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

391–400 of 520 posts

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#391

Post by itchitawa »

teddyh wrote: post #354
SilasX wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But for the case of jewelry, its usefulness as such depends on it being valuable. So the buck can't stop there: what other use propped up its value?

The usefulness of gold as jewelry is not only its value; it also does not tarnish or rust , which is a very useful property for jewelry.

Nor does glass or plastic-coated aluminium. There are lots of shiny things that people don't want in their jewelry. If diamond were as common and cheap as glass, we'd probably see just as much diamond jewelry as glass. They're not massively "better" at being shiney. Even artificial gems are worth less in than natural ones even if they have fewer defects!

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#392

Post by dnautics »

notahacker wrote: post #319
dnautics wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one, you're crazy thinking that wealthy people hoard their wealth in dollars. two, if you think people won't consume if the money is deflationary, you're crazy. The US had net deflation for most of its history (except during wars) from 1600-1910, and certainly there was plenty of growth. Also, analogous to the "why do you ever bother buying computers knowing that they depreciate rapidly". three. If you think laborers…

If you're going to call me "crazy", I'd appreciate it if you had the courtesy to address their arguments I actually made, rather than ones I didn't... Obviously if I thought wealthy people actually did hoard their wealth in dollars I wouldn't have made the point about inflation inducing people not to hold their wealth in dollars. Wealthy people could, would, and probably should hoard large portions of their wealth in…

> the poor generally benefit a lot more from the rich investing in job creation than the rich buying nice little cabinets full of gold.

Sounds suspiciously like "trickle down economics". And that's not the appropriate comparison. The appropriate comparison is, do the poor benefit more from the rich "investing in job creation" or by themselves having easy access to a mechanism by which their wages and savings are not eroded (in a compounding fashion) by fiat?

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#393

Post by baddox »

XorNot wrote: post #342
alttab wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there is also no way for us the verify a valid and safe vote. Especially with our lively die bold machines. I'll take the thugs, give me a fair vote.

Or you know, just get rid of the diebold machines and do a hand count?

Whose hands?

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#394

Post by vectorpush »

icambron wrote: post #340
mortenjorck wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your putting the distinction between Krugman's arguments into greater relief – I believe I have conflated them somewhat in talking about second order effects. For the time being, let's ignore those and concentrate on the primary purpose of Bitcoin's infrastructure, to facilitate decentralized value transactions between arbitrary parties. It is the infrastructure's fitness for this purpose that I see as g…

Krugman actually takes that on directly in the article: > I have had and am continuing to have a dialogue with smart technologists who are very high on BitCoin — but when I try to get them to explain to me why BitCoin is a reliable store of value, they always seem to come back with explanations about how it’s a terrific medium of exchange. Even if I buy this (which I don’t, entirely), it doesn’t solve my problem. And…

I can trade my dollars for bitcoins and send them to someone, who will convert them to euros on receipt. Then who cares how much they're worth?

You're absolutely correct. People forget that bitcoin functioned just fine as a black market currency back before it became a rite of passage to opine on its future. Barring prohibition by governments, the cryptocoin ecosystem is here to stay and will likely continue to grow.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#395

Post by baddox »

XorNot wrote: post #384
baddox wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mandatory voting might solve that problem, but it might introduce others.

Such as? Australia has mandatory voting as do other countries. We don't have problems with it.

If I were Australian, I would have a problem with it, because I am what you might call a principled abstainer. But apart from personal issues regarding perceived rights violations, there are several obvious advantages and disadvantages, similar to any aspect of election design. I'm not saying compulsory voting is game-breaking, but merely that it's a compromise that one could argue is not desirable.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#396

Post by fat0wl »

jhonovich wrote: post #368
paul wrote: post #159

I'm most bullish on bitcoin when I read articles such as this one, and most skeptical when I read the thoughts of the bitcoin believers. It's truly the most interesting technological development in years, if only because it reveals how little anyone really understands money or economics. Here's another interesting (though imperfect) way of thinking about bitcoin: it's a decentralized corporation, where bitcoins are o…

"I'm most bullish on bitcoin when I read articles such as this one .... it reveals how little anyone really understands money or economics." That is an incredibly arrogant statement, considering the article is from a Nobel prize winning economist and you did nothing to refute or undermine his actual points or references.

lol this this thisssss! bitcoin culture in a nutshell. the major economists & finance analysts say stuff like "explain how this is not a speculative bubble", for example, because they outright see it as one & the bitcoiners dismiss them as hacks because they didn't use a bunch of crypto buzzwords

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#397

Post by SectioAurea »

furyofantares wrote: post #338
fm8892 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not the volatility they're after--they want to hold a deflationary currency (which, at the moment, happens to be volatile).

Aqueous was speaking about BTC right now, in this growth period. But BTC is currently inflationary.

Good point - the early "hockey stick" did in fact end recently with the first ever bearish 10/21 EMA crossover in the BTC/USD 12h timeframe.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#398

Post by XorNot »

baddox wrote: post #395
XorNot wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as? Australia has mandatory voting as do other countries. We don't have problems with it.

If I were Australian, I would have a problem with it, because I am what you might call a principled abstainer. But apart from personal issues regarding perceived rights violations, there are several obvious advantages and disadvantages, similar to any aspect of election design. I'm not saying compulsory voting is game-breaking, but merely that it's a compromise that one could argue is not desirable.

You're under no obligations to actually vote in Australia, just to show up. You can freely get your name ticked off, put a line through all the candidates and write "try harder" and walk out.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#399

Post by olalonde »

jhonovich wrote: post #368
paul wrote: post #159

I'm most bullish on bitcoin when I read articles such as this one, and most skeptical when I read the thoughts of the bitcoin believers. It's truly the most interesting technological development in years, if only because it reveals how little anyone really understands money or economics. Here's another interesting (though imperfect) way of thinking about bitcoin: it's a decentralized corporation, where bitcoins are o…

"I'm most bullish on bitcoin when I read articles such as this one .... it reveals how little anyone really understands money or economics." That is an incredibly arrogant statement, considering the article is from a Nobel prize winning economist and you did nothing to refute or undermine his actual points or references.

I could name at least one Nobel winning economist who has completely opposite views from Krugman. Economics is far from a hard science unfortunately.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#400

Post by dwaltrip »

mrb wrote: post #267
thaumasiotes wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your numbers are badly off. Jewelry is the use referred to when Krugman says "you can use it to make pretty things". (Gold in industrial use is generally invisible). Gold isn't used in jewelry because it's expensive. It's used because it's pretty, it's soft and workable, and it doesn't tarnish. And it's gentler to your skin; my sister's ears are too sensitive to wear cheap nickel earrings. Now, I agree with you that…

You misunderstand me. I know he is talking about jewelry. My point is that people are buying gold jewelry mostly because it is expensive. Yes gold has certain properties, but there are other precious metals with similar properties (platinum, etc). So given the choice between similar metals with similar properties, people will tend to use the most expensive one for jewelry. In other words, Krugman's argument is circul…

It is most likely a combination of these factors, so that gives us something between 45-90%?
Post reply on HN