Schmidt: Google Once Considered Issuing Currency

itwbennett writes "In his keynote speech at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said the company once 'had various proposals to have [its] own currency [it was] going to call Google Bucks.' The idea was to implement a 'peer-to-peer money' system, but it was squelched by legal issues."

Comments

Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

"Give me controll of a nation's money supply and i care who not sets its laws...."
-Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Given Google's veracity for hegemony, this type of news does not surprise me.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

Actual quote: "Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Fluffeh]

One would argue that they might not do a better job compared to the leaders that we currently vote in.

Here's one for you. Opt in citizenship to a nationless, territory free country. I wonder how many might not try to be a part of such a thing. I often wondered what would happen if a group started buying up adjoining land and reserved it for new members, and spread out and out as more members joined. Set up a civilised statute early on and let people come in as they wanted to.

It would be like colonising an already colonised land through market transactions and finance. I also think it would scare the bejesus out of the governments.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Entropius]

I would sign up for this in a heartbeat.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[sg_oneill]

Here's one for you. Opt in citizenship to a nationless, territory free country.

Awesome, two sets of laws to follow instead of one! Why just the other day I was thinking "Shit , you know what I dont have enough of in my life? Laws!"

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Luckyo]

It would simply die to lack of recognition. It doesn't work if no one recognises you as a country, and no one would.

Sure, you could set extra rules, laws and power structure. But these would only exist on top of what is already in existence in the location of your choice. These mechanisms already exist in many countries, ranging from religious enclaves in Israel and Amish settlements in USA to anarchists of Freetown of Christiania. There are also lesser cases of this, like agreeing to arbitrage by certain courts (for example sharia courts in UK).

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

go for it...

http://www.wirtland.com/

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Gideon Wells]

You think laws are bad enough in lagging behind technology? This would take it to a whole new level. I can see it now.

"By joining this territory free country you have rejected your citizenship in every physical country. The international laws do not recognize virtual countries. We are going to keep you in this cell for a while..."

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It sounds like what you need is a good Home Owner's Association!

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

There are also lesser cases of this, like agreeing to arbitrage by certain courts (for example sharia courts in UK).

There are sharia courts in the UK? SCARY!

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[EdZ]

There are also lesser cases of this, like agreeing to arbitrage by certain courts (for example sharia courts in UK)

Only if you fall into the insane alternate universe inhabited by the Daily Fail or similar nonsense-rags.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Luckyo]

Why? If people feel that they can get arbitrage which suits their beliefs better then government's system, and all parties agree to such arbitrage, and such arbitrage is fully compliant with the existing laws, why is it scary?

I'll assume this was just a bad case of sarcasm malfunction on my part.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[timeOday]

Arbitration (not arbitrage) occurs in various contexts all the time. The same people who freak out about Muslims doing this among themselves, of course, have no qualms about this common practice in business, for example. Or maybe they are just mad because they assume the Muslims stole the idea from 1 Corinthians Chapter 6 in the New Testament (yes, secular courts are clearly unbiblical).

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Corbets]

Given Google's veracity for hegemony, this type of news does not surprise me.

I'm guessing you meant voracity - but their habitual truthfulness in leadership may also be unsurprising, I don't know.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[phantomfive]

"Give me controll of a nation's money supply and i care who not sets its laws...."

When I read that quote, I think, "So, a banker thinks he's the most important person in the country. Who would have guessed that a banker would have an overinflated ego?"

Seriously, the one making laws has so many ways to rip control from the one controlling the money, that only a serious lack of creativity could make you believe that the banker was more powerful. To take one example from US history, the lawmakers could confiscate everyone's gold.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[CodeBuster]

It sounds like what you need is a good Home Owner's Association!

That's like living in the "People's Republic of Suburbia", complete with central committee (HOA board), secret police (rent-a-cops), and informants (nosy neighbors).

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[LordSnooty]

They do exist - without official recognition but if both sides agree to use one they can be as legally enforceable as a contract.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

An employee will go home and he'll tell his neighbor, 'Hey, did you get an award?' And the neighbor will say, 'No man, I mean I slave all day and nobody notices me.' Next thing you know, employee smells something terrible coming from the neighbor’s house. Neighbor’s hanged himself... due to lack of recognition.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[gl4ss]

arbitrage is fully compliant with the existing laws

in which case no need for arbitrage was necessary, really. but in context of sharia.. it's not fully compliant in any way nor would it's decisions be lawfully binding so..

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[crutchy]

so when you lose your job, do you sign up to their corporate welfare office?

if i were a shareholder of such corporation, I would think it were a good idea

corporations have no ethics. we would all wind up being slaves to corporate gluttony

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[JoelKatz]

Sharia arbitration courts issue rulings that are legally binding on those who have agreed to be bound by them. So, for example, if you and I both wanted to, we could enter into a contract that stipulates that any disputes that arise over the terms of the contract would be settled by a Sharia arbitration court. The rulings would be legally enforceable, provided:

1) The only parties were those who had agreed by contract to be bound by the arbitration prior to the dispute arising.

2) The case is purely civil, not criminal.

3) The court doesn't violate public policy. (For example, if the court refused to allow women to testify, the ruling would likely be unenforceable.)

Orthodox Jews and several other groups have their own "courts" that arbitrate disputes among those who consent by contract to their jurisdiction. Generally, their rulings are enforceable in ordinary civil courts.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

"territory free country"?

That's a bit like 'oxygen free air' - which you are welcome to try using in your 'territory free country'.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[bjourne]

That's exactly how Palestine was colonized by Zionists in the 1930-40:s. Except not everyone was free to join, only those of Jewish ancestry. I'd imagine the same thing would happen now as it did then - if you have enough money you can buy your way through.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't that describe Judaism a hundred years ago? (Well, minus the easy opt-in part.) Or any diaspora culture?

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Cryacin]

Actually, there are already several principalities around the world. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River

The problem is how to be legally recognised as a seperate country. There have been several groups who have decided to take the easiest legal route, which is to declare war upon a country. Note that in the wikipedia article, the declaration of war is mentioned in the history section. The Australian government did not acknowledge these letters officially, as this would give creedence to the country's secession. They have issued their own coins, code of laws, and a tax rate of 0.5%.

There are many such countries out there, but what has not been done to date, is a serious quantity of land to be bought by a serious number of citizens, an army mounted, and a genuine declaration of war. This would seriously best be done in a place such as Africa or regions of South America where there are areas of land that can be bought at reasonable rates, whilst not being a pacific island that would hold difficulties in sustaining a substantial population.

Perhaps one day the need will be large enough for people to collectively leave and equitably found their own country, but don't forget, established countries will first scoff at a new country, possibly impose trade sanctions if they don't tow the line, and finally, simply declare war and "liberate" it from the "terrorists".

The issues of state are far removed from the issues of daily life.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[makomk]

Actually, there's a special provision in UK law for religious courts that was only moved into the law on binding arbitration in general a few years ago, though even then I think they could only rule on cases where both parties had agreed to be bound by their ruling. The law was created in order to allow Jewish religious courts, so is unlikely to go away any time soon.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[azrael29a]

"There are many such countries out there, but what has not been done to date, is a serious quantity of land to be bought by a serious number of citizens, an army mounted, and a genuine declaration of war" What about Israel? Isn't it how this country has been created?

