mvalente.eu/mv.* Heavy Mental Stuff

And if more proof was needed to show he is a moron, Paul Krugman shares with us his “wisdom” about Bitcoins

“Bitcoin is Evil”

Lets see what his bullshit is all about.

“It’s always important, and always hard, to distinguish positive economics — how things work — from normative economics — how things should be. “

 

Yes. Or putting it another way: Krugman is setting the scene to discredit those “technocratic how things work simplistic visions” and show the “superior wisdom of political how things should be”.

 

Which is nothing new. Socialists and leftists like Krugman dont like technocrats (they are actually able to do basic math) and they are always focused on imposing some “how things should be” agenda. Even if that means there’s an Hitler killing millions in National-Socialist Germany or in Marxist Leninist Russia.

 

“they dislike activist government on political grounds, and this leads them to make really bad arguments about why fiscal stimulus can’t work and monetary stimulus will be disastrous”

There you go. Some “ignorant” economists want to look at things on “how they work”. The “illuminated economists” (like Krugman) look at things as “they should be”. Automatically the arguments from the “ignorant” economists are “bad”. And, automatically, his proposals of “fiscal stimulus” (as in “mess with more taxes”) and “monetary stimulus” (as in “print more money”) are God’s given commandments to prophet Krugman.

 

Did you notice the “dislike activist government” up there? What moron Krugman means is that the “ignorant” economists dont want any more government meddling in the economy. And moron Krugman likes “activist government”. Why? Because moron Krugman was mandated by God to make things work “as they should be”.

 

And did you notice the “political grounds”? Those bastard neoliberals have an ideologic political agenda. Moron Krugman doesnt have one. Because socialism is not political (right…) and socialism is not an ideology: the ideas of Hitler, Mao or Stalin were just sidenotes.

 

 

“But I come now to talk not about macro but about money — specifically, about Bitcoin and all that”

 

Ahh. The ever socialist sleight of hand. One says “and all that” in a non challant way and its enough of an argument. “All those childish things that I’m too superior to look at or understand”

 

“I have had and am continuing to have a dialogue with smart technologists who are very high on BitCoin”

 

A nice subversive ad hominem attack there: those technologists (aka technocrats) are “high”. Lets not bother with them.

 

 

“Even if I buy this (which I don’t, entirely), it doesn’t solve my problem.”

 

What problem is that? Moron Krugman never mentions which problem it is. But he has a problem. He is God’s prophet and he doesnt “buy it”. Thats problem enough you technocrats.

 

“But as I said, this is a positive discussion. What about the normative economics?”

Ahhh! Yes. Now lets look at Bitcoin from the point of view of “how things should be”.

 

“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.”

 

YES!!! YES!!!! THATS HOW THINGS SHOULD BE!!! Bitcoin actually has a role to play on how things should be!!!

 

But God’s Prophet Moron Krugman doesnt like that.

 

Lets deconstruct the previous moronic comment:

 

– bitcoin is a “weapon”. A nice trick on words designed to scare the reader. Cryptography was/is also a weapon. Or so the NSA says.

 

– it will “damage central banking”. Nice try at the Microsoft tactic aka FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). Once again designed to scare the reader. And a hidden assumption is made: central banking is “a good thing” and cannot be “damaged”

 

– “a Libertarian political agenda”… which is a bad thing by itself. In the case of Socialism and Marxism there’s no ideology one is supposed to believe (they actually have ideas; unfortunately they’re all bad); there’s no “political agenda”; because Socialism and Marxism are apolitical and they dont have any agenda. When they get to the government they intend to do nothing because they have no agenda. Yeah right….

 

– “damage states ability to collect tax”. Ah! Now were talking. This is actually what bothers Krugman and Socialists and Leftists. Without collecting taxes they would have no money to impose their non-existing non-ideological agenda on “how things should be”

 

– “damage states ability to monitor their citizens financial transactions”. Which is a bad thing of course. I should have no privacy or any rights on my finantial transactions. The state should be able to look at my financial transactions even without a court order. Because, you know, thats how we socialist roll. Who needs a state with a Rule of Law? Why cant the state just invade my finantial privacy like a Gestapo squad knocking on doors at 4am in the morning? After all, how could we collect even more taxes to make things be “as they should be”? No ideological agenda there.

 

“Stross doesn’t like that agenda, and neither do I”

No shit?…

 

“but I am trying not to let that tilt my positive analysis of BitCoin one way or the other.”

 

Yeah sure. Because you have no “political ideological agenda” were sure.

 

“One suspects, however, that many BitCoin enthusiasts are, in fact, enthusiastic because, as Stross says, “it pushes the same buttons as their gold fetish.””

 

I suspect that Krugman’s enthusiasm about financial transactions is, in fact, enthusiastic because it pushes the same buttons as his taxation fetish.

 

There. Adding “fetish” to an argument is enough to win it.

 

“So let’s talk both about whether BitCoin is a bubble and whether it’s a good thing — in part to make sure that we don’t confuse these questions with each other.”

Wait!? What!?…. Oh…… 

Dezenas é um país que é o modelo de um país socialista: existem 10 familias e todas elas ganham o mesmo por ano: 10.000€. Melhor ainda é o facto de não pagarem impostos.

Todas as famílias viviam felizes  até que a tragédia atingiu uma das familias: um dos membros da familia ficou doente e tiveram de gastar 10.000€ no seu tratamento.

 O governo de Dezenas, um governo fortemente focado em politicas sociais e socialistas, achou que não podia ser. Era inaceitavel que uma família estivesse à mercê da tragédia e tivesse de gastar o total de um salário anual para acorrer aos seus familiares doentes.

O governo de Dezenas resolveu então passar a cobrar 10% de impostos (1000€). Cada família contribuia assim para um fundo de 10.000€ que permitiria a uma qualquer familia que tivesse o mesmo problema, um membro da família doente, recorrer ao fundo para resolver o problema de saúde do familiar em causa.

No ano seguinte a tragédia atingiu duas famílias. Nenhuma delas tinha dinheiro para pagar os custos de salvar o seu familiar. Tinham apenas 9.000€, uma vez que tinham pago os impostos (10% = 1,000€) . Mas não havia problema: o Estado podia usar o fundo de 10.000€ para salvar… não dava para salvar duas famílias.

Atiraram a moeda ao ar. Um dos doentes iria ser salvo com os 10.000€ do fundo. O outro teria que morrer.

Até que subitamente perceberam que o fundo tinha apenas 9.000€ porque foi preciso pagar 1.000€ a um funcionário das Finanças para tratar da cobrança de impostos.

O Governo resolveu então aumentar os impostos. Já estão a ver onde vai dar essa ideia…

NOTA: isto é uma teoria simplista, as contas estão feitas à merceeiro, a realidade é mais complexa, eu sou um sacana de um neoliberal e na realidade o outro doente foi curado por uma Fada Madrinha.