Topic: Is Bitcoin the Holy Grail of Neoliberalism/Anarchocapitalism/Austrian Economics? (Read 1700 times)

Just a couple of points :-

          1) supposing the weaker banks had been left to go to the wall - in the UK this would for eg. have been RBS/Lloyds/B+B - and the banks remaining were allowed to swallow up the residual market share. How would this have helped Jonny Average over the medium to long term ? (Apart from the actual cost of the bailout that is - how would it have helped him "structurally", so to speak ?)

         2) would a market operating with perfect competition be the solution for the neoliberal/anarchocapitalist/Austrian economist mentioned in the title of the thread ? Presumably it would. And so the objection to the banking sector, being subsidised by the public purse (or having its gaurantee) is that its not an unfettered market operating under perfect competition ?  But where does Libor fixing fit into all this (rate fixing has nothing to do with state subsidy) ? And how do you explain a market that seemingly has a plethora of competitors being actively engaged in price fixing (UK energy market for one - oil extraction industry for another) ?

It strikes me that it's in the very nature of the free market to distort outcomes - we can't really blame it on state subsidy/socialism/collectivism - can we ?

    There seems to be very few people here that seem to question the validity of the free market (and I implicate capitalism here (by association)) in ensuring the equitable and just allocation and distribution of resources. A lot of the underlying philosophy/legitamacy (behind the primacy of the market) seems to be a glammed up version of Ronald Reagans trickle down economics   Its not working FFS.

  I would just say also that the questions the OP is asking are questions very similar to the ones I've been asking myself ever since I joined this forum. The only reason I'm still here is that I don't want to see BTC appropriated by TEA party bullshit kidding itself its some sort of revolutionary solution cos its jumped on board the good ship cryptocurrency and renamed itself anarcho-capitalism .

    I would love to be multilingual and to be able to read the other languages sections of Bitcointalk - I'd love to see their angle on the BTC phenomena.
                        

Banks operate in a competitive market.  The big banks are "too big to fail" - they have a taxpayer guarantee.  In order to trade a bank, like any firm, needs capital and the taxpayer guarantee means that banks raise capital very cheaply.  

There are no large banks that want this guarantee taken away.  Its a huge valuable subsidy that they love and that they spend forever justifying just like a Welsh farmer justifies sheep subsidies.

In Austrian economics, this guarantee is seen as distorting the market.  So if you are talking about bankers, they are fundamentally opposed to Austrian economics.  

Neoliberalism stems out of Austrian Economics. It's, for the sake of discussion, basically the same. Correct me if you think i'm wrong.

I don't really understand why you think banks rely on a taxpayer guarantee, and how this is in any way different to Bitcoin. Please explain

Oh.

IF that is your frame of reference, then Bitcoin is not the holy grail.  Banks rely on a taxpayer guarantee and since Bitcoin is not a taxpayer project, its the opposite of what you mean by neoliberal.  I was more focused on the Austrian Economics part of your topic.

having a bit of a regulation really doesn't mean its not neoliberalism anymore. neoliberalism wouldn't work without a basic set of regulations. (at least thats what i think)

just look at our world - yes we live in a neoliberal world, but we still have regulations. not much, but there are some. there should be more of course (i am thinking about investment banks here)

Not any more.  This forum used be populated by people who believed that regulation is slavery and that a free market will eliminate crap.  But events like Bitcoinica and the repeated mtgox problems have made clear that regulation has its place.  My take is that the "Its a free market so tough luck if you are a loser" line is fine if you are on the winning side but a lot of people who believed that lost their money and have either moved on or changed their minds.

Thats a non argument. You could also say: "The fact that there are childmolesters testifies that child molesting is ineed working". What do you want to say with that?

