Current Events > Republican piece of shit proposes law to ban cryptocurrency, cash, giftcards

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1241/text#toc-idea0e9489fc8f46379f95bb56c8bbbda5

To combat "muh terrorizm"

trash human.

@Tekutso
---

Reminds me of this
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/burner-phones-could-be-made-illegal-under-law-that-would-require-personal-details-of-anyone-buying-a-a6955396.html
---

deupd_u posted...

Reminds me of this
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/burner-phones-could-be-made-illegal-under-law-that-would-require-personal-details-of-anyone-buying-a-a6955396.html

What the flying fuck

fenderbender321 posted...

I hate this idea as much as universal health care. Why is our 2 party system so centered around eroding our freedoms?

We need a hard reset
---

This is why they're distracting us with identity politics bullshit. So they can get away with legalizing all this horse shit.

They know we'd be united and unstoppable, so they are trying to find ways to divide us. That's what identity politics does. We need to unite, man.
---

Fuck gift cards though. Make my grandma give me cash.
---

@Balrog0

How do we stop this nonsense?
---

I was hoping he thought he was banning the mark of the beast. That would have been interesting.
---

That will never get passed. Banning just cryptocurrency, maybe, but not cash and gift cards.

Clad posted...

This is why they're distracting us with identity politics bulls***. So they can get away with legalizing all this horse s***.

They know we'd be united and unstoppable, so they are trying to find ways to divide us. That's what identity politics does. We need to unite, man.

And you fall for it hook, line, and sinker. Especially with your shit topic from yesterday.
---

i prefer gift cards to cash as gifts tbh.
---

creativerealms posted...

I was hoping he thought he was banning the mark of the beast. That would have been interesting.

I would've immediately sent a nice check to the most powerful secularist legal organization I could find.

Mikablu posted...

That will never get passed. Banning just cryptocurrency, maybe, but not cash and gift cards.

I hope none of it passes. Banning cryptocurrency would leave us far behind the other developed countries that are preparing to ride the boom. It's the next evolution of internet technologies, and we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we ban it.
---

lilORANG posted...

i prefer gift cards to cash as gifts tbh.

What was the point of this comment? Seems pretty useless.
---

Clad posted...

I hope none of it passes. Banning cryptocurrency would leave us far behind the other developed countries that are preparing to ride the boom. It's the next evolution of internet technologies, and we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we ban it.

I meant if is was just banning cc, it might have a chance. No way in hell it's gonna pass if it's coming after cash and gift cards as well as cc.

Interesting topic title.
---

Clad posted...

What was the point of this comment? Seems pretty useless.

what does this add by comparison?
---

The majority use of cyptocurrency probably is for illegal transactions.

Hell, the majority use of physical cash probably is too, at this point. At least that's an argument by a Harvard econ professor:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/06/economist-ken-rogoff-makes-case-for-scraping-100-bills-and-even-20s.html

It's time to reduce the amount of physical cash floating around the globe to help combat tax evasion and other illicit activities, Harvard professor and renowned economist Ken Rogoff told CNBC on Tuesday.

"I'd eventually phase out the $100 note. I'd phase out the $50. And over 10 or 20 years, I'm phasing out the $20s," he argued, while explaining the thesis of his new book "The Curse of Cash" in a "Squawk Box" interview.

"Cash is very good way to port, horde, hide for crime [and] tax evasion. The evidence, I think, is overwhelming that that is a lot of the use," he added. "There are things like illegal immigration … that's cash-driven. If you couldn't pay in cash, it wouldn't drive all the illegal immigration."

But society needs to find a sweet spot on cash, so there's enough for regular consumers, who can buy things, but not enough for criminals to exploit, Rogoff said. "Leaving some around makes sense."

Cash is far more ingrained on our society than crypto, so it's not an easy fix. Meanwhile, cyrpto is in its infancy, so putting systems in place to prevent it from predominantly being used as an illegal payment system is a good thing.
---

Clad posted...

Banning cryptocurrency would leave us far behind the other developed countries that are preparing to ride the boom. It's the next evolution of internet technologies, and we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we ban it.

Uh, no. The next boom is cashless electronic payments on a global scale, not crypto.
---

I read the bill, it's trying to ban any of that. It's regulating it more.
---

The Admiral posted...

The majority use of cyptocurrency probably is for illegal transactions.

