Great article (as usual) by @pluralistic on "bestselling" books, botshit, and bezzles:
(Paywall-free link)
#books #crypto #ChrisDixon #ReadWriteOwn #NYTBestSeller
How a billionaire’s mediocre pump-and-dump “book” became a “bestseller”
If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog: I was on a book tour the day my…Cory Doctorow (Medium)
This entry was edited (4 months ago)
karen coyle
in reply to Pax Ahimsa Gethen • • •immibis
in reply to karen coyle • • •clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Roderick
in reply to immibis • • •clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Roderick • • •@rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
False. The USD is used all over the world because people trust that it will have a STABLE value, at least in the near future.
And it has a stable value because it has a central bank (the Fed) with the mission and means to keep its value stable, minus the planned inflation.
Without guns.
In short, people trust the USD because they trust the Fed. Even those who do not know what the Fed does, or think it is the abode of the Devil.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
By the way, one could use any currency for all purposes, but change it to USD *only* to pay taxes. So the USD is definitely *not* valuable or adopted because "it is the only way to pay US taxes".
Roderick
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Roderick • • •@rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
Some countries have laws that prohibit the use of other national currencies in commerce. But not the US. Americans (like people everywhere else) use the USD because they trust it, not because they are forced to use it.
But yes, people trust the Fed because they trust that the US government will give it the resources it needs to do its job, and will not try to use it to "print money" for its budget.
Preston Is Not My Real Name
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Preston Is Not My Real Name • • •@prestontumber @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
Actually, Florida and a couple of cities in the US tried to allow people to pay their taxes in bitcoin. Seems it was the idea of city officials who (like Joel Greenberg) happened to be bitcoin investors and/or users of its money laundering properties. And then there is El Salvador.
However, those initiatives mostly failed, for lack of interest and/or because bitcoin, as a currency, is a bad joke.
Preston Is Not My Real Name
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Preston Is Not My Real Name • • •@prestontumber @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
Using bitcoin as unit of account is like using "rubber band" as a unit of length. Only much worse.
Indeed, that is one of the reasons why it is the most laughable thing that has ever been proposed as money.
clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Cory Doctorow reshared this.
Preston Is Not My Real Name
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Wayne Smith
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@JorgeStolfi @prestontumber @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
You are correct that the value of digital currency fluctuates.
So does fiat currency.
Public have a choice. Digital currency value determined by we-the-people or fiat currency value determined by politicians.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Wayne Smith • • •@theoldbeginner @JorgeStolfi @prestontumber @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
You have missed the point: supply-constrained currency MUST fluctuate when demand changes. If you can't expand the pool of currency available when the economy grows, then the value of currency shoots up (deflation) and if you can't annihilate money when the economy shrinks, the value plummets (inflation).
The point of a central bank is to adjust monetary supply to maximize stability.
clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Roderick
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Runyan50
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Preston Is Not My Real Name
in reply to Runyan50 • • •Runyan50
in reply to Preston Is Not My Real Name • • •Preston Is Not My Real Name
in reply to Runyan50 • • •Runyan50
in reply to Preston Is Not My Real Name • • •immibis
in reply to Runyan50 • • •I still think Circles looks interesting as an alternative or complement to the way money works now (but never used it and it runs on a blockchain platform): https://handbook.joincircles.net/docs/developers/whitepaper/
The idea is that each person has their own personal currency, and people can directly recognize each other’s currencies as valuable, or recognize them through directly trusted intermediaries. Trusting someone means a portion of your coins are available to be automatically swapped with their coins, which should be fine with you if you actually trust them.
Effective account balances start at 0 and tend towards 0 over time, from either direction.
I’m sure billionaires would find a way to cheese it anyway if it were widespread.
Whitepaper | Circles UBI | Handbook
handbook.joincircles.netPreston Is Not My Real Name
in reply to immibis • • •Wayne Murphy
in reply to immibis • • •@immibis @prestontumber @rvkennedy @theoldbeginner @JorgeStolfi @kcoyle @Runyan50 @KimPerales
I don't trust the duopoly supermarkets in my country to be customer-friendly, respect my data privacy, or be ethical in any way, but I would still like to buy a loaf of bread, please.
Jo Jitsu
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Bitcoin separates money from human labor by devaluing labor, taking money out of circulation encouraging hoarding to not cash out or actually use it as CURRENCY. It replaces labor value with OIL prices & wastes oil to increase prices & threat. It is a hostage taking.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@JorgeStolfi @prestontumber @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
But also because the value of BTC is - deliberately - extremely volatile. Any fixed-supply token is *necessarily* volatile, assuming variable demand. When demand goes up, so does the value, and when demand decreases, value goes down. This is why cryptos are all but useless as media of exchange and stores of value (hence the "pizza day" observance).
clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@JorgeStolfi @prestontumber @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
A city that needs to settle its own liabilities in dollars, and which accepts cryptos for tax liabilities, can end up with far less than it budgeted for if those tokens fall.
By contrast, a taxpayer who settles city tax in crypto could end up vastly *overpaying* their tax.
There is not - and will never be - an economy that runs on cryptos.
Preston Is Not My Real Name
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Preston Is Not My Real Name • •immibis likes this.
Preston Is Not My Real Name
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •immibis likes this.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •@shiri @kcoyle @rvkennedy @immibis @prestontumber
Another big lie that bitcoiners and goldbugs must tell their marks. Which comes from "Austrian Economy". Which explains (1) why Austrian Economy went the way of the phlogiston, long ago, and (2) why goldbugs and bitcoiners dug it out of its grave.
Gold (like any commodity) has value because it has CONSUMERS - people who buy it to consume, rather than with intent to re-sell. 🧵>
immibis likes this.
Cory Doctorow reshared this.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@shiri @kcoyle @rvkennedy @immibis @prestontumber@ma
stodon.social
🧵> The consumers of gold are mostly jewelers and decorators, and (to a smaller extent) industry. They buy some 2000 tons per year, more than half of what the miners dig out of the ground.
Those consumers demand gold because it is still the best metal for those purposes, with no competitors. It is that demand that makes gold valuable (and made it so since pre-history).
🧵>
clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@shiri @kcoyle @rvkennedy @immibis
🧵> The speculators -- people who buy gold with the intent of selling it later (as investment, "store of value", "hedge", contraband, etc) -- will affect the price, up or down, depending on whether they are net buyers or net sellers -- which can turn on a dime. But they alone cannot make something have lasting value, if there are no consumers. Which is the case of #Bitcoin💩...
immibis likes this.
Ongion
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@JorgeStolfi @shiri @kcoyle @rvkennedy @immibis
> "They alone cannot make something have lasting value, if there are no consumers."
Ahhh, so Bitcoin has value because of ransomware! 😝
like this
immibis and clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 like this.
Roderick
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Roderick • •@Roderick @Jorge Stolfi @karen coyle @immibis @Cory Doctorow @Pax Ahimsa Gethen that's got a number of things jumbled.
The debt ceiling has nothing to do with the central bank or printing money, it has to do with the government issuing bonds (taking on more debt).
The dollar value drops internationally because a failure to raise the debt ceiling also means the government defaults on it's debts. It's international debts are still in USD, so those debts are worth less if the US threatens to not pay them.
clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Roderick
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •immibis likes this.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Roderick • • •@rvkennedy @shiri @JorgeStolfi @kcoyle @immibis
Governments can and do issue currency without issuing corresponding liabilities. Selling bonds is just a crude way of constraining demand (by sequestering money) that might otherwise be created by currency issuance. But if a central bank anticipates an expansion in the goods and services for sale in its currency, there is no need to constrain demand.
clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@rvkennedy @shiri @JorgeStolfi @kcoyle @immibis
Sometimes central banks just don't issue bonds (cf various bailouts). Sometimes they ration (cf WWII). Sometimes they do a mix of all three (issuance, nonissuance, rationing).
Roderick
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Cory Doctorow
in reply to Roderick • • •@rvkennedy @shiri @JorgeStolfi @kcoyle @immibis
Every time a central bank allows its regulated fiscal agents to create money through lending, it directs the creation of money without corresponding liabilities.
