I don't know ... could "hivemind" be seen as a compliment when leveled at a bunch of anarchists by a practitioner of groupthink and indulgent hive behaviour?
At least it proves we aren't doing the same thing
Topic: Nobel economist Krugman on bitcoin and crypto-currencies. - page 2. (Read 10519 times)
I don't know ... could "hivemind" be seen as a compliment when leveled at a bunch of anarchists by a practitioner of groupthink and indulgent hive behaviour?
At least it proves we aren't doing the same thing
I don't know ... could "hivemind" be seen as a compliment when leveled at a bunch of anarchists by a practitioner of groupthink and indulgent hive behaviour?
It is a self-selecting effect
It's still pretty disturbing when the guy embracing failure with billions of his peers is calling hivemind on a formation of insignificant size, where every other thread is actually berating proof of work or deflation..
I, for one, am very much curious about what Krugman would say about the economic aspects of Bitcoin.
And by the way, why all the disdain for Krugman expressed in this thread? As far as mainstream economists go, I have the utmost respect for him. He has been consistently been correct on his predictions and he has always been coherent with his arguments.
And by the way, why all the disdain for Krugman expressed in this thread? As far as mainstream economists go, I have the utmost respect for him. He has been consistently been correct on his predictions and he has always been coherent with his arguments.
LOL! What nonsense! There has been numerous articles from real economists pointing out Krugman's poor prediction record! One I've seen actually demonstrated how Krugman is only slightly better than throwing darts at a dartboard blindfolded. If you want to see an economist with a real track record for accuracy, try Mish (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/) Peter Schiff (http://www.europac.net/) or Rich Maybury (http://chaostan.com/). All of these guys actually make money, real fortunes, based upon their predictions. Krugman makes money selling advice to readers of the NYT. He's the economic version of "ask Nancy".
If you are taking your advice from someone who doesn't make a living from his own advice, you are an idiot.
i knew we had something in common.
So somehow a group of 13000 or so forum users are effectively indulging in hivemind thinking when they reason that the economic model adopted by the entire world, with several documented records of horrible failure, is flawed?
At this point I'd rather be on the hivemind side...
At this point I'd rather be on the hivemind side...
It is a self-selecting effect because people adopt bitcoin if they think it will works. If you think the bitcoin deflationary model is bad, than that doubt might be enough to persuade you from using bitcoin.
Just like bitcoin wasn't invented until a cryptographer/programmer with no sense of mathematical of beauty wrote it. Maybe he does, but he was far more pragmatic than most cryptographers.
Hey, if you aren't in the Keynesian hive mind, you must be delusional! Right?
Nevertheless, my opinion is that when eventually Economics does become a science it is more likely to resemble Keynesianism than the Austrian school so favoured by this forum's hivemind.
So somehow a group of 13000 or so forum users are effectively indulging in hivemind thinking when they reason that the economic model adopted by the entire world, with several documented records of horrible failure, is flawed?
At this point I'd rather be on the hivemind side...
I heard a guy talking about this, let me see if I can find it. Ah, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIxpvRUUzVo&t=2m12s
The problem with economists is that they have no way conduct scientific experiment on monetary policies. Yes, there are data, but interpretation is everything.
Economists can have interpretations that fit the data but it turns out to be bollock.
Economists can have interpretations that fit the data but it turns out to be bollock.
Yes, Economists may not like to hear this, but Economics is at best a proto-science. Beside the practical difficulty of performing controlled experiments with economic policies (as you pointed out), there's also the problem that Economics is not yet grounded on any meaningful substrate in the "great stack of science". Unlike Chemistry, for instance, which is firmly grounded on the Physics substrate.
Nevertheless, my opinion is that when eventually Economics does become a science it is more likely to resemble Keynesianism than the Austrian school so favoured by this forum's hivemind.
Ah, no. Economics is, indeed, a science. It's just that it's not that kind of science. It's a social science, not a physical science. As such, it's laws are based on how humans act, and therefore how they think. Hence the name of the Austrian classic, Human Action. Anyone who trys to tell you that mathmatical formulas can be derived from the economic data, or that the laws of economics drive the public and not the other way around, (*cough* Keynes *cough*) is full of crap. Economics is the "dismal science" because it's a social science. Physics is easy, your experiments (above quantum) are not affected by observations. Humans don't act that way, they respond differently to the same stimuli, and moreso when they are aware that they are the experiment.
USD inflation is extremely low? What parallel universe are you in?
Must be that "crazy" parallel universe that relies on hard data instead of conspiracy theories.
Check out the stats from the OECD and verify for yourself.
