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.'"
...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"...
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
I don't own bitcoin nor have I ever used bitcoin for anything.
but this Rand guy seriously misunderstands the whole fucking concept. stock? ? just sell your bitcoin and buy some stock with that money. if the stocks value was tied to bitcoin, you might just as well just own bitcoin instead of the stock. if the stock presented some other value(in dollars or bananas) that would be a direct tie in to something else.
backing it up with gold or other valuables or anything that would need some company to adhere to some arbitrary value for the bits would destroy the whole concept(or at the very least transform it to some airline miles system bs) and you might just as well dig egold out of the grave...
so what the guy would like would be a centrally deployed currency, you know, like bus card money. beats me why he thinks that would be better or more novel - of course then there would be a company to shut down to shut down the use.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
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.
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).
Seriously, it's more like Rand Paul channeling Peter Griffin.
"Lois, I just spent all our savings on lotto tickets!"
You are welcome on my lawn.
Must be, if he did not see this coming.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra