💯‼️ Pure joy reading this, and right on time for discussion with my family and circle of friends. The subject matter fluency is one thing, but the emotional intelligence you bring to the debate really makes this field guide a masterpiece. I will be using it LIBERALLY. 😏
As Thomas Kuhn pointed out in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the greatest resistance to change comes moments before the collapse of the reigning paradigm, when its defenders “devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.” Kuhn’s interpretive model has helped me make sense of some of the things that no longer make sense. Lee McIntyre argues in his book, Post Truth, that evi- dence is now subordinate to ideology; what counts as true is what your side needs to be true. For- mer CIA analyst Martin Gurri observed that “Post-truth” culture was “closer to intellectual holy war than to critical thinking.” Today’s “clapback” culture is the ad hominem theatre of the absurd. Intellectual discourse now amounts to “owning” and “being owned.”
Your patient deconstruction is a lesson to us all. As a non-philosopher, observing persistent attacks from the intellectually undergunned I am reminded of the old legal maxim: "No case? Abuse prosecuting attorney." As for Bitcoin I can only think "Tulip Mania". And when challenged by "Austrian" analysis, for some reason I find it evokes heartless positivism on the one hand and corrosive anti-semitism on the other. I'm sure I'm wrong.
Well said, but there may be a classification problem in that you're describing only the human response? For the bitcoin concept itself I still prefer "Digital Tulips". :)
This is heady stuff, and along with Paul Krugman, you seems to be talking about the bubble economy -- not what most people are living with. So long as wealth serves itself, I guess we're stuck with it, philosophically and in reality. If the public ever gets its act together, that's all going to be hindsight, as in no more. Politically, a reversal might look pretty surprising to all the media who think they're reporting the real world. For sure, there's no future in it: climate change and overreach are in our laps, with no sign of abating. We have the opportunity to construct a public reality that serves us all, without all the song, dance, and jive that purports to be our "news". We could actually get what we need if we constructed the economy right, oriented to the actual public.
Nice. You're really good at this. I'm not the economics maven that you are. But just the phrase 'bitcoin is hard money' makes my eyelid start to twitch.
Can’t thank you enough Mike. You’ve given me a gold mine of ideas to explore. I do think you are blessing in this world of desperate need for sanity. ❤️🔥
“Because to restate my argument accurately … the simple libertarian bromides collapse into their constituent absurdities.”
Thank-you for your eloquence. During my extensive nursing education we learned to be curious, to ask many questions, then “reflect back” to patients our understanding of their health-belief system. And indeed upon hearing themselves, people will often “collapse into their constituent absurdities”. It’s a very effective way to change behaviour, often a health objective as nurses. So I share your frustration with these critics who failed to make an effort to completely understand you. Also most sincerely impressed with your analysis of their talented, subtle, rubber-ball responses!
Full disclosure: I have occasionally called maga people idiots, and told them they were a waste of my time…
I have often wondered how, in the cult of Austrian Economics, 'freedom' is portrayed as the highest value. One that must be defended at all costs. But at the same time they subsequently do not seem to care in the slighest bit about this freedom, when what they consider to be 'private' actions by 'private' individuals (or institutions, or contracts) lead to a reduction of freedom for others. The lack of interest for distribution effect of fixed-supply money/gold/bitcoin is a good example of this dynamic. .
Austrians are (rightfully) skeptical of power, and the concentration and abuse of said power, but only direct this at governments and government power, which, in their view, is somehow totally different from other forms of power, such as religious power, or corporate power, or monetary power, or resource power... Their worldview seems to rest on a very strong binary divide between whatever they consider 'private' action, in opposition to government action, without taking into account the social/political/institutional/economic complexity of the world we live in. They view everything from a micro-lens (from the perspective of the individual or the company), without noticing context, nor the fact that macro realities might operate according to different rules than micro fundamentals.
I often wonder how we might convince people towards a worldview that acknowledges complexity and uncertainty and emergence and the openness of our system. One that sees different institutional setups as different ways of cooperating instead, of as opposing teams. We have enough evidence against their position, and enough social-political ideas to provide a better, more correct, image of our lifeworld. I don't know, however, if they ever want to be convinced.
