The U.S. dollar remains the base, the defacto, currency for the world.
It used to (until Richard Nixon) be backed by gold (although by that time its ties to gold were pretty shaky)
Now, it is based on the "Full Faith and Credit of the United States" -- which just piled up a $4 Trillion deficit.
Meanwhile, most of U.S. influence and power in the world is based on
1) An overwhelming military that is being funded with borrowed money
2) A financial system (including the world's default currency) that the world trusts and relies on.
So, what happens, when the world no longer cares what a dollar is worth because it has already moved on to a different currency?
Is there any difference to the U.S. if the world makes the remnimbi the defacto currency or BitCoin?
I keep waiting for the U.S. treasury and Fed to weigh in on this -- but they seem to be blissfully sitting back waiting to see what will happen
No, the US dollar is backed by agreements by multiple oil producers to only accept dollars for crude, hence the term petrodollars.
The “full faith and credit” of the US dollar is undermined by a private central bank that has presided over a 98+% loss of value of the dollar since its inception in 1913 (which violates the US Constitution which does not give Congress the power to delegate their monetary duties to an outside agency) and by a government that owes more than its entire M1 money supply.
The U.S. dollar is indeed on shaky ground. However, most other major currencies have their own limitations and achilles’ heels that prevent them from being perceived as safer investments. So, we’re kind of doomed if we all choose to stick with Government backed currencies. Cryptocurrencies might offer a more palatable and stable solution. But governments and other vested private interests will be wary of them for a long time.
It might "offer a more palatable and stable solution"
Or, it might be simply jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
I want to here what a wide range of experts say about that. Mostly, so far, its only speculators and gamblers looking to make money from it rather than establishing a stable base for trade.
It is entirely possible that a general move to cryptocurrencies might be a jump from the frying pan into the fire. And I agree, current cryptocurrency offerings leave much to be desired, particularly Bitcoin.
Nevertheless, we see a clear need and desire on the part of many for such currencies. Those seeking anonymity in order to conduct criminal activities should be stopped in their tracks. But the speed of cryptocurrency transactions across borders is a positive attribute not available to the general public with government backed currencies. And it is rent-seeking banks which profit handsomely on each transaction.
Part of me wishes that Apple would enter this space to fill the void. But it’s fraught with danger from Apple‘s perspective. Then again, to those who take the biggest risks go the spoils.
Why are so many people commenting that don't understand bitcoin?
Bitcoin is not anonymous. Bitcoin transactions are recorded on a public ledger that anyone can see (and that law enforcement uses to capture criminals). Physical cash is much more anonymous than bitcoin. The amount of bitcoin used for illicit activities is a small fraction of the total, and an even smaller fraction of the illegal activities that use physical cash. There is no void to fill. There are thousands of cryptos trying to fill every niche possible. Apple can, however, benefit substantially from using crypto in different ways (see my previous post).
Lastly, it would be another huge value add for Apple to create its own cryptocurrency, where it can provide incentives for customers and facilitate micro transactions within the Apple ecosystem.
But why? What is the value add to Apple, and to its customers? Being cool to do isn't enough -- Apple says "No" to thousands of cool ideas.
Haha, even when you're not replying to me about politics you still use straw man arguments
I never said it was cool (although it kind of is). I've seen Apple's thousand no's video, which, incidentally, is also very cool. I'm not sure what to add to what I've previously posted. There are several, very real benefits to Apple and its customers that Apple should implement, which I detailed in a previous post. If you see any issues with the specific things I mentioned I'd be eager to hash it out.
The U.S. dollar remains the base, the defacto, currency for the world.
It used to (until Richard Nixon) be backed by gold (although by that time its ties to gold were pretty shaky)
Now, it is based on the "Full Faith and Credit of the United States" -- which just piled up a $4 Trillion deficit.
Meanwhile, most of U.S. influence and power in the world is based on
1) An overwhelming military that is being funded with borrowed money
2) A financial system (including the world's default currency) that the world trusts and relies on.
So, what happens, when the world no longer cares what a dollar is worth because it has already moved on to a different currency?
Is there any difference to the U.S. if the world makes the remnimbi the defacto currency or BitCoin?
