I don't know enough about economics to know if it's possible to "de-politicize" it, separate a theorist from a particular type of government. But I perceive tha

I don't know enough about economics to know if it's possible to "de-politicize" it, separate a theorist from a particular type of government. But I perceive that Krugman, master of his intellectual domain, becomes deranged in the presence of the name "bitcoin" because technological innovations don't go in reverse, and disruptive ones change the facts on the ground. In those circumstances all government can do is either accept it or go full-on North Korea. In his world, the state must have at least the power, even if it must only judiciously decide when to apply it, to direct all human activity to maintain stability and order. If bitcoin really does threaten the power of the state to tax, the government's reaction is going to turn his utopian social contract "we're-all-in-it-together" paradise into a dystopian surveillance hell-state. and he, as the cheerleader of the State (if anyone remembers him) goes from being a good guy to a bad guy. I can understand how then that bitcoin presents a scary proposition. I don't know how closely he's been paying attention to the rest of the news on how the government has been reacting to things on the Internet it can't control, like encrypted communications, but the government isn't taking the "acceptance" route, it's going the North Korea route. If he wrote a "PGP is evil" article about how it destroys the ability of the State to keep tabs on pedophiles and terrorists and tax cheaters, it would be derided here with a lot more force.