Bitcoin Is Evil (2013)(krugman.blogs.nytimes.com)
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com
Bitcoin Is Evil (2013)
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/bitcoin-is-evil/
70 comments
[deleted]
I don't think it takes a Nobel prize to realize that BitCoin, given its recent extreme volatility, currently makes for a poor medium of exchange.
EDIT: This article is actually from 2013. Around the time Bitcoin went from ~10 to ~1000 USD. I suppose the same was true at that time. Bitcoin was relatively stable hovering around ~500USD from 2014 to 2017.
EDIT: This article is actually from 2013. Around the time Bitcoin went from ~10 to ~1000 USD. I suppose the same was true at that time. Bitcoin was relatively stable hovering around ~500USD from 2014 to 2017.
This reminds me of a quote it once read on a board. Someone claimed that his gold "became much much more". The other guy replied: "Lucky you. I checked mine. It did not become more at all, it is the same amount of gold that was there before. Only the dollar declined."
Friendly reminder, the c in bitcoin is not capitalized.
> BitCoin looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind—to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions.
"evil"
"evil"
Why wouldn't it be evil? Without the ability to collect tax the first ones to suffer are the poor who get increasingly deprived of social welfare programs or rejected for loans and fair interest rates by banks who have to increasingly tighten their credit standards. Without the ability to monitor financial transactions black markets run wild and facilitate the exchange of money for illegal goods and services.
I immediately pictured him making this statement from the bridge of the death star
Can we add "2013" to the title?
I began working in the late 90’s as a web developer. Then adoption of the “consumer” internet was growing rapidly. I recall there was much excitement, naysaying, thoughtful analysis by very smart people, and pure FUD.
There seemed to be a set of fundamentals or values borrowed from existing phonomena and applied to the internet, internet companies, and their potential (for great or evil). These of course lacked the benefit of hindsight and today much of what was said (although well intentioned) turned out to be frankly ridiculous.
I have a gut feeling that in 10 or 20 years we will look back and realize that this new thing has a set of fundamentals all its own. Once those emerge we will be able to have wonderful arguments. Until then I just try to focus on the technology. It’s the only thing I can make reasonable sense of. Let the talking people talk. Let the builders build and let’s just see where this goes.
Crypto currencies like we see now are a new phonomena. We won’t know who the brilliant minds and the fools are until this all shakes out.
There seemed to be a set of fundamentals or values borrowed from existing phonomena and applied to the internet, internet companies, and their potential (for great or evil). These of course lacked the benefit of hindsight and today much of what was said (although well intentioned) turned out to be frankly ridiculous.
I have a gut feeling that in 10 or 20 years we will look back and realize that this new thing has a set of fundamentals all its own. Once those emerge we will be able to have wonderful arguments. Until then I just try to focus on the technology. It’s the only thing I can make reasonable sense of. Let the talking people talk. Let the builders build and let’s just see where this goes.
Crypto currencies like we see now are a new phonomena. We won’t know who the brilliant minds and the fools are until this all shakes out.
From his writing it is clear that he hasn't invested time researching the cryptocoin ecosystem. Who cares if bitcoin is evil it was just a start, and there 's now an entire new financial system being built.
He's too hung up on this:
BitCoin looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind—to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions.
Stross doesn’t like that agenda, and neither do I
pity
He's too hung up on this:
BitCoin looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind—to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions.
Stross doesn’t like that agenda, and neither do I
pity
>BitCoin looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind—to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions.
That's exactly why I (and most people) like it so much..
That's exactly why I (and most people) like it so much..
This whole thing is a reference to the argument presented in another article from 2013:
https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/12/why-i-w...
https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/12/why-i-w...
"To be successful, money must be both a medium of exchange and a reasonably stable store of value." - BitCoin isn't 'money' though.
As for the Charlie Stross link and the claim that BitCoin is 'designed to damage central bankers' - that depends. It certainly is likely to have the effect of making central bankers more honest. Up until recently there were real consequences to printing free-money but after the 2007 financial crisis it seems central bankers banded together to collectively print money from nothing - it became ok as long as others were doing it too. Well the reality is that printing money does have repercussions and one could well argue that the rise of BitCoin is one such repercussion.