I keep waiting for the U.S. treasury and Fed to weigh in on this -- but they seem to be blissfully sitting back waiting to see what will happen
No, the US dollar is backed by agreements by multiple oil producers to only accept dollars for crude, hence the term petrodollars.
The “full faith and credit” of the US dollar is undermined by a private central bank that has presided over a 98+% loss of value of the dollar since its inception in 1913 (which violates the US Constitution which does not give Congress the power to delegate their monetary duties to an outside agency) and by a government that owes more than its entire M1 money supply.
The U.S. dollar is indeed on shaky ground. However, most other major currencies have their own limitations and achilles’ heels that prevent them from being perceived as safer investments. So, we’re kind of doomed if we all choose to stick with Government backed currencies. Cryptocurrencies might offer a more palatable and stable solution. But governments and other vested private interests will be wary of them for a long time.
It might "offer a more palatable and stable solution"
Or, it might be simply jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
I want to here what a wide range of experts say about that. Mostly, so far, its only speculators and gamblers looking to make money from it rather than establishing a stable base for trade.
It is entirely possible that a general move to cryptocurrencies might be a jump from the frying pan into the fire. And I agree, current cryptocurrency offerings leave much to be desired, particularly Bitcoin.
Nevertheless, we see a clear need and desire on the part of many for such currencies. Those seeking anonymity in order to conduct criminal activities should be stopped in their tracks. But the speed of cryptocurrency transactions across borders is a positive attribute not available to the general public with government backed currencies. And it is rent-seeking banks which profit handsomely on each transaction.
Part of me wishes that Apple would enter this space to fill the void. But it’s fraught with danger from Apple‘s perspective. Then again, to those who take the biggest risks go the spoils.
Why are so many people commenting that don't understand bitcoin?
Bitcoin is not anonymous. Bitcoin transactions are recorded on a public ledger that anyone can see (and that law enforcement uses to capture criminals). Physical cash is much more anonymous than bitcoin. The amount of bitcoin used for illicit activities is a small fraction of the total, and an even smaller fraction of the illegal activities that use physical cash. There is no void to fill. There are thousands of cryptos trying to fill every niche possible. Apple can, however, benefit substantially from using crypto in different ways (see my previous post).
While this article in part backs up your claim that Bitcoin is not anonymous, using the term “pseudonymous” instead, the article doesn’t inspire confidence in the crypto-platform. Even then, Bitcoin currency mining is energy intense and, ultimately, the Bitcoin currency will be tapped out. Not a great plan. While blockchain is the future, Bitcoin has an expiration date. Pass.
The U.S. dollar remains the base, the defacto, currency for the world.
It used to (until Richard Nixon) be backed by gold (although by that time its ties to gold were pretty shaky)
Now, it is based on the "Full Faith and Credit of the United States" -- which just piled up a $4 Trillion deficit.
Meanwhile, most of U.S. influence and power in the world is based on
1) An overwhelming military that is being funded with borrowed money
2) A financial system (including the world's default currency) that the world trusts and relies on.
So, what happens, when the world no longer cares what a dollar is worth because it has already moved on to a different currency?
Is there any difference to the U.S. if the world makes the remnimbi the defacto currency or BitCoin?
I keep waiting for the U.S. treasury and Fed to weigh in on this -- but they seem to be blissfully sitting back waiting to see what will happen
No, the US dollar is backed by agreements by multiple oil producers to only accept dollars for crude, hence the term petrodollars.
The “full faith and credit” of the US dollar is undermined by a private central bank that has presided over a 98+% loss of value of the dollar since its inception in 1913 (which violates the US Constitution which does not give Congress the power to delegate their monetary duties to an outside agency) and by a government that owes more than its entire M1 money supply.
The U.S. dollar is indeed on shaky ground. However, most other major currencies have their own limitations and achilles’ heels that prevent them from being perceived as safer investments. So, we’re kind of doomed if we all choose to stick with Government backed currencies. Cryptocurrencies might offer a more palatable and stable solution. But governments and other vested private interests will be wary of them for a long time.
It might "offer a more palatable and stable solution"
Or, it might be simply jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
I want to here what a wide range of experts say about that. Mostly, so far, its only speculators and gamblers looking to make money from it rather than establishing a stable base for trade.
It is entirely possible that a general move to cryptocurrencies might be a jump from the frying pan into the fire. And I agree, current cryptocurrency offerings leave much to be desired, particularly Bitcoin.
