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

The explosion in stablecoins revives a debate around “free banking”

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: The explosion in stablecoins revives a debate around “free banking”

#51

Post by gizmo686 »

perl4ever wrote: post #44
gizmo686 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counting money is complicated. When I deposit $1000 in the bank, then even if the bank loans out a portion of it, my account still has $1000, and I still act like I have $1000. Put another way, there are essentially 2 types of money: central bank money and commercial bank money. When you deposit $1000 of real cash into a bank you exchange $1000 of central bank money, for $1000 of commercial bank money. When the bank…

>Counting money is complicated. Is it? >When I deposit $1000 in the bank, then even if the bank loans out a portion of it, my account still has $1000, and I still act like I have $1000. I...think I agree. Check my previous comment. The depositor "Me" has $1000. No negative sign, is there? Maybe you meant to say something about the bank. >When you deposit $1000 of real cash into a bank you exchange $1000 of central ba…

> Is it?

Take a look at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

You have M0, MB, M1, M2, M3, M4, and MZM.

I suppose the difficulty is more in defing money than counting. Apart from the M0 component (included in all counts) counting should just be a matter of aggragating data from all banks and the fed.

> "SomeoneElse" who got the loan has $1000, right.

Define $. "SomeoneElse" has $1000 of bank money. But the bank still has the $1000 of cash you deposited.

It might be easier to look at this through the definitions:

M0: Total amount of physical money. This is $1000 throughout the story. Only the Treasury is allowed to create M0.

M1: M0 + checking and savings accounts.

M0 is unchanged at $1000. However, there are 2 checking accounts with $1000, so M1 is $3000.

Re: The explosion in stablecoins revives a debate around “free banking”

#52

Post by dragonwriter »

perl4ever wrote: post #49
dragonwriter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The money supply didn't change as far as I can see. Your numbers (1) look like a attempt to assess net assets and liabilities rather than money supply and (2) are wrong even for that. Money supply (I’ll use M1 here because it's simple, but M2 or M3 wouldn't differ in any way material to the example, since the example consists entirely of cash and demand deposits) is the sum of all cash, demand deposits, travelers c…

I think I agree, if you divide assets into "money" and "other stuff" buckets then when you move something between them, "money" is created. I don't think people intend to say this and only this, when they talk about creating money. Because it's trivial. But I can't really engage with you about stuff other people wrote and what they might mean. I belatedly realized there were a bunch of people tag-teaming me.

> I think I agree, if you divide assets into "money" and "other stuff" buckets then when you move something between them, "money" is created.

A new loan doesn't move assets between buckets it creates a new asset and a new liability. The asset is money, the liability is not money (nor is it negative money).

> I don't think people intend to say this and only this, when they talk about creating money. Because it's trivial.

Money creation is fairly trivial if somewhat counterintuitive, but people talk about it because it is important in its economic effects.

Re: The explosion in stablecoins revives a debate around “free banking”

#53

Post by kranke155 »

viraptor wrote: post #50
kranke155 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

please refer to the part where I said "liquid global permissionless marketplace" ? Really tiring to repeat this 100x here on HN. For digital artists NFTs are a revolution.

The whole internet is a liquid global permissionless marketplace. You could offer me digital art ownership in the next comment and I could buy it from you. There's also lots of online galleries if you're after assets discovery. What does NFT as a tech add to this?

Sorry but I can’t lead blind men to water.

Re: The explosion in stablecoins revives a debate around “free banking”

#54

Post by kranke155 »

viraptor wrote: post #50
kranke155 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

please refer to the part where I said "liquid global permissionless marketplace" ? Really tiring to repeat this 100x here on HN. For digital artists NFTs are a revolution.

The whole internet is a liquid global permissionless marketplace. You could offer me digital art ownership in the next comment and I could buy it from you. There's also lots of online galleries if you're after assets discovery. What does NFT as a tech add to this?

it adds an open-source, decentralized, immutable ledger

if you're a programmer, you'd know the difference between a single dev emailing you the repo and github.

You're effectively saying artists should be happy emailing each other repos (trusting that no one has screwed around with the code), instead of using a decentralized immutable form of version control.

Re: The explosion in stablecoins revives a debate around “free banking”

#55

Post by viraptor »

kranke155 wrote: post #54
viraptor wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole internet is a liquid global permissionless marketplace. You could offer me digital art ownership in the next comment and I could buy it from you. There's also lots of online galleries if you're after assets discovery. What does NFT as a tech add to this?

it adds an open-source, decentralized, immutable ledger if you're a programmer, you'd know the difference between a single dev emailing you the repo and github. You're effectively saying artists should be happy emailing each other repos (trusting that no one has screwed around with the code), instead of using a decentralized immutable form of version control.

I don't see why you'd need to share repos, or any code, or involve any ledger. I've bought art online before, sent the payment, received the files, and neither party was interested in the things you mentioned.

Re: The explosion in stablecoins revives a debate around “free banking”

#56

Post by JumpCrisscross »

viraptor wrote: post #26
kranke155 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NFTs have solved a real problem for digital artists. Outside of that yeah it’s hard to get excited about crypto atm even though I think it’s got a huge potential.

What problem is that? We had art auctions before and they already supported money laundering via value inflation.

> What problem is that?

They made less money and can now make more money.

Re: The explosion in stablecoins revives a debate around “free banking”

#57

Post by kranke155 »

viraptor wrote: post #55
kranke155 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it adds an open-source, decentralized, immutable ledger if you're a programmer, you'd know the difference between a single dev emailing you the repo and github. You're effectively saying artists should be happy emailing each other repos (trusting that no one has screwed around with the code), instead of using a decentralized immutable form of version control.

I don't see why you'd need to share repos, or any code, or involve any ledger. I've bought art online before, sent the payment, received the files, and neither party was interested in the things you mentioned.

You couldn't purchase digital art before NFTs in a permissionless global market. period.

Re: The explosion in stablecoins revives a debate around “free banking”

#58

Post by odonnellryan »

diveanon wrote: post #33
_clhx wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the worst parts of capitalism if you have people getting rich by taking advantage of others.

I love how these conversations always come up in relation to defi/crypto. I don’t know what world you live in, but it’s like you guys believe there is some kind of ethics or moral high ground in sneering at something you barely understand.

I'm saying if your plan to get rich is to scam people you're just a jerk.
Post reply on HN