3 ms·

> Moreover, sceptics should acknowledge that nobody can predict which innovations will bear fruit and which will not. People should be free to devote time and m

> Moreover, sceptics should acknowledge that nobody can predict which innovations will bear fruit and which will not. People should be free to devote time and money to fusion power, airships, the metaverse and a host of other technologies that may never come good. Crypto is no different. As the virtual economy develops, useful decentralised applications may yet appear—who knows? The underlying technology continues to improve. > Instead of over-regulating or stamping out crypto, regulators should be guided by two principles. One is to ensure that theft and fraud are minimised, as with any financial activity. The other is to keep the mainstream financial system insulated from further crypto-ructions. I know people knock the Economist for pretty superficial analysis, but honestly appreciate their level-headed take here.

mjburgess 4y ago
It's not level-headed. They've started with the classical Economist premise: gov regulation bad. Then rather than understand or research cypto, they contrast lies told by charlatans against an unmentioned "sceptical" reality. They then conclude with their premise. This is an exercise in pure ideology, conveys no information, and presents the scam sales-pitch around crypto entirely verbatim. It is that most common of trap that classical liberals fall into, defending private forces of unfreedom on the basis that they underpin the "free" market. What a bleak picture, and as a defender of free markets, a betray of that world view. Freedom, as a contingent property of markets, is a careful and precious thing. It requires us to be on the guard against a variety of feudal forces, the pinnace of which could be nothing other than crypto. Here, The Economist, on the basis of classical liberalism, advocates for a feudalist scam. It's quite saddening.
- vvpan 4y ago
  The Blockchain Socialist would disagree with you and so would I. https://theblockchainsocialist.com/ https://theblockchainsocialist.com/
- alsetmusic 4y ago
  I was with you for the first two paragraphs.

mjburgess 4y ago

It's not level-headed. They've started with the classical Economist premise: gov regulation bad. Then rather than understand or research cypto, they contrast lies told by charlatans against an unmentioned "sceptical" reality. They then conclude with their premise. This is an exercise in pure ideology, conveys no information, and presents the scam sales-pitch around crypto entirely verbatim. It is that most common of trap that classical liberals fall into, defending private forces of unfreedom on the basis that they underpin the "free" market. What a bleak picture, and as a defender of free markets, a betray of that world view. Freedom, as a contingent property of markets, is a careful and precious thing. It requires us to be on the guard against a variety of feudal forces, the pinnace of which could be nothing other than crypto. Here, The Economist, on the basis of classical liberalism, advocates for a feudalist scam. It's quite saddening.

vvpan 4y ago
The Blockchain Socialist would disagree with you and so would I. https://theblockchainsocialist.com/ https://theblockchainsocialist.com/
alsetmusic 4y ago
I was with you for the first two paragraphs.