Nevertheless, we see a clear need and desire on the part of many for such currencies. Those seeking anonymity in order to conduct criminal activities should be stopped in their tracks. But the speed of cryptocurrency transactions across borders is a positive attribute not available to the general public with government backed currencies. And it is rent-seeking banks which profit handsomely on each transaction.
Part of me wishes that Apple would enter this space to fill the void. But it’s fraught with danger from Apple‘s perspective. Then again, to those who take the biggest risks go the spoils.
Why are so many people commenting that don't understand bitcoin?
Bitcoin is not anonymous. Bitcoin transactions are recorded on a public ledger that anyone can see (and that law enforcement uses to capture criminals). Physical cash is much more anonymous than bitcoin. The amount of bitcoin used for illicit activities is a small fraction of the total, and an even smaller fraction of the illegal activities that use physical cash. There is no void to fill. There are thousands of cryptos trying to fill every niche possible. Apple can, however, benefit substantially from using crypto in different ways (see my previous post).
While this article in part backs up your claim that Bitcoin is not anonymous, using the term “pseudonymous” instead, the article doesn’t inspire confidence in the crypto-platform. Even then, Bitcoin currency mining is energy intense and, ultimately, the Bitcoin currency will be tapped out. Not a great plan. While blockchain is the future, Bitcoin has an expiration date. Pass.
Huh? Why bother replying if you're just going to pretend like you're knowledgeable about this topic and ignore what I've said previously in order to rationalize a preconceived perception? Bitcoin is less anonymous than cash... Would you like to ban cash? There is a publicly viewable ledger of bitcoin transactions. Bitcoin mining energy use is a non issue (how much energy does cash, bank buildings, gold mining, etc use???). The limited supply is exactly what makes it a compelling currency lol. You're just reaching for anything now I suppose.
Considering that the US Federal Reserve has presided over a greater than 98% loss in value of the dollar, is your confidence in central banks really that well placed? Additionally, it’s historically flawed. Not every national currency has a central bank. The US Federal Reserve, which is actually a private bank that the US Congress unlawfully delegated their treasury duties to in 1913, is the second central bank in US history. Most of US history there was no central bank.
The Fed, for all it’s supposed power, can’t make up for decades of fiscal mismanagement by Congress.
Maybe make itself THE most trusted platform for cryptocurrency. Like it should have done with streaming services.
Facilitate the creators instead of taking over everything in one vast complex megacorp that will eventually be used for the personal whims of its corporate leadership.
It would be a shame if Apple's demise (because of future cryptocurrency crashing prices and lawsuits)... is caused by something that is, in actuality _virtual nothingness_... after so much success in making products that are useful and quality items.
Wow, the lack of perspective and knowledge regarding crypto here is astounding. This is a technology related site, right? Responses seem to be surprisingly emotional.
It's not a particularly complex or controversial issue. It's literally the future of finance/currency. Perhaps no one realizes that central banks, including the US, have already announced the development of digital currencies (CBDCs: central bank digital currencies). Visa and mastarcard (latter is currently used by Apple Pay), have already both announced plans to allow the use of crypto currencies through their networks. This is in addition to PayPal, cash app, square, and others.
If you want to be left behind, be my guest, but don't try to hold Apple back from taking advantage of the multiple benefits that can come from this space.
Absolutely stupid idea. The reason why people have faith in national currencies is because there is a bank standing behind it, obligated to honour it; - the Federal Reserve for the US Dollar, the Bank of England for Sterling, etc. If Apple were to launch a crypto currency, or be closely associated with one, then people would believe rightly or wrongly that Apple would be liable for any losses they might incur from holding it. It could end up being be a public relations disaster for Apple, or worse, it could deliver a severe financial blow to the company.
Considering that the US Federal Reserve has presided over a greater than 98% loss in value of the dollar, is your confidence in central banks really that well placed? Additionally, it’s historically flawed. Not every national currency has a central bank. The US Federal Reserve, which is actually a private bank that the US Congress unlawfully delegated their treasury duties to in 1913, is the second central bank in US history. Most of US history there was no central bank.
Do you have even a shred of evidence that the Federal Reserve caused "over a greater than 98% loss in value of the dollar"?
