books as they see fit, impose taxes via intentional inflation, and keep tabs on your every transaction? Interesting.

epgui 5y ago
That’s not exactly how it works.
- atatatat 5y ago
  Regardless of law, intent, etc, this is how it functionally ends up happening, a nonzero amount of the time.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    That's what ends up happening when an asset becomes economically meaningful. Crypto is still a joke to global economy, but on the off chance it gains mainstream adoption, it'll have the same kind of regulations, taxation and fraud attached to it.
    - selfhoster11 5y ago
      Except crypto is less firmly anchored in the real world than in the digital realm. It's fundamentally harder to regulate it than a physical currency, which needs specialist equipment to generate.
      - TeMPOraL 5y ago
        Money as a concept is even less anchored in the real world. So is the law. The two have been dancing together since first human society. We have thousands of years of experience with this, and cryptocurrencies don't introduce anything new here, despite what some advocates may think. As long as you can use something - be it a coin, a bill, a SWIFT transfer, a blockchain transaction or a Nuka-Cola bottle cap - to pay someone for something, and a third party would be able to identify it as a purchase, same things will happen. A criminal will be able to take your purchasing power and use it themselves. A taxman will be able to collect a percentage of your trade, and men with guns will take you in front of a judge if you refuse. The manifestation of value doesn't matter, because money isn't a thing, it's a shared belief.
        selfhoster11 5y ago
        While I agree, all of the ways you mentioned to pay for something are fundamentally something that requires infrastructure to create (industrial, banking, or a mint), and has a physical anchor that can be plucked from you by physical force (including the SWIFT transfer - though usually bank's prefer to comply than shut themselves down). A blockchain based currency will exist as long as there's someone with a sufficiently powerful computing device connected to a sufficiently low-risk network that can be accessed legally or illicitly. A blockchain wallet will exist and be yours alone as long as you keep the password in your brain, never write it down, and resist attempts to extract it from you. This means that, in comparison to conventional currency (including Nuka-Cola caps), a blockchain economy is much easier to operate undercover when it's outlawed.
- macinjosh 5y ago
  Yes, that is exactly how it works.
- the_third_wave 5y ago
  Not exactly, that is true - it is rather hard to describe international trade in 140 characters-or-less. It can not be denied that there is a lot of truth to the statement though even if it does not describe all factors of influence: > a system where TPTB get to fudge the books as they see fit This depends on whether the media are in to the party or not but when they are this is mostly true. > impose taxes via intentional inflation This is a fact in those countries which have control over their own currency. > and keep tabs on your every transaction This is a fact and one of the driving forces behind the "cashless society".
  - epgui 5y ago
    1) Central banks aren’t regulated by the media. 2) The expansion of the money supply is not necessarily inflationary. 3) Inflation is very different from taxation: if you hold cash you’re supposed to circulate it, either by spending it or by investing it. Inflation disincentivizes cash-hoarding, and also deflated the value of any debt you might have.
    - the_third_wave 5y ago
      1) ...but I can only assume you realise they are sensitive to political pressure which again derives from public opinion which is controlled by the media... 2) ...but it generally is just that, inflationary. The fact that there can be exceptions to the rule does not make the rule less valid. 3) ...and inflation is also used by governments to provide funds (by "printing money" in some way or other, the actual implementation depends on how the currency is regulated) which otherwise would be provided through taxation, leading to inflation and as such reducing tax payer's purchasing power - just like taxation does.
      - epgui 5y ago
        1) central bank loss of independence is one of the hallmark of failed central banks. I hardly think it's reasonable to think that all central banks are dysfunctional in such a way: while these institutions can and do break down, they are not designed to break down in this way. You're free to argue whether a given central bank is or is not sufficiently independent, but that's a more specific problem than the over-generalization made here. 2) it's not an exception to the rule at all. The rule for inflation doesn't mention how much money exists, it only mentions how much money circulates. More money existing does not necessarily mean more money circulating (eg.: money tends to concentrate in certain places for various reasons, rather than diffusing freely). 3) Sure, but two things that have similar features are not always similar in essence or nature. Swords and needles are both sharp, but you wouldn't argue that they're essentially the same. In fact in your own example, taxation for certain purposes could be either inflationary or deflationary (eg.: austerity measures, including those that involve taxation, are deflationary by design).

