All is not bad

  • Thread starter Thread starter R P
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 38
  • Views Views 37K
R P said:
For all the criticism directed at China, have to applaud them for this.
https://apnews.com/article/china-de...ions-illegal-c6e869b63af6de3d1d699ee105d602e6
Unregulated crypto currencies have been a dream come true for criminals and fraudsters, esp the ransomware hackers. Plus it is just plain stupid to use large amounts of a precious energy source (electricity) just to enable and support crypto.
Click to expand...
No. Crypto is a good thing. Fiat currencies controlled by central banks is terrible. Criminals use fiat cash all the time. They will always find some way to exchange value and zero laws will stop this. The overwhelming majority of crypto exchanges are not for illegal activities. Crypto is one of the ways to fight against terrible fiscal policy.
 
First, I said unregulated crypto. And have yet to hear of any ransomware criminals asking to be paid by cheque or any traceable transaction. So why do you believe that crypto is a way to fight bad fiscal policy? Isn't that what elections are about? Do you condone an underground economy?
 
R P said:
First, I said unregulated crypto. And have yet to hear of any ransomware criminals asking to be paid by cheque or any traceable transaction. So why do you believe that crypto is a way to fight bad fiscal policy?
Click to expand...
You don't need crypto to do ransomware. I would argue that the overwhelming majority of ransomware incidents probably do involve crypto. Remember, most cases of this happening is towards smaller businesses and individuals. There are tons of ways that people have used conventional banking to get away with crap. Yes, that big case with the pipeline involved crypto, but that doesn't mean regulating crypto will stop ransomware from happening in the future.

R P said:
Isn't that what elections are about?
Click to expand...
I do not believe that elections really change anything. If you have an open mind, I can explain why I think that later.

R P said:
Do you condone an underground economy?
Click to expand...
An underground economy will always exist. Attempting to clamp down on transactions will not meaningfully affect the size of the underground economy because all that does is put pressure to figure out other ways to do transactions. The only way to reduce the size of underground markets is to reduce either the supply, like valuable things with no security, or demand, like desire to use or addiction to drugs. It doesn't make sense to implement unnecessary, ineffective regulations to because these regulations often take away liberty and create unintended consequences that just make things worse.
 
R P said:
So why do you believe that crypto is a way to fight bad fiscal policy?
Click to expand...
Well, the only real way to get rid of a fiat currency (and by extension take away the power of a central bank) is to have another currency out compete the fiat currency. It may be possible to do that with crypto, so that is why I don't want it banned or regulated.
 
SouthernDude said:
Well, the only real way to get rid of a fiat currency (and by extension take away the power of a central bank) is to have another currency out compete the fiat currency. It may be possible to do that with crypto, so that is why I don't want it banned or regulated.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't like this extended low interest of the central banks either. Allows govts to spend irresponsibly with lower debt interest payments. But I don't see how crypto can change that. Unless govts started using it, and then it would have to be regulated. Which really makes it no different a fiat currency. Taxes would have to be paid in crypto, good and services, interest, etc, etc.

And I also don't like wasting electricity to facilitate crypto currencies. There has to be better solutions to change fiat currency issues. And elections determine fiscal policies. Surely you are not advocating taking those freedoms away. That would be like a China.
 
Last edited:
R P said:
Well, I don't like this extended low interest of the central banks either. Allows govts to spend irresponsibly with lower debt interest payments. But I don't see how crypto can change that. Unless govts started using it, and then it would have to be regulated. Which really makes it no different a fiat currency. Taxes would have to be paid in crypto, good and services, interest, etc, etc.

And I also don't like wasting electricity to facilitate crypto currencies. There has to be better solutions to change fiat currency issues. And elections determine fiscal policies. Surely you are not advocating taking those freedoms away. That would be like a China.
Click to expand...
Crypto doesn't solve bad government spending issues, but it does give a hedge against hyper inflation of fiat currency and a hedge against governments defaulting on debt.

The hyper focus on energy use for crypto is a meme. I would wager that the energy use for things like pornography or illicit drugs each consume more energy than crypto. Where is the energy use outrage over that? Both are orders of magnitude worse for society. I'm half convinced that energy use is only brought up to specifically slander the use of crypto more than anything else.
 
SouthernDude said:
Crypto doesn't solve bad government spending issues, but it does give a hedge against hyper inflation of fiat currency and a hedge against governments defaulting on debt.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what gold is for? Why do we need crypto? At least gold can be a physical asset. Who knows what could happen to your crypto some time down the road.
 
R P said:
Isn't that what gold is for? Why do we need crypto? At least gold can be a physical asset. Who knows what could happen to your crypto some time down the road.
Click to expand...
gold is great too, but I can't easily exchange gold itself for goods and services anymore. Crypto can be exchanged more easily. Yes, there is risk with crypto now, but I would argue that the risk with the current fiat currencies is also just as great or even greater at this point.
 
Reports are out today that Elon Musk is now Twitter's largest shareholder. Does that mean free speech is not dead?
 
Examples:
  • Bezos: Washington Post
  • Murdoch: FOX, New York Post, Wall Street Journal
  • Trump: “Truth”
This may be a start towards an Elon press office. At least Twitter management will take Elon’s calls. Perhaps some Senators might notice it too.

Bob Wilson
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top