Having been in the stock market for almost eight years now, I find it ridiculous to compare it to cryptocurrency. Or perhaps, the reason why I could say this is that I have been blessed enough that my early exposure to cryptocurrency is not with those “mooning” projects but with the solid ones like Hive.
I am just thinking if I can have an ROI like this during Bear Season, I wonder what would happen once the Bull Market starts raging!
To read the whole article, kindly click this link.
Since June 2020, realizing that the pandemic is highly politicized, I stopped following it. I consider it a waste of time to argue with those who are gullible to mainstream narrative. I thought the insanity will just stay for a year or two. I never expected that it will last more than two years, and still there is no indication that it will stop soon. This to me is unacceptable. I could not believe that almost every body I know would give up their sovereignty over their own body and hand the decision to the State.
Fast forward, after a year of pushing people into financial cliff, a new global trend emerged. In search for livelihood, many people around the world particularly in the Philippines have found play to earn as a viable alternative. A typical example of this is what happened in Cabanatuan City as shared by this documentary video. Of course, the hype lasted only for few months, and now that the price of the tokens involved are falling, not a few started to lose interest to this new trend.
July last year, two things happened that changed my financial direction. One is the advent of the COVID variant that caused me to stop trading the Philippine Stock market. The other one is related to Axie Infinity. My eldest son asked me a capital for his share in creating a gaming account. To make it short, these events motivated me to study blockchain and cryptocurrency. After six months of studying this new field, I stumble with two projects. One is now in an enclosed mainnet and just recently released that it will be opened either by 14 March or 28 June this year. The other one is also a young project, but already has 100 plus apps built on it.
At this point, I will just focus on the second blockchain – Hive! To give you an overview what Hive is, read this review from Finbold.
To sign in, just go to hive.io and click that red join tab on the upper right of the page. You will then be directed to a “Signup for Hive” page. Among five registration providers, choose ecency. Once you are already on the ecency page, create your own user name and sign in your email. The referred user is optional. But if you want to fill it up, you can use my user name: rzc24-nftbbg. By doing this, I will not receive any referral fee.
I hope you enjoy learning Hive. I wander on this blockchain for 6 months before a part of it starts to make sense to me. Now, I am still exploring this first blockchain for Web 3.0!
Grace and peace!
I first encountered the documentary film, The Social Dilemma streamed in Netflix three weeks ago. I had difficulty accessing it for I do not have a verified Netflix account. I thank one of my former students who shared to me that video. After watching it, I think I am now ready to give my reply.
I first saw in Quora this question about the opinion of netizens concerning this documentary film. At that time, many of the answers submitted agree with the basic thesis of the director. I wanted to post my own reply, but I had second thought because I only read review articles and I haven’t really watched the film itself. And so I suspended my reply.
Returning to Quora, I saw the question I followed with more replies already. And I am glad to see that some of them are now giving a critical evaluation unlike three weeks ago.
And here is my reply to the question, What is your opinion on The Social Dilemma documentary which is streamed on Netflix?
I could not say it’s a total garbage for the documentary contains materials that have some basis perhaps in what’s really going on out there especially in the field of politics. Take for instance what is happening now in the Philippines. If it is really true that hundreds of account in Facebook are State-sponsored to influence public opinion, in that way, a social media can really be a tool for a dictatorial regime. But even then, its impact is not as huge as the film wants us to believe for such attempt can easily be exposed.
What I don’t like with this documentary is the dominance of the victim narrative, which is typical to a Marxist reading of society. I suspect that though the interviewees are sophisticated in their technological knowledge, but still they are products of long-term indoctrination of universities concerning the evil of the markets. As a result of interpreting their experience from this lens, hence, the outcome is such a documentary, which to me is more suited not as a fact, but more for an entertainment intent. Hostility against profit, money, advertising and giant tech companies is rampant throughout this film. The call for government regulation is actually an indication of the failure both in parental and self-discipline. This film overestimates the power of tech corporations and social media and underestimates the complexity of human action. Humans are not rats. Not everyone responds on the basis of instinct. Reason remains the highest faculty of man. As for me, social media is just a tool. The real conflict is not between social media and society, tech companies and users, markets and us but between the advocates of freedom of information and those who want to politically regulate and control such flow of information. For them, social media is a threat.