So you'd rather a system where TPTB get to fudge the books as they see fit, impose taxes via intentional inflation, and keep tabs on your every transaction? Interesting.

epgui 5y ago

That’s not exactly how it works.

atatatat 5y ago
Regardless of law, intent, etc, this is how it functionally ends up happening, a nonzero amount of the time.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  That's what ends up happening when an asset becomes economically meaningful. Crypto is still a joke to global economy, but on the off chance it gains mainstream adoption, it'll have the same kind of regulations, taxation and fraud attached to it.
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    Except crypto is less firmly anchored in the real world than in the digital realm. It's fundamentally harder to regulate it than a physical currency, which needs specialist equipment to generate.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      Money as a concept is even less anchored in the real world. So is the law. The two have been dancing together since first human society. We have thousands of years of experience with this, and cryptocurrencies don't introduce anything new here, despite what some advocates may think. As long as you can use something - be it a coin, a bill, a SWIFT transfer, a blockchain transaction or a Nuka-Cola bottle cap - to pay someone for something, and a third party would be able to identify it as a purchase, same things will happen. A criminal will be able to take your purchasing power and use it themselves. A taxman will be able to collect a percentage of your trade, and men with guns will take you in front of a judge if you refuse. The manifestation of value doesn't matter, because money isn't a thing, it's a shared belief.
      - selfhoster11 5y ago
        While I agree, all of the ways you mentioned to pay for something are fundamentally something that requires infrastructure to create (industrial, banking, or a mint), and has a physical anchor that can be plucked from you by physical force (including the SWIFT transfer - though usually bank's prefer to comply than shut themselves down). A blockchain based currency will exist as long as there's someone with a sufficiently powerful computing device connected to a sufficiently low-risk network that can be accessed legally or illicitly. A blockchain wallet will exist and be yours alone as long as you keep the password in your brain, never write it down, and resist attempts to extract it from you. This means that, in comparison to conventional currency (including Nuka-Cola caps), a blockchain economy is much easier to operate undercover when it's outlawed.
macinjosh 5y ago
Yes, that is exactly how it works.
the_third_wave 5y ago
Not exactly, that is true - it is rather hard to describe international trade in 140 characters-or-less. It can not be denied that there is a lot of truth to the statement though even if it does not describe all factors of influence: > a system where TPTB get to fudge the books as they see fit This depends on whether the media are in to the party or not but when they are this is mostly true. > impose taxes via intentional inflation This is a fact in those countries which have control over their own currency. > and keep tabs on your every transaction This is a fact and one of the driving forces behind the "cashless society".
- epgui 5y ago
  1) Central banks aren’t regulated by the media. 2) The expansion of the money supply is not necessarily inflationary. 3) Inflation is very different from taxation: if you hold cash you’re supposed to circulate it, either by spending it or by investing it. Inflation disincentivizes cash-hoarding, and also deflated the value of any debt you might have.
  - the_third_wave 5y ago
    1) ...but I can only assume you realise they are sensitive to political pressure which again derives from public opinion which is controlled by the media... 2) ...but it generally is just that, inflationary. The fact that there can be exceptions to the rule does not make the rule less valid. 3) ...and inflation is also used by governments to provide funds (by "printing money" in some way or other, the actual implementation depends on how the currency is regulated) which otherwise would be provided through taxation, leading to inflation and as such reducing tax payer's purchasing power - just like taxation does.
    - epgui 5y ago
      1) central bank loss of independence is one of the hallmark of failed central banks. I hardly think it's reasonable to think that all central banks are dysfunctional in such a way: while these institutions can and do break down, they are not designed to break down in this way. You're free to argue whether a given central bank is or is not sufficiently independent, but that's a more specific problem than the over-generalization made here. 2) it's not an exception to the rule at all. The rule for inflation doesn't mention how much money exists, it only mentions how much money circulates. More money existing does not necessarily mean more money circulating (eg.: money tends to concentrate in certain places for various reasons, rather than diffusing freely). 3) Sure, but two things that have similar features are not always similar in essence or nature. Swords and needles are both sharp, but you wouldn't argue that they're essentially the same. In fact in your own example, taxation for certain purposes could be either inflationary or deflationary (eg.: austerity measures, including those that involve taxation, are deflationary by design).