irln

> I assumed this was an underlying requirement of a health currency?

You've just identified the most difficult problem facing the financial world today: how to expand the money supply at a rate that's fair to all market participants.

market participants === us

This is spot on.

> banks will eventually start looking more like investment intermediaries

As you stated if you divorce payments from lending they are simply investment intermediaries. I'd argue that today the payment systems versus lending mechanisms are completely independent and yet TBTF banks are protected via CB from failing as if the two (payment systems and lending) were inseparable.

I would also argue that the inability to impose negative interest rates on cash is an even bigger problem from their perspective than anonymity.

For the down votes, I didn't ask how to circumvent, I asked whether you circumvent. I guess the down votes are data points as well.

I appreciate it but for me it requires an additional step. Your response, in addition to being thoughtful is one data point to answering my initial question :).

This article to the Washington Post has a pay wall. Given the number of comments in this thread I wonder if the HN community has a large proportion of subscribers to WP or do folks simply circumvent it?

> objectively regulate

I think you misunderstood...regulate as in increase or decrease the creation of the medium of exchange through technology, not government entity.

Because it is an insanely interesting problem to try and solve technically.

That is, a medium of exchange is essential to a modern economy and yet how to objectively regulate the supply of that medium of exchange without exploitation can be considered somewhat of a paradox. The quest is to solve the paradox via ever evolving technological solutions.

No sarcasm intended here: Is the highest abstracted benefit of Universal basic income (other than the benefit to those that receive the basic income) that you cut out the middle person in social welfare distribution?

One thing that rings true is that the most difficult part of discovering an answer is formulating the "correct" question. Once you can articulate the actual question, finding the answer is straight forward.

I agree that 10,000 walking steps isn't enough, however, it's a great metric for monitoring throughout the day and realizing (on occasion) you haven't done much for the day and you need to get out and hustle.

Also, on the Fitbit, their analysis of a particular run with regard to your heart rate is very helpful.

I thought the only reason that banks had excess reserves was due to the fed paying 50 basis points of interest. This was the fed's way of preventing +/-$2.28 Trillion [1] from being loaned out thus adding $2.28 trillion x (fractional reserve rate...10 if mandatory reserves were 10%) to the money supply through lending. With negative interest rates excess reserves again become an expense, therefore removing banks disincentive to lend.

[1] https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXCSRESNS [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

1) The drop in prices could be a signal that people aren't creating stuff which could be a slow down in growth,

2) It's difficult to quantify the impact the oil and gas boom had as a percentage of global GDP growth and therefore what the impact will be in its absence.

With the tech bubble/bust you could look at underlying companies for the canary in the coal mine. With the housing bubble/bust as you mention you could look at each mortgage and the ability of the borrower to pay. When you have a bubble arguably in government debt, what is the mechanism of transparency to look for?

Making predictions about the adoption of technology is always perilous. However, after using Google's cardboard camera to take a few pictures on vacation and reviewing those pictures afterward I'm a believer. There's something about the immersive nature of those images that provide a very emotional contextual experience. If one is able to experience this with albeit relatively crude technology when compared to offerings like Oculus, I think these products could be very impactful.

I believe it is reverse repos [1] they are referring to.

"When the Desk conducts an overnight RRP, as in the current ON RRP exercise, it is selling an asset held in the System Open Market Account (SOMA) with an agreement to buy it back on the next business day. This leaves the SOMA portfolio the same size, as securities sold temporarily under repurchase agreements continue to be shown as assets held by the SOMA in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, but the transaction changes some of the liabilities on the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet from deposits to reverse repos while the trade is outstanding."

[1] https://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/rrp_faq.html

It will also be interesting to see how much of the FED Assets [1] will need to be sold directly or indirectly in open market action to get to their target rate.

[1] http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/Current/

I've found that using google docs works well if you frame the document title in the form of a question or statement: - What is a JavaScript constructor? - making rvm permanent in rvspec - postgresql listing, creating and dropping a db

Some of the "answers" are just a single line. Then all I have to remember is either something in the title or the gist of the thing I need to know and google docs search provides me with a list of related stuff.

I don't think that those that choose to drive would provide more risk than they do today, however, they would provide (my gut and no more) substantially more risk than driverless cars. What incentive would an insurance provider have to insure a human driver? Much higher premiums I suggest.

If AI driven cars achieve a superior safety record there won't be many human drivers...the insurance premiums will price most people out of the market. That is, the cost of insurance for human drivers will be exceedingly high.

My point is continuing extraordinary measures for seven years is contra to what these measures were initially articulated to address (e.g. emergency conditions != weak conditions).

Not sure I follow? The Fed has added +/- 3.6 Trillion to their balance sheet since the start of the great recession.[1] Excess reserves for banks went from 0 to +/- $2.5 Trillion during the same period. [2] The FED arguably brought us back from the brink but I would think that those emergency measures are for emergencies not to be used because things are "weak" but when things are on the "abyss". One person's opinion.

[1] https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WALCL [2] https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXCSRESNS

The US economy has been weak despite all of the stimulus. Respectfully, why would continuing policies that are meant to counteract emergency conditions help?

Non-sarcastic question: Who determines how to redistribute the obscene wealth?

That makes sense that this was originally published in 2009. It's like Mike Myer's asking for $1 million dollars as Austin Powers. The number now needs to be more like $1 Trillion dollars. <i fa fa-mike-myers-pinky-to-lip></>

It appears that the Fed is just in the business of managing perception. As weird as it sounds they want to get the checkmark for saying they raised the rate (e.g. 25 basis points) while at the same time sending a clear message that any other move upward will be a very slow process. I'm not sure you can have it both ways forever.

If the over supply of ships impacts it's usefulness is there access to the demand data points to compare?

Hi Patrick,

Will part of the game be writing the components of the exchange (order book, matching engine, etc.)?

I think this is a failure of anything that has very few actors making decisions. Central planning (not a political statement) does not work well in economies.

They have a drive-thru? :)