snip
Well done 600watt! I would suggest you create a thread outside the WO. You could help a few more bitcoiners with this list. Either way, I'm quoting this as a future reference. And then a question: given the huge amount of sources, what would you personally suggest to start with?
Thank you very much
my favorite is Guy Swann since he is reading a lot of interesting and mainly essential bitcoin writings and sometimes interviews the authors later.
https://anchor.fm/thecryptoconomy*
*it is now called bitcoinaudible.com but the anchor link above presents it better imho. indeed, Guy started his podcast in March 2018. that is just 2.5 years ago.
most bitcoin podcasters seem to be married to Austrian economics. has anyone heard of a good btc podcast that tries to do this from a Keynesian point of view? I don't get why Keynes is hated so much by bitcoiners. I don't think he was wrong. government intervention in economic crisis is good imho. what governments worldwide did not do was the other thing that is part of keynes theory: in healthy economic periods governments should save capital in order to have dry powder for the next crisis. the governments just kept spending and printing more money.
That's a pretty easy one... I should read ahead since it may have been answered better than I will.
But I would say the reason why is Keynesian systems basically work on debt and constant monetary inflation in the hopes among other things to increase velocity. Case in point negative interest rates... a Keynesian end game measure that makes no sense until you understand they are useful to keep people from SAVING value. At least in the monetary system that is run that way. The encourage spending, and the creation of more debt which increases monetary velocity, and supposedly also creates better "wealth distribution".
Bitcoin on the other hand is at it's very core kind of anti Keynesian. Absolutely hard with a known cap. It encourages people to store value and save. And would arguably decrease monetary velocity. Paul Krugman is a Keynesian. And he hates bitcoin because it goes against all of what he believes as the right monetary policies.
I am not saying that there can't be Keynesian bitcoiners. Some people here are Keynsian whether they know it or not... But Bitcoin is definitely a polarizing force.
If you are a leftist you will find a lot of what Keynesian systems prioritize meshing with your values... It is also why so many libertarians got into bitcoin early.
I do not disagree with anything that you say, cAPSLOCK.
I do find a bit of tension between bitcoin and some of the values that seem to underly the debt-ridden systems that seem to have gotten themselves into bigger and BIGGER messes with the passage of time.
I don't want to claim to be any kind of philosopher either, but sometimes, it seems to me that some folks seem to equate all state actions with irresponsibility, and none of us can really deny that the level of corruptness that seems to have come from the current status of money printing causes the state to get blamed for everything - and then the solutions seem to be anti-state - and really I have difficult times believing that all societal problems are going to get resolved through voluntary-isms... so in some sense there seems to be some needs for public oriented institutions to take care of and ration public issues / resources that would not likely get resolved with pure volunary-ism systems.
So merely because states have been irresponsible in their money printing does not seems to suggest, at least for me, that their are no state roles - and hopefully bitcoin can help to bring (create incentives for) some responsibility to state actors to act in the public interest.
I would suggest that even though bitcoin maximalist may have strong libertarian tendencies, there still are various gradations of ideas and even gradation of recognition of needs for the state - even if many folks will ongoingly get frustrated with various actions of the state and even individual players who are abusive when they are in governmental roles and they are supposed to be representing public interests rather than their own or some more narrow interests that conflict with broader public concerns/preferences.