4 ms·
> Why on earth would any country, rich or poor, want a deflationary currency outside its control? No government would want such a thing if given a choice. How
by evronm 4y ago
> Why on earth would any country, rich or poor, want a deflationary currency outside its control?
No government would want such a thing if given a choice. However, when a country's fiat currency becomes worthless, the choice is a different one.
> "Controlled by no one" is not a feature for governments (or mature financial systems), it's a bug.
As far as governments are concerned, that is absolutely correct. However, given the choice between a currency nobody controls and one controlled by another government, the former is clearly less onerous.
- azinman2 4y agoThey controlled their own currency before. It’s their choice to peg it’s value or not. To eliminate the ability to print money or do any other kind of intervention is like cutting off your legs for no reason. It seems to me that they’re simply doing this a) as a stunt, and b) as a way to get around remittance fees. Except accepting bitcoin means you have a current with no stability, no recourse when anything goes wrong, and one that thru deflation will only make everything more expensive over time but favor the initially rich.
- gbersac 4y agoMoney is trust. For a government to print money, he need people and worldwild financial institutions to trust the government. I don't think anyone trust the CAR government, so they can't print money.
- kspacewalk2 4y agoThere are in fact poor countries with competent central bankers, so the task of making a stable fiat currency is not as insurmountable as "become rich first".
- azinman2 4y agoSo what money do they use?
- kspacewalk2 4y ago>No government would want such a thing if given a choice. However, when a country's fiat currency becomes worthless, the choice is a different one. That's true. They then peg their currency to a stable fiat currency, or simply adopt one (usually unilaterally). They don't go for a "perpetual novelty" technology that has fundamental technical issues making it largely unsuitable for use as actual currency (as opposed to speculative store of value, or a money transfer mechanism). >As far as governments are concerned, that is absolutely correct. However, given the choice between a currency nobody controls and one controlled by another government, the former is clearly less onerous. Undoing most laws is likewise going to be "clearly less onerous" for a lot of folks. That in itself does not make it a good idea.