[ExI] Must money be a state monopoly?

Adrian Tymes atymes at gmail.com
Tue Jun 10 05:40:11 UTC 2014


On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com> wrote:

> I'm aware of the libertarian roots of Bitcoin and other digital
> currencies, which some individuals hope (and some states fear) can become
> true currencies not printed and controlled by a state. I wonder if why it
> is that states do monopolize currencies (or try to) and what the dangers
> would be if states simply stopped doing this. Any thoughts?
>

The dangers are mainly to the states themselves.  They're more often forced
to fall short and be unable to pay when they promise way beyond what their
budgets can deliver.  This tends to make those in charge less popular.
Where those in power must run for reelection, they tend to get voted out of
office; those that stay in office (due to lack of elections or otherwise)
get to deal with the government being less trusted, and less able to
accomplish things.

Imagine what would happen to a government where everything it paid for had
to be fully paid in advance - no one would consider financing.  There would
be a lot less of everything government-funded: welfare, military, social
security, government-funded health care, you name it.

Worse, imagine what happens when the only people who will extend credit to
such a government, are foreign governments - with obvious ulterior motives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollarization is a good summary of this topic.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140609/b6b178ca/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list