Hate to be that guy, but what is the purpose of digging this up? To say "ha ha, the Internet is amazing?"
Because he had the gall to make fun of Bitcoin. So now instead of refuting his opinions directly we're going to to do shit like this.
Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
11–20 of 42 posts
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#12Full quotes: * The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in "Metcalfe's law"--which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants--becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's. * As th…
"Why most economists' predictions are wrong." - By an economist whose predictions are mostly wrong.
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#13Full quotes: * The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in "Metcalfe's law"--which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants--becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's. * As th…
How is this guy still taken seriously?
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#14Beware of cynics. Despite this being on hacker news, Krugman's incorrect prediction actually doesn't harm his reputation significantly. Pessimism and pointing out of flaws elevates your status, while optimism can be construed as being naive.
Doesn't harm his reputation? It shows, clearly, that the man, while being an expert in one field, and while being objectively smart, can be a complete moron in another field and make very very very wrong "predictions".
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#15Hate to be that guy, but what is the purpose of digging this up? To say "ha ha, the Internet is amazing?"
Because he had the gall to make fun of Bitcoin. So now instead of refuting his opinions directly we're going to to do shit like this.
I don't think opinions are meant to be refuted.
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#16He actually wrote a new post today, saying that "Bitcoin is Evil" was supposed to be a joke. Allegedly, nobody in the Bitcoin community understood it and now he complains about the lack of sense of humor that the Bitcoin community demonstrated. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/the-humor-test/
Clearly the 'Bitcoin is Evil' title was meant in jest. He doesn't say anything like that in the article. Like most article titles on the web it was link bait. The substance of the piece though seems perfectly sensible to me.
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#17Beware of cynics. Despite this being on hacker news, Krugman's incorrect prediction actually doesn't harm his reputation significantly. Pessimism and pointing out of flaws elevates your status, while optimism can be construed as being naive.
Predictions are irrelevant. What truly harms Krugman's reputation is his open support of the violent state system, quote: "USD is backed by people with guns while Bitcoin is not". I think he quite clearly understands what Bitcoin stands for and I think he correctly identified that it has more to offer to those who lean libertarian. What he either doesn't say or doesn't believe in is that states and central bankers are a violent group of thugs who exploit other people by either fooling them or threatening them. I know many people on HN do not share this point of view. Fine. Problem is, Bitcoin will bring this fact to light so that no one would be able to obscure it with meaningless words and lies.
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#18Beware of cynics. Despite this being on hacker news, Krugman's incorrect prediction actually doesn't harm his reputation significantly. Pessimism and pointing out of flaws elevates your status, while optimism can be construed as being naive.
Doesn't harm his reputation? It shows, clearly, that the man, while being an expert in one field, and while being objectively smart, can be a complete moron in another field and make very very very wrong "predictions".
>can be a complete moron in another field
A complete moron? In the field of monetary economics? Yeah, okay. You may think Bitcoin is major internet monies, but the economists are interested in studying it from aspect of a medium of exchange.
Discussing economics on HackerNews is like discussing medicine on Reddit: everyone is an expert, whether they know anything about the subject or not.
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#19He who has not made an incorrect prediction in the past 15 years shall cast the first stone....
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#20Krugman's prediction (originally pointed out by the title of this HN post): "By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."
The most puzzling thing is that he's not far from right, in a national economics sense at least. Here's the riddle: US GDP has only increased by 25% in real terms since the year 2000. But if you took an average HN reader and sent them back there, to before the mobile phone and high speed residential broadband became widespread, they would kill themselves. How is that possible...? :)