Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

krugman.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 520 posts

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#4

Post by wcummings »

I have a really hard time taking a column called "The Conscience of a Liberal" seriously, even more so when he claims: "Stross doesn’t like that agenda, and neither do I; but I am trying not to let that tilt my positive analysis of BitCoin one way or the other." in a piece titled "Bitcoin is Evil".

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#6

Post by bdcravens »

1) Bitcoin mining has a pretty horrible carbon footprint. ("but so does ..." doesn't eradicate this argument)

2) similar to the author's point that advocates can't tell the difference between "store" and "medium" of value, I can't tell you the number of arguments I've gotten in with people who equate a "store of value" to be the same thing as the "increase in value"

3) It's a 1% wet dream. Make money, potentially hidden income, avoid taxation? No money paid into the welfare state? WIN!

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#8

Post by ubernostrum »

wcummings wrote: post #4

I have a really hard time taking a column called "The Conscience of a Liberal" seriously, even more so when he claims: "Stross doesn’t like that agenda, and neither do I; but I am trying not to let that tilt my positive analysis of BitCoin one way or the other." in a piece titled "Bitcoin is Evil".

How about taking seriously someone who is, you know, well-known (to the point of receiving a Nobel Prize for his work) for being good at this economics stuff? If a Nobel-winning physicist was writing about physics, you wouldn't dismiss it because the physicist's politics don't agree with yours. Ditto Nobel-winning chemist writing about chemistry, etc.; why should economics be different?

Also, his point about BitCoin enthusiasts being unable to distinguish between what makes a good currency and what pushes their ideological buttons may apply to you.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#9

Post by smtddr »

>>BitCoin looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind—to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions.

So basically it brings an ability to the middle-class that normally only the top 1% have. We know wealthy people use tax loopholes(and a few of them, laundering) and... why do the states need to monitor financial transactions? Don't tell me because terrorism. I'm sick of that being the reason for everything when we have this kind of nonsense[1] happening.

I translate this to: "Bitcoin is designed to free non-rich people from the restrictions, fees & surveillance placed upon them by the wealthy elite"

I don't know if crypo-currency will succeed long-term, but seeing how hardcore scared/doubtful some people are about it makes me think a nerve has been hit. I just hope that if btc fails, it fails naturally/organically/mathematically on its own... not because someone arbitrarily makes it illegal.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6954341

Post reply on HN