pull down to refresh
30 sats \ 4 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 19 Mar \ on: On Regret. And Gratitude for TPB bitcoin
Interesting read but deficient in that the writer failed to describe why progressives should see value in Bitcoin beyond personal enrichment- the writer even claims Bitcoin does not address inequality when it does at least indirectly address the way fiat money grants vast monetary/capital issuance and access privilege to bankers politicians and those closest to them...and that this does result in much of the growing inequality that exists today in western economies....and that has occurred since neoliberalism.
I am a white cis male who asserts that most in this space do not understand the natural and inherent tension that exists between bankers and politics.
In the west politics has been largely captured by bankers- bankers have literally been PMs in New Zealand, Australia, UK and now Canada and when they are not PMs their nominees are.
Bankers used neoliberal dogma and narrative to deregulate the Keynesian monetary model empowering them to issue fiat debt finance to any purpose without restraint- this has lead to the deluge of non productive fiat debt leveraged asset price spruiking that has occurred since the 1980s. Libertarians do not seem to understand they are following the same narrative as the bankers who corrupted the wests financial system.
In contrast if you have a political class who regulate the bankers and require/demand that they only issue finance to productive purposes (as Keynesian theory requires) then fiat is a powerful economic tool- but today only China applies this level of monetary system discipline and that is one of the reasons why they are now moving to usurp western civilisations global hegemony.
Bitcoin takes away the privilege embedded in fiat money and the potential for corruption which has occurred in the west since neoliberalism.
That is why I leap at the chance to be part of it. Fuck the bankers.
It is unfortunate that neither Progressives nor Libertarians seem to comprehensively understand this.
Bitcoin is a revolutionary model of algorithmic organisation - unique in how it distributes power rather than centralising it- and this is a perfect model for a world increasingly ruled by algorithms which concentrate power and wealth and still ruled by legacy protocols like fiat money that inherently concentrate privilege and power.
Bitcoin is analogous to a mutual banking (or insurance?) system of voluntary association where all members benefit equally from the functioning of the collective and where there is no rentseeking or wealth extraction.
The mutual banks and insurers of the west were largely dismantled and pillaged in the neoiliberal era - again increasing the concentration of wealth and increasing the cost to users.
As the saying goes - buy Bitcoin and be your own bank- Bitcoin algorithm enables mutual banking at an individual level - Bitcoin is a mutual collective of individuals who chose to join that collective because the algorithm prescribes and empowers all members to be treated equally without fear or favour.
Some of your post are succinct to the point of being ambiguous, that is not the case with this post, this post is excellent.
Bankers used neoliberal dogma and narrative to deregulate the Keynesian monetary model empowering them to issue fiat debt finance to any purpose without restraint- this has lead to the deluge of non productive fiat debt leveraged asset price spruiking that has occurred since the 1980s. Libertarians do not seem to understand they are following the same narrative as the bankers who corrupted the wests financial system.
I have two questions here; assuming that the Keynesian monetary model managed to not become corrupted, how is it supposed to operate in the real world? Govts and banks expand the money supply with great discipline, adding to the supply as genuine value is 'created'?
Second question is pretty open ended, are you able to expand on your comment about Libertarians following the same narrative as the bankers?
reply
Crucial to Keynesian theory is that profit driven banks who operate with the authority of the central bank to effectively create new fiat every time they provide new finance must only provide finance that can be reasonably expected to increase the overall wealth and prosperity of the economy/nation they are operating in. So if a commercial bank helps finance a new factory or railway or data centre with fiat debt issuance it is reasonable to expect that new business/facility will increase the net productive output of the host economy therefore (probably) offsetting the debasement that increased issuance of money in circulation results in.
If however a commercial bank issues finance for a non productive asset (such as a residential home) and where that finance enables no new productive outputs, then the debasement caused by additional fiat debt issuance (increased volume of money in circulation) is not offset. To allow such fiat monetary issuance would be to ask for trouble- yet that is exactly what the neoliberal deregulation of banking allowed.
In my country the ratio of commercial bank lending to real estate since neoliberal deregulation has grown from below 5% to over 60%. That's 60% of fiat debt issuance now not compensating for the debasement its creates- that is parasitic crony capitalist misuse of fiat monetary leverage delivered to you by neoliberalism.
Previous to neoliberal 'reforms' nearly all housing finance was provided by mutual banks and building societies- where there is no profit motive and no rentseeking incentive to inflate the market as commercial banks have done ever since deregulation.
Keynesian monetary policy kept a lid on housing cost/prices by removing any incentive or ability of bankers to inflate the market - neoliberal deregulation in many economies rapidly transformed homeowners mortgage payments into the largest source of profit for commercial banks- the funding of productive enterprise has shrunk accordingly as commercial banks can provide housing finance at lower risk than (potentially) productive enterprise.
The original justification for the privileged access to fiat debt monetary issuance enjoyed by banks was that they could select and vet potentially productive funding proposals. That pretense flies out the window once you allow them to fund any purpose whether it is potentially productive or not.
Libertarians follow the same 'the free market solves all problems' mantra as the neoliberals did - it is nonsense as there are some cases where markets absolutely need regulation to prevent bad outcomes- cases such as the one regarding banks and the issuance of new fiat money via debt as described above.
While free markets often do provide the ideal outcome this is not always the case and all of this must also be seen within the context of the reality that the nation state and its power projection capacity is a crucial factor in the wealth of nations.
There has never been a sustained strong economy without a strong and sustained government that protects the nations interests, projects power to gain access to resources and markets and ensures the rule of law and confidence that provides citizens and businesses.
reply
thank you for laying all that out, great breakdown. this also helps provide context to your other posts! chur chur
reply
I'm not the white, cis male at all and I'm 'into Bitcoin'. The interesting thing is that Bitcoin isn't perfect, far from it, and absolutely has its shortcomings.
However it is the 'least bad' thing you can buy today in my opinion because it is reasonably transparent, predictable, and highly secure. Unlike almost everything else in this world currently especially under the current administration.
Does that make me a 'liberal Bitcoiner'? I guess? Am I liberal? yes? But to me Bitcoin is a tool for empowering underprivileged and discriminated-against populations... and because of that it is the 'lease-bad' thing out there so yes, yes I'm definitely here
reply