6 ms·

I'm sorry, but how constructive is your comment really? Do you think it's and ad-hominem on Krugman? He's not popular with me, but even leaving that aside, ther

by guylhem 14y ago

I'm sorry, but how constructive is your comment really? Do you think it's and ad-hominem on Krugman? He's not popular with me, but even leaving that aside, there's something more here. Some say love and passion are two sides of the same coin, and the only separate sentiment is indifference. He sure seems to hate bitcoin with a passion now. Today's article is at least not as bad as his last piece from only 3 days before, krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/adam-smith-hates-bitcoin/ that was discussed here. At least this time in the article he properly acknowledged bitcoin as the "ultimate fiat currency", that's an evolution. Yet he still sees nothing wrong with quantitative easing and the greenback, and compare that situation to the goldbugs. Poeple who are too optimistic about gold do not necessarily have to be right to make a good investment - if the fiat currencies are doing down, that alone would make gold an interesting investment (I for one would not place a single cent in a heavy precious metal the US government has already confiscated in the past following executive orders) Just notice how sentimentally charged his article are - look at the keywords in the titles, "hate" or "antisocial". It would be interesting to grab them all and feed them into a sentiment analysis software, to see how he positionned himself on other topics in the past, and if these position evolves over time. Still, it's weird and funny. Does he intend to write a bitcoin article a day when the $300 cap is reached? He should post them on bitcoin related sites and rename his blog.

martythemaniak 14y ago
He is a prolific blogger (2-3 items per day, about 6-7 days a week) and he has written about bitcoin a grand total of 3 times over the 3 years. The feelings he seems to have for bitcoin are much worse than hate - it's bemused indifference, which must be what drives bitbugs so mad.
- _red 14y ago
  In all fairness, shouldn't Krugman be a "paperbug"?
  - Locke1689 14y ago
    Not when that describes the vast majority of professional economists.
  - podperson 14y ago
    It's not "goldbug" vs "paperbug" so much as "the value of ANY currency is an illusion" versus "the value of gold is real, but that of paper is an illusion". (My favorite example of this is the post apocalyptic scenario -- I fill my bunker with guns and food, you fill yours with krugerands: who wins?) This is the problem with the bitcoin crowd -- they're trying to replace "gold" with something "even better" not realizing that this is a blind alley.
  - mynameishere 14y ago
    I don't think there are too many "paperbugs". Nobody considers his checking account to be an investment or a speculation. Krugman probably has the typical portfolio of a rich guy--Munis, equities, sovereigns, etc. Anyway, fiat is not just social: It's inherently valuable because of the government's requirement for tax payment in it, and for the massive existing short positions. People like Krugman don't say this because it's unpleasant.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "In all fairness, shouldn't Krugman be a "paperbug"?" They lack the fanatical/evangelistic zeal, I don't see them as equivalents.
rpgmaker 14y ago
Ugh, he commented now on the story because bitcoins are the craze now - or were. He doesn't hate bitcoins: he's just used it to make many of his arguments clearer. This is his style, it's not personal. The only people that could leverage that accusation against him (and be wrong) are JoeScar and the Flimflam man. Is just about the data. He was wrong about the internet because he commited the mistake he usually criticizes in others: talk about something without the data or knowing the data. He is not wrong about bitcoins. It doesn't mean bitcoins don't work as alternate currencies (which they obviously do) but how reliable can they be when their value changes so drastically? Bitcoins will hardly matter on a post apocalyptic world because it hardly matters today (unless bitcoins holders increase dramatically): that's why he called it antisocial.

by guylhem 14y ago

martythemaniak 14y ago

He is a prolific blogger (2-3 items per day, about 6-7 days a week) and he has written about bitcoin a grand total of 3 times over the 3 years. The feelings he seems to have for bitcoin are much worse than hate - it's bemused indifference, which must be what drives bitbugs so mad.

_red 14y ago
In all fairness, shouldn't Krugman be a "paperbug"?
- Locke1689 14y ago
  Not when that describes the vast majority of professional economists.
- podperson 14y ago
  It's not "goldbug" vs "paperbug" so much as "the value of ANY currency is an illusion" versus "the value of gold is real, but that of paper is an illusion". (My favorite example of this is the post apocalyptic scenario -- I fill my bunker with guns and food, you fill yours with krugerands: who wins?) This is the problem with the bitcoin crowd -- they're trying to replace "gold" with something "even better" not realizing that this is a blind alley.
- mynameishere 14y ago
  I don't think there are too many "paperbugs". Nobody considers his checking account to be an investment or a speculation. Krugman probably has the typical portfolio of a rich guy--Munis, equities, sovereigns, etc. Anyway, fiat is not just social: It's inherently valuable because of the government's requirement for tax payment in it, and for the massive existing short positions. People like Krugman don't say this because it's unpleasant.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "In all fairness, shouldn't Krugman be a "paperbug"?" They lack the fanatical/evangelistic zeal, I don't see them as equivalents.

rpgmaker 14y ago

Ugh, he commented now on the story because bitcoins are the craze now - or were. He doesn't hate bitcoins: he's just used it to make many of his arguments clearer. This is his style, it's not personal. The only people that could leverage that accusation against him (and be wrong) are JoeScar and the Flimflam man. Is just about the data. He was wrong about the internet because he commited the mistake he usually criticizes in others: talk about something without the data or knowing the data. He is not wrong about bitcoins. It doesn't mean bitcoins don't work as alternate currencies (which they obviously do) but how reliable can they be when their value changes so drastically? Bitcoins will hardly matter on a post apocalyptic world because it hardly matters today (unless bitcoins holders increase dramatically): that's why he called it antisocial.