3 ms·

Think what you like of Krugman, this is a completely apolitical issue and he knows his economics. He's also not the only one. Others who understand economics a

Think what you like of Krugman, this is a completely apolitical issue and he knows his economics. He's also not the only one. Others who understand economics agree: http://www.quora.com/Bitcoin/Is-the-cryptocurrency-Bitcoin-a-good-idea/answer/Adam-Cohen-2 http://www.quora.com/Bitcoin/Is-the-cryptocurrency-Bitcoin-a...

javert 15y ago
this is a completely apolitical issue This just couldn't me more false. Krugman's whole career is built around big government manipulating the money supply. and he knows his economics Lots of people who also "know their economics" disagree with Krugman. Economics, as a field, hasn't risen to the level of a science yet.
- _delirium 15y ago
  I'm not much of a fan of Krugman's blogging (which is fairly partisan), but it's pretty inaccurate to summarize his academic work as "built around big government manipulating the money supply". Yes, he's some variety of neo-Keynesian, but so are conservatives like Gregory Mankiw; Krugman's a vaguely center-left one, solidly in the mainstream (and considerably to the "right" of the modern-monetary-theory group). By "partisan" do you just mean that, like most economists, he isn't a follower of Austrian economics?
  - javert 15y ago
    Yes, he's some variety of neo-Keynesian Krugman's a vaguely center-left one That's precisely what I meant by "built around big government manipulating the money supply" As for partisan: I think all economists that take a definite position fall under what I meant by "partisan." I meant: advocating a niche view that is not accepted by a majority of experts. (In economics, I don't think there is currently any view that doesn't fall under this description.) That's not to say there isn't a correct view; I think there is.
- flourpower 15y ago
  This is unfair. Some of his work is built around general relativity: http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/interstellar.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/interstellar.pdf
DaNmarner 15y ago
So, instead of looking into the matter emperically, you argue that so and so said it and you believe in those people and therefore anyone with opposite opinion must be wrong, regardless of what they say? Trolls do what trolls do. ps. I agree with Krugman that Bitcoin is more likely to be treated as commodity and, as a result, causes the hoarding problem. But whether the hoarding could kill Bitcoin due to lack of activity in the bitcoin economy remains an uncertainty. Especially now that the exchange rate is down.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jl6 15y ago
Nobody understands economics well enough to predict what Bitcoin will become. For a start, both of those pieces hinge on the dangers of a deflationary spiral. But it is far from clear or agreed how such a spiral would work, or whether it would encounter a natural limiting factor. To the extent that deflation might cause a decrease in demand, it's not even clear that that's a bad thing - because we live in such a consumption-oriented economy it's hard for economists to even conceive of - let alone analyze - the idea that people might only spend money when they need to.
- nirvana 15y ago
  [It was a mistake to make an economics argument on hacker news. I'm outnumbered and know I won't get a fair hearing.]
  - mikedouglas 15y ago
    The issue at hand is the return on investments, not the value of goods and services. I still purchase technology because the value of having access to that technology exceeds the current cost - the resell value. No one is buying warehouses of Galaxy Tabs, expecting for a positive return a year from now, and if normal investments (for example, the capital required to build the Galaxy Tab) which normally have a positive return assuming 2% inflation suddenly become outstripped by deflation, then no one will invest.

javert 15y ago

this is a completely apolitical issue This just couldn't me more false. Krugman's whole career is built around big government manipulating the money supply. and he knows his economics Lots of people who also "know their economics" disagree with Krugman. Economics, as a field, hasn't risen to the level of a science yet.

_delirium 15y ago
I'm not much of a fan of Krugman's blogging (which is fairly partisan), but it's pretty inaccurate to summarize his academic work as "built around big government manipulating the money supply". Yes, he's some variety of neo-Keynesian, but so are conservatives like Gregory Mankiw; Krugman's a vaguely center-left one, solidly in the mainstream (and considerably to the "right" of the modern-monetary-theory group). By "partisan" do you just mean that, like most economists, he isn't a follower of Austrian economics?
- javert 15y ago
  Yes, he's some variety of neo-Keynesian Krugman's a vaguely center-left one That's precisely what I meant by "built around big government manipulating the money supply" As for partisan: I think all economists that take a definite position fall under what I meant by "partisan." I meant: advocating a niche view that is not accepted by a majority of experts. (In economics, I don't think there is currently any view that doesn't fall under this description.) That's not to say there isn't a correct view; I think there is.
flourpower 15y ago
This is unfair. Some of his work is built around general relativity: http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/interstellar.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/interstellar.pdf

DaNmarner 15y ago

So, instead of looking into the matter emperically, you argue that so and so said it and you believe in those people and therefore anyone with opposite opinion must be wrong, regardless of what they say? Trolls do what trolls do. ps. I agree with Krugman that Bitcoin is more likely to be treated as commodity and, as a result, causes the hoarding problem. But whether the hoarding could kill Bitcoin due to lack of activity in the bitcoin economy remains an uncertainty. Especially now that the exchange rate is down.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jl6 15y ago

Nobody understands economics well enough to predict what Bitcoin will become. For a start, both of those pieces hinge on the dangers of a deflationary spiral. But it is far from clear or agreed how such a spiral would work, or whether it would encounter a natural limiting factor. To the extent that deflation might cause a decrease in demand, it's not even clear that that's a bad thing - because we live in such a consumption-oriented economy it's hard for economists to even conceive of - let alone analyze - the idea that people might only spend money when they need to.

nirvana 15y ago
[It was a mistake to make an economics argument on hacker news. I'm outnumbered and know I won't get a fair hearing.]
- mikedouglas 15y ago
  The issue at hand is the return on investments, not the value of goods and services. I still purchase technology because the value of having access to that technology exceeds the current cost - the resell value. No one is buying warehouses of Galaxy Tabs, expecting for a positive return a year from now, and if normal investments (for example, the capital required to build the Galaxy Tab) which normally have a positive return assuming 2% inflation suddenly become outstripped by deflation, then no one will invest.