Nobel economist Krugman on bitcoin and crypto-currencies.

[marcus_of_augustus]

""

[1715061439]

1715061439

[1715061439]

1715061439

[molecular]

""

So, Krugman didn't say anyting?

[Malamute]

""

So, Krugman didn't say anyting?

Even if he did, it's as good as saying nothing. The guy is a Keynesian sham economist.

[kjj]

Hmm.  Krugman isn't usually this eloquent.  Not usually this brief either.  I think that quote is from an impostor.

[DrSammyD]

http://www.icanhasinternets.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Internet-Quotes.jpg

[orthzar]

Hmmm, it sounds like Krugman was able to keep his opinion short and concise this time.   So is "" logically consistent?

Joking aside, I would very much like to hear about Krugman's opinion on Bitcoin.   The title of this thread is comparable to the time I heard the Bitcoin.org founder was going to meet with the CIA (or whoever) to talk specifically about Bitcoin; I have no other info on the meeting with CIA nor its accuracy.

[goatpig]

Hmmm, it sounds like Krugman was able to keep his opinion short and concise this time.   So is "" logically consistent?

Joking aside, I would very much like to hear about Krugman's opinion on Bitcoin.   The title of this thread is comparable to the time I heard the Bitcoin.org founder was going to meet with the CIA (or whoever) to talk specifically about Bitcoin; I have no other info on the meeting with CIA nor its accuracy.

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=6652.msg97181#msg97181

You talking about this?

[jon_smark]

I, for one, am very much curious about what Krugman would say about the economic aspects of Bitcoin.

And by the way, why all the disdain for Krugman expressed in this thread?  As far as mainstream economists go, I have the utmost respect for him.  He has been consistently been correct on his predictions and he has always been coherent with his arguments.  Case in point: he clamored against the irresponsible build up of the deficit during the Bush years, because the Keynesian doctrine argues (correctly in my view) that during the "good times" one is supposed to reduce the debt so that a larger margin of maneuver is gained for increasing government spending during the "bad times".  Remember that many other economists (Greenspan et al) were actually against having a government surplus and cheered on the irresponsible Bush tax cuts.

Another point of reflection for this forum's hivemind: despite goldbugs having for many years been constantly raving about hyper-inflation, the fact is the US continues to have a rate of inflation that is extremely low by historical standards.  A rate so low that deflation is actually a bigger worry.  This is exactly the sort of outcome that Krugman predicted given the liquidity trap situation the US found itself in after the 2008 crisis.

[kiba]

The problem with economists is that they have no way conduct scientific experiment on monetary policies. Yes, there are data, but interpretation is everything.

Economists can have interpretations that fit the data but it turns out to be bollock.

[error]

USD inflation is extremely low? What parallel universe are you in?

[Cusipzzz]

Krugman's opinion would be similar to Cowen's or any of the other mainstream guys who refuse to think it is viable:

a wise man once said, "It is difficult for a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."

[kiba]

Krugman's opinion would be similar to Cowen's or any of the other mainstream guys who refuse to think it is viable:

a wise man once said, "It is difficult for a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."

Refusal to understand means they lose out on bitcoin.

[MoonShadow]

I, for one, am very much curious about what Krugman would say about the economic aspects of Bitcoin.

And by the way, why all the disdain for Krugman expressed in this thread?  As far as mainstream economists go, I have the utmost respect for him.  He has been consistently been correct on his predictions and he has always been coherent with his arguments.

LOL!  What nonsense!  There has been numerous articles from real economists pointing out Krugman's poor prediction record!  One I've seen actually demonstrated how Krugman is only slightly better than throwing darts at a dartboard blindfolded.  If you want to see an economist with a real track record for accuracy, try Mish (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/)  Peter Schiff (http://www.europac.net/) or Rich Maybury (http://chaostan.com/).  All of these guys actually make money, real fortunes, based upon their predictions.  Krugman makes money selling advice to readers of the NYT.  He's the economic version of "ask Nancy".

If you are taking your advice from someone who doesn't make a living from his own advice, you are an idiot.

[jon_smark]

USD inflation is extremely low? What parallel universe are you in?

Must be that "crazy" parallel universe that relies on hard data instead of conspiracy theories.
Check out the stats from the OECD and verify for yourself.

[error]

USD inflation is extremely low? What parallel universe are you in?