One reason the private sector prefers austerity and fiscal-agent currency creation over central bank management is that bank shareholders get to collect rent on money that would otherwise generate much smaller T-bill coupons.
immibis likes this.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Roderick • • •@rvkennedy @shiri @kcoyle @immibis
It does not matter much HOW the central bank adjusts (up or down) the amount of currency in circulation. What matters is that it does so for the purpose of maintaining the value of the currency stable, apart from the planned inflation.
Sometimes the CB lacks resources to do that, or the gov forces it to print extra money as an easy way to close its budget. The likelihood of either varies from country to country...
immibis
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Shiri Bailem
in reply to Roderick • •@Roderick @Jorge Stolfi @karen coyle @immibis @Cory Doctorow @Pax Ahimsa Gethen again not how it works, taking on debt depletes money.
Because it's fiat and digital money is created by just saying it exists. That's through the fed interest rates, banks take loans from the fed to then issue loans to everyone else.
The value of the dollar is in faith, so it's less controlling supply and more controlling movement (ftr, gold based is not absolute as gold itself is a fiat currency, it's value established by faith, but with no central bank)
Roderick
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •immibis
in reply to Roderick • • •immibis
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •immibis
in reply to Roderick • • •immibis
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Doug Baker
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •That's pretty much what the US historically HAS done i.e. "print money for its budget". That's exactly what Galbraith pointed out in "Money" and how repeatedly it triggered "ruinous" (his word) inflation. Largely because of traditional American aversion to taxes, he thought.
Andy Polaine
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@JorgeStolfi @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle It’s nothing to do with trust of the Fed. That’s why people head to gold in times of financial crisis.
Money is based upon debt, without which it has no value, and sovereign currencies are valuable entirely because of the state’s monopoly on violence (police, army, laws) to call in that debt.
The best primer on this is David Greaber’s *Debt: The first 5,000 years* https://bookshop.org/p/books/debt-the-first-5-000-years-updated-and-expanded-david-graeber/8072806
Debt: The First 5,000 Years, Updated and Expanded (Revised) a book by David Graeber
Bookshopclacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Andy Polaine • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
From the editor's blurb, that book seems to be a big load of bullshit.
Since much before the "agrarian societies", up to a couple of centuries ago, people have been using commodities as money. Shells, flint, useful metals, barley, salt, tobacco rope, cows, ... Debt is a separate concept. It requires means to record it and to enforce its collection, which came much after money.
Roderick
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Roderick • • •@rvkennedy @apolaine @immibis @kcoyle
Whatever his credentials, money is NOT based on debt. Archaeology shows that money existed independently of debt for tens of millennia before debt accounting and enforcement was even possible.
Anyway, what do those books have to say about crypto and national currencies?
Andy Polaine
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Andy Polaine • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
Well, I don't need to argue this either...
Archaeology does provide plenty of evidence of trade in the Paleolithic. It also provides some evidence of commodity money. What evidence does is provide of debt?
Andy Polaine
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Andy Polaine • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
Just google "trade in the paleolithic". Here is just one random sample: https://isaw.nyu.edu/exhibitions/oldeurope/pdf/spondylus.pdf
Scholars of the origin of money often invent history to fit their theory -- and usually develop their theory to "prove" particular points, political or commercial.
🧵>
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
🧵>
For instance, the promoters of gold and gold funds needed a theory that said (1) gold is the best way to keep your savings, and (2) it is a good investment at any price. Thus they ressuscitated Austrian Economics, that claims that (1) gold is the best form of money ever, and (2) value is entirely subjective, thus it makes no sense to say that something is overpriced 🧵>
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
🧵> And, in order to "deduce" these points, "Austrian economists" invented their own history of money -- claiming that gold was the best form of money in antiquity, and that it became such because people just agreed that it had value.
🧵>
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
🧵> Crypto promoters have similar "needs", and thus they too adopted "Austrian Economics". With the small adjustment that crypto is "like digital gold". But they also need the theory that people use a national currency only because the gov forces them to, with guns (and not because the central bank keeps its value stable). So that they can claim that crypto too can be widely accepted, "because" it can escape the gov's control. 🧵>
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
🧵> In particular, Austrian Economics
lists several properties that supposedly define "good money", like fungibility, divisibility, etc. Which, conveniently, crypto also has. But AE omits the most important property: having a consuming demand for uses other than money -- which is what gives value to gold and other commodity money (the only type that AE considers). 🧵>
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
🧵> Austrian Economics could include that property in the definition, because it would imply that the value of a commodity like gold is not the same as its market price; and hence it CAN be overpriced (which is clearly the case now).
