Financial fuckery thread

[Pergamos]

The problem with alternative currencies is that at the end of the day, it's still just a virtual representation of goods or services. Exchanging one for the other has no benefit that I can think of.

It takes control of the printing press away from the government.

Oh wow I really reallly want you to follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion.

I'd love to, can you hold my hand a little?  I'm not sure where you are going. 

As mentioned before, where it puts that control can definitely be an issue, you can either get the random lottery of Bitcoins, which mostly means money is printed by botnets, obviously not a desirable outcome, or you get a printing press controlled by some other organization.  The methods used by that organization to regulate the amount of money, how it is used, and so forth seem like they would determine whether that group having control rather than the government is a good or bad thing.

[Don Coyote]

Old age/illness/etc. Take your pick, but there's a dozen situations you could name where working a XX hour week becomes impossible.

If we are positing a society that uses a currency the depreciates, and is thus interested in keeping the amount of money from ballooning as a means of preventing massive wealth disparity and therefore social disparity. Then it would seem safe to also posit that such a society would be concerned for the welfare of the old, injured and others who cannot provide for themselves and thus would likely have a means of supporting those among their members that need it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The problem with alternative currencies is that at the end of the day, it's still just a virtual representation of goods or services. Exchanging one for the other has no benefit that I can think of.

It takes control of the printing press away from the government.

Oh wow I really reallly want you to follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion.

I'd love to, can you hold my hand a little?  I'm not sure where you are going. 

As mentioned before, where it puts that control can definitely be an issue, you can either get the random lottery of Bitcoins, which mostly means money is printed by botnets, obviously not a desirable outcome, or you get a printing press controlled by some other organization.  The methods used by that organization to regulate the amount of money, how it is used, and so forth seem like they would determine whether that group having control rather than the government is a good or bad thing.

Sorry, I don't really have time. But I'd like you to postulate a system that has several thousand independent economies, each of which prints their own currencies independent of any centralized regulation. Don't just imagine what might happen if everything goes RIGHT; also imagine what happens when things go WRONG.

HINT: This has actually happened many times before, all over the world. You can look it up; it's called "The history of currency".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Old age/illness/etc. Take your pick, but there's a dozen situations you could name where working a XX hour week becomes impossible.

If we are positing a society that uses a currency the depreciates, and is thus interested in keeping the amount of money from ballooning as a means of preventing massive wealth disparity and therefore social disparity. Then it would seem safe to also posit that such a society would be concerned for the welfare of the old, injured and others who cannot provide for themselves and thus would likely have a means of supporting those among their members that need it.

ACHTUNG, COMRADE! THAT ROAD LEADS STRAIGHT TO SOCIALISM!

[Pergamos]

The problem with alternative currencies is that at the end of the day, it's still just a virtual representation of goods or services. Exchanging one for the other has no benefit that I can think of.

It takes control of the printing press away from the government.

Oh wow I really reallly want you to follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion.

I'd love to, can you hold my hand a little?  I'm not sure where you are going. 

As mentioned before, where it puts that control can definitely be an issue, you can either get the random lottery of Bitcoins, which mostly means money is printed by botnets, obviously not a desirable outcome, or you get a printing press controlled by some other organization.  The methods used by that organization to regulate the amount of money, how it is used, and so forth seem like they would determine whether that group having control rather than the government is a good or bad thing.

Sorry, I don't really have time. But I'd like you to postulate a system that has several thousand independent economies, each of which prints their own currencies independent of any centralized regulation. Don't just imagine what might happen if everything goes RIGHT; also imagine what happens when things go WRONG.

HINT: This has actually happened many times before, all over the world. You can look it up; it's called "The history of currency".

The problem seems to be that those economies aren't actually independent and when they trade with one another you have issues of currency manipulation, arbitrage, etc.  Historically this has been partially dealt with by using valuable commodities like gold and silver for trade.  This has also been dealt with in the modern world by using a third party currency, usually the dollar. 

I'm still not seeing a problem that looks worse than our current mess with a centrally controlled bank making sure that the rich get richer and the poor get fucked.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The problem with alternative currencies is that at the end of the day, it's still just a virtual representation of goods or services. Exchanging one for the other has no benefit that I can think of.

It takes control of the printing press away from the government.

Oh wow I really reallly want you to follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion.

I'd love to, can you hold my hand a little?  I'm not sure where you are going. 

As mentioned before, where it puts that control can definitely be an issue, you can either get the random lottery of Bitcoins, which mostly means money is printed by botnets, obviously not a desirable outcome, or you get a printing press controlled by some other organization.  The methods used by that organization to regulate the amount of money, how it is used, and so forth seem like they would determine whether that group having control rather than the government is a good or bad thing.

Sorry, I don't really have time. But I'd like you to postulate a system that has several thousand independent economies, each of which prints their own currencies independent of any centralized regulation. Don't just imagine what might happen if everything goes RIGHT; also imagine what happens when things go WRONG.

