pull down to refresh
It means I think people should freely choose to not buy that crappy product.
The problem is the lies. I hate that I have to first research and then explain things like this, all because shitcoins are deceptive in their narrative. The problem is that neither the empathic or the toxic format helps in reducing harm much. But then, we're constantly fighting lies inside the Bitcoin narrative too.
I think lies and misinformation should be counterable by the market... though my faith in that particular idea is being tested day by day
I don't think most bitcoiners are expecting any willful deregulation of the state monopoly on currency. Most bitcoiners probably just think that bitcoin gives people a way of opting out of the state monopoly, and if enough people opt out then the monopoly collapses. How that exactly looks or plays out, I don't think anyone knows.
Does the likes if tether et al stablecoins constitute deregulation though? Maybe I don't fully understand how these work. Aren't thether basically buying the right to issue digital currency?
It feels like if the governments continue embracing these then we will get some letting-off at least in the sense that more is left to private enterprise.
I do think that one pathway to the "collapse" of the state's fiat monopoly is a gradual accommodating of alternate payment methods.
I don't really know if stablecoins count as that though. AFAICT stablecoins are still giving the government what they want which is control over the money supply (since on paper, stablecoins are pegged) and visibility into how people are spending it (KYC/AML).
I'm not sure I really understood the argument in the first place. Could you elaborate? I didn't really understand what the implication was regarding print vs broadcast media.
Basically that you can only say whatever you like in print of you or someone is willing to pay for it. On the other hand, he argues the same is not necessarily true with broadcast media. When it was just airwaves over radio, thisnwas a finite resource owned by the government.
"Broadcast" is less relevant that streaming in today's world, and the more I think about it, the logic is true today. The print part made me think especially of SN!
Are you saying that the government tends to take control of resources that are actually free, like the airwaves?
If that's the case, there's some truth to that due to a long held theory about public goods and common resources.
Are you saying that the government tends to take control of resources that are actually free, like the airwaves?
Friedman seems to suggest radio is a public good, i guess since the infrastructure to operate it is owned by the government. I may have misunderstood what he meant there, since actually airwaves are not "owned" by anyone.
i think you accurately summarized main point here, which is that governments can control airwaves, but they cannot control what makes it into print.
do you think it is no longer a salient point, that printed speech is not free? I can publish whatever I want online pay for it only with my private data (except on SN!). In effect, I get exposure in exchsnge for peace of mind, privacy and security, which are ostensibly not highly valued by most people.
If that's the case, there's some truth to that due to a long held theory about public goods and common resources.
what is the theory?
I don't think most bitcoiners are expecting any willful deregulation of the state monopoly on currency. Most bitcoiners probably just think that bitcoin gives people a way of opting out of the state monopoly, and if enough people opt out then the monopoly collapses. How that exactly looks or plays out, I don't think anyone knows.
No, not at all. If I think a product sucks, that doesn't mean I hate the free market. It means I think people should freely choose to not buy that crappy product.
I'm not sure I really understood the argument in the first place. Could you elaborate? I didn't really understand what the implication was regarding print vs broadcast media.