I am asking a question about intents. I don’t think the question can be dismissed as a false dichotomy or too simplistic. Over and over again I hear enthusiasm that seems to becoming from the point of view that sees all the good in more power for money, or any profit is good profit or money is speech and therefore must be free of any limit or SAFE should be used to evade taxes or that any of these are good and unavoidable. These expectations seem to becoming from a world view that is not only backwards but malicious.
From my perspective the expanded power of money is responsible for perhaps a majority of the current conflicts and serious threats in the world. So often legislation, taxes and tariffs are attempts to voucher-ize or limit the power of money. Contrary to much hype the real issue isn’t simply one of empowering buyers with a red light zone, it’s also about the increasing power money has over those buyers and other people. Much of the solution would seem to be in lowering the power/value of capital. Bush openly called for elevating the power of capital. People starved over capital will for instance shine shoes if it means they can eat. Where capital is a less pressing issue people retain their dignity and spine. Linus Torvalds explained when asked why he didn’t ‘cash in’ American style, that where he came from people weren’t pimped out over money and he too had no desire to ‘cash in’- in essence saying: we didn’t come up starving so we’re not constantly looking out for our next food binge. They don’t have or value a money-for-the-sake-of-money mentality.
They would value profit efficiency not simply more profit by any means.
I think it can be argued that bitcoin was an attempt to lower or limit the power of capital. On the one hand (assuming I have a clue about bitcoin) it was set up to block manipulations by states and banking systems of the sort that Greenspan had in mind with his terrorist economics where per Greenspan the core of his job involved keeping the average person down and in fear (insecurity) so that average persons would not come together and advocate for a higher living of standard. Given his title was Fed Chair this was achieved in part through manipulation of rates to such ends and bitcoin was meant to offer a superior alternative and attractive replacement that would block that action programmatically and hence be an important way to limit money. Bitcoin with its ledger system was also meant to make it harder to cook the books and is therefore an important transparency tool, one that limits money and capital again by making it harder to cheat. The deeper attraction was a limit on money not the masturbatory speculator/gambling element.
Elevating the power of capital is achieved by foisting scarcity and insecurity. The power is in the differential between have and have not. The carrot is fake; it’s a pure stick approach. Someone pushing a toxic food additive will argue that they are saving food that would go to waste and lowering food prices. A charitable explanation for pushing a known toxic additive would be that it’s increasing other people’s risk for profit but holding out the carrot of greater access. But it could easily be more accurate to say that they are more likely degrading or damaging people’s health in a cumulative fashion rather than merely increasing the risk of a catastrophic health outcome for certain people. It’s a false choice of potentially more affordable food in exchange for much more expensive damage to overall public health. So again limiting money by keeping it from be used to poison people or risk poisoning people is an example of limiting money or capital but the payoff for society is more than worth it. Such limits are both efficient and effective
Even when we consider people as individuals it should be for us as the class of individuals as end users and global citizens. Faith in greed and selfishness isn’t working if it ever did. It’s looking more and more like the road to death.