Same with the global attempt to eliminate physical cash - it's all great to go digital but when the central bankers decide they want to force everyone to spend more with negative interest rates it can indiscriminately hurt an average worker trying to save money to buy a home! Same goes for taxation - governments think its easy to raise money by increasing taxation, the offshore finance industry used to keep a lid on that until they were cracked down on - digital currencies can fill that gap.
Now there's no doubt that governments and central bankers might dislike control being taken away from them but to claim BitCoin hurts them is a bit like claiming jails hurt convicted felons... IMO.
As for the Charlie Stross link and the claim that BitCoin is 'designed to damage central bankers' - that depends. It certainly is likely to have the effect of making central bankers more honest. Up until recently there were real consequences to printing free-money but after the 2007 financial crisis it seems central bankers banded together to collectively print money from nothing - it became ok as long as others were doing it too. Well the reality is that printing money does have repercussions and one could well argue that the rise of BitCoin is one such repercussion.
Same with the global attempt to eliminate physical cash - it's all great to go digital but when the central bankers decide they want to force everyone to spend more with negative interest rates it can indiscriminately hurt an average worker trying to save money to buy a home! Same goes for taxation - governments think its easy to raise money by increasing taxation, the offshore finance industry used to keep a lid on that until they were cracked down on - digital currencies can fill that gap.
Now there's no doubt that governments and central bankers might dislike control being taken away from them but to claim BitCoin hurts them is a bit like claiming jails hurt convicted felons... IMO.
> control being taken away from them
To whom is this control being handed? It's not going to be the ordinary citizen; it's going to be the global wealthy plus a few early adopters.
> force everyone to spend more with negative interest rates it can indiscriminately hurt an average worker trying to save money to buy a home
Buying a home on a negative interest rate mortgage could be an interesting experience.
To whom is this control being handed? It's not going to be the ordinary citizen; it's going to be the global wealthy plus a few early adopters.
> force everyone to spend more with negative interest rates it can indiscriminately hurt an average worker trying to save money to buy a home
Buying a home on a negative interest rate mortgage could be an interesting experience.
- Being a finite resource, control would seemingly belong to whoever holds the largest amount. The point isn't that the ordinary citizen is going to control it, it is that whatever quantity you have is fixed and can't be debased.
- Negative interest rates are horrible because they tend to impact savers whilst borrowers are typically now subject to a minimum interest rate on their loans.
- Negative interest rates are horrible because they tend to impact savers whilst borrowers are typically now subject to a minimum interest rate on their loans.
There is no way for central bankers to collude and print money without consequences (inflation). Investors can always sell central bank currencies and buy commodities. The reason we're not seeing inflation now is simply that the central banks did it right - they printed an appropriate amount of money, not too much.
In general, "X is evil" sounds like a troll (even though I don't own any BitCoin, etc.)
This author is well known for incorrect predictions, and for not particularly caring about the truth of what he writes:
http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-responds-to-inte...
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.
His defense was essentially that he writes things to attract attention:
It was a thing for the Times magazine's 100th anniversary, written as if by someone looking back from 2098, so the point was to be fun and provocative, not to engage in careful forecasting;
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/elec...
On election night:
It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover? ... Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.
Regardless of what you think of Trump, this statement is hilariously inaccurate.
This author is well known for incorrect predictions, and for not particularly caring about the truth of what he writes:
http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-responds-to-inte...
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.
His defense was essentially that he writes things to attract attention:
It was a thing for the Times magazine's 100th anniversary, written as if by someone looking back from 2098, so the point was to be fun and provocative, not to engage in careful forecasting;
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/elec...
On election night:
It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover? ... Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.
Regardless of what you think of Trump, this statement is hilariously inaccurate.
You're attacking the author rather than the argument. What aspect of this particular article do you have a problem with?
