Topic: Has the 'Bitcoin Experiment' changed your political or economic views at all? - page 8. (Read 13782 times)

Nah, not really. They are two faces of the same coin.
These tools apply to systems and one does not define 'truth' better than the other.
Good luck finding 'truth' in non-deterministic behaviour.

Astrology has extensively been tested empirically.
And the austrian school certainly is based on empirical evidence. Maybe just not as much as you like.

Oh sure, there's plenty of situations where you have incomplete information, but need to make a decision. But that's not finding the truth, that's fixing a problem. Those are two different issues.

Ah, but falsificationism and verificationism are not the same approach.

I don't see Austrian economics as science, similarly as I don't see mathematics or logic as science. Do you detest mathematics and logic as well?

On the other hand, the claim that Austrians reject empiricism is misleading. It's similar as saying that mathematics rejects empiricism. It can happen that empirical data contradicts some arguments Austrians have made (as it did with Bitcoin), and then you need to figure out how to resolve the contradictions. Either you can simply claim that Bitcoin does not exists (there are indeed people who take this path), or you can attempt to figure out where the arguments went wrong and change them so that they are consistent with Bitcoin's existence.

I personally go even further than the Austrians, and view the foundations of praxeology as assumptions rather than "truth". I have no problems challenging them and showing when there's a contradiction.

This is not always a choice one can make given ones position relative to the solution.

To me, any approach that falsifies hypotheses using experimental methods qualifies as a science. Anything else is not a science.

(i.e. astrology is a valid science if it is subjected to careful empirical testing. The lack of empirical testing is what makes it a pseudoscience.)

I detest Austrian economics because it rejects empiricism, and is therefore not scientific.

To me, paying too much attention to mathetmatical relationship between two economic variables is dangerous in becoming a new breed of pseudoscience, like alchemy and astrology. I prefer falsificationism and deductive reasoning to verificationism and inductive reasoning.

i have changed my political view, i have become far more socialistic then i was when i started.
i have seen how the libertards behave, and that is not a world i wan't to live in.

I feel like we have a different world view here.
90% of the time. I'm happy as long as the econometrics is solid. I could not care less if the thoery makes sense or does not make sense. Asblong as the empirical test of the theory is solid, then I'm willing to accept it. Thus it is much more important to me that all economists understand econometrics. I dont care as much about whether they understand theory.

I have formal education in mainstream economics and only became familiar with the Austrian school afterwards. I read non-Austrian sources as well. Empirical research, for example, can be interpreted from several points of view, you don't need to agree with the school of the person doing empirical research and his interpretations of the results.

But I'm also a stubborn skeptic. If someone disagrees with me, I expect him to argue, rather than just bullshit around. If it turns out in the end that I was wrong, it's no big deal. I want to pursue the truth, not writings of someone else. My research of Bitcoin, for example, brought me to a position where I defy both the gold standard branch and the freebanking branch of the Austrian school.

The most important point in economics is to identify assumptions, and that's where many economists fail. They make implicit assumptions without being aware of it, and they end up contradicting themselves. This has nothing to do with belonging to a specific faction.

There is a difference between being ignorant of something, and agreeing with something. So while I would say that economists should have a basic understanding of econometrics too, it does not mean that will allow them a better grasp of economic phenomena.

I can't blame someone for remaining ignorant of macroeconomics. I also don't take you very seriously. The most likely reason why you feel that most economists know nothing about macroeconomics is because you belong to a minority or so-called heterodox faction.

Macroeconomics is full of dogmatic factions. The factions all believe that their own group knows everything and that people outside the faction know nothing. If you want to pursue macroeconomics, you have to join a faction. Choosing to ignore these factions entirely and specialize in less divisive subfields seems eminently reasonable to me.

I went to a PhD program at one university. The university faculty all ascribed to one faction (no surprise they hire each other). I 'learned' that the other dominant faction was full of shit and held laughable views. I was never formally taught what those laughable views were. They were just irrelevant. This is typical of economics PhD programs. There is a war over who gets to be orthodox. It is like a religion.

There are also the so-called heterodox factions. Heterodox factions are not serious competitors with the two orthodox factions (freshwater and saltwater). No one even bothers to ridicule the heterodox factions. Heterodox views are fairly common outside of the ivory tower, but you are not going to get employed at a good university if you hold heterodox beliefs. There are a handful of low quality universities that specialize in heterodoxy (e.g. University of Mass at Amherst : Marxism, George Mason University : Austrian Economics). I think you are frustrated that your heterodox faction lacks broader support.

The picture of Krugman indicates that I personally ascribe to the saltwater faction. In school, I learned the freshwater faction and I respect their views. The heterodox factions are, of course, completely full of shit.

PS What about econometrics? The third major sub-discipline. Being completely ignorant of this is okay?

Money is both micro and macro. It's actually the insistence to view micro-processes through the lens of macro creates heavy distortions in understanding money. The whole concept of liquidity influencing demand for money gets lost that way. Krugman, for example, wrote papers in the 80s which clearly indicate that he understands it, but now, 30 years later, he seems to have forgotten it.

An economist should have a basic grasp of both micro and macro.

My views have changed a lot. I used to be a radical left libertarian before, I basically ran the Finnish arm of the Zeitgeist Movement for a couple of years. After being involved with Bitcoin for 1,5 years now, I don't identify with Zeitgeist stuff anymore, I see it as unrealistic and utopian. Bitcoin is on the fringe as well but it's not as utopian.

It's a libertarian dream from another perspective and I've basically embraced that perspective. More than anything, it's something that IS HERE and it works! It's not just a dream, it's living the dream. Living a roller coaster is closer to actuality but still, you get the point. Talk truly is cheap, we're here actually doing something. Building a new economy.

Bitcoin changed my view on certain political and social movements.
Specifically, it taught me that a lot of people regularily confuse the word 'anarcho' with the word 'puberty'.

While it hasn't changed my views much, it has given me a direction to follow them.

For me, the most surprising change was that my view on speculators got way more differentiated. Before, speculation was evil. Now – black sheep pump and dump aside – it is a service.

I used to think my only options were to vote 3rd party & hope one day the world would share my views & vote the right candidate(s) in.  Although I knew that would never happen, it felt better to try than to do nothing.  The bitcoin experiment has reignited that spark.  Something I thought would never happen during my lifetime, I now see as a real possibility in the next 20 years.  Real political change that will give more power to the people.

I believe sir that this is a slang term, and these people are actually called "Professional BullShit Artists"

Look it up, its in the dictionary
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bullshit+artist


The keyword here is HYPE

o.0

In a deflation world when everyone tries to hoard USD, I don't see the benefit of BTC, but in an inflation world, BTC might gain some ground as a hedge for inflation

After financial crisis, everyone is still trying to save. When they put saving in action, the money supply need to be magnitudes higher than normal volume for transaction purpose

I would think anyone who calls them self an economist would have some basic knowledge. Do you have any examples?