The "loss of value" is a combination of the deterioration of American industry combined with inflation -- which is primarily controlled by congress, not the Fed. The Fed can only influence banking and associated interest rates.
Are you also aware that the Fed was created as the result of a series of run away financial disasters in the U.S. and has since, smoothed out those catastrophes? Or, are you only aware that Fed stepped in to bail us out of the 2008 crash and in the process made the economies of both Obama and Chump look good (but it's making Obama look good that got today's Fed haters all riled up). But, it's not just Obama haters who hate the Fed: it's also crazy Libertarians whose ideology tells them: Let it crash and burn to the ground then just rebuild from the ashes. No thanks.
Huh? Are you actually defending the fed?? It looks like your political ideology is blinding you again. The fed 'bailed us out' of the financial crisis? You mean how they ratcheted up the deficit.....
I stopped reading right there... You need to research what the Fed is and what it can do. You have no idea about either. But here is a hint: the Fed cannot "ratchet up a deficit". It just can't. When you understand what the Fed is and what it can do, come on back and we can have an intelligent discussion.
Absolutely stupid idea. The reason why people have faith in national currencies is because there is a bank standing behind it, obligated to honour it; - the Federal Reserve for the US Dollar, the Bank of England for Sterling, etc. If Apple were to launch a crypto currency, or be closely associated with one, then people would believe rightly or wrongly that Apple would be liable for any losses they might incur from holding it. It could end up being be a public relations disaster for Apple, or worse, it could deliver a severe financial blow to the company.
Considering that the US Federal Reserve has presided over a greater than 98% loss in value of the dollar, is your confidence in central banks really that well placed? Additionally, it’s historically flawed. Not every national currency has a central bank. The US Federal Reserve, which is actually a private bank that the US Congress unlawfully delegated their treasury duties to in 1913, is the second central bank in US history. Most of US history there was no central bank.
Do you have even a shred of evidence that the Federal Reserve caused "over a greater than 98% loss in value of the dollar"?
The "loss of value" is a combination of the deterioration of American industry combined with inflation -- which is primarily controlled by congress, not the Fed. The Fed can only influence banking and associated interest rates.
Are you also aware that the Fed was created as the result of a series of run away financial disasters in the U.S. and has since, smoothed out those catastrophes? Or, are you only aware that Fed stepped in to bail us out of the 2008 crash and in the process made the economies of both Obama and Chump look good (but it's making Obama look good that got today's Fed haters all riled up). But, it's not just Obama haters who hate the Fed: it's also crazy Libertarians whose ideology tells them: Let it crash and burn to the ground then just rebuild from the ashes. No thanks.
Huh? Are you actually defending the fed?? It looks like your political ideology is blinding you again. The fed 'bailed us out' of the financial crisis? You mean how they ratcheted up the deficit.....
I stopped reading right there... You need to research what the Fed is and what it can do. You have no idea about either. But here is a hint: the Fed cannot "ratchet up a deficit". It just can't. When you understand what the Fed is and what it can do, come on back and we can have an intelligent discussion.
I need to research the fed?? Where do you think the money comes from that the politicians "spend" to bail out the financial institutions and other corporations that you seem to be so fond of? The fed ("federal reserve" is a misnomer, as it is privately owned, with tenuous oversight from the US government) lends it to them. But if you want to deflect off a technicality to preserve your cognitive dissonance, go ahead.
Absolutely stupid idea. The reason why people have faith in national currencies is because there is a bank standing behind it, obligated to honour it; - the Federal Reserve for the US Dollar, the Bank of England for Sterling, etc. If Apple were to launch a crypto currency, or be closely associated with one, then people would believe rightly or wrongly that Apple would be liable for any losses they might incur from holding it. It could end up being be a public relations disaster for Apple, or worse, it could deliver a severe financial blow to the company.
Considering that the US Federal Reserve has presided over a greater than 98% loss in value of the dollar, is your confidence in central banks really that well placed? Additionally, it’s historically flawed. Not every national currency has a central bank. The US Federal Reserve, which is actually a private bank that the US Congress unlawfully delegated their treasury duties to in 1913, is the second central bank in US history. Most of US history there was no central bank.
Do you have even a shred of evidence that the Federal Reserve caused "over a greater than 98% loss in value of the dollar"?
