4 ms·

It's at the intersection of a lot of things that people here find interesting. It's potentially a way to make money (some say ponzi scheme), it has a tech compo

by ry0ohki 15y ago

It's at the intersection of a lot of things that people here find interesting. It's potentially a way to make money (some say ponzi scheme), it has a tech component, there's a anti-government component, etc... so I do believe a lot of people here do care about it. I mean I keep reading the damn articles too...

tptacek 15y ago
I think the kernel of contributors with a good-faith interest in bitcoin is smaller than you think it is, but either way: if bitcoin is getting multiples of the attention that the hiring thread is, I think most reasonable HN people can agree that it's being overrepresented. Lawyering over the site guidelines here isn't productive, since nobody (that I've seen) is arguing that bitcoin contravenes them directly.
- talaketu 15y ago
  Do you think the "reasonable HN people" who can agree bitcoin is overrepresented are the same ones giving it all the attention? I for one find bitcoin far more "intellectually gratifying" than the hiring thread, which, with great respect to our host, has no interest for me.
- phamilton 15y ago
  I wonder what percentage of HN readers are like me and just skim through the RSS feed every day. The top of the front page and the worthless submission make it into my Google Reader, and I read what I find interesting. Which is great, but at the same time I don't participate in upvoting articles. I would guess the more passive users would be more interested in the hiring thread rather than extremely trendy topics like bitcoin. But that's the tradeoff. I mostly consume rather than contribute, and therefore just take what I get.
- Jd 15y ago
  The hiring thread is really only relevant to people looking for work, whereas the Bitcoin stuff, even if (imo) overhyped, is relevant to everyone. So I wouldn't argue it is overrepresented.
adw 15y ago
It's the perfect HN politics thread, practically speaking.
joe_the_user 15y ago
It is topical. There are good, solid reasons to believe that today's monetary and fiscal policy is dangerous and wrong-headed (I say that as a liberal closer to Paul Krugman than Ron Paul but sympathetic to some points made by each). The trouble is that those seeing the current problems look for pig-in-poke solutions rather than getting a solid understanding of what's happening. I would strongly recommend a critical reading of Doug Noland's Credit Bubble Bulletin, Paul Krugman's blog and at least a university level text on Money and Banking. Also Charles Mackay's classic Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds also merits a look. Many people have an emotional reaction to money. This emotional reaction is part of what can make something "money-like" but if one wishes to understand what's going on, one needs to get beyond one's immediate reaction.
- cynicalkane 15y ago
  That's a strange thing to say, because Krugman thinks they aren't 'printing' enough money. He says this repeatedly. (He also thinks there are additional, more radical changes that would be more effective, so he can come off as critical of QE because it's not enough.)
  - joe_the_user 15y ago
    I think it's good to get opinions from solid economists on the right and the left. And what I would say about recent US government policy is that it has been bad when measured by either Keynesian OR monetarist yardsticks. This is essentially because the massive growth of US financial obligations has gone ultimately to bailing out the large financial institutions rather than to any Keynesian job creation scheme. So essentially you have a situation where neither the free market nor government do anything to create jobs. Krugman can legitimately say the Federal budget deficit as such is not high. What massively inflating is the "other obligations" - Fannie Mae bonds, student loan bonds, etc. Here we have massive "inflationism" (as Doug Noland would term it). Krugman is a partisan so he's glossed over the unneeded spending of the bailout in later commentary but he did say "The longer we live with zombie banks, the harder it will be to end the economic crisis." IE, the bank bailout is a massive money-hole where banks have become "zombie" entities that are neither "private" in the sense of being disciplined by the market nor "public" in the sense of having any obligation to the public. The present situation is one where the money that could go to either a stimulus or a tax-cut is shoveled to these "zombies" instead.

by ry0ohki 15y ago

tptacek 15y ago

I think the kernel of contributors with a good-faith interest in bitcoin is smaller than you think it is, but either way: if bitcoin is getting multiples of the attention that the hiring thread is, I think most reasonable HN people can agree that it's being overrepresented. Lawyering over the site guidelines here isn't productive, since nobody (that I've seen) is arguing that bitcoin contravenes them directly.

talaketu 15y ago
Do you think the "reasonable HN people" who can agree bitcoin is overrepresented are the same ones giving it all the attention? I for one find bitcoin far more "intellectually gratifying" than the hiring thread, which, with great respect to our host, has no interest for me.
phamilton 15y ago
I wonder what percentage of HN readers are like me and just skim through the RSS feed every day. The top of the front page and the worthless submission make it into my Google Reader, and I read what I find interesting. Which is great, but at the same time I don't participate in upvoting articles. I would guess the more passive users would be more interested in the hiring thread rather than extremely trendy topics like bitcoin. But that's the tradeoff. I mostly consume rather than contribute, and therefore just take what I get.
Jd 15y ago
The hiring thread is really only relevant to people looking for work, whereas the Bitcoin stuff, even if (imo) overhyped, is relevant to everyone. So I wouldn't argue it is overrepresented.

adw 15y ago

It's the perfect HN politics thread, practically speaking.

joe_the_user 15y ago

It is topical. There are good, solid reasons to believe that today's monetary and fiscal policy is dangerous and wrong-headed (I say that as a liberal closer to Paul Krugman than Ron Paul but sympathetic to some points made by each). The trouble is that those seeing the current problems look for pig-in-poke solutions rather than getting a solid understanding of what's happening. I would strongly recommend a critical reading of Doug Noland's Credit Bubble Bulletin, Paul Krugman's blog and at least a university level text on Money and Banking. Also Charles Mackay's classic Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds also merits a look. Many people have an emotional reaction to money. This emotional reaction is part of what can make something "money-like" but if one wishes to understand what's going on, one needs to get beyond one's immediate reaction.

cynicalkane 15y ago
That's a strange thing to say, because Krugman thinks they aren't 'printing' enough money. He says this repeatedly. (He also thinks there are additional, more radical changes that would be more effective, so he can come off as critical of QE because it's not enough.)
- joe_the_user 15y ago
  I think it's good to get opinions from solid economists on the right and the left. And what I would say about recent US government policy is that it has been bad when measured by either Keynesian OR monetarist yardsticks. This is essentially because the massive growth of US financial obligations has gone ultimately to bailing out the large financial institutions rather than to any Keynesian job creation scheme. So essentially you have a situation where neither the free market nor government do anything to create jobs. Krugman can legitimately say the Federal budget deficit as such is not high. What massively inflating is the "other obligations" - Fannie Mae bonds, student loan bonds, etc. Here we have massive "inflationism" (as Doug Noland would term it). Krugman is a partisan so he's glossed over the unneeded spending of the bailout in later commentary but he did say "The longer we live with zombie banks, the harder it will be to end the economic crisis." IE, the bank bailout is a massive money-hole where banks have become "zombie" entities that are neither "private" in the sense of being disciplined by the market nor "public" in the sense of having any obligation to the public. The present situation is one where the money that could go to either a stimulus or a tax-cut is shoveled to these "zombies" instead.