|
|
|
|
|
|
by tekproxy
2904 days ago
|
|
|
I think the effects would have been worse in the short term, but the long term effect is much worse -- signaling to an industry that wanton risk taking will essentially be rewarded and if you're large and connected enough the government will debase the currency to keep you in business, so you're free to fuck up again. I think you're arguing on the side of "countries need monarchies because the people can't be trusted" and "printing presses allow seditious ideas to spread and must be outlawed or tightly controlled", but, again, I can't be certain. How is it that we can have two totally different interpretations of the truth? Isn't economics a science? Why is it that there are such varying opinions? I think it's because economies are too complex for any one person to accurately model. What you need is markets to decide what works and what's valuable and what the prices should be. What you need is competition, and that's what cryptocurrencies provide. Bitcoin is already competing with weak currencies of corrupt governments and winning. A lot of improvements need to be made before Bitcoin is anywhere close to making a run for the #1 currency in the world, but if you're watching the technology closely, there's still a lot happening in crypto and it might be sooner than you think. |
|
|
Hard to imagine how you reached that conclusion from what I wrote.
I do somewhat agree that having the precedent of a prior bailout might encourage some potentially stupid behaviour that might not otherwise be considered. The alternative, however, is much worse (in my opinion). The point isn't to keep Morgan Stanley or Merrill Lynch or whoever in business, the point is to make sure that the rest of the country doesn't lose their entire life savings because of one recession. If the cost of economic stability is propping up a few rich people, it's probably worth it considering the alternative. Of course, I'm sure the anarcho-captilist blockchain experts might feel differently.