It's not level-headed. They've started with the classical Economist premise: gov regulation bad. Then rather than understand or research cypto, they contrast lies told by charlatans against an unmentioned "sceptical" reality. They then conclude with their premise.
This is an exercise in pure ideology, conveys no information, and presents the scam sales-pitch around crypto entirely verbatim.
It is that most common of trap that classical liberals fall into, defending private forces of unfreedom on the basis that they underpin the "free" market. What a bleak picture, and as a defender of free markets, a betray of that world view.
Freedom, as a contingent property of markets, is a careful and precious thing. It requires us to be on the guard against a variety of feudal forces, the pinnace of which could be nothing other than crypto.
Here, The Economist, on the basis of classical liberalism, advocates for a feudalist scam. It's quite saddening.
This is an exercise in pure ideology, conveys no information, and presents the scam sales-pitch around crypto entirely verbatim.
It is that most common of trap that classical liberals fall into, defending private forces of unfreedom on the basis that they underpin the "free" market. What a bleak picture, and as a defender of free markets, a betray of that world view.
Freedom, as a contingent property of markets, is a careful and precious thing. It requires us to be on the guard against a variety of feudal forces, the pinnace of which could be nothing other than crypto.
Here, The Economist, on the basis of classical liberalism, advocates for a feudalist scam. It's quite saddening.