On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Andy Bradford <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
You're not addressing the *other* point made in the email you're
responding to, which is the same one I've been making and which you
refuse to touch with a 10 foot pole. We're not talking about the
behavior of banks, we're talking about the downsides of having
multiple currencies in circulation in a market. Please stay on point.
--Levi
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
