4 ms·

I don't understand what "anti-democratic" means in this context, so I won't comment on that part. But I think the author is alleging that bitcoin is based on mi

by nathanb 14y ago

I don't understand what "anti-democratic" means in this context, so I won't comment on that part. But I think the author is alleging that bitcoin is based on mistrust sort of in the same way that stuffing currency in your mattress is based on mistrust. If that interpretation is correct, he does have a point. One of the features of bitcoin is that it retains the benefits of keeping physical currency while also providing the benefits of digital transactions. But this seems to be uber-democratic, not anti-democratic, so I may be way off base here.

JamisonM 14y ago
I approach this with absolutely know special authority on the subject but it I were to offer an opinion on why Bitcoin is anti-democratic I would say that it is because fiat currencies are democratic. When a currency is supported by a government that government has some degree of control over that currency and that government, if it is democratic, can act on the currency based on the will of the people. (Obviously we could get into a big debate about oligarchs undermining democracy, etc, but let's skip that for now.) If a currency like Bitcoin is adopted by too large a population of a given country and becomes a de facto currency it wrestles the fiat currency out of its position and eliminates any democratic control over currencies. I understand that there are many, many hard-money libertarian types around here who see this and cry, "yes! freedom!" but my understanding of the scholarship on this sort of thing is that fiat currencies are very important for economic adjustments due to shocks. The Euro is showing us what a hard-money environment looks like as a natural experiment for Spain and Greece and it is not going well. If I am an asset-holder I am a big fan of ensuring that devaluation can't take my riches away but if I am a technocrat trying to build a functioning economy for the long term that can deal will all sort of unexpected events and treat people without assets fairly I want a fiat currency. To me this is where the nihilism comes in, or at least Bitcoin represents an "I got mine Jack" view of the economy. That being said, now it is here and if it gain acceptance the world is going to need to deal with it. (A currency with a permanently tight supply sounds like a machine for creating constant recessions to me, but I'm no expert.)
- nathanb 14y ago
  I dunno... A democratic government is a government that rules through the will of the people rather than by the might of an institution. A democratic currency, then, would be a currency which derives its value from the willingness of the populace to accept it as tender rather than from governmental fiat.
  - JamisonM 14y ago
    Democratic legitimacy comes from the democratically elected government, regulating the economy is accepted by pretty much all democracies as one of the powers of a government. I am not sure if that is what you mean by "the might of an institution." I think a democratic currency should be the one selected by the democratic government in most cases. Otherwise, if you accept my premise above that a currency like Bitcoin is good for asset-holders, they could use their influence in the economy to force non-asset-holders to use Bitcoin. That would be the opposite of democratic since it would be more wealth = more votes.

by nathanb 14y ago

JamisonM 14y ago

I approach this with absolutely know special authority on the subject but it I were to offer an opinion on why Bitcoin is anti-democratic I would say that it is because fiat currencies are democratic. When a currency is supported by a government that government has some degree of control over that currency and that government, if it is democratic, can act on the currency based on the will of the people. (Obviously we could get into a big debate about oligarchs undermining democracy, etc, but let's skip that for now.) If a currency like Bitcoin is adopted by too large a population of a given country and becomes a de facto currency it wrestles the fiat currency out of its position and eliminates any democratic control over currencies. I understand that there are many, many hard-money libertarian types around here who see this and cry, "yes! freedom!" but my understanding of the scholarship on this sort of thing is that fiat currencies are very important for economic adjustments due to shocks. The Euro is showing us what a hard-money environment looks like as a natural experiment for Spain and Greece and it is not going well. If I am an asset-holder I am a big fan of ensuring that devaluation can't take my riches away but if I am a technocrat trying to build a functioning economy for the long term that can deal will all sort of unexpected events and treat people without assets fairly I want a fiat currency. To me this is where the nihilism comes in, or at least Bitcoin represents an "I got mine Jack" view of the economy. That being said, now it is here and if it gain acceptance the world is going to need to deal with it. (A currency with a permanently tight supply sounds like a machine for creating constant recessions to me, but I'm no expert.)

nathanb 14y ago
I dunno... A democratic government is a government that rules through the will of the people rather than by the might of an institution. A democratic currency, then, would be a currency which derives its value from the willingness of the populace to accept it as tender rather than from governmental fiat.
- JamisonM 14y ago
  Democratic legitimacy comes from the democratically elected government, regulating the economy is accepted by pretty much all democracies as one of the powers of a government. I am not sure if that is what you mean by "the might of an institution." I think a democratic currency should be the one selected by the democratic government in most cases. Otherwise, if you accept my premise above that a currency like Bitcoin is good for asset-holders, they could use their influence in the economy to force non-asset-holders to use Bitcoin. That would be the opposite of democratic since it would be more wealth = more votes.