So whose your favourite economist?

[sehdal]

Thanks. I think the last question about 'anarchist economists' is particularly interesting.

Depending how you define anarchism, and I don't mean to be difficult, but it could be argued that economics (at least its mainstream and all its dominant trends) as a discipline is in fundamental tension with anarchism. That is, the contemporary money system that we live in requires the state and requires banks; so it requires aspects of organisation that are in tension with anarchism. And economists hardly ever question this system; in fact it is an assumption which they tend to take as given when they create their models.

Now you could say that people like Hayek and Von Mises are verging on elements of anarchism in that Von Mises argues particularly strongly that value is created subjectively and through human interaction, while Hayek argues provocatively for a free competition between currencies (including, in fact especially, non-state backed ones). Both of these Austrian School thinkers are deeply sceptical of state intervention in the economy. However, I think it is better to define them as libertarian rather than anarchist. Since their libertarianism is economic rather than social.

I think anarchists would go the whole way and want community to replace economics in social affairs and left anarchists in that sense are sort of anti-monetary exchange. You might think this is a bit strong, but it is a position David Graeber (whose a pretty famous social anthropologist rather than an economist) argues for in his really interesting Debt: The First 5000 Years.

So I would think of Bitcoin as libertarian rather than anarchist. Perhaps I'm too influenced by Graeber here, but this also make me think that a genuinely anarchist economics is impossible.

[hilariousandco]

So I would think of Bitcoin as libertarian rather than anarchist. Perhaps I'm too influenced by Graeber here, but this also make me think that a genuinely anarchist economics is impossible.

But Libertarians can be both Anarchists and Libertarian. Libertarian Socialism is often classed/called anarchism.

[sehdal]

I wouldn't disagree. But I'm struggling to think of an anarchist economist, I think the Austrians are better defined as economic libertarians rather than anarchists. Hayek for example appeared to accept a strong roll for the state in terms of law and order.

Although I have to be honest I haven't read Rothbard - perhaps he's someone I should make an effort to read. Is that the anarchist economist we should be reading? And are his ideas complimentary with Bitcoin?

[Seppelpeters]

Definately Murray Rothbard for his books on anarchist theory, which then dubbed into anarcho-capitalism. And Max Keiser is extremely entertaining.

[novag]

Steave Jobs

[guybrushthreepwood]

Steave Jobs

Since when is Steve Jobs an economist. Do you mean entrepreneur?

[prolom]

I like some terms coming up in this thread.

I would describe anarchism in a general sense  as a belief that there's a tendency in a society to be capable to organize itself and function successfully without a central authority. Obviously there are other tendencies some of which are opposing it and usually prevail. Economists, unlike political activists, should analyze and point out those tendencies rather than state that this is how societies should and will work.

I grew up in a totalitarian society where the government controlled the entire economy and one party usurped political power. That lead to an economic disaster, all-pervasive corruption, horrible standard of living and a thriving black market. So I really do appreciate the benefits of capitalism.

I'm well aware of the downsides of capitalism, such as extreme inequality (I work in front of a housing project) and the lack of a social net, the power of big business etc. However many  anarchists oppose capitalism altogether taking for granted the positives  of how the system works.

Libertarian ideas mean a lot to me as well, as I grew up in a country with no human rights whatsoever. It puts me in a weird position in American politics because I wouldn't have a party to vote for even if I could vote.

In the beginning the internet seemed like an anarchist's dream - a decentralized system where everyone could organize as they wished. Then came Facebook, the Google empire, the smartphones - centralized systems based on databases easily accessible to authorities. Bitcoin idea seems to have that aversion to central authority that fuels anarchism as I understand it.

I don't think anarcho-capitalism would have any traction as far as privately funded courts and law enforcement go (that's what it says in Wikipedia). Sounds like a bad idea.

[fahayek]

Mises, Menger, Hayek, Knight, Nash, Shiller, Friedman.

[sehdal]

Thanks, prolom. I think I would agree with your conception of anarchism; but there are one or two differences between our positions that I’m trying to think through.

My main point of disagreement I reckon would be that I think your argument that economists just ‘point out tendencies’ rather than state ‘how societies should and will work’ is unsustainable. Every economist who has written on Bitcoin seems to take a political position - ok these are pretty much invariably rants with little historical perspective or understanding of alternatives to our current money system, this is one of the things I like about Graeber, that he does look at the tremendous historical diversity of money systems. Krugman is the most famously ill informed of course. It would be interesting to know if you could write neutrally about Bitcoin, pretty much invariably when people do write about Bitcoin they are making a judgment about how society works and how it could work.

Mainstream economists by focusing on particular things, like fantasy market equilibrium, are ultimately making a judgment about how society really is working or should work. So I guess I’m saying that in focusing on particular phenomenon and ignoring others – like levels of toxic bank debt – economists are acting politically rather than just reporting things; even if they claim that’s all their doing.

Added to this, if you look at the Austrian School (who undoubtedly in one way or another are the closest forerunners to Bitcoin in terms of their theories), such as Von Mises, they are making at times a powerful critique of state involvement in the economy and in doing so they are making a political statement about how society should work.

We have certainly seen the failings of totalitarian ‘socialist’ systems historically. An Austrian like Hayek might argue that one of the reasons that we have over priced housing - and in the UK for example a housing shortage - is the system of central bank driven, state compliant, capitalism. In which government encourages banks to lend for mortgages, which inflates housing prices way above affordable levels for many and land owners and property developers don’t have much incentive to build. Because by not building houses during downturns they inflate the value of the properties they have further.

There’s undoubtedly some truth to that reading but I also want to say that genuinely market driven capitalism does present a significant danger of monopolies. And monopolies actually prevent competition and stagnate markets. This is one of the interesting things about Bitcoin because it poses a direct challenge to the central bank/state driven monopoly over money creation.

That point about the danger of monopolies connects to your final point about the internet. One of the key battles in the history of the internet is between people and communities who genuinely like doing free shit and making things available to share and large corporations (I don’t even need to name them) that would like to monopolize all of your web browsing and purchasing habits. This battle is an ongoing one of course, the Tor network and piracy are both significant inventions for the decentralized version of the web - and Bitcoin has an interesting place in that battle as a decentralized currency and asset.