Would You Rather Have Money Manipulated by Governments or Private Companies? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Would You Rather Have Money Manipulated by Governments or Private Companies?

1357 sats \ 43 comments \ @SatsMate 14 Jun bitcoin

Hey All - I had an excellent lunch today with some coworkers and we discussed the manipulation of currency, gold, silver, and bitcoin.

It is well known that the Federal Reserve and other central banks worldwide can manipulate their currencies through quantitative easing, tightening, and the cost of capital. The fiat currencies around the world are consistently being manipulated/debased downward by central banks - more so in countries with less established rule of law.

My coworker brought up Blackrock and Bitcoin in relation to price manipulation. He asked, "Is it better to have money manipulated by a private corporation like Blackrock or better to have a currency to be manipulated by the government"? He indicated both are being manipulated, and some are benefiting greatly at the expense of others. What are your takes on this? It is an interesting line of thought - and I do agree with him that large capital allocators and push the price up and down 3-5% with ease if they want to. I also agree the same thing can happen with currencies (as we saw with the Egyptian Pound and the Japanese Yen recently).

We've seen manipulation with gold and silver over the past several decades since the introductions of these ETFs, do you see price manipulation by private companies as a good thing, a bad thing, or something that just is?

My view is neutral, but I do understand how manipulation can hurt some people if they need to convert into and out of Bitcoin. For those on a full Bitcoin standard, I'm sure you also lean neutral or are okay with manipulation.

view all related items

72 sats \ 22 replies \ @Undisciplined 14 Jun

Definitely private companies, because they can't force you to use the currency they're manipulating or to back up their losses when they fail.

During the periods when America had no central bank, private banks would engage in fractional reserve lending. Just like today, they were trying to make an easy buck. The problem was that their competitors would accumulate their over-issued notes and go claim all of their gold reserves.

When it's private actors, they have to worry about getting wrecked by the very scheme they're trying to perpetrate.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate OP 14 Jun

I agree with this take. I don't think private companies are any bit more pure and kind hearted - but in the end they have a responsibility to customers, whereas the government they can just smooth over anything with further QE.

21 sats \ 16 replies \ @random_ 14 Jun

Definitely private companies, because they can't force you to use the currency they're manipulating or to back up their losses when they fail.

Someone has never heard of company scrip.

0 sats \ 15 replies \ @Undisciplined 14 Jun

If they're using force, then they are no longer a private company. They would be a criminal organization, like the state.

0 sats \ 14 replies \ @random_ 14 Jun

lol at the naïveté

Companies use force and power projection all the damn time.

https://prospect.org/features/coca-cola-killings/

10 sats \ 13 replies \ @Undisciplined 14 Jun

It's not naivete. We're just using the words slightly differently and it's tricking you into thinking you have a point.

0 sats \ 12 replies \ @random_ 14 Jun

A business doesn't just stop being a business when they use force.

Have you ever heard of a for-profit prison? Have you ever had to fund someone's commissary? Maybe if you had, you'd know how badly a company will treat a captive audience.

0 sats \ 11 replies \ @Undisciplined 14 Jun

You're missing my point entirely. Also, bad treatment and criminal aggression are not the same thing.

I'm making a distinction between private actors and criminal actors (and, yes, I'm aware it's not a clean distinction). Private actors respect the property rights of others. Criminal actors violate the property rights of others.

There are many criminal organizations that are not generally regarded as such, or are not known to be such. That doesn't change anything about the point.

Private prisons are a euphemism. They are still part of the state and as such they are criminal organizations.

0 sats \ 10 replies \ @random_ 14 Jun

Private prisons are a euphemism. They are still part of the state and as such they are criminal organizations.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/11-best-prison-law-enforcement-125342444.html

Sir you are 0 for 3. Do some research.

view replies

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Satosora 14 Jun

So they wont take stupid risks. The government throwing money away doesnt mean much because they can just print more.

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 14 Jun

They'll take stupid risks, but the ones that do so too much are put out of business by their competitors. Just like natural selection, over time the most sustainable business models survive.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 14 Jun

Yes, but free market is better than manipulation. The strong survive. It wont just be bail out heaven.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate OP 14 Jun

deleted by author

30 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 14 Jun

Private companies because you can combat manipulation with counter manipulation if that makes sense.

Maybe private companies manipulation can counter balance government manipulation?

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 14 Jun

I dont think they would have the reach and access to markets like the government. Hypothetical situation....who knows, right?

52 sats \ 1 reply \ @jgbtc 14 Jun

Manipulating the fiat price of Bitcoin is not the same as manipulating the technical details of how it works, e g. changing the total supply.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate OP 14 Jun

Right, and governments are always changing the total supply and giving this money to countries randomly.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @TheBTCManual 14 Jun

Private in this example, is the lesser evil and still has limits because they have to deal with market forces with a cap on their balance sheet; if they're not hedged correctly, they can still get their faces ripped off, and if a government isn't there to bail them out its tickets.

Private companies have a responsibility to make money, whereas governments don't. They can just print it up from thin air. Also, if there wasn't such exorbitant pillage by big players to access capital and create credit, how would they go about manipulating markets at mass? It's only through the government provides the backing

If they had black rock bucks and tried that same stuff, people would bankrun them in a second.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate OP 14 Jun

Right, a strong case for why its better for private companies to manipulate.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @pow 14 Jun

At least people can vote to change the Govt but not when it is a Private company

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate OP 14 Jun

Right, first comment i've seen with a defense of government that makes sense haha.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @BitcoinAbhi 14 Jun

In my opinion private company. Because big corporate can also force government to do something to their favour.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate OP 14 Jun

Right, that is even worse - because private companies support the pac, the pac supports the politicians, and the politicians serving the government now have corrupted incentives.

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Satosora 14 Jun

Private. Because they can only have so much reach, and they dont have blanket immunity.

41 sats \ 1 reply \ @SatsMate OP 14 Jun

I agree with private, but right now the depth and breadth in terms of power of blackrock/citadel/vanguard etc. is way too much IMO. They have their tentacles in absolutely every industry.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 14 Jun freebie

Things sink eventually. Nothing stays floating forever.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 14 Jun

Lesser evil is still evil, and if corporations become the primary manipulators of money, they can effectively become the government (see the megacorp concept in SF).

The real answer is that I don't want money manipulated.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate OP 14 Jun

How do you undo or slowdown blackrock/citadel/vanguard and others?

They are too systematically intertwined.

1 sat \ 1 reply \ @eduardopro 14 Jun

Two sides of the same coin.

23 sats \ 0 replies \ @random_ 14 Jun

The only sane comment.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @IamSINGLE 14 Jun

I would rather sit on my genuine pile of sats and watch all of them trying to get 1 sat from me.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullcount 14 Jun freebie

Neither a company man, nor a government bureaucrat are necessarily immune to the corruption of power. Power corrupts (weak men) absolutely. To wield power comes with responsibility. Those with power are ideally of strong principles and character with the fortitude to resist corruption.

I would rather have a (money) system that tends to grant power to strong men and remove power from the weak that are so easily corrupted.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 14 Jun freebie

Not by either of them. The word manipulation in itself is a rejected idea.

For those on a full Bitcoin standard, I'm sure you also lean neutral or are okay with manipulation.

Does Bitcoin standard come with a precondition of manipulation? No, rather Bitcoin standard requires us to defy ant type of manipulation and return to the ways established long time ago before the print money was invented. So, for me it's not manipulation. Not from government at all.