[wahsd]

Although it also would disrupt several startups, I have been saying for a long while now that the payment processors like Visa, MC, etc., really shouldn't exist. The government should have its own digital currency and its own payment processing network.

If the government doesn't get on that, it is under serious risk of losing it's primary purpose of governance, to which currency and financial systems belong.

There is talk about the end of the dollar as a physical currency sometimes, but government types should really start realizing that simply handing over currency and payment processing to private entities represents probably the biggest threat to the westphalian nation state that ever existed.

One of the primary powers that cause people to congregate around a nation state government is the control of currency. It may even represent another major crack that could result in the fracturing of the USA.

[Lukeas14]

I disagree that private ownership of payment processors means the government is losing control of it's currency. I see Visa, MC, and banks in general as an abstraction of the dollar rather than a replacement for it. When I use a card or bank wire to transfer money I'm still technically sending dollars from one entity to another.

Since the gold standard has already proven to be too unstable, and cryptocurrencies haven't proven to be stable enough yet, I believe the only competition for the dollar is other nations' currencies. And determining which nation's currency will be the world standard is typically based on who has the strongest military and economy.

[bediger4000]

payment processors like Visa, MC, etc., really shouldn't exist

Agreed. When it's cheaper for a large company to do checks (physical or ACH) then we can pretty much assume that putting electronic money in the hands of for-profit entities like Visa and MasterCard is a real mistake. The cost of a credit card transaction is too damn high.

I will grant that a (US) government agency is cumbersome and inefficient and risible, but putting that amount of control in private entities is a mistake on many levels.

[darkmighty]

Payment processors are a cartel. I'm not from the US, and no other processors have really come up. It's basically an underlying tax on all products -- as much as I don't agree with the rest of parents post -- it really is absurd such simple tech isn't done by the government. It would be like delegating private presses for the dollar and in turn giving them a huge fee for bank deposits.

Not only checks, but the hallmark of irony in this is we still use paper money. It should be a lot cheaper and simpler to move bits!

It all goes to funding those cartels, and most of their spending is not to improve service but maintain the absurdity.

[eru]

> It would be like delegating private presses for the dollar and in turn giving them a huge fee for bank deposits.

As a mildly amusing aside: the Hong Kong dollar is printed privately, and issued by three private banks.

[darkmighty]

Haha that's nice trivia. Of the sort you hold onto for just the right moment :)

[eru]

My previous employer was amongst the three. So I specifically got one bill printed in their name, Standard Chartered.

[ypeterholmes]

Is your comment intentionally dripping in irony? The government ceded their control over the financial system long ago. Ask yourself, how many senators and congressman handle strictly financial matters? Ask yourself, who primarily earns interest on all the loans people take out? Ask yourself, why was the federal income tax prohibited in the original constitution?

[vezzy-fnord]

The government already has its own fiat currency that can also be handled digitally. I don't see any risk of the fiscal and monetary policy slipping out of their hands soon.

[prostoalex]

How does this work when you travel abroad? It seems like various currency-issuing governments are small-to-medium players in this arena with large transnational companies being the only ones to capture the economies of scale.

[theorique]

Bitcoin is going to break the backs of governments anyway - they can create their own digital currencies, but there's no guarantee that people will use them!

[obastani]

Sure there is -- they can make alternatives illegal. Then big companies must accept the government sponsored digital currency, which would make it the only currency viable for mass market (alternatively, no digital currency will be widely adopted).

[jamoes]

Do you think people would really accept the banning of certain pieces of code as legitimate?

The US government already lost the battle on "export grade" encryption, and I believe they'd lose any attempts to ban other code as well.

[blumkvist]

Boo! Party pooper!

[juliangregorian]

Silly thing to say. There's no guarantee that people will use Bitcoin - and indeed, most people don't.