Slashdot Mirror
Krugman On Bitcoin and the Gold Standard
twoallbeefpatties writes "Prominent Keynesian economist Paul Krugman has left a note on his blog at NYTimes about his view of Bitcoin, discussing its similarity to the gold standard and suggesting a drop in 'real gross Bitcoin product' as its users hoard the currency rather than spend it."
I'm pretty sure taco wasn't editing the New York Times.
That's why you don't sell uncounterfeitable, undisputable, unrevocable, instantly transferrable Bitcoins for Paypal payments, which can be disputed, paid with stolen credit cards, accounts frozen, etc. Don't blame Bitcoin for PayPal suckage.
By "discussing its similarity to the gold standard" the summary means "he points out one way Bitcoin is flawed." Specifically, that people hoard it instead of spending it (creating an unstable monetary system). Fewer transactions actually means less value, since the whole point of a monetary system that lacks intrinsic value (gold at least had that) is that it gets spent. Since the amount of Bitcoins is limited, and as time goes on the early adopters get "richer" (since less is being mined), they have an incentive not to spend. But the system will only succeed if they do spend and create a thriving system.
This is a massive gaping flaw in Bitcoin that I haven't seen pointed out yet. It means that Bitcoin will nearly always be a deflationary system. It also requires people to keep investing computing time, while their return on investment only gets less and less over time, and early adopters have no reason to spend, creating fewer transactions to be verified. And this can't be fixed: the limit to the number of Bitcoins is builtin to the system and cannot be changed.
So to everyone going "not another Bitcoin story!": read it. It actually points out a way that Bitcoin is (possibly) flawed (unlike so many of the stories on /.) And from a real economist, too.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
While bitcoin is quite interesting from a cryptography point of view, it totally fails to address human nature.
In particular, GREED.
2 years ago it was trivially easy to mine 100s of bitcoins. Hell, you could by 1000 for less than a happy meal. Now people sit on those coins, hoping that bitcoin will become a mainstream currency, in which case the value of a bitcoin would need to rise by many orders of magnitudes. If it reached a capitalization compareable to the USD, that bigmac would become equivalent of $25M.
And there are people around with a much much larger fraction of possible bitcoins than there were ever for any real currency. And the deflationary nature of it will mean that the value of those horders (and thus their economical power) WILL have to grow in case of a success of bitcoin.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Qualifying Krugman as a "prominent Keynesian economist" is like calling Stephen Hawking a "prominent Einsteinian physicist".
I call shenanigans.
That analogy would make sense only if the theories of John Maynard Keynes were as universally accepted as those of Einstein. Economics never has been and probably never will be as testable a science (if it's a science at all) as physics.
. I don't have electricity costs as I take it from the hallway
There ain't no free lunch. Either you're still paying for that electricity indirectly, or someone else is bearing that cost. If the latter - which seems to be more likely - then it's about as moral as tapping that electricity and reselling it directly, then pocketing the profit.
Just because something is provided to you "for free" (really, at the expense of your community) doesn't mean that you should feel free to abuse it for your own sake.
But you can learn from historic reactions to varies pressure. For example Austerity has never gotten anyone out of a recession. Now, if people would look at that, look at it's history and act upon that, we wouldn't be having these issue in Washington.
So the testing part is looking at previous success a failure, and the prediction side would be using the previously success as a reaction to current economic situation and seeing the results.
You can't really do it in the lab, yet, but you can apply it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The fact is "blockexplorer", "block chain", "bitcoin address" are complete gibberish to Paypal (more accurately the minimal wage drone in India working for Paypal). They are trained to either take a USPS, Fedex, or UPS tracking number and verify whether that shipment matches the buyer's and seller's address. That's all they know how to do. No matter how much you explain bitcoins to them they will not understand.
What we want from a monetary system isn't to make people holding money rich; we want it to facilitate transactions and make the economy as a whole rich. And that's not at all what is happening in Bitcoin.
- that's the problem. The entire fiscal policy of USA destroys the value of savings by inflation and this is what destroys the economy.
Spending money is literally what drives the economy. Saving money in a bank does make it available for other people to borrow so that they may spend it. The "redistribution of wealth" is the benefit here, though, not the saving itself.
Bear in mind that dollar prices have been relatively stable over the past few years â" yes, some deflation in 2008-2009,
- RELATIVE TO WHAT, YOU DUMBO? Relative to other flawed currencies? :) Well, not to Swiss Franc. Not to Canadian dollar. Not to NZ dollar. Not to Australian Dollar.
Relative to the purchasing power of the dollar a few years ago. A Big Mac, or a loaf of bread, or a new car costs about as many USD today as it did a few years ago. The dollar is stable. A Big Mac costs a wildly different number of BitCoins today than it did a month ago. The BitCoin is unstable.
then some inflation as commodity prices rebounded, but overall consumer prices are only slightly higher than they were three years ago. What that means is that if you measure prices in Bitcoins, they have plunged; the Bitcoin economy has in effect experienced massive deflation.
- GOOD. Good for those who hold Bitcoins. Bad for those who hold dollars.
Good for those who hold Bitcoins without spending them. Bad for those who spent them. Pretty soon, people will realize that it makes more sense to hold onto Bitcoins than spend them, so no one will spend Bitcoins - they'll hoard them, and spend, say, Dollars instead. This weakens the Bitcoin economy, because no one is spending Bitcoins.
And because of that, there has been an incentive to hoard the virtual currency rather than spending it. The actual value of transactions in Bitcoins has fallen rather than rising. In effect, real gross Bitcoin product has fallen sharply.
- This Keynesian wants you to be poor, do you understand that?
He wants you to pay 3.50USD for your gas, and BTW, he doesn't think it's high enough. They have a target to make it much higher. But he doesn't want you to pay 10 cents for that gallon.
Absolutely. He wants you to have to pay $15 per gallon in 50 years. He also wants minimum wage to be $45 in 50 years. He wants inflation - the purchasing power of $1 to decrease - and for people to have more dollars. This is good for the economy, because it means that spending money is more sensible than hoarding it. This means that people have to keep on working to get more money, and more economic product is produced.
I like how you write devalue the currency like it's nothing. You do understand that by devaluing the currency you destroy the life savings of the elderly and people on fixed income. You basically rob all of the people that lived within their means and saved their whole life to bail out those that borrowed to the hilt and lived like there is no tomorrow.
And we never recovered from the great depression until after WWII and we cut government spending WAY down and fired millions of soldiers. WWII only got us out of the depression if you think the way to get rid of unemployment is to ship millions of unemployed people overseas. Look how people actually lived during WWII. It was terrible with rationing and cost controls on all sorts of products.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Because all the other major industrial powers had been crushed in the war, giving US-based industries an unparalleled opportunity for expansion and near complete control of global markets.
Also, social spending soared after World War II. There was less wealth going to war, and more to infrastructure improvements and individual consumption. That's the opposite of austerity.
And yet, there are governments in the world that do impose limits on themselves and make plans work. Something doesn't become logically impossible just because it's not within your experience.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
You do understand that on the planet Earth, if you actually do this, you will indeed come out from the hole by continually digging?
No, no you will not. What will happen is that eventually you will dig deep enough to reach molten rock and you will die from the heat.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson