The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban • Hacker News Board

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#371

Post by neuralRiot » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 8:39 PM UTC

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…

>This article seems to intentionally ignore the core reason for cryptocurrencies; escaping inflation and control.

Probably the article ignores it but not the governments or corporations who suddenly are worried about the environment.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#372

Post by murftown » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 8:43 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #343

caeril wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sure, but what debt does the average person own which is eroded? The money in their bank account.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#373

Post by jl2718 » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 8:45 PM UTC

whytaka wrote: post #230

seibelj wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has never been proven that deflation is bad - Keynesians claim this is the worst thing in the world, but I still have never had it explained to me coherently way deflation is inherently a bad thing.

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.

No. Deflation slaughters the wealthy in the markets. No need for the uprising.

It’s great for anybody that can provide a useful service for cash. Especially farmers. Farmers suffered all through the 1920s because they mortgaged their land during WW1 to massively increase supply, and then the demand disappeared. The problem, they said was not starving people, but that food was too cheap! So the big indebted farms banded together to stop food shipments from family farms, and the government responded by giving the big farms a handout.

So no, deflation doesn’t mean starving people. I talked to a bunch of old people about this. Work was rare, but you only needed a few unskilled labor hours a week to pay for food and housing, and that was always available. They said life was pretty good if you didn’t have a mortgage.

But really we’re talking about lack of inflation here. Not deflation. Deflation only and necessarily must occur with inflation preceding it.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#374

Post by TezNoble1988 » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 8:45 PM UTC

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…

The idea that inflation is some sort of creeping evil that needs to be "solved for" is a made up fantasy of cryptocurrency zealots and libertarians. There's nothing inherently "wrong" or "bad" about inflation when it is controlled and stable, and in fact some low level of positive inflation is a good thing. Inflation is a bogeyman that was invented by the crypto-industrial complex to justify the environmental disaster and criminal danger that cryptocurrencies wreak on society.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#375

Post by nbardy » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 8:45 PM UTC

Anyone who dismisses crypto as useless hasn't used the software.

Here's some use cases I've used in the last month:

I secured an instant loan based off collateral with faxing or calling my bank. Doing this at schwabb took weeks.

Another one, "thegraph" a distributed super computer to make public blockchain data indexed and queryable.

Another, Bitclout, a social network build on the blockchain.

Now the data of my social network is trustless distributed, verified and forkable.

I can build a business on top of it and I don't have to worry about getting the firehouse shut down like I did with Twitter.

Bitcoin was horse that drove the consensus making technical progress of distributed computing. The coins are less interesting than the distributed computing revolution.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#376

Post by baq » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 8:45 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #347

whytaka wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Deflationary crises were common before the invention of the central bank and fiat currencies. Instead of believing go read some history.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#377

Post by paulgb » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 8:47 PM UTC

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).

Most crypto (I believe currently approx. 90%) is mined outside of the US. Miners have already been moving from China to Iran[1], in part to avoid environmental regulations. As long as there exist jurisdictions that are not party to a carbon tax, crypto mining is highly incentivized to move there. Putting aside the issue of overreach, if the US wanted to reduce carbon, blocking inflows to crypto exchanges would be more impactful than taxing domestic mining.

[1] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/inner-mongolia-to-shut-down-...

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#378

Post by karpierz » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 8:47 PM UTC

jl2718 wrote: post #362

karpierz wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your currency deflates, that means a dollar today is worth less than a dollar tomorrow. When you invest money (via loans or buying equity), you trade currency for tangible assets, like stocks or capital. In order for the investment to make sense, the growth on the asset needs to be larger than the growth of the value of the money, plus risk. So in a deflationary currency, loan interest rates must be higher to be w…

No. It’s worth $10 because you saved your (non-inflationary) money. And you spent the last 10 years making a bread robot instead of working in the financial sector. And how is ‘investing’ a productive use of capital? In deflationary regime, business is about cash flow. Inflationary regime investments are all speculation, and everybody has to play the game. This Keynesian argument comes from a nihilistic disregard for…

Investing is a productive use of cash. Cash is a token that represents the goods produced to earn it. You can redeem it for goods, or lend it to someone if they can make better use of it. If they can make better use of it now, you make a deal that they'll give you more of these tokens later.

If you hold onto cash, it does nothing. If you invest it, either directly, or by giving it to another entity to invest on your behalf (IE, a chequeing account at a bank or mutual fund), it allows someone else to make use of it, and in exchange, you will be repaid with more cash in the future.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#379

Post by nbardy » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 8:48 PM UTC

TezNoble1988 wrote: post #374

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…

The idea that inflation is some sort of creeping evil that needs to be "solved for" is a made up fantasy of cryptocurrency zealots and libertarians. There's nothing inherently "wrong" or "bad" about inflation when it is controlled and stable, and in fact some low level of positive inflation is a good thing. Inflation is a bogeyman that was invented by the crypto-industrial complex to justify the environmental disaste…

Inflation is a problem when there is no way to beat it and it's hidden in stimulus bills that the majority of the country is too busy working to pay bills to spend time understanding.

Most of my friends can't afford investment in the market. So when the stock market goes up that's them losing value on their dollar and wages.

Inflation is fine for those who are part of the asset class.

Re: The political case for a blanket cryptocurrency ban

#380

Post by noahtallen » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 8:51 PM UTC

jl2718 wrote: post #362

karpierz wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your currency deflates, that means a dollar today is worth less than a dollar tomorrow. When you invest money (via loans or buying equity), you trade currency for tangible assets, like stocks or capital. In order for the investment to make sense, the growth on the asset needs to be larger than the growth of the value of the money, plus risk. So in a deflationary currency, loan interest rates must be higher to be w…

No. It’s worth $10 because you saved your (non-inflationary) money. And you spent the last 10 years making a bread robot instead of working in the financial sector. And how is ‘investing’ a productive use of capital? In deflationary regime, business is about cash flow. Inflationary regime investments are all speculation, and everybody has to play the game. This Keynesian argument comes from a nihilistic disregard for…

If in a deflationary environment people hold onto their money, then there will be less spending. That means less business income. That means small business close, and big businesses hire less people. That means people get less money, which leads to less spending, etc.

If we want to have something like UBI to take care of income instead of work, that still comes from tax dollars, which relies on economic activity (capital gains from investment, income tax, sales tax, etc).

In other words, less economic activity has specific impact on real world people and how much money they can get. It’s not just about investing, not just about billionaires.