Andy Polaine
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Andy Polaine • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
That is exactly the stupid fictional history that Austrian Economics just invented.
Gold was one of the first metals that humans used, second only to native copper. The earliest *known* artifacts have been dated ~4800 BC. Gold was prized because, besides being pretty and "incorruptible", it could be welded and shaped by cold hammering. 🧵>
Andy Polaine
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@JorgeStolfi @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle At times when that relationship shifts, it all goes to pieces (when the metal of coins is worth more than the face value or conversely in hyperinflation).
You’re conflating money as a concept with the materiality of the debt marker.
Crypto also deliberately attempts this while avoiding the devastation of its material energy needs.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Andy Polaine • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
Metal coins were essentially the same as the gold bars of today. They were just ingots with weight and composition standardized by the government, so that they could be just counted instead of weighted and assayed at every trade. Jewelers who needed gold or silver would acquire gold or silver coins and melt them. 🧵>
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
🧵> Indeed, occasionally a gov would try to make extra money by issuing debased coins. Say, it would collect 100 kg of gold in taxes, amd instead of turning that into 1000 gold pazuzas, it would mix it with copper to make 2000 "pazuzas" and try to use those to pay soldiers and buy concubines etc.
At first people might accept the new coins as being the same as the old ones, but soon the ruse would be noticed 🧵>
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
🧵> and then (a) people would start charging two pazuzas for things that before cost just one pazuza, and (b) the old "1 pazuza" coins would be meted and the gold would then be sold for two new pazuzas.
Andy Polaine
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@JorgeStolfi @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle I’m stopping here. There’s so much incorrect in this account mixed in with things that are correct.
I’d be happy to continue this once you’ve read Graeber’s book and we’re arguing within the same terms.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Andy Polaine • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
Please point out one thing that is incorrect...
Andy Polaine
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Andy Polaine • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
Well, I would say that it is you who got it wrong...
Would you at least admit that the oldest known gold ornaments are at least 1000 years older than the civilizations of Sumer and Egypt, which is where Graeber claims that trade started?
immibis
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Jorge Stolfi
in reply to immibis • • •@immibis @rvkennedy @kcoyle @apolaine
Can be. "Money" is anything that people do not want, but accept in trades because they believe they can exchange later for things that they want.
Thus "money" is not a binary category. Anything can be money, to greater or smaller degree -- depending on how many people use it as such.
Gold, feathers, beads, and cowrie shells are examples of ornaments that had wide acceptance as money in the past.
Andy Polaine
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@JorgeStolfi @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle if you’re genuinely interested in a very short explanation, read the answer to the “You examined 5000 years of economic and cultural behavior. Would you ever suggest that capitalism as we know it needs to change?” question here: https://davidgraeber.org/articles/david-graeber-studied-5000-years-of-debt/
Virtual money is not new. Hence the applicability of history to crypto.
David Graeber studied 5,000 years of debt – David Graeber
davidgraeber.orgclacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
immibis
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Jorge Stolfi
in reply to immibis • • •@immibis @rvkennedy @kcoyle @apolaine
Money is a convenient tool in all sorts of economic transactions, including lending, borrowing, trading on credit. It simplifies keeping track of the amount of debt, computing interest, and making and settling debts.
But is NOT "a type of debt". Neither commodity money nor fiat currencies are a debt owed to someone or by someone.
🧵>
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •immibis
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •I repeat: Money is a type of debt that lets you choose who owes you and what kind of thing they owe you, instead of that being pre-defined. In exchange, things usually cost more if you buy them with money instead of debt (e.g. pre-orders).
Debt is *also* a convenient tool in the stuff you mentioned.
Don't conflate commodity money with commodities. When we attach the money property to a pile of gold, the gold isn't the money property, even though it has the money property.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to immibis • • •@immibis @rvkennedy @kcoyle @apolaine
Just repeating it does not make it true.
Money is debt only if you define "debt" in a very weird way.
immibis
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Jorge Stolfi
in reply to immibis • • •@immibis @rvkennedy @kcoyle @apolaine
That is juts not what the word "owe" means.
