6 ms·

The tone of condescension that comes from professional economists is telling. It's impossible for them to just present their arguments, cleanly, simply and wit

The tone of condescension that comes from professional economists is telling. It's impossible for them to just present their arguments, cleanly, simply and without ostentation and vitriol. They have to try to make you feel stupid for disagreeing with them. When you don't have a sound scientific basis for your discipline, you need something to step in to fill the void - in order to make other humans believe in your worth. Economists use their enormous egos, as well as the frailties inherent in the egos of others. Heather R Morgan has not written an article which rises above the flaws of her discipline. It starts with a jibe - oh, you invested in bitcoin, why not flush it down the toilet - that's HOW STUPID YOU WOULD BE... Engineers and hackers don't have to worry about whether or not their discipline makes a genuine contribution. They have proved themselves time and time again. They build a product - ship it - and if it fails, they start working on the next idea. They don't have to worry about fighting over 'theories' with academics who desperately claw at one another for those disappearing tenure tracks. As we who have spruiked for bitcoin have always said: "This is an experiment that might fail." Heather might want to consider switching to a discipline in which experiments are even possible...

lclarkmichalek 13y ago
You haven't commented on the content of the article at all. I know attacking the tone is easy, but it's hardly constructive.
- jpttsn 13y ago
  Grandparent has a valid point about the article's tone, and attacking tone can be constructive.
- grovulent 13y ago
  Well - I think it's important to address the tone. I was going to say more about the substantive argument - but didn't because I didn't want to write a wall of text. Also, I just see the argument as a very uncritical regurgitation of the intrinsic value argument against bitcoin and I've personally grown weary trying to encourage a greater level of depth to that discussion. If you are interested - I've written at (great) length my thoughts about this argument here: http://reviewsindepth.com/2013/12/bitcoin-krugman-and-the-mere-agreement-of-value/ http://reviewsindepth.com/2013/12/bitcoin-krugman-and-the-me...
  - williamcotton 13y ago
    > Bitcoin really is a currency of “mere agreement” then you can begin to see that its mainstream acceptance will genuinely herald the dawn of a new age of human civilisation. And don’t be too quick to take that last statement as hyperbolic praise – it might be a statement of supreme pessimism about its potential for success, depending on your point of view. Have you considered a career in science fiction or as a song writer? "I'm torn between the light and dark, Where others see their targets, Divine symmetry. Should I kiss the viper's fang, Or herald loud, the death of Man. I'm sinking in the quicksand, of my thought, And I ain't got the power anymore." I think David Bowie put it a little bit better and he did come up with a pretty great melody and chord progression for the tune, but don't let that get you down, you gotta start somewhere, right? I think he said it better because he had the ability to discern the difference between fantasy and reality. He then learned to channel his apocryphal visions in to art. You're wasting your talents here in reality, my friend!
    - grovulent 13y ago
      Well - that's certainly the most charming jibe I've received about my writing. I tip my hat to you sir. I would be keen to know your opinion after reading the whole article. I assume you haven't - because I do at least make an argument for that claim, and you don't attempt to address it before calling me deluded. Given the large amount of effort I put into that article, don't you think I might deserve this much at least?
      - williamcotton 13y ago
        Another thing you could learn from Bowie is how to write succinctly. Listen dude, I don't think Bitcoin is valueless. It is an interesting solution to a number of technical challenges in distributed computing. It may even very well work as some sort of digital currency. What I don't think is that it is going to change the world. You and every other maniac out there is actually doing a disservice to the acceptance of the technology. What kind of loony expects someone to read a 10,000 word essay that starts off with some sweeping claim about how 'everything's different now!'? You don't know shit about the world. You couldn't possibly have enough experience or knowledge to piece together any sort of valid prediction, just like every other motherfucker out there. You've just got faith in some grand tale that honestly isn't that different from any other end-of-time story, like say, the Book of Revelations. You're right to point the finger at economists when they make grand sweeping claims. They're just storytellers. There's a reason it is considered a liberal art. Computer programmers and engineers aren't much more than storytellers either. There is even more danger of delusion in software because entire virtual worlds are created and then assumed to be real. Math is the language of nature. Truth is the language of man. Learn to tell the difference.
k-mcgrady 13y ago
>> As we who have spruiked for bitcoin have always said: "This is an experiment that might fail." It's fine to experiment but when Bitcoin became more mainstream the kind of stupid mistakes MtGox has made are inexcusable. Ordinary people were using it and are losing money now. You can't promote a new technology and push for it's adoption by a wide audience and just call it an experiment when it fails. That's reckless. >> Heather might want to consider switching to a discipline in which experiments are even possible... And you're complaining about condescension?
- moe 13y ago
  MtGox != Bitcoin. Why is that so hard to understand?
- grovulent 13y ago
  I presume the 'you' in your statement is directed at... well... who exactly? Who was promoting Bitcoin in a way that did not foreground its extreme risk front and center? Your journalistic finger wagging will not do here. I would like to see examples. And if you provide them, then I will accept in each such case that they were indeed irresponsible. As for my last statement - I accept it comes off as no better. But I happen to actually mean it with more sincerity than you can possibly imagine. I was a PhD student in philosophy. After five years I quit because I couldn't stomach my own bullshit any more. I'm currently training myself in math, machine learning and programming. Even as a mediocre tech guy (and I don't doubt I'll ever be more than mediocre) - I'll add more value to the world than I ever did as a philosopher. I believe the same of economics.
  - davidw 13y ago
    Economics is fascinating. It's a fairly new discipline, and like, say, astronomy, conducting experiments can be tricky, but throwing the whole thing out is silly. There is a lot to be learned for those interested in learning, rather than just backing up their own political view of the world.
    - grovulent 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
perfunctory 13y ago
> They build a product - ship it - and if it fails, they start working on the next idea. Insert "economic theory" instead of "product".

