41–50 of 287 posts
Short of transaction speed and cost, there is so little that is appealing in this compared to Bitcoin, and it has all of the centralisation and compliance pitfalls that a neutral, free (liberty), decentralised money already avoids.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand how currencies work. They are managed by central banks which are designed to be independent of the government of the day. And corporates basically own and run the internet and it seems to be doing pretty well.
> They are managed by central banks which are designed to be independent of the government of the day. Heh, I think you fundamentally misunderstand how central banks work. 1. The US Mint creates the supply of currency in the US, which is literally governed by the government.[0] 2. It's literally governed by presidentially appointed officials. 3. The Fed manages the banking system, which is a trusted system that utili…
You wouldn't say that is it "literally governed". Just like the Supreme Court the Federal Reserve has appointed positions but has in the modern era been independent. It isn't like it is a department such as Homeland Security.
And the central bank model applies in most countries not just the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The chair and board of the federal reserve are appointed by the president.
Also it has a government enforced monopoly.
Let's call this for what it really is, they want to replace democracy with Corporatism. At least with a government backed currency we get a choice on who runs the government. Even though that power is constantly being eroded. The companies that run Libra however have 0 obligation to users of Libra but only to maximise profits for their shareholders. This is their plan: * Dedicate a lot of resources to spread the adop…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand how currencies work. They are managed by central banks which are designed to be independent of the government of the day. And corporates basically own and run the internet and it seems to be doing pretty well.
> They are managed by central banks which are designed to be independent of the government of the day. Heh, I think you fundamentally misunderstand how central banks work. 1. The US Mint creates the supply of currency in the US, which is literally governed by the government.[0] 2. It's literally governed by presidentially appointed officials. 3. The Fed manages the banking system, which is a trusted system that utili…
This is wrong in a couple of ways. The mint creates coins, not dollar bills. Those are federal reserve notes. But who literally mints the money doesn't matter - the Fed has always had control over the money supply. That's the power that matters.
> 2. It's literally governed by presidentially appointed officials.
This is also true of the supreme Court. This doesn't change the fact that the Fed can operate independently of the government. As an analog, how often do you worry about what your hiring manager things of you? Once you have the job, they don't have any power over you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are managed by central banks which are designed to be independent of the government of the day. Heh, I think you fundamentally misunderstand how central banks work. 1. The US Mint creates the supply of currency in the US, which is literally governed by the government.[0] 2. It's literally governed by presidentially appointed officials. 3. The Fed manages the banking system, which is a trusted system that utili…
US Supreme Court is appointed by Congress/President. You wouldn't say that is it "literally governed". Just like the Supreme Court the Federal Reserve has appointed positions but has in the modern era been independent. It isn't like it is a department such as Homeland Security. And the central bank model applies in most countries not just the US.
And have life-long appointments.
> You wouldn't say that is it "literally governed".
Your conflating two ideas. I would actually say that the Supreme Court is a government entity. You said:
> independent of the government
It literally depends on the US government in order to function. Calling it independent by any stretch of the definition is disingenuous.
> And the central bank model applies in most countries not just the US.
You missed the point. Libra is offering a coin on a global scale. To compare this to one central bank is like comparing apples to oranges.
Honestly, I really don't understand your overall point. You genuinely think the Fed just sits on some island while it regulates US economic policy without any influence or dependence on anything but itself? Think about that for a second.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are managed by central banks which are designed to be independent of the government of the day. Heh, I think you fundamentally misunderstand how central banks work. 1. The US Mint creates the supply of currency in the US, which is literally governed by the government.[0] 2. It's literally governed by presidentially appointed officials. 3. The Fed manages the banking system, which is a trusted system that utili…
US Supreme Court is appointed by Congress/President. You wouldn't say that is it "literally governed". Just like the Supreme Court the Federal Reserve has appointed positions but has in the modern era been independent. It isn't like it is a department such as Homeland Security. And the central bank model applies in most countries not just the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does Libra do to people who don't opt to use it?
Assuming adoption - It exists in the world and has all the influence an adopted currency has. Influence controlled by Facebook.
Why the hell would the governments of the world give up their power over currency? It is a huge power they hold that they do not want to lose.
Have you ever heard the term "legal tender"? You are legally required to accept USD as payment in America, and every country has a similar law. The government can literally force you (with guns if need be!!) to use their currency. Is that better than what FB is doing?
Sometimes I think people get so wrapped up in dystopian fear mongering they don't analyze the current situation.
Let's call this for what it really is, they want to replace democracy with Corporatism. At least with a government backed currency we get a choice on who runs the government. Even though that power is constantly being eroded. The companies that run Libra however have 0 obligation to users of Libra but only to maximise profits for their shareholders. This is their plan: * Dedicate a lot of resources to spread the adop…
Bitcoin is not more decentralized than Libra today[1]. Libra has 28 members, going to 100. The top 11 bitcoin mining pools control 99% of the hashrate. [1] https://www.blockchain.com/pools