If I hold a $100 bill, no one owes me anything. Someone may accept it in exchange for something else, OR NOT -- it is their choice.
immibis
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Jorge Stolfi
in reply to immibis • • •@immibis @rvkennedy @kcoyle @apolaine
Again, NO, those people do not "owe" me those things. They MAY give them to me, but may refuse to do so. That is not what the words "owe" and "debt" mean.
"Money is debt" seems to be an economics Flat Earth theory...
immibis
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Jorge Stolfi
in reply to immibis • • •@immibis @rvkennedy @kcoyle @apolaine
What? In what planet do you live?
immibis
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Jorge Stolfi
in reply to immibis • • •@immibis @rvkennedy @kcoyle @apolaine
I live in a planet where people will sell me things only if they want to. Not because they are obliged to sell to anyone who has money. It is called "Earth".
immibis
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Jorge Stolfi
in reply to immibis • • •@immibis @rvkennedy @kcoyle @apolaine
Frankly, I cannot make sense of your claims. You seem to have no experience at all with using money.
immibis
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Jorge Stolfi
in reply to immibis • • •@immibis @rvkennedy @kcoyle @apolaine
Your problem is not with money theory, but with the English language.
Can´t you really see the difference between "I can buy $100 of stuff with a $100 bill" and "people must give me $100 of stuff if I have a $100 bill"?
For the nth time: the words "owe" and "debt" DO NOT MEAN AT ALL WHAT YOU SAY THEY MEAN.
Andy Polaine
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@JorgeStolfi @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle this is a common misconception and exactly what Graeber spent 560 pages debunking. You won’t get it from the cover blurb.
Debt came first. Money is a marker of debt (whether shells or dollars). Markets as we understand them came later.
clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Andy Polaine • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
Trade, not debt, came first. Then money. Then debt.
Money is something that a person does not really want, but accepts in a trade because he trusts that he will be able to trade at another place and/or time for something that he really wants. It makes trade more effective, by removing the need to match needs and offers in trades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOauOJg-fCQ
🧵>
The Trader (Sovdagari) | Official Trailer [HD] | Netflix
YouTubeJorge Stolfi
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
🧵> Money is not a yes/no category. The ability of something to function as money can vary from null to near perfect, and may depend more or less with time and place. The USD is arguably the best form of money that humanity has ever known. Whereas crypto, in that respect, is a laughable failure.
Roderick
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •It was not trade, then money, then debt, according the the best info we have (I'm not the expert but believe the experts like Graeber).
It was trade first. That created debt, "You gave me an apple, so I owe you a favour." - an apple again, a share of meat, some work, whatever. That's debt. Much, much later, came money, as a formalization of debt.
clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Roderick • • •@rvkennedy
In what sense am I "insisting on the libertarian framing of money that crypto is based on"?
Libertarians want the government reduced to police protection of property. I am explaining that fiat currencies only work if they have a central bank that actively stabilizes their value with a small inflation.
Graeber's is only a new theory, and by no means widely accepted. There is no evidence of debt before there were governments with judges and cops.
🧵>
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@rvkennedy
Economy in hunter-gatherer tribes was (and still is) not based on trade, debt, or gift, but on sharing: the hunters who catch prey share it with those who came back empty-handed. Everybody made beer for the parties, to be drunk by everybody. There was no tallying of how much each hunted or ate.
Trade was mostly between tribes. It started as "I want a pumpkin and have a spare pot, you want a pot and have a spare pumpkin, let's trade". 🧵>
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@rvkennedy
🧵> And pretty soon that evolved by the use of "money" -- things that were accepted in trade not because they were wanted, but because they could be exchanged later for other things. Obsidian blanks, conch an cowrie shells, ivory stock... There are deposits of such items far from their place of origin, and in exces of what a single person could use. 🧵>
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Andy Polaine • • •@apolaine @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
No, it has nothing to do with guns.
People dump a national currency when they fear that it will soon lose a lot of its value. That is, when they lose their faith in its central bank -- even if they don't know that it is the central bank that stabilizes the value.
(And gold has value only because it is a commodity with a CONSUMING demand.)