I overestimated also the importance of this film and that is why it took me more than 3 weeks to reply to this question. After gaining an access to this film, at first, I was thinking of transcribing the statements of the interviewees, but after watching it for 30 minutes, I observe the repetition of a dominant narrative influenced by anti-capitalistic mentality even to the extent of inventing oxymoron phrase such as “surveillance capitalism.” Social media definitely has a role in growing addiction to electronic devices and the increase in mental health problems, but to stop at such analysis, again, to me is to miss the real cause, which is the fact that the mental health industry itself is a big business.
In the film, it says that we are the products, but stop at that. By reporting only half of the picture, it distorts the whole narrative. Granted that the search engines sell our information to companies, but what is the purpose behind such selling? Yes, I don’t like the practice of selling our information to companies without our permission, but in a way “selling” ourselves is an unavoidable part in an economic transaction. And we do this by upgrading our skills so that companies would hire us. Companies do the same by competing for our attention. It is because they want to sell something and that is the reason they are willing to pay the search engines companies. And in that sense we are the buyers. So the whole picture shows that we are both the products and the buyers. To just emphasize one side and leave the other side, as I said, to me it’s a distortion of the whole picture.
Another thing is that it does not mean that if you see people considered insiders turning to whistle blowers or launching a “revolution,” they always got it right. You have also to ask the question what is the motive behind? The way I see it, if these guys will become successful in their crusade, their cause will be utilized by policy makers to increase regulations on social media and thereby restrict freedom and grow the power of the state as a result. This documentary is against of what the makers perceive as the evil of the markets and they are doing their crusade from a high moral platform. What surprises me is the way they demonize the giant tech companies but silent in the increasing power of the State, which is the real threat in our time.
There is this book, Quotable Mises. I checked the quotes there on Marxism. After reading them, I came up with an idea to restructure them. Of course, this article does not contain the complete perspective of Ludwig von Mises on Marxism. Just consider this as introductory. He has thicker books dealing with the subject in greater detail. Having said this, let me just divide under nine points the quotes that I gathered from that book:
Marxism is right because it is a product of proletarian logic and it is “inspired by the supreme power that determines the destiny of mankind.”
The essence of Marxian philosophy is this: We are right because we are the spokesmen of the rising proletarian class. Discursive reasoning cannot invalidate our teachings, for they are inspired by the supreme power that determines the destiny of mankind. Our adversaries are wrong because they lack the intuition that guides our minds (Human Action, p. 84; p. 83).
In the eyes of the Marxians, Ricardo, Freud, Bergson, and Einstein are wrong because they are bourgeois; in the eyes of the Nazis they are wrong because they are Jews (Omnipotent Government, p. 145).
Marxism with its doctrine of the supremacy of proletarian logic and with its claim to scientific character of its revolutionary process is in reality anti-logic and anti-science.
Logic and reasoning, which might show the absurdity of such dreams of bliss and revenge, are to be thrust aside. . . . It is against Logic, against Science and against the activity of thought itself (Socialism, p. 7).
The economic understanding of the followers of Marx applauded as sophisticated in the academe is in reality immature and naive.
They have no greater perception of the essentials of economic life than the errand boy, whose only idea of the work of the entrepreneur is that he covers pieces of paper with letters and figures (Socialism, p. 189).
In its most fundamental contentions Marxism has never risen above the level of a doctrine for the soap box orator (Socialism, p. 305).
Marxist’s economic teachings are a distorted revision of the theories of Adam Smith and Ricardo.
Marx’s economic teachings are essentially a garbled rehash of the theories of Adam Smith and, first of all, of Ricardo (Theory and History, pp. 124–25).
The doctrine of the irreconcilable conflict of interest between social classes is in reality a flop.
“For Marx and his parties, the interests of the individual classes are irreconcilably opposed to each other. Each class knows precisely what his class interests are and how to realize them. Therefore, there can only be warfare” (A Critique of Interventionism, p. 118).
