Slashdot Mirror
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."
Yes, as opposed to "real" money, which is different in some meaningfull way, I assure you!
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!"
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
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
Why is government-issued currency any more legitimate?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
I dont read
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.