A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted
-
@boomzilla Still better than the bubble dynamics you get with crypto.
-
@GOG like I said, "super shitty non-solution."
-
@boomzilla The issue, as I see it, is that there exists no better solution than what we already have.
Money needs to move. If it's asset-backed, people will hoard the asset and you get bubbles.
Pure fiat has other issues, but by the time they come to the fore, you have much bigger problems already (typically summed up as a basket-case government), and it becomes a matter of "save what you can".
And that's before we get into the associated with the financial industry, which - in my view - has too much smoke and too many mirrors for its own good.
-
@boomzilla they have a money printer that goes Brrrr.
The crypto bros have a countable infinite number of money printers, while claiming it is scarce . And they need a nuclear reactor or three to sell a pack of chewing gum.
-
@GOG said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@boomzilla said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
In the case of crypto, it's trying to solve a real problem, it's just a super shitty non-solution to the problem.
Honestly, I kinda fail to see what problem it is trying to solve, other than, y'know, paying for drugs over the internet.
The problem of Canadian government going after truckers, for example.
-
@GOG sure. A problem doesn't mean that a solution exists.
-
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
The problem of Canadian government going after truckers, for example.
Yeah, the problem here is that you need your landlord and grocer to accept your particular flavour of monopoly money.
Canadian truckers would be best served by keeping CAD in a sock under the mattress.
-
@GOG said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
The problem of Canadian government going after truckers, for example.
Yeah, the problem here is that you need your landlord and grocer to accept your particular flavour of monopoly money.
Exactly. That's why crypto will never take off like they want to. But it doesn't mean the problem itself doesn't exist, or that a government-independent currency with decentralized payment system wouldn't be a solution.
Canadian truckers would be best served by keeping CAD in a sock under the mattress.
It's already illegal to own large wads of cash in some western countries. And increasingly many businesses are card only.
-
@GOG said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
by the time they come to the fore, you have much bigger problems already (typically summed up as a basket-case government), and it becomes a matter of "save what you can".
ETA and be less of a dick:
If crypto were somehow to become a suitable replacement for cash, it would be subject to the same strictures as cash, and it takes a lot more effort to find the sock under my mattress than it does to track my crypto wallet.
-
@GOG not necessarily. There are historical examples of independent merchant currencies and they worked really well. All that's needed is local government not having influence over local currency. This already happens in many parts of the world - people would rather trade in USD than whatever joke the local dictators came up with this time around. Ideally, a currency wouldn't be controlled by any government at all.
The other part is governments having no way influence over electronic banking. PayPal was halfway there. Of course PayPal could never be the ultimate solution because it's a US-registered business. Cryptocurrencies are better, but the long delays and large transaction costs make them impractical for general commerce. And there's the problem of governments mandating ISPs to cut off known crypto money services if deemed "necessary".
In short - 2nd amendment is very important.
-
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
This already happens in many parts of the world - people would rather trade in USD than whatever joke the local dictators came up with this time around.
Dude, I was an expat in the 80s. Smuggling USD and exchanging it on the black market (does the word "cinkciarz" mean anything?) was a thing.
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
All that's needed is local government not having influence over local currency.
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
The other part is governments having no way influence over electronic banking.
Therein lies the rub.
Someone's gonna have influence over the currency. If it's a private operator, I refer you to this thread. If it's a government, you're back where you started from - only doubly so if it's not your government.
Same goes for banking. Either the bank operates with the assent of your government and subject to its governance (<- you are here), or it doesn't, and the government may simply forbid you from using its services (at which point, we're back in "anything shady you do over the internet is easier to track by the government than if you were to do the same thing offline").
The internet is uniquely vulnerable to government attack, by its very nature (just ask the Chinese). Whenever you have a problem with the government and think "I could use the internet to solve it", congratulations - you now have two problems.
In practice, there is only one thing that matters, which is: who controls the government.
For the solution, I refer you to Henrician Article 15. Let it not be said that our nation never got anything right.
-
@GOG said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Dude, I was an expat in the 80s. Smuggling USD and exchanging it on the black market (does the word "cinkciarz" mean anything?) was a thing.
I know. So I know you know it works.
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
All that's needed is local government not having influence over local currency.
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
The other part is governments having no way influence over electronic banking.
Therein lies the rub.
I'm fully aware of that too. My point was that cryptocurrency, in its original form (before it became investment vehicle and not much else), is the closest we've ever been to that. Still had no chance of succeeding, if only because governments like absolute control over people's lives and would never agree to peacefully ceding it.
