6 ms·

Technobabble, Libertarian Derp and Bitcoin

29 points by dsr12 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bko 5y ago
Krugman tries to come off as an unbiased economist, but these days he's more of a political pundit. I wrote about [0] his last piece where he criticized people worried about inflation ("cockroaches" as he called them). The biggest tell tale is when he showed the money supply growth but purposely cut off an uncomfortable spike in response to covid (YoY growth of money supply more than double what we have ever seen in the US). He's more interested in dunking on his opponents than having a serious discussion about economic policy https://mleverything.substack.com/p/where-did-the-12-trillion-of-covid-59d https://mleverything.substack.com/p/where-did-the-12-trillio...
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  This is a strange take on an economist whose book and NYT blog was titled "The Conscience of a Liberal“
  - marcusverus 5y ago
    Other than a lack of originality[0], what is it that we're supposed to take away from the title of his blog? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conscience_of_a_Conservative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conscience_of_a_Conservati...
  - bko 5y ago
    His byline: > Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography I wouldn't expect an article from a Nobel Prize winning economist titled "Krugman Wonks Out" to be so devoid of substance. I don't care about his political beliefs. I purposely look out for people with different beliefs than my own when exploring an idea. But if you're not concerned about the unprecedented growth in the money supply and you characterize the other side as "printing press goes brrr -> inflation", you're being dishonest. He could do better, but instead he doesn't present the facts, manipulates graphs, introduces misleading terms and insults people. You increasingly see politics seep into discussions where it does not belong. What happened to the money supply is not left or right. It started in the last administration and is continuing in this administration, and the stakes are high. Krugman's writings on the subject of monetary policy and crypto are not helpful and just fuel this polarization.
    - bb88 5y ago
      > I wouldn't expect an article from a Nobel Prize winning economist titled "Krugman Wonks Out" to be so devoid of substance. NY Times opinion pieces kind of have to be "dumbed-down" and he's admitted as much. He stopped posting the really wonky stuff on his nytimes blog for whatever reason, and these days seems to write opinion pieces the most. > You increasingly see politics seep into discussions where it does not belong. What happened to the money supply is not left or right. It started in the last administration and is continuing in this administration, and the stakes are high. Krugman's writings on the subject of monetary policy and crypto are not helpful and just fuel this polarization. So I don't know if you know this or not, and I'm not saying this as an insult, but because I really don't know if you know this or not. Monetary policy is not handled by the current political white house. Hasn't been for decades and never should be, ever. In fact, the group that seems to be politicizing it are libertarians and crypto advocates. "GOLD STANDARD!" arguments have long been settled by economists a century ago. Edited to add: I feel like if you want to complain about printing money willy nilly you should take a deep look at Tether before suggesting we all go off USD and onto BTC.
      - bko 5y ago
        > Monetary policy is not handled by the current political white house. Hasn't been for decades and never should be, ever. Right, which is why I don't think Krugman being a liberal has anything to do w/ taking the threat of unprecedented growth in money supply seriously. > "GOLD STANDARD!" arguments have long been settled by economists a century ago. US got off gold standard in 1971. Gold has been around since 40,000 BC. I don't think hard money has been settled. But that's besides the point. The question is whether you think there is a remote chance that increasing the money supply by 25% in one year could have negative economic distortions such as inflation. You can be for fiat currency but think that growing the currency 25% in one year is a bad idea.
