6 ms·

> It's essentially a stealth transfer of wealth from the people to the banks and it's been going on for decades/centuries (before fiat, it used to take the form

by pdonis 3y ago

> It's essentially a stealth transfer of wealth from the people to the banks and it's been going on for decades/centuries (before fiat, it used to take the form of coin shaving, impure metals etc). I wish I could upvote this more. If enough people understood that this is the root problem, we might have a chance of actually fixing it.

audunw 3y ago
1. This isn't as much of a problem as it's made out to be. It's the same problem we have with the uneven distribution of wealth and poor competition in the economy in general. If the banks are all publicly traded and the shares evenly distributed, the wealth will just go back to the general population. If you have a healthy banking market with several competitors the banks will compete to the point where none of them can extract too much profit. Same as how you end up with companies extracting wealth in any market where they get too much of a monopoly. 2. Nobody has even proposed a solution that is remotely capable of improving on the system we have. Because most proposed solutions are formulated by people who haven't bothered to truly understand how the system of money/banking we have today actually works.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > If the banks are all publicly traded and the shares evenly distributed Which of course they're not. Nor will they ever be. Even if you forced things to be this way on some particular day, they wouldn't stay that way, because people have different needs, different expectations, and different judgments about the best ways to use their money. And in a free market, they will act differently because of those differences, and quickly trade away from any "even distribution" of anything. > If you have a healthy banking market with several competitors the banks will compete to the point where none of them can extract too much profit. I agree that banking should be a competitive free market (as I think every good and service should be). > you end up with companies extracting wealth in any market where they get too much of a monopoly If "monopoly" means "ability to buy favors from the government to avoid free market competition", then I agree with this. But such a "monopoly" in no way requires there to be a lack of competition in an industry. There is plenty of competition in banking. It just all takes place against a backdrop of monetary manipulation by the government.
npoc 3y ago
The fix is already here, it's just a matter of time while we wait for the world to understand what it is. "I don't believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can't take them violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something they can't stop" F.A. Hayek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBIidtaUCzs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBIidtaUCzs
- buzzerbetrayed 3y ago
  Having enjoyed your other comments in this thread, I'm curious how Bitcoin fixes this issue. Because it can't be created out of thin air? Or is there something else I'm missing?
  - Entwickler 3y ago
    Crypto currencies are an experiment in the "denationalization of money" which was a book written by Hayek - of course he wrote this before cyrpto currencies were even a thing. I would avoid just picking out BTC (which being stable in supply is prone to hoarding as digital gold and not really used as a means of commerce) and look at what other crypto has to offer as well, such as Ethereum which has a dynamic supply limit that is tied to its usage - in times of high usage such as today, it actually becomes deflationary. As usage slows, it becomes inflationary again which in theory should promote network usage. We are essentially in an ongoing experiment of the denationalization of money and I personally think it will be fascinating how it will play out in the next couple decades.
    - npoc 3y ago
      Ethereum is not proof of work and so ultimately won't be as good a store of value as Bitcoin. Any digital network that doesn't use the best store of value is not going to be able to compete with one that does.
      - Entwickler 3y ago

by pdonis 3y ago

audunw 3y ago

1. This isn't as much of a problem as it's made out to be. It's the same problem we have with the uneven distribution of wealth and poor competition in the economy in general. If the banks are all publicly traded and the shares evenly distributed, the wealth will just go back to the general population. If you have a healthy banking market with several competitors the banks will compete to the point where none of them can extract too much profit. Same as how you end up with companies extracting wealth in any market where they get too much of a monopoly. 2. Nobody has even proposed a solution that is remotely capable of improving on the system we have. Because most proposed solutions are formulated by people who haven't bothered to truly understand how the system of money/banking we have today actually works.

pdonis 3y ago
> If the banks are all publicly traded and the shares evenly distributed Which of course they're not. Nor will they ever be. Even if you forced things to be this way on some particular day, they wouldn't stay that way, because people have different needs, different expectations, and different judgments about the best ways to use their money. And in a free market, they will act differently because of those differences, and quickly trade away from any "even distribution" of anything. > If you have a healthy banking market with several competitors the banks will compete to the point where none of them can extract too much profit. I agree that banking should be a competitive free market (as I think every good and service should be). > you end up with companies extracting wealth in any market where they get too much of a monopoly If "monopoly" means "ability to buy favors from the government to avoid free market competition", then I agree with this. But such a "monopoly" in no way requires there to be a lack of competition in an industry. There is plenty of competition in banking. It just all takes place against a backdrop of monetary manipulation by the government.

npoc 3y ago

The fix is already here, it's just a matter of time while we wait for the world to understand what it is. "I don't believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can't take them violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something they can't stop" F.A. Hayek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBIidtaUCzs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBIidtaUCzs

buzzerbetrayed 3y ago
Having enjoyed your other comments in this thread, I'm curious how Bitcoin fixes this issue. Because it can't be created out of thin air? Or is there something else I'm missing?
- Entwickler 3y ago
  Crypto currencies are an experiment in the "denationalization of money" which was a book written by Hayek - of course he wrote this before cyrpto currencies were even a thing. I would avoid just picking out BTC (which being stable in supply is prone to hoarding as digital gold and not really used as a means of commerce) and look at what other crypto has to offer as well, such as Ethereum which has a dynamic supply limit that is tied to its usage - in times of high usage such as today, it actually becomes deflationary. As usage slows, it becomes inflationary again which in theory should promote network usage. We are essentially in an ongoing experiment of the denationalization of money and I personally think it will be fascinating how it will play out in the next couple decades.
  - npoc 3y ago
    Ethereum is not proof of work and so ultimately won't be as good a store of value as Bitcoin. Any digital network that doesn't use the best store of value is not going to be able to compete with one that does.
    - Entwickler 3y ago