Janet Yellen is not in charge of the United States money supply. You’re thinking of the Federal Open Market Committee, which is comprised of the seven members of the Federal Reserve Board, the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and four of the eleven regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents on a yearly rotating basis.
And I’m not sure why you’re bringing up a criticism of our collective net worth on a discussion around whether Bitcoin is used in scams, unless you’re trying to push the narrative that traditional fiat currency is somehow worth less than an unbacked security. Which is both irrelevant to the conversation, and a pretty good indication that you don’t really understand how currency works.
Thanks for your input. You are correct. I’m pretty sure I don’t understand how currency works. My point, which you ignore, is that all forms of of currency have been used in scams. Did you notice the (/s) at the end of the second sentence, which I used to indicate the snarky, and sarcastic nature of that sentence? Do you disagree, specifically that all forms of currency can, probably all have been, and all will continue to be used in scams?
Sure, and I’ll even broaden that. I’m pretty sure everything that has ever been used as a medium of exchange has been used in a scam somewhere, and the easier it is to use that medium of exchange, the more scams have been perpetrated using it.
Janet Yellen is not in charge of the United States money supply. You’re thinking of the Federal Open Market Committee, which is comprised of the seven members of the Federal Reserve Board, the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and four of the eleven regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents on a yearly rotating basis.
And I’m not sure why you’re bringing up a criticism of our collective net worth on a discussion around whether Bitcoin is used in scams, unless you’re trying to push the narrative that traditional fiat currency is somehow worth less than an unbacked security. Which is both irrelevant to the conversation, and a pretty good indication that you don’t really understand how currency works.
Thanks for your input. You are correct. I’m pretty sure I don’t understand how currency works. My point, which you ignore, is that all forms of of currency have been used in scams. Did you notice the (/s) at the end of the second sentence, which I used to indicate the snarky, and sarcastic nature of that sentence? Do you disagree, specifically that all forms of currency can, probably all have been, and all will continue to be used in scams?
Sure, and I’ll even broaden that. I’m pretty sure everything that has ever been used as a medium of exchange has been used in a scam somewhere, and the easier it is to use that medium of exchange, the more scams have been perpetrated using it.
Fair enough.