Princess Unikitty
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@JorgeStolfi @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
Sure fiscal policy etc etc. But underlying that is the fact that the US is a hegemonic world power that routinely exercises its power the world over. It's not just that the IRS will come knocking domestically - you might also get regime-changed (or at least embargo'd) if you step too far out of line.
Yes, we have very good bean counters but that wouldn't mean nearly as much if we didn't also have the best military capabilities and a track record of using them.
Ikaika Hussey
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •immibis
in reply to Ikaika Hussey • • •If we all stopped using the USD tomorrow, except for billionaires, all they could do is speculatively trade their USD with other billionaires for currencies that were still traded. If we all made it extremely clear we'd never use USD ever again, no other billionaires would be willing to accept USD for trading.
They will stop at absolutely nothing to ensure this doesn't happen and we never get anywhere close to this.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to immibis • • •@immibis @ikaikahussey @rvkennedy @kcoyle
Yeah. And if we all stopped eating, except for the restaurant owners, they would all have to close shop.
And if we all moved to Mars, except the landlords, they would all go bankrupt.
And if we all stopped breathing, except for the scuba tank makers, they would all be buried under millions of unsold tanks.
And if
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Ikaika Hussey • • •@ikaikahussey @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
The Swiss franc, the Norwegian and Danish krones, and the Singapore dollar are among the most stable currencies in the world. Hardly because of their guns...
immibis
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Outsourced guns. Every rich person would defend Switzerland since that's where their wealth is. The swiss franc also has some characteristics of @wakame 's "billionaire bucks" for that reason.
Plus, Switzerland is notoriously impossible to invade.
Scandinavia has oil, so it has the choice of playing on the USA's terms for benefits, or getting regular deliveries of freedom. This is normal in all power hierarchies - you can get yourself elevated from the bottom to the middle by protecting the top from the bottom and middle.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to immibis • • •Squirm squirm...
Switzerland is not "notoriously impossible to invade". It was conquered by the Romans, then by the French and Germans in the Middle Ages, and later by Napoleon.
If guns is what matter, why should the US support Norway's "violent" imposition of krona, instead of just taking its oil and forging it to use USD?
reshared this
Cory Doctorow and Grrrr, Darth Moose Shark reshared this.
GI Jack: All American Zero
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@JorgeStolfi
@immibis @pluralistic @ikaikahussey @rvkennedy @funcrunch @kcoyle @wakame
that settles it. We invade switzerland and take their chocolate
Michael Roberts
in reply to Roderick • • •clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛
in reply to Michael Roberts • • •@Michael Roberts Yes, your suppliers accept USD because their suppliers accept USD because their suppliers accept USD ... but:
They're all free to invoice in EUR if they like, and they may accept payment in EUR, but they're all required to accept settlement of debt in USD. And they all need to pay taxes in USD. The people with the monopoly on force decided that. That's where the cycle terminates.
In countries where the people in power changed their mind on which currency to use, the businesses in the country quickly changed their mind too.
@Roderick @karen coyle @immibis @Cory Doctorow @Pax Ahimsa Gethen
immibis likes this.
Jorge Stolfi
Unknown parent • • •@brinnbelyea @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
Because the central bank keeps it stable.
The central bank of any national fiat currency monitors prices of tens of thousands of products and services, all over the country, every month. From that data it estimates the monthly inflation rate (change in the currency's value). Then it intervenes in the money supply as needed to push the inflation towards the yearly goal.
Cory Doctorow reshared this.
Jorge Stolfi
Unknown parent • • •@immibis @brinnbelyea @rvkennedy @kcoyle
You mean, like the stablecoins? Yes, if you did that job for a cryptocurrency, it would have a stable value.
Two small problems, however. You must have the resources needed to intervene in the money supply. And, with a central bank, the currency -- guess what -- would be centralized...
Shiri Bailem likes this.
immibis
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Cory Doctorow
Unknown parent • • •@immibis @brinnbelyea @rvkennedy @JorgeStolfi @kcoyle
No, because there are NO nondiscretionary liabilities that you can settle with a stablecoin. Literally there is nothing that you *need* a stablecoin to buy.
By contrast, monetarily sovereign nations issue a token that everyone within their borders *must* acquire to settle a liability. This creates durable demand for that token that is foundationally different from any other "currency."