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[CRCulver]

"Give me controll of a nation's money supply and i care who not sets its laws...."

That is a spurious quotation. There's no evidence Rothschild ever said such a thing. And considering that a great many instances of that quotation on the web are from white supremacist websites, by perpetuating it you don't make yourself look too good (though perhaps that's why you're an AC).

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Cryacin]

Israel was not established and ratified as a purchased country. It was held by the brits from the second world war, and when the British Mandate was about to expire, they declared independence. It was ratified as a country by the UN, which is quite distinct from the international law doctrine of natural ratification through the declaration of war upon another sovereign.

Even though I'm probably feeding the worst kind of troll, I thought I would correct it before more misinformation was spread.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't freak out about arbitration, they freak out about the sharia. You know because they stone people and hate women and stuff and think it's ok because the sharia demands it.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Pax681]

Actually the Federal Reserve isn't directly elected, and Bernanke et. all are doing a fairly good job. Inflation has been near rock bottom without ever going into deflation for years now, they've done just about everything they can to manage since 2008, including ditching any hint of presidential and congressional approval to make massive temporary loans to banks in order to keep more of them from going Lehman Brother on us, probably keeping the US and much of the rest of the world from collapsing into a second great depression. All said loans were swiftly paid back, and since the Fed has been responsible for the quickest, most coherent response to the recent hard economic times out of just about any governmental body in the world.

Not that they haven't made some quibbling mistakes, inflation might technically be too low, helping banks to sit on top of cheap mounds of capital without the need to restart the process of actually giving out loans. But for the most part they've been doing an excellent job.

all said loans paid back.. oh yeah and then swiftly claimed back against their tax bill and thus they didn't really pay it back if you know what i mean. it was just fucking free money to the banks
in fact you will find the only people really paying interest on those loans would have been the US Govt , and thus the tax payer,who would have borrowed it from the Federal Reserve you better believe the Federal reserve would want it back with that interest.
it was bankers bailing out bankers with a get out clause for returning the payment.. ie the ability to write it off against tax as a "legitimate" business expense
Also the problem with havering VERY low interest rates is that unemployment goes up... this is a basic economic principle... the really key is finding the equilibrium between interest rates and unemployment rates and the banks don't really give a fuck about that they only care about the bottom line.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of the children...

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Ash Vince]

People don't freak out about arbitration, they freak out about the sharia. You know because they stone people and hate women and stuff and think it's ok because the sharia demands it.

If two muslims get some sort of sharia judgement in the UK that involves stoning someone to death, they are most likely both going to prison for a very long time unless they dispose of the corpse nice and quietly and nobody else finds out.

As a brit I have no problems with a couple of Muslims settling their differences outside court by whatever means the like. Just don't expect me to be bound by that shit for a second.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

Google: "Don't be evil"
Money = root of all evil
Google Bucks =? Divide by zero

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

while i disagree with Muslim view on rights of women, i do support their use of corporal punishment for SOME crimes (like for example for killers) and removing hands to thief's, i believe this would reduce number of criminals in all western civilization because of fear from having your hand cut off (if you steal) or your head chopped off (in case you kill somebody) because current punishments of our legal system is so light too many people decide to go for life of crime

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[dimeglio]

Good luck getting other countries to recognize your virtual nation.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[saider]

Also the problem with havering VERY low interest rates is that unemployment goes up... this is a basic economic principle...

This isn't necessarily cause and effect. Low interest rates are used to stimulate investment, which is typically done during times of economic distress. Yes you will see low interest rates when there is high unemployment, but low interest rates doesn't necessarily cause the unemployment. Rather the conditions that cause unemployment cause the Fed to lower interest rates.

The problem we have now is that the Fed is lending with zero interest and there is still not a lot of investment, mainly because the banks are using the money to fill the gaping hole left by the collapse of the housing market and all the derivatives that evaporated back in 2008. The only way the Fed can improve on zero percent interest is to pay the banks to take the money. But then there is no guarantee that the banks will lend that money back out.

Nevermind that money is pretty much imaginary (ones and zeros) these days. The Fed doesn't even have to print anything. They just adjust the balance on their books and call it "quantitative easing".

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[w_dragon]

Really it's the people who control the police, courts, and military. If all of the above can be bribed then yes, the bankers will run the country. If they can't then the lawmakers run the country. If they are all made up of citizens who don't feel they are above their own laws then the citizens run the country. Generally it's some mix, different countries have different balances of power based on who is capable of being above the law.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[dave420]

Next time you should not assume such things, as it makes you look a bit knee-jerky-fox-watchy.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

You already have this if you live in the US whenever you travel to another country.You have to continue to obey US laws, even when they may be counter to the country you are visiting. Of course only someone who is insane will do that since the country you are visiting is the one that is a lot more likely to arrest you unless there is some political gain to be had or you have exposed Congress-critters with their hands in the cookie-jar - but that doesn't stop the morons in the House, Senate, and White House from passing these laws. And other countries are following suit...

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Stormthirst]

Really? Where does it say that?

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[stdarg]

Well it's not just people settling their differences outside of court, it's a legally enforceable arbitration process. So if one says "Eh, you know what, I changed my mind I don't like this sharia garbage" too bad.

But I thought contracts or other agreements that have elements of discrimination is unenforceable? For instance if you said "To rent my property you have to agree to arbitration by Jim Crow law" -- and you apply that equally to all people -- that's still discriminatory against blacks and it wouldn't be enforceable.

Sharia has even more problems because its discriminatory status can change over time. For instance if you agree at time X to sharia arbitration, then at time X+1 you leave Islam and become Christian, what happens? Christians are discriminated against under sharia, so are you still bound by the sharia decision?

An agreement isn't supposed to be enforceable if it violates your rights and any agreement based on sharia does that, since sharia restricts your basic freedoms like freedom of religion which are in effect at all times in all situations.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Stormthirst]

corporations have no ethics. we would all wind up being slaves to corporate gluttony

Hasn't that happened already?

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Stormthirst]

Not quite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zionism_and_the_British_mandate

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

3) The court doesn't violate public policy. (For example, if the court refused to allow women to testify, the ruling would likely be unenforceable.)

Hmmm, you mean like the testimony of a women being given half the weight of the testimony of a man?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_women's_testimony_in_Islam

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

IANAL; but there are a few, specific, cases where that(or something close enough for that to be approximately true) holds; but it is not a general matter.

Section 105 of Public Law 108-21, for instance, makes it a domestic crime to engage in certain flavors of sex tourism involving children, regardless of the legality and enforcement(or lack thereof) in the local jurisdiction.

I suspect that there is a patchwork of similar bandaid-type stuff regarding a few other hot categories of 'stuff the feds don't want you doing offshore', probably some financial things and/or stuff related to drug importation.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

oh yeah and then swiftly claimed back against their tax bill and thus they didn't really pay it back

You don't seem to understand how tax deductions work. Let me guess, you are one of those people that given the opportunity to pay off your mortgage you wouldn't just so you could continue to take the tax deduction on the interest you're paying.

Also the problem with havering VERY low interest rates is that unemployment goes up... this is a basic economic principle.

Just because you state something doesn't make it true. That is not a basic economic principle.

Posting anonymously because I do not feel like arguing with someone who uses [fucking] emotion rather than reason to form their opinion.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[FatdogHaiku]

... Love of Money = root of all evil

FTFY

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, secular courts are clearly unbiblical

in other news, black is unwhite, red is ungreen, etc.; this is tautology.

you could also read the bit about rendering unto caesar. in fact
the bible can be made to say damn near anything you wish it to.

heck take a stroll through the minor prophets. "take them out with
hooks, the last of them with fish hooks".

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Sigg3.net]

Thing about govt is that there can be only one. A system such as the one you describe would be permitted only until it was fat enough for slaughter.

Military trumps "terrorist assets" any day.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[ironjaw33]

Taiwan might be a better example. It meets your criteria of people moving to a particular place to declare sovereignty (or at least freedom from Communist rule). However, they have had difficulty in getting other nations to recognize their sovereignty, but if they didn't claim sovereignty over mainland China I wonder if things would be different.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Hal_Porter]

Oh nonsense. I used to be very loyal to Microsoft until they introduced Windows Phone 7. Now I've switched over to Android and its a brilliant platform. It's free. You can write leave shit mostly in C/C++. It doesn't have the horrid Linux userland. It's not made by Apple.

Also unlike Microsoft Google have a motto "Don't be evil". Microsoft's was "I'm gonna fucking kill Google" or maybe "Developers! Developers! Developers! [will need to rewrite every damn line of code in C#, pay us big bucks for a native code pass like the one we gave free to Adobe and EA or fuck off to Android. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, peasant]".

So clearly Google are completely trustworthy. I say we let them have Corporate Marines and go off and harvest xenomorphs as biological weapons for use in their battle against Microsoft and obsolete ideas like privacy, individuality and not wanting to view the world through compulsory Google Goggles nanoimplants.

Honestly if there's one thing you can trust about US megacorps is that they'll never screw over the developers, because it's not in their interests. Unless they're making a power play to force you to use a more proprietary technology than the one you used for the last decade, or they're a bit short of resources because the new outsourced development isn't working so well, or the marketing guys get a bad batch of drugs and start fearing The Bad Elves just before they write up the next quarter's strategy.

Seriously, what could possibly go wrong?

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Xeranar]

To be fair it was not as sinister as it implies. It is the thinking that central banking has more affect on economics than legislature action. It isn't as if they could overrule the government on murder or control something in a deeper way. Also this is why in almost every modern western country the government has control of the money supply and sets policy from there...Including the US. We just simply choose to use a more autonomous system to avoid it being directly affected by short-term politics.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it would scare the bejesus out of me. I mean, Google has even less interest in our well being than the government which is a pretty low bar in the first place. At least, in theory, we're allowed to overthrow a tyrannical government. Do that to Schmidt and it's probably just murder.

Also, that second paragraph sounds quite a bit like the early US. Romantic stories of freedom aside, we were genocidal pricks back then. If by "nationless" you mean "has no government" I don't think your idea can get too far into even the theoretical stage. Humans like social structure - it's just how we are and much of our success as a species is thanks to our ability to do things as a group that even a large family unit wouldn't be capable of accomplishing.

Besides, I rather like it being illegal for someone to kill me. Sure, they still have the *means* to if they decide they're going to do it anyway but you know some people would just because they could if the law wasn't there. Plus, if I survive, I can sue their estate (or them if they survive the encounter) - no shame in taking someone to court over a bullet in the face.

But yeah, at the end of the day, I just might actually trust the US Government more than Google on this and we're talking about a bar that's pretty freaking low.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Pax681]

oh yeah and then swiftly claimed back against their tax bill and thus they didn't really pay it back

You don't seem to understand how tax deductions work. Let me guess, you are one of those people that given the opportunity to pay off your mortgage you wouldn't just so you could continue to take the tax deduction on the interest you're paying.

. Posting anonymously because I do not feel like arguing with someone who uses [fucking] emotion rather than reason to form their opinion.

erm.. i don't have a mortgage because......... my mortgage is paid off.......

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[NonUniqueNickname]

It was held by the brits from the second world war

First World War, not Second World War.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

Would give a real world example of an action that is illegal for a US citizen to do abroad, and that is illegal to not do at some other country?

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[SleazyRidr]

It's not the love of money that's the root of all evil, it's the lack of money.

[Hideously paraphrased from Rich Dad Poor Dad]

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[SleazyRidr]

For instance if you agree at time X to sharia arbitration, then at time X+1 you leave Islam

Well, leaving Islam carries a penalty of death under Sharia, so you won't live long enough for it to be a problem.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[__aailob1448]

Neal Stephenson used that very idea as a backdrop for two of his best novels: Snow Crash and The Diamond Age. Both incredibly entertaining reads, especially if you like sci-fi.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[shutdown -p now]

believe this would reduce number of criminals in all western civilization because of fear from having your hand cut off (if you steal) or your head chopped off (in case you kill somebody) because current punishments of our legal system is so light too many people decide to go for life of crime

We've had much harsher penalties, including torture and torture killing, historically in the Western civilization as well. It didn't help to deter crime - most criminals just don't believe that they'll ever get caught.

Meanwhile, while we don't do all that nasty kind of stuff anymore, crime rates are at historic lows throughout Western countries. Especially if you look at those crimes committed by citizens who are not recent immigrants.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[painandgreed]

arbitrage is fully compliant with the existing laws

in which case no need for arbitrage was necessary, really. but in context of sharia.. it's not fully compliant in any way nor would it's decisions be lawfully binding so..

So, essentially, you the People's Court (American TV show if you didn't know), which is the same concept, scary? People drop their civil lawsuits and enter into a contract to let somebody else decide the issue with the result being backed up by contract law. It's the same thing.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, you are one of those people that given the opportunity to pay off your mortgage you wouldn't just so you could continue to take the tax deduction on the interest you're paying.

I wouldn't pay off my mortgage if I could. Not because of the tax deduction (that's just gravy), but because I would probably make more by investing that extra money than I would save in interest.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

I always suspected that Google was eventually going to turn into the First Distributed Republic...

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[crutchy]

yes, but i don't really feel like congratulating them for it any more than i have to

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Ash Vince]

Well it's not just people settling their differences outside of court, it's a legally enforceable arbitration process.

No, it isnt. If you think it is please post the relevant statute that makes it so.

Any agreement between two parties in England or Wales is bound by the English law of contract. You can agree to anything you like but you cannot exempt you contract from English law. Likewise you can go to a sharia court for a divorce decision, but if one party decides they don't like the outcome they can go straight to the real court and see if they prefer that instead.

In most cases people respect Sharia Law simply because their religion is important to them. It is not in the least bit legally enforceable by the english courts. It might be that you went to a court after you got the sharia decision and it turned out that in this case as you had both agreed to be bound by the sharia decision it did apply, but that is only because our law of contract had allowed you to sign that right of legal redress away.

There are some cases where can sign your common law rights away, but in many cases you cannot. It is English (or European) law that decides which rights you can sign away, not some religous geezer.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Stormthirst]

What I find particularly ironic about what I understand of America is that they fought so hard (and continue to fight) against government tyranny - they let tyranny pass in the form of corporations. At least you can (nominally) vote out the people in government!

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[NewYork]

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

we're not already?

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[stdarg]

No, it isnt. If you think it is please post the relevant statute that makes it so.

Umm... results of arbitration are legally enforceable. See the Arbitration Act of 1996. (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/contents)

Maybe you don't know how these sharia courts are set up in the UK. They operate as arbitration tribunals that both parties have agreed to.

The problem, as I pointed out and you seem to have skipped over, is that sharia courts are discriminatory, and that a person's freedoms in religion, lifestyle, etc, may cause the sharia court to become discriminatory at a later date. For instance, if you, a Muslim, rent an apartment from me, another Muslim and agree to arbitration by sharia.. and then you become Christian.. and then next year we have a dispute? Guess what, the court will discriminate against you. Your testimony won't count as much as mine, for instance.

So to me that's quite obviously not a legitimate arbitration. Do you see the problem?

Compare that to a normal court, where no matter what you do in your personal life, you will have the same rights and privileges in court.

There are some cases where can sign your common law rights away, but in many cases you cannot. It is English (or European) law that decides which rights you can sign away, not some religous geezer.

Yeah, and the problem with that is a lot of victims of these sharia courts don't know their rights. They hear idiots saying stuff like "yeah you agreed to this, it's like a contract" and don't know that many things may not be contractually enforceable. Like if your mullah says a young girl in an arranged marriage can't divorce her abusive husband.. well she may not know that in the West women have more rights and she actually can get a divorce.

For such reasons, the mere specter of legitimacy is harmful to apply to sharia courts. It makes far more sense to say that Islamic law is not a valid basis for arbitration, no matter what you agree to, because its tenets are inherently discriminatory. Just rules of arbitration under Jim Crow law would be illegal and unenforceable.. in fact if you advertised something like housing with a requirement to sign arbitration under Jim Crow law, that itself would probably be illegal. Why should sharia be legal? It's religious freedom gone too far.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Ash Vince]

Compare that to a normal court, where no matter what you do in your personal life, you will have the same rights and privileges in court.

There are some cases where can sign your common law rights away, but in many cases you cannot. It is English (or European) law that decides which rights you can sign away, not some religous geezer.

Yeah, and the problem with that is a lot of victims of these sharia courts don't know their rights. They hear idiots saying stuff like "yeah you agreed to this, it's like a contract" and don't know that many things may not be contractually enforceable. Like if your mullah says a young girl in an arranged marriage can't divorce her abusive husband.. well she may not know that in the West women have more rights and she actually can get a divorce.

For such reasons, the mere specter of legitimacy is harmful to apply to sharia courts. It makes far more sense to say that Islamic law is not a valid basis for arbitration, no matter what you agree to, because its tenets are inherently discriminatory. Just rules of arbitration under Jim Crow law would be illegal and unenforceable.. in fact if you advertised something like housing with a requirement to sign arbitration under Jim Crow law, that itself would probably be illegal. Why should sharia be legal? It's religious freedom gone too far.

I was going to post a long discussion about the bits of your post that are crap (like your understanding of the act you quoted) then decided not bother when I read the above paragraph. You sound like you are purely informed by reading the Daily Mail once you start going on about Mullah's and young girls in fictitious bullshit illegal marriages.

In the example you gave sharia law is utterly irrelevant, since the girl is under age she is not legally married therefore needs no divorce. And hubby better not think he is avoiding child abuse charges if he is in this country just because of their "marriage". It is just a made up bs bogey man sharia law story that you are probably too stupid to have even dreamt up yourself and instead just quoted it from whatever horseshit news media made it up for you.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[stdarg]

I think you're a bit unhinged about this subject since you are obviously very sensitive about it. It's not my fault that, even though I explicitly was talking about the sharia law implemented in arbitration processes, you refused to believe that it could be legally enforceable. I didn't misunderstand the law, I suspect you just have no clue what you're talking about.

Also by young girl I didn't mean 5 years old, but nice try. As I've gotten older myself I realize how young 18 year olds are and how much advantage can be taken of them, especially if the system itself is used against them. Not a lot of 18 year olds have the fortitude to fight for their rights, especially when they don't know them.

It is just a made up bs bogey man sharia law story that you are probably too stupid to have even dreamt up yourself and instead just quoted it from whatever horseshit news media made it up for you.

Nice! Well here's my equally insightful rebuttal. I see that you're already brainwashed by Muslim propaganda and you're probably too stupid and blinded by political correctness to think for yourself instead of regurgitating whatever bullshit you heard from the local "liberal" mullah.

For the love of God...

[imamac]

Please no more bit coin stories...oh...my bad.

Re:For the love of God...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, don't worry. Evidently, Google realized how stupid an idea something like that was, which is more than can be said about Slashdot.

Re:For the love of God...

[mosb1000]

Yes, as opposed to "real" money, which is different in some meaningfull way, I assure you!

Re:For the love of God...

[Daniel Phillips]

Well of course private money supplies ranks right up there with private militias as a threat to democracy.

Re:For the love of God...

[OrangeTide]

The key difference with "real" money is non-geeks readily accept it.

Re:For the love of God...

[rtb61]

In this case private money, or a system of internal credit is all about tax evasion and lock in. Goggle would have gained the opportunity to trade in services tax free, buying in for example user content with goggle currency and then on-selling that content for goggle currency not taxable cash. It then treats purchases of google currency not as a purchase but as a deposit. It would then seek to block the sale of google currency for cash to drive lock in to the google currency system. For end users it allows them to trade google currency for services tax free. Once trade in the currency reached at certain level, laws would change and the shit would hit the fan in back taxes.

Re:For the love of God...

[diamondmagic]

Because Bitcoin is completely irrelevant to news for nerds. Oh, wait, no it isn't.

Re:For the love of God...

[Ihmhi]

No please, keep them coming. Then maybe Google will buy Bitcoin, rebrand it as "Money+", and it will be gone within a year.

Re:For the love of God...

[MachineShedFred]

You mean, besides the part where I can take it to any commercial establishment in my country, and have it accepted as payment for goods and services?

Dollars have that, bitcoin does not.

Re:For the love of God...

[sidthegeek]

Actually, since Bitcoin is Free software, technically they could just fork it and market it heavily. That would most likely kill the original project.

Re:For the love of God...

[DrXym]

Even geeks accept real money. I realise there are a handful of people boosting bitcoin or similar harebrained virtual currency schemes but I suspect most of them were still hoping to cash out in real money while the going was good.

Re:For the love of God...

[shutdown -p now]

Goggle would have gained the opportunity to trade in services tax free, buying in for example user content with goggle currency and then on-selling that content for goggle currency not taxable cash.

Any sane government would just treat that as barter, which is already legally taxed pretty much everywhere (usually at "fair market value").

Re:For the love of God...

[mosb1000]

I'm not sure if you're serious ou not, but both those things were not unusual in the US during the 19th century. Several of the founding fathers actually felt public currency was a threat to democracy, that's why there was not initially a central bank.

I heard you like bit coin stories.

[Anonymous Coward]

So I added a bit coin story to your bit coin story.

It's

I believe they did issue currency

[Anonymous Coward]

back in 2004 at an exchange rate of about 85 USD per share. The dollar hasn't fared so well against it since then.

Re:I believe they did issue currency

[FreeUser]

My credit card has issued its own currency, called "Thank You Points." The exchange rate is TYP 100 = USD 1.00, and has a volatility of zero. I exchange it for real cash whenever I hit 20,000 points or more.

