4 ms·

How about taking seriously someone who is, you know, well-known (to the point of receiving a Nobel Prize for his work) for being good at this economics stuff? I

How about taking seriously someone who is, you know, well-known (to the point of receiving a Nobel Prize for his work) for being good at this economics stuff? If a Nobel-winning physicist was writing about physics, you wouldn't dismiss it because the physicist's politics don't agree with yours. Ditto Nobel-winning chemist writing about chemistry, etc.; why should economics be different? Also, his point about BitCoin enthusiasts being unable to distinguish between what makes a good currency and what pushes their ideological buttons may apply to you.

rdl 13y ago
Krugman is more like Chomsky -- he did some academic work (including a good textbook in microecon), but then left that to do politics, almost entirely disconnected from his academic record. The Econ "Nobel" is a little more rationally awarded than the Nobel Peace Prize, but neither is the same as Physics/Chem/Medicine. I think it's fine to judge Krugman's political arguments on political merits; there isn't "nobel-caliber" economics behind them. They're usually about things which economics doesn't even address.
- gruseom 13y ago
  Chomsky certainly never left academic work for politics. He has divided his time evenly between the two for many decades.
  - onebaddude 13y ago
    >Chomsky certainly never left academic work for politics. Neither did Krugman.
ahomescu1 13y ago
Actually, I think that if a physicist/chemist came out with unproven theories or opinions (the original article is nothing more than an opinion), the community would react pretty much the same. Physics and chemistry (and economics as well) have proofs and experiments, and this post doesn't offer either of those. It makes perfect sense to dismiss it if you disagree with him, since he doesn't really say anything concrete.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  He poses a question: To be successful, money must be both a medium of exchange and a reasonably stable store of value. And it remains completely unclear why BitCoin should be a stable store of value. And then says he hasn't been able to get an answer to this question, that the BitCoin enthusiasts he's talked to have mostly avoided trying to answer the question, and that he has reason to suspect that BitCoin gets promoted not because it is useful as a currency but because it pushes the right ideological buttons for some people. And, one must admit, it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask when considering something's usefulness as a currency.
  - wcummings 13y ago
    The answer I've heard is that Bitcoin has utility as a payment network somewhat independent of its usefulness as a value store. This is most of how Bitcoin is used currently (save speculation)
    - ubernostrum 13y ago
      And yet, Krugman is probably right to suggest that, as a currency, BitCoin will need to also be a store of value. Which it currently does not seem to be, and I don't see how it will become one.
      - wcummings 13y ago
        He could be right, he'd just be missing the point. He's trying to jam a square peg into a circular hole and calling it "evil" for not fitting. What I'd actually be interested in reading is a proposal from Krugman (or someone else) for a hashcash/cryptocoin/digital money scheme that addresses their concerns. It would be hugely more interesting to hear economists discuss how new technology can advance antiquated, federated payment networks rather than pointing out well-known flaws in a very immature technology (that I'm still not entirely convinced they understand, technologically speaking).
        13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
wcummings 13y ago
Eh, the article doesn't say much, is pretty light on details/analysis, heavy on rhetoric ("Bitcoin is Evil") and says very little anyone with even passing familiar w/ Bitcoin doesn't know already. I'm not sure what technologists he's been speaking with, but I think the distinction between value store and payment network is abundantly clear to most people even peripherally involved with Bitcoin. I think the view of most competent technologists is that Bitcoin is a promising technology, with somewhat unproven utility.
theboywho 13y ago
>> If a Nobel-winning physicist was writing about physics, you wouldn't dismiss it because the physicist's politics don't agree with yours. First of all, Physics and Economics are two different things. Physics tends to be about facts, Economics is more about opinions, views and theories. It's not because we're not Nobel Prize winners that we shouldn't disagree with the author, and I'm sure there are many well-known economists out there who won't agree with him. >> Also, his point about BitCoin enthusiasts being unable to distinguish between what makes a good currency and what pushes their ideological buttons may apply to you. Bitcoin enthusiasts are not the only users of Bitcoin. I use Bitcoin and it's for no ideological reason. It's helping me better than any other payment system right now and that's all I care about.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  It's not because we're not Nobel Prize winners that we shouldn't disagree with the author, and I'm sure there are many well-known economists out there who won't agree with him. There are plenty of economists who don't agree with Krugman. But they would disagree for actual reasons instead of "OH NOES THE WORD LIBERAL APPEARS IN THIS COLUMN".
- jshen 13y ago
  Economics is about models that are verified by past events, and further tested through their ability to predict future outcomes. This is the opposite of pure opinion. The fact that many pundits ignore this doesn't make it go away
  - icelancer 13y ago
    This is not, strictly speaking, totally accurate. Praxeology doesn't necessarily agree with this viewpoint.
    - jshen 13y ago
      That's why you shouldn't follow Austrian economics. Edit: also, Austrian economics is like pseudoscience, it isn't representative of real economics
burntsushi 13y ago
> How about taking seriously someone who is, you know, well-known (to the point of receiving a Nobel Prize for his work) for being good at this economics stuff? When was the last time you saw a Keynesian taking Hayek's work on business cycle theory seriously? (For which, in part, he won the Nobel prize for!) Ironically, to more directly address your point, Hayek had this to say in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech:[1] In his speech at the 1974 Nobel Prize banquet Friedrich Hayek stated that had he been consulted on the establishment of a Nobel Prize in economics, he would "have decidedly advised against it" primarily because "the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.... This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally." Stated differently, the comparison between a hard science (like Chemistry) and economics is rather unfair. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_prize_economics#Controversies_and_criticisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_prize_economics#Controver...
icelancer 13y ago
>How about taking seriously someone who is, you know, well-known (to the point of receiving a Nobel Prize for his work) for being good at this economics stuff? This is the type of claim that is fairly dangerous. It is perhaps vitally important to understand WHAT Krugman won the Nobel Prize for, and that was due to his contributions to New Trade Theory. Additionally, his work on NTT (superceded by NNTT I should add) was long, LONG ago, and he has since turned into a political pundit/shill. Compare it to his polar opposite, say, Hayek, who won it for his general contributions to the field due to libertarian/market anarchist theories. Yet Hayek is widely seen as a crock of shit while Krugman isn't, mostly because he writes for the NYT.

