Of The Fatal Inconsistencies In Saifedean Ammous' Bitcoin Standard

Of The Fatal Inconsistencies In Saifedean Ammous' Bitcoin Standard

In the previous essay (Bitcoin Most Certainly Violates Mises Regression Theorem and This Fact Compels Clarification or Re‐Solution from the Mises Institute; And An Introduction to Szabonian Deconstruction) we ended with statements by Mises that his (Austrian) school of thought "praxeology" rejects empirical (think archeological) based arguments and only accepts arguments extended from reason.

Here we will show COUNTLESS examples of Saifedean Ammous, a purported Austrian economics professor relying on empirical based points and arguments trying to make his conclusion about the economic implications of bitcoin.

In this essay I use the perspective and intention of Szabonian deconstruction, as well as our insights from doing the same with Mises Regression theorem, to highlight Saifedean Ammous’ nefarious use and wrapping of academic scholars work notably including Mises, Hayek, and Nash as well as implicitly Szabo and Satoshi.

Further I highlight that Saifedean's account of how money originated and how moneyness originates in objects is based on an anthropologically inconsistent argument with reference to Jo Walton, “The analogy between Bitcoin and Yapese stone money is based on proposed commonalities that are inaccurate, ill-defined, and/or trivial.“

This essay then gives an example of how nefarious constructions can be ‘un-wrapped’ using Szabonian Deconstruction (properly framed inquiries) and it lays the beginning of my attempt to usefully frame an inquiry into the historical and cultural evolution of objects humanity has used as money as AND money-LIKE things (ie such proto-money, credit, wealth storage etc.).