There is plenty of informed criticism of BitCoin out there. I'm saying that you shouldn't bother reading it from this person.
I might even agree with him, but I don't read articles by trolls as a matter of personal policy.
Other HN users might not know what he has written in the past, so I thought it was a good idea to inform them.
I might even agree with him, but I don't read articles by trolls as a matter of personal policy.
Other HN users might not know what he has written in the past, so I thought it was a good idea to inform them.
This is actually one of the best authors people can read from. Regarding your second link, Krugman has already admitted his prediction did not come to pass.
On a number of issues Krugman has proven a good deal more accurate than other economists, such as: -Whether or not Federal Reserve would cause inflation -Whether the stimulus in 2008 would help the economy -Whether or not Obamacare would work and more on his near daily blogging/tweeting.
Sure he's definitely made mistakes, but who hasn't, and at least he has owned up to them.
On a number of issues Krugman has proven a good deal more accurate than other economists, such as: -Whether or not Federal Reserve would cause inflation -Whether the stimulus in 2008 would help the economy -Whether or not Obamacare would work and more on his near daily blogging/tweeting.
Sure he's definitely made mistakes, but who hasn't, and at least he has owned up to them.
I follow a podcast dedicated to his fallacies (contrakrugman). He may be an expert on some issues, but he fails in many others, some miserably. He was clueless about Bitcoin years ago perhaps he learnt some now but his credibility on the issue is rather low.
[deleted]
fallacies? Hardly, that is like saying I listen to Rush Limbaugh to disprove the fallacies of Rachel Maddow.
[deleted]
Generally agreed. Re: the markets never recovering post-Trump, he retracted that prediction shortly after making it, and admitted it was something he said in the heat of the moment, without properly thinking things through: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/the-long-haul
The thing is with modern journalism, anyone can publish anything, how do you know it's worth digesting? It's impossible for you to fact check everything in an article, nor is it possible for you know the future. Therefore trust is essential to reading and accepting an idea.
There's no guarantee of quality other than the author's credential and history. If an author repeatedly makes incorrect and outlandish claim, why would you give his future articles the benefit of the doubt?
There's no guarantee of quality other than the author's credential and history. If an author repeatedly makes incorrect and outlandish claim, why would you give his future articles the benefit of the doubt?
> There's no guarantee of quality other than the author's credential and history.
Actually, a publication like the New York Times purports to have a strict editorial process. If Krugman were to write an op/ed piece claiming Martians understand economics better than Jovians but not as well as Venusians, the NYT probably wouldn't publish it.
So in addition to "credential" and "history" you can add "editorial vetting" or something worded similarly.
Actually, a publication like the New York Times purports to have a strict editorial process. If Krugman were to write an op/ed piece claiming Martians understand economics better than Jovians but not as well as Venusians, the NYT probably wouldn't publish it.
So in addition to "credential" and "history" you can add "editorial vetting" or something worded similarly.
Right so then it's the NYT's credential that's on the line. The point is, questioning an author's history or the author's editorial company's history is completely within reason.
Well for me the title. The premise of the article appears to be "author unconvinced bitcoin is stable store of value". The title appears to be nothing but click bait.
Journalists and columnists don't always have control or final say about the printed titles of their work.
The thing is with modern journalism, anyone can publish anything, how do you know it's worth digesting? There's no guarantee of quality other than the author's credential and history. If an author repeatedly makes incorrect and outlandish claim, why would you give his future articles the benefit of the doubt?
Well, Krugman has been very wrong about very important issues, several times. To the point that questioning his bias and ulterior motives is mandatory.
https://www.quora.com/What-things-has-Paul-Krugman-been-very...
There's nothing in his article. No content. He basically quotes a couple other articles, a personal unsubstantiated anecdote, a "let's talk", and the headline is "Bitcoin is evil".
Article is noise.
https://www.quora.com/What-things-has-Paul-Krugman-been-very...
There's nothing in his article. No content. He basically quotes a couple other articles, a personal unsubstantiated anecdote, a "let's talk", and the headline is "Bitcoin is evil".
Article is noise.