lclarkmichalek 13y ago

You haven't commented on the content of the article at all. I know attacking the tone is easy, but it's hardly constructive.

jpttsn 13y ago
Grandparent has a valid point about the article's tone, and attacking tone can be constructive.
grovulent 13y ago
Well - I think it's important to address the tone. I was going to say more about the substantive argument - but didn't because I didn't want to write a wall of text. Also, I just see the argument as a very uncritical regurgitation of the intrinsic value argument against bitcoin and I've personally grown weary trying to encourage a greater level of depth to that discussion. If you are interested - I've written at (great) length my thoughts about this argument here: http://reviewsindepth.com/2013/12/bitcoin-krugman-and-the-mere-agreement-of-value/ http://reviewsindepth.com/2013/12/bitcoin-krugman-and-the-me...
- williamcotton 13y ago
  > Bitcoin really is a currency of “mere agreement” then you can begin to see that its mainstream acceptance will genuinely herald the dawn of a new age of human civilisation. And don’t be too quick to take that last statement as hyperbolic praise – it might be a statement of supreme pessimism about its potential for success, depending on your point of view. Have you considered a career in science fiction or as a song writer? "I'm torn between the light and dark, Where others see their targets, Divine symmetry. Should I kiss the viper's fang, Or herald loud, the death of Man. I'm sinking in the quicksand, of my thought, And I ain't got the power anymore." I think David Bowie put it a little bit better and he did come up with a pretty great melody and chord progression for the tune, but don't let that get you down, you gotta start somewhere, right? I think he said it better because he had the ability to discern the difference between fantasy and reality. He then learned to channel his apocryphal visions in to art. You're wasting your talents here in reality, my friend!
  - grovulent 13y ago
    Well - that's certainly the most charming jibe I've received about my writing. I tip my hat to you sir. I would be keen to know your opinion after reading the whole article. I assume you haven't - because I do at least make an argument for that claim, and you don't attempt to address it before calling me deluded. Given the large amount of effort I put into that article, don't you think I might deserve this much at least?
    - williamcotton 13y ago
      Another thing you could learn from Bowie is how to write succinctly. Listen dude, I don't think Bitcoin is valueless. It is an interesting solution to a number of technical challenges in distributed computing. It may even very well work as some sort of digital currency. What I don't think is that it is going to change the world. You and every other maniac out there is actually doing a disservice to the acceptance of the technology. What kind of loony expects someone to read a 10,000 word essay that starts off with some sweeping claim about how 'everything's different now!'? You don't know shit about the world. You couldn't possibly have enough experience or knowledge to piece together any sort of valid prediction, just like every other motherfucker out there. You've just got faith in some grand tale that honestly isn't that different from any other end-of-time story, like say, the Book of Revelations. You're right to point the finger at economists when they make grand sweeping claims. They're just storytellers. There's a reason it is considered a liberal art. Computer programmers and engineers aren't much more than storytellers either. There is even more danger of delusion in software because entire virtual worlds are created and then assumed to be real. Math is the language of nature. Truth is the language of man. Learn to tell the difference.

k-mcgrady 13y ago

>> As we who have spruiked for bitcoin have always said: "This is an experiment that might fail." It's fine to experiment but when Bitcoin became more mainstream the kind of stupid mistakes MtGox has made are inexcusable. Ordinary people were using it and are losing money now. You can't promote a new technology and push for it's adoption by a wide audience and just call it an experiment when it fails. That's reckless. >> Heather might want to consider switching to a discipline in which experiments are even possible... And you're complaining about condescension?

moe 13y ago
MtGox != Bitcoin. Why is that so hard to understand?
grovulent 13y ago
I presume the 'you' in your statement is directed at... well... who exactly? Who was promoting Bitcoin in a way that did not foreground its extreme risk front and center? Your journalistic finger wagging will not do here. I would like to see examples. And if you provide them, then I will accept in each such case that they were indeed irresponsible. As for my last statement - I accept it comes off as no better. But I happen to actually mean it with more sincerity than you can possibly imagine. I was a PhD student in philosophy. After five years I quit because I couldn't stomach my own bullshit any more. I'm currently training myself in math, machine learning and programming. Even as a mediocre tech guy (and I don't doubt I'll ever be more than mediocre) - I'll add more value to the world than I ever did as a philosopher. I believe the same of economics.
- davidw 13y ago
  Economics is fascinating. It's a fairly new discipline, and like, say, astronomy, conducting experiments can be tricky, but throwing the whole thing out is silly. There is a lot to be learned for those interested in learning, rather than just backing up their own political view of the world.
  - grovulent 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

perfunctory 13y ago

> They build a product - ship it - and if it fails, they start working on the next idea. Insert "economic theory" instead of "product".