“He did not know what to say in the planned 52nd chapter of the third volume and this embarrassment induced him to desist from finishing his great treatise. The essential dogma of the Marxian philosophy, the class conflict doctrine which he and his friend Engels had propagated for many decades, was unmasked as a flop” (Economic Freedom and Interventionism, p. 121).
Marxism teaches “that capitalism results in a progressive impoverishment of the wage earners.”
Even the most orthodox Marxians are not bold enough to support seriously its essential thesis, namely, that capitalism results in a progressive impoverishment of the wage earners” (Human Action, p. 691; p. 694).
The Marxian dogma according to which socialism is bound to come ‘with the inexorability of a law of nature’ is just an arbitrary surmise devoid of any proof (Planning for Freedom, p. 33).
Marxism is a revolutionary doctrine. It expressly declares that the design of the prime mover will be accomplished by civil war. . . . The liquidation of all dissenters will establish the undisputed supremacy of the absolute eternal values. This formula for the solution of conflicts of value judgments is certainly not new. It is a device known and practiced from time immemorial. Kill the infidels! Burn the heretics! What is new is merely the fact that today it is sold to the public under the label of ‘science’ (Theory and History, p. 51).
All the sophisticated syllogisms of the ponderous volumes published by Marx, Engels, and hundreds of Marxian authors cannot conceal the fact that the only and ultimate source of Marx’s prophecy is an alleged inspiration by virtue of which Marx claims to have guessed the plans of the mysterious powers determining the course of history. Like Hegel, Marx was a prophet communicating to the people the revelation that an inner voice had imparted to him(Human Action, p. 691; p. 695).
The incomparable success of Marxism is due to the prospect it offers of fulfilling those dream-aspirations and dreams of vengeance which have been so deeply imbedded in the human soul from time immemorial. It promises a Paradise on earth, a Land of Heart’s Desire full of happiness and enjoyment, and— sweeter still to the losers in life’s game—humiliation of all who are stronger and better than the multitude (Socialism, p. 7).
The Bolshevists persistently tell us that religion is opium for the people. Marxism is indeed opium for those who might take to thinking and must therefore be weaned from it” (Socialism, p. 7).
Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person (Socialism, p. 19).
Within Marxism there is no place for free thought (Socialism, p. 319).
The Marxians’ love of democratic institutions was a stratagem only, a pious fraud for the deception of the masses. Within a socialist community there is no room left for freedom. There can be no freedom of the press where the government owns every printing office. There can be no free choice of profession or trade where the government is the only employer and assigns everyone the task he must fulfill. There can be no freedom to settle where one chooses when the government has the power to fix one’s place of work. There can be no real freedom of scientific research where the government owns all the libraries, archives, and laboratories and has the right to send anyone to a place where he cannot continue his investigation. There can be no freedom in art and literature where the government determines who shall create them. There can be neither freedom of conscience nor of speech where the government has the power to remove any opponent to a climate which is detrimental to his health, or to assign him duties which surpass his strength and ruin him both physically and intellectually” (Omnipotent Government, pp. 51–52).
“Your brain is polluted,” said one respondent in Quora when I asked the question, “Are central banks socialist or capitalist institutions?“
The first respondent said, “They are government institutions, nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. You could have central bank in either system.”
And then I replied to provide the context of my question:
Dr. Thorsten Polleit, Chief Economist of Degussa and Honorary Professor at the University of Bayreuth wrote: ‘In their Communist Manifesto of 1848, Karl Marx (1818–83) and Friedrich Engels (1820–95) compiled a list of measures necessary to establish communism. Measure number 5 reads as follows: ‘Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.’
He immediately answered, “Correct, monopoly, no private banks. That is not standard definition of central bank. China does use private banks, but with very strict government control.”
I was surprised with the second response. The guy wrote:
“First of all getting your information from the Mises Institute – Wikipedia is your problem. Mises was a fascist sympathizer he had nothing to do with liberty, that’s like Hitler saying he was a socialist, it’s called a ruse. Mises wrote in the 1927 book:
It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.
And then he added a series of meme.
