I agree with your last sentence, but a lot of people already have a life and they’re still addicted. The life, of course, is affected. But the addiction is strong.
That sentence scored 27 on the 'Gunning Fog Scale Level'. Anything above 20 is considered "very difficult" to understand.
Based on this, i think one of the main issues is the 'average american' wouldn't be able to successfully interact with a body that expresses itself in such an obfuscated manner.
I'll go as far as saying the obfuscation is utterly deliberate.
We're talking about the Federal Reserve, not McDonald's. Given the far-reaching repercussions of their policies, it makes absolute sense that they would be extremely explicit in their grammar. While they use big words and it's a long sentence, nothing there is obfuscated.
The premise of your argument is that explicitness comes at the expense of additional complexity. I believe this premise may be flawed.
Let's rewrite it from:
> We began this public review in early 2019 to assess the monetary policy strategy, tools, and communications that would best foster achievement of our congressionally assigned goals of maximum employment and price stability over the years ahead in service to the American people.
To:
"""
We began this public review in early 2019. The goal was to assess items relating to monetary policy ("Monetary Policy" has to do with the creation and management of money at a national level).
Those monetary policy items under review were the:
- strategy.
- tools.
- communications.
The goals of the policy review, which were assigned by congress, were:
- maximum employment.
- price stability going forward, for years to come, in service to the American people.
"""
I believe nothing has been lost from the original text, and that this is far easier to read and understand.
Who do you think the target audience is? You seem to think that the target audience should be people on HN, or people who read less well even than us. That's not the actual audience. It's bankers.
Yeah this is nothing compared to an intro to econometrics textbook. It's not written for laymen to intake but to be processed by experts and commented on from there. It's important it's specific and precise language, not concise.
The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust.
Fiat currencies are not ideal but are the best known currency tool to date.
I commonly hear that blockchain-based currencies can be a good replacement for fiat currencies. But current examples of blockchain-currencies are either company-sponsored or community-based. This again puts a big weight on a single actor. I'd rather trust the admin of money to a government than a company or a community of anonymous economists/technologists.
Finally, the ability go debase (I assume you mean devaluating) a currency is (arguably) a desirable characteristic. During crises, responsibly devaluating a currency can help a country's economy.
> Fiat currencies are not ideal but are the best known currency tool to date.
By what metric?
>Finally, the ability go debase (I assume you mean devaluating) a currency is (arguably) a desirable characteristic. During crises, responsibly devaluating a currency can help a country's economy.
I'm skeptical that any benefit this brings outweighs the catastrophic damage it causes when misused. E.g. Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe.
As described in the article, we are living in a period known as the Great Moderation, a previously unforeseen time of financial stability, low unemployment, and lack of Major depressions. Bringing up autocratic developing countries isn't a great counterexample to the level of welfare we've been privy to in the developed world.
Is there an unconventional currency (to contrast your statement) that comes with either inherent value or trustless system? I'm genuinely curious what you meant.
While the article you linked to points out correctly why they aren't good as passwords, they also aren't good as usernames (though they may be good as an alternative by which a username is looked up, with a fallback to using the real username), since they can be destroyed.
Palm prints were used at a nuclear facility I visited as an alternative to fingerprints in step 2. After you scan your id card you scan your palm print and the system verifies the palm matches the one that is registered with the card. They are not as unique as finger prints but it makes it much more difficult to use someone else's card (or username).
