I'm not, I'm pointing out the rhetorical techniques being used to delegitimize people who try to create privacy tools.
You mean to say that we live in a democracy. We elect our representatives, and they pick who runs these institutions.
It's a pernicious myth that there is some meaningful democratic oversight over monetary policy. Central banks are privately owned and/or structured in such a way as to not be beholden to political pressure (for the somewhat justifiable reason that politicians are even worse at managing monetary policy).
Latinate words are not a useful cover when you're lying. All Western central banks are effectively a branch of government and are directly responsible to Congress/euparl/$local_variant, and are run by a bunch of politicians (the chair of the Fed is Powell and the president of the ECB is Lagarde, ffs).
The notion that they aren't beholden to the popular will is just ridicolous.
Central banks in most developed nations are institutionally independent from political interference.
"The governance of central banks has two dimensions: corporate governance and public governance. Public governance is an institutional framework whereby the general public governs a central bank by and through the legislative and executive bodies in a country (...)".
"Independence of the central bank" means independence from direct intrusion by the executive branch, in the same sense the judiciary is independent from political interference.
That doesn’t mean that those are not government institutions.
The Federal Reserve (by far the most important one) is privately owned, as are Belgium, Greece, Japan, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey and the Bank of Italy.
The ECB is owned by central banks of member states, some of which are privately owned.
Private ownership is any case one issue, the other is the fact the CBs are structured in such a way to be resistant to political pressure and (meaningful) oversight.
This is a good start:
MMT requires the government to raise taxes once inflation starts rising due to previous money printing.
What are governments doing now? They are actually thinking of handing out more money to people to offset the effects of inflation (thereby making the inflation worse).
In other words, MMT requires governments to always do the right thing, which they don't.
That's ignoring the theoretical underpinnings of MMT which are by no means unassailable.
That’s a common misconception. Have you seen any MMT economist advocate a tax increase recently?
Here is an excellent podcast with one of the most eminent MMT scholars Randall Wray discussing his recent publication on how to deal with inflation in the US currently:
https://realprogressives.org/podcast_episode/episode-173-inf...
Here is the publication:
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/examining-an-mmt-model-in-...
> MMT, for those who aren’t familiar with it, is a small, cohesive group of people who go around telling the government to borrow more and spend more.
Which is fundamentally incorrect and betrays a misunderstanding of MMT so his opinion is irrelevant
Actually you can. The war on "money laundering" is a total failure. Those laws costs billions of dollars in compliance, stifle competition, harm innocent people by excluding them from the financial system (estimated 1.7 billion worldwide) and don't actually stop criminals. There's a serious case to be made for putting an end to that war and diverting those resources to old school crime fighting.
https://www.cato.org/blog/money-laundering-laws-ineffective-...
This represents a massive misallocation of resources. Public safety would almost certainly be improved if we doubled police spending by slashing AML burdens by 2/3rds.
Unfortunately it's hard for politicians address crime by raising taxes to fund real police but easy for them to attempt to address crime by increasing AML regulation, even if the latter is barely effective.
[1] https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/cutting-the-costs-o... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/298637/united-kingdom-uk...
I'm totally against money laundering. It takes the money away from us people for streets, school and healthy care.
And crypto is not providing any solution to this at all. So why not fixing that issue inside the crypto bro fan club first and than trying to replace our current fiat with it?
I think you're confusing money laundering and tax evasion.
I think it's important to expand on the above because the above terms are tame. They give an impression of individual small time criminals.
It's North Korea, Russia, dictators and despots across the world, the cartels, organized criminals. Large scale Tax avoiders, human traffickers, drug traffickers, weapon smugglers. It's the organized big money criminals, both high and low class that fund the worst aspects of humanity.
(Talking about Bitcoin here. Not all crypto applies)
D'you think an "ordinary person" is going to risk being thrown in a gulag?
The problem with all these tech utopians is they think the relevant problems are technical: we've solved trust! (Between machines negotiating over a network). We've solved currency manipulation (oh its not a currency, it's an asset; and oh it can be manipulated by the 3 people who own 50% of it).
All the problems are social, not technological. And crypto makes all of them worse! By an order of magnitude worse.
They can try, but it's very difficult to do. I hear we'll win the war on drugs any day now.
All the problems are social, not technological
No solution is 100% social or technological, you need both. The existence of cryptocurrencies doesn't remove the need for social coordination.
Is a worse situation, right?
Crypto is just fedualism with land=coin. Really. That's what it is.
It's about as anti-freedom as one can imagine. It's "freedom in form" and not in content. It's the freedom of the colonizer on new land, and the oppression of all else who live there. A necessary oppression, not open to revision, and executed by machine.
Satoshi advertised the currency and the start of mining beforehand, to give other people a chance to participate. There was no pre-mine.
In the early days there were faucets that handed out bitcoins for free.
Due to the boom and bust cycle of Bitcoin, many of the early holders cashed out instead of holding all the way to untold wealth. This is actually a nice side-effect of the early stages of Bitcoin adoption.
Very early holders of Bitcoin had to take the risk that the currency was somehow flawed and would go to zero, in some sense, the gains they made are a function of the risk they took.
The solution to wealth inequality is not to force everything to be equal, it's to allow both upward and downward mobility. The wealthy must be allowed to fail and not be bailed out.
Interestingly, bailouts are a common feature of the fiat monetary system.
A deflationary asset, like land for example, is not a good currency. As a powerbase, it's called feudalism. And that's not a good politics.
Power in crypto is radically centralised to the owners, not the users (unlike democracies).
One has to imagine people like you know this, or feel it, in the lust for the value increases to your own stake: that is, a lust that you are the one in control. Either way, you're playing the role of a daemon here, whether you realise it or not.
And the devil you are putting on the thrown are a handful of billionaires with power and control executed by a machine.
Thankfully bitcoin has no army, and all of this will fade into the obvious malicious stupidity it already is.
I wrote about Bitcoin, not Ethereum. There are lots of Bitcoiners that think Ethereum is a scam due to the large premine and larping as a decentralized project.
Either way, you're playing the role of a daemon here, whether you realise it or not.
And the devil you are putting on the thrown are a handful of billionaires with power and control executed by a machine.
The fact that you have to start using flowery religious language of condemnation appears to me an indication that you're running out of logical arguments.
Thankfully bitcoin has no army
That's one of its features, which proponents value.
Then some people comply and some don't
The ones who are paying for these open ponzi schemes by having their electricity stolen by the state?
How about El Salvador, or Argentina, or Nigeria where the poorest lost significant chunks of their capital from btc crash to terra/luna collapse.
But you can't just hand wave concerns regarding money laundering and other criminality away. If you want to, you should just say "these things don't matter that much", but don't just avoid them entirely.
>Lastly, we reserve the right to manipulate the money supply. It's enough for you to know that we are experts and have your best interests in mind. You don't need to concern yourself with how much money there is, how its supply is managed or the potential negative effects of our manipulation, you wouldn't understand the implications anyway.
You mean to say that we live in a democracy. We elect our representatives, and they pick who runs these institutions. They are relatively "undemocratic" because when politicians are able to manipulate the interest rates directly, well things are perhaps even worse.