Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
Is it intentional that you say so always when the daily charts say the opposite?
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1133. (Read 2032266 times)
Is it intentional that you say so always when the daily charts say the opposite?
Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
1) The models cannot possibly incorporate all variables. Economics tries to model the sum of human interaction. That's literally a chaotic system. Such modeling work great until all of a sudden it doesn't work at all.
2) The human element. Political incentives, individuals' career and legacy incentives, etc, are extremely dangerous motivators if you've allowed a system to exist whereby a small number of people have tremendous control over key variables. Unfortunately that's what we have, and it's proving to be a problem. A fairly obvious problem if you take a high-level long-term view and have some appreciation for the muddiness of it all, but that doesn't fit elegantly with the pretty equations economists love.
2) The human element. Political incentives, individuals' career and legacy incentives, etc, are extremely dangerous motivators if you've allowed a system to exist whereby a small number of people have tremendous control over key variables. Unfortunately that's what we have, and it's proving to be a problem. A fairly obvious problem if you take a high-level long-term view and have some appreciation for the muddiness of it all, but that doesn't fit elegantly with the pretty equations economists love.
Yes, one day I believe economics and social sciences could be studied as a "real science", but the underlying system is too complex for present day models to provide detailed predictive power. That's not to say it's all randomness, there are definitely principles at play here, many of whom we are aware of, but the interplay is too complex and chaotic. Simple equations that provide adequate explanation for the underlying system are still reserved for the fields of physics and chemistry (although undoubtedly I am ignoring some really complex subfields). Biology is at the border between "hard science" and "too complex" imho.
Economists on the other hand works for institutions that are largely government-funded, and that means that money flows in regardless of the quality of their work (and that's an understatement).
It's not a matter of quality as it is a matter of not understanding the actual job of economists.The job of economist is to produce convincing ex post facto justifications for government policies. This is what they get paid for, and that's what they do.
The public's incorrect assumption that their job has anything to do with objective truth makes their job easier, so it's not a mistake they are interested in correcting.
Once upon a time there was a strain of thinking in economics which thought of the job of an economist to be just an observer of the complex social phenomenon we call "economy" while trying to figure out if there are any regularities. That line of thinking is all but dead today, killed by Keynesians insisting that economists need to centrally plan and control the economy.
I think these conclusions are a bit unfair. I have an econ degree from a top school, so I'm one counterexample at the very least. Further, I'd argue that many of my peers were mainly attracted to the elegance of the math and really believe that monetary and fiscal policy can optimally tune an economy for the betterment of all.
And to the extent that their assumptions and inputs are right, their conclusions are indeed right. What I think they miss is two-fold:
1) The models cannot possibly incorporate all variables. Economics tries to model the sum of human interaction. That's literally a chaotic system. Such modeling work great until all of a sudden it doesn't work at all.
2) The human element. Political incentives, individuals' career and legacy incentives, etc, are extremely dangerous motivators if you've allowed a system to exist whereby a small number of people have tremendous control over key variables. Unfortunately that's what we have, and it's proving to be a problem. A fairly obvious problem if you take a high-level long-term view and have some appreciation for the muddiness of it all, but that doesn't fit elegantly with the pretty equations economists love.
tl;dr: Most of them really do mean well. But what's that saying about a certain road and good intentions?
Economists on the other hand works for institutions that are largely government-funded, and that means that money flows in regardless of the quality of their work (and that's an understatement).
It's not a matter of quality as it is a matter of not understanding the actual job of economists.The job of economist is to produce convincing ex post facto justifications for government policies. This is what they get paid for, and that's what they do.
The public's incorrect assumption that their job has anything to do with objective truth makes their job easier, so it's not a mistake they are interested in correcting.
I can cite for example Bastiat, Menger, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and probably many others: most of them did a great job.
They are mostly unknown to the bigger public though, since they are not functional to elite plans.
Economists on the other hand works for institutions that are largely government-funded, and that means that money flows in regardless of the quality of their work (and that's an understatement).
It's not a matter of quality as it is a matter of not understanding the actual job of economists.The job of economist is to produce convincing ex post facto justifications for government policies. This is what they get paid for, and that's what they do.
The public's incorrect assumption that their job has anything to do with objective truth makes their job easier, so it's not a mistake they are interested in correcting.
