4 ms·

I feel like these analyses are always very well researched and set-out, but the authors lack any formal qualifications at all. Why read this when there are Nobe

by reedf1 6y ago

I feel like these analyses are always very well researched and set-out, but the authors lack any formal qualifications at all. Why read this when there are Nobel prize winners with polemics on Bitcoin? It ends up reading like man-waves-fist-at-cloud on how economics aught to be, rather than how it is.

eeZah7Ux 6y ago
...because some people with an agenda want to promote bitcoin.
VHRanger 6y ago
Hey, author here. I've been a mod of r/economics for half a decade, I work as a data scientist and I have a Msc. in econometrics for what its worth on formal qualifications. I mainly wrote this one as a go-to to point people on my thoughts of the economics of BTC as pointed out in the TLDR box
- mocmoc 6y ago
  BTC is Money, perhaps even more than USD , I don’t know how old are you , but currently there are things(pure physical and digital things) that are only possible to be purchased with BTC, no other payment accepted. So yes , BTC is money , I’m close to people that only use BTC as a main exchange point for value , so BTC is money , weather you want to accept it or not is up to you
- reedf1 6y ago
  Oh nice - I actually quite like the article. Probably shouldn't have come after it so hard. I like level headed people pouring cold-water on bitcoin occasionally as it can get a bit loony.
ur-whale 6y ago
Because nobel prize winners polemics against Bitcoin (ie Krugman) are even less well argued than this. Bottom line, Bitcoin is a very different beast than everything that's existed before in finance, and "experts" poorly reasoned opinion carry barely more weight than this article. The truth is, no one knows what Bitcoin will become, because it's the first of its kind. When the dust settles, the survivor opinion will - of course - write a book and become famous selling the bedazzled masses a lengthy, sophisticated "I told you so".
- cableshaft 6y ago
  Ugh Krugman, has there ever been an economist that's been more consistently wrong about the economy? I'm seriously tempted to do the opposite of whatever this guy says.
  - ur-whale 6y ago
    It's indeed very hard to take Krugman seriously (e.g. [1]). But unfortunately, some people in power have been doing just that, especially on the topic of (to make it simple) govt taking on more debt because it's "good for the economy long term". Krugman is the worst kind of evildoer : someone promoting a radical left wing agenda disguised as an academic. Even though the seams of the disguise are blatantly obvious, people in power are either too blind to see, or too happy to find an "expert" voice backing up their demagogue agenda as long as gets them re-elected for a second term. [1] https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/revolutions/miscellany/paul-krugmans-poor-prediction https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/revolutions/miscellany/paul...
    - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
      Krugman was one of the academics that signed on to the letter to cancel Steven Pinker. Nobody should take him seriously.

by reedf1 6y ago

eeZah7Ux 6y ago

...because some people with an agenda want to promote bitcoin.

VHRanger 6y ago

Hey, author here. I've been a mod of r/economics for half a decade, I work as a data scientist and I have a Msc. in econometrics for what its worth on formal qualifications. I mainly wrote this one as a go-to to point people on my thoughts of the economics of BTC as pointed out in the TLDR box

mocmoc 6y ago
BTC is Money, perhaps even more than USD , I don’t know how old are you , but currently there are things(pure physical and digital things) that are only possible to be purchased with BTC, no other payment accepted. So yes , BTC is money , I’m close to people that only use BTC as a main exchange point for value , so BTC is money , weather you want to accept it or not is up to you
reedf1 6y ago
Oh nice - I actually quite like the article. Probably shouldn't have come after it so hard. I like level headed people pouring cold-water on bitcoin occasionally as it can get a bit loony.

ur-whale 6y ago

Because nobel prize winners polemics against Bitcoin (ie Krugman) are even less well argued than this. Bottom line, Bitcoin is a very different beast than everything that's existed before in finance, and "experts" poorly reasoned opinion carry barely more weight than this article. The truth is, no one knows what Bitcoin will become, because it's the first of its kind. When the dust settles, the survivor opinion will - of course - write a book and become famous selling the bedazzled masses a lengthy, sophisticated "I told you so".

cableshaft 6y ago
Ugh Krugman, has there ever been an economist that's been more consistently wrong about the economy? I'm seriously tempted to do the opposite of whatever this guy says.
- ur-whale 6y ago
  It's indeed very hard to take Krugman seriously (e.g. [1]). But unfortunately, some people in power have been doing just that, especially on the topic of (to make it simple) govt taking on more debt because it's "good for the economy long term". Krugman is the worst kind of evildoer : someone promoting a radical left wing agenda disguised as an academic. Even though the seams of the disguise are blatantly obvious, people in power are either too blind to see, or too happy to find an "expert" voice backing up their demagogue agenda as long as gets them re-elected for a second term. [1] https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/revolutions/miscellany/paul-krugmans-poor-prediction https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/revolutions/miscellany/paul...
  - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
    Krugman was one of the academics that signed on to the letter to cancel Steven Pinker. Nobody should take him seriously.