Thank you, great write up. Keynesian economics has proven very useful in the past. I don't think anybody could argue it hasent. And your ironic piece makes a case well worth consideration.
Perhaps the useful aspects of Keynesian economics can still be adapted for use with bitcoin. For example, gov can still hold btc and increase spending during recession. And it can still create policy that encourage spending, licenses, tax incentives etc. And btc can still be taxed, even if it is harder to trace earnings. Tax is basically an honest system now, requiring that we self report our earnings. Most people will still do the right thing.
But Governments cant print more, or de-value btc. Time will tell if that's a good or bad thing. I'm no expert, but I'm leaning toward it being a good thing.
I think the biggest problem our financial system presents, is not that its failing, or problems of adapting to a new type of currency (btc). I think the biggest problem is our markets only work if they are expanding, driving gov policy toward population growth, and ever increasing exploitation of earths resources. I wonder if btc could somehow become part of a new system structure which was able to maintain steady state, rather than perpetual growth. Afterall, perpetual growth is impossible in a finite world, so if we don't want to bust, we need to solve this issue.
I don't personally know how btc could achieve this, but it certainly has a whole new set of possibilities which haven't been considered before.
I dont see how anyone would think that keynesianism has been useful. And more importantly economics is supposed to be a science, so it should be correct not useful and keynesianism has been proven false again and again.
I tried having a debate with some keynesians who were claiming Bitcoin would not succed because keynesianism and they could not handle it, so I extend the offer to you. But by debate I dontmean an internet slogan-catchy phrases ridiculous back and forth, I mean an honest exchange of ideas.
Honest exchange of ideas? Sounds fine, thanks for the offer. Who knows, we might even find we agree on some things.
Firstly, I dont believe Keynesian economics has all the answers, so I certainly wouldn't label myself a keynesian. And I do believe btc can succeed, and I hope it does.
But spending gov money to stimulate the economy, I suggest can be useful at times?
Economics is a science, like weather forecasting is a science. There are so many shifting variables, including human behavior, so our scientific inquiry has limits. Perhaps it is fairer to say that economics is part science, part art?
If you have an economics model which is not just useful, but fully scientifically correct. Then plz do tell us about it?
No, I do agree that there is a difference between so called "social sciences" and empirical sciences. There is people who even argue that social sciences, by their own nature, should not be called sciences. I dont really care about the name and redefinitions of the word science. I do acknowledge that by strict historical standards social sciences should not be called sciences and that the extended use of the word science has been used to give credibility to certain theories that probably did not deserve it. But the new meaning is so extended at this point that its a bit useless to try to "enforce" the strict old historical definition. As long as we understand that social sciences are different than empirical sciences, I dont have a problem with the word people decide to use.
But social sciences are not art. Engineering has an "artistic" side, trading too, but social sciences are not so much about art, but about creating a theoretical body of ideas that try to reflect reality, not really about producing an effect (which is what art is).
Moving into the economic part, since you have started by bringing up the idea of government spending to (allegedly) stimulate the economy, why dont you expand on as a first topic of discussion?