Bitcoins and gold standard dollars -- was Re: Anyone want to make a housecall?

S. Dale Morrey sdalemorrey at gmail.com
Mon Jun 3 22:21:17 MDT 2013


More eyes don't always squash bugs.  I seem to remember a problem with
OpenSSL awhile ago where someone was initializing a pointer to 0 or
something when it was supposed to be there as a random value.  Ended up
causing a major exploit and a huge mess.  More eyes would cause political
pressure to decide one way or the other.



On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Joshua Marsh <joshua at themarshians.com>wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Levi Pearson <levipearson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > No, the law does not allow shares to be sold to the public.  There was
> > a provision that allowed it *at the time the Fed was created*, but
> > only *if* the regional banks did not meet their funding goals through
> > sale of shares to the banks as I described.  They did meet their
> > funding goals, so no public shares.
>
>
> Do you have somewhere I could read more about this? My google-foo wasn't
> sufficient. The only thing I've read about it was from the original law.
>
>
> > By 'these people' I assume you mean the FOMC, because they're the ones
> > that control the open market operations of the Fed.  When have you
> > ever seen 12 elected or appointed people work together that closely on
> > something that requires that kind of subtle manipulation?
>
>
> It's happened enough that sociologists have studied it and coined a term
> for it: oligarchy. These people weren't 7-11 cashiers in their previous
> position. Powerful and rich people like to keep their power and money. In a
> political system where you have to solicit $1 billion dollars to become the
> president, it's can't be too far fetched to assume some of that money comes
> with strings attached. It doesn't seem like a stretch to me to have
> financial savvy people conspire to make money.
>
>
>
> >  And where are you getting the 'government gets a large kickback on those
> > profits' thing?  Are you referring to the Fed returning the majority
> > of the interest it collects on Treasury securities to the Treasury?
> > This means that somewhere around 7% of the national debt is actually
> > interest-free.  Not really a kick-back.
> >
>
> Congress passed a law that gives power to an organization that gave the
> government $90 billion dollars last year. Is it financially smart? Sure. Is
> it a kick-back? I think so.
>
>
> > So, what this comes down to-- do you trust the idea of having elected
> > officials appointing people to make decisions for the governance of
> > the Federal Reserve?  Or do you think the people should have a more
> > direct say in what's happening via a more democratic process?
>
>
> I'm actually OK in general with the system. My biggest complaint is
> transparency. I may not be able to wade through the details if they were
> released, but there are professors of economics who would. Much like
> open-source software, it could lead to more eyes squashing bugs and
> preventing tampering.
>
> /*
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
> */
>


More information about the PLUG mailing list