The "loss of value" is a combination of the deterioration of American industry combined with inflation -- which is primarily controlled by congress, not the Fed. The Fed can only influence banking and associated interest rates.
Are you also aware that the Fed was created as the result of a series of run away financial disasters in the U.S. and has since, smoothed out those catastrophes? Or, are you only aware that Fed stepped in to bail us out of the 2008 crash and in the process made the economies of both Obama and Chump look good (but it's making Obama look good that got today's Fed haters all riled up). But, it's not just Obama haters who hate the Fed: it's also crazy Libertarians whose ideology tells them: Let it crash and burn to the ground then just rebuild from the ashes. No thanks.
Huh? Are you actually defending the fed?? It looks like your political ideology is blinding you again. The fed 'bailed us out' of the financial crisis? You mean how they ratcheted up the deficit.....
I stopped reading right there... You need to research what the Fed is and what it can do. You have no idea about either. But here is a hint: the Fed cannot "ratchet up a deficit". It just can't. When you understand what the Fed is and what it can do, come on back and we can have an intelligent discussion.
I need to research the fed?? Where do you think the money comes from that the politicians "spend" to bail out the financial institutions and other corporations that you seem to be so fond of? The fed ("federal reserve" is a misnomer, as it is privately owned, with tenuous oversight from the US government) lends it to them. But if you want to deflect off a technicality to preserve your cognitive dissonance, go ahead.
I give you a hint: Deficits come from the legislative and executive branches approving revenue and spending budgets (not the Fed). IF they bring in more revenue than they spend its called a surplus -- the last time we had one of those was under Bill Clinton. If they spend more than they bring in revenue it's called a deficit. Bush ran up a $1 Trillion deficit and Trump a $3 or $4 Trillion deficit.
Nowhere in there is the Fed.
It's all done by people we elect. If you don't like deficits you shouldn't vote for those who create them.
Absolutely stupid idea. The reason why people have faith in national currencies is because there is a bank standing behind it, obligated to honour it; - the Federal Reserve for the US Dollar, the Bank of England for Sterling, etc. If Apple were to launch a crypto currency, or be closely associated with one, then people would believe rightly or wrongly that Apple would be liable for any losses they might incur from holding it. It could end up being be a public relations disaster for Apple, or worse, it could deliver a severe financial blow to the company.
Considering that the US Federal Reserve has presided over a greater than 98% loss in value of the dollar, is your confidence in central banks really that well placed? Additionally, it’s historically flawed. Not every national currency has a central bank. The US Federal Reserve, which is actually a private bank that the US Congress unlawfully delegated their treasury duties to in 1913, is the second central bank in US history. Most of US history there was no central bank.
Do you have even a shred of evidence that the Federal Reserve caused "over a greater than 98% loss in value of the dollar"?
The "loss of value" is a combination of the deterioration of American industry combined with inflation -- which is primarily controlled by congress, not the Fed. The Fed can only influence banking and associated interest rates.
Are you also aware that the Fed was created as the result of a series of run away financial disasters in the U.S. and has since, smoothed out those catastrophes? Or, are you only aware that Fed stepped in to bail us out of the 2008 crash and in the process made the economies of both Obama and Chump look good (but it's making Obama look good that got today's Fed haters all riled up). But, it's not just Obama haters who hate the Fed: it's also crazy Libertarians whose ideology tells them: Let it crash and burn to the ground then just rebuild from the ashes. No thanks.
Huh? Are you actually defending the fed?? It looks like your political ideology is blinding you again. The fed 'bailed us out' of the financial crisis? You mean how they ratcheted up the deficit.....
I stopped reading right there... You need to research what the Fed is and what it can do. You have no idea about either. But here is a hint: the Fed cannot "ratchet up a deficit". It just can't. When you understand what the Fed is and what it can do, come on back and we can have an intelligent discussion.
I need to research the fed?? Where do you think the money comes from that the politicians "spend" to bail out the financial institutions and other corporations that you seem to be so fond of? The fed ("federal reserve" is a misnomer, as it is privately owned, with tenuous oversight from the US government) lends it to them. But if you want to deflect off a technicality to preserve your cognitive dissonance, go ahead.