First, from Bertrand Russell:
Advocates of capitalism like to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
And added this comment:
So the source of your thinking is toxic your brain is polluted by false notions, they are simply wrong and motivated by rich men who want more power over you.
Second, he put word into my mouth his understanding of socialism by saying:
“. . . socialism isn’t when the government does stuff okay? Until you get that, no one can reason with you.”
Again, followed by another meme:
Socialism is when the government does stuff and the more stuff the government does the more socialister it is.
With added comment:
Way too many people on this sub believe, it’s getting out of hand.
And then he repeats again his above meme with a shorter version:
“Socialism is when the government does stuff.”
Followed by: “Thank you Marx, very cool!”
And he ended with a 21 second YouTube video from Richard Wolff repeating the same meme. Two upvoted his response, a Marxist and a Maoist.
How did I respond to this guy?
First, I clarified to him the five points he raised:
And then I told him that the five points he raised betray a lack of understanding about the history and character of socialism. And then I took his points one by one.
My response: Why is that my problem? Can I say the same thing to you that your problem is that you are listening to all types of sources except those from Mises Institute? Would I be correct in saying that? With the absence of certain criteria, no one can determine which of us is correct. Perhaps, it is more accurate to say, “My problem with you is that you are getting your information from Mises Institute.” That is your problem, not mine. That would be honest for I don’t see getting information from Mises Institute as my problem.
2. The accusation against Mises as a fascist sympathizer.
My response: I am not sure if you believe in Moral Law. One of the law in Moral Law is the prohibition to bear false witness against one’s fellow. If you see someone doing it, you should correct it and you should not help in spreading such accusation. If you are not certain about it, you should have done your homework first before repeating such statement. Not unless you are convinced that such false accusation is the truth and then you have all the right to repeat such.
Unfortunately, since you already made up your mind that the information from Mises Institute is toxic, then there is no way you could hear the other side of the story. You would never know that the quote you repeated was taken out of context and does not mean that Mises was a fascist sympathizer. You would never know that Mises was simply acknowledging the popular view that many people during his time regarded Fascism as a savior. To acknowledge a popular view held by the people is not equivalent to being a fascist sympathizer. You would also never know that Mises repudiated fascism in his thicker books such as the Human Action and Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis. Citing for instance my summary of one section in the Epilogue (pp. 481-541) of the latter book, you could immediately see that Mises is against fascism:
“Due to the unpopularity of Fascism, both capitalism and socialism disown her as their offspring. However, the prevailing idea is that Fascism is a product of capitalism. This is in agreement with Mises’ statement that such accusation is a result of semantic innovation on the part of communist intellectuals. In fact, together with Nazism, Fascism was described as ‘the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism’ (Mises, Planned Chaos, 1951, p. 29). However, examining the seventh section in ‘Planned Chaos’ we find the actual thoughts of Mises on Fascism.”
“For Mises, Fascism ‘began with a split in the ranks of Marxist socialism’ (p. 32). Such split happened in 1914 in Italy. Benito Mussolini was considered the most ‘outstanding man in Italian socialism’ (p. 30) Mussolini is a great champion of Marxian socialism. Notice how Mises described Mussolini’s Marxian zeal: ‘Nobody could surpass Mussolini in Marxian zeal. He was the intransigent champion of the pure creed, the unyielding defender of the rights of the exploited proletarians, the eloquent prophet of the socialist bliss to come. He was an adamant adversary of patriotism, nationalism, imperialism, monarchical rule and all religious creeds’ (ibid.).”
“However, Mussolini faced a problem. The Italian intellectuals were nationalists. Mussolini changed his mind and joined the nationalists and so the Fascists party was organized. As a result of such defection, anti-Fascists attacked Mussolini. But after the communists’ failed in 1920, the masses joined Mussolini’s party. For Mises, Mussolini’s claim ‘that he had saved Italy from the danger of communism’ (p. 31) is not true. Fascism ‘was not the cause, but the consequence of the communist fiasco’” (ibid.).