Hell, the majority use of physical cash probably is too, at this point. At least that's an argument by a Harvard econ professor:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/06/economist-ken-rogoff-makes-case-for-scraping-100-bills-and-even-20s.html

It's time to reduce the amount of physical cash floating around the globe to help combat tax evasion and other illicit activities, Harvard professor and renowned economist Ken Rogoff told CNBC on Tuesday.

"I'd eventually phase out the $100 note. I'd phase out the $50. And over 10 or 20 years, I'm phasing out the $20s," he argued, while explaining the thesis of his new book "The Curse of Cash" in a "Squawk Box" interview.

"Cash is very good way to port, horde, hide for crime [and] tax evasion. The evidence, I think, is overwhelming that that is a lot of the use," he added. "There are things like illegal immigration … that's cash-driven. If you couldn't pay in cash, it wouldn't drive all the illegal immigration."

But society needs to find a sweet spot on cash, so there's enough for regular consumers, who can buy things, but not enough for criminals to exploit, Rogoff said. "Leaving some around makes sense."

Cash is far more ingrained on our society than crypto, so it's not an easy fix. Meanwhile, cyrpto is in its infancy, so putting systems in place to prevent it from predominantly being used as an illegal payment system is a good thing.

Fuck off addy

The Admiral posted...

Clad posted...

Banning cryptocurrency would leave us far behind the other developed countries that are preparing to ride the boom. It's the next evolution of internet technologies, and we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we ban it.

Uh, no. The next boom is cashless electronic payments on a global scale, not crypto.

what the fuck do you think crypto is, addy? that's exactly what it is, and the blockchain is an innovation that can be called Internet 3.0 without any exaggeration. it's gonna be hugw
---

Okay maybe I'm not reading it right but I'm not seeing where they're saying that it'll be explicitly "banned."

I'm seeing that you'll have to declare it or other prepaid devices when enter the country though.

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

I read the bill, it's trying to ban any of that. It's regulating it more.

it is effectively a ban

stifling it into the ground

like banning or severely restricting ammo but not guns
---

Clad posted...

Fuck off addy

I thought you were actually intelligent enough to want to discuss this. My bad.
---

Cryptocurrency you could make an argument for. A dumb argument but an argument.

Cash and gift crds? WTF?
---

The Admiral posted...

Clad posted...

Fuck off addy

I thought you were actually intelligent enough to want to discuss this. My bad.

Have you fucked off yet?
---

ah, is this why everyone is freaking out and it's dipping?

FrenchCrunch posted...

ah, is this why everyone is freaking out and it's dipping?

yes
---

Clad posted...

The Admiral posted...

Clad posted...

Fuck off addy

I thought you were actually intelligent enough to want to discuss this. My bad.

Have you fucked off yet?

No, it's more fun sticking around an watching you make an ass of yourself because you don't understand the issue you're so worked up over.
---

*gets popcorn*
---

Well this looks like a fun little topic
---

The Admiral posted...

Clad posted...

The Admiral posted...

Clad posted...

Fuck off addy

I thought you were actually intelligent enough to want to discuss this. My bad.

Have you fucked off yet?

No, it's more fun sticking around an watching you make an ass of yourself because you don't understand the issue you're so worked up over.

youre saying i dont understand the issue, yet you clearly didnt even know what cryptocurrency is. how come you didnt respond to that other thing i said? lmfao
---

Proudclad, you're really making yourself look like an dumbass, it's really a shame though cause you actually used to be so much better. You're shit posting has increased a lot in recent times.

Clad posted...

youre saying i dont understand the issue, yet you clearly didnt even know what cryptocurrency is. how come you didnt respond to that other thing i said? lmfao

I know exactly what it is. You're the one who thinks it's the same as the other legitimate electronic payment systems that countries are trying to implement. For example, Sweden:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/04/sweden-cashless-society-cards-phone-apps-leading-europe
---

The Admiral posted...

Clad posted...

youre saying i dont understand the issue, yet you clearly didnt even know what cryptocurrency is. how come you didnt respond to that other thing i said? lmfao

I know exactly what it is. You're the one who thinks it's the same as the other legitimate electronic payment that countries are trying to implement. For example, Sweden:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/04/sweden-cashless-society-cards-phone-apps-leading-europe

you said the next boom will be in cashless electronic payments on a global scale. that is what crypto is.
---

this will hit psn xbox steam cards too right ?
---

Clad posted...

The Admiral posted...

