An Electronic Currency That Could Save The Economy - And It's Not Bitcoin

[DeeSome]

Now this guy is talking scary shit but even more scary, will governments think it's maybe a good idea.

"There's An Electronic Currency That Could Save The Economy — And It's Not Bitcoin"

"University of Michigan economist Miles Kimball has developed a theoretical solution  to this problem in the form of an electronic currency that would allow the Fed to bring nominal rates below zero to combat recessions. He's been presenting his plan to different economists and central bankers around the world."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-electronic-currency-could-save-121228399.html

[Birdy]

Such a currency already exists, it's called Freicoin.

[Barek]

Great idea!

Then on the one hand there is the e-dollar that loses 5% of its value, probably on top of inflation. On the other hand, there is bitcoin, a digital currency without inflation.

Hmm, which one to pick?

[DeeSome]

Such a currency already exists, it's called Freicoin.

Did you read the article?
Freicoin is decentralized much as in the same way as Bitcoin.

He is advocating a CENTRALIZED (government/Fed) run e-currency.

[Birdy]

Such a currency already exists, it's called Freicoin.

Did you read the article?
Freicoin is decentralized much as in the same way as Bitcoin.

He is advocating a CENTRALIZED (government/Fed) run e-currency.

Yes I know, Freicoin is not centralized. Obviously they are not the same. But it's covering the aspect of negative interest, I think it's fair to say that most people don't really want that.

[cunicula]

Now this guy is talking scary shit but even more scary, will governments think it's maybe a good idea.

"There's An Electronic Currency That Could Save The Economy — And It's Not Bitcoin"

"University of Michigan economist Miles Kimball has developed a theoretical solution  to this problem in the form of an electronic currency that would allow the Fed to bring nominal rates below zero to combat recessions. He's been presenting his plan to different economists and central bankers around the world."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-electronic-currency-could-save-121228399.html

Oh, one more thing to add to the mainstream economics and Cunicula's crystal ball thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=125822.0

Edit: Oops, actually this is more than a year old. So I should have linked to him, not the other way around.
http://qz.com/21797/the-case-for-electric-money-the-end-of-inflation-and-recessions-as-we-know-it/

[Impaler]

Such a currency already exists, it's called Freicoin.

Did you read the article?
Freicoin is decentralized much as in the same way as Bitcoin.

He is advocating a CENTRALIZED (government/Fed) run e-currency.

Yes I know, Freicoin is not centralized. Obviously they are not the same. But it's covering the aspect of negative interest, I think it's fair to say that most people don't really want that.

I'm with Freicoin and I don't take offense here, Birdy might have been a bit more clear on the differences but hey no news is bad news.  We are quite pleased to see that the negative interest concept (demurrage) is percolating into the mainstream economic discussion.   Even a centralized demurrage currency would be an improvement over current national currencies.

As for 'most people' not wanting negative interest, this is an appeal to the crowd, a classic logical fallacy, no self respecting libertarian (which most of you here on the forums claim to be) would justify a "rob Peter to pay Paul" scenario simply because most people want it.  The question is is it FAIR and is it GOOD for boosting Economic activity.  We have a compelling argument for both of these points, and we argue from a universal position too, not as Kimball dose which is to argue that negative rates are a brief or temporary fix for the current recession.

Now if you want to say that no one is interested in SPECULATING in FRC because of it's negative interest, this is partly true, but that is by design.  And we are pleased with the results so far.  FRC is designed to be a medium of exchange first and foremost, where as BTC is designed to be a store-of-value first and foremost.

[Birdy]

I'm with Freicoin and I don't take offense here

I'm glad you didn't.
While personally I don't think demurrage will be a successful idea, I think it's an interesting experiment and one of the better altcoins.

[ixne]

I admit that I don't see what advantages this hypothetical demurrage currency would have over traditional money or bitcoin such that people would willingly use it. It seems to only make sense if it were impossible to use other forms of currency, i.e. if all other currencies were made illegal.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Such a currency already exists, it's called Freicoin.

Did you read the article?
Freicoin is decentralized much as in the same way as Bitcoin.