He fails to understand the fact that it's not necessarily Bitcoin _per-se_ that will bring change to world economy and the banking structure; it's the underlying technology that has value and perhaps even for Bitcoin itself it's where the store of value lies.
Bitcoin does not exist outside of modern technology. It’s very existence relies on the internet. But the internet isn’t some nebulous thing that exists in a void outside of human economy. So there’s a fundamental cost in a currency other than bitcoin that must be paid in that other currency before the bitcoin transaction may take place. In the language of Econ, Bitcoins transaction costs include interacting with another (more broad) currency. The value of bitcoin then will, must always be dependent upon another currency. Hardly seems the Libertatian panacea that it’s made out to be.
As for Krugman and predictions, one never makes a prediction without a hearty dose of humility. Predictions are the playthings of fools. Believe me, he knows that. But predictions still produce clicks and views.
Edit-
One might liken bitcoins value through Greshams law (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law ).
As for Krugman and predictions, one never makes a prediction without a hearty dose of humility. Predictions are the playthings of fools. Believe me, he knows that. But predictions still produce clicks and views.
Edit-
One might liken bitcoins value through Greshams law (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law ).
I got into btc in 2013 because I could plug a box into a wall and in generated value that I could then use to make purchases. There are people that exist entirely in the crypto economy and did not put cash in or out. BTC is a drop in the bucket compared to other securities in the world, but your premise of that it has to exist on other currencies isn't true in my view.
[deleted]
And what exactly is the value proposition of the underlying technology?
Getting closer to frictionless payments.
Getting access to a number of services that we currently use banks for - without using banks.
Note: my reply is about blockchains, not about bitcoin.
I've more or less given up on bitcoin and think other crypto tokens have a far better chance in the long run.
Getting access to a number of services that we currently use banks for - without using banks.
Note: my reply is about blockchains, not about bitcoin.
I've more or less given up on bitcoin and think other crypto tokens have a far better chance in the long run.
> Getting closer to frictionless payments.
Pardon my ignorance. I see this mentioned a lot. What do you mean by frictionless payments?
> Getting access to a number of services that we currently use banks for - without using banks
What services in particular? And what's preferable about using blockchain technology for these services?
Pardon my ignorance. I see this mentioned a lot. What do you mean by frictionless payments?
> Getting access to a number of services that we currently use banks for - without using banks
What services in particular? And what's preferable about using blockchain technology for these services?
> What do you mean by frictionless payments?
I mean in the same way as email is frictionless compared to mail: you can send all day, it arrives halfway around the globe in seconds, fees are significantly lower.
> What services in particular?
For most people? Money transfer.
> And what's preferable about using blockchain technology for these services?
AFAIK because it is a way to make this happen without having to trust a number of institutions that are rich because of the current setup and might have a huge conflict of interest.
Again: IMO this is about the technology, not about Bitcoin.
I mean in the same way as email is frictionless compared to mail: you can send all day, it arrives halfway around the globe in seconds, fees are significantly lower.
> What services in particular?
For most people? Money transfer.
> And what's preferable about using blockchain technology for these services?
AFAIK because it is a way to make this happen without having to trust a number of institutions that are rich because of the current setup and might have a huge conflict of interest.
Again: IMO this is about the technology, not about Bitcoin.
The short answer; decentralized, trustless consensus. But I don't think Bitcoin's blockchain will be the winning platform in the future.
I don't think economists take him seriously since he is often wrong (which is not extraordinary for economists) but he tends to base his conclusions on his politics.
Bush Debt: "Not good"
Obama Debt: "Good"
Trump Debt: "Not good"[1]
Anyway, he's entertaining --but not a good prognosticator.
[1]I have not voted republican, if that means anything.
Bush Debt: "Not good"
Obama Debt: "Good"
Trump Debt: "Not good"[1]
Anyway, he's entertaining --but not a good prognosticator.
[1]I have not voted republican, if that means anything.