Clad posted...

youre saying i dont understand the issue, yet you clearly didnt even know what cryptocurrency is. how come you didnt respond to that other thing i said? lmfao

I know exactly what it is. You're the one who thinks it's the same as the other legitimate electronic payment that countries are trying to implement. For example, Sweden:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/04/sweden-cashless-society-cards-phone-apps-leading-europe

you said the next boom will be in cashless electronic payments on a global scale. that is what crypto is.

Have you bothered to read either of the articles I posted in this topic? Crypto is no necessary for that at all.
---

Ken rogoff is a shill for big corporatism

and scholars knew that this would happen once policymakers started viewing cash as suspect: http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2016/Lemieuxcash.html

Banning cash means that the government would stop issuing it and would buy the outstanding stock in exchange for interest-bearing securities. Rogoff proposes a gradual phasing out over 10 to 15 years, starting with $100 and $50 bills and then extending to $20 bills. Eventually, only denominations of $10 and under—which now represent only 3% of the cash—would be allowed, or perhaps replaced by heavy coins.

This is a much bigger issue than it first appears to be. Not only would banning cash as we know it inconvenience a lot of people, but also, as we shall see, it would come with many new regulations and controls. For example, it would require tight regulation of crypto-currencies, harassment of "cash hoarders," and prohibition of prepaid cards (which are too similar to cash).

The arguments that Rogoff and others invoke for a partial or total prohibition on cash are its widespread use in criminal activities, its constraining effect on monetary policy, and its diminishing convenience for legitimate use. Each of these arguments is flawed, as I will explain later. Let's look more closely at the first two arguments.

Consider the crime argument. Constraining government, even in fighting crime, forms the constitutional basis of a free society. Criminals are probably more likely than blameless citizens to invoke the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, or the Fourth Amendment against "unreasonable searches and seizures." The Eighth Amendment, against "cruel and unusual punishments," looks even more tailor-made for criminals. But this is not a valid reason to abolish these constitutional rights, which are meant to protect individuals against government overreach.

A similar argument is relevant to neutral things like cash. Why should innocent individuals be prevented from using cash only because criminals use it improperly? It is estimated that alcohol is involved in a third of crimes,2 but this is not a good argument for a new Prohibition. Preventing crime should normally be done by dissuasive punishments, not by prior controls on non-criminal behavior.

Moreover, not all crimes are real crimes.3 Terrorism is a real crime, but there are already many laws and regulations against actions committed by terrorists. And cash is probably not a major factor in terrorism. Victimless crimes are different. Tax evasion, selling and buying drugs or cigarettes among adults, and ordinary activities in the underground economy are "criminal" in a different sense than murder.
---

The Admiral posted...

Clad posted...

The Admiral posted...

Clad posted...

youre saying i dont understand the issue, yet you clearly didnt even know what cryptocurrency is. how come you didnt respond to that other thing i said? lmfao

I know exactly what it is. You're the one who thinks it's the same as the other legitimate electronic payment that countries are trying to implement. For example, Sweden:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/04/sweden-cashless-society-cards-phone-apps-leading-europe

you said the next boom will be in cashless electronic payments on a global scale. that is what crypto is.

Have you bothered to read either of the articles I posted in this topic? Crypto is no necessary for that at all.

i did read the sweden one. you didnt say that crypto is not necessary for that. you said the next big boom is electronic cashless payment on a global scale, as if disputing that crypto is not the next big boom. even though it literally is an electronic cashless payment system on a global scale.

regardless of whether or not it is necessary, it already is that.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Ken rogoff is a shill for big corporatism

and scholars knew that this would happen once policymakers started viewing cash as suspect: http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2016/Lemieuxcash.html

Banning cash means that the government would stop issuing it and would buy the outstanding stock in exchange for interest-bearing securities. Rogoff proposes a gradual phasing out over 10 to 15 years, starting with $100 and $50 bills and then extending to $20 bills. Eventually, only denominations of $10 and under—which now represent only 3% of the cash—would be allowed, or perhaps replaced by heavy coins.

This is a much bigger issue than it first appears to be. Not only would banning cash as we know it inconvenience a lot of people, but also, as we shall see, it would come with many new regulations and controls. For example, it would require tight regulation of crypto-currencies, harassment of "cash hoarders," and prohibition of prepaid cards (which are too similar to cash).

The arguments that Rogoff and others invoke for a partial or total prohibition on cash are its widespread use in criminal activities, its constraining effect on monetary policy, and its diminishing convenience for legitimate use. Each of these arguments is flawed, as I will explain later. Let's look more closely at the first two arguments.