Bottom line is - currency will always be directly controlled by the government, but there's no inherent reason why currency has to be directly controlled by the government.
-
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
there's no inherent reason why currency has to be directly controlled by the government
In practice, it never really is. Either because the citizen is permitted to use foreign currency, or because they aren't, but will do so anyway.
That still doesn't change the fact that crypto was (and remains) yer garden-variety Internet Magic Beans, because the internet isn't something that can save you from the government.
-
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
The other part is governments having no way influence over electronic banking. PayPal was halfway there. Of course PayPal could never be the ultimate solution because it's a US-registered business. Cryptocurrencies are better, but the long delays and large transaction costs make them impractical for general commerce. And there's the problem of governments mandating ISPs to cut off known crypto money services if deemed "necessary".
In short - 2nd amendment is very important.
Why the quotes around "necessary"? Do you like enabling terrorists, scammers and extortionists? Because those love these kind of systems.
-
@GOG said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
the internet isn't something that can save you from the government.
Starlink enters the chat
-
@Gustav And?
-
@Rhywden said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
The other part is governments having no way influence over electronic banking. PayPal was halfway there. Of course PayPal could never be the ultimate solution because it's a US-registered business. Cryptocurrencies are better, but the long delays and large transaction costs make them impractical for general commerce. And there's the problem of governments mandating ISPs to cut off known crypto money services if deemed "necessary".
In short - 2nd amendment is very important.
Why the quotes around "necessary"? Do you like enabling terrorists, scammers and extortionists? Because those love these kind of systems.
The last time the US government did something against terrorists, we've got the PATRIOT Act.
-
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Rhywden said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
The other part is governments having no way influence over electronic banking. PayPal was halfway there. Of course PayPal could never be the ultimate solution because it's a US-registered business. Cryptocurrencies are better, but the long delays and large transaction costs make them impractical for general commerce. And there's the problem of governments mandating ISPs to cut off known crypto money services if deemed "necessary".
In short - 2nd amendment is very important.
Why the quotes around "necessary"? Do you like enabling terrorists, scammers and extortionists? Because those love these kind of systems.
The last time the US government did something against terrorists, we've got the PATRIOT Act.
Well, that's your problem. But you seem to completely ignore that money-laundering already is a huge problem.
And you want to increase that problem by several orders of magnitude. I'm not buying into this "freedom at all costs!" fetish.
-
@GOG said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
That still doesn't change the fact that crypto was (and remains) yer garden-variety Internet Magic Beans
Yes, we're all in violent agreement here. Sheesh.
-
@Rhywden said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
The other part is governments having no way influence over electronic banking. PayPal was halfway there. Of course PayPal could never be the ultimate solution because it's a US-registered business. Cryptocurrencies are better, but the long delays and large transaction costs make them impractical for general commerce. And there's the problem of governments mandating ISPs to cut off known crypto money services if deemed "necessary".
In short - 2nd amendment is very important.
Why the quotes around "necessary"? Do you like enabling terrorists, scammers and extortionists? Because those love these kind of systems.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that something that can be used for good purposes can't be abused.
-
@Rhywden said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Well, that's your problem. But you seem to completely ignore that money-laundering already is a huge problem.
And you want to increase that problem by several orders of magnitude. I'm not buying into this "freedom at all costs!" fetish.There's a point where the cure becomes worse than the disease.
If someone needs money laundered, then - to a first approximation - it's gonna get laundered. If you want less money to be laundered, your best bet is to minimise the amount of money that needs to be laundered (in other words: you go after the sources of illicit revenue.)
Given that the very people you're counting on to "know their customers" and yadda, yadda, yadda are often enthusiastic participants, I'm not seeing much hope there.
-
@Rhywden said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Rhywden said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
The other part is governments having no way influence over electronic banking. PayPal was halfway there. Of course PayPal could never be the ultimate solution because it's a US-registered business. Cryptocurrencies are better, but the long delays and large transaction costs make them impractical for general commerce. And there's the problem of governments mandating ISPs to cut off known crypto money services if deemed "necessary".
In short - 2nd amendment is very important.
Why the quotes around "necessary"? Do you like enabling terrorists, scammers and extortionists? Because those love these kind of systems.
The last time the US government did something against terrorists, we've got the PATRIOT Act.
Well, that's your problem. But you seem to completely ignore that money-laundering already is a huge problem.
