Central banking is not perfect, but it has a better track record of stability and growth than any other system that’s been tried at a large scale. Try and remember that the alternatives aren’t optimal economic systems that are immune to bubbles, recessions, depressions, hyperinflation, corruption and manipulation.
If anything the Bitcoin experiment is reinforcing why we have existing regulations in place.
Interesting how things have worked out. They were right about Bitcoin's value, but badly wrong on all of the economic related predictions.
Soon after he was done with his effective regulation, according to you, he returned to his job...defending large financial institutions...at Covington & Burling LLP, D.C. law firm.
> Worked great in 2008.
Wasn't 2008 at least partially the result of having banking regulations withdrawn/weakened over the prior decades?
If so, isn't it pretty bogus and misleading judge the effectiveness of financial regulation from that event? It's like saying airbags don't help in a crashes, because yours was removed and you smacked your face against the steering wheel in a crash.
So yeah, it worked great.
Bullshit argument, I'm sorry.
Do that long enough and you get a civilization run by overconfident incompetents and shielded fraudsters. That build up of delusional bozos at the top is one of the things that eventually leads to collapse.
Bitcoin was in some ways a protest in code form. Why can't we create a software defined monetary system that is transparent and where corrupt and incompetent human orgs can be replaced by algorithms?
I like that idea, but Bitcoin itself was really just a proof of concept. We're not there yet. In the meantime we've gotten a silly bubble that's starting to look like a parody of the project's original goals.
(Some hyperbole engaged above)
The stakes are not that high for crypto wealth. Its unenforceability makes the stakes a lot lower for tragedy.