4 ms·

> The only clearly valuable thing Bitcoin accomplishes now is the facilitation of illegal trade online. Shiller argued that Bitcoin doesn't solve a "sensible e

by panarky 13y ago

> The only clearly valuable thing Bitcoin accomplishes now is the facilitation of illegal trade online. Shiller argued that Bitcoin doesn't solve a "sensible economic problem". His argument had nothing to do with legality or legitimacy, which are much more slippery concepts. Goverments have tried various ways to make information illegal, require licenses for printing presses[0], ban the dissemination of books and pamphlets, etc. It's hard to argue today that the freedom to publish and consume information is a valuable thing, regardless of its legal status. We see a very similar pattern with money, as governments try various ways to control who can send and receive value, to require licenses[1] for transmitting money, to ban broad classes of transactions, etc. Cryptocurrencies liberate and democratize money in a very similar way that the internet liberated and democratized information. Just as publishing laws have been liberalized to reflect the technological reality, financial regulation should also liberalize as it becomes clear that the cryptocurrency genie cannot be stuffed back in its bottle. Contrary to Shiller's argument, that seems like a valuable thing, a solution to a "sensible economic problem". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_166... [1] http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001....

pron 13y ago
Well, what you're describing is sensible to those who ascribe to a very specific political view. I'm sure you strongly believe that your opinions would improve the world, but you are probably aware that many people who value freedom no less than you, and who are just as intelligent and knowledgable, completely disagree with how to achieve it. Giving Bitcoin a political flavor does it a disservice. Personally, I think that financial regulation is a great tool in the service of freedom. For example, before financial regulation in the US gained its teeth, most of the population was under the thumb of a small group of some very unscrupulous individuals (those who came to be called the Robber Barons). It was regulation that freed America from those people. Also, I think that human beings, by virtue of their biological and psychological construction, are prone to be subjugated to some substances as well as some ideas. What is freedom, then: allowing people to fall into slavery if they so wish it or preventing them? I'm not saying my views are right and yours are wrong. But I just want you to understand that many people view the words "regulation", "oversight" and "government" not as obstacles to freedom, but as essential components that facilitate it.
- panarky 13y ago
  Let's keep our focus on the argument and the logic of the situation. Trying to infer my political biases and then tearing down that strawman doesn't do much to advance our understanding. For the record, my politics are pretty far from the libertarian image you might have. My argument is that, contrary to Shiller's assertion, cryptocurrencies really do solve a "sensible economic problem". That problem is very similar to the information problem that the internet itself solved. Just as governments and corporations tried to put the internet genie back in the bottle, so they're trying to bottle up cryptocurrencies. As with the internet and information, we'll see greater access to money and financial instruments that aren't controlled by the existing power structure. We can see now that ARPANET, despite its flaws, had value since it was a precursor to the internet. Similarly, today's nacent cryptocurrencies have value despite their flaws.
  - pron 13y ago
    But what you're describing isn't an economic problem but a political one. Dissemination of information is also a political issue, but I don't recall governments, at least in the West, fighting the internet as such. What you call "bottling up", others might call "protecting the innocent". There is no economic need for regulation-free currencies, unless you claim that regulation hinders the economy, which, again, is a political stance because the definition of what the economy is and what's good for it is subject to personal values. Let's imagine that some cryptocurrency becomes so prevalent that it replaces the national currency. The government just lost a very powerful tool in directing the economy towards desirable political goals. Suppose the citizens of a country decide that they'd rather have more equality than a higher average standard of living. That's a very reasonable wish, I think. With a government-controlled currency, the government might decide to devalue the currency to reduce imports. With an unregulated currency, the government loses one of the most powerful tools of achieving its goals. In the US, government is treated with levels of suspicion uncommon in the rest of the Western world. That's not necessarily bad, but it is a peculiarly American trait. In many countries, reducing the power of government can be seen as reducing the power of the population to make collective decisions for the benefit of the people. It puts the fate of the economy in the hands of an indifferent "market". I'm just trying to show that just as you see a need for cryptocurrencies, someone else could claim that there is a very strong need for cryptocurrencies to disappear, or, at least, become regulated. Of course, there might well be a strong desire for regulation-free currencies, just as there's a strong desire for drugs and prostitution. But that doesn't mean there's a need for them (maybe there is, but it requires evidence).

by panarky 13y ago

pron 13y ago

Well, what you're describing is sensible to those who ascribe to a very specific political view. I'm sure you strongly believe that your opinions would improve the world, but you are probably aware that many people who value freedom no less than you, and who are just as intelligent and knowledgable, completely disagree with how to achieve it. Giving Bitcoin a political flavor does it a disservice. Personally, I think that financial regulation is a great tool in the service of freedom. For example, before financial regulation in the US gained its teeth, most of the population was under the thumb of a small group of some very unscrupulous individuals (those who came to be called the Robber Barons). It was regulation that freed America from those people. Also, I think that human beings, by virtue of their biological and psychological construction, are prone to be subjugated to some substances as well as some ideas. What is freedom, then: allowing people to fall into slavery if they so wish it or preventing them? I'm not saying my views are right and yours are wrong. But I just want you to understand that many people view the words "regulation", "oversight" and "government" not as obstacles to freedom, but as essential components that facilitate it.

panarky 13y ago
Let's keep our focus on the argument and the logic of the situation. Trying to infer my political biases and then tearing down that strawman doesn't do much to advance our understanding. For the record, my politics are pretty far from the libertarian image you might have. My argument is that, contrary to Shiller's assertion, cryptocurrencies really do solve a "sensible economic problem". That problem is very similar to the information problem that the internet itself solved. Just as governments and corporations tried to put the internet genie back in the bottle, so they're trying to bottle up cryptocurrencies. As with the internet and information, we'll see greater access to money and financial instruments that aren't controlled by the existing power structure. We can see now that ARPANET, despite its flaws, had value since it was a precursor to the internet. Similarly, today's nacent cryptocurrencies have value despite their flaws.
- pron 13y ago
  But what you're describing isn't an economic problem but a political one. Dissemination of information is also a political issue, but I don't recall governments, at least in the West, fighting the internet as such. What you call "bottling up", others might call "protecting the innocent". There is no economic need for regulation-free currencies, unless you claim that regulation hinders the economy, which, again, is a political stance because the definition of what the economy is and what's good for it is subject to personal values. Let's imagine that some cryptocurrency becomes so prevalent that it replaces the national currency. The government just lost a very powerful tool in directing the economy towards desirable political goals. Suppose the citizens of a country decide that they'd rather have more equality than a higher average standard of living. That's a very reasonable wish, I think. With a government-controlled currency, the government might decide to devalue the currency to reduce imports. With an unregulated currency, the government loses one of the most powerful tools of achieving its goals. In the US, government is treated with levels of suspicion uncommon in the rest of the Western world. That's not necessarily bad, but it is a peculiarly American trait. In many countries, reducing the power of government can be seen as reducing the power of the population to make collective decisions for the benefit of the people. It puts the fate of the economy in the hands of an indifferent "market". I'm just trying to show that just as you see a need for cryptocurrencies, someone else could claim that there is a very strong need for cryptocurrencies to disappear, or, at least, become regulated. Of course, there might well be a strong desire for regulation-free currencies, just as there's a strong desire for drugs and prostitution. But that doesn't mean there's a need for them (maybe there is, but it requires evidence).