On the other hand, the dollar is doing very well against my bank's currency (BAC), though volatility has been quite high the last few years.

Google Citizenship

[fredc97]

With the new EULA they will probably introduce a Google Citizenship somewhere in there. This way you could simply sign in to Google+ at the various borders to prove your identity and the border patrol would in return Google your browsing history to see if you pose any threat to national security.

As for Google Bucks well they already have the Google shares which you can buy for their weight in gold and some more.

Re:Google Citizenship

[Xeranar]

That actually sounds like an intriguing way of dealing with passports. Outlandish for sure and meant to be satirical but intriguing none the less. We get into most foreign countries with far less background check unless we're traveling far and need a visa and even then they don't check that far, usually criminal records. I know /. is a hardcore paranoia crowd about what they look at on the internet (I can only imagine they must all be looking at giraffe porn...such long necks). But imagine an instant background check that factored in your internet history and other quickly attainable information to be let into a country and issued a visa on the spot rather than waiting months. I know nobody is going to go to a country seeking a visa without one but it's an example of the power of our internet browsing history as an acceptable and fast tool for background checks.

Currency?

[Mitchell314]

I'm waiting for the Google national flag and anthem.

Re:Currency?

[plover]

I'm not sure, but I imagine their anthem will go something like this:

[chant and response]
"What are we going to do today, Sergey?"
"Same thing we do every day, Eric. Try to take over the world!"

[music]
They're Pinky and the Brain.
Yes, Pinky and the Brain!
One is a genius,
The other is insane!
They're laboratory mice.
Their genes have been spliced!
They're dinky, they're Pinky and the Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain,
Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain,
Brain.

Before each night is done
Their plan will be unfurled.
By the dawning of the sun
They'll take over the world.

They're Pinky and The Brain.
Yes, Pinky and The Brain
Their twilight campaign
Is easy to explain.

To prove their mousy worth,
They'll overthrow the Earth.
They're dinky, they're Pinky and The Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain

Narf!

Re:Currency?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are the exact lyrics to the song. One would think when you put the whole song in there you would at least change the lyrics a little to make it funny. 1/10 for this subsubstandard comedy.

Re:Currency?

[Jappus]

A very subtle and easy alteration is all that is needed to make that joke fit that much better:

[chant and response]
"What are we going to do today, Sergey?"
"Same thing we do every day, Larry. Try to take over the world!"

[music]
They're Page-y and the Brin.
Yes, Page-y and the Brin!
One is a genius,
The other is insane!
They're laboratory mice.
Their genes have been spliced!
They're dinky, they're Page-y and the Brin, Brin, Brin, Brin,
Brin, Brin, Brin, Brin,
Brin.

Before each night is done
Their plan will be unfurled.
By the dawning of the sun
They'll take over the world.

They're Page-y and The Brin.
Yes, Page-y and The Brin
Their twilight campaign
Is easy to explain.

To prove their mousy worth,
They'll overthrow the Earth.
They're dinky, they're Page-y and The Brin, Brin, Brin, Brin
Brin, Brin, Brin, Brin

Narf!

Re:Currency?

[tigre]

A few seggestions:

Try to take over the world

Try to index the world's information

They're Page-y and the Brin.

Larry and the Brin?

They're dinky, they're Page-y and the Brin, Brin, Brin, Brin,

They're cagey, they're Page-y...
They're scary, they're Larry...

They'll take over the world

They'll catalog the world

They'll overthrow the earth

They'll monetize the earth

Re:Currency?

[Jappus]

They're Page-y and the Brin.

Larry and the Brin?

Thought about it, but then the stickler in me pointed out that using the surname of one and the first name of another somehow feels ... off.

And I guess I wouldn't be a true Slashdotter if I let unimportant things like rhyme and beauty override my (of course flawless) sense of reason. ;-)

Don't they see the writing on the Google+ Wall?

[Anonymous Coward]

Social Networking is missing a major concept right now. Everyone has something they want to sell. Why not let every social networking user setup a "web store" in their profile to sell things to other users. Think Facebook + Paypal + EBay. Some people will sell services, while others will sell crafts, home made things, or even used items. I know my local club, which has a Facebook group page, would love to sell T-Shirts and buttons to fans of ours. This seems like a missed opportunity. If Google want to get involved with commerce then all they need to do is set it up in Google+.

Don't get me started on my other Google rant. Google+ should have been named "Google Me". Would have been a lot more cool.

Re:Don't they see the writing on the Google+ Wall?

[Splab]

Because craigslist already fills this niche, and somewhat better...

I don't want to buy my friends used stuff - and I wouldn't sell it to them, if I have something I'm not using and my friend can use it it's his for free.

If I want to buy something used I go to the local equivalent of craigslist.

Re:Don't they see the writing on the Google+ Wall?

[Anonymous Coward]

?.. I know my local club, which has a Facebook group page, would love to sell T-Shirts and buttons to fans of ours. .

Check out www.groupspaces.com for your local club. Does exactly what you want.

Re:Don't they see the writing on the Google+ Wall?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because craigslist already fills this niche, and somewhat better...

Note: social networking sites have the majority of their members outside the USA.

Re:Don't they see the writing on the Google+ Wall?

[ajlisows]

I don't know, that seems like something that could get really ugly for facebook really quickly. It would be nice while everyone is happy with their transactions, but eventually there will be transactions that go wrong. I don't think Facebook wants to arbitrate "He sold me a PS3 game but it didn't work" over and over again.

Re:Don't they see the writing on the Google+ Wall?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your missing the point. A "Friend" could also be an actual store. For instance, Best Buy could have a store which sells items in the social network.

Bitcoin?

[Yvan256]

Google Bitcoins? What?

Re:Bitcoin?

[gox]

Schmidt actually brought up Bitcoin himself. Full quote:

6:36 pm Q: If it comes to real democracy, payment has to be peer-to-peer. Would you like to know about my technology called FairCash?

6:37 pm A: Are you familiar with BitCoin? There are some issues with peer-to-peer money. In most cases it's illegal, besides that it's a great idea. We had our own proposal called Google Bucks, but we didn't want to get into these issues. Most of these systems will have reguatory
issues.

Did they steal this idea...

[MrEricSir]

...from Emperor Norton?

This company scares me more and more

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Google very motto ("don't do evil") has scared me from the get-go, like some sort of ominous sarcastic lie. Now Google has grown big, ubiquitous, and most importantly, discreetly, as most people don't seem to realize just how pervasive Google's presence is in the life of everybody on this planet.

Any company that's big and powerful enough to seriously think about issuing its own currency needs to be broken up in a hurry.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Mouldy]

Then I guess that includes small indie games that have in-game currency or use Facebook credits (which are bought for real world money) should also be shut down. Or casinos that use chips rather than letting you bet at the tables with real money?

Point is, companies have had their own currencies for years. While some people might disagree with those practises - company-specific currency isn't intrinsically bad

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Daniel Phillips]

It's actually "Don't be evil", which some Googlers seem to interpret as a loophole.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[repapetilto]

Why is government-issued currency any more legitimate?

Re:This company scares me more and more

[basecastula]

Why is government-issued currency any more legitimate?

