Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

BeckyDem

(8,361 posts)
2. Yep, all around the world: Stiglitz urges regulators to shut down cryptocurrencies
Thu Dec 9, 2021, 03:28 PM
Dec 2021

Nobel prize laureate suggests Seoul set up well-designed regulations for global financial hub push

By Park Ga-young
Published: Oct 28, 2021


Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz on Thursday urged regulators around the world to shut down cryptocurrencies, saying it undermines the basis of financial systems as well as its pursuit of transparency.

Speaking at a forum hosted by the Seoul city government, the economic professor at Columbia University also suggested market transparency and well-designed regulations as prerequisites for the city to become a global financial hub.

“(Cryptocurrencies) are becoming significantly important in terms of undermining the basis of our financial system and transparency of our financial system,” Stiglitz said, adding that illicit activities that undercut the very functioning of our society can occur through the digital currencies.
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20211028000916



Uncle Joe

(58,378 posts)
5. I'm trying understand the upside to cryptocurrencies but all I see are the downsides.
Thu Dec 9, 2021, 04:16 PM
Dec 2021


If anything has the potential to undermine existing currencies, disrupt nations ruled by representative governments, create hyper-inflation while giving oligarchs and mega-corporations even more power and ability to dominate the people, it's cryptocurrencies.

On top of all that it adversely contributes to climate change by sucking up great amounts of energy.

I view it as a form of global Russian Roulette and just a matter of time before the round goes off.

Amishman

(5,558 posts)
8. The technology has some spectacular potential uses
Thu Dec 9, 2021, 04:43 PM
Dec 2021

Credit card companies charge 3% in fees to businesses on credit card transactions. A Blockchain based solution could do the same thing with 1/100th the overhead and fees.

Uncle Joe

(58,378 posts)
10. I agree the blockchain tech is cool and I see good uses for it but what happens
Thu Dec 9, 2021, 05:30 PM
Dec 2021

to the value of the dollar (or for that matter any currency) if a large % switches to crypto currencies?

It seems to me like the dollar and other currencies would drop dramatically in value or purchasing power, that equates to some major hyper-inflation.

This in turn would also have the net effect of weakening representative governments as their official currencies eroded.

I imagine there will be tens of millions of Americans, without the ability or means to invest/switch to crypto currencies as their means of buying products and/or services were made even more daunting with the drop in value of their few dollars.

As things are, three billionaires own as much wealth as approximately half the American People while oligarchs dominate the world, ultimately I believe the fight for some decent balance in regards to global/U.S wealth equality will made more difficult by the rise of crypto currencies.

The law of "supply and demand" demand it.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
3. Crypto isn't "untaxed"...
Thu Dec 9, 2021, 03:40 PM
Dec 2021
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/virtual-currencies

The sale or other exchange of virtual currencies, or the use of virtual currencies to pay for goods or services, or holding virtual currencies as an investment, generally has tax consequences that could result in tax liability.

Celerity

(43,458 posts)
9. they have no real reason to get rid of it, as it often blocks us and rarely blocks them
Thu Dec 9, 2021, 04:51 PM
Dec 2021
The filibuster hurts only Senate Democrats -- and Mitch McConnell knows that. The numbers don't lie.

My own add - Sinema wants a 60 vote threshold on EVERY legislative action!. Not joking.



https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/filibuster-hurts-only-senate-democrats-mitch-mcconnell-knows-n1255787

snip

Cutting off debate in the Senate so legislation can be voted on is done through a procedure called "cloture," which requires three-fifths of the Senate — or 60 votes — to pass. I went through the Senate's cloture votes for the last dozen years from the 109th Congress until now, tracking how many of them failed because they didn't hit 60 votes. It's not a perfect method of tracking filibusters, but it's as close as we can get. It's clear that Republicans have been much more willing — and able — to tangle up the Senate's proceedings than Democrats. More important, the filibuster was almost no impediment to Republican goals in the Senate during the Trump administration. Until 2007, the number of cloture votes taken every year was relatively low, as the Senate's use of unanimous consent agreements skipped the need to round up supporters. While a lot of the cloture motions did fail, it was still rare to jump that hurdle at all — and even then, a lot of the motions were still agreed to through unanimous consent. That changed when Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and McConnell first became minority leader. The number of cloture motions filed doubled compared to the previous year, from 68 to 139.

Things only got more dire as the Obama administration kicked off in 2009, with Democrats in control of the House, the Senate and the White House. Of the 91 cloture votes taken during the first two years of President Barack Obama's first term, 28 — or 30 percent — failed. All but three failed despite having majority support. The next Congress was much worse after the GOP took control of the House: McConnell's minority blocked 43 percent of all cloture votes taken from passing. Things were looking to be on the same course at the start of Obama's second term. By November 2013, 27 percent of cloture votes had failed even though they had majority support. After months of simmering outrage over blocked nominees grew, Senate Democrats triggered the so-called nuclear option, dropping the number of votes needed for cloture to a majority for most presidential nominees, including Cabinet positions and judgeships. The next year, Republicans took over the Senate with Obama still in office. By pure numbers, the use of the filibuster rules skyrocketed under the Democratic minority: 63 of 123 cloture votes failed, or 51 percent. But there's a catch: Nothing that was being voted on was covered by the new filibuster rules. McConnell had almost entirely stopped bringing Obama's judicial nominees to the floor, including Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

McConnell defended the filibuster on the Senate floor last week, reminding his counterparts of their dependence on it during President Donald Trump's term. "Democrats used it constantly, as they had every right to," he said. "They were happy to insist on a 60-vote threshold for practically every measure or bill I took up." Except, if anything, use of the filibuster plummeted those four years. There are two main reasons: First, and foremost, the amount of in-party squabbling during the Trump years prevented any sort of coordinated legislative push from materializing. Second, there wasn't actually all that much the Republicans wanted that needed to get past the filibuster in its reduced state after the 2013 rule change. McConnell's strategy of withholding federal judgeships from Obama nominees paid off in spades, letting him spend four years stuffing the courts with conservatives. And when Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, was filibustered, McConnell didn't hesitate to change the rules again. Trump's more controversial nominees also sailed to confirmation without any Democratic votes. Legislatively, there were only two things Republicans really wanted: tax cuts and repeal of Obamacare. The Trump tax cuts they managed through budget reconciliation, a process that allows budget bills to pass through the Senate with just a majority vote.

Republicans tried to do the same for health care in 2017 to avoid the filibuster, failing only during the final vote, when Sen. John McCain's "no" vote denied them a majority. The repeal wouldn't have gone through even if the filibuster had already been in the grave. As a result, the number of successful filibusters plummeted: Over the last four years, an average of 7 percent of all cloture motions failed. In the last Congress, 298 cloture votes were taken, a record. Only 26 failed. Almost all of the votes that passed were on nominees to the federal bench or the executive branch. In fact, if you stripped out the nominations considered in the first two years of Trump's term, the rate of failure would be closer to 15 percent — but on only 70 total votes. There just wasn't all that much for Democrats to get in the way of with the filibuster, which is why we didn't hear much complaining from Republicans. Today's Democrats aren't in the same boat. Almost all of the big-ticket items President Joe Biden wants to move forward require both houses of Congress to agree. And given McConnell's previous success in smothering Obama's agenda for political gain, his warnings about the lack of "concern and comity" that Democrats are trying to usher in ring hollow. In actuality, his warnings of "wait until you're in the minority again" shouldn't inspire concern from Democrats. So long as it applies only to legislation, the filibuster is a Republicans-only weapon. There's nothing left, it seems, for the GOP to fear from it — aside from its eventual demise.

snip
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»It's the filibuster or vo...