4 ms·
Your argument relies on two strong assumption, "everything private economy is good", and "everything government is bad". Unless you add strong reasoning behind
by polygamous_bat 4y ago
Your argument relies on two strong assumption, "everything private economy is good", and "everything government is bad". Unless you add strong reasoning behind it such blanket arguments I default to scepticism.
- jazzyk 4y agoNo, it is really "competition" (banks compete for my money) vs "monopoly" (no other option than the government). The assumption that CBDC is a good idea because the government is always benevolent and does what's best for the people is incorrect, as demonstrated by the horrible financial mismanagement in the recent 20 years.
- mitthrowaway2 4y agoI'm very strongly opposed to CBDCs, but they could certainly be a good thing with a good and trustworthy government. However they also open up a hugely tempting, dangerous, and damaging failure mode which would rapidly overwhelm all the positives. My concern is, how many successive good, responsible governments can we expect before one of them goes bad? And how much does the existence of this failure mode increase the chance that one of them will be tempted to reach for it? I'm sure it will not fail right away, and there will be a sustained period of benefit. But I don't think it's worth the longer-term risk.
- prottog 4y ago> how many successive good, responsible governments can we expect before one of them goes bad? Any system of government that relies on a successive chain of responsible people in power is doomed to fail more quickly than anyone thinks. This is why the American idea of "ambition must be made to counteract ambition" is so powerful.
- throwaway1851 4y ago> a good and trustworthy government Know of any?