Consider the crime argument. Constraining government, even in fighting crime, forms the constitutional basis of a free society. Criminals are probably more likely than blameless citizens to invoke the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, or the Fourth Amendment against "unreasonable searches and seizures." The Eighth Amendment, against "cruel and unusual punishments," looks even more tailor-made for criminals. But this is not a valid reason to abolish these constitutional rights, which are meant to protect individuals against government overreach.

A similar argument is relevant to neutral things like cash. Why should innocent individuals be prevented from using cash only because criminals use it improperly? It is estimated that alcohol is involved in a third of crimes,2 but this is not a good argument for a new Prohibition. Preventing crime should normally be done by dissuasive punishments, not by prior controls on non-criminal behavior.

Moreover, not all crimes are real crimes.3 Terrorism is a real crime, but there are already many laws and regulations against actions committed by terrorists. And cash is probably not a major factor in terrorism. Victimless crimes are different. Tax evasion, selling and buying drugs or cigarettes among adults, and ordinary activities in the underground economy are "criminal" in a different sense than murder.

"B-b-but this isn't actually a ban!!!!!1!1!1!1"
---

Balrog0 posted...

Ken rogoff is a shill for big corporatism

and scholars knew that this would happen once policymakers started viewing cash as suspect: http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2016/Lemieuxcash.html

Banning cash means that the government would stop issuing it and would buy the outstanding stock in exchange for interest-bearing securities. Rogoff proposes a gradual phasing out over 10 to 15 years, starting with $100 and $50 bills and then extending to $20 bills. Eventually, only denominations of $10 and under—which now represent only 3% of the cash—would be allowed, or perhaps replaced by heavy coins.

This is a much bigger issue than it first appears to be. Not only would banning cash as we know it inconvenience a lot of people, but also, as we shall see, it would come with many new regulations and controls. For example, it would require tight regulation of crypto-currencies, harassment of "cash hoarders," and prohibition of prepaid cards (which are too similar to cash).

The arguments that Rogoff and others invoke for a partial or total prohibition on cash are its widespread use in criminal activities, its constraining effect on monetary policy, and its diminishing convenience for legitimate use. Each of these arguments is flawed, as I will explain later. Let's look more closely at the first two arguments.

Consider the crime argument. Constraining government, even in fighting crime, forms the constitutional basis of a free society. Criminals are probably more likely than blameless citizens to invoke the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, or the Fourth Amendment against "unreasonable searches and seizures." The Eighth Amendment, against "cruel and unusual punishments," looks even more tailor-made for criminals. But this is not a valid reason to abolish these constitutional rights, which are meant to protect individuals against government overreach.

A similar argument is relevant to neutral things like cash. Why should innocent individuals be prevented from using cash only because criminals use it improperly? It is estimated that alcohol is involved in a third of crimes,2 but this is not a good argument for a new Prohibition. Preventing crime should normally be done by dissuasive punishments, not by prior controls on non-criminal behavior.

Moreover, not all crimes are real crimes.3 Terrorism is a real crime, but there are already many laws and regulations against actions committed by terrorists. And cash is probably not a major factor in terrorism. Victimless crimes are different. Tax evasion, selling and buying drugs or cigarettes among adults, and ordinary activities in the underground economy are "criminal" in a different sense than murder.

I'm aware of this criticism, although he's a left-wing academic, not a corporatist. While I disagree with his radical solutions about eliminating cash entirely, this doesn't mean his data on the how cash is a major facilitator of illegal activities at this point is incorrect. As I think he notes, something like 80% of all U.S. cash in circulation is in $100 bills, and that amount far exceeds any measurable legal uses. A large portion of it is used for drug trading, prostitution, mob activities, money laundering, tax evasion, and paying illegal immigrants.

And crypto is far less legitimate than cash.
---

The Admiral posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Ken rogoff is a shill for big corporatism

and scholars knew that this would happen once policymakers started viewing cash as suspect: http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2016/Lemieuxcash.html

Banning cash means that the government would stop issuing it and would buy the outstanding stock in exchange for interest-bearing securities. Rogoff proposes a gradual phasing out over 10 to 15 years, starting with $100 and $50 bills and then extending to $20 bills. Eventually, only denominations of $10 and under—which now represent only 3% of the cash—would be allowed, or perhaps replaced by heavy coins.

