3 ms·

> The problem with crypto is all the tech-utopians making it, never read any economics (or political theory) ... Now that's some claim. You probably disagree

by ephbit 4y ago

> The problem with crypto is all the tech-utopians making it, never read any economics (or political theory) ... Now that's some claim. You probably disagree with me when I say that austrian economics [1] is indeed an economic school. Folks like Saifedean Ammous [2] appear to at least have tried reading up on some economics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_economics [2] https://lexfridman.com/saifedean-ammous/ https://lexfridman.com/saifedean-ammous/

mjburgess 4y ago
It's something more old-fashioned than modern economics, it's a kind of moral-political economics. Which, I agree, lines up quite well with what Bitcoin is, as a project. A The problem with the moral premises of this world view is their feudalist concequences, for reasons unknown to me, utopians of this type think that if a premise is true that they dont need to think about concequences. In this case, if individualism is true, then feudalism cant possibly follow. But reality doesnt follow "ideas" in this sense. If we create a system of individual ownership of fixed resources (land, crypto, etc.) then the few there first owns everything, and hence, feudalism. I dont take this sort of "moral economics" seriously, since its not itself a serious sort of either morality, politics or economics. Its an attempt to deduce utopia from naive ridigid principles.
- ephbit 4y ago
  I don't get the message of your first three paragraphs. Aside from that .. > ... system of individual ownership of fixed resources (land, crypto, etc.) then the few there first owns everything, and hence, feudalism. I doubt your claim here. Maybe there's some empirical evidence that these systems of individual ownership of fixed resources tend to lead to few individuals owning most of or "everthing", thus feudalism. But for one, we do have very high concentration of wealth in the current fiat system. (So the alternative to the system of individual ownership of fixed resources apparently does not appear to have a clearly better outcome.) And two, this possibly existing empirical evidence may just reflect what happened until now, but the world is changing and new circumstances may very well lead to new outcomes. > I dont take this sort of "moral economics" seriously .. I don't follow, where you take the "moral" keyword from. To me, Austrian Economics is just a (heterodox) take on economic questions that differs in some key views from the majority of the economics field and what they are currently teaching, publishing, giving advice to governments about or implementing as economic/monetary policy. > Its an attempt to deduce utopia from naive ridigid principles. Fair enough, if that's your perception of what AE is, it's totally valid. Such vague counter position (that doesn't address concrete claims) is hardly valuable as an actual critique, though.

by ephbit 4y ago

mjburgess 4y ago

It's something more old-fashioned than modern economics, it's a kind of moral-political economics. Which, I agree, lines up quite well with what Bitcoin is, as a project. A The problem with the moral premises of this world view is their feudalist concequences, for reasons unknown to me, utopians of this type think that if a premise is true that they dont need to think about concequences. In this case, if individualism is true, then feudalism cant possibly follow. But reality doesnt follow "ideas" in this sense. If we create a system of individual ownership of fixed resources (land, crypto, etc.) then the few there first owns everything, and hence, feudalism. I dont take this sort of "moral economics" seriously, since its not itself a serious sort of either morality, politics or economics. Its an attempt to deduce utopia from naive ridigid principles.

ephbit 4y ago
I don't get the message of your first three paragraphs. Aside from that .. > ... system of individual ownership of fixed resources (land, crypto, etc.) then the few there first owns everything, and hence, feudalism. I doubt your claim here. Maybe there's some empirical evidence that these systems of individual ownership of fixed resources tend to lead to few individuals owning most of or "everthing", thus feudalism. But for one, we do have very high concentration of wealth in the current fiat system. (So the alternative to the system of individual ownership of fixed resources apparently does not appear to have a clearly better outcome.) And two, this possibly existing empirical evidence may just reflect what happened until now, but the world is changing and new circumstances may very well lead to new outcomes. > I dont take this sort of "moral economics" seriously .. I don't follow, where you take the "moral" keyword from. To me, Austrian Economics is just a (heterodox) take on economic questions that differs in some key views from the majority of the economics field and what they are currently teaching, publishing, giving advice to governments about or implementing as economic/monetary policy. > Its an attempt to deduce utopia from naive ridigid principles. Fair enough, if that's your perception of what AE is, it's totally valid. Such vague counter position (that doesn't address concrete claims) is hardly valuable as an actual critique, though.