pull down to refresh
Mises was a clown on par or greater than Marx
I'm no academic and I haven't even scratched the surface of all the economic theories from these gentlemen, but it turns out that whenever I see their quotes and how they're used, it reminds me of the centralization of money as a way to regulate society, rather than as a tool for exchange and freedom. It might just be a misconception on my part, but libertarians seem to drift into this state of statism whenever they quote them.
They're both armchair theorists that have zero grounding in reality.
Libertarians aren't statist enough to be anti-communist, they bring a knife to a gun fight at best, lay down and die more routinely. Their abdication hands the reigns of society over to the communists, making them communist collaborators by default, and therefore paradoxically the worst form of statist.
Mises is as bad or worse than Marx because that armchair theory sidelines anti-communists.
The incentive constraint dillema is the Mises equivalent to the Marxist economic calculation problem. Both sides of that spectrum are just virtue signaling clowns that can't think beyond their vanity.
Same shit, different pile.
the network didn't provide a service when the price was zero/undetermined
I'd argue the service it provided was a free option, it was a ledger/security of who had that option. People reading the whitepaper assigned value to that optionality.
This framing tends to overlook service value in favor of good value. It's evident that the network provides a service, and all shitcoins are an effort to compete for that service of being a ledger. The ledger is also a form of security, security is also a service. Bitcoin may not be a product like a basket of eggs, but a service that makes sure no one can steal or kill your chickens has some value you'd trade eggs for.
Been plenty of threads lately in which we can conclude Mises was a clown on par or greater than Marx...
Rothbard too would take issue with Bitcoin, because of his clown stipulation that money be "sufficiently" divisible. Most of the cope in Bitcoin about adoption, MoE, fake L2's etc... is because its not sufficiently divisible for those use-cases.
Bitcoin simply does not divide enough for any meaningful number of people to use it as a day-to-day currency, it can only ever scale as collateral, which is far more important.