Once upon a time there was a strain of thinking in economics which thought of the job of an economist to be just an observer of the complex social phenomenon we call "economy" while trying to figure out if there are any regularities. That line of thinking is all but dead today, killed by Keynesians insisting that economists need to centrally plan and control the economy.
Push!
Economists on the other hand works for institutions that are largely government-funded, and that means that money flows in regardless of the quality of their work (and that's an understatement).
It's not a matter of quality as it is a matter of not understanding the actual job of economists.The job of economist is to produce convincing ex post facto justifications for government policies. This is what they get paid for, and that's what they do.
The public's incorrect assumption that their job has anything to do with objective truth makes their job easier, so it's not a mistake they are interested in correcting.
I have to agree. I almost went with undergrad in Econ. Meet the guys teaching and was like WTF.
Economists on the other hand works for institutions that are largely government-funded, and that means that money flows in regardless of the quality of their work (and that's an understatement).
It's not a matter of quality as it is a matter of not understanding the actual job of economists.The job of economist is to produce convincing ex post facto justifications for government policies. This is what they get paid for, and that's what they do.
The public's incorrect assumption that their job has anything to do with objective truth makes their job easier, so it's not a mistake they are interested in correcting.
Push!
Gold and BTC have one hell of a relationship.. It's like freaking clock work.. BTC up gold down.. Gold up BTC down.
I wait the time when they will both shoot up to new highs unbelievable now
Sadly a lot of bad news will happen soon for the western financial sectors; the States and some European Countries keep having a public deficit, a commercial deficit and increasing unfunded liabilities
Through most of history there's only been one true form of money, gold. Occasionally, we've had short periods of bi-metallism.
To think it will be any different with Bitcoin and gold, or Bitcoin and altcoins is to defy history.
Bi-metallism refers to a setup where the exchange rate between two metals is fixed (by govt. or king or whatever).
Noone (except Max Keiser, lol) suggest to fix the price of bitcoin to fiat, for example. We full well know what happens then (greshams laws).
I'm sure there have been periods where gold and silver were used as money alongside each other (without any price fixing). There was also a period in england where copper miners (for lack of silver coinage), minted their own copper coins to pay workers. This copper money existed happily alongside the "official" silver and gold coins. (Albeit the exchange rate was fixed afaik by the copper coin issuers by promise of exchange at certain rate).
I'm not sure what will happen, but a world in which many forms of money coexist is not out of the question in my mind.
Just bugs me to no end that there's essentially no career risk for these "experts" to make such harsh predictions and be so thoroughly wrong. If an engineer is ever that wrong, bad things happen, and they don't get work again. When a finance/econ guy is aggressive, harsh, willfully ignorant, and ultimately dead-wrong....his career is usually just fine.
The problem is just where the money comes from: usually engineers works for private firms that demands them results. If their work is not good they get fired.Economists on the other hand works for institutions that are largely government-funded, and that means that money flows in regardless of the quality of their work (and that's an understatement).
Which is a very good reason to never take these people seriously.
Just bugs me to no end that there's essentially no career risk for these "experts" to make such harsh predictions and be so thoroughly wrong. If an engineer is ever that wrong, bad things happen, and they don't get work again. When a finance/econ guy is aggressive, harsh, willfully ignorant, and ultimately dead-wrong....his career is usually just fine.
The problem is just where the money comes from: usually engineers works for private firms that demands them results. If their work is not good they get fired.Economists on the other hand works for institutions that are largely government-funded, and that means that money flows in regardless of the quality of their work (and that's an understatement).
You have no idea how high we can push this.
How high?
You have no idea how high we can push this.
"Among others, the line-up features Tatiana Moroz, creator of the Bitcoin Jingle, and Zhou Tonged, “the Bitcoin world’s Weird Al Yankovich.” "
http://cointelegraph.com/news/111619/cointelegraph_goes_to_the_radical_bitcoin_in_the_beltway
it annoys me to no end that this guy, making hay off the term i coined, can't get the spelling correct nor use the verb properly:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-many-of-you-have-been-zhoutonged-49445
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.840855
http://cointelegraph.com/news/111619/cointelegraph_goes_to_the_radical_bitcoin_in_the_beltway
it annoys me to no end that this guy, making hay off the term i coined, can't get the spelling correct nor use the verb properly:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-many-of-you-have-been-zhoutonged-49445
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.840855
Any readers of Manuel Castells here?
Jump to: