Rand Paul Suggests Backing Bitcoin With Stocks 404
SonicSpike writes:
"In a recent interview, Senator Rand Paul said there's one thing he would change about Bitcoin: it should be backed by something with intrinsic value, like stocks. He said, 'I was looking more at it until that recent thing [sic]. And actually my theory, if I were setting it up, I'd make it exchangeable for stock. And then it'd have real value. And I'd have it pegged, and I'd have a basket of 10 big retailers I think it would work, but I think, because I'm sort of a believer in currency having value, if you're going to create a currency, have it backed up by — you know, Hayek used to talk about a basket of commodities? You could have a basket of stocks, and have some exchangeability, because it's hard for people like me who are a bit tangible. But you could have an average of stocks, I'm wondering if that's the next permutation.'"
Re:Stocks? (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing has "intrinsic value". Stuff is worth stuff to people depending on what they are prepared to pay for it.
Re:Breaking News: Rand Paul Invents... (Score:5, Informative)
To whomever modded the AC troll: you're fucking ignorant.
Colored coins are a method to track the origin of bitcoins, so that a certain set of coins can be set aside and conserved, allowing a party to acknowledge them in various ways. Such coins can be used to represent arbitrary digital tokens, such as stocks, bonds, smart property and so on
Source [stackexchange.com].
Really, if you don't know about the subject, what about you refrain from moderating?
Re:History (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Stocks? (Score:4, Informative)
Precise value can be subjective, but things which are useful just because they're there have intrinsic value, even if it isn't very much. So says my dictionary.
Re:Breaking News: Rand Paul Invents... (Score:4, Informative)
Another person that doesn't understand Libertarian ideals.
To be fair, that's because the definition of Libertarianism changes depending on who you ask. As the old joke about economists goes, ask 10 Libertarians what Libertarianism is and you'll get 20 answers.
The one I've heard most often is basically the radical capitalism version from David Friedman, in his book The Machinery of Freedom. If you somehow have superior credentials to Mr. Friedman, well I'd ask what the hell you are doing arguing on Slashdot among many other things.
Anyway, that version is all about a tiny government and replacing more services formerly provided by the government with competition, typically competing corporations. Through the magic of competition, according to him, all that other stuff just sorts out, since if you aren't happy with service X provided by contractor/corporation Y, then seek another bid/payment for services more to your liking. Fire protection, hospitals, national defense, schools, groceries, legal system, etc. all with no regulation or oversight, entirely existing on their reputations in the free market, competing with one another for your business with enlightened self-interest as the check.
Of course, this is totally unworkable in the real world and he admits as much in the closing chapters. Things like how impossible it would be to build national infrastructure without the eminent domain powers of government (e.g. somebody's property is getting "stolen" against their will), how lawsuit happy such a society would be (to people who counter that whatever contract you sign is binding... right, that's why ALL contracts in the business world are NEVER disputed, right?).
All your other variations seem like Libertarians realizing the pure form is BS and theoretical only.
Re:History (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're confusing him with his father Ron Paul. They're both wacko libertarians. But the son is rather less intelligent than the father.