3 ms·

I realize this is an op-ed, but a good op-ed will still be based on well researched facts, otherwise the opinion is naive and useless. This reads like Krugman r

I realize this is an op-ed, but a good op-ed will still be based on well researched facts, otherwise the opinion is naive and useless. This reads like Krugman read a shitty blog from some 12 year old who doesn't know how to do independant research and simply copied some terribly uninformed social media arguments. For example, the US Dollar is valuable not because that's the only accepted currency for paying taxes but because it's the only currency that nearly every retailer in the country accepts. > much actual Bitcoin use seems to involve drugs, sex and other black-market goods There's a big difference between bitcoin use in general and bitcoin use on the dark web. You can't cite an article about bitcoin use on the dark web as a source for how all bitcoin is used. That's like saying hot dogs are only sold at baseball stadiums when your source is just about hot dog sales at baseball stadiums. I could go on but I think it's fair to say there is no need -- Krugman has gone full retard.

philipwhiuk 9y ago
Why do they accept it though? Because they pay taxes in it. UK retailers mostly don't accept USD even though it's the global reserve currency? Why. Because they'd have to change it back into GBP to pay tax on the profit they just made. > There's a big difference between bitcoin use in general and bitcoin use on the dark web At a time when multiple retailers are switching away from BTC, it seems more reasonable. In any case there's no study saying most of it isn't the dark web stuff. > I could go on but I think it's fair to say there is no need I disagree, most of your points are poor.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> For example, the US Dollar is valuable not because that's the only accepted currency for paying taxes but because it's the only currency that nearly every retailer in the country accepts. The former is a significant part of the reason for the latter. > There's a big difference between bitcoin use in general and bitcoin use on the dark web. There's clearly a difference, but if a large share of the non-speculative trade is on the dark web, Krugman’s statement you criticize remains correct. > I could go on but I think it's fair to say there is no need -- Krugman has gone full retard. You have decidedly failed to make that case.
- bonestamp2 9y ago
  > The former is a significant part of the reason for the latter. Obviously there's a feedback loop where people are paid in a currency and then people have that currency so retailers accept that currency and then they pay their employees with that currency, etc. But I don't think anyone has recently sat down to think about which currency they're going to use on a daily basis and selected that currency because it's the currency they have to pay their taxes in once a year. People use it because they have it, businesses accept it because that's what people have. Why? It's not because of taxes... It's because nearly every modern country has a central bank or a "pseudo-central bank" (like the federal reserve) that issues the trade currency for that country. That central bank issues that currency because they want to control the economy (as Krugman mentions). It's not because they want to receive that currency to pay taxes -- accepting it as the payment method for taxes is a consequence of issuing that currency, not the reason for it. > but if a large share of the non-speculative trade is on the dark web, Krugman’s statement you criticize remains correct. Well sure, but there's no evidence of that and an article about usage of bitcoin on the dark web is not a useful source for such an argument -- in fact, using it in that manner discrets the author entirely.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > That central bank issues that currency because they want to control the economy (as Krugman mentions). No, they issue it because that's what the government charters them to do. They enact particular monetary policy to control the economy, which only works because the currency is dominant in trade, which it is because the government systematically favors it (it's true that taxation isn't the whole story here, though, there's also legal tender status, the government issuing public benefits in the currency, minimum wage laws and other laws that are keyed off official currency and which are much harder to comply with if you use some other currency that floats against it, etc., etc., etc.)

philipwhiuk 9y ago

Why do they accept it though? Because they pay taxes in it. UK retailers mostly don't accept USD even though it's the global reserve currency? Why. Because they'd have to change it back into GBP to pay tax on the profit they just made. > There's a big difference between bitcoin use in general and bitcoin use on the dark web At a time when multiple retailers are switching away from BTC, it seems more reasonable. In any case there's no study saying most of it isn't the dark web stuff. > I could go on but I think it's fair to say there is no need I disagree, most of your points are poor.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> For example, the US Dollar is valuable not because that's the only accepted currency for paying taxes but because it's the only currency that nearly every retailer in the country accepts. The former is a significant part of the reason for the latter. > There's a big difference between bitcoin use in general and bitcoin use on the dark web. There's clearly a difference, but if a large share of the non-speculative trade is on the dark web, Krugman’s statement you criticize remains correct. > I could go on but I think it's fair to say there is no need -- Krugman has gone full retard. You have decidedly failed to make that case.

bonestamp2 9y ago
> The former is a significant part of the reason for the latter. Obviously there's a feedback loop where people are paid in a currency and then people have that currency so retailers accept that currency and then they pay their employees with that currency, etc. But I don't think anyone has recently sat down to think about which currency they're going to use on a daily basis and selected that currency because it's the currency they have to pay their taxes in once a year. People use it because they have it, businesses accept it because that's what people have. Why? It's not because of taxes... It's because nearly every modern country has a central bank or a "pseudo-central bank" (like the federal reserve) that issues the trade currency for that country. That central bank issues that currency because they want to control the economy (as Krugman mentions). It's not because they want to receive that currency to pay taxes -- accepting it as the payment method for taxes is a consequence of issuing that currency, not the reason for it. > but if a large share of the non-speculative trade is on the dark web, Krugman’s statement you criticize remains correct. Well sure, but there's no evidence of that and an article about usage of bitcoin on the dark web is not a useful source for such an argument -- in fact, using it in that manner discrets the author entirely.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > That central bank issues that currency because they want to control the economy (as Krugman mentions). No, they issue it because that's what the government charters them to do. They enact particular monetary policy to control the economy, which only works because the currency is dominant in trade, which it is because the government systematically favors it (it's true that taxation isn't the whole story here, though, there's also legal tender status, the government issuing public benefits in the currency, minimum wage laws and other laws that are keyed off official currency and which are much harder to comply with if you use some other currency that floats against it, etc., etc., etc.)