Schmidt: Google Once Considered Issuing Currency

itwbennett writes "In his keynote speech at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said the company once 'had various proposals to have [its] own currency [it was] going to call Google Bucks.' The idea was to implement a 'peer-to-peer money' system, but it was squelched by legal issues."

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Anonymous Coward]

Actual quote: "Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws."

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[JoelKatz]

Sharia arbitration courts issue rulings that are legally binding on those who have agreed to be bound by them. So, for example, if you and I both wanted to, we could enter into a contract that stipulates that any disputes that arise over the terms of the contract would be settled by a Sharia arbitration court. The rulings would be legally enforceable, provided:

1) The only parties were those who had agreed by contract to be bound by the arbitration prior to the dispute arising.

2) The case is purely civil, not criminal.

3) The court doesn't violate public policy. (For example, if the court refused to allow women to testify, the ruling would likely be unenforceable.)

Orthodox Jews and several other groups have their own "courts" that arbitrate disputes among those who consent by contract to their jurisdiction. Generally, their rulings are enforceable in ordinary civil courts.

Re:Digital Rothschilds

[Cryacin]

Israel was not established and ratified as a purchased country. It was held by the brits from the second world war, and when the British Mandate was about to expire, they declared independence. It was ratified as a country by the UN, which is quite distinct from the international law doctrine of natural ratification through the declaration of war upon another sovereign.

Even though I'm probably feeding the worst kind of troll, I thought I would correct it before more misinformation was spread.

Re:This company scares me more and more

[Muad'Dave]

I am not a lawyer, but IMHO no private entity that is not a creditor is "required by law" to accept dollars as payment, either physically as actual notes or as the unit of a promissory note (check). It would be business suicide for a US store to _not_ accept them, but there's plenty of precedent for businesses not accepting physical notes, and pure barter is still quite legal.

Note that I said creditor - the rule of 'all DEBTS public and private' comes in to play when there's a debt owed. Attempting to buy something does not create a debt, so that rule does not apply. Eating in a restaurant that collects payment after the meal DOES create a debt, therefore they must accept currency as payment.

This article [amazon.com] has a good discussion.

This guy [quickanddirtytips.com] gets it close, but confuses creditor with seller.