Thus said Richard Esplin on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 20:15:07 -0700: > However, I think a lot of the "market of currencies" sales pitch that > accompanies these innovations ignores the previous experience in > America and other countries with multiple simultaneously accepted > currencies.
Were not these previous experiences basically a failure on the part of the State to enforce redemption of specie? Given that wildcat bankers were essentially inflating their bank note production, shouldn't the State have required that they pay out or fail? Seems that we've had the ``too big to fail'' propaganda since at least the 1812s (when wildcat banking started to take off due to failure of the State to protect the consumers of money by demaning that they redeem them in specie upon demand). Those banks, unlink any other business that worked fraudulently and treated their customers as they did, were allowed to remain in business instead of being allowed to fail. This gave bankers even more incentive to inflate away because they knew they could count on the State to either bail them out or at least allow for extended periods of non-redemption into specie (aka bank holidays). I'm sorry, but I don't think that crypto currencies and the competition in money that they engage in are anything like wildcat banking. Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000000052db67bf /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