Then I wonder how we could protect society at large against the incorrect worldviews & ideas of Austrians (and Marxists, just to indicate that the flaws are not just in one camp), by providing better, more correct mental maps of society, but I often feel like those (should) already exist (although I don't know who or what is the most convincing). But do we then fail at making them known, or are they being rejected?
It just seems like such an obvious intellectual impasse that they're at, and yet their ideas keep on lingering. I have no answers (and I'm falling asleep here, so my comment probably stopped being a cohesive thought a while ago), but I do wonder what it is that we need, intellectually, to immunize ourselves against such (collective) intellectual insanity.
Saved this to read when I wake up, later! Far to complicated gir my poor tired brain to even contemplate comprehending until after a sleep/refresh!! However thank you for writing something worth contemplating for a change to the more common, soundbite type easier to digest non sense...
Mike I really wish I had seen this and absorbed its teaching when dealing with bad faith arguments years ago! This is really helpful. I will be reading it again and again.
There is some portion of the public, likely small at present, which would support laws against BitCoin & the like, with jail terms for possession. Yet at present we have a national legislature moving to inlaw it rather than outlaw it. It has no legitimate us outside of criminal transactions, wastes energy in its production, and corrupts our politics. If the assumption is supporters of BigCoin should be able to present good faith arguments -- well, are there any? Or is it just another cargo cult, whether or not its high priests are themselves true believers?
They operate from the Axiom that Governmental institutions are Bad and rationalize everything backwards from that — most importantly that Democracy is unworkable.
Amazing that we need Blockchain, AI, and indoctrination in Austrian economics to reclaim their supposed State of Nature.
💯‼️ Pure joy reading this, and right on time for discussion with my family and circle of friends. The subject matter fluency is one thing, but the emotional intelligence you bring to the debate really makes this field guide a masterpiece. I will be using it LIBERALLY. 😏
Lol, me too!
As Thomas Kuhn pointed out in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the greatest resistance to change comes moments before the collapse of the reigning paradigm, when its defenders “devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.” Kuhn’s interpretive model has helped me make sense of some of the things that no longer make sense. Lee McIntyre argues in his book, Post Truth, that evi- dence is now subordinate to ideology; what counts as true is what your side needs to be true. For- mer CIA analyst Martin Gurri observed that “Post-truth” culture was “closer to intellectual holy war than to critical thinking.” Today’s “clapback” culture is the ad hominem theatre of the absurd. Intellectual discourse now amounts to “owning” and “being owned.”
Keep on keeping on
Well said, and very valuable. I particularly like "cult epistemology".
Much of what you said was way over my head but I loved reading it and when you said cognitive dissonance I understood! You are a warrior!🧐
Your patient deconstruction is a lesson to us all. As a non-philosopher, observing persistent attacks from the intellectually undergunned I am reminded of the old legal maxim: "No case? Abuse prosecuting attorney." As for Bitcoin I can only think "Tulip Mania". And when challenged by "Austrian" analysis, for some reason I find it evokes heartless positivism on the one hand and corrosive anti-semitism on the other. I'm sure I'm wrong.
"As for Bitcoin I can only think "Tulip Mania"."
Well said, but there may be a classification problem in that you're describing only the human response? For the bitcoin concept itself I still prefer "Digital Tulips". :)
Much better!
Bravo, Mike, bravo!
I've saved this to refer back to again. You've dissected these classes of bad faith arguments with clarity and ample examples.
This is heady stuff, and along with Paul Krugman, you seems to be talking about the bubble economy -- not what most people are living with. So long as wealth serves itself, I guess we're stuck with it, philosophically and in reality. If the public ever gets its act together, that's all going to be hindsight, as in no more. Politically, a reversal might look pretty surprising to all the media who think they're reporting the real world. For sure, there's no future in it: climate change and overreach are in our laps, with no sign of abating. We have the opportunity to construct a public reality that serves us all, without all the song, dance, and jive that purports to be our "news". We could actually get what we need if we constructed the economy right, oriented to the actual public.
