Topic: Are we genetically programmed for Bitcoin economics? (Read 2839 times)

It's hard to tell whether anyone on this topic is actually serious Anyway, let me reply:

1. It would make much more sense to start with hypothesis that Bitcoin economy is programmed by our genetics, and that can be actually confirmed by observation. Trying to see it in the other direction it doesn't make sense to me at all.

2. Even if fundamental principles of economics may be derived from logic (I disagree, but that's another discussion), human minds are not fully rational. They evolved to deal with natural phenomena and only during several last tens of generations we start to adapt to using maths and money in our decisions. For example how much of our decision making can be illogical I recommend a book like Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.

Fairness is not the first thing that comes to mind when I think about economics, but it has been shown that even infants can identify bullies even in the form of circle and squares.  It's nice to think we at least begin life with a sense of "fairness"!

I don't think the time frame for our economic reality has been long enough. I would expect at least a few thousand years to note a genetic divergence.
But I do think there is evidence for many animals to have a sense of "fairness" that is genetic. Interesting topic OP.

hm, maybe a successful economy just attracts people from all over the world and therefore increses that countries genetic diversity?

I like this answer.  It fits the closest to what I've read about specialization in cultures/communities.  The less time people have to spend trying to obtain their basic needs the more able a culture or community is able support their specialization.  Specializations like professional artist or economist.  It's pretty difficult to find time to create a mortgage backed security when it takes you 3 hours every day to get enough water for your family to survive.  There aren't many factory workers in china who play the future markets in their spare time!

Where's the data? Oh its not published yet. It will be in the future published.

Then I'm not sure why we are talking about it right now. Maybe it has something to do with upcoming US elections. Anyway, nature actually publishes some of the worst research reports around in that it is usually impossible to tell what was actually done to generate the data. Reviewers don't care.

I would also bet that a good look at this data would be inconclusive to a critical audience, (a vague concept of diversity is correlated with vague concept of economic success...). Also the claim of "strong evidence" (present in the Nature News article) will be based on a small p value arrived at via sampling to a foregone conclusion.

I once read a book that looked at geological aspects of the world compared to the most prosperous economies. In essence, a central theme of the book is that, for instance, Europa has the advantage of lots of rain and benign winters, and therefore had an advantage over rougher area's in the world.

I really recommend it if you want food for thought on this topic.

The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor

Did it ever occur to you that what we call 'economy' in the west is a system very much formed by the culture of the west? It suits westeners well because it was created by the westeners for the westeners.

I'd never thought I'd find someone more racist than the Nazis.

Why do you exclude a genetic component at the sight of a social component?
I think that is a silly notion. Any enviromental influence will put a pressure on a population of genes. They will change and adapt, but slowly and over many many generations.
There are many high-altitude areas on the globe, and yet the kenians are some of the best runners around. Why is the top 10 of marathon runners composed of only men from kenia and ethiopia? Shouldn't they have stiff competition from people living in the alps or the andes or something?
I think your explanation is incomplete and i find it unsatisfactory as an answer.

In te end i firmly beliefe that you cannot separate 'nature' from 'nurture'.
Everyone is the result of genes expressing in an environment. Genes being, of course, nature, and the environment being nurture.

So if we would take, let's say ,100 native european people and we let them grow up in kenia and according to normal kenian life i bet this group will have a lower running capability than 100 randomly selected kenian native men.
It's propably going to be a small shift in the distribution but that is how most genetic differences between humans from different locations express themselfs.
The differences may be small, but sport is very competitive. A small advantage in some metabolic process can give you the boost you need to win the run.

Let's take an example. In my wonderfully orthodox, mainstream economics studies I learned about the theory of optimal currency areas. I know that theories and new discoveries don't appear in isolation, so there is a possibility that this theory is influenced by Keynesianism, even founded on it (although to be honest, I doubt it in this case). The point is that even if the connection exists, it is irrelevant. The theory should stand or fall on its own successes and failures.

But I guess there is more than one way of looking at it. You might argue that if it is founded on Keynesianism and Keynesianism is wrong, then how can it be right. I would argue that if a theory seems to fit the facts and it is useful, then why would you reject it?

I just can't see that it takes a fundamentally Keynesian outlook to get some genetic diversity data and some GDP per capita data and draw a pretty graph. And even if it did, I can't see that a Keynesian background has any bearing on the correlation between the two.

Sure, sorry I didn't mean to offend. Let me explain my comment, the fundamental principles of economics are derived from logic, and that logic is best expressed in the Austrian principles of economics. The principals generally described as Keynesian are more of a social science a type of dogma.

I inadvertently compared dogma and logic and over generalized, I am sorry if I upset you.   

While I am a designer (a commercial artist), every action I take, is affected by macroeconomics, and without prejudges I can totally understand other fields of economics unrelated to macro economics being influenced by macroeconomic dogmas. 

I hope I don't seem fundamentalist but given the luxury of history, general knowledge, deductive reasoning, I can't reconcile genetics and economics without the use of dogmas. 

What has Keynes got to do with anything? You do know that not all economics is macroeconomics, right?

Best troll ever.

At least, I hope so.

Let's see, Americans are self-selected from those who traveled half way around the world, surviving with little or nothing, from both East and West.  Of course we're better at economics.

Fascinating, I hadn't heard of that.  I'll put hold on my previous statements for the time being.

Correct, scientific evaluation shows: that 98 out of the top 100 runners, grew up at higher altitudes (like Kenya), there foot and calf mussels development, without artificial support, (no shoes). They specialized in running before age 7 (a as a primarily form or transportation) running on average 5km to and from school every day.  As professionals once competitive they train in high altitude running camps running 60% more than there western counterparts, every day.  By contrast Western competitive runners don't  commit until after age 14 and live a some what sheltered existence.

No genetic advantage,  but an environmental advantage  one that will be eliminated when they get the benefits of cars and shoes. (BTW most still regard a cow as money a status symbol)

So you don't think black people are generally better runners than white people?

It didn't say it alters you genome, I was just trolling.

But much like the hair on an arctic fox changes white when it gets cold and turns brown when it gets warm, our environment can alter your genes.

To your point of diversity, I agree that is the cause of economic success, but I don't believe it is genetic. (That thinking was surpassed with predetermined birth classes ) My heritage is one of pioneers and innovators (dowers), but when I look around I don't see many dowers anymore, just mainly a society of coffee servers and managers.  (Douglass Adams comes to mind - so I will throw in hairdressers as well)