        bb88 5y ago
        > The question is whether you think there is a remote chance that increasing the money supply by 25% in one year could have negative economic distortions such as inflation. I believe that's a perfectly reasonable question. Fortunately there are graphs which show the inflation rate before and after the US got off the gold standard. https://www.macrotrends.net/2497/historical-inflation-rate-by-year https://www.macrotrends.net/2497/historical-inflation-rate-b... Note that the inflation rate has pretty much stabilized since the 1980's. Before that the inflation in 1970's were due to OPEC policies largely (hence the national speed limit set to 55mph). Before that it was WWII. The transition to fiat currency happened in 1933 domestically in the heart of the great depression. And you can see that inflation was in fact wildly variable before 1933 -- with severe deflation in the midst of the depression as people hoarded gold rather than depositing it in banks. So effectively the US ran out of the ability to control the money supply. It's not theoretical either. Loss of control of the currency has been a sticking point for countries in the EU. GB never did accept the Euro -- largely because they would lose control of this. Spain who did join the EU had 40% unemployment and lost the use of monetary policy to try to alleviate that, etc. > I don't think hard money has been settled. Back in 2012 the Chicago Booth school of economics surveyed a good number of economists from freshwater and saltwater economists. Here are the results: https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/gold-standard/ https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/gold-standard/ My favorite response is this one: "Why tie to gold? why not 1982 Bordeaux?"
carlivar 5y ago
I knew it was Krugman just reading the title and domain. It's unfortunate that Paul often chooses to use such a smug, dividing, and patronizing tone. In these times we don't need more of that. But it's the usual stereotyping and sensationalizing of "libertarian" argument: "libertarian derp — assertions that fiat currencies, government-issued money without any tangible backing, will collapse any day now." No, that's not the assertion. Or at least it's only one of them and Paul cherry-picked it. Another assertion is that fiat currency and its inflationary aspects are one of the main contributors to income inequality. (Or just go browse https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ )
- gruez 5y ago
  >(Or just go browse wtfhappenedin1971.com ) That site's terrible. It's a few dozen charts with no analysis aside from red arrows pointing towards 1970s. There's no thesis or conclusion, but the implication to the reader is clear: the abandonment of the gold standard is responsible for a variety of today's societal woes, from income inequality to obesity. It's tiring to argue against, because of the sheer volume of it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop).
  - carlivar 5y ago
    Fair enough. I don't think of it as gospel, but rather a source of things to think about and research further. It would be much better if there was an analysis of each individual graph for sure. Edit: it's also simpler to just focus on the first 5-6 graphs or so, regarding income inequality.
  - JKCalhoun 5y ago
    That site reminds me of the Lincoln-Kennedy urban legend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln–Kennedy_coincidences_urban_legend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln–Kennedy_coincidences_u... (When I visited the WTF1971? site again just now, banner ad was trying to get me to buy Bitcoin, LOL.)
- mark_l_watson 5y ago
  Why is Krugman even still relevant? Was his greatest accomplishment work related or marrying into a very, very wealthy family. Also, it seems like in the crazy world we now enjoy living in, that Libertarians make at least as much sense as Democrats and Republicans.

