Slashdot Mirror
Rand Paul Suggests Backing Bitcoin With Stocks
SonicSpike writes:
"In a recent interview, Senator Rand Paul said there's one thing he would change about Bitcoin: it should be backed by something with intrinsic value, like stocks. He said, 'I was looking more at it until that recent thing [sic]. And actually my theory, if I were setting it up, I'd make it exchangeable for stock. And then it'd have real value. And I'd have it pegged, and I'd have a basket of 10 big retailers I think it would work, but I think, because I'm sort of a believer in currency having value, if you're going to create a currency, have it backed up by — you know, Hayek used to talk about a basket of commodities? You could have a basket of stocks, and have some exchangeability, because it's hard for people like me who are a bit tangible. But you could have an average of stocks, I'm wondering if that's the next permutation.'"
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it
This space for rent.
...the concept of the "mutual fund".
I can almost smell his clutch burning as he mentally shifts back and forth between "currency must be free of government intervention" and "currency must be backed by gold or silver"...
Can someone explain how this isn't silly? He wants it backed by intrinsic value, which I think may be missing the point of Bitcoin, and his example of the perfect thing with intrinsic value is "stocks"?
I'm sure this guy has some fans who can explain why this makes sense, but it just seems like more evidence that he's completely out of touch and doesn't know what he's talking about.
The problem is that this is a classic "inside the corporate bubble" reaction to bitcoin. One of the supposed ideas of bitcoin is to not link money to governments. Since corporations are super-important to mindless bots like Rand Paul, the solution is, of course, to link them to corporations. If there is anything worse than linking the monetary system to governments, if you would be linking them the corporations that even worse about selfishness and tilting the playing field towards themselves at all costs.
Nothing has "intrinsic value". Stuff is worth stuff to people depending on what they are prepared to pay for it.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
People forget that bitcoin became popular during the advent of wikileaks, lulsec and the activism of Aaron Schwartz. Tying bitcoin to an exchange means the minute you start a website that publishes sensitive government secrets like warrantless wiretapping, Anone who feels compelled to help your efforts is just as vulnerable to government detention and surveillance as you. The point of bitcoin, dogecoin, and other cryptocurrency is to prevent the government from quietly telling banks to refuse your transactions on the basis of your dissent, and ferrying you off to some resort in cuba for waterboarding and lemon pepper fish.
And unrelated: Bitcoin is dead, for all intents and purposes. a combination of shit-tier security and unaccountable exchanges made it what it is today. switch to doge or something else, keep your wallet encrypted, and make frequent withdrawals.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The better question is, are his supporters stupid? Generally one does not get to be that powerful by being stupid, while we mock them politicians are usually quite intelligent, but that tends to be hidden behind closed doors. What the public generally sees is a carefully crafted image designed to appeal to certain voter blocks, a persona if you like. Ran Paul's stupidity is just a role he plays based off analysis of people who vote for him.
Um...those don't have "intrinsic value" either. That's not to say that they aren't valuable or necessary, but you'll find the value of ice in January in Siberia is very much different than the value of the same ice in Arizona in June. So while each of the things you list may have values at a certain times and places, it is still entirely "subjective" value.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
Violence (and any means increasing the potential violence an actor has at his disposal) has intrinsic value.
In fact, in any system with potentially malicious actors, a currency must be backed by some degree of violence. Otherwise, the malicious actor can just take the currency by force (if he considers it valuable).
Real money is backed by ..... A HUGE ARMY!