3 ms·

This is one of the few times I'd ever say that government crackdown is a good thing. One country having multiple currencies at the same time could become a big

by bitops 14y ago

This is one of the few times I'd ever say that government crackdown is a good thing. One country having multiple currencies at the same time could become a big logistical headache. It would definitely have political and social implications. [EDIT: I welcome downvotes on comments that are not constructive. If you think this is totally off the wall, please give a good explanation why.]

wseymour 14y ago
How so? Are currency exchanges between nations particularly arduous right now? Determine an exchange rate, multiply by it, and you're done.
mseebach 14y ago
The logistics aren't different from accepting payment with any one of a dozen different credit cards (each of which might be settled in literally hundreds of currencies) or cheques. Or bartering. Yes, it would have political implications because politicians can't devalue the loans they've made abroad by devaluing the currency, effectively (but opaquely) taxing savings. I'm not sure what social implications it would have?
treerock 14y ago
America already has multiple currencies[1] without it being a problem. This guys has been convicted of counterfeiting legal tender. Why would anyone take a gold coin worth $10 say, and try to pass it off as a normal dollar? They are losing money. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in...
- bitops 14y ago
  This is a bit of a straw man - these are either all financial products or local currencies. The point is that they all convert into dollars and I will certainly never use BerkShares for as long as I live. I only take US dollars. Also, the banking structure around these things is really inconvenient. I worked a short stint as a teller at Bank of America and never once have I seen anything but greenbacks. This was in Santa Cruz county as well, where people would definitely be willing to try such crazy ideas.
brc 14y ago
A very weak argument. In many places around the world, several currencies exist and are used simultaneously. It's only a problem for the weak currency, which according to Greshams Law, everyone tries to get rid of, while hoarding the stronger currency. The reason the government doesn't want competition in the currency business is because they like to weaken their currency. The government currency would be discarded quickly, while the competing currency would be hoarded.
- bitops 14y ago
  > In many places around the world, several currencies exist and are used simultaneously. You need to back this argument up with a good reference. [EDIT: multiple currencies in the same country. Argentina is a beautiful country but it has had some severe issues over the years. You need to have one currency before you can do things like local currencies. URVs in Brazil were a genius way of pulling this off.]
  - iand 14y ago
    30 seconds on google would have turned up this for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circulating_currencies#List_of_circulating_currencies_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circulating_currencies...
    - bitops 14y ago
      Okay, yes - technically speaking, there are countries out there who have more than one official currency. But with every single listing of a country that has more than one currency, there is a political reason why (see Ecuador) and it has real implications for the society to use a currency that you don't control.
      - iand 14y ago
        You use the phrase "technically speaking" pejoratively as though there is some special set of rules that make these countries multi-currency. There isn't. It's very plainly correct that many countries in the world use multiple currencies. I assume one of the implications you refer to is that the people have a choice of currencies and hence protection against government sponsored inflation.
iand 14y ago
Here's why I downvoted you: >This is one of the few times I'd ever say that government crackdown is a good thing. One country having multiple currencies at the same time could become a big logistical headache. You think governments should crackdown on and seek to imprison people because they engage in activities that cause logistical problems for the government? And you think this is one of the few times that a government should intervene? Seriously? > It would definitely have political and social implications. This sentence is empty of information. Every action has an implication. I would have upvoted you if you'd described what kind of implications rather than implying that having "implications" is something that governments should intervene in.
- bitops 14y ago
  > You think governments should crackdown on and seek to imprison people because they engage in activities that cause logistical problems for the government? And you think this is one of the few times that a government should intervene? Seriously? Yes, 100%. > Every action has an implication. I would have upvoted you if you'd described what kind of implications rather than implying that having "implications" is something that governments should intervene in. Fair point, I upvoted you for it.
  - iand 14y ago
    >Yes, 100%. Such absolute certainty is nice to have. So if I organize a nationwide fun-run where people in every city are encouraged to run a mile for charity you believe the government should seek to imprison me for causing a logistical problem?
  - mseebach 14y ago
    Since you've deleted your other comment stating roughly the same thing, I'll repeat my question here: Why should you lock people up for being "a big deal politically"? Rosa Parks and the movement she was a part of was a big deal politically who had huge social and political consequences. It's all well that you know economic theory, but you might find it useful to share the bits of it that's relevant here.
- 14y ago

by bitops 14y ago

wseymour 14y ago

How so? Are currency exchanges between nations particularly arduous right now? Determine an exchange rate, multiply by it, and you're done.

