I don't really see why anyone would be good if they can be bad and being bad gives them a financial leverage. Am I the only one who smells utopian here? Rules are there to break, especially if breaking them doesn't entail any damages.
This was precisely my point. I don't see how we differ on this.
But you just said that it wasn't what you meant. But never mind, I'm not nitpicking or whatever,
I'm sorry if there is any confusion. What I distanced myself from was the (possible) suggestion that I wanted anarchy, or that I see the world as amoral.
When a lot of wealth and power are at stake, then rules are tossed aside, especially if they're unwritten. This was 'precisely my point.' I might have replied too fast.
I just want to say that it seems to be a dead-end from which there is no way out, no escape. The financial elites will never agree to accept crypto because they invented fiat not to go back to what can be called "digital gold" (in respect to controlled monetary supply). If this is the case, then we can't deal with these problems (e.g. inflation) and try to explain them on a purely economic basis. We will always have to consider the arbitrariness of the financial establishment actions.
(1) If you mean we're powerless, that is not true. The entire system can be changed when the public have the awareness. This goes far beyond Bitcoin, gold, etc. and is about the freedom of financial markets in the same way as the freedom of goods and services markets. In addition, even while we have the status quo, every bit of extra awareness by the public will create a little bit more obstacles to the elites and a little more incentive for them to do the right things (e.g. leaning more on inflation rather than financial repression after a crisis -- as I mentioned inflation is the best of the bad choices at that point.)
(2) The elites are supportive of crypto, for their own reasons. They're just not saying so openly. I've pointed this out many times, and you can look up my writings under my profile, e.g. the thread 'Debt Does Matter, and Why Cryptocurrencies Have to Go Up' that I started, or the one linked from the OP.
(3) I would agree 'economics,' as currently defined and classified by mainstream academics, is too narrow a sphere to have a full debate on these subjects. Economics treats the problem from a scientific angle only and doesn't consider the human problems of greed, deception, politics etc., when reality is the exact opposite. All of the major drivers of modern events are directly or indirectly rooted in human deception via the money system. The only world where economic science really applied would be one where truly free markets dominate -- in such a world, the field of economics would be much, much simpler (and more of a science) than it is today.