6 ms·

Doesn't harm his reputation? It shows, clearly, that the man, while being an expert in one field, and while being objectively smart, can be a complete moron in

by ye 13y ago

Doesn't harm his reputation? It shows, clearly, that the man, while being an expert in one field, and while being objectively smart, can be a complete moron in another field and make very very very wrong "predictions".

onebaddude 13y ago
>can be a complete moron in another field A complete moron? In the field of monetary economics? Yeah, okay. You may think Bitcoin is major internet monies, but the economists are interested in studying it from aspect of a medium of exchange. Discussing economics on HackerNews is like discussing medicine on Reddit: everyone is an expert, whether they know anything about the subject or not.
- joshuapants 13y ago
  Read the post before jumping to your reply button. > while being an expert in one field, and while being objectively smart, can be a complete moron in another field ye said that Krugman is an expert in his field, but has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to computers and the impact thereof.
  - onebaddude 13y ago
    >Read the post before jumping to your reply button. Maybe you should do the same. Krugman isn't looking at Bitcoin as a technology, but as a currency. Just because he doesn't understand "computers and the imnpact thereof", doesn't mean he doesn't understand Bitcoin as money.
    - joshuapants 13y ago
      The article we're commenting on has nothing to do with bitcoins. So again we get back to the issue of reading comprehension.
yen223 13y ago
Unlike HN commentors, whose ability to parse the Bitcoin white paper suddenly turns them into macroeconomic experts.
- snitko 13y ago
  Believe it or not, it is quite conceivable that many people on HN actually took enough time to read lots of books on economics and made up their mind about which school of thought is closer to the truth.
  - fragsworth 13y ago
    I don't believe anyone fully understands macroeconomics, and there is no direct incentive for anyone to do so. Certain powerful interests have an incentive to promote some schools of thought over others, because of political implications that directly impact their business. Bitcoin promoters will typically promote ideologies that help bitcoin, because they've invested in bitcoin. I doubt anyone has a truly unbiased perspective on any of it.
    - snitko 13y ago
      I agree with you and this is why Austrian economics disregards macroeconomics completely.
      - yen223 13y ago
        Doesn't Austrian economics also disregard reality? http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
        snitko 13y ago
        I've read this article sometime ago and what struck me while I was reading it, is that the author actually describes WHY Austrian economics is superior and explains it quite good. I couldn't find an actual reason why he decided to not be an Austrian anymore. tl;dr: of that article is like "So this is what Austrian economics is all about, but I don't subscribe to that point of view anymore".
VMG 13y ago
He is still a writer for the NYT and taken seriously by the mainstream audience. Proof that talk is cheap, especially dismissiveness is not punished if it turns out that it was unwarranted. Just something to keep in mind when reading dismissive opinions.

by ye 13y ago

onebaddude 13y ago

>can be a complete moron in another field A complete moron? In the field of monetary economics? Yeah, okay. You may think Bitcoin is major internet monies, but the economists are interested in studying it from aspect of a medium of exchange. Discussing economics on HackerNews is like discussing medicine on Reddit: everyone is an expert, whether they know anything about the subject or not.

joshuapants 13y ago
Read the post before jumping to your reply button. > while being an expert in one field, and while being objectively smart, can be a complete moron in another field ye said that Krugman is an expert in his field, but has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to computers and the impact thereof.
- onebaddude 13y ago
  >Read the post before jumping to your reply button. Maybe you should do the same. Krugman isn't looking at Bitcoin as a technology, but as a currency. Just because he doesn't understand "computers and the imnpact thereof", doesn't mean he doesn't understand Bitcoin as money.
  - joshuapants 13y ago
    The article we're commenting on has nothing to do with bitcoins. So again we get back to the issue of reading comprehension.

yen223 13y ago

Unlike HN commentors, whose ability to parse the Bitcoin white paper suddenly turns them into macroeconomic experts.

snitko 13y ago
Believe it or not, it is quite conceivable that many people on HN actually took enough time to read lots of books on economics and made up their mind about which school of thought is closer to the truth.
- fragsworth 13y ago
  I don't believe anyone fully understands macroeconomics, and there is no direct incentive for anyone to do so. Certain powerful interests have an incentive to promote some schools of thought over others, because of political implications that directly impact their business. Bitcoin promoters will typically promote ideologies that help bitcoin, because they've invested in bitcoin. I doubt anyone has a truly unbiased perspective on any of it.
  - snitko 13y ago
    I agree with you and this is why Austrian economics disregards macroeconomics completely.
    - yen223 13y ago
      Doesn't Austrian economics also disregard reality? http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
      - snitko 13y ago
        I've read this article sometime ago and what struck me while I was reading it, is that the author actually describes WHY Austrian economics is superior and explains it quite good. I couldn't find an actual reason why he decided to not be an Austrian anymore. tl;dr: of that article is like "So this is what Austrian economics is all about, but I don't subscribe to that point of view anymore".

VMG 13y ago

He is still a writer for the NYT and taken seriously by the mainstream audience. Proof that talk is cheap, especially dismissiveness is not punished if it turns out that it was unwarranted. Just something to keep in mind when reading dismissive opinions.