He is advocating a CENTRALIZED (government/Fed) run e-currency.

with a maximum of just....trillions of coins...and pre-mined ? china will love that.

[DeeSome]

@Impaler and Birdy I am pretty much happy with any monetary system that treats everyone fairly and consistently and is not corrupted by bankers and politicians.

[Barek]

Maybe I am misunderstanding the concept.

How is this different from printing more money?

Either way, the individual unit loses value.

[superduh]

i really dont get it.
the dollar, majority of it is already "e-currency" just a ledger in a bank. i don't get the push for currency to go digital when most of it already is

[BittBurger]

To the original poster:

You're surprised?

Bernanke likes Bitcoin, not because he likes Bitcoin, but because he and everyone else in the Govt is planning to make their own.

That's why they never say they endorsed Bitcoin.   They only said that "the technology" is something that could be extremely beneficial.

As everyone in the Bitcoin community has already proven, any tom dick, or harry can make a new cryptocurrency.

I warned all of you about this a long time ago, because all you're doing is showing the Govt that they can easily make their own.

But hey, everyone wants to get rich, so now there's nearly 100 alt coins.  Woo hoo!  :/

Anyways ... old news ... Govt doesn't love Bitcoin.   They plan to make their own.

Trillions of dollars could be saved if the Govt switched to a cryptocurrency, and they're fully aware of that.

Trillions upon trillions.

[crumbs]

...
I'm with Freicoin...

Is there a thread about the mechanics of getting people to use it?  Sounds like getting kids to ask for veggies instead of caek -- a good thing, but unlikely to happen.

[BitcoinAuthor]

the canadian government has already started: with mint chip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintChip

but whatever the government try to implement, it's going to be inferior to what the free market can produce. and of course, they only want it so it can be used as a further form of control. the narrative will be: it helps in the war against pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers.

[PenAndPaper]

The key concept here is that there is an exchange rate between dollars and e-dollars that it can be set in such a way that the e-dollar can face negative interst.

What it doesn't makes sense is that for the negative interest rate to affect the paper dollar i must convert my paper dollars to e-dollars?
Why should i do that? I mean even for internet transactions i will use a paper dollar funded paypal instead of converting to e-dollars.
So they must either force people to convert at some point or paper dollars must become obsolete?

Obviously there are technical reasons that it will not work.

Bottomline: More Pr for bitcoin

[alexeft]

Such a currency already exists, it's called Freicoin.

Did you read the article?
Freicoin is decentralized much as in the same way as Bitcoin.

He is advocating a CENTRALIZED (government/Fed) run e-currency.

Yes I know, Freicoin is not centralized. Obviously they are not the same. But it's covering the aspect of negative interest, I think it's fair to say that most people don't really want that.

I'm with Freicoin and I don't take offense here, Birdy might have been a bit more clear on the differences but hey no news is bad news.  We are quite pleased to see that the negative interest concept (demurrage) is percolating into the mainstream economic discussion.   Even a centralized demurrage currency would be an improvement over current national currencies.

As for 'most people' not wanting negative interest, this is an appeal to the crowd, a classic logical fallacy, no self respecting libertarian (which most of you here on the forums claim to be) would justify a "rob Peter to pay Paul" scenario simply because most people want it.  The question is is it FAIR and is it GOOD for boosting Economic activity.  We have a compelling argument for both of these points, and we argue from a universal position too, not as Kimball dose which is to argue that negative rates are a brief or temporary fix for the current recession.

Now if you want to say that no one is interested in SPECULATING in FRC because of it's negative interest, this is partly true, but that is by design.  And we are pleased with the results so far.  FRC is designed to be a medium of exchange first and foremost, where as BTC is designed to be a store-of-value first and foremost.

I'll take the store of value any time.

Enough with banksters and governments robbing me one way or another because Paul took (or was given, whatever you prefer) a shitload of loans which he can't pay.

PS: Peter here.

[ralree]

I really hope they take it seriously and implement demurrage in the USD.  That would send people to BTC in DROVES.

[beetcoin]

so fiat electronic currency.. right, people will be totally excited about "more of the same."