I give you a hint: Deficits come from the legislative and executive branches approving revenue and spending budgets (not the Fed). IF they bring in more revenue than they spend its called a surplus -- the last time we had one of those was under Bill Clinton. If they spend more than they bring in revenue it's called a deficit. Bush ran up a $1 Trillion deficit and Trump a $3 or $4 Trillion deficit.
Nowhere in there is the Fed.
It's all done by people we elect. If you don't like deficits you shouldn't vote for those who create them.
Too true, but rather than giving half truths about the deficit (and by extension the debt), you seem to blame one side - let's look at the other side...
FDR had the greatest percentage increase in debt at 1,048%.
Barack Obama had the largest dollar amount debt increase at $8.59 Trillion.
Absolutely stupid idea. The reason why people have faith in national currencies is because there is a bank standing behind it, obligated to honour it; - the Federal Reserve for the US Dollar, the Bank of England for Sterling, etc. If Apple were to launch a crypto currency, or be closely associated with one, then people would believe rightly or wrongly that Apple would be liable for any losses they might incur from holding it. It could end up being be a public relations disaster for Apple, or worse, it could deliver a severe financial blow to the company.
Considering that the US Federal Reserve has presided over a greater than 98% loss in value of the dollar, is your confidence in central banks really that well placed? Additionally, it’s historically flawed. Not every national currency has a central bank. The US Federal Reserve, which is actually a private bank that the US Congress unlawfully delegated their treasury duties to in 1913, is the second central bank in US history. Most of US history there was no central bank.
Do you have even a shred of evidence that the Federal Reserve caused "over a greater than 98% loss in value of the dollar"?
The "loss of value" is a combination of the deterioration of American industry combined with inflation -- which is primarily controlled by congress, not the Fed. The Fed can only influence banking and associated interest rates.
Are you also aware that the Fed was created as the result of a series of run away financial disasters in the U.S. and has since, smoothed out those catastrophes? Or, are you only aware that Fed stepped in to bail us out of the 2008 crash and in the process made the economies of both Obama and Chump look good (but it's making Obama look good that got today's Fed haters all riled up). But, it's not just Obama haters who hate the Fed: it's also crazy Libertarians whose ideology tells them: Let it crash and burn to the ground then just rebuild from the ashes. No thanks.
Huh? Are you actually defending the fed?? It looks like your political ideology is blinding you again. The fed 'bailed us out' of the financial crisis? You mean how they ratcheted up the deficit.....
I stopped reading right there... You need to research what the Fed is and what it can do. You have no idea about either. But here is a hint: the Fed cannot "ratchet up a deficit". It just can't. When you understand what the Fed is and what it can do, come on back and we can have an intelligent discussion.
I need to research the fed?? Where do you think the money comes from that the politicians "spend" to bail out the financial institutions and other corporations that you seem to be so fond of? The fed ("federal reserve" is a misnomer, as it is privately owned, with tenuous oversight from the US government) lends it to them. But if you want to deflect off a technicality to preserve your cognitive dissonance, go ahead.
I give you a hint: Deficits come from the legislative and executive branches approving revenue and spending budgets (not the Fed). IF they bring in more revenue than they spend its called a surplus -- the last time we had one of those was under Bill Clinton. If they spend more than they bring in revenue it's called a deficit. Bush ran up a $1 Trillion deficit and Trump a $3 or $4 Trillion deficit.
Nowhere in there is the Fed.
It's all done by people we elect. If you don't like deficits you shouldn't vote for those who create them.
Too true, but rather than giving half truths about the deficit (and by extension the debt), you seem to blame one side - let's look at the other side...
FDR had the greatest percentage increase in debt at 1,048%.
Barack Obama had the largest dollar amount debt increase at $8.59 Trillion.
I didn't vote for them... did you?
One side? No, that's modern history -- and the complete truth rather than the cherry picked nonsense you cite:
FDR? He not only had to pull us out of another Republican triggered Depression but WW-II. And you had to go back 90 years to find it!
Obama was handed not only Bush's Great Recession but his Trillion dollar defiict -- which he proceeded to cut by almost 2/3's -- after which he handed Trump a solid, low unemployment, growing economy that he had created from the ashes Bush left him.
I think you should probably follow your own advice and stop trying to cherry pick facts to support your agenda.
