volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@mempko

The video is based on some accounting hoops that don't have real world meaning, and it also gets some of its facts wrong about what money is and how it works.

Mainly, if I trade $5 to you for a hamburger, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether I'm trading you $5 in $1 coins or a Federal Reserve Note even though those would be treated differently in his accounting.

Because his description of money is unrealistic, even if technically correct as for legal abstraction.

The "all money is debt!" argument is not only factually wrong, but also irrelevant to how money is used in the real world.

@stopgopfox@libretooth.gr

If this is a reference to the FairTax, since I see that popping up today, the plan would write the poor checks to offset the tax burdens.

The FairTax was specifically designed to be progressive, to make sure it this payment prevents it from hitting the economically vulnerable.

@mastobit @darnell

Not quite.

It's money that Congress *authorized* the Executive Branch to spend if possible, based on projections of tax collections vs project costs throughout the following year or so.

It was not money we agreed to spend as that's an executive branch action that happens over time.

It's really important to realize this difference as it's at the crux of the debt ceiling debate.

Congress authorized the spending of money that didn't exist, which constrains the budget. It didn't and couldn't have agreed to spend that money. Because, again, it didn't exist.

@aevisia

Not directly to the protocol, but end clients are all free to add whatever "pay me" buttons they'd like.

@jchyip

Well, when investors know that the CEO is factually incorrect, it ends up being nothing but advertising for the investment.

@SAWYNNE1

If you didn't hear Republicans having issues with the Trump deficits then I don't think you heard from many Republicans.

I heard at TON of Republicans yelling about it.

Anyway, it is new funding.

That legislation passed without funding the spending it authorized doesn't change that this is about raising more money, more debt, for those programs.

And without funding there is no spending, so yes, it is also new spending.

@Ciantic

I don't see an answer to "how" in that :)

I'm kidding, well half kidding.

From my perspective, it's not a problem that can or should be solved at the protocol level. Yeah, I agree that it requires human labor, and I'd put it as a social problem that requires a social, not technical, solution.

Me, I'm often drawn toward solutions that are fully decentralized, empowering end users to shape their experiences, especially by using web of trust type techniques to avoid interactions that they'd rather not get into.

And that probably wouldn't integrate down into the protocol

@mempko

No, the US Constitution assigns authority to borrow to Congress, as we want to be really sure that there's general consensus among the population before we're all obligated for generations to work to pay off those debts.

The debt ceiling is merely the total amount of borrowing that Congress has authorized.

It wasn't self imposed, but was built directly into the framework of the US government because that borrowing was seen as such a critical thing to include in the checks and balances.

@craigpc

For what it's worth, I originally heard the FairTax promoted by libertarian types who had very strong disagreements with Republicans, and who were frustrated that Republicans didn't support the plan back then, as they were the party in charge. I suppose it was in the '90s?

@charvaka

As you said, the Fed controls the money supply, and as an independent entity, it has effective unilateral control over that, by definition.

Anyway, the debt ceiling is a legislative branch check on executive branch behavior.
Anything that would undermine the debt ceiling short circuits that check.

We shouldn't want the executive branch to have unlimited ability to borrow on the credit of the US, which is exactly why that issue was constitutionally divided between the two branches.

@ryanderous

The BIG reason to be skeptical is to realize that presidents have every incentive to spin up fears, to get the public to pressure Congress to give them more money.

In this case the Treasury has plenty of ongoing income to service debts so there is absolutely no legal chance for the US to default.

Presidents like to put out that fear because it serves their strategic interests, but it's simply not true.

@SAWYNNE1

Democrats had every chance to authorize borrowing to pay for their spending packages, but they didn't.

It's worth holding them accountable for bragging about programs that they left without funding, for putting us in this situation, and hoping that Republicans would fix their mess.

@rambler_atx @jkfecke

And they would be right to do so.

The Democrats had every opportunity to authorize borrowing to fund the spending they called for, but they didn't.

They need to be held accountable for their actions in office as well.

@Ciantic

But how would you design such a protocol to address those problems?

@violetblue

I wouldn't be so quick to accuse the WEC of being particularly familiar with reality...

@charvaka

I never said they were the same thing.

In fact, I switched to talking about the second specifically because they weren't the same thing, as the relationship between the Fed and the Treasury is a complicated one that it wasn't really necessary to address here.

But having the Feds override the fiscal checks and balanced between the legislative and executive branches is a dangerous direction to go.

@go

Just to make sure people are aware, Fediverse platforms not only still collect that information, but they broadcast the information to any third parties who would also like to have it, including commercial actors who don't even have to identify themselves to you.

Fediverse is absolutely not built on privacy.

Heck, even Twitter and Facebook could be hoovering up data from the Fediverse.