Yet another example of Amara's law, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Amara
(sometimes also attributed to Arthur C. Clarke in the form "When it comes to technology, most people overestimate the impact in the short term and underestimate it in the long term").
Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
31–40 of 42 posts
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#32Full 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?
Because he's one of the of the most respected scholars in the field of Economics?
He's likely devoted thousands more hours than us pondering economic matters. I'm just looking through his wiki here... published hundreds of scholarly articles and 20 books. A professor of Economics at some of the best universities in the world. He's even received a Nobel Prize.
How can we fault someone for taking Paul Krugman seriously on economic matters?
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe anyone fully understands macroeconomics, and there is no direct incentive for anyone to do so. Certain powerful interests have an incentive to promote some schools of thought over others, because of political implications that directly impact their business. Bitcoin promoters will typically promote ideologies that help bitcoin, because they've invested in bitcoin. I doubt anyone has a truly unbiased p…
I agree with you and this is why Austrian economics disregards macroeconomics completely.
Doesn't Austrian economics also disregard reality?
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you and this is why Austrian economics disregards macroeconomics completely.
Doesn't Austrian economics also disregard reality? http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
I've read this article sometime ago and what struck me while I was reading it, is that the author actually describes WHY Austrian economics is superior and explains it quite good. I couldn't find an actual reason why he decided to not be an Austrian anymore. tl;dr: of that article is like "So this is what Austrian economics is all about, but I don't subscribe to that point of view anymore".
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't Austrian economics also disregard reality? http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
I've read this article sometime ago and what struck me while I was reading it, is that the author actually describes WHY Austrian economics is superior and explains it quite good. I couldn't find an actual reason why he decided to not be an Austrian anymore. tl;dr: of that article is like "So this is what Austrian economics is all about, but I don't subscribe to that point of view anymore".
I definitely read it differently. The author cited too many examples of how Austrian economic theory doesn't actually jive with empirical evidence.
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this guy still taken seriously?
Because he's one of the of the most respected scholars in the field of Economics? He's likely devoted thousands more hours than us pondering economic matters. I'm just looking through his wiki here... published hundreds of scholarly articles and 20 books. A professor of Economics at some of the best universities in the world. He's even received a Nobel Prize. How can we fault someone for taking Paul Krugman seriously…
Then how could he have been so wrong in his prediction?
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#37Everyone's predictions are wrong because no-one can see into the future. I know that, stated like this, it's a tautological statement. But hopefully you know what I mean.
AND! the existence of different interpretations of history suggest, oddly, that this also applies to the past.
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because he's one of the of the most respected scholars in the field of Economics? He's likely devoted thousands more hours than us pondering economic matters. I'm just looking through his wiki here... published hundreds of scholarly articles and 20 books. A professor of Economics at some of the best universities in the world. He's even received a Nobel Prize. How can we fault someone for taking Paul Krugman seriously…
Then how could he have been so wrong in his prediction?
Please explain exactly how he is wrong. The internet hasn't substantially changed the rate of growth nor the size of the economy. It also hasn't created any new transformative markets. It has simply made them more accessible. That's why the fax machine analogy is so apt.
Amazon is a storefront. Google is an ad service. Facebook is a glorified telegraph service. It doesn't matter how nifty their tech is. The only thing that matters in this context is what they do, and how that affects the overall economy.
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Read the post before jumping to your reply button. > while being an expert in one field, and while being objectively smart, can be a complete moron in another field ye said that Krugman is an expert in his field, but has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to computers and the impact thereof.
>Read the post before jumping to your reply button.
Maybe you should do the same.
Krugman isn't looking at Bitcoin as a technology, but as a currency. Just because he doesn't understand "computers and the imnpact thereof", doesn't mean he doesn't understand Bitcoin as money.
Re: Why most economists' predictions are wrong (1998)
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This isn't really an either-or. We refuted and continue to refute any objective claims he makes while concurrently posting his widely inaccurate predictions from the past. Don't forget, we're attacking someone who is using his reputation as an economist to speak with authority on Bitcoin. The only way you can refute the authority is to refute the individual's previous claims. And it isn't like we've been hiding under…
>The problem with Bitcoin is that the people that informed about it are usually tilt pro-Bitcoin[1], while the people that are against Bitcoin usually haven't done enough research into economics, mathematics, and politics.
99% of this board haven't done the research Mr. Krugman has done in economics, or even have the experience in applied math he does.
But "those who are pro bitcoin are smart, those who are against it aren't", really?
From most of what I've read, here and on /r/bitcoin and elsewhere, Bitcoin proponents are utterly clueless when it comes to economics.