If you follow Krugman, you'd observe the difference in his opinions on Obama debt and Bush/Trump debt surround the real-world events of economic recovery. Krugman often argues for Keynesian economics[1], in that you should drive up deficits in times of economic hardship, and drive them down in times of economic prosperity.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
There were a lot of people who disagreed with the Quantitative Easing, specially some of our trading partners.
It seems to have worked for us, but there is Japan who took QE to new heights but to little avail --unless we are to think they'd be even more middling had they not QEd things.
It seems to have worked for us, but there is Japan who took QE to new heights but to little avail --unless we are to think they'd be even more middling had they not QEd things.
That's a completely different topic of argument. _You_ may not agree with Keynesian economics, and may have examples to cite for your reasoning, but it doesn't speak to Krugman's consistency.
Additionally, QE was only a piece of the recovery. Keynesian economics also advocates for direct investment in infrastructure and other government spending to get people working and money moving.
Additionally, QE was only a piece of the recovery. Keynesian economics also advocates for direct investment in infrastructure and other government spending to get people working and money moving.
yes his economics are more complicated than "debt good", that doesn't make him inconsistent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics#Active_fis...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics#Active_fis...
>BitCoin looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind—to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions.
Care to provide your opinion on the actual reason he feels it is evil, or are is it knee-jerk Ad-Hominem day on Hacker news?
Care to provide your opinion on the actual reason he feels it is evil, or are is it knee-jerk Ad-Hominem day on Hacker news?
Totally agree that the goal is to smash central banking. I also think that the cryptoanarchist community must h8 central banking. How could anyone blame them with where our economy has gone. That being said, i think central banking is a great tool, it is just the fed is too conservative.
>How could anyone blame them with where our economy has gone.
We're like the richest we've ever been as a society. Even poor Americans are pretty damn rich compared to the past. Even if you want to make an argument about wealth inequality, crypto doesn't really solve that.
The Federal Reserve is actually an extremely responsible body, despite what people claim or what banks that they have no real control over do.
We're like the richest we've ever been as a society. Even poor Americans are pretty damn rich compared to the past. Even if you want to make an argument about wealth inequality, crypto doesn't really solve that.
The Federal Reserve is actually an extremely responsible body, despite what people claim or what banks that they have no real control over do.
whether or not it's extremely responsible is irrelevant; while I don't think they intend it that way, their mission is to extract the wealth from the poor and give it to the rich in the name of 'growth' and 'stability'.
You do not see folks wandering around the tenderloin getting negative real interest rate loans or their businesses bailed out. The economic value to fund the fed's operations comes out of the spending power of the rest of us.
You do not see folks wandering around the tenderloin getting negative real interest rate loans or their businesses bailed out. The economic value to fund the fed's operations comes out of the spending power of the rest of us.
> their mission is to extract the wealth from the poor and give it to the rich in the name of 'growth' and 'stability'.
Citation needed. Even if you mean it as obvious hyperbole, I’d like to hear some evidence for how central banks “extract money from the poor.”
Citation needed. Even if you mean it as obvious hyperbole, I’d like to hear some evidence for how central banks “extract money from the poor.”
I never said extract money, I said extract wealth.
Increasing the cost of living by targetting positive inflation. If you're poor and the cost of living goes up the relative margin of survival decreases faster than for the wealthy.
Let's say you spend 98% and there's 1% inflation. Your margin of survival goes down 50%, whereas someone spending 20% barely feels it.
If you have more questions, my contact is in the profile. This is only scratching the surface.
Increasing the cost of living by targetting positive inflation. If you're poor and the cost of living goes up the relative margin of survival decreases faster than for the wealthy.
Let's say you spend 98% and there's 1% inflation. Your margin of survival goes down 50%, whereas someone spending 20% barely feels it.
If you have more questions, my contact is in the profile. This is only scratching the surface.
While it's regularly said that 'we're the richest we've ever been', how justifiable a comment is that? At the most basic level we surely would consider wealth to be the ability to comfortably afford housing, food, healthcare, some solid entertainment, and have plenty saved away for a comfortable retirement or in cases of emergencies. Yet we live in a nation where 69% [1] of people have less than $1k saved, and 85% have less than $10k. About 1 out of 8 people are on food stamps. Education is completely unaffordable for most people without taking on very substantial levels of debt. One of the few things able to compete against education costs are healthcare costs which are growing similarly unreasonable for most people.
