Topic: [2013-12-30] Paul Krugman: "Come on guys, I've been joking since 1998" (Read 2914 times)

nobel laureate? i don't give a shit about the nobel laureate.. they have handed the prize to many undeserving people. it's all just a popularity contest.


oh yeah, a nobel laureate who is parading against BTC is really going to help its development.

Even more news today that Krugman will love, in short, everything was compromised by the NSA from Windows to Linux, to Mac to Solaris, to Windows Phones, to Android, to gsm cards to cables, to air gapped machines, to disk drives.  From all the big names. You name it:

http://www.scmagazine.com.au/News/368562,dell-others-named-in-nsa-spying-program.aspx

Quite right. They are fearful because the voodoo-science of economics is about to run into a wall of math, hard sciences like computer science, engineering, and consequently reality. Bitcoin makes it harder for the Krumans of the world to ignore the reality of their policies.

Some economists are right, but economics is not a science and the phrase "voodoo economics" was redundant.

Krugman has BEEN a joke since well before 1998. The emperor has no clothes, they just don't realize it yet - or they know it and want to fool as many people as possible for as long as possible.

I liked your initial thoughtful post, but please be aware that you are playing into the hands of Krugman and the fiat system he touts when you repeat the meme that he is a Nobel laureate. The prize he won is a bank-sponsored clone of the actual Nobel prizes and began in 1968. The "real" Nobel prizes have been issued since 1901, and did not include a category for Economics.

The prize in Economics is analogous to you and I giving each other a prize "in honor of Alfred Nobel" and calling each other Nobel Laureates. It is a device intended to legitimize Economics, otherwise nicknamed "the Dismal Science."

The device works in the media and popular thinking, but it is evil.       

Nobel factoids here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize
 

In re-reading Krugman's blogs on bitcoin, I see no jokes at all, nothing remotely funny.  Krugman meant to attack bitcoin, that is crystal clear.  The question is why.  Krugman, as we know, has been a huge advocate for government printing of money.  He has often stated that the Fed should have printed more during the recent recession, and that they should continue printing more money now.  He has repeatedly made fun of economists that warned about the negative consequences of printing.  He loves to bring up how wrong they were as there is no inflation after all this printing.  The one thing that matters most to these economists is that they do not want to be WRONG.  Their reputation means EVERYTHING.  So Krugman sees bitcoin as well as gold as places people can turn to if they lose faith in the dollar because of all the printing.  He does not want there to be on alternative to the dollar as world reserve currency (which allows the US to print to oblivion - for now).  Can you imagine his reputation should the dollar collapse or lose world reserve currency status as a result of his recommended printing?  That is is greatest fear, and that is why he is so afraid of bitcoin, and so much so that he has taken to describing it as EVIL.   

Paul Krugman is a government loyalist and all he's doing is making very snide apologies in order to try and keep his credibility amongst his peers so he doesn't look like a total dick to them. He probably thought he could get away with attacking Bitcoin like he did and didn't expect their to be so much backlash over his comments, you see this with a lot of the public figures out their who don't have any experience with the internet.

Yeah, one more thing, if you've looked at his videos rather than the written stuff you'll find that smug arrogance is sort of his thing, I find he's very much like Ben Bernanke in that respect and he gets worse the more wrong he is as for Paul Krugman being a possible troll? Yeah, maybe, but Bitcoin don't give a shit

exactly as we thought.. he said it to be "fun and provocative." he's just saying this shit so people talk about it, which gives him more exposure and fame.

the best thing to do is not to give a shit about what he says; otherwise you're just playing into his hands.

I'm wondering if Paul Krugman got in over his head recently with his last three blog posts for the New York Times and follow-up correspondence with the MSM.

If you're just catching up now, the TL/DR is as follows:

- On December 28th, he wrote a piece entitled "Bitcoin is Evil" in which he mostly argued against bitcoin's lack of "backing," but also referred to bitcoin as "a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks."  He said he didn't "like" that agenda.  We analyzed this piece here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/2013-12-28-new-york-times-paul-krugmans-blog-bitcoin-is-evil-389463, here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-dont-listen-to-paul-krugman-or-anyone-that-says-the-internet-is-a-bubble-389545 and here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-will-not-attackfightetc-central-banking-and-fiat-currency-389565

- He received over 400 comments to his blog post and numerous emails.  Many people pointed out that bitcoin was simply a new technology and was neither good nor evil, and in response he wrote a new piece on December 29th entitled "The Humor Test."  He claimed that he was joking when he called bitcoin evil, and said the fact that people called him out on it was "an indicator of intellectual insecurity" on their part. We analyze that post here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/2013-12-29-new-york-times-paul-krugmans-blog-i-was-joking-ubernerd-390915

- Meanwhile, Reddit picked up on a quote that Paul Krugman published in 1998, predicting that the internet's impact would be no greater than the fax machine.  They used this to show that perhaps Dr. Krugman is less than apt at predicting the impact of technology on society. See for example: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-bitcoin-2013-12

- Things get stranger when Business Insider emails Krugman about his 1998 prediction.  I would have thought he would leave it alone, yet, after claiming (just the day before) that he was "joking" when he said "bitcoin is evil," he goes on to say that his "point was to be fun and provocative, [and] not to engage in careful forecasting" when he said the internet would have no more impact than a fax machine. Why not just be honest, Dr. Krugman, and say "yeah things turned out differently than I imagined."  See for example: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-responds-to-internet-quote-2013-12

- There are many responses to Krugman's last few posts, some pro-bitcoin, some anti-bitcoin, and some fairly neutral.  Here are a few: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/12/30/paul-krugman-is-wrong-bitcoin-isnt-evil-but-monetary-stimulus-is/, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/paul-krugman-bitcoin_n_4518979.html, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-30/bitcoin-alternative-currency-libertarian-vs-pragmatist


MY PERSONAL REFLECTION:

I've been deeply afflicted by this chain of events.  I guess it's that I've always enjoyed reading Paul Krugman's work (although I've disagreed with many things he's said over the years).  He seemed intelligent, creative and genuine; I've always thought he was sort of cool .

But after what's happened since the 28th, I feel disillusioned.  In my opinion, he chose the title "Bitcoin is Evil" not as a joke, but as hyperbole to emotionally appeal to the people that may be leaning away from bitcoin already.  And then he says bitcoin has a libertarian agenda and refers to it being created as "a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks."  In my opinion, he knows that bitcoin is just a technology and is apolitical.  One could argue that bitcoin's ever-lasting blockchain record of all transactions is "statist" as easily as one could argue that bitcoin's pseudonimity is "libertarian."  So, once again I think this was a ploy to tug at people's deep-seeded ideologies--to get them to react emotionally to bitcoin before they've had a chance to evaluate it rationally.    

I think it worked. If you go and read the comments from "The Humor Test" a large percentage are saying that somehow bitcoin is "right wing."  A lot of people are also saying that 'of course you were joking and yeah those right-wingers sure are stupid for not getting it.'  WTF!  How is this about left vs right??  How is it an obvious joke that bitcoin is evil, but it's not also a joke that bitcoin was designed as a weapon?  

I am not a libertarian.  To borrow from Nassim Taleb, perhaps I am a skeptical empiricist, but, no, really I'm just me.  Is bitcoin a powerful and disruptive technology that can improve the way we store wealth and exchange value with each other?  Yes, I believe it is and I'm willing to see this experiment thru to find out for sure.  That's all that matters to me.  


FOOTNOTE:  I apologize for the misquote in the title, but I couldn't resist.  It doesn't matter anyways because I was just joking.