Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnG who wrote (38114)	8/17/1999 3:19:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

John, a currency doesn't need to be backed by assets these days and few are. Gold is being sold by the ton as it is no longer the backing of the money. The backing of money is now the political power of the state and their ability to maintain a monopoly in a given country. People trust that their reserve bank will keep the money supply reasonably steady, and since there is no other option, they use that currency. If things get bad, such as in Russia, they use something else, such as Greenbacks. So to make a start, a Q currency could be share-backed, not pegged to anything but it's value could be measured against a basket of currencies and commodities. A Q holder could trade their currency in for shares. Once it was big enough and ugly enough, it could float free and be held on the basis of the trust in the people running the currency. Those people could fund that currency by a 0.001% inflation rate and profit from running it by giving it a 0.5% inflation rate. That is a LOT cheaper than any other currency. The main value in the currency would be universality, security through Q! encryption, instantaneous WWeb access and transfer from anywhere to anyone, stability. No war, disaster or local national problem could disrupt it. Banks will NOT like this. Disintermediation is NOT a word banks would like to hear mentioned in regard to them. No more exchange rate ripoffs - money could be swapped at 0.01% or even lower charges. No more missing money as it slowly wends its way through the labyrinthine arcane world of central and other banks - you don't have it and they say they don't have it as it moves but somebody collects the interest and it is NOT the customer. No more thefts by credit card so those costs don't get loaded on the rest of us. No more bank branches to be funded from fees, high interest and heaps of little charges. Imagine how many people work in banks and how many buildings there are with nothing but 'banking' going on in them. They can all get a real job. A country would not be a good issuer of a currency because it remains vulnerable to 3D destruction. A Q bank could not be harmed. No country could raid it because it doesn't exist in any particular place. With super encryption, countries wouldn't know money is coming and going. The anti-encryption efforts by governments are for control and confiscation. They claim it is to catch terrorists and drug runners. Well, drug running shouldn't be illegal anyway - if people want to suck or inject poisonous chemicals into themselves, it isn't my problem. Same as if they want to go mountain climbing or racing car driving. Good luck - they'll need it. They don't catch many terrorists either. They can't even identify a Chinese embassy. Best not to peg the currency to the US$ or Euro because those are badly managed declining currencies. Why peg to a loser? Sure, report it compared with those currencies, but not peg it to them. I suspect the government would put a lot of pressure on Q! to not issue the Q the same as Ericy and any other dog in the manger tries to protect their patch. Well, maybe Janet Reno could prosecute the USA for anti-competitive practises if they try it. If people think MSFT a bullying anti-competitive monopoly, wait and see what the USA tries to do to Q! if they go with the Q. I bet Q! is working on it in secret right now. Mqurice