5 ms·

“Trust a democratically elected government to act in the interests of its citizens” isn’t ideal, but I’m not sure “trust a combination of tech-bros and anarchy”

“Trust a democratically elected government to act in the interests of its citizens” isn’t ideal, but I’m not sure “trust a combination of tech-bros and anarchy” is an improvement? I’m working in a legal-but-taboo industry, where mastercard and visa don’t want to deal with us, which is a huge pain in the ass - but every time I’ve looked at crypto, it seems to fix one or two problems and introduce 10 more...

eterevsky 4y ago
It's an improvement in the sense that it gives you an additional option.
jcbrand 4y ago
You're making a mistake in thinking that monetary policy is somehow democratic and that there is some kind of meaningful oversight over it. Central Banks are privately owned and by design are meant to be "independent" of politics (otherwise politicians would use the money printer to continuously to buy votes, destroying the currency in the process). There is no real oversight over central banks and nobody (outside of the peanut gallery) has meaningfully questioned the extreme central bank policies of the last 10 years or asked the central bankers any uncomfortable questions.
- RandomLensman 4y ago
  Beyond the Fed, which other large central banks are privately owned? The Bank of England has only been independent for a pretty short time, for example, so central bank independence is a fairly new concept that could change again - because it is a political decision, not a law of nature.
  - jcbrand 4y ago
    US, Japan, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Greece, Turkey and South Africa. The Danish one is "self-owned" whatever that means. The US fed is by far the most important Central Bank due to dollar being the global reserve currency. Source: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-European-Central-Bank-privately-owned-If-so-who-owns-the-bank-and-how-does-its-private-ownership-affect-its-customers https://www.quora.com/Is-the-European-Central-Bank-privately... EDIT: The ECB is owned by member-states's banks, some of which are privately owned. In any case, private ownership is only one issue, the other is that central banks are designed to have very little oversight. Saying that "we can change the laws" doesn't change that. It's not always easy or possible to change laws. When is the USA going to repeal the 2nd amendment?
    - RandomLensman 4y ago
      So, outside of the Fed, there are maybe two more that have some relevance that are privately owned (Japan, Switzerland). The second most important one (ECB) is not. And, of course, the ownership of the Fed (or the ECB) could be changed by changing laws (the Bank of England is an example here of how central banks might enjoy changing degrees of freedom). Addendum: to say that it is not easy to change the law is ok, maybe it should not be. But to use some technology to get around laws where there is not enough social capital for change is a very tricky position. If that holds for law X, why not law Y? What if there is never enough social capital for change? Would it then imply a break-up of that society into multiple ones?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

eterevsky 4y ago

It's an improvement in the sense that it gives you an additional option.

jcbrand 4y ago

You're making a mistake in thinking that monetary policy is somehow democratic and that there is some kind of meaningful oversight over it. Central Banks are privately owned and by design are meant to be "independent" of politics (otherwise politicians would use the money printer to continuously to buy votes, destroying the currency in the process). There is no real oversight over central banks and nobody (outside of the peanut gallery) has meaningfully questioned the extreme central bank policies of the last 10 years or asked the central bankers any uncomfortable questions.

RandomLensman 4y ago
Beyond the Fed, which other large central banks are privately owned? The Bank of England has only been independent for a pretty short time, for example, so central bank independence is a fairly new concept that could change again - because it is a political decision, not a law of nature.
- jcbrand 4y ago
  US, Japan, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Greece, Turkey and South Africa. The Danish one is "self-owned" whatever that means. The US fed is by far the most important Central Bank due to dollar being the global reserve currency. Source: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-European-Central-Bank-privately-owned-If-so-who-owns-the-bank-and-how-does-its-private-ownership-affect-its-customers https://www.quora.com/Is-the-European-Central-Bank-privately... EDIT: The ECB is owned by member-states's banks, some of which are privately owned. In any case, private ownership is only one issue, the other is that central banks are designed to have very little oversight. Saying that "we can change the laws" doesn't change that. It's not always easy or possible to change laws. When is the USA going to repeal the 2nd amendment?
  - RandomLensman 4y ago
    So, outside of the Fed, there are maybe two more that have some relevance that are privately owned (Japan, Switzerland). The second most important one (ECB) is not. And, of course, the ownership of the Fed (or the ECB) could be changed by changing laws (the Bank of England is an example here of how central banks might enjoy changing degrees of freedom). Addendum: to say that it is not easy to change the law is ok, maybe it should not be. But to use some technology to get around laws where there is not enough social capital for change is a very tricky position. If that holds for law X, why not law Y? What if there is never enough social capital for change? Would it then imply a break-up of that society into multiple ones?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]