Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

stephendiehl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 630 posts

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#341

Post by Kranar »

guenthert wrote: post #339
Kranar wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely do think it should be an investment and I think treating housing like an investment has substantially increased the quality of housing. A great deal of advances in materials, construction, electrical work, plumbing, you name it... is because housing is treated like an investment and people are willing to spend money to keep their asset in top shape. Furthermore I believe that investing in real estate pro…

> I absolutely do think it should be an investment I think this is treated differently in different cultures. In Germany, while there is a real-estate as investment market, many people don't (expect to) move much during their lifetime. They buy their home ('Eigenheim') essentially for life (sans the tail end in a nursing home). Still many put a lot of time and money into those houses they don't expect to sell. It's a…

An investment isn't marked by the expectation to rapidly sell. I have many assets that I've held for years and intend to hold for the rest of my life, they are still investments.

I am not an expert on the German real-estate market, but the first search results on Google indicate that Germany has a very active real-estate investment market and that home ownership in Germany is among the lowest in the world, the majority of Germans rent their home.

Either those people are renting from the government, or they are renting from a private landlord, either an individual or a corporation. If they are renting from a private landlord, and once again my very cursory research indicates 96.7% of housing is privately owned, then that's a big sign that the landlord owns the property for the purpose of deriving an income from it. Given that 56% of homes in Germany are rented out (one of the highest rates in the world), that indicates that at a minimum, 56% of homes in Germany satisfy the textbook definition of being investment properties.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#342

Post by whytaka »

seibelj wrote: post #327
whytaka wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because deflation means less jobs and less jobs means less people being able to buy food, and starving people are dangerous. Deflation seems good if you're sitting on wealth. You'd be happy to wait things out just buying the basics and let the economy kind of reset from necessities upwards. But lots of other people are starving by that point.

> Because deflation means less jobs Source?

Deflation incentivizes delaying purchases. Less purchases means less revenue. Less revenue means smaller budgets for employed staff.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#343

Post by pydry »

caeril wrote: post #262
abakker wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understand the counter-inflation argument...most economists understand inflation is something to be managed, but it is far from proven that target inflation is bad. There are many useful economic properties of inflation. Meanwhile, Bitcoin has undergone such massive speculative appreciation that everything around it has deflated in comparison. As a result, bitcoin is spectacularly less useful than it would ha…

> it is far from proven that target inflation is bad Target inflation is specifically intended to promote consumption. Consumption, particularly in the form of atoms, not bits, is approximately 90% correlated with greenhouse gas emissions, despite all our efforts to roll out renewables. Setting the "inflation is good" argument alongside an article decrying the climate impact of inflation-resistant currencies is . . .…

>Target inflation is specifically intended to promote consumption.

No, it's intended to erode debt. Inflation is effectively a transfer of wealth from creditor to debtor.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#344

Post by luxuryballs »

einpoklum wrote: post #83
luxuryballs wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how many people who got into crypto and found something they clicked with and were able to make something of compared with a dead end job would feel about this whole “contributes to inequality” nonsense. Not everything is for everyone, and that’s OK, but there’s something out there for everyone.

> I wonder how many people who got into crypto and found something they clicked with and were able to make something of compared with a dead end job For every one of these people who bought cryptocurrency and "made something", there is someone - for the sake of discussion, another poor sap with a dead end job - who just bought cryptocurrency and hasn't made anything. And lots more from the second group who have made…

Sure but that doesn’t take away from the other guy, not everything is for everyone, that’s ok.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#345

Post by atwebb »

abakker wrote: post #195
DickingAround wrote: post #53

This article seems to intentionally ignore the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation and control. The article then proposes to use the law to bring those people back within the control of fiat and government oversight. I no longer think the environmental argument is really plausible here. Clearly crypto mining is emitting using a lot of power and some of that is CO2. But the competition is fiat; backed…

I never understand the counter-inflation argument...most economists understand inflation is something to be managed, but it is far from proven that target inflation is bad. There are many useful economic properties of inflation. Meanwhile, Bitcoin has undergone such massive speculative appreciation that everything around it has deflated in comparison. As a result, bitcoin is spectacularly less useful than it would ha…

Things brings up a side point I can't quite understand.

How does the price of BTC, which is almost infinitely divisible, affect usage?

I see comments like "We're early, price can still rise, etc". Outside of a store of value any usage / institutional use for transactions wouldn't matter right? The BTC is a proxy for the money / collateral on the sides.

If I buy a hamburger with BTC:

If it is settled in BTC then the burger price would adjust often.

If it is settled in anything else, I just adjust the sat / slice of BTC I use.

Am I missing something? Outside of a store of value.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#346

Post by jude- »

tome wrote: post #337
jude- wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the choice is between having my country's wealth destroyed by military invasion, versus being destroyed by someone mining blocks somewhere, I'd take the latter. You asked, not me.

I'm still not quite seeing the argument. Your country could also be bombed out of existence in order to seize or destroy its hashing power. I really don't see how bitcoin being "backed by math" saves you there.

It doesn't, obviously. But that's not what you were asking.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#347

Post by seibelj »

whytaka wrote: post #342
seibelj wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because deflation means less jobs Source?

Deflation incentivizes delaying purchases. Less purchases means less revenue. Less revenue means smaller budgets for employed staff.

That's your opinion - I don't see any source. My opinion is that it doesn't cause less jobs - I think it would eventually cause more sustainable jobs as malinvestment is removed from the economy.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#348

Post by alkonaut »

spaced-out wrote: post #29
mmastrac wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government[0] has regulatory authority over environmental issues, so why wouldn't this be the government's job? [0] ie: all of them

If the government is able to ban crypto currency because it's unnecessary and uses too much energy, couldn't they apply that logic to nearly any other modern luxury?

I pay 66% taxes on fuel. My car has a $15k tax when sold and $1.5k/yearly tax. In Denmark it would have been much much worse than this (probably north of $30k fees when new).

You don’t ban things you can tax with good results. Banning is for things you can’t tax. It’s a clumsy instrument.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#349

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

pydry wrote: post #340
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To build a factory to perfectly counterfeit US dollar bills costs a few million dollars. It's certainly within technical abilities of Russia or North Korea. The only thing that stops them building such factory is American nukes.

Nukes very much did not prevent North Korea from counterfeiting US dollar bills: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3819345.stm

The paper dollar still trades on par with electronic dollar, which is the evidence that the breach has not occured.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#350

Post by alkonaut »

thebean11 wrote: post #25
mmastrac wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government[0] has regulatory authority over environmental issues, so why wouldn't this be the government's job? [0] ie: all of them

Banning crypto is a gigantic overreach when the government won't even try the obvious solutions like carbon taxes (which would indirectly discourage crypto mining).

The problem with carbon taxes is it affects jobs that can’t easily use less electricity and still produces a lot of jobs/value. The paper and steel industry wouldn’t like carbon taxes high enough to affect Bitcoin. Bitcoin power use is also very easy to move internationally.
Post reply on HN