Because you can exchange it for goods that don't originate from said company. Much like cash as opposed to a gift card.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Anonymous Coward]

In thoery a country has significantly more assets to back its currency than google and whereas google could in theory disappear overnight with a few bad decisions, most countries will be here tomorrow, next year and possibly even the year after that, you definitely can't say the same of a company that depends 100% on virtual assets.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[repapetilto]

This didn't sound like scrip though. Maybe I misinterpreted the article.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[repapetilto]

Right, but the parent seemed to distrust companies with the power to issue money. It didn't seem to be an issue of whether the value of the currency was reliable. In fact, it was the opposite.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the government will invade your country if you dare consider using another currency. You know Iraq had switched to the Euro for oil, the US sure didn't like that. So if google actually pushed a currency the government couldn't manipulate with the bank controlled FED they'd be signing their own execution papers.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[repapetilto]

So "backed by guys with guns" make a currency legitimate in your eyes? So a company with enough firepower could issue "legitimate currency"? I would think legitimacy has more to do with the way the people who control the money issuing is determined. I guess might makes right usually wins out in the end though.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Fjandr]

Pretty much any artificial medium of trade must be backed up by guns unless it is sufficiently hard to counterfeit or not accepted widely enough to be worth counterfeiting.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Anonymous Coward]

Company specific currency IS very bad. That's why casinos have chips as you mentioned, because it removes you one step further from the thought that you're spending your real money and thus makes you spend more. Also "Itchy & Scratchy Money" can dissapear overnight and all of your invested money would also be gone. The government issiued currency is backed by the whole economy and not just by one company.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[tehlinux]

More like "Don't get caught," am I right?

Re:This company scares me more and more

[GofG]

In order to live in the United States, you must pay the United States Government a tax. This tax must be in the form of United States Dollars. You can always use USD to pay your taxes. The government is never going to accept anything other than USD, and so there is an anchoring point for USD where there is none for, say, bitcoins. That is what makes USD legitimate; the fact that you can *always guaranteed* use it to pay your taxes.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[repapetilto]

Ok... now take my question in the context of what I was responding to.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[repapetilto]

Right, what I was asking is: Why it is scary if a company does this, but not if it is a government?

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Hentes]

Because every store is required by law to accept it.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[icebraining]

The government issiued currency is backed by the whole economy and not just by one company.

Yeah, tell me how did that work out for Germans and Poles circa 1923, Brazilians circa 1994, Greeks circa 1944, Peruvians circa 1990... shall I go on?

Re:This company scares me more and more

[netsavior]

not to mention gift cards. If gift cards had verifiable values (i.e. you could tell how much they were worth without going into a store) then they could be freely traded between individuals. A smart chip embeded in the card that is readable by your phone could serve authentication purposes.

after that, how is a transferrable 50 dollar walmart gift card, which can be traded for anything walmart sells (read: anything) any different from walmart issued cash?

Re:This company scares me more and more

[dave420]

Well, you could go on by mentioning the countries and years in which currencies have worked well enough to provide the benefits stated, but that would blow your argument out of the water.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Muad'Dave]

I am not a lawyer, but IMHO no private entity that is not a creditor is "required by law" to accept dollars as payment, either physically as actual notes or as the unit of a promissory note (check). It would be business suicide for a US store to _not_ accept them, but there's plenty of precedent for businesses not accepting physical notes, and pure barter is still quite legal.

Note that I said creditor - the rule of 'all DEBTS public and private' comes in to play when there's a debt owed. Attempting to buy something does not create a debt, so that rule does not apply. Eating in a restaurant that collects payment after the meal DOES create a debt, therefore they must accept currency as payment.

This article has a good discussion.

This guy gets it close, but confuses creditor with seller.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Anonymous Coward]

Because every store is required by law to accept it.

Not in the US. Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender for debts. That means that everyone must accept that currency as repayment of a debt. If a merchant decides not to accept US dollars in a sale, then thats his choice. In the US it is common for small businesses, like street vendor, to say they would not accept $100 and $50 bills. And many other businesses don't deal in cash at all. Restaurants, for example, can't do this because if they give you the check after you ate the food, then it is a debt.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[dunkelfalke]

Because the government is supposed to act in the best interest of its subjects.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Pope]

You can, silly. They generally have an ID number behind a foil seal that you can use to the balance online.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government which is composed (theoretically) of all of its citizens and (presumably) has their best interests at heart. Google (or any company) is directed only by its majority shareholders.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Ryanrule]

Because the people who created the govt gave it permission. You could take that away, with enough votes.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[repapetilto]

This is pretty much my line of thinking. I guess if a government is not doing this the power to issue currency is one of the less scary things about it.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Airline frequent flier miles can be exchanged for non-airline goods and services, making them a form of money.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, enough guys with guns can force a thing to be used. It's a pretty good barometer for how much power an organization has.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[jedwidz]

Musical interlude: Sixteen Tons

I loaded sixteen tons, I tried to get ahead,
Got deeper and deeper in debt instead.
Well they got what I made, and they wanted some more,
And now I owe my soul at the company store.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a lawyer, but IMHO no private entity that is not a creditor is "required by law" to accept dollars as payment, either physically as actual notes or as the unit of a promissory note (check). It would be business suicide for a US store to _not_ accept them, but there's plenty of precedent for businesses not accepting physical notes,

Countries differ on this. In Norway, shops (and any business selling anything) is required by law to accept payment in cash, if the customer insists. They are free to accept or reject foreign money, cards, cheques, payment in goods and so on. But refusing cash is illegal.I believe the idea is to have a kind of money that is useful in all cases.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Tim C]

That's why casinos have chips as you mentioned, because it removes you one step further from the thought that you're spending your real money and thus makes you spend more.

While I agree with you that using tokens makes impulse-spending that much easier, there is another aspect to it. Can you buy chips at the table (or slot machine, or whatever)? If not then you could argue that having to get up and go to the cashier makes it that little bit *less* likely that you'll think "Ah, what the hell" and throw another few (hundred) dollars in the pile.

Of course I've never actually been to a casino so I don't know the typical layout, etc, but if you have to literally head towards the exit to go get more chips, that gives you a little psychological push to cut your losses and keep walking right out the door which wouldn't be there if you were playing with cash. (Until you ran out of cash and had to go to the ATM, of course)

and?

[Osgeld]

I once had the idea to bit bang digital audio out of a scsi port, pipe it over CB and decode it 8 miles away on a Packard Bell. Crazy ideas that failed to be is what keeps things rolling in the world... but since its google a basic idea that has failed many times gets a front page story based on 4 sentences

those damn geniuses, maybe next they will introduce the world to "social networking"!

Google Money.... Gooney?

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

I wonder what the conversion rate of a 50 dollar bill is into Gooney.

Ah, Gooney sounds kinda lame, I'd have went for street rep instead and called it G-Money.

Re:Google Money.... Gooney?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just call it 'Goney'... Gone Money

Re:Google Money.... Gooney?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that Canada has a Loony and a Toony ...
eventually they might get to issuing a Goony but that's quite a devaluation as a Goony = a googol Loonies?
(that's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Loonies. )

I thought my 50.000,000,000 note from Zimbabwe was interesting.

Would you accept google's governance?

[mykos]

Right now, we get nothing in return for getting all our private data rummaged through by the government.

At least google gives us useful free stuff.

Re:Would you accept google's governance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Our governments don't sell our private data to everyone.

Re:Would you accept google's governance?

[JoelKatz]

But they do buy it from everyone.