29 points by dsr12 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bko 5y ago

Krugman tries to come off as an unbiased economist, but these days he's more of a political pundit. I wrote about [0] his last piece where he criticized people worried about inflation ("cockroaches" as he called them). The biggest tell tale is when he showed the money supply growth but purposely cut off an uncomfortable spike in response to covid (YoY growth of money supply more than double what we have ever seen in the US). He's more interested in dunking on his opponents than having a serious discussion about economic policy https://mleverything.substack.com/p/where-did-the-12-trillion-of-covid-59d https://mleverything.substack.com/p/where-did-the-12-trillio...

hindsightbias 5y ago
This is a strange take on an economist whose book and NYT blog was titled "The Conscience of a Liberal“
- marcusverus 5y ago
  Other than a lack of originality[0], what is it that we're supposed to take away from the title of his blog? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conscience_of_a_Conservative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conscience_of_a_Conservati...
- bko 5y ago
  His byline: > Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography I wouldn't expect an article from a Nobel Prize winning economist titled "Krugman Wonks Out" to be so devoid of substance. I don't care about his political beliefs. I purposely look out for people with different beliefs than my own when exploring an idea. But if you're not concerned about the unprecedented growth in the money supply and you characterize the other side as "printing press goes brrr -> inflation", you're being dishonest. He could do better, but instead he doesn't present the facts, manipulates graphs, introduces misleading terms and insults people. You increasingly see politics seep into discussions where it does not belong. What happened to the money supply is not left or right. It started in the last administration and is continuing in this administration, and the stakes are high. Krugman's writings on the subject of monetary policy and crypto are not helpful and just fuel this polarization.
  - bb88 5y ago
    > I wouldn't expect an article from a Nobel Prize winning economist titled "Krugman Wonks Out" to be so devoid of substance. NY Times opinion pieces kind of have to be "dumbed-down" and he's admitted as much. He stopped posting the really wonky stuff on his nytimes blog for whatever reason, and these days seems to write opinion pieces the most. > You increasingly see politics seep into discussions where it does not belong. What happened to the money supply is not left or right. It started in the last administration and is continuing in this administration, and the stakes are high. Krugman's writings on the subject of monetary policy and crypto are not helpful and just fuel this polarization. So I don't know if you know this or not, and I'm not saying this as an insult, but because I really don't know if you know this or not. Monetary policy is not handled by the current political white house. Hasn't been for decades and never should be, ever. In fact, the group that seems to be politicizing it are libertarians and crypto advocates. "GOLD STANDARD!" arguments have long been settled by economists a century ago. Edited to add: I feel like if you want to complain about printing money willy nilly you should take a deep look at Tether before suggesting we all go off USD and onto BTC.
    - bko 5y ago
      > Monetary policy is not handled by the current political white house. Hasn't been for decades and never should be, ever. Right, which is why I don't think Krugman being a liberal has anything to do w/ taking the threat of unprecedented growth in money supply seriously. > "GOLD STANDARD!" arguments have long been settled by economists a century ago. US got off gold standard in 1971. Gold has been around since 40,000 BC. I don't think hard money has been settled. But that's besides the point. The question is whether you think there is a remote chance that increasing the money supply by 25% in one year could have negative economic distortions such as inflation. You can be for fiat currency but think that growing the currency 25% in one year is a bad idea.
      - bb88 5y ago
        > The question is whether you think there is a remote chance that increasing the money supply by 25% in one year could have negative economic distortions such as inflation. I believe that's a perfectly reasonable question. Fortunately there are graphs which show the inflation rate before and after the US got off the gold standard. https://www.macrotrends.net/2497/historical-inflation-rate-by-year https://www.macrotrends.net/2497/historical-inflation-rate-b... Note that the inflation rate has pretty much stabilized since the 1980's. Before that the inflation in 1970's were due to OPEC policies largely (hence the national speed limit set to 55mph). Before that it was WWII. The transition to fiat currency happened in 1933 domestically in the heart of the great depression. And you can see that inflation was in fact wildly variable before 1933 -- with severe deflation in the midst of the depression as people hoarded gold rather than depositing it in banks. So effectively the US ran out of the ability to control the money supply. It's not theoretical either. Loss of control of the currency has been a sticking point for countries in the EU. GB never did accept the Euro -- largely because they would lose control of this. Spain who did join the EU had 40% unemployment and lost the use of monetary policy to try to alleviate that, etc. > I don't think hard money has been settled. Back in 2012 the Chicago Booth school of economics surveyed a good number of economists from freshwater and saltwater economists. Here are the results: https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/gold-standard/ https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/gold-standard/ My favorite response is this one: "Why tie to gold? why not 1982 Bordeaux?"

carlivar 5y ago

I knew it was Krugman just reading the title and domain. It's unfortunate that Paul often chooses to use such a smug, dividing, and patronizing tone. In these times we don't need more of that. But it's the usual stereotyping and sensationalizing of "libertarian" argument: "libertarian derp — assertions that fiat currencies, government-issued money without any tangible backing, will collapse any day now." No, that's not the assertion. Or at least it's only one of them and Paul cherry-picked it. Another assertion is that fiat currency and its inflationary aspects are one of the main contributors to income inequality. (Or just go browse https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ )

gruez 5y ago
>(Or just go browse wtfhappenedin1971.com ) That site's terrible. It's a few dozen charts with no analysis aside from red arrows pointing towards 1970s. There's no thesis or conclusion, but the implication to the reader is clear: the abandonment of the gold standard is responsible for a variety of today's societal woes, from income inequality to obesity. It's tiring to argue against, because of the sheer volume of it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop).
- carlivar 5y ago
  Fair enough. I don't think of it as gospel, but rather a source of things to think about and research further. It would be much better if there was an analysis of each individual graph for sure. Edit: it's also simpler to just focus on the first 5-6 graphs or so, regarding income inequality.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  That site reminds me of the Lincoln-Kennedy urban legend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln–Kennedy_coincidences_urban_legend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln–Kennedy_coincidences_u... (When I visited the WTF1971? site again just now, banner ad was trying to get me to buy Bitcoin, LOL.)
mark_l_watson 5y ago
Why is Krugman even still relevant? Was his greatest accomplishment work related or marrying into a very, very wealthy family. Also, it seems like in the crazy world we now enjoy living in, that Libertarians make at least as much sense as Democrats and Republicans.