HINT: This has actually happened many times before, all over the world. You can look it up; it's called "The history of currency".

The problem seems to be that those economies aren't actually independent and when they trade with one another you have issues of currency manipulation, arbitrage, etc.  Historically this has been partially dealt with by using valuable commodities like gold and silver for trade.  This has also been dealt with in the modern world by using a third party currency, usually the dollar. 

I'm still not seeing a problem that looks worse than our current mess with a centrally controlled bank making sure that the rich get richer and the poor get fucked.

Yeah, your way is way better.  The rich get poor and the coyotes get fat.  Nobody knows where the poor went off to.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The problem with alternative currencies is that at the end of the day, it's still just a virtual representation of goods or services. Exchanging one for the other has no benefit that I can think of.

It takes control of the printing press away from the government.

Oh wow I really reallly want you to follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion.

I'd love to, can you hold my hand a little?  I'm not sure where you are going. 

As mentioned before, where it puts that control can definitely be an issue, you can either get the random lottery of Bitcoins, which mostly means money is printed by botnets, obviously not a desirable outcome, or you get a printing press controlled by some other organization.  The methods used by that organization to regulate the amount of money, how it is used, and so forth seem like they would determine whether that group having control rather than the government is a good or bad thing.

Sorry, I don't really have time. But I'd like you to postulate a system that has several thousand independent economies, each of which prints their own currencies independent of any centralized regulation. Don't just imagine what might happen if everything goes RIGHT; also imagine what happens when things go WRONG.

HINT: This has actually happened many times before, all over the world. You can look it up; it's called "The history of currency".

The problem seems to be that those economies aren't actually independent and when they trade with one another you have issues of currency manipulation, arbitrage, etc.  Historically this has been partially dealt with by using valuable commodities like gold and silver for trade.  This has also been dealt with in the modern world by using a third party currency, usually the dollar. 

I'm still not seeing a problem that looks worse than our current mess with a centrally controlled bank making sure that the rich get richer and the poor get fucked.

The problem here isn't our currency, it's our economic structure. A different currency won't change that, and instituting locally independent currencies will make it worse.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In other words, the currency is just the map. LITERALLY.

[Reginald Ret]

In other words, the currency is just the map. LITERALLY.

Good point. But in this case there is only one map and it is drawn by people who have much to gain by controlling where you think you can go. Wouldn't it be nice if there were several big map brands(like the dollar or euro) that can be used by whoever needs it and smaller more localized maps that fit better to the local terrain?

It is not about choosing the perfect currency, it is about giving people a choice of which currency to use in a given situation. They can even be tied directly to a dominant currency like in most examples given ITT of succesful alternative currencies. I think it is more a social engineering thing than an economics thing.

I just realized that all of this is irrelevant because money is going digital and then the big map brands have absolute insight in and control over what you are buying when, where, and how.

Maybe we should promote alternative currencies for the sole reason that they will keep cash alive and so keep black markets easy.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In other words, the currency is just the map. LITERALLY.

Good point. But in this case there is only one map and it is drawn by people who have much to gain by controlling where you think you can go. Wouldn't it be nice if there were several big map brands(like the dollar or euro) that can be used by whoever needs it and smaller more localized maps that fit better to the local terrain?

It is not about choosing the perfect currency, it is about giving people a choice of which currency to use in a given situation. They can even be tied directly to a dominant currency like in most examples given ITT of succesful alternative currencies. I think it is more a social engineering thing than an economics thing.

I just realized that all of this is irrelevant because money is going digital and then the big map brands have absolute insight in and control over what you are buying when, where, and how.

Maybe we should promote alternative currencies for the sole reason that they will keep cash alive and so keep black markets easy.

That sounds really nice, but can you imagine a scenario in which the rich and powerful do not simply buy up the alternative currencies, literally or metaphorically, in order to remain rich and powerful?

I can't.

Adding different brands of "map" just gives the rich and powerful more brands to own.

Alternative currencies change nothing.

[Cain]

There's no functional difference between an oligarchy and an ogliopoly, when you're not a member.

Also Thiers' Law being neglected, ITT.

[LMNO]

Well, that's something I had to Google. 

And then Cain made me learn something.

[Elder Iptuous]

I had heard of Gresham's law, but not Thier's law.  good read, and makes sense.
someone i talked to had once mentioned that the historical base of compulsion in currency use was what was acceptable for tax collection, and legal tender laws came later.  i believe it was the old 'tally sticks' issued in england some thousand years ago or so that was cited.  people would trade with various commodities, or local currencies, but the sticks were the standard because that's what the piper ultimately required.  (incidentally, that system lasted a long freaking time, iirc.)

[Pergamos]

Well, if local taxes are required to be paid in local currencies that does create a built in demand.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well, if local taxes are required to be paid in local currencies that does create a built in demand.

Yeah, we had this thing called "The Articles of Confederation" just prior to the current constitution, that allowed exactly that.

And it worked so fucking well, the country almost dissolved into a monarchy of some kind.  So let's do that again.