21–30 of 47 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does this mean? How does a government "need" or "not need" things?
There are things a government needs, like revenue source and public servants, to exist or do its job. Government does not need to have its own currency for exist or to do its job. It's debatable that government having the ability to mess with monetary policy is a good thing. It may be working in US at the moment (and it will be hard to measure if it is helping or not), but there have been a lot of countries economica…
Please provide evidence for this. It seems like most successful governments disagree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Government does not need this ability, it just wants it.
"Government does not need this ability," Extremely debatable, given the fact that every nation on planet earth basically uses monetary policy. A rational policy whereby currency is exchanged for other assets at a rate using benchmarks is preferable to a strict currency. A better economic policy might even allow almost anyone to exchange assets for currency. Then the market can decide how much is in circulation (thoug…
Not really true, if you consider all the countries that use the currency of an other. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_substitution)
"Probably Never" is wishful thinking. They will never . Full stop. Why would the U.S. government tolerate universal currency when it has something far more advantageous? A currency it controls every other currency is pegged to (including Bitcoin). More practically speaking, the government needs the ability to expand the money supply during financial crises. Bitcoin doesn't lend itself to any of those Keynesian tricks…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are things a government needs, like revenue source and public servants, to exist or do its job. Government does not need to have its own currency for exist or to do its job. It's debatable that government having the ability to mess with monetary policy is a good thing. It may be working in US at the moment (and it will be hard to measure if it is helping or not), but there have been a lot of countries economica…
> Government does not need to have it's own currency for exist or to do it's job. Please provide evidence for this. It seems like most successful governments disagree.
- bitcoin isn't usable as a transactional currency. it costs $30-40 per transaction. Plus other currencies are gaining steam, and offering other choices for people to transact
- bitcoin isn't rare to be a store of value.....everyday there's a new viable cryptocurrency springing up
- bitcoin isn't safer than dollar.....it can drop 90% in any day; no official entity is going to prop it up and make sure it doesn't crash. it can be banned by countries (and has been by a few)
- bitcoin isn't easy than square cash or wires.....it can take several weeks to send money. plus the transaction fees are high
Different people in the U.S. government will embrace bitcoin, because they are the people trading bitcoin now. The wealth will bring the influence and the influence will bring the power. Some people were flabbergasted when the Fed was buying Mortgage-Backed Securities off the open market, practically giving one group of people money, under the guise of stimulating AN economy. Different people are going to be flabberg…
"practically giving one group of people money, under the guise of stimulating AN economy." It wasn't under the guise of anything but saving the US economy from a wicked meltdown of epic proportions. The dominos were set to all go down, the Fed kept a few of them up by rebalancing wealth. As you point out - viciously unfair - but better in the long run. FYI - a 'strict currency' is perhaps worse; crisis will happen .…
That's your opinion, not fact. Banks are larger than ever. Inequality higher than ever. Housing more expensive than ever. The world is more unstable now than it was in 2008. Your definition of "better in the long run" is quite odd.