Absolutely stupid idea. The reason why people have faith in national currencies is because there is a bank standing behind it, obligated to honour it; - the Federal Reserve for the US Dollar, the Bank of England for Sterling, etc. If Apple were to launch a crypto currency, or be closely associated with one, then people would believe rightly or wrongly that Apple would be liable for any losses they might incur from holding it. It could end up being be a public relations disaster for Apple, or worse, it could deliver a severe financial blow to the company.
Considering that the US Federal Reserve has presided over a greater than 98% loss in value of the dollar, is your confidence in central banks really that well placed? Additionally, it’s historically flawed. Not every national currency has a central bank. The US Federal Reserve, which is actually a private bank that the US Congress unlawfully delegated their treasury duties to in 1913, is the second central bank in US history. Most of US history there was no central bank.
Do you have even a shred of evidence that the Federal Reserve caused "over a greater than 98% loss in value of the dollar"?
The "loss of value" is a combination of the deterioration of American industry combined with inflation -- which is primarily controlled by congress, not the Fed. The Fed can only influence banking and associated interest rates.
Are you also aware that the Fed was created as the result of a series of run away financial disasters in the U.S. and has since, smoothed out those catastrophes? Or, are you only aware that Fed stepped in to bail us out of the 2008 crash and in the process made the economies of both Obama and Chump look good (but it's making Obama look good that got today's Fed haters all riled up). But, it's not just Obama haters who hate the Fed: it's also crazy Libertarians whose ideology tells them: Let it crash and burn to the ground then just rebuild from the ashes. No thanks.
Huh? Are you actually defending the fed?? It looks like your political ideology is blinding you again. The fed 'bailed us out' of the financial crisis? You mean how they ratcheted up the deficit.....
I stopped reading right there... You need to research what the Fed is and what it can do. You have no idea about either. But here is a hint: the Fed cannot "ratchet up a deficit". It just can't. When you understand what the Fed is and what it can do, come on back and we can have an intelligent discussion.
I need to research the fed?? Where do you think the money comes from that the politicians "spend" to bail out the financial institutions and other corporations that you seem to be so fond of? The fed ("federal reserve" is a misnomer, as it is privately owned, with tenuous oversight from the US government) lends it to them. But if you want to deflect off a technicality to preserve your cognitive dissonance, go ahead.
I give you a hint: Deficits come from the legislative and executive branches approving revenue and spending budgets (not the Fed). IF they bring in more revenue than they spend its called a surplus -- the last time we had one of those was under Bill Clinton. If they spend more than they bring in revenue it's called a deficit. Bush ran up a $1 Trillion deficit and Trump a $3 or $4 Trillion deficit.
Nowhere in there is the Fed.
It's all done by people we elect. If you don't like deficits you shouldn't vote for those who create them.
Too true, but rather than giving half truths about the deficit (and by extension the debt), you seem to blame one side - let's look at the other side...
FDR had the greatest percentage increase in debt at 1,048%.
Barack Obama had the largest dollar amount debt increase at $8.59 Trillion.
I didn't vote for them... did you?
One side? No, that's modern history -- and the complete truth rather than the cherry picked nonsense you cite:
FDR? He not only had to pull us out of another Republican triggered Depression but WW-II. And you had to go back 90 years to find it!
Obama was handed not only Bush's Great Recession but his Trillion dollar defiict -- which he proceeded to cut by almost 2/3's -- after which he handed Trump a solid, low unemployment, growing economy that he had created from the ashes Bush left him.
I think you should probably follow your own advice and stop trying to cherry pick facts to support your agenda.
Oh dear, oh dear... You drank the Kool-Aid and then went back for seconds.
Absolutely stupid idea. The reason why people have faith in national currencies is because there is a bank standing behind it, obligated to honour it; - the Federal Reserve for the US Dollar, the Bank of England for Sterling, etc. If Apple were to launch a crypto currency, or be closely associated with one, then people would believe rightly or wrongly that Apple would be liable for any losses they might incur from holding it. It could end up being be a public relations disaster for Apple, or worse, it could deliver a severe financial blow to the company.
Considering that the US Federal Reserve has presided over a greater than 98% loss in value of the dollar, is your confidence in central banks really that well placed? Additionally, it’s historically flawed. Not every national currency has a central bank. The US Federal Reserve, which is actually a private bank that the US Congress unlawfully delegated their treasury duties to in 1913, is the second central bank in US history. Most of US history there was no central bank.