More importantly, money laundering still is a huge problem, despite everything the governments have done so far.
And you want to increase that problem by several orders of magnitude.
I only want things to return to 1960s levels. Was that orders of magnitude more? What is the order of magnitude here anyway, either then or nowadays?
I'm not buying into this "freedom at all costs!" fetish.
You certainly seem to have "putting things in other people's mouths" fetish. Please leave me out of it.
-
@Gustav Oh, please, then explain to us what the fucking 2nd amendment has to do with financial issues.
-
@Rhywden a Canadian trucker is a little easier to stomp on by the police force executing bullshit directives than a Canadian trucker with a gun.
-
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Rhywden a Canadian trucker is a little easier to stomp on by the police force executing bullshit directives than a Canadian trucker with a gun.
Yeah, fuck off.
-
@Rhywden note I never said Canadian truckers were in the right, but in your head I totally did.
-
@GOG said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Rhywden said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Well, that's your problem. But you seem to completely ignore that money-laundering already is a huge problem.
And you want to increase that problem by several orders of magnitude. I'm not buying into this "freedom at all costs!" fetish.There's a point where the cure becomes worse than the disease.
That's a nice talking point but I'm not seeing much evidence for it.
-
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Rhywden note I never said Canadian truckers were in the right, but in your head I totally did.
Well...they were right, but that's neither here nor there regarding @Rhywden's absolute trust of governments to behave well.
-
-
@GOG said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Oh, a Garage topic. Who'd have thought.
You know I don't read those, right?
-
@Rhywden Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
But the key phrase "Canadian truckers" appears in the post directly above mine, and I trust you read the news.
-
@GOG said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Rhywden Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
But the key phrase "Canadian truckers" appears in the post directly above mine, and I trust you read the news.
Which news? You seem to forget that not every time a sack of rice keels over in Canada that it makes headlines in Europe.
-
@Rhywden said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Rhywden a Canadian trucker is a little easier to stomp on by the police force executing bullshit directives than a Canadian trucker with a gun.
Yeah, fuck off.
So do you know what I'm talking about or not?
-
@GOG said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Rhywden said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Rhywden a Canadian trucker is a little easier to stomp on by the police force executing bullshit directives than a Canadian trucker with a gun.
Yeah, fuck off.
So do you know what I'm talking about or not?
No. And at this point, I don't care to know either. Bye bye.
If you wanted to convince me of any kind of problem, this is the exact way not to do it. Good job!
-
@Rhywden Suit yourself.
-
@Rhywden said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
If you wanted to convince me of any kind of problem
Wasn't it YOU trying to convince US that there was some kind of money laundering problem?
-
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
You certainly seem to have "putting things in other people's mouths" fetish.
Please leave me out of it.
-
@dkf I assure you this was 100% unintentional and no such thoughts even crossed my mind when I wrote this.
-
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Wasn't it YOU trying to convince US that there was some kind of money laundering problem?
Well, that was because that was definitely one of the things that cryptocurrencies were used for. A great many governments have a lot of problems with money laundering because it's used to hide the profits from many crimes and enable other crimes, as well as to dodge taxes.
If you're going to launder money, there are dodgy tax havens for that and they don't like johnny-come-lately internetwallahs trying to hustle in on their turf!
-
@dkf said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Wasn't it YOU trying to convince US that there was some kind of money laundering problem?
Well, that was because that was definitely one of the things that cryptocurrencies were used for.
Cups are also more commonly used to drink water than plates. But people wouldn't stop drinking water if there were no cups. Moreover, they were drinking water long long before cups were invented.
-
@dkf said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
If you're going to launder money, there are
dodgy tax havensrespected financial institutions for that
-
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@dkf said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Wasn't it YOU trying to convince US that there was some kind of money laundering problem?
Well, that was because that was definitely one of the things that cryptocurrencies were used for.
Cups are also more commonly used to drink water than plates. But people wouldn't stop drinking water if there were no cups. Moreover, they were drinking water long long before cups were invented.
You're being obtuse.
Amazingly, not everything touched on by the cryptomania is bad. Some things were (especially the total lack of common sense by some, together with the sheer mind-numbing wastefulness of the technology) but not all.
But... if you want government help with enforcing contracts (access to courts and bailiffs and police and so on) then you kinda need to have government oversight of other things; it's a package. Purely algorithmic "contracts" have proved to have all the flaws that everyone said they would. Most of government oversight is about trying to reduce the amount that the really big guns of enforcement are needed; if problems are caught before large numbers of people lose lots of money, you get a significantly happier electorate (or at least a more stable society in non-democratic regimes).
-
@GOG said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@dkf said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
If you're going to launder money, there are
dodgy tax havensrespected financial institutions for thatWell yes. Someone's got to act as a middleman for the tax havens. London's made a specialty out of that.
-
@dkf said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@dkf said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Wasn't it YOU trying to convince US that there was some kind of money laundering problem?
Well, that was because that was definitely one of the things that cryptocurrencies were used for.
Cups are also more commonly used to drink water than plates. But people wouldn't stop drinking water if there were no cups. Moreover, they were drinking water long long before cups were invented.
You're being obtuse.
Amazingly, not everything touched on by the cryptomania is bad. Some things were (especially the total lack of common sense by some, together with the sheer mind-numbing wastefulness of the technology) but not all.
But... if you want government help with enforcing contracts (access to courts and bailiffs and police and so on) then you kinda need to have government oversight of other things; it's a package. Purely algorithmic "contracts" have proved to have all the flaws that everyone said they would. Most of government oversight is about trying to reduce the amount that the really big guns of enforcement are needed; if problems are caught before large numbers of people lose lots of money, you get a significantly happier electorate (or at least a more stable society in non-democratic regimes).
Sure, sure, sure, but again, if they've got those big guns there's no guarantee that they're always aimed at the actual bad guys. That was the point that started this dumb subthread. No one is denying the existence of the bad guys or that it would be good to thwart them.
One guy, however, was arguing that it was dumb to be skeptical of the use of those big guns. Don't be like him.
-
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
significant, as in you could renovate a kitchen with the money you earned over years, or something. Nothing major.
The only time I've ever done that was when I had employee stock options and/or employee stock purchase plan where I could purchase the shares for below-market price. And even then, only in a rising market where the purchase price was actually below-market. Employee stock options are worthless if the market has fallen below the price at which the options were issued.
Before my mom died, so around 1998–2000, we wanted to remodel our house so that we'd have room for my parents to come live with us and be near the grandkids. We estimated this would cost ~$50k. I had stock options that were worth maybe ~$40k. IIRC, my option price was something like $67, and my employer's stock was probably somewhere around $80; we only needed the price to go up a little more to hit the target price and realize a gain of $50k. Instead, and those of you with s may be able to guess what I'm about to say, the dot-com bubble burst. Even though my employer was not one of those dot-com vaporware companies, the stock tanked to <$20. Obviously, I never got the $50k.
-
@dkf said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@dkf said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@Gustav said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
Wasn't it YOU trying to convince US that there was some kind of money laundering problem?
Well, that was because that was definitely one of the things that cryptocurrencies were used for.
Cups are also more commonly used to drink water than plates. But people wouldn't stop drinking water if there were no cups. Moreover, they were drinking water long long before cups were invented.
You're being obtuse.
And you're mistaken about what I'm saying. At least I believe so. Let's do a quick test - do you believe I think it's not true that 99% of crypto transactions are money laundering? Because I totally think 99% of crypto transactions are money laundering. I'm just aware of all the other methods of money laundering that were a thing before 2010, and I doubt there was a dramatic change in total money being laundered around the world or in any particular country because of crypto.
Amazingly, not everything touched on by the cryptomania is bad.
And here is where we disagree.
But... if you want government help with enforcing contracts (access to courts and bailiffs and police and so on) then you kinda need to have government oversight of other things; it's a package.
Not really. All you need is a way for the court to order money payment, a way to officially prove the payment happened, and a way to put people in prison if they don't comply.
Government oversight over bank accounts is just convenience. Remember that for the longest time, people lived without bank accounts.
-
@GOG said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
@boomzilla said in A fool and his not-really-money are soon parted:
In the case of crypto, it's trying to solve a real problem, it's just a super shitty non-solution to the problem.
Honestly, I kinda fail to see what problem it is trying to solve, other than, y'know, paying for drugs over the internet.
Crypto is just as much fiat money as normal cash, only it doesn't have men with guns actually backing it.
If you're using it to buy drugs over the internet, there are almost certainly men with guns involved.
-
@HardwareGeek Yeah, but they're not backing the currency.
-
@GOG Do you count the drugs as the currency? If so, then they're backing the currency.
-
@dkf Of course I don't count drugs as the currency. Why would I? You don't count the bread you buy as currency, do you?