See https://locusmag.com/2022/09/cory-doctorow-moneylike/
Cory Doctorow: Moneylike
Locus Onlineimmibis
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •If you insisted that the IRS must accept a Terrra "coin" for your tax liability, they would eventually put you in prison.
The whole point of "web3" was to create nondiscretionary liabilities that could only be settled in crypto. The idea was to remake the internet - which everyone must use to participate in modern society - so that using it required cryptos, so that normies could be coerced into trading real money for crypto.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to immibis • • •@immibis @brinnbelyea @rvkennedy @kcoyle
Yes, stablecoins have a stable value because they have a central bank that regulates the supply to match an alleged hoard of USD in the bank's possession. The thing works as long as the matching USD actually exist, or until users find that they don't, and rush to exchange the coins before the hoard is exhausted or the bankers flee to Bali.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@immibis @brinnbelyea @rvkennedy @kcoyle
Again, that is not true. That is just bullshit that bitcoin promoters say.
Stablecoins (allegedly) backed by USD have a value about as stable as that of the USD. Yet no one is forced to use them.
Cory Doctorow
Unknown parent • • •@immibis @brinnbelyea @rvkennedy @JorgeStolfi @kcoyle
A "landlordcoin" presumes a coercive state that creates stable property relations. For "landlordcoins" to be durably valuable, landlords would have control such an appreciable fraction of homes that you couldn't shelter yourself without doing work for landlordcoins. The only precedent for this is company towns - open-air prisons for indentured laborers - and as bad as those are, they're not society-scale institutions.
immibis
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@immibis @brinnbelyea @rvkennedy @JorgeStolfi @kcoyle
Moreover, the point of the "landlordcoin" would be for landlords to eventually find someone who'd give landlords real money in exchange for their scrip, because oil companies and chip companies and fiber providers don't need landlordcoins, and won't sell the landlords these necessities for play-money.
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@immibis @brinnbelyea @rvkennedy @kcoyle
The whole point of "web3" is to convince more suckers to invest in cryptos. Because the ponzi, like any ponzi, will keep running only as long as there are enough suckers putting their spare money into it. As old lies lose their force ("better than credit cards", "will be the reserve currency of the world", "escape oppression and taxes", "the LN solves all its problems", ...) new lies must be invented in their place...
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@JorgeStolfi @immibis @brinnbelyea @rvkennedy @kcoyle
I think you're convincing the short-term utility of web3 (an "investor story" to entice greater fools to buy cryptos from their issuers) with its long-term vision (a web where coin issuers are able to extract rent for the daily necessities we obtain online).
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@immibis @brinnbelyea @rvkennedy @kcoyle
You mean, one day every random dude will be able to quit his job and just make steady money by watching some complicated "web3" pinball machine play itself, churning his money?
Will I then be able to buy a yacht and drink champagne and enjoy sun breeze water with three girls in bikini on either side? Sounds wonderful! Where should I stuff my money into?
Shiri Bailem
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • •Runyan50
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •immibis
in reply to Shiri Bailem • • •Jorge Stolfi
Unknown parent • • •@zockel @ikaikahussey @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
They own a lot of HAND guns, mostly because they get to take home their rifle after army service. Those guns would be of little use against an invasion by the US. If they were that powerful, why didn't they protect the citizens against the imposition of the franc by their government?
Come on, give up. "People accept the USD because they are forced to" is just a silly lie that crypto promoters tell their marks. 🧵>
Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •@zockel @ikaikahussey @rvkennedy @immibis @kcoyle
🧵> The fact is that national currencies have stable value only because (and to the extent that) they have central banks with the mission and resources to stabilize their value.
And people use a currency only if (and because) they trust that its value will be stable.
Roderick
in reply to Jorge Stolfi • • •Jorge Stolfi
in reply to Roderick • • •@rvkennedy @zockel @ikaikahussey @immibis @kcoyle
No, no, no. For starters, crypto is a fiat currency too.
National currencies work as money because they have a central bank that stabilizes their value, AND have inflation of a few %/yr, AND other things.
A cryptocurrency, by definition, cannot have a central bank; and its buyers believe that its value will "eventually" go up! Up!! UP!!!. And those are only two of the reasons why cryptos cannot be money.
clacke: inhibited exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛 likes this.