The only way to make government folks behave in a cooperative manner is to dismantle their monopoly privileges
Bitcoin won't fix governments.
They are monopolies.
They will be broken in nature as long as the monopoly privileges remain.
No person, group or technology can fix that.
Never got around to watching the whole show because it's too many seasons lol
It’s productive because it stimulates the economy. Something something exchange of goods leads to surpluses.
https://video.nostr.build/058229f1c166a05e7af121e520613f9bc9d389499fa4cea005ed932b64824f3b.mp4
LMAO
I've only watched Always Sunny because people have made me watch clips/episodes
Rarely disappoints
Guys
There were two solo blocks mined this week
TWO
https://mempool.space/block/00000000000000000000a7aa0173a48ea5fcbf947a290bc7d25fc176ce83225c
https://mempool.space/block/0000000000000000000022b7f4d4475c72653a898672c121715af5c62c5f21da
Bro no bro
You can generate yields from a computer by aping into shitcoin protocols bro
It's a productive asset bro
Mises institute folks have a lot of patience in addressing arguments. (Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, Tom DiLorenzo, Patrick Newman, Jonathan Newman, Ryan McMacken, et al.) I tend to want them to use as many words as possible because the more words they use, the better their arguments get.
I feel like they’d generally be wonderful people to disagree with (although I agree with Bob here in the quoted video below)
This was a great listen! Thanks for sharing.
nostr:npub1ghcetnluhryhynhuyj8s2pazldjm27wl40nu6dfeskvpv09twcnsneygat Check this out. You’ll love it!
They’re both strange anomalies. ChatGPT: “The Inca had a redistribution system managed by the state. People paid taxes in labor (the mit’a system), and the government redistributed food, textiles, and goods. There was little need for a circulating currency.” Cc nostr:npub1xnc64f432zx7pw4n7zrvf02mh4a4p7zej3gude52e92leqmw8ntqd43qnl nostr:npub1t42gfjzfv74v8xrv65f2lrwd65jr85ysrtdmkkfrvqgcss5r4g0qk487qz
Also, what’s the 2nd step?
It's not necessary that an economy will converge on the best money.
Governmental power structures can very well impede people from using what individuals think is better money.
And it's possible that people can voluntarily opt to use other forms of money, because that's what suits their needs and circumstances.
But they can't escape the consequences of using weaker money, like:
•Roundabout and complex production won't be engaged in.
•Time preference of people would tend to be high. Not much savings of deferred consumption.
•The options available to them to purchase in the market will be much less.
•The options available to them in terms of business ventures would also be limited.
•There will be a tendency in those who produce rice to direct the government does.
And it's not necessary that people will reject wealth redistribution as well.
Similar to what I said above, they won't be able to escape the consequences of redistribution:
•Investment in the production of goods that the market wants will not occur or be hampered.
•You'll find people who don't value their own bodies that much as they don't have full control over it, as a consequence of their labour being taxed. So you'll find that people fall sick or engage in self-abuse.
•Overall productivity will hit a ceiling.
•Those in government or those close to it will get quite wealthy while others get less wealthy.
It's also possible that people consent to such a system of slavery or serfdom as well.. you know, like people in every society at the moment do.
All value is 'speculative' lol
I think the term was coined by the value investing crowd obsessed with assets that can generate dividends or yield, like stocks, rental property and bonds, and couldn't explain why Gold, Silver, empty land plots, art, etc. go up by multiples in value.
I can understand that.
They want to be able to put numbers on things to forecast their values in the future or calculate what its 'objective' value is to determine whether it's undervalued or overvalued.
I think 'speculative asset' is more of an investment definition rather than an economic one.
Wonderful excerpt used by Murray Rothbard in his essay 'Education: Free and Compulsory':
"As the Reverend George Harris expressed it:
Savagery is uniformity. The principal distinctions are sex, age, size, and strength. Savages... think alike or not at
all, and converse therefore in monosyllables. There is scarcely any variety, only a horde of men, women, and children. The next higher stage, which is called barbarism, is marked by increased variety of functions.
There is some division of labor, some interchange of thought, better leadership, more intellectual and aesthetic cultivation. The highest stage, which is called civilization, shows the greatest degree of specialization. Distinct functions become more numerous. Mechanical,
commercial, educational, scientific, political, and artistic occupations multiply. The rudimentary societies are
characterized by the likeness of equality; the developed societies are marked by the unlikeness of inequality or variety.
As we go down, monotony; as we go up, variety. As we go down, persons are more alike; as we go up, persons are more unlike, it certainly seems... as though [the] approach to equality is decline towards the conditions of savagery, and as though variety is an advance towards higher civilization.... Certainly, then, if progress is to be made by added satisfactions, there must be even more variety of functions, new and finer differentiations of training and pursuits. Every step of progress means the addition of a human factor that is in some way unlike all existing factors. The progress of civilization, then...must be an increasing
diversification of the individuals that compose society.... There must be articulation of each new invention and art, of fresh knowledge, and of broader application of moral
principles."
Curiously, they don't seem to be very opposed to the polity and bureaucracy running things, which is literally a serfdom-like caste system which people can't even opt out of.
Also they've convinced themselves that it's a quantitative science rather than a qualitative one.
You can't scientifically measure utility or value.
Even profits are much more than just numbers on a balance sheet.
These are all subjective and ordinal, while they assume they are all objective and cardinal.
Stating these obvious facts is worthy of ridicule according to them. Like c'mon, these are basic things that's gotta be taught from childhood.
They're already at it I suppose. It's the arrogance of those who assume that the empirical method is the only path to ascertain truth.
I think Hoppe addressed this in his essays: 'Is Research Based on Causal Scientific Principles Possible in the Social Sciences?' and 'In Defense of Extreme Rationalism' and 'Economic science and the Austrian Method'
An excerpt from one of his footnotes in the third essay:
'In fact, it is precisely the indisputable praxeological fact that separate measurement acts can only be performed sequentially which explains the very possibility of irreducibly probabilistic - rather than deterministic- predictions as they are characteristic of quantum physics; and yet, in order to perform any experiments in the field of quantum mechanics, and in particular to repeat two or more experiment and state this to be the case, the validity of the causality principle must evidently already be presupposed.'
I predict Bob to eventually become a full-blown Bitcoiner at some point in the future 😂
Any branch of science is useful to the extent that it helps you understand causality, i.e. what causes what?
Economists seem to consider themselves to be above this.
TIL Hindu epistemology also comes to the conclusion that Revelation (Surudhi), Reasoning (Yukthi) and Experience (Anubavam) are three ways of ascertaining the truth.