“The way Mises described the characteristics of Fascism demonstrated its origin not in capitalism, but in socialism. He called it ‘vehemently anti-capitalistic’ (p.31) though ‘it did not suppress the industrial and financial corporations’ (p.32). Other features of Fascism include fanatical nationalism, Nazi interventionism, Russian dictatorship, and German non-Marxian socialistic economic program. It is a hybrid of German and Russian brands of socialism with additional features taken from other non-socialistic ideas. Moreover, it also gave lip-service to liberty of thought and the press and the right of assembly. Though Fascism was buried in history, Mises claimed that the forces behind it is still active and gave his readers a solemn warning about the great possibility of the revival of fascism under a new name.”
3. The quote from Bertrand Russell demonizing defenders of capitalism.
My response: This to me is lazy thinking. Everybody hates if one’s opinion is reduced into a mere caricature or a straw man. There are more creative ways in constructing arguments against capitalism. As for me, I don’t want to invent or pass something that I would make a fool of myself. However, if you will still insist in such kind of arguments, prove your position at least by quoting chapters and verses from any reputable defenders of capitalism.
4. Your conclusion that the source of my thinking is toxic and that my brain is polluted with false notions.
My response: Again on what basis? Without a criteria, I can also say the same thing to you. But who will determine which one of us is correct?
5. Finally, your main argument that a person who thinks socialism is all about the government doing more stuff is irrational and therefore no one can reason with him.
My response:
I think you can do better than this. Are you putting words into my mouth? Are you assuming that your comical way of defining socialism is my understanding of the term? That’s a big assumption difficult to prove. Nevertheless, I assume that you are aware that diverse notions of socialism exist out there and therefore defining the term isn’t just that easy. Just using Wikipedia as a reference is already complicated, but at least two things are clear in that definition: first, that “Socialism is an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy.” In this definition, we need to further clarify the meaning of “social ownership” and “cooperative management”. In continuing the definition given by Wikipedia, it appears that “social ownership” and “cooperative management” are closely connected. And under the umbrella of “social ownership”, “cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these” are included. This definition is not easy to grasp and if this is what we understand by socialism, no wonder, the question is difficult to answer. Second, Wikipedia also identified that “varieties’ of socialism exist “and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.” And then Wikipedia mentioned about “markets” and “productive institutions” and I think this is the reason why some people believe that under socialism, a free market can exist. Moreover, I consider that the most important insight Wikipedia pointed out is about the “role of the state in constructing socialism.”
However, this is how I understand socialism: it “is the system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; it also refers to the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice.”
In a 1959 lecture in Argentina, which is now included in the book, Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow, this is how Mises understands socialism: loss of economic freedom, priority of the interest of the State, government ownership of means of production, absence of consumer sovereignty, the sovereignty of the state over the people, use of laws to “protect” (coerce) the people from economic mistakes, and the absence of middle class and the division of social classes into two – the planners and the people. However, Mises admitted that socialism requires an “exhaustive treatment”, which was impossible for him to accomplish in six lectures. He advised his readers to consult his other books particularly “Human Action” and also to read the book of a socialist Polish economist Oskar Lange to see the other side of the story.
As for other versions of socialism, even within the Austrian school, two traditions exist: the Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk tradition and the Friedrich von Wieser tradition. The latter tradition was adhered to by “social democrats” or advocates of mixed economy.
Comparing four references Planned Chaos, Omnipotent Government, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism and Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, you can come up with at least seven versions of socialism such as communism, interventionism (also known as Nazism or national socialism), social democracy, social engineering, military socialism, Christian socialism, guild socialism plus at least three pseudo socialist systems like solidarism, profit-sharing and syndicalism.
Even these seven types of socialism are not exhaustive enough compared to the broader framework provided by Wikipedia. The free web-based encyclopedia distinguished between two general categories of socialism, economic and political. From economic point of view, socialism has four forms – planned economy, self-managed economy, state-directed economy and market socialism. From political perspective, it has five versions (I removed anarchism for I think it has a separate root), which are libertarian socialism (synonymous to left anarchism), democratic socialism, religious socialism (Christian socialism, Islamic socialism and Buddhist socialism), social democracy and syndicalism. So all in all, you can come up with nine or ten versions of socialism.
Studies in Economics 