Its kind of true, that money corrupts, i'm all with you there. the more money you have, the more likely you are to vote for republicans/libertarians - this comes from a very recent scientific study(i can look it up and provide the link if youre interested). but this is also a non-argument. only because some people would also molest children if they were pedophiles, doesn't mean that its right to do so.

humans are really just molded by their surroundings. there really isn't much of a free will. but that doesn't necesarily mean all humans are evil, or all rich people are bad. take george soros for example. there are lots of rich people who call for a big tax increase for themselves.

Hell, i really have no clue how everything works or should work, i just feel there is room for improvement. and cryptocurrencies don't provide any improvement there, on the contrary, in my opinion it makes it even worse. alot of NGOs do very important work on many different topics, may it be climate change, nuclear disarmament, animal rights or economic fairness. sometimes they struggle hard, sometimes they achieve little victories. the world is changing constantly, and i just try to keep a critical view on everything.

The fact that we live in a capitalist world testifies that it is indeed working. The problem is that 99% of the "regular" people deep in their hearts would do the same if they were the 1% wealthy elite, justifying them. Also, since humans are an imperialistic animal race, unluckily what works best for the majority or for the most powerful group of population gets imposed on the others, and they can't materially do anything about that, otherwise they get killed or repressed. I don't think there are just capitalism and communism, I only said that for me communism would be the best, obviously I have my own personal idea of communism but I used the general term, otherwise I would have to write some pages to explain my precise view. I do agree with you that all of this is unfair and despicable, but what can we do? The masses only move their a$$es when they have no food or medical assistance, but the elite has been quite good at keeping those things available for the people with "worthy" opinion (and I mean so called developed countries)...I'm sorry but I'm much more pessimistic than you towards the human race, that's why I think that scandinavian socialism is close to be the best possible at our actual level of average moral development.

edit: to be clear, I see tons of issues with our economy, but they are just a consequence of the cultural decadence of our times. I didn't mention those options and systems because for me they are the best possible, I just can't see anything better and possible.

i disagree. since the 1970ies the world economy is changing drastically. financial institutions are growing at an immense pace, drawing funds from the real economy and producing crises that the general population has to pay off by lowering social security and the likes. the world bank and the international monetary fund are enforcing those austerity policies all over the world, even in europe already. cryptocurrencies have made this already worse, and will make it even worse in the future. big players like goldman sachs are already deep into the cryptocurrency world, since they know exactly what it means. it means even less regulation and bigger profits for them. a deflationary currency...their dream. our system is not going in the right direction, and many people start to realize this. we need a new "New Deal" and strict regulations of the financial sector, the dismantlement of all big banks and a stop of speculation on food and housing and the like. fixed exchange rate for all currencies (like in china) so people can do their business. if you really don't see any problems with our economy and think scandinavian countries are the lands of milk and honey, you are up for a rude awakening. of course, compared to the rest of the world, they aren't doing that bad right now, but that doesn't mean their economic system is the best possible system that we could imagine.

I also disagree that communism only works for perfect beeings, but capitalism works for everyone. in fact we know that capitalism doesn't work for most people (or there wouldn't be 1 billion starving people on this planet, or 30.000 children starving to death every day, there are even children dieing from starvation in europe)., only a few get very rich will the majority has to work for the few rich people. this is a very unfair system in my opinion. but people who think there are only 2 possibilities: Capitalism and Communism, are probably not able to engage in a more sophisticated discussion on this topic anyway. too often i see people claiming im a communist, only because i offer criticism of the capitalist system we live in. try not to be that dense. try to differentiate, try to see the world in colors or greyshades, instead of black and white.

Bitcoin would be useful for the community and integrated into a socialist environment if statal entities and private companies were forced to have fixed addresses and wallets, so that everyone could clearly see when, how and how much public money is spent, and there would be no issues for financial monitoring and controls.

By the way, I consider myself communist at heart, but communism works only for bees or perfect humans, and regular people is neither insects nor perfect beings. This said, I think that the best working polictical and economic system is the modern western socialism of northern european and scandinavian countries, where Bitcoins could work as mentioned above.