How has the average life experience between the quintiles changed? I think this is something that cannot be so easily quantified, even more so when there's subjectivity involved in the quantification. So for instance it's easy to consider ourselves rich when we do things like look at prices 'back in the day.' A quick search for prices in the 50s gives me $21 [2] for a toaster in 1951. That'd be about $200 today. So, at a glance, it makes it seem like we must be fabulously wealthy for anybody to be able to afford for $10 or $20 what would have been a fairly meaningful purchase back then. But then we get into weird things when we start looking at relative pricing. Another datum [3] there is that you could get a 1958 Chevrolet Corvette for $3631 in 1958 dollars. But wait... that's only about 180 toasters...? In toaster relative prices that'd be like getting a nice Porsche today for $1800 - $3600!
Of course the relative prices of things change over time, and this is something that inflation completely misses. I'd be curious to know exactly how, which is why I think examining a representative lifestyle in the different quintiles over time would be most informative. How much of the representative income was spent on what things? How distant were their remaining consumer desires away from their means? How much were they able to save? What would be the expected economic impact of some sort of emergency? Inflation alone is far too imprecise a measurement to answer these questions or, equivalently, to justify the grand statements it's used to make.
[1] - https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-...
[2] - http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/50selectrical.html
[3] - http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1950s.html
How has the average life experience between the quintiles changed? I think this is something that cannot be so easily quantified, even more so when there's subjectivity involved in the quantification. So for instance it's easy to consider ourselves rich when we do things like look at prices 'back in the day.' A quick search for prices in the 50s gives me $21 [2] for a toaster in 1951. That'd be about $200 today. So, at a glance, it makes it seem like we must be fabulously wealthy for anybody to be able to afford for $10 or $20 what would have been a fairly meaningful purchase back then. But then we get into weird things when we start looking at relative pricing. Another datum [3] there is that you could get a 1958 Chevrolet Corvette for $3631 in 1958 dollars. But wait... that's only about 180 toasters...? In toaster relative prices that'd be like getting a nice Porsche today for $1800 - $3600!
Of course the relative prices of things change over time, and this is something that inflation completely misses. I'd be curious to know exactly how, which is why I think examining a representative lifestyle in the different quintiles over time would be most informative. How much of the representative income was spent on what things? How distant were their remaining consumer desires away from their means? How much were they able to save? What would be the expected economic impact of some sort of emergency? Inflation alone is far too imprecise a measurement to answer these questions or, equivalently, to justify the grand statements it's used to make.
[1] - https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/09/25/how-much-does-the-...
[2] - http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/50selectrical.html
[3] - http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1950s.html
I choose more to look at the fact that what our standards for much of that, housing, food, etc. have risen, and what we consider the bare minimum is fanciful living compared to what they settled for a century ago.
Much of that is to the credit of technological innovation, but then technological innovation often comes out of a well-functioning economy.
Much of that is to the credit of technological innovation, but then technological innovation often comes out of a well-functioning economy.
This is the Federal Reserve's balance sheet:
http://www.econdataus.com/fedbal.html
This is the effective federal funds rate:
https://www.frbatlanta.org/-/media/images/education/publicat...
Do those charts really look "conservative" to you?
http://www.econdataus.com/fedbal.html
This is the effective federal funds rate:
https://www.frbatlanta.org/-/media/images/education/publicat...
Do those charts really look "conservative" to you?
> goal is to smash central banking
Well, if that's the goal, BTC with its high transaction costs/low throughput/high backlog is not going to do it. It would be some other CCY. The problem with this is that once BTC is no longer "special" than all crytpo currencies are just fiat money and even if you cannot create more than 21MM bitcoins, you can create unlimited crypto currencies. put another way, set membership is fixed, but the number of sets is limitless.