mseebach 14y ago

The logistics aren't different from accepting payment with any one of a dozen different credit cards (each of which might be settled in literally hundreds of currencies) or cheques. Or bartering. Yes, it would have political implications because politicians can't devalue the loans they've made abroad by devaluing the currency, effectively (but opaquely) taxing savings. I'm not sure what social implications it would have?

treerock 14y ago

America already has multiple currencies[1] without it being a problem. This guys has been convicted of counterfeiting legal tender. Why would anyone take a gold coin worth $10 say, and try to pass it off as a normal dollar? They are losing money. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in...

bitops 14y ago
This is a bit of a straw man - these are either all financial products or local currencies. The point is that they all convert into dollars and I will certainly never use BerkShares for as long as I live. I only take US dollars. Also, the banking structure around these things is really inconvenient. I worked a short stint as a teller at Bank of America and never once have I seen anything but greenbacks. This was in Santa Cruz county as well, where people would definitely be willing to try such crazy ideas.

brc 14y ago

A very weak argument. In many places around the world, several currencies exist and are used simultaneously. It's only a problem for the weak currency, which according to Greshams Law, everyone tries to get rid of, while hoarding the stronger currency. The reason the government doesn't want competition in the currency business is because they like to weaken their currency. The government currency would be discarded quickly, while the competing currency would be hoarded.

bitops 14y ago
> In many places around the world, several currencies exist and are used simultaneously. You need to back this argument up with a good reference. [EDIT: multiple currencies in the same country. Argentina is a beautiful country but it has had some severe issues over the years. You need to have one currency before you can do things like local currencies. URVs in Brazil were a genius way of pulling this off.]
- iand 14y ago
  30 seconds on google would have turned up this for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circulating_currencies#List_of_circulating_currencies_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circulating_currencies...
  - bitops 14y ago
    Okay, yes - technically speaking, there are countries out there who have more than one official currency. But with every single listing of a country that has more than one currency, there is a political reason why (see Ecuador) and it has real implications for the society to use a currency that you don't control.
    - iand 14y ago
      You use the phrase "technically speaking" pejoratively as though there is some special set of rules that make these countries multi-currency. There isn't. It's very plainly correct that many countries in the world use multiple currencies. I assume one of the implications you refer to is that the people have a choice of currencies and hence protection against government sponsored inflation.

iand 14y ago

Here's why I downvoted you: >This is one of the few times I'd ever say that government crackdown is a good thing. One country having multiple currencies at the same time could become a big logistical headache. You think governments should crackdown on and seek to imprison people because they engage in activities that cause logistical problems for the government? And you think this is one of the few times that a government should intervene? Seriously? > It would definitely have political and social implications. This sentence is empty of information. Every action has an implication. I would have upvoted you if you'd described what kind of implications rather than implying that having "implications" is something that governments should intervene in.

bitops 14y ago
> You think governments should crackdown on and seek to imprison people because they engage in activities that cause logistical problems for the government? And you think this is one of the few times that a government should intervene? Seriously? Yes, 100%. > Every action has an implication. I would have upvoted you if you'd described what kind of implications rather than implying that having "implications" is something that governments should intervene in. Fair point, I upvoted you for it.
- iand 14y ago
  >Yes, 100%. Such absolute certainty is nice to have. So if I organize a nationwide fun-run where people in every city are encouraged to run a mile for charity you believe the government should seek to imprison me for causing a logistical problem?
- mseebach 14y ago
  Since you've deleted your other comment stating roughly the same thing, I'll repeat my question here: Why should you lock people up for being "a big deal politically"? Rosa Parks and the movement she was a part of was a big deal politically who had huge social and political consequences. It's all well that you know economic theory, but you might find it useful to share the bits of it that's relevant here.
14y ago