Nice. You're really good at this. I'm not the economics maven that you are. But just the phrase 'bitcoin is hard money' makes my eyelid start to twitch.
Can’t thank you enough Mike. You’ve given me a gold mine of ideas to explore. I do think you are blessing in this world of desperate need for sanity. ❤️🔥
“Because to restate my argument accurately … the simple libertarian bromides collapse into their constituent absurdities.”
Thank-you for your eloquence. During my extensive nursing education we learned to be curious, to ask many questions, then “reflect back” to patients our understanding of their health-belief system. And indeed upon hearing themselves, people will often “collapse into their constituent absurdities”. It’s a very effective way to change behaviour, often a health objective as nurses. So I share your frustration with these critics who failed to make an effort to completely understand you. Also most sincerely impressed with your analysis of their talented, subtle, rubber-ball responses!
Full disclosure: I have occasionally called maga people idiots, and told them they were a waste of my time…
I have often wondered how, in the cult of Austrian Economics, 'freedom' is portrayed as the highest value. One that must be defended at all costs. But at the same time they subsequently do not seem to care in the slighest bit about this freedom, when what they consider to be 'private' actions by 'private' individuals (or institutions, or contracts) lead to a reduction of freedom for others. The lack of interest for distribution effect of fixed-supply money/gold/bitcoin is a good example of this dynamic. .
Austrians are (rightfully) skeptical of power, and the concentration and abuse of said power, but only direct this at governments and government power, which, in their view, is somehow totally different from other forms of power, such as religious power, or corporate power, or monetary power, or resource power... Their worldview seems to rest on a very strong binary divide between whatever they consider 'private' action, in opposition to government action, without taking into account the social/political/institutional/economic complexity of the world we live in. They view everything from a micro-lens (from the perspective of the individual or the company), without noticing context, nor the fact that macro realities might operate according to different rules than micro fundamentals.
I often wonder how we might convince people towards a worldview that acknowledges complexity and uncertainty and emergence and the openness of our system. One that sees different institutional setups as different ways of cooperating instead, of as opposing teams. We have enough evidence against their position, and enough social-political ideas to provide a better, more correct, image of our lifeworld. I don't know, however, if they ever want to be convinced.
Then I wonder how we could protect society at large against the incorrect worldviews & ideas of Austrians (and Marxists, just to indicate that the flaws are not just in one camp), by providing better, more correct mental maps of society, but I often feel like those (should) already exist (although I don't know who or what is the most convincing). But do we then fail at making them known, or are they being rejected?
It just seems like such an obvious intellectual impasse that they're at, and yet their ideas keep on lingering. I have no answers (and I'm falling asleep here, so my comment probably stopped being a cohesive thought a while ago), but I do wonder what it is that we need, intellectually, to immunize ourselves against such (collective) intellectual insanity.
My head is still spinning. I want to try and absorb all of what i just read.
PS: Thank You
Saved this to read when I wake up, later! Far to complicated gir my poor tired brain to even contemplate comprehending until after a sleep/refresh!! However thank you for writing something worth contemplating for a change to the more common, soundbite type easier to digest non sense...
💜🌶🧠🌶💜
Mike I really wish I had seen this and absorbed its teaching when dealing with bad faith arguments years ago! This is really helpful. I will be reading it again and again.
There is some portion of the public, likely small at present, which would support laws against BitCoin & the like, with jail terms for possession. Yet at present we have a national legislature moving to inlaw it rather than outlaw it. It has no legitimate us outside of criminal transactions, wastes energy in its production, and corrupts our politics. If the assumption is supporters of BigCoin should be able to present good faith arguments -- well, are there any? Or is it just another cargo cult, whether or not its high priests are themselves true believers?
They operate from the Axiom that Governmental institutions are Bad and rationalize everything backwards from that — most importantly that Democracy is unworkable.
Amazing that we need Blockchain, AI, and indoctrination in Austrian economics to reclaim their supposed State of Nature.