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

281–290 of 520 posts

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#281

Post by icelancer »

ubernostrum wrote: post #8
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…

>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?

This is the type of claim that is fairly dangerous. It is perhaps vitally important to understand WHAT Krugman won the Nobel Prize for, and that was due to his contributions to New Trade Theory. Additionally, his work on NTT (superceded by NNTT I should add) was long, LONG ago, and he has since turned into a political pundit/shill.

Compare it to his polar opposite, say, Hayek, who won it for his general contributions to the field due to libertarian/market anarchist theories. Yet Hayek is widely seen as a crock of shit while Krugman isn't, mostly because he writes for the NYT.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#282

Post by dnautics »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #250
dnautics wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not in any way "intrinsic" value.

Yes it is. The intrinsic value of food is that you can eat it; the intrinsic value of art objects is that you like them. All "intrinsic" value refers to is the use you can make of something without exchanging it for something else. If you were the only person in the world, and you appreciated the appearance of gold, than gold would be intrinsically valuable to you.

I will accept this. How then is it not the case that "if you were the only person in the world, and you appreciated bitcoin, then bitcoin would be intrinsically valuable to you."

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#283

Post by aaren »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #250
dnautics wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not in any way "intrinsic" value.

Yes it is. The intrinsic value of food is that you can eat it; the intrinsic value of art objects is that you like them. All "intrinsic" value refers to is the use you can make of something without exchanging it for something else. If you were the only person in the world, and you appreciated the appearance of gold, than gold would be intrinsically valuable to you.

Then can't I find the function of bitcoin intrinsically valuable?

You mightn't like my tastes but I don't like your gold necklace either.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#284

Post by icelancer »

jshen wrote: post #179
theboywho wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> If a Nobel-winning physicist was writing about physics, you wouldn't dismiss it because the physicist's politics don't agree with yours. First of all, Physics and Economics are two different things. Physics tends to be about facts, Economics is more about opinions, views and theories. It's not because we're not Nobel Prize winners that we shouldn't disagree with the author, and I'm sure there are many well-known e…

Economics is about models that are verified by past events, and further tested through their ability to predict future outcomes. This is the opposite of pure opinion. The fact that many pundits ignore this doesn't make it go away

This is not, strictly speaking, totally accurate. Praxeology doesn't necessarily agree with this viewpoint.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#285

Post by nabla9 »

natrius wrote: post #11

Ignore the flamebait headline. The distinction Krugman makes between positive and normative economics is a useful one. On the positive side, I think Krugman and DeLong are overestimating the strength of the floor for the value of a dollar. Hyperinflation would make it impossible for the Federal Reserve to buy up enough dollars to stabilize the value of the currency. Sure, you can pay taxes with them, but the governme…

Hyperinflation can only occur in cases where debt is in foreign currencies.

For example the German hyperinflation was started by "London ultimatum" that demanded reparations in gold or foreign currency.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#286

Post by icelancer »

etjossem wrote: post #132
greyman wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's entirely correct in saying Bitcoin has zero inherent value, as opposed to gold and USD. No, no, he is NOT correct on that. Bitcoin's inherent value is in the Bitcoin technology. Inherent value of USD is that government declared it has value (by fiat). You can actually create "pretty things" with bitcoin technology, the same way you can create pretty things with gold - those are just other things.

The United States is a superpower that many people enjoy calling home (you may even be among them), and it will probably be around for a good long while. If you chose to live there, you have a civic obligation to pay taxes, which are accepted in USD. If that's not inherent value, I'm really not sure what is. Nobody believes the Bitcoin protocol itself is beautiful in the same sense as gold, although I do know a few c…

> If you chose to live there, you have a civic obligation to pay taxes, which are accepted in USD.

1) Can you produce my signature on said document that certified this contract?

2) Let's assume I choose to expatriate because I no longer wish to pay taxes and support this country's views. Why, then, might I owe a large "exit tax" upon leaving when I've already paid capital gains tax, income tax, sales tax...

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#288

Post by kordless »

dcc1 wrote: post #153
kordless wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is able to facilitate transactions because of the power put into the computers running the Bitcoin network. Mining Bitcoin provides the functionality for validating the block chain. So, power into the network provides the value of security.

Newer mining equipment doesnt use as much electricity. Power is a variable but not an important one.

Regardless, power is used to run the equipment. There's a correlation here.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#289

Post by jshen »

icelancer wrote: post #284
jshen wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economics is about models that are verified by past events, and further tested through their ability to predict future outcomes. This is the opposite of pure opinion. The fact that many pundits ignore this doesn't make it go away

This is not, strictly speaking, totally accurate. Praxeology doesn't necessarily agree with this viewpoint.

That's why you shouldn't follow Austrian economics.

Edit: also, Austrian economics is like pseudoscience, it isn't representative of real economics

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#290

Post by yen223 »

maxerickson wrote: post #85
natrius wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We weren't in imminent danger of hyperinflation. I think mass adoption of Bitcoin will cause hyperinflation. If every merchant you patronize today accepted Bitcoin, would you rather have Bitcoin in your bank account or dollars? I'd rather have Bitcoin. They're easier to transfer, they can't be counterfeited, and their supply can't be manipulated. If every merchant accepts Bitcoin and every consumer agrees with my log…

The bitcoin supply can't be trivially manipulated. It's still vulnerable to computational attacks (no matter how impractical they may be) and miner collusion.

Bitcoin's limited supply will make it very vulnerable to traditional market manipulation.
Post reply on HN