As opposed to economists who conceal their political viewpoints to cover the fact that their supposedly scientific economic conclusions are intended to push a given agenda.
One of the best ways to fight your own political biases in areas where you want to try and be more objective is to be incredibly up front about them. That way, people can say, "I think you are indulging your bias in specific manner X." I wish you would do that (be specific about any complaint) instead of dismissing Krugman simply for being honest and up front.
(Also, this implication that moderates tend to be more reasonable is erroneous. Oftentimes the correct answer starts out as marginal aka "extreme" until it is slowly validated moves the whole discourse and moderate is redefined to where one extreme used to be. And oftentimes people are moderates out of ignorance; when you begin examining any given issue and have little knowledge it is natural to stake out a "on the one hand, on the other hand" position until you learn more. Then you cease to be a reasonable moderate, at precisely the moment your knowledge becomes formidable. But I am rambling and need to go outside now :)
But you're getting it backwards - I was unclear. You don't have to be a moderate to consider both sides, but if you consider both sides in my experience you tend to come out more moderate than if you didn't.
Also, his point about BitCoin enthusiasts being unable to distinguish between what makes a good currency and what pushes their ideological buttons may apply to you.
The Econ "Nobel" is a little more rationally awarded than the Nobel Peace Prize, but neither is the same as Physics/Chem/Medicine.
I think it's fine to judge Krugman's political arguments on political merits; there isn't "nobel-caliber" economics behind them. They're usually about things which economics doesn't even address.
Neither did Krugman.
To be successful, money must be both a medium of exchange and a reasonably stable store of value. And it remains completely unclear why BitCoin should be a stable store of value.
And then says he hasn't been able to get an answer to this question, that the BitCoin enthusiasts he's talked to have mostly avoided trying to answer the question, and that he has reason to suspect that BitCoin gets promoted not because it is useful as a currency but because it pushes the right ideological buttons for some people.
And, one must admit, it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask when considering something's usefulness as a currency.
What I'd actually be interested in reading is a proposal from Krugman (or someone else) for a hashcash/cryptocoin/digital money scheme that addresses their concerns.
It would be hugely more interesting to hear economists discuss how new technology can advance antiquated, federated payment networks rather than pointing out well-known flaws in a very immature technology (that I'm still not entirely convinced they understand, technologically speaking).
So maybe BitCoin isn't money? We already have something that is a reasonably stable store of value but is not a medium of exchange (gold), so why can't we have something that is a medium of exchange but not a reasonably stable store of value?
His argument seems to be that if you want something to be genuinely useful as money, it has to do both reliably, and BitCoin only seems able to do one.
A trait gold shares with bitcoin. The volatility makes it terrible as a currency, not to mention the expected rise in value. That makes BTC even worse as a currency - there is no sane reason to spend bitcoin if you believe in the concept.
When, in fact, it lends support to his argument.
I'm not sure what technologists he's been speaking with, but I think the distinction between value store and payment network is abundantly clear to most people even peripherally involved with Bitcoin. I think the view of most competent technologists is that Bitcoin is a promising technology, with somewhat unproven utility.
First of all, Physics and Economics are two different things.
Physics tends to be about facts, Economics is more about opinions, views and theories. It's not because we're not Nobel Prize winners that we shouldn't disagree with the author, and I'm sure there are many well-known economists out there who won't agree with him.
>> Also, his point about BitCoin enthusiasts being unable to distinguish between what makes a good currency and what pushes their ideological buttons may apply to you.
Bitcoin enthusiasts are not the only users of Bitcoin. I use Bitcoin and it's for no ideological reason. It's helping me better than any other payment system right now and that's all I care about.
There are plenty of economists who don't agree with Krugman. But they would disagree for actual reasons instead of "OH NOES THE WORD LIBERAL APPEARS IN THIS COLUMN".
Edit: also, Austrian economics is like pseudoscience, it isn't representative of real economics
Edit: what are the priors you are speaking of.
When was the last time you saw a Keynesian taking Hayek's work on business cycle theory seriously? (For which, in part, he won the Nobel prize for!)
Ironically, to more directly address your point, Hayek had this to say in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech:[1]
In his speech at the 1974 Nobel Prize banquet Friedrich Hayek
stated that had he been consulted on the establishment of a
Nobel Prize in economics, he would "have decidedly advised
against it" primarily because "the Nobel Prize confers
on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to
possess.... This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here
the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence
on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size
if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist
that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians,
journalists, civil servants and the public generally."
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_prize_economics#Controver...
This is the type of claim that is fairly dangerous. It is perhaps vitally important to understand WHAT Krugman won the Nobel Prize for, and that was due to his contributions to New Trade Theory. Additionally, his work on NTT (superceded by NNTT I should add) was long, LONG ago, and he has since turned into a political pundit/shill.
Compare it to his polar opposite, say, Hayek, who won it for his general contributions to the field due to libertarian/market anarchist theories. Yet Hayek is widely seen as a crock of shit while Krugman isn't, mostly because he writes for the NYT.
This is his column: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/23/opinion/krugman-bits-and-b...