Do you have even a shred of evidence that the Federal Reserve caused "over a greater than 98% loss in value of the dollar"?
The "loss of value" is a combination of the deterioration of American industry combined with inflation -- which is primarily controlled by congress, not the Fed. The Fed can only influence banking and associated interest rates.
Are you also aware that the Fed was created as the result of a series of run away financial disasters in the U.S. and has since, smoothed out those catastrophes? Or, are you only aware that Fed stepped in to bail us out of the 2008 crash and in the process made the economies of both Obama and Chump look good (but it's making Obama look good that got today's Fed haters all riled up). But, it's not just Obama haters who hate the Fed: it's also crazy Libertarians whose ideology tells them: Let it crash and burn to the ground then just rebuild from the ashes. No thanks.
Huh? Are you actually defending the fed?? It looks like your political ideology is blinding you again. The fed 'bailed us out' of the financial crisis? You mean how they ratcheted up the deficit.....
I stopped reading right there... You need to research what the Fed is and what it can do. You have no idea about either. But here is a hint: the Fed cannot "ratchet up a deficit". It just can't. When you understand what the Fed is and what it can do, come on back and we can have an intelligent discussion.
I need to research the fed?? Where do you think the money comes from that the politicians "spend" to bail out the financial institutions and other corporations that you seem to be so fond of? The fed ("federal reserve" is a misnomer, as it is privately owned, with tenuous oversight from the US government) lends it to them. But if you want to deflect off a technicality to preserve your cognitive dissonance, go ahead.
I give you a hint: Deficits come from the legislative and executive branches approving revenue and spending budgets (not the Fed). IF they bring in more revenue than they spend its called a surplus -- the last time we had one of those was under Bill Clinton. If they spend more than they bring in revenue it's called a deficit. Bush ran up a $1 Trillion deficit and Trump a $3 or $4 Trillion deficit.
Nowhere in there is the Fed.
It's all done by people we elect. If you don't like deficits you shouldn't vote for those who create them.
Too true, but rather than giving half truths about the deficit (and by extension the debt), you seem to blame one side - let's look at the other side...
FDR had the greatest percentage increase in debt at 1,048%.
Barack Obama had the largest dollar amount debt increase at $8.59 Trillion.
I didn't vote for them... did you?
One side? No, that's modern history -- and the complete truth rather than the cherry picked nonsense you cite:
FDR? He not only had to pull us out of another Republican triggered Depression but WW-II. And you had to go back 90 years to find it!
Obama was handed not only Bush's Great Recession but his Trillion dollar defiict -- which he proceeded to cut by almost 2/3's -- after which he handed Trump a solid, low unemployment, growing economy that he had created from the ashes Bush left him.
I think you should probably follow your own advice and stop trying to cherry pick facts to support your agenda.
Oh dear, oh dear... You drank the Kool-Aid and then went back for seconds.
Sadly, you are a lost cause.
Oh dear, oh dear.... You drank the Kool-Aid and then went back for seconds.
Happily though people like you can be de-programmed.
Comments
https://fintechweekly.com/magazine/articles/an-untraceable-currency-bitcoin-privacy-concerns
Huh? Why bother replying if you're just going to pretend like you're knowledgeable about this topic and ignore what I've said previously in order to rationalize a preconceived perception? Bitcoin is less anonymous than cash... Would you like to ban cash? There is a publicly viewable ledger of bitcoin transactions. Bitcoin mining energy use is a non issue (how much energy does cash, bank buildings, gold mining, etc use???). The limited supply is exactly what makes it a compelling currency lol. You're just reaching for anything now I suppose.
Digital Tulip bulbs is a more apt description.
It's not a particularly complex or controversial issue. It's literally the future of finance/currency. Perhaps no one realizes that central banks, including the US, have already announced the development of digital currencies (CBDCs: central bank digital currencies). Visa and mastarcard (latter is currently used by Apple Pay), have already both announced plans to allow the use of crypto currencies through their networks. This is in addition to PayPal, cash app, square, and others.
If you want to be left behind, be my guest, but don't try to hold Apple back from taking advantage of the multiple benefits that can come from this space.
I didn't vote for them... did you?
Sadly, you are a lost cause.