rdl 13y ago

Krugman is more like Chomsky -- he did some academic work (including a good textbook in microecon), but then left that to do politics, almost entirely disconnected from his academic record. The Econ "Nobel" is a little more rationally awarded than the Nobel Peace Prize, but neither is the same as Physics/Chem/Medicine. I think it's fine to judge Krugman's political arguments on political merits; there isn't "nobel-caliber" economics behind them. They're usually about things which economics doesn't even address.

gruseom 13y ago
Chomsky certainly never left academic work for politics. He has divided his time evenly between the two for many decades.
- onebaddude 13y ago
  >Chomsky certainly never left academic work for politics. Neither did Krugman.

ahomescu1 13y ago

Actually, I think that if a physicist/chemist came out with unproven theories or opinions (the original article is nothing more than an opinion), the community would react pretty much the same. Physics and chemistry (and economics as well) have proofs and experiments, and this post doesn't offer either of those. It makes perfect sense to dismiss it if you disagree with him, since he doesn't really say anything concrete.

ubernostrum 13y ago
He poses a question: To be successful, money must be both a medium of exchange and a reasonably stable store of value. And it remains completely unclear why BitCoin should be a stable store of value. And then says he hasn't been able to get an answer to this question, that the BitCoin enthusiasts he's talked to have mostly avoided trying to answer the question, and that he has reason to suspect that BitCoin gets promoted not because it is useful as a currency but because it pushes the right ideological buttons for some people. And, one must admit, it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask when considering something's usefulness as a currency.
- wcummings 13y ago
  The answer I've heard is that Bitcoin has utility as a payment network somewhat independent of its usefulness as a value store. This is most of how Bitcoin is used currently (save speculation)
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    And yet, Krugman is probably right to suggest that, as a currency, BitCoin will need to also be a store of value. Which it currently does not seem to be, and I don't see how it will become one.
    - wcummings 13y ago
      He could be right, he'd just be missing the point. He's trying to jam a square peg into a circular hole and calling it "evil" for not fitting. What I'd actually be interested in reading is a proposal from Krugman (or someone else) for a hashcash/cryptocoin/digital money scheme that addresses their concerns. It would be hugely more interesting to hear economists discuss how new technology can advance antiquated, federated payment networks rather than pointing out well-known flaws in a very immature technology (that I'm still not entirely convinced they understand, technologically speaking).
      - 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