Must be that "crazy" parallel universe that relies on hard data instead of conspiracy theories.
Check out the stats from the OECD and verify for yourself.

You didn't link to any stats, just a web site which may or may not contain stats somewhere, and when the stats are eventually located, may or may not be valid.

[MoonShadow]

USD inflation is extremely low? What parallel universe are you in?

Must be that "crazy" parallel universe that relies on hard data instead of conspiracy theories.
Check out the stats from the OECD and verify for yourself.

This depends entirely on how one defines inflation.  I didn't bother reading your link, but IIRC the OECD defines inflation as the general rise in consumer prices.  This is not how anyone with an Austrian Economic Theory perspective would define it, nor is it how the majority of economists define it.  That metric is only how governments that print money define it.

[jon_smark]

The problem with economists is that they have no way conduct scientific experiment on monetary policies. Yes, there are data, but interpretation is everything.

Economists can have interpretations that fit the data but it turns out to be bollock.

Yes, Economists may not like to hear this, but Economics is at best a proto-science. Beside the practical difficulty of performing controlled experiments with economic policies (as you pointed out), there's also the problem that Economics is not yet grounded on any meaningful substrate in the "great stack of science".  Unlike Chemistry, for instance, which is firmly grounded on the Physics substrate.

Nevertheless, my opinion is that when eventually Economics does become a science it is more likely to resemble Keynesianism than the Austrian school so favoured by this forum's hivemind.

[BitterTea]

I, for one, am very much curious about what Krugman would say about the economic aspects of Bitcoin.

And by the way, why all the disdain for Krugman expressed in this thread?  As far as mainstream economists go, I have the utmost respect for him.  He has been consistently been correct on his predictions and he has always been coherent with his arguments.

LOL!  What nonsense!  There has been numerous articles from real economists pointing out Krugman's poor prediction record!  One I've seen actually demonstrated how Krugman is only slightly better than throwing darts at a dartboard blindfolded.  If you want to see an economist with a real track record for accuracy, try Mish (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/)  Peter Schiff (http://www.europac.net/) or Rich Maybury (http://chaostan.com/).  All of these guys actually make money, real fortunes, based upon their predictions.  Krugman makes money selling advice to readers of the NYT.  He's the economic version of "ask Nancy".

If you are taking your advice from someone who doesn't make a living from his own advice, you are an idiot.

I've been trying to find the article where someone points out all of the times that Krugman has been wrong about the financial crisis and changed his position afterward. Unfortunately I cannot find it.

Here's one: http://mises.org/daily/3530

[Bazil]

USD inflation is extremely low? What parallel universe are you in?

Must be that "crazy" parallel universe that relies on hard data instead of conspiracy theories.
Check out the stats from the OECD and verify for yourself.

Their charts are flawed because they decided to remove volatile items like gas and food back in the 80ies.  That way inflation would always paint a rosier picture.  Gas and food inflation is in the double digit range right now.  I'll tell you my wallet feels the inflation, even if the "experts" don't think there is any.

[MoonShadow]

The problem with economists is that they have no way conduct scientific experiment on monetary policies. Yes, there are data, but interpretation is everything.

Economists can have interpretations that fit the data but it turns out to be bollock.

Yes, Economists may not like to hear this, but Economics is at best a proto-science. Beside the practical difficulty of performing controlled experiments with economic policies (as you pointed out), there's also the problem that Economics is not yet grounded on any meaningful substrate in the "great stack of science".  Unlike Chemistry, for instance, which is firmly grounded on the Physics substrate.

Nevertheless, my opinion is that when eventually Economics does become a science it is more likely to resemble Keynesianism than the Austrian school so favoured by this forum's hivemind.

Ah, no.  Economics is, indeed, a science.  It's just that it's not that kind of science.  It's a social science, not a physical science.  As such, it's laws are based on how humans act, and therefore how they think.  Hence the name of the Austrian classic, Human Action.  Anyone who trys to tell you that mathmatical formulas can be derived from the economic data, or that the laws of economics drive the public and not the other way around, (*cough* Keynes *cough*) is full of crap.  Economics is the "dismal science" because it's a social science.  Physics is easy, your experiments (above quantum) are not affected by observations.  Humans don't act that way, they respond differently to the same stimuli, and moreso when they are aware that they are the experiment.