6 ms·

I really really really like cashless payments I really really really dislike that my money can be whisked away at the whim of a cray government or a glitch in

by troupo 3y ago

I really really really like cashless payments I really really really dislike that my money can be whisked away at the whim of a cray government or a glitch in the system

lotsofpulp 3y ago
A government can reduce the purchasing power of cash too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Indian_banknote_demonetisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Indian_banknote_demonetis... Or just issuing new money at a rate that exceeds demand for the money (meaning the relative desirability of the money, which relates to the trustworthiness of the community using the money and the economic productivity of the community using the money). Like when the population pyramid starts turning upside down and the benefits promised to older people need to come into fruition from a smaller and smaller labor supply. Edit to respond to 4bpp: > With cash, they can only do it to everybody at once or not at all. I think government can use the new money to inflate the price of certain things quicker than others, effectively advantaging certain portions of the population, which is what I allude to in my 3rd paragraph. For example, inflating asset prices lets those who own more assets (or certain assets) lose purchasing power more slowly than those who do not (see most labor sellers). This is a somewhat related example of how a policy change for all can be designed to affect certain populations differently: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-hutchins-center-explains-the-chained-cpi/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-hutchins-center-expla... Use lower CPI to update tax brackets, and higher CPI to calculate Social Security benefits, i.e. increasing wealth redistribution from young to old without explicitly saying it.
- fithisux 3y ago
  But with cash it cannot "disable" selectively
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    That is a good point!
- CPLX 3y ago
  But not for you specifically.
- 4bpp 3y ago
  With cash, they can only do it to everybody at once or not at all. With a number in a bank's database, they can selectively expropriate people based on any criterion with as little effort as between zero (in the case of tacit understanding) and a dozen (if they have to remind the banks that a tax audit is technically overdue or something) phone calls.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  > Edit to respond to 4bpp: Just respond to the actual comment next time.
berkes 3y ago
I really really really would think that Bitcoin fills this exact need. There's a lot wrong with the cryptocurrency world and with Bitcoin specifically. So much wrong, that I'm afraid we closed the one way out of government and corporate-controlled "digital money" and all the risks that comes with. But maybe it never was a good "way out" in the first place: maybe there never was a way out at all. I keep hoping the grifters and scammers and marketeers move on to the next hypetrain (metaverse, ai) allowing the bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies to be salvaged and become the way out again. But that hope is diminishing.
- unicornmama 3y ago
  This is preposterous. Bitcoin is more traceable, more transparent and more censorship prone than every form of currency conveyance we know of including cash, diamonds, physical gold, etc… The fact that’s 2024 and some people still believe Bitcoin enables privacy just goes to show how crypto enthusiasts are candy brained fanatics.
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    To add to this, I also anecdotally know many more people who lost Bitcoin due to bad key management or keeping their Bitcoin in a platform that failed instead of cold storage. I don't personally know a single person whose money disappeared from their bank account for no reason.
    - tock 3y ago
      Crypto is mostly useful in the absence of good financial infrastructure in your country. Otherwise the risk premium makes no sense.
    - berkes 3y ago
      I too know far more people who lost Bitcoin due to mistakes, or negligence or such. But I also know quite a lot of people who lost a lot of money in the 2018 banking crisis. So I highly doubt your really don't personally know a single person who lost money this way.
amelius 3y ago
The problem is that (2) goes away by just putting your head in the sand, while (1) is what you're confronted with no matter how much you try to not think about it.

by troupo 3y ago

I really really really like cashless payments I really really really dislike that my money can be whisked away at the whim of a cray government or a glitch in the system

lotsofpulp 3y ago

A government can reduce the purchasing power of cash too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Indian_banknote_demonetisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Indian_banknote_demonetis... Or just issuing new money at a rate that exceeds demand for the money (meaning the relative desirability of the money, which relates to the trustworthiness of the community using the money and the economic productivity of the community using the money). Like when the population pyramid starts turning upside down and the benefits promised to older people need to come into fruition from a smaller and smaller labor supply. Edit to respond to 4bpp: > With cash, they can only do it to everybody at once or not at all. I think government can use the new money to inflate the price of certain things quicker than others, effectively advantaging certain portions of the population, which is what I allude to in my 3rd paragraph. For example, inflating asset prices lets those who own more assets (or certain assets) lose purchasing power more slowly than those who do not (see most labor sellers). This is a somewhat related example of how a policy change for all can be designed to affect certain populations differently: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-hutchins-center-explains-the-chained-cpi/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-hutchins-center-expla... Use lower CPI to update tax brackets, and higher CPI to calculate Social Security benefits, i.e. increasing wealth redistribution from young to old without explicitly saying it.

fithisux 3y ago
But with cash it cannot "disable" selectively
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  That is a good point!
CPLX 3y ago
But not for you specifically.
4bpp 3y ago
With cash, they can only do it to everybody at once or not at all. With a number in a bank's database, they can selectively expropriate people based on any criterion with as little effort as between zero (in the case of tacit understanding) and a dozen (if they have to remind the banks that a tax audit is technically overdue or something) phone calls.
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> Edit to respond to 4bpp: Just respond to the actual comment next time.

berkes 3y ago

I really really really would think that Bitcoin fills this exact need. There's a lot wrong with the cryptocurrency world and with Bitcoin specifically. So much wrong, that I'm afraid we closed the one way out of government and corporate-controlled "digital money" and all the risks that comes with. But maybe it never was a good "way out" in the first place: maybe there never was a way out at all. I keep hoping the grifters and scammers and marketeers move on to the next hypetrain (metaverse, ai) allowing the bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies to be salvaged and become the way out again. But that hope is diminishing.

unicornmama 3y ago
This is preposterous. Bitcoin is more traceable, more transparent and more censorship prone than every form of currency conveyance we know of including cash, diamonds, physical gold, etc… The fact that’s 2024 and some people still believe Bitcoin enables privacy just goes to show how crypto enthusiasts are candy brained fanatics.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  To add to this, I also anecdotally know many more people who lost Bitcoin due to bad key management or keeping their Bitcoin in a platform that failed instead of cold storage. I don't personally know a single person whose money disappeared from their bank account for no reason.
  - tock 3y ago
    Crypto is mostly useful in the absence of good financial infrastructure in your country. Otherwise the risk premium makes no sense.
  - berkes 3y ago
    I too know far more people who lost Bitcoin due to mistakes, or negligence or such. But I also know quite a lot of people who lost a lot of money in the 2018 banking crisis. So I highly doubt your really don't personally know a single person who lost money this way.

amelius 3y ago

The problem is that (2) goes away by just putting your head in the sand, while (1) is what you're confronted with no matter how much you try to not think about it.