Conversation

Notices

  1. @mjd do you think your counterargument still applies if a government accepts taxes in BitCoin as *one option*, not the only tax currency?

    Sunday, 26-Mar-17 13:03:52 UTC from quitter.se
    1. @strypey The government only issues and accepts cash or central bank (RBA/RBNZ) credits. When we pay tax our private sector bank credits (the bank's liabilities) are marked down, as are the bank's central bank assets ("reserves").

      Sunday, 26-Mar-17 13:24:56 UTC from microblog.ourcoffs.org.au
      1. @mjd surely if there is a will there is a way? eg the tax department could batch sell BTC within the country for its own currency

        Sunday, 26-Mar-17 13:25:57 UTC from quitter.se
        1. @mjd or the government could use it to pay down government debt to foreign actors willing to accept it

          Sunday, 26-Mar-17 13:26:50 UTC from quitter.se
          1. @mjd I'm not arguing for this though, to be clear, I'm just saying it would change the status of BTC from proxy currency to money

            Sunday, 26-Mar-17 13:27:29 UTC from quitter.se
          2. @strypey Government debt is money. There's no virtue in paying down government debt unless you think there's altogether too much money floating about. That's not a complaint I hear often.

            Sunday, 26-Mar-17 13:40:27 UTC from microblog.ourcoffs.org.au
            1. @mjd I think you're confusing 'budget deficit' (what you're talking about) with 'balance of payments' (what I'm talking about)

              Sunday, 26-Mar-17 13:46:16 UTC from quitter.se
              1. @strypey Okay, I didn't get that. But the domestic fiscal balance and the current account balance are both dollar-denominated, and I don't see what problem exists that can be solved by #

                Sunday, 26-Mar-17 14:07:27 UTC from microblog.ourcoffs.org.au
              2. @strypey If # sells stuff to # in $AU, AU doesn't have a problem; AU got a real asset in exchange for an accounting record. It's like an uncashed cheque; collect as many as you want. Frame them and hang them on the wall. There's more where that came from.

                Sunday, 26-Mar-17 14:12:03 UTC from microblog.ourcoffs.org.au
                1. @strypey The same transaction in # means # has to acquire Bitcoin somehow. And where someone who's left holding $AU ends up buying stuff available in $AU, usually from AU, someone who's holding Bitcoin has no incentive to make a reciprocal transaction.

                  Sunday, 26-Mar-17 14:18:02 UTC from microblog.ourcoffs.org.au
                  1. @strypey The # showered Marshall Plan $ on post-war Europe because they knew the $ would come home. It was more an indirect domestic industry subsidy than foreign aid.

                    Sunday, 26-Mar-17 14:25:08 UTC from microblog.ourcoffs.org.au
                    1. @strypey Hate to correct glorious leader #, but #'s substantial $US denominated financial assets don't mean that China is destroying the US. China has a vested interest in maintaining the value of the $US.

                      Sunday, 26-Mar-17 14:29:33 UTC from microblog.ourcoffs.org.au
                  2. @mjd "The same transaction in # means # has to acquire Bitcoin somehow" in this hypothetical, by accepting it in payment of tax

                    Sunday, 26-Mar-17 23:54:05 UTC from quitter.se
                    1. @mjd again, I'm not arguing for this. It would only be likely if # was used frequently in real transactions not just currency speculation

                      Sunday, 26-Mar-17 23:56:58 UTC from quitter.se
                      1. @mjd at present # engineering is controlled by BitBugs, who are using it as a store of value or a speculative hedge
                        http://qttr.at/1r1c

                        Sunday, 26-Mar-17 23:58:28 UTC from quitter.se
                        1. @mjd they do this at the expense of engineering # to be a useful internet currency for buying small amounts of actual goods and service

                          Sunday, 26-Mar-17 23:59:34 UTC from quitter.se
                          1. @strypey I agree, but I think the objective of "useful currency" requires an organised political constituency behind it, which # and most complementary currencies don't have.

                            Monday, 27-Mar-17 08:07:09 UTC from microblog.ourcoffs.org.au
                            1. @mjd I'm not sure how you define "organised political constituency" because it appears to me to have a very organised constituency

                              Monday, 27-Mar-17 08:40:51 UTC from quitter.se
                              1. @mjd i.e the people who are organising to make sure core code development optimizes store of value over medium of exchange

                                Monday, 27-Mar-17 08:41:33 UTC from quitter.se
                                1. @mjd a currency doesn't need state backing to be useful, but it does need to be practical for buying and selling lots of things people want

                                  Monday, 27-Mar-17 08:42:54 UTC from quitter.se
                                  1. @mjd proxies currencies can be just a useful as a medium of exchange as state-backed currencies if they are accepted widely enough

                                    Monday, 27-Mar-17 08:43:43 UTC from quitter.se
                                    1. @strypey My thinking on complementary currencies is evolving rapidly ATM. This from the BoE is useful context, though Smith's commodity currency story is a bit iffy (as I think # or the # crowd would agree). http://ur1.ca/qotce

                                      Monday, 27-Mar-17 10:10:33 UTC from microblog.ourcoffs.org.au
                                      1. @strypey # is more like a commodity currency than modern money. It's a financial asset with no corresponding financial liability. So nobody needs the assets to redeem their liabilities & its value is, like gold, tulips, or mortgage-backed securities, entirely speculative.

                                        Monday, 27-Mar-17 10:18:49 UTC from microblog.ourcoffs.org.au
            2. @mjd when our governent buys "cloud" services from MS, this creates 'balance of payments' debt just as it does if I buy MS services from NZ

              Sunday, 26-Mar-17 13:48:29 UTC from quitter.se
            3. @mjd paying the government portion of such balance of payments debt doesn't reduce the amount of money in the domestic economy AFAIK

              Sunday, 26-Mar-17 13:49:34 UTC from quitter.se
            4. @mjd running a budget surplus does, so in hard times govt. deficits are a good idea, which is one reason austerity is "handbag economics"

              Sunday, 26-Mar-17 13:51:16 UTC from quitter.se
    2. @strypey In that operation, we lose our bank's dollar-denominated credits, our bank breaks even, and the gov. has its previously-issued IOUs disappear in a puff of accountancy.

      Sunday, 26-Mar-17 13:30:31 UTC from microblog.ourcoffs.org.au
    3. @strypey The government _could_ decide to nullify tax debts with some amount of #, but that would be functionally equivalent to pegging the $ to a foreign currency or the price of some commodity.

      Sunday, 26-Mar-17 13:36:24 UTC from microblog.ourcoffs.org.au