wcummings 13y ago

Eh, the article doesn't say much, is pretty light on details/analysis, heavy on rhetoric ("Bitcoin is Evil") and says very little anyone with even passing familiar w/ Bitcoin doesn't know already. I'm not sure what technologists he's been speaking with, but I think the distinction between value store and payment network is abundantly clear to most people even peripherally involved with Bitcoin. I think the view of most competent technologists is that Bitcoin is a promising technology, with somewhat unproven utility.

theboywho 13y ago

>> If a Nobel-winning physicist was writing about physics, you wouldn't dismiss it because the physicist's politics don't agree with yours. First of all, Physics and Economics are two different things. Physics tends to be about facts, Economics is more about opinions, views and theories. It's not because we're not Nobel Prize winners that we shouldn't disagree with the author, and I'm sure there are many well-known economists out there who won't agree with him. >> Also, his point about BitCoin enthusiasts being unable to distinguish between what makes a good currency and what pushes their ideological buttons may apply to you. Bitcoin enthusiasts are not the only users of Bitcoin. I use Bitcoin and it's for no ideological reason. It's helping me better than any other payment system right now and that's all I care about.

ubernostrum 13y ago
It's not because we're not Nobel Prize winners that we shouldn't disagree with the author, and I'm sure there are many well-known economists out there who won't agree with him. There are plenty of economists who don't agree with Krugman. But they would disagree for actual reasons instead of "OH NOES THE WORD LIBERAL APPEARS IN THIS COLUMN".
jshen 13y ago
Economics is about models that are verified by past events, and further tested through their ability to predict future outcomes. This is the opposite of pure opinion. The fact that many pundits ignore this doesn't make it go away
- icelancer 13y ago
  This is not, strictly speaking, totally accurate. Praxeology doesn't necessarily agree with this viewpoint.
  - jshen 13y ago
    That's why you shouldn't follow Austrian economics. Edit: also, Austrian economics is like pseudoscience, it isn't representative of real economics

burntsushi 13y ago

> How about taking seriously someone who is, you know, well-known (to the point of receiving a Nobel Prize for his work) for being good at this economics stuff? When was the last time you saw a Keynesian taking Hayek's work on business cycle theory seriously? (For which, in part, he won the Nobel prize for!) Ironically, to more directly address your point, Hayek had this to say in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech:[1] In his speech at the 1974 Nobel Prize banquet Friedrich Hayek stated that had he been consulted on the establishment of a Nobel Prize in economics, he would "have decidedly advised against it" primarily because "the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.... This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally." Stated differently, the comparison between a hard science (like Chemistry) and economics is rather unfair. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_prize_economics#Controversies_and_criticisms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_prize_economics#Controver...

icelancer 13y ago

>How about taking seriously someone who is, you know, well-known (to the point of receiving a Nobel Prize for his work) for being good at this economics stuff? This is the type of claim that is fairly dangerous. It is perhaps vitally important to understand WHAT Krugman won the Nobel Prize for, and that was due to his contributions to New Trade Theory. Additionally, his work on NTT (superceded by NNTT I should add) was long, LONG ago, and he has since turned into a political pundit/shill. Compare it to his polar opposite, say, Hayek, who won it for his general contributions to the field due to libertarian/market anarchist theories. Yet Hayek is widely seen as a crock of shit while Krugman isn't, mostly because he writes for the NYT.