True, cryptocurrencies are just a technology, they arent inherently good or bad or anything. I am talking about the libertarian philosophy at its core...its troubling me. I don't agree that if i don't like it i simply don't use it. same with fiat money, once its mainstream, you are more or less forced to use it.

Anarchism and Capitalism are in a sense mutually exclusive, since the ideal of anarchism is the abolishment of unjustifiable hierarchies, and capitalism is a system of property rights in which the means of production is in the hands of private owners with the goal of profit. Capitalism creates unjustifiable hierarchies: for example someone with more money has more power to influence politics while someone with no money can't even get something to eat without breaking the law. One of the most prominent anarchist thinkers, Pierre Joseph Proudhon once famously stated: "Property is theft."

The conspiracy theory "Inflation helps transfer wealth from the working/middle class to the rich banksters" mainly stems from the antisemitic propaganda of the third reich. Noone who knows anything about the world-economy and the financial system still believes those myths. Fact is, inflation is a tool used since decades to keep people from hoarding their currencies. It's pretty well understood, just not in cryptocurrency circles, where people (in my opinion) don't look much further than their own wallet, and just want to have more money, and don't spend a second on thoughts about systemic effects and the likes. Of course, for personal enrichment cryptocurrencies are a blessing, but in my opinion, they aren't for the society as a whole. In fact I strongly believe fiat-currencies provide a much better system for the welfare of everyone. Sadly not everyone cares about others, so this argument is not very popular.

initially I thought so, but now with a 100 alt coins not really.

the bitcoin philosophy is slowly fading when asics and btc mining companies came in the picture.

Bitcoin is apolitical (I mean, it's just computer code!) but yes, there was some kind of libertarian philosophy at its core. But that includes voluntary co-operation, so if you don't like it, you don't use it, simples. Anarchy and capitalism are not in any way mutually exclusive, if we use capitalism in the proper sense of unhindered voluntary exchange between sovereign human beings, and not in the corrupted sense where people really mean "corporatism".

Inflationary fiat does not make the rich help the economy, for the rich hold their wealth in hard assets and not in cash. Inflation helps transfer wealth from the working/middle classes to the rich banksters, and surely no self-respecting socialist could be in favour of that!

You always see the same people promoting Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, its folks like Ron Paul, the Mises Institute, Stefan Molyneux, Max Keiser and others, all going after Friedman and von Hayek. I guess Friedman is turning in his grave, having missed the invention of cryptocurrencies. All those people first told people to buy gold, now they tell people to buy Bitcoins. My question is: since all those people are endorsing a right-wing neoliberal agenda (some might call it "Anarchocapitalism", which really is an oxymoron) and think that socialism equals stalinism and gulag, i wonder if there are any people of the left wing or communist/socialist/anarchist political spectrum who see any value for society in cryptocurrencies?

Me personally, I started mining cryptos with Doge in december, purely out of greed. I just wanted to make a quick buck. I really don't think I am helping anyone with this, beside maybe some rich people. But really I am against this new method of personal enrichment without providing any service to society (its a little hypocritical, i know, but who really cares). People claim that adding to the security of cryptocurrencies by mining them is actually a service, but its really just a service for the wealthy people, who have lots of money that they want to hoard, effectively removing the money from the real economy (which means the industry, services and stuff, not the financial sector). With an inflationary currency, the rich guys were at least incentiviced to keep it in circulation, but with a deflationary currency, there is an opposite incentive to hold your currency.

Right now the majority of cryptocurrencies is owned by very rich people. Of course they won't admit to any of this, because they would just hurt themselves (unless they actually care for the society they live in).

I actually think the notion of property rights wont hold up much longer. maybe a few decades, but i guess thats it. with the downfall of property rights, all currencies will vanish too. but of course i can be wrong. i don't know what everyone else thinks...maybe people will cling on to property rights for much longer still, maybe even centuries. i just don't think humanity will survive another century of selfish capitalism and property rights.