Re: Tokens, Policy, and Growth: Why the Government Should Like Digital Currency
OK.
Nice try but horseshit.
My $.02.
Nice try but horseshit.
My $.02.
Thanks for responding, but I'm hard-pressed to believe that the entire model can be summarized in as little as 'horeshit'. Did you actually read any of it? If so, I'm interested in any genuine disputes you have with the content itself.
I fundamentally disagree with the premise; I agree that the free market can sometimes fuck up, but this is because the free market is composed of people and there can be no descriptor of people which does not involve "prone to error". However, I believe the point that must be made before proceeding is this: that people freely associating together are prone to error, whilst people involuntarily associating aren't, ergo a central authority over monetary policy can produce more desirable outcomes than without. I don't see the difference; a man does not become more intelligent or wise when he has the opportunity to force another to follow his deed, in fact he often becomes less so, as every tyrant has shown.
Anyway, until it's shown that a central authority is not actually made up of people but rather, some other conscious matter that is not prone to error, then I must insist that the idea of a central authority over anything cannot produce any better outcomes than individuals acting in their own best interests. Before bothering to consider whether a marriage between a decentralized digital currency and policy makers is possible, we should first ask whether it's necessary. Assuming what I said prior is true, that a man vs. a man in a hat makes no difference in his ability to make error, then it can be asserted that it's unnecessary. This is not to say economists are unnecessary; rather, they should focus on accuracy and wise recommendations so people can steer their own lives properly, rather than putting everyone on the same ship and steering it themselves.
Anyway, until it's shown that a central authority is not actually made up of people but rather, some other conscious matter that is not prone to error, then I must insist that the idea of a central authority over anything cannot produce any better outcomes than individuals acting in their own best interests. Before bothering to consider whether a marriage between a decentralized digital currency and policy makers is possible, we should first ask whether it's necessary. Assuming what I said prior is true, that a man vs. a man in a hat makes no difference in his ability to make error, then it can be asserted that it's unnecessary. This is not to say economists are unnecessary; rather, they should focus on accuracy and wise recommendations so people can steer their own lives properly, rather than putting everyone on the same ship and steering it themselves.
That's a familiar argument, and there's considerable discourse both for and against it. However, that wasn't particularly a point I was trying to prove.
Namely, I want to show how the widespread use of digital currency might increase economic activity even on the Keynesian's own playing field. That was the main intention of the whole framework, not to advocate for functional finance or central banks or government adoption or anything like that, but to show how even they would benefit from digital currency.
Whether or not a people acting without a central bank benefit more from digital currency than those who use a digital currency associated with one remains to be seen, though I'm sure you have plenty of ideas about that too