Forgive me,(this is why we need the oligarchs to handle our money for us), but if you got rid of the federal reserve and the U.S. dollar and planned to replace the dollar with crypto, why not just replace the former gold standard with some other resource like uranium?
If every billionaire is starting their own cryptobank, what else incentivizes people to use one bank’s currency over another? It’s got to (hopefully) be something other than the reputation and trustworthiness of the men that own the bank.
If you have money in the bank, then suddenly the federal reserve is abolished what reason do you have to keep your money in a standard bank (like JP Morgan) other than their own questionable history/reputation and the assumption they can back the money you keep there with their investments.
If an emerging energy crisis were to make uranium one of the most valuable resources available, why assume your money is any safer in JP Morgan than a cryptobank that’s owned by the guy who also owns the own uranium mine that everyone else is investing in?
If every billionaire is starting their own cryptobank, what else incentivizes people to use one bank’s currency over another? It’s got to (hopefully) be something other than the reputation and trustworthiness of the men that own the bank.
This is exactly how banking works, trust and vibes.
The US Dollar is backed by the trust and assurance of the US government. Insert “our words are backed by nuclear weapons!” civ meme.
There’s a very loud and vocal minority that advocates for currencies backed by natural resources. This is generally considered a terrible idea, because it means your currency is heavily tied to commodity price fluctuations, resulting in much more volatility. E.g. during recessions, governments should spend more to lift the economy, but cannot do so they pursue a Gold Standard.
why not just replace the former gold standard with some other resource like uranium?
Because it’s not only not necessary, it makes the currency less dynamic. There’s no reason to tether the currency to any single asset or commodity. The basis of any fiat currency is all the products and services in the economy that can be exchanged for that currency. The best way to ensure the strength of your currency is to use your economy’s productive capacity to produce products and services that people want and need. As long as that’s happening, the currency is fine.
But without the federal reserve or something else guaranteed to back it why would you hand your money to the most corrupt and impulsive people in existence and assume your money is safe because they’re holding on to it for you?
Traditional banks have tanked the economy and had to be bailed out multiple times. The only rational reason to trust them is the federal reserve.
Why would you assume it’s any safer to hand it to the people who literally just tanked the economy after they reshuffled or stole every penny they could get their hands on and dumped it into AI.
I don’t support abolishing the Federal reserve, like some delusional lunatics do. The dollar should be managed by the Federal reserve and the Federal reserve should be run by capable, trustworthy, ethical experts in monetary systems and economics.
That being said, some reforms are likely necessary, so that our central bank has all of the tools and authority it needs to appropriately manage our nation’s fiat currency.
Sorry, wasn’t trying to imply you did support that, but that is definitely a concern with the people who are trying to dismantle the entire federal government. There is a good chance that if Trump is allowed to fire Powell, the ultimate goal will be to replace it with some sort of deregulated banking system.
If the federal reserve is successfully abolished and all banks essentially just become fully deregulated private businesses, your only option would be to trust a private business to hold your money for you or bury it all in a mayonnaise jar.
In just seems like if there were some kind of economic crisis, the safer bet would have to be a bank independently backed by its own standard/reserve instead of expecting a bailout.
I actually wouldn’t even necessarily be opposed to that in a normal world if there were enforceable laws and federal regulations that prevented billionaires from creating state protected monopolies instead of encouraging them. However, Thiel and Trump both see elimination of any competition as a smart business model, not corruption.
They might just assume people will eventually be forced to use their banking systems because they might end up being the only option. I’m just trying to understand the rationale (if there is one) for why Trump and Thiel would both try to open competing cryptobanks.
Obviously neither is trustworthy, they’ve both bankrupted multiple business deals in the past, but without the reserve, I feel like the most rational way to make one more competitive than the other would be to leverage some other resource they hold a monopoly on to make their bank the safer option, at least by comparison to one without any similar leverage.
The US hasn’t been on the gold standard since 1971.
Forgive me,(this is why we need the oligarchs to handle our money for us), but if you got rid of the federal reserve and the U.S. dollar and planned to replace the dollar with crypto, why not just replace the former gold standard with some other resource like uranium?
If every billionaire is starting their own cryptobank, what else incentivizes people to use one bank’s currency over another? It’s got to (hopefully) be something other than the reputation and trustworthiness of the men that own the bank.
If you have money in the bank, then suddenly the federal reserve is abolished what reason do you have to keep your money in a standard bank (like JP Morgan) other than their own questionable history/reputation and the assumption they can back the money you keep there with their investments.
If an emerging energy crisis were to make uranium one of the most valuable resources available, why assume your money is any safer in JP Morgan than a cryptobank that’s owned by the guy who also owns the own uranium mine that everyone else is investing in?
This is exactly how banking works, trust and vibes.
The US Dollar is backed by the trust and assurance of the US government. Insert “our words are backed by nuclear weapons!” civ meme.
There’s a very loud and vocal minority that advocates for currencies backed by natural resources. This is generally considered a terrible idea, because it means your currency is heavily tied to commodity price fluctuations, resulting in much more volatility. E.g. during recessions, governments should spend more to lift the economy, but cannot do so they pursue a Gold Standard.
Because it’s not only not necessary, it makes the currency less dynamic. There’s no reason to tether the currency to any single asset or commodity. The basis of any fiat currency is all the products and services in the economy that can be exchanged for that currency. The best way to ensure the strength of your currency is to use your economy’s productive capacity to produce products and services that people want and need. As long as that’s happening, the currency is fine.
But without the federal reserve or something else guaranteed to back it why would you hand your money to the most corrupt and impulsive people in existence and assume your money is safe because they’re holding on to it for you?
Traditional banks have tanked the economy and had to be bailed out multiple times. The only rational reason to trust them is the federal reserve.
Why would you assume it’s any safer to hand it to the people who literally just tanked the economy after they reshuffled or stole every penny they could get their hands on and dumped it into AI.
I don’t support abolishing the Federal reserve, like some delusional lunatics do. The dollar should be managed by the Federal reserve and the Federal reserve should be run by capable, trustworthy, ethical experts in monetary systems and economics.
That being said, some reforms are likely necessary, so that our central bank has all of the tools and authority it needs to appropriately manage our nation’s fiat currency.
Sorry, wasn’t trying to imply you did support that, but that is definitely a concern with the people who are trying to dismantle the entire federal government. There is a good chance that if Trump is allowed to fire Powell, the ultimate goal will be to replace it with some sort of deregulated banking system.
If the federal reserve is successfully abolished and all banks essentially just become fully deregulated private businesses, your only option would be to trust a private business to hold your money for you or bury it all in a mayonnaise jar.
In just seems like if there were some kind of economic crisis, the safer bet would have to be a bank independently backed by its own standard/reserve instead of expecting a bailout.
I actually wouldn’t even necessarily be opposed to that in a normal world if there were enforceable laws and federal regulations that prevented billionaires from creating state protected monopolies instead of encouraging them. However, Thiel and Trump both see elimination of any competition as a smart business model, not corruption.
They might just assume people will eventually be forced to use their banking systems because they might end up being the only option. I’m just trying to understand the rationale (if there is one) for why Trump and Thiel would both try to open competing cryptobanks.
Obviously neither is trustworthy, they’ve both bankrupted multiple business deals in the past, but without the reserve, I feel like the most rational way to make one more competitive than the other would be to leverage some other resource they hold a monopoly on to make their bank the safer option, at least by comparison to one without any similar leverage.