So the biggest risk from a valuation perspective is if BTC starts to seem less "special".
Well, if that's the goal, BTC with its high transaction costs/low throughput/high backlog is not going to do it. It would be some other CCY. The problem with this is that once BTC is no longer "special" than all crytpo currencies are just fiat money and even if you cannot create more than 21MM bitcoins, you can create unlimited crypto currencies. put another way, set membership is fixed, but the number of sets is limitless.
So the biggest risk from a valuation perspective is if BTC starts to seem less "special".
I’m of the belief that BitCoin is also effectively unlimited supply, since its minimum denomination can be changed via consensus. The supply is limited to 21mm full “coins” yes, but the precision is configurable according to consensus. Currently it’s 1mm Satoshi per BTC but that can be changed even without a hard fork.
> How could anyone blame them with where our economy has gone.
This economy has gone nowhere but up. Those who are not going up with it are likely being held down by other systemic issues, not because the game is "rigged".
This economy has gone nowhere but up. Those who are not going up with it are likely being held down by other systemic issues, not because the game is "rigged".
> This economy has gone nowhere but up
that's a subjective call encodes what things you care about. Look nobody's going to say the median standard of living hasn't increased (although it has stagnated of late), but we don't know what it could have been. How much of the increase in standard of living is due to the economic structure, and how much is due to technological improvement? People aren't starving in the streets when we have a depression-level economic displacement. The fed loves to argue that it's because of its stewardship, but let's be honest, it's because of Norman Borlaug (and the like).
Finally, you can't be sure that the 'systemic issues' that are 'holding down' those who are 'not going up' aren't the factors that causing the rest of the economy to go up.
If you don't think the game is 'rigged' show me where I can get one of those negative real interest rate loan I keep hearing are getting floated to 'keep our economy stable'.
that's a subjective call encodes what things you care about. Look nobody's going to say the median standard of living hasn't increased (although it has stagnated of late), but we don't know what it could have been. How much of the increase in standard of living is due to the economic structure, and how much is due to technological improvement? People aren't starving in the streets when we have a depression-level economic displacement. The fed loves to argue that it's because of its stewardship, but let's be honest, it's because of Norman Borlaug (and the like).
Finally, you can't be sure that the 'systemic issues' that are 'holding down' those who are 'not going up' aren't the factors that causing the rest of the economy to go up.
If you don't think the game is 'rigged' show me where I can get one of those negative real interest rate loan I keep hearing are getting floated to 'keep our economy stable'.
Curious about what the difference between "systemic issues" and 'the game being "rigged"' is?
One is usually an an inherent problem (e.g. with design, implementation) and the other implies a bad actor manipulating the thing in question.
A system can be rigged even when everyone thinks they're doing the right thing. For example, the system for academic promotion at universities is a very much 'rigged' game, there are the 'real rules' and the 'rules they say are the rules', but nobody is manipulating it, it's just an emergent phenomenon from a series of well-intentioned processes.
probably obtaining VC funding in the valley is the same way.
probably obtaining VC funding in the valley is the same way.
"This author is well known for incorrect predictions, and for not particularly caring about the truth of what he writes"
ROTFL. This really describes Krugman well. Of cause bitcoin is "evil" since it limits his ideas of how to "experiment" with money.
ROTFL. This really describes Krugman well. Of cause bitcoin is "evil" since it limits his ideas of how to "experiment" with money.
Now somebody may say "That's now but wait until Bitcoin takes over the world." That's a another problem. Global currency or fixing exchange rates is not a good idea (Bretton Woods was a failure). There is thing called optimum currency area. Euroarea is in trouble because it misses many criteria for optimum currency area. They are fixing them now. Without global fiscal union, world government and free movement of labour, global currency and single global unit of account is not a good thing.
As a payment system it's already choking and can't easily move value form one person to another. You need intermediaries and intermediaries between intermediaries to fix the system. If you end up using Visa or Mastercard payment system to pay in BTC what's the point?
I think cryptocurrencies and have a place in the future, but Bitcoin is not it.