This is a much bigger issue than it first appears to be. Not only would banning cash as we know it inconvenience a lot of people, but also, as we shall see, it would come with many new regulations and controls. For example, it would require tight regulation of crypto-currencies, harassment of "cash hoarders," and prohibition of prepaid cards (which are too similar to cash).

The arguments that Rogoff and others invoke for a partial or total prohibition on cash are its widespread use in criminal activities, its constraining effect on monetary policy, and its diminishing convenience for legitimate use. Each of these arguments is flawed, as I will explain later. Let's look more closely at the first two arguments.

Consider the crime argument. Constraining government, even in fighting crime, forms the constitutional basis of a free society. Criminals are probably more likely than blameless citizens to invoke the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, or the Fourth Amendment against "unreasonable searches and seizures." The Eighth Amendment, against "cruel and unusual punishments," looks even more tailor-made for criminals. But this is not a valid reason to abolish these constitutional rights, which are meant to protect individuals against government overreach.

A similar argument is relevant to neutral things like cash. Why should innocent individuals be prevented from using cash only because criminals use it improperly? It is estimated that alcohol is involved in a third of crimes,2 but this is not a good argument for a new Prohibition. Preventing crime should normally be done by dissuasive punishments, not by prior controls on non-criminal behavior.

Moreover, not all crimes are real crimes.3 Terrorism is a real crime, but there are already many laws and regulations against actions committed by terrorists. And cash is probably not a major factor in terrorism. Victimless crimes are different. Tax evasion, selling and buying drugs or cigarettes among adults, and ordinary activities in the underground economy are "criminal" in a different sense than murder.

I'm aware of this criticism, although he's a left-wing academic, not a corporatist. While I disagree with his radical solutions about eliminating cash entirely, this doesn't mean his data on the how cash is a major facilitator of illegal activities at this point is incorrect. As I think he notes, something like 80% of all U.S. cash in circulation is in $100 bills, and that amount far exceeds any measurable legal uses. A large portion of it is used for drug trading, prostitution, mob activities, money laundering, tax evasion, and paying illegal immigrants.

A major facilitator of illegal activities is guns. Would you support heavily restricting guns to the point where it's a ban in spirit?
---

The Admiral posted...

And crypto is far less legitimate than cash.

Fiat currency has no instrinic value. The blockchain does. So you're completely wrong.
---

Clad posted...

A major facilitator of illegal activities is guns.

You're pretty much done if this is the red herring you need to bring up to defend your point.

Are you really a Proudclad alt? If so, I'm disappointed. You're usually a better poster than this.
---

have do normies have to ruin everything?
---

Clad posted...

Fiat currency has no instrinic value. The blockchain does.

No it doesn't. Crypto simply has arbitrary scarcity, which is not intrinsic value. Intrinsically, it's worthless.
---

The Admiral posted...

Clad posted...

A major facilitator of illegal activities is guns.

You're pretty much done if this is the red herring you need to bring up to defend your point.

Are you really a Proudclad alt? If so, I'm disappointed. You're usually a better poster than this.

The point was that it doesn't matter if criminals use cash. That isn't justification for regulating it out the ass, because criminals aren't gonna give a fuck regardless. It just increases governmental reach and oversight over law abiding citizens.
---

The Admiral posted...

Clad posted...

Fiat currency has no instrinic value. The blockchain does.

No it doesn't. Crypto simply has arbitrary scarcity, which is not intrinsic value. Intrinsically, it's worthless.

That's true of some coins, but not all. Look up Ethereum, Golem, Sia, Ripple, Steem. You can build decentralized apps, have access to supercomputing for cheap, have access to nearly unlimited storage for cheap, get paid to participate in social media replacements like Steem, etc. They are hugely valuable.
---

Clad posted...

The Admiral posted...

Clad posted...

Fiat currency has no instrinic value. The blockchain does.

No it doesn't. Crypto simply has arbitrary scarcity, which is not intrinsic value. Intrinsically, it's worthless.

That's true of some coins, but not all. Look up Ethereum, Golem, Sia, Ripple, Steem. You can build decentralized apps, have access to supercomputing for cheap, have access to nearly unlimited storage for cheap, get paid to participate in social media replacements like Steem, etc. They are hugely valuable.

Having a global network payment network is useful, but having multiple forms of crypto being the mode of currency is not.

And while I'm typically against government regulation into most parts of life, this is one where it's necessary. If people can instantaneously and anonymously transfer money to anyone in the world in any amounts, you have a major issue with funding terrorism and other large-scale illegal activities.
---