The market economy in fact solves many problems of 'helping other people' that we have just become so used to that we don't appreciate its complexity.

The fact that food is produced in abundance and is distributed in time to population centres for convenient consumption is a marvel of the modern world. And we're only getting better at it over time.

That's helping people.

"That's helping people" doesn't really say anything. It's extremely vague. Moreover, it's clear that not everyone helped since abject poverty and hunger are a thing, regardless of where you live.

You might be conflating "helping people" with "convenience" whereas what you truly want to say that "market economy" has made products/services "affordable". But, that's, again, not an inclusive statement. Markets only offer access to goods/services to the extent that actors are able to afford them. And clearly not everyone can afford to buy enough sustenance on a daily basis to not go hungry.

The same is true for being able to afford to attain equitable prices as a seller. If you can't bring enough leverage to the table, you will have to accept price levels as they are determined by bigger players who dominate market supply. It might mean that you get out priced, and that your business proposition - no matter how good the idea was - simply won't generate revenue because someone else can provide the same thing for less then peanuts.

Both cryptocurrency and food are the epitomes of that.

Massive amounts of food are being produced to the extent that there's massive amounts of waste across the entire supply chain. None of that happens out of charitable or altruistic intentions. It's not even produced for your personal convenience as a customer.

Flooding markets with massive amounts of supply is a strategy aimed to drive the prices down to a point where competitors have to call it quits. The aim/risk is to generate a razor thin margin which is still worth the investment. At the scale of global markets, that's still billions of dollars worth in profits.

The same is true for cryptocurrency. The price on cryptomarkets isn't determined by the many hands who hold fractions, it's determined by those who have invested the largest amounts of leverage. And they will use that to influence the prices if the incentive for scalping profit and/or acquiring/controlling a larger share of a scarce/finite resource becomes too enticing.

"Market economy" only helps certain groups in certain circumstances. It's definitely not an equitable way of "helping people". On the contrary.

> "That's helping people" doesn't really say anything. It's extremely vague. Moreover, it's clear that not everyone helped since abject poverty and hunger are a thing, regardless of where you live.

this is less true than it has ever been in human history; the only places with true famines in the modern world are those cut off from global markets by war, or dysfunctional states that are cut off from global markets like NK. your statement is either willful blindness or some kind of bone-deep cynicism -- "nothing good has happened because bad things still exist".

> true famines

Beware of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Here's some sources about food insecurity in the United States:

[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/912486921/food-insecurity-in-... [2] https://time.com/4477157/hunger-america-history/ [3] https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/short-history-snap [4] https://www.nap.edu/read/11578/chapter/4 [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States

I could continue on. There are entire libraries filled by countless research and public policy programs with studies and monographs on the subject.

And that's just the United States.

Hunger is a massive issue anywhere in the world. And I will bring this to the table as an established fact whenever someone praises the virtues of a concept as vaguely defined as "market economics" while omitting the realities.

> your statement is either willful blindness or some kind of bone-deep cynicism

I'm unwilling to discuss this any further having being called "blind" and "cynic".

> "nothing good has happened because bad things still exist"

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=deaths+by+starvatio...

That argument is a golden hammer. It can be used to render any point moot.

"People die in car crashes", "People don't have access or can't pay for healthcare", "Student debt is a massive problem", "Home ownership has become prohibitively expensive"

"Nothing good has happened because bad things still exists."

Sure, good has happened. But I'm pointing out that the "good" part shouldn't be prioritized as an absolute, nor used as an excuse to look away from the "bad things".

Read my comment again. I concluded with:

> "Market economy" only helps certain groups in certain circumstances. It's definitely not an equitable way of "helping people". On the contrary.

The first sentence literally acknowledges the "good part", the second sentence points out that this isn't an absolute and that glaring issues are facing humanity eye-to-eye.

Beyond that, I could intepret "nothing good has happened because bad things exist" as another way of you, for whatever reasons, just trying to outright hand wave the very real concerns I've put on the table.

