Hacker News Reader

Comment by conchy | Hacker News Reader

Strange that the emergence of non-State digital cryptocurrencies was not even mentioned in this article. Is it that radical to envision that perhaps one day the successor to the U.S. dollar might not be fiat currency backed by any single state?

View on HN

>on-State digital cryptocurrencies was not even mentioned in this article.

I'm probably in the minority on these boards, so call me crazy: I want my currency backed by the economic and military might of the state.

To me, "money" is a means of performing transactions and acquiring real assets. I don't need a hunk of metal or a fancy digital wallet that is "unreproducible" to do that. Being able to print money is a feature of the system, not a detriment. The current system works well enough for me, for now.

> I want my currency backed by the economic and military might of the state

You realize that this means you're actively supporting murder, surveillance, and debt slavery built on the backs of the unborn, right? Sure it's easier to just go with the status quo currency flow, but that doesn't make it the most ethical or moral choice.

>murder, surveillance, and debt slavery built on the backs of the unborn

None of these things are unique to fiat currency, as distinct from capitalism as a whole.

That's true. But it is also true that, in the specific case of the US dollar, it's backed by US hegemony. That hegemony is brittle, and supported by an outsize military that was misused in a way that almost broke the nation in combination with a derivatives crash that could easily have caused a global depression. The US's ability to get away with ZIRP, QE(n), etc. rests on "You and what army?" and on a hegemony where vassal states have no decision-making autonomy and submit themselves to US surveillance.

We're only partway out of that crisis, and it could come roaring back. Chest-thumping about "Where else ya gonna go?" is unproductive.

I don't see US hegemony as good or evil, except if you call brittleness that could lead to a very deep unprecedented crisis "evil."

You can survive by using a cryptocurrency as long as you're poor, or as long as you exist on the margins.

If you have a job, the government will mandate that you get paid in "real money" and it will demand its not-inconsiderable cut in taxes. You want to buy some food? Ok, buy it in bitcoin, but give us our 8% sales tax in "real money". Property tax on your house? That's 3% of assessed value, "real money" only. Etc.

As one pundit tweeted: "You know what's cooler than a million dollars? Virtual currency backed by nothing and nobody."

Your government shouldn't care what form of money you're using, as long as it gets its fair taxes.

All currencies are fiat currencies. There is literally no other kind of currency.

So, yes, it is that radical... and the suggestion betrays an immature understanding of what currency is.

Yes, it is that radical. Some parts of the Internet like HN are extremely pro-cryptocurrency, but this is not in any way reflective of the world at large.

In the rest of the world, most people don't know about Bitcoin, most of the people who know don't care, and a fraction that I won't try to estimate care but dislike it.

It makes no sense to expect a mention of cryptocurrency in every article about currency.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com