Re:Would you accept google's governance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now, we get nothing in return for getting all our private data rummaged through by the government.

All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what has the government done for us?

Re:Would you accept google's governance?

[rmelton]

Our governments don't sell our private data to everyone.

wrong!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/frompost/march98/privacy9.htm

One requirement

[basecastula]

a direct democracy with mandatory voting.

Re:One requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

So the right answer is just C??

Seriously, think before you write stuff. Mandatory voting just gets you more uninformed morons voting. Even worse, they just vote randomly.

Re:One requirement

[FireFury03]

So the right answer is just C??

Seriously, think before you write stuff. Mandatory voting just gets you more uninformed morons voting. Even worse, they just vote randomly.

If the morons voted randomly then it wouldn't be a problem - the signal is easilly extractable from random noise. The problem is that morons are usually easy to manipulate, so rather than adding random noise they add bias induced by the press.

Re:One requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the morons voted randomly then it wouldn't be a problem - the signal is easilly extractable from random noise."

Google sells advertising. Advertising = public relations = propaganda = foxnews (for example).

Mr. Creepy

[Anonymous Coward]

If only this imbecile could keep quiet. He's done more to damage Google's reputation than all the other privacy fiascos combined. He is one of the main reasons why I won't touch a Google product with a 10ft pole.

competing currencies = good

[droidsURlooking4]

Well if it was backed in ANYTHING it would have more going for it that USD. Long live Liberty Dollar!

Re:competing currencies = good

[Anonymous Coward]

With the USD you don't have to worry about the government busting in to the warehouse and making off with all the metals backing the paper money. If you're going to invest in alternate currencies, make sure you keep the hard coin versions, so at least they have some value as bullion. (For all the Liberty Dollar trying to call itself real money, it was selling for a heavily inflated price over the cost of silver/gold)

Re:competing currencies = good

[droidsURlooking4]

That really says something about the government and USD. But I concur, the best strategy would have been for Liberty Dollar to stick to coin at first until it was apparent the federal government wasn't going to try and steal it all. Then as the confidence grows, start issuing paper receipts. I can't see how the US govt. calling USLD counterfeit USD and putting von NotHaus in jail is different from the Stamp Act which ultimately lead to the (real) Boston Tea Party. Separately, with USD you DO have to worry about the government busting into the warehouse. Except for the fact that there is no warehouse, they just type it in the computer and "print" more money. That is stealing.

its coming

[Anonymous Coward]

facebook sells credits for the stupid facebook games.. when google+ gets rolling they will do something similar... not quite legal tender, but if its "spendable" via any google property (including checkout/wallet).. it's as close as google will get without buying out the federal government.

Ripple Monetary System

[crf00]

When I saw the phrase "peer to peer money's system" I immediately think of the Ripple Monetary System. Please also check out the new Ripple website, Villages.cc, created by Ripple's founder Ryan Fugger last year.

I am not sure whether Google was trying to do the same thing, but it would be a total waste if they gave up on the exact same idea. If there is one thing that Google should do with it's power, it would be P2P money. The entire economic system is in total mess now, and the whole world is in deep need right now for a better economic system, yet why is the financial regulation trying to stop all innovations happening?

The US government is seriously killing all financial innovations by labeling everything alternative to the USD as "money laundering". Remember how Liberty dollar and other gold currencies ended up? How about the countless payment startups that has been killed under the name "money laundering" during the dotcom boom? The Hawala System is very useful even today and it has a very similar concept to Ripple, but it's whole advantages are completely denied by US in the name of money laundering, again. I bet that the FBI would even declare Bitcoin as illegal when it generates enough threat.

I have only been staying in Stockholm for a month, but currently it gives me the feeling that Sweden and some other Europe countries have much more financial freedom than in US. If I were to create a startup based on alternative currencies ideas similar to Google's P2P money or Ripple, then Stockholm would be a much better place than Silicon Valley, all due to the absurd US anti-money laundering regulation.

Re:Ripple Monetary System

[greg1104]

I also tried to build a currency based on Ripple once, but I couldn't remember where I'd hidden it all at when the hangover wore off.

Re:Ripple Monetary System

[u38cg]

Well, what's your alternative? Money laundering prevention is one of the simplest and most effective crime fighting tools around, as annoying as it may be.

Re:Ripple Monetary System

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it ever occur to you that maybe people actually were using hawala to launder money? You just assumed it wasn't? How's that work? If I were looking to launder money, something like hawala would look to be ideal.

So, you like it in Sweden. My advice: stay there. Additional advice: take every opportunity you possibly can to tell everyone how superior you feel. Be sure to bash America in the same sentence. Basically, be just like that guy who is constantly mentioning he doesn't own a television, only in your case, substitute "watching TV" to "living in Sweden".

Re:Ripple Monetary System

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, what's your alternative? Money laundering prevention is one of the simplest and most effective crime fighting tools around, as annoying as it may be.

Locking everyone in their houses, issuing a curfew and shooting anyone who ventures outside without a uniform will also drive down 'crime'. That doesn't make it a decent idea.

The golden rule is "it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man to be punished". Banning something just because it has illegitimate uses isn't just.

Re:Ripple Monetary System

[Kjella]

I have only been staying in Stockholm for a month, but currently it gives me the feeling that Sweden and some other Europe countries have much more financial freedom than in US. If I were to create a startup based on alternative currencies ideas similar to Google's P2P money or Ripple, then Stockholm would be a much better place than Silicon Valley, all due to the absurd US anti-money laundering regulation.

Oh, I wouldn't bet on it. I'm in Norway, not Sweden but both fairly socialist countries that depend heavily on income taxes and sales taxes. Strictly speaking you can use cash most everywhere, but it's getting more and more biased against it. The last item they've been pushing is electronic tickets for local buses, because they don't want neither bus drivers nor ticket machines getting robbed. You get heavy price incentives to use electronic cards or to pay over your cell phone - there's no such thing as an anonymous cell phone here by the way, that was outlawed quite a few years ago so it's all traceable back to me and there's no such thing as an anonymous debit cards either, they're all registered to your unique id. If I pay any person or company over 10k NOK - about $1800 - in cash during a year, I can be charged as co-conspirator in their tax fraud if they cheat on their taxes for doing nothing other than paying in cash.

Another example is the employee cafeteria, there are several I know of that no longer take cash, either taking just plastic directly or through their own cards you can only charge with plastic. Even if you're a homeless crack addict you don't get food coupons anymore, you get an electronic card only valid in the grocery store - but not for beer. Honestly if it wasn't for a generation of elderly who insist on using cash I'm pretty sure we'd have pushed through a cashless society, because while we're not so heavy on the organized crime and terrorism propaganda, there's plenty of the tax fraud, black economy, anti-robbery propaganda with a good smear of if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Re:Ripple Monetary System

[DerekLyons]

The US government is seriously killing all financial innovations by labeling everything alternative to the USD as "money laundering".

Nope. Community currencies are as alive and well as they've ever been.
 

Remember how Liberty dollar and other gold currencies ended up?

The backers of the Liberty Dollar broke the law by revaluing their currency to something other than the US dollar. That the authorities took a dim view of breaking the law should neither be a surprise or be seen as evidence of some dark conspiracy. That, along with the list of community currencies in the link above should serve as evidence that you're either ill-informed, or operating on bias and assumptions rather than facts. (Or in the worst case, both.) The fact is, it's trivially easy and completely legal to start an alternative currency in the US and the laws surrounding them are astonishingly simple to comply with.
 
