5 ms·

"Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason.", said Rand who saw money not as an evil but an instrument

"Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason.", said Rand who saw money not as an evil but an instrument of peace. What worries me with talk of "Monetary war" is the transition of money as means of peace into a weapon. Mark this, much as I detest Russia today and believe brutal sanctions are the way, we will all reap tyranny if banks are militarised. First the central digital currencies will be used to cut-off "terrorists", then companies who won't play games, and eventually individuals with inconvenient things to say. Without some form of "bitcoin" [1] that evades authoritarian control, or a diverse basket of payments backed by legislation to prevent "cashless hellholes", you'd better realise your wealth exists only at the whim of some unseen power. [1] we _must_ evolve past PoW

openfuture 5y ago
Don't worry it's coming. The proof of trust that is.
lazide 5y ago
Central banks already are used as tools to do all these things.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Yoric 5y ago
Rand's idea that money is an instrument of peace has some historical basis but has also been contradicted by history pretty much forever. Cue to thousands of examples, including money-fueled coups in Ancient Rome, public or private wars paid for by banker's money in Renaissance Italy, the Medici ending the Florentine republic by strength of money, bankers bankrolling both Franco and Adolf Hitler, etc.
nonrandomstring 5y ago
@Yoric and Lazide Sure I get it. Arguments against my "bad things will happen" is "don't worry they are already happening" :) That doesn't lessen the case that we can and should work on resilient money systems that protect the interests of ordinary people. When the boot is on the other foot, maybe in 10 years when China is "turning-off the dollar", we'll all be glad we built robust and democratically controlled means of exchange.
- Yoric 5y ago
  > Sure I get it. Arguments against my "bad things will happen" is "don't worry they are already happening" :) Fair summary :) > That doesn't lessen the case that we can and should work on resilient money systems that protect the interests of ordinary people. > > When the boot is on the other foot, maybe in 10 years when China is "turning-off the dollar", we'll all be glad we built robust and democratically controlled means of exchange. I believe that I understand your point. However, my gut feeling is that "protecting the interests of ordinary people" is what rich oligarchs (from whichever nationality) will eventually tell ordinary people to sell us on the idea of a trans-national, untraceable, currency, but that such a beast will be much more in their interest (tax fraud? money laundering? milking clients with online casinos? good ideas!) than in anybody else's (pay for a X that I'll be buying from a black-market salesperson without attracting the state's attention? not something I do every day, but probably good idea in a dictatorship? – on the other hand, exposing myself to frauds without any recourse because of anonymity? not something I want to deal with on a daily basis). That's in addition to the issues with PoW (looks like we already agree on this point) and the practical issues with actual decentralization, anonymity, stealth and resilience.
  - nonrandomstring 5y ago
    > However, my gut feeling is that "protecting the interests of ordinary people" is what rich oligarchs (from whichever nationality) will eventually tell ordinary people to sell us on the idea of a trans-national, untraceable, currency, but that such a beast will be much more in their interest (tax fraud? money laundering? milking clients with online casinos? good ideas!) than in anybody else's It is incredibly complex isn't it. Those are solid fears you offer. Perhaps it's a question (formula of moral arithmetic) that extends beyond money - that given a magic wand that offers equal gains to good and evil, do you wave it? Do the wrongs of elite corruption cancel out the freedoms of the working majority? > buying from a black-market salesperson without attracting the state's attention? That's a severe example. But I would just like my 5 year old kid to be able to buy an ice-cream with the pocket money I give her. That is _literally_ the reality of how this affects me in real life. And if this is just the early days of digital economics I really do not want to see where this road leads. We already have cash, a perfectly fungible, widely accepted and non-traceable (actually slightly traceable) peoples' coin. Oligarchs don't trade in bags of cash. So attacks on cash seem nothing but spite against common economic life. > frauds without any recourse because of anonymity? not something I want to deal with on a daily basis). Don't forget that digital transactions can give recourse against fraud without actually having to break client anonymity (Taler) or even vendor anonymity (underwritten/insured escrow systems). Most of take that risk everyday for smallish sums < $100 when we use cash.

openfuture 5y ago

Don't worry it's coming. The proof of trust that is.

lazide 5y ago

Central banks already are used as tools to do all these things.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Yoric 5y ago

Rand's idea that money is an instrument of peace has some historical basis but has also been contradicted by history pretty much forever. Cue to thousands of examples, including money-fueled coups in Ancient Rome, public or private wars paid for by banker's money in Renaissance Italy, the Medici ending the Florentine republic by strength of money, bankers bankrolling both Franco and Adolf Hitler, etc.

nonrandomstring 5y ago

@Yoric and Lazide Sure I get it. Arguments against my "bad things will happen" is "don't worry they are already happening" :) That doesn't lessen the case that we can and should work on resilient money systems that protect the interests of ordinary people. When the boot is on the other foot, maybe in 10 years when China is "turning-off the dollar", we'll all be glad we built robust and democratically controlled means of exchange.

Yoric 5y ago
> Sure I get it. Arguments against my "bad things will happen" is "don't worry they are already happening" :) Fair summary :) > That doesn't lessen the case that we can and should work on resilient money systems that protect the interests of ordinary people. > > When the boot is on the other foot, maybe in 10 years when China is "turning-off the dollar", we'll all be glad we built robust and democratically controlled means of exchange. I believe that I understand your point. However, my gut feeling is that "protecting the interests of ordinary people" is what rich oligarchs (from whichever nationality) will eventually tell ordinary people to sell us on the idea of a trans-national, untraceable, currency, but that such a beast will be much more in their interest (tax fraud? money laundering? milking clients with online casinos? good ideas!) than in anybody else's (pay for a X that I'll be buying from a black-market salesperson without attracting the state's attention? not something I do every day, but probably good idea in a dictatorship? – on the other hand, exposing myself to frauds without any recourse because of anonymity? not something I want to deal with on a daily basis). That's in addition to the issues with PoW (looks like we already agree on this point) and the practical issues with actual decentralization, anonymity, stealth and resilience.
- nonrandomstring 5y ago
  > However, my gut feeling is that "protecting the interests of ordinary people" is what rich oligarchs (from whichever nationality) will eventually tell ordinary people to sell us on the idea of a trans-national, untraceable, currency, but that such a beast will be much more in their interest (tax fraud? money laundering? milking clients with online casinos? good ideas!) than in anybody else's It is incredibly complex isn't it. Those are solid fears you offer. Perhaps it's a question (formula of moral arithmetic) that extends beyond money - that given a magic wand that offers equal gains to good and evil, do you wave it? Do the wrongs of elite corruption cancel out the freedoms of the working majority? > buying from a black-market salesperson without attracting the state's attention? That's a severe example. But I would just like my 5 year old kid to be able to buy an ice-cream with the pocket money I give her. That is _literally_ the reality of how this affects me in real life. And if this is just the early days of digital economics I really do not want to see where this road leads. We already have cash, a perfectly fungible, widely accepted and non-traceable (actually slightly traceable) peoples' coin. Oligarchs don't trade in bags of cash. So attacks on cash seem nothing but spite against common economic life. > frauds without any recourse because of anonymity? not something I want to deal with on a daily basis). Don't forget that digital transactions can give recourse against fraud without actually having to break client anonymity (Taler) or even vendor anonymity (underwritten/insured escrow systems). Most of take that risk everyday for smallish sums < $100 when we use cash.