4 ms·

I was listening to a talk show on public radio a few months ago. The man being interviewed said it would be a great idea to build a defense against alien attac

I was listening to a talk show on public radio a few months ago. The man being interviewed said it would be a great idea to build a defense against alien attack as a way to stimulate the economy. I laughed aloud and wondered what sort of crackpot they'd invited onto the show. When they returned from commercial the host announced "we're back with Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman" ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/paul-krugman-alien-invasion_n_1612973.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/paul-krugman-alien-...

vinhboy 14y ago
It's probably a tongue-in-cheek statement, but the idea behind it is pretty sound. Besides, we are already doing that. For example, we have factories in middle America building airplanes the army does not want or need simply because the workers in those factories need the jobs.
- richcollins 14y ago
  Yes wasting resources is an incredibly sound idea. Lets just increase taxes to 95% and spend it all digging ditches!
cromwellian 14y ago
The point was sarcastic. Our political system seems unable to take meaningful action unless there is a crisis. Between this and the misinterpreted claims that Krugman actually called for the Bush administration to initiate a housing bubble are really weak ad hominem attacks.
- richcollins 14y ago
  I think the point is that all spending is good spending. Imagine if we spent all of our resources building defenses against aliens. Wed all starve
  - cromwellian 14y ago
    I don't think Paul Krugman would agree that if there are two types of spending, A and B, both are equally good. He would say that having people sit on cash in a deflationary situation is quite bad. If you had only two choices, no spending, and spending, then yes, spending is better. But your choices are often between not spending, building a bridge or a school, feeding or educating a kid, or building a bomber. And Krugman's point is that spending on the latter when borrowing is at historical lows is better than austerity. I find it ironic that a lot of the principle people upset by Krugman's analysis of Bitcoin are Austrian Business Cycle enthusiasts, who often promote the idea that volatile cycles are a creation of the government pumping money and credit, but who don't seem to recognize that a currencyt like Bitcoin has its own volatility that itself could drive crashes from instability. Here we have the world's greatest scientific laboratory test of libertarian monetary policy, a free market, "cryptoanarchist" currency, and if by running this experiment, we see that the traditional economists, who have been pointing out the flaws of the goldbugs and Austrians for years, have been right all along, will views moderate and accept the data?
    - richcollins 14y ago
      You don't only have 2 choices. People save because its a better decision than spending at that given point in time. I have a consulting company. I save all of my profits so I can start a company that could conceivably create far more value than consulting at some point in the future. Should I be forced to spend all of my money as quickly as it comes in? Would it be better if I spend that money paying people to be live human sculptures in my front yard than to save it and spend it hiring programmers to create the next great thing when the time is right? Also comparing Bitcoin to a mature market is ridiculous. There is so much volatility due to the huge amount of uncertainty surrounding it and the huge potential upside. In 5 or 10 years it's perceived value is unlikely to have much volatility. Once we know what it works well for and what it doesn't work well for, its value will be understood and its purchasing power will be predictable. Prices in BTC will likely fluctuate very little but steadily drop due to deflationary pressures.
      - 14y ago

vinhboy 14y ago

It's probably a tongue-in-cheek statement, but the idea behind it is pretty sound. Besides, we are already doing that. For example, we have factories in middle America building airplanes the army does not want or need simply because the workers in those factories need the jobs.

richcollins 14y ago
Yes wasting resources is an incredibly sound idea. Lets just increase taxes to 95% and spend it all digging ditches!

cromwellian 14y ago

The point was sarcastic. Our political system seems unable to take meaningful action unless there is a crisis. Between this and the misinterpreted claims that Krugman actually called for the Bush administration to initiate a housing bubble are really weak ad hominem attacks.

richcollins 14y ago
I think the point is that all spending is good spending. Imagine if we spent all of our resources building defenses against aliens. Wed all starve
- cromwellian 14y ago
  I don't think Paul Krugman would agree that if there are two types of spending, A and B, both are equally good. He would say that having people sit on cash in a deflationary situation is quite bad. If you had only two choices, no spending, and spending, then yes, spending is better. But your choices are often between not spending, building a bridge or a school, feeding or educating a kid, or building a bomber. And Krugman's point is that spending on the latter when borrowing is at historical lows is better than austerity. I find it ironic that a lot of the principle people upset by Krugman's analysis of Bitcoin are Austrian Business Cycle enthusiasts, who often promote the idea that volatile cycles are a creation of the government pumping money and credit, but who don't seem to recognize that a currencyt like Bitcoin has its own volatility that itself could drive crashes from instability. Here we have the world's greatest scientific laboratory test of libertarian monetary policy, a free market, "cryptoanarchist" currency, and if by running this experiment, we see that the traditional economists, who have been pointing out the flaws of the goldbugs and Austrians for years, have been right all along, will views moderate and accept the data?
  - richcollins 14y ago
    You don't only have 2 choices. People save because its a better decision than spending at that given point in time. I have a consulting company. I save all of my profits so I can start a company that could conceivably create far more value than consulting at some point in the future. Should I be forced to spend all of my money as quickly as it comes in? Would it be better if I spend that money paying people to be live human sculptures in my front yard than to save it and spend it hiring programmers to create the next great thing when the time is right? Also comparing Bitcoin to a mature market is ridiculous. There is so much volatility due to the huge amount of uncertainty surrounding it and the huge potential upside. In 5 or 10 years it's perceived value is unlikely to have much volatility. Once we know what it works well for and what it doesn't work well for, its value will be understood and its purchasing power will be predictable. Prices in BTC will likely fluctuate very little but steadily drop due to deflationary pressures.
    - 14y ago