Google's problems, I suspect, stem from the need/desire to operate an alternative currency internationally - which is indeed fraught with problems.
 

If I were to create a startup based on alternative currencies ideas similar to Google's P2P money or Ripple, then Stockholm would be a much better place than Silicon Valley, all due to the absurd US anti-money laundering regulation.

That sounds suspiciously like a "no true Scotsman" argument - especially as I doubt that Sweden doesn't have laws and regulations to prevent money laundering. In fact, a quick Google search reveals that indeed they do.

Re:Ripple Monetary System

[russotto]

Well, what's your alternative? Money laundering prevention is one of the simplest and most effective crime fighting tools around, as annoying as it may be.

Eliminate most of the crimes (that is, remove the laws making them illegal) that money laundering is used to cover up. The list would be something like
#1: Drugs
#2: Drugs
#3: Drugs
then you'd have prostitution, illegal gambling, and other vices.

Once you got rid of those laws, you'd find that money laundering would be not nearly as effective in fighting crime, as most of your remaining crimes wouldn't be helped by it. Of course there'd still be some such crimes.

Re:Ripple Monetary System

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would money laundering prevention stop anyone from issuing a currency?

Stopping money laundering is all about reporting. So, your bank issuing special currency would have to report transactions to the government - just as normal banks do. And you might face some restrictions on moving money across borders. Using your special currency would be just like using one of the many existing foreign currencies. Not illegal, but do you have the resources to cope with governmental demands for reporting - stuff that any bank has to put up with?

Re:Ripple Monetary System

[u38cg]

Political reality, meet russotto. Russotto, this is political reality. Those things are not going to happen and are going to continue being crimes - I agree not all of them should be, but imagining they are going to go away is as pointless as voting for Ron Paul.

And you didn't mention white-collar fraud, one of the best uses of anti-money laundering rules.

They Used That One Thing They Never Use?

[Greyfox]

Restraint? Corporations never use that! Zynga probably has a patent on Zynga bucks or something.

Anywhoo, I'm sure we'd all be happy citizens of Googlandia! They'd know what each and every one of us likes and they'd probably be happy to give it to us. Being unhappy would probably be illegal. Unhappy citizens would be rounded up by Unhappiness Death Squads and sent off to be reeducated. Or at least heavily medicated. A lovely dystopian utopia to spend your years!

Canadian Tire Money

[flyingfsck]

Google can always distribute Canadian Tire money. All Canuks have big wads of the stuff.

Re:Canadian Tire Money

[GameboyRMH]

Now that would be a good use of digital currency. A big thick wad of Canadian Tire money only comes up to a few dollars.

Re:Canadian Tire Money

[Pope]

Canadian Tire is switching to a loyalty card/rewards system. They'll still take the funny money, but you'll get a better return with the card: http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=6156461

Google, Facebook, (fill in) money is inevitable

[rainhill]

ka-ching!
or as Agent Smith would say, Sound of inevitability.

Nice try

[Anonymous Coward]

But remember, to use the money, you first need to set up a (free!!) Gmail account. Of course, you first need to log in to it each time you want to give or receive payment. Also, your Android phone will secretly use up some of your data to tell Google where you are while handling the money, how much it was, and what for it was spent.

How many pumkins will you take for that there zippo lighter?

why is this tool relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is he still on the google team? He is the evil of google and I'm sure it was his idea to merge all google accounts.
Please someone come up with the google killer!

Why legal issues?

[kbg]

Why would that have legal issues? Doesn't Microsoft have it's own currency called "Microsoft Points"? There doesn't seem to be any problems using that currency?

Re:Why legal issues?

[kbg]

Also most airline companies have their own currencies also, they are called "Frequent flyer points".

Re:Why legal issues?

[jeffc128ca]

Because there are many laws in many nations one what can be called currency. You can't just start a new currency and expect it to interact with the current financial system. There are a sh*t load of other laws and regulations, especially if you are engaging in deposit taking or credit lending. You need the appropriate approvals and must conduct your self like other financial institutions do.

Microsoft can get away with points because it's only a one way exchange. You buy MS points to get stuff on the X-Box. You can not convert MS points back into cash.

Re:Why legal issues?

[walterbyrd]

Not just MS either. Also Facebook, WoW, 2nd life, and probably several others.

This is just another Google smear. More Microsoft FUD, no doubt.

These days, slashdot hardly goes a day without parroting some Microsoft FUD against Google. And the morons on slashdot lap it up.

Re:Why legal issues?

[kbg]

You can not convert MS points back into cash.

I beg to differ

Microsoft Points is just like any other currency. Microsoft can create money from nothing by just "printing" points. There is an exchange rate for the points to other currencies. I really don't see the difference.

Re:Why legal issues?

[jeffc128ca]

You can not convert it back to cash, only for products in a MS store. You can not convert those points into Euro's, or Austrailian dollars on any currency exchange. Your local grocery store is not legally obliged to accept your MS points to pay for purchases as stipulated by government laws determining what legal tender is. Central banks do not recognize nor accept MS points as capital. The bank teller will laugh in your face if you try and deposit MS points.

Face it, it is not a currency and any one who has taken economics 101 knows this. It should also be pointed out that the MS points in the link you provided and not real points yet. They are vouchers to activate for real points. You can not un-activate those points back into cash or a card that can be sold. Once that card is activated you can not un-activate it and sell it for more cash.

Google == Special Circumstances

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, every time I read an Iain M Banks novel I get this creeping suspicion that Google is in fact a front for some kind of mostly-benevolent highly advanced alien civiliastion, who are using it to covertly influence and ultimately improve human society. Or maybe they're just fucking with us.

Posted AC for obvious reasons.

Less legitimate

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact government currency is less legitimate, since government (having outlawed competition) is able to artificially inflate the supply of their currency (i.e. print money out of thin air in order to pad their own stash), causing it to devalue year after year.

Imagine if a private firm tried to pull that stunt. In such an event, people would simply flock to the competition -- because they actually have the option.

Let's put it this way. Under government currency, unless you get a 2-3% pay raise each year, then you are effectively taking a 2-3% pay cut. Every single year.

There is nothing of actual value backing up government currency. That is the first problem; the second is lack of competition. It amazes me that people actually buy into this system. It's as if government can do no wrong.

Don't online games do something like this?

[walterbyrd]

I don't play any of those games. But, as I understand it, WoW, and 2nd life, have their own sort of money. In fact, some people make their living from that stuff.

Oh for crap sake.

[walterbyrd]

Google was not looking to control the nation's money supply. Just it's own money point system. Online games like WoW and 2nd life do this. I think MS tried to do this also.

The nation's money supply is managed by people much more evil than Google.

German?

[alexander_686]

I don't think Rothschild spoke that quote in english, so I think we may have some room for translator interpation.

business

[KingAlanI]

when doing business in a foreign country, you often have to be aware of both your home country's laws and the host country's laws.
I assume this applies to tax stuff and various other things I'm not thinking of, but here's a more-direct example involving bribery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act

obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

whoosh!

Schrute bucks conversion?

[Anonymous Coward]

1 Google Buck = 1 Schrute buck?