• RagingRobot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Visa should be nationalized. Let the government run the payment processing if we are only going to have only one.

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Christ…this needed to be major news a year ago. We really need to get banks out of the payment business but fear that they are pulling an Intuit and will make the FedNow system more challenging to use down the road.

        • NateNate60@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          FedNow still relies on banks. The only way we can truly get the commerical banks and financial institutions out of the picture is with cryptocurrency (lol) or a CBDC (central bank digital currency). In short, a CBDC would operate like a Government-run Cash App or PayPal and the balance in a CBDC wallet holds the same status as paper money and is legal tender.

          I believe that CBDCs are entirely necessary for a digital future. For the everyday citizen, the only form of “cash”, as in “Government-issued legal money”, is paper banknotes and pieces of coinage. This is wholly insufficient for a system where an increasing amount of business is conducted digitally, and all it does is invite middlemen like Visa to insert themselves like a leech and take profit off every transaction. Banks and financial institutions already have digital cash; account balances at the Federal Reserve are as good as cash to banks as far as the law is concerned, but the everyday layman can’t just go into the Federal Reserve and ask to open an account.

          This is exactly that CBDCs will solve. Anyone can hold real money (not just a promise to pay money) in a digital format and exchange it peer-to-peer or use it to conduct business free of fees and middlemen.

          The only problem is that conservatives in America think that they can’t trust the Government, so it’s better to trust for-profit financial institutions instead. After all, the banks have never fucked it up before, right?

    • paf0@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I’d love to see the federal reserve issue a no fee stablecoin, though I wonder if it would be secure in the long term with quantum coming.

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Why would the government put time into making fake money when they can just make more real money?

        • paf0@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Because electronic payments that do not require a middleman are inherently better than funneling everything through centralized organizations like Visa. They could make their own dollar based blockchain that has secure and private transactions based on their own stablecoin. It would be the same as a cash payment.

          • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Again, why would the government waste real money doing that with fake money, when they can do it with real money instead? What benefit is there, over just being a regular processor for real money? Because it’s definitely not the inability to reverse transactions in blockchain systems, that’s more of a feature for criminals.

            • NateNate60@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 hour ago

              I have a very strong feeling that @paf0@lemmy.world is being downvoted here, not because they make a bad point, but because they phrased it in terms of cryptocurrency which immediately triggers negative reactions from everyone.

              What OP has proposed is neither novel, nor a terrible idea. In fact, economists call it a central bank digital currency. And yes, some countries have adopted it. It’s usually not run with a blockchain, but that’s because if you have a trusted central entity to run the system, that being the central bank, a blockchain is inferior in practically every aspect to a normal relational database. That’s why all current CBDCs still use fairly traditional accounting systems.

              Your use, however, of the terms “real money” and “fake money” has, I believe, the effect of shutting down intelligent conversation, rather than encouraging it. “Money” is a social construct. “Real money” is whatever the Government declares to be “real” and that the population is willing to use. It doesn’t need to be physical money. And it is unquestionable that in the countries that have adopted the legal framework that allows their central banks to issue CBDCs, the money so issued this way is as real and legally equivalent to paper banknotes and metal coins.

              • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 hours ago

                Actually, that is a decent point in this idea’s favor. Don’t think that’ll overcome the downsides, but I’ll give you a point for that one all the same.

            • HappyTimeHarry
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              if the government was to do their own crypto it could do a lot to disrupt the current unregulated “stablecoins” that currently exist, i could see it happing if for no other reason than to fight money laundering. If the fed is doing it, it becomes “real” money and most people would probably prefer a fed coin to something like usdt.

            • paf0@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              5 hours ago

              It would be real money if the federal reserve issued it. Cash still exists, is that a feature for criminals or does it benefit the poor and unbanked?

              • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 hours ago

                It would be real money if the federal reserve issued it.

                No, as you said, its a stable coin backed by real money.

                Cash still exists, is that a feature for criminals or does it benefit the poor and unbanked?

                Cash transactions can easily be reversed, unlike blockchain, but nice bait.

                • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  Cash transactions can easily be reversed, unlike blockchain, but nice bait.

                  Literally the opposite is true…

              • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                What benefit is there, over just being a regular processor for real money?

                Online payments, which is a lot of transactions.

                Pretty sure the current system of real money already handles that one friend.