"Why bitcoin sucks" (An Ironic Piece from Keynesian perspective)

[Questing]

Oh my head! Turned into a big one last night
Nice to meet you abbyd.

Keynesian economics has proven very useful in the past. I don't think anybody could argue it hasent.

I'll take the bait.

Afterall, perpetual growth is impossible in a finite world, so if we don't want to bust, we need to solve this issue.

What makes you think trying to do something impossible is a good idea? Or perhaps you're moving to a world that is not finite?

Ok, for all those who were hoping for and working toward a solution for over population and exploitation of earths resources. Dont bother! apparently its impossible.

[1714888225]

1714888225

[1714888225]

1714888225

[1714888225]

1714888225

[Questing]

Keynesian economics has proven very useful in the past. I don't think anybody could argue it hasent.

I'll take the bait.

Perhaps the useful aspects of Keynesian economics can still be adapted for use with bitcoin. For example, gov can still hold btc and increase spending during recession. And it can still create policy that encourage spending, licenses, tax incentives etc.

I believe you have internalized a number of assumptions about economies. Or, you simply haven't challenged what you've read...
Why is "government spending during recession" necessary? If you think about this, it's usually because a government has:

1) Overtaxed its citizens, and/or overburdened the productive sectors with tariffs
2) Distributed wealth unequally toward the top 1% because of monopolies and graft
3) Created huge trade imbalances and market inefficiencies

Money doesn't just disappear - if no money is circulating in the economy, it's usually because the rich are hoarding it.
Granted, printing more money "solves" this problem by devaluing the hoarders' stashes, but back in the old days the rich
started spending when they started getting eaten...

I dont disagree with you. Its been and still is a lousy system. And Keynesian economics had its uses providing a crutch for this crippled and flawed system. But you maybe right, a different better system might not need stimulus spending to holt recession. But that's an untested theory as far as I know

[WilderedB]

Remember that big recession of 1920-21?

No?

That's because the theory of leaving things the heck alone WAS tested.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods125.html

[MPOE-PR]

Blogspot sucks.

[altoidmintz]

Blogspot sucks.

It really does. I want to convert to wordpress but I'm worried about losing all my old posts and street cred. Any ideas?

Also to whoever was talking about overpopulation being a problem: No, it's not. World population growth rate has been slowing for decades and is expected to be negligible, possibly even negative, by the end of the century. Technology is easily outpacing the problem and as a result people on average are getting much more nutrition and overall quality of life every passing year.

[Questing]

Blogspot sucks.

It really does. I want to convert to wordpress but I'm worried about losing all my old posts and street cred. Any ideas?

Also to whoever was talking about overpopulation being a problem: No, it's not. World population growth rate has been slowing for decades and is expected to be negligible, possibly even negative, by the end of the century. Technology is easily outpacing the problem and as a result people on average are getting much more nutrition and overall quality of life every passing year.

Yes, its not all doom and gloom. but even if the population leveled off now. Bringing 6 or 7 billion people to a high standard of living is going to be a strain on the environment. And yes, technology is my hero too, and has solved a lot of our problems, and we'll be 100% reliant on it continuing to do so.
My original comment, was that our economic model only seems to work when its expanding. Otherwise we call it a recession or a depression and get all upset. I suggested, this is a problem that will need to be solved at some point. Otherwise future populations and the planet are going to face consequences.

[ErisDiscordia]

Keynesianism is just another arrogant philosophy based on the assumption that it's possible (and desirable) to know what's best for everybody and how to achieve it. Keynesianism has been useful because of its theory that government spending can alleviate recessions or a depression? Even if this were true (hint: it's not), how is this a good thing exactly? How do we know that a depression/recession isn't exactly the thing the people & the economy needed? Maybe because a lot of bad investment decisions were made, which now need to be liquidated (this couldn't possibly have anything to do with expansive monetary policy which...surprise, is another Keynesian recipee), or the economy needs to restructure itself due to new technological developments. Such top-down enforced "solutions" just stand in the way of real solutions.

Keynesianism is like a person getting sick and instead of lying down, ceasing activity for a while and focusing on getting better, just downs some antibiotics and goes for a run to "stimulate" his body. And then wonders why he gets cancer while being 30 years old.

By the way as has been pointed out, we desperately need economic models based on sustainability as opposed to ones based on perpetual growth. It's sick, how talking heads everywhere freak out that "the economy is not growing fast enough" - like cancerous parasites, which just keep growing and multiplying without limit, only to eventually kill of their host and themselves. Keynesianism is just a shortcut from here to there and I spit on it