4 ms·

Because that's the point of government: To govern. Edit: We don't always let people pay "market price" for whatever they want. There's plenty of precedent for

Because that's the point of government: To govern. Edit: We don't always let people pay "market price" for whatever they want. There's plenty of precedent for rationing: IE, In CA, it doesn't matter how rich you are, you can't water your lawn in a drought. During the 1970s oil embargo, it didn't matter how rich you were, you still had to ration gasoline. In this case, cryptocurrency is both increasing the cost of electricity for other important needs, like home heating / cooling, and increasing pollution. It's perfectly within the definition of what government does to set reasonable limits for the cryptocurrency industry.

office_drone 3y ago
Good governance doesn't always mean doing something instead of nothing.
- otikik 3y ago
  But bad governance does often mean not doing anything instead of something.
- ajkjk 3y ago
  Well yes but it is still the answer to the question "Why is the government involved?" which sounded incredulous that it was even an option.
polski-g 3y ago
> In CA, it doesn't matter how rich you are, you can't water your lawn in a drought Yes, this policy is stupid. If the cost of water rose in response to scarcity, then it would incentivize institutions to build things to alleviate said scarcity and consumers would shift usage habits. Some people would move, some people would build desalination plants. Price fixes are the worst possible choice to a resource scarcity.
- gwbas1c 3y ago
  > it would incentivize institutions to build things to alleviate said scarcity and consumers would shift usage habits. That is exactly what happens in CA now.