In which case, I, for my part, am entirely unwilling to continue this discussion.

there are plenty of valid, piercing critiques of capitalism or markets, ways to highlight that things they have degraded and destroyed -- and yet you chose a critique that is not only less true than it has ever been, it is increasingly untrue as time goes on. you are shouting at the rising tide for leaving the beach dry. every system of production besides globalized markets has decisively, harshly more murderous and brutally malthusian than the present arrangement. i can only interpret this critique as a rationalization for feelings you are unable to interrogate rationally. your ability to evaluate truth is diminished by your emotions; you have a despair or hopelessness searching for its cause.

The current Bitcoin narrative and actual usage does nothing for the "market economy" though. It might have some indirect positive effects by forcing governments to adopt more open policies lest they suffer from capital flight and forming of parallel economies, but that's about it. Decentralized stablecoins on the other hand have great potential to amplify the free market economy.

that's a great point, but. Just like the moon landing, some degree of food security in the "first world" countries has been achieved many decades ago now. Maybe it's time for some new achievements, like, i dunno, security against mystery viruses, or something else to write home about?

It didn’t feel all that secure in March of last year.

And I mean, the MRNA vaccine seems pretty amazing that rollout began worldwide in less than a year from a novel coronavirus popping up. But the same people working in agriculture aren’t working on virus research. The market decides where to allocate resources, are you advocating for some sort of central planning in lieu of this? What would a different system look like that doesn’t have the major pitfalls that the Soviet government had, where strange things happened like nearly hunting whales to extinction because they needed to make the 1967 whale oil quota?

Yes. I think your comment points out a big issue in our societies. However, note that the article isn't about Bitcoin.

Central bank digital currencies (CBDC) basically operate with a centralized database; no "mining", no pseudo-anonymity, most important, no gambling-like course changes. It represents the "offline money" 1:1, only is it managed centralized rather than federalized by many banks.

Wouldn't that also mean perfect visibility into the movement of money, and the death of cash?

Seems to me that perfect visibility into funds will be as deleterious to society as perfect law enforcement. How are you going to lead the next BLM, or LGBTQ rights, or just a plain old revolution when you can't fund anything?

There was a time, not long ago, when being gay was actually against the law. Imagine wanting to build a civil rights organization for homosexuals, but being unable to fund it because the government immediately and exactly knows which people associated with such a criminal enterprise.

I'm just diving into digital money to be honest, I'd be very happy if somebody had information on this topic.

My gut feeling is that these are societal issues beyond the mere implementation of money. You could have policies that protect donors of societal organizations and automatically wipe associated records.

I think the reality now is that big money is being laundered and stolen from society by big corporations. At the same time it's an illusion that citizens have anonymity in our daily endeavors.

Look at Bitcoin. Pushed by anarcho-romantic illusions, it's the dream of non-regulated big money gambling that hurts society...

We should focus on making our society robust, open and inclusive instead of thinking that we need some decentralized crypto solution.

My point is, in reality we now trust multiple layers of private banks, payment providers like Visa & MasterCard, Google Pay and Paypal.

These are known to give a fuck about society, shutting down things as they like, and even bringing US jurisdiction into other societies.

The advantages of anonymous payments are purely hypothetical for normal people and only benefit big players. Having digital central bank money would enable us to cut off the private money industry that makes a living with data analysis.

I would much prefer to have a state run a bank. As they are very less likely to arbitrary cut of my access. And on other hand they can already order any operator in the area to hand over them the details of what I have done in past years...

Yes it would mean exactly that.

BLM and LGBTQP is already supported by the state. The army and police join the pride parade, and last summer a Swedish policewoman kneeled down for rioting foreigners with the sign “white silence is violence”. Those movements represent the establishment.

In Sweden, nationalists, libertarians, and conservatives are hounded by the state.

Well, I'm not sure about Bitcoin but in general cryptocurrency has a purpose. I know I'm naive in this regard but only recent events with private companies banning people from communication channels in some way opened my eyes.

If you look closely there is no way to send or receive digital payment without using a private company service, which in turn can terminate it's services for you for arbitrary reasons, other people will just shrug and say it's a private company.

Physical currency right now has unique abilities not mirrored by any digital equivalent and allows one to survive and exchange money p2p even if ones name will be blacklisted by private companies for some reason. Yes, probability of this kind of event could be incredibly low but it's still there and I believe that it can increase with various attempts to build "credit score" systems.