Their charts are flawed because they decided to remove volatile items like gas and food back in the 80ies. That way inflation would always paint a rosier picture. Gas and food inflation is in the double digit range right now. I'll tell you my wallet feels the inflation, even if the "experts" don't think there is any.
I, for one, am very much curious about what Krugman would say about the economic aspects of Bitcoin.
And by the way, why all the disdain for Krugman expressed in this thread? As far as mainstream economists go, I have the utmost respect for him. He has been consistently been correct on his predictions and he has always been coherent with his arguments.
And by the way, why all the disdain for Krugman expressed in this thread? As far as mainstream economists go, I have the utmost respect for him. He has been consistently been correct on his predictions and he has always been coherent with his arguments.
LOL! What nonsense! There has been numerous articles from real economists pointing out Krugman's poor prediction record! One I've seen actually demonstrated how Krugman is only slightly better than throwing darts at a dartboard blindfolded. If you want to see an economist with a real track record for accuracy, try Mish (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/) Peter Schiff (http://www.europac.net/) or Rich Maybury (http://chaostan.com/). All of these guys actually make money, real fortunes, based upon their predictions. Krugman makes money selling advice to readers of the NYT. He's the economic version of "ask Nancy".
If you are taking your advice from someone who doesn't make a living from his own advice, you are an idiot.
I've been trying to find the article where someone points out all of the times that Krugman has been wrong about the financial crisis and changed his position afterward. Unfortunately I cannot find it.
Here's one: http://mises.org/daily/3530
The problem with economists is that they have no way conduct scientific experiment on monetary policies. Yes, there are data, but interpretation is everything.
Economists can have interpretations that fit the data but it turns out to be bollock.
Economists can have interpretations that fit the data but it turns out to be bollock.
Yes, Economists may not like to hear this, but Economics is at best a proto-science. Beside the practical difficulty of performing controlled experiments with economic policies (as you pointed out), there's also the problem that Economics is not yet grounded on any meaningful substrate in the "great stack of science". Unlike Chemistry, for instance, which is firmly grounded on the Physics substrate.
Nevertheless, my opinion is that when eventually Economics does become a science it is more likely to resemble Keynesianism than the Austrian school so favoured by this forum's hivemind.
USD inflation is extremely low? What parallel universe are you in?
Must be that "crazy" parallel universe that relies on hard data instead of conspiracy theories.
Check out the stats from the OECD and verify for yourself.
This depends entirely on how one defines inflation. I didn't bother reading your link, but IIRC the OECD defines inflation as the general rise in consumer prices. This is not how anyone with an Austrian Economic Theory perspective would define it, nor is it how the majority of economists define it. That metric is only how governments that print money define it.
USD inflation is extremely low? What parallel universe are you in?
Must be that "crazy" parallel universe that relies on hard data instead of conspiracy theories.
Check out the stats from the OECD and verify for yourself.
You didn't link to any stats, just a web site which may or may not contain stats somewhere, and when the stats are eventually located, may or may not be valid.
USD inflation is extremely low? What parallel universe are you in?
Must be that "crazy" parallel universe that relies on hard data instead of conspiracy theories.
Check out the stats from the OECD and verify for yourself.
I, for one, am very much curious about what Krugman would say about the economic aspects of Bitcoin.
And by the way, why all the disdain for Krugman expressed in this thread? As far as mainstream economists go, I have the utmost respect for him. He has been consistently been correct on his predictions and he has always been coherent with his arguments.
And by the way, why all the disdain for Krugman expressed in this thread? As far as mainstream economists go, I have the utmost respect for him. He has been consistently been correct on his predictions and he has always been coherent with his arguments.
LOL! What nonsense! There has been numerous articles from real economists pointing out Krugman's poor prediction record! One I've seen actually demonstrated how Krugman is only slightly better than throwing darts at a dartboard blindfolded. If you want to see an economist with a real track record for accuracy, try Mish (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/) Peter Schiff (http://www.europac.net/) or Rich Maybury (http://chaostan.com/). All of these guys actually make money, real fortunes, based upon their predictions. Krugman makes money selling advice to readers of the NYT. He's the economic version of "ask Nancy".
If you are taking your advice from someone who doesn't make a living from his own advice, you are an idiot.
Krugman's opinion would be similar to Cowen's or any of the other mainstream guys who refuse to think it is viable:
a wise man once said, "It is difficult for a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
a wise man once said, "It is difficult for a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
Refusal to understand means they lose out on bitcoin.
Krugman's opinion would be similar to Cowen's or any of the other mainstream guys who refuse to think it is viable:
a wise man once said, "It is difficult for a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
a wise man once said, "It is difficult for a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."
USD inflation is extremely low? What parallel universe are you in?
Jump to: