==> Not sure if I even mentioned it here, because the main event sold out…but anyway I will be at the “Anarchy in the NYC” event this Saturday. Afterward there is a karaoke party hosted by Tatiana Moroz, but you need a ticket to get in. (I am now calling myself a professional singer for this very reason. It’s a technicality, I grant you.)
==> I am sure some would draw parallels to people warning of (price) inflation, and the struggling climate scientists. I am sure Paul Krugman will be coming down hard on the scientists and their 13 years of bad model predictions…
==> Tom Woods takes on the Greenbackers’ “fake quote industry.”
==> Somehow Max Raskin went from the quirky kid at Mises U to the dashing young man all over Bloomberg.
==> Daniel Sanchez gives a tax day talk at the Mises Institute.
==> A neat tribute to Jonathan Winters from Robin Williams (HT2 Doug French).
==> As someone who does a lot of work involving Excel tables, this story horrifies me. You can choose not to believe me, but I would feel bad if this happened to Krugman. I mean, sure I go back and check for just this type of thing–make sure I didn’t inadvertently copy the wrong formula, try to get the same number by a different order of operations, etc.–but ultimately it’s tough to guard against something like this. You can say, “What about peer review?!” but in that case, you’ve never refereed a paper…
==> Speaking of Krugman: I guess it’s not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but in his hit piece on Bitcoin, we have yet another Kontradiction. Early in the piece Krugman remarks on the “strangeness” (his word) of Bitcoin because they “derive their value, if any, purely from self-fulfilling prophecy, the belief that other people will accept them as payment.” Then he concludes the article by saying:
Goldbugs and bitbugs alike seem to long for a pristine monetary standard, untouched by human frailty. But that’s an impossible dream. Money is, as Paul Samuelson once declared, a “social contrivance,” not something that stands outside society. Even when people relied on gold and silver coins, what made those coins useful wasn’t the precious metals they contained, it was the expectation that other people would accept them as payment.”
So it’s kind of a weird article. Krugman wants to mock the Randian libertarian types who like Bitcoin, and early on he says it’s not like gold because it’s utterly dependent on its role as a medium of exchange, and then he concludes by saying the people who like Bitcoin need to read Samuelson, who explained that money is ultimately valued because it is a medium of exchange.
Again, not a contradiction per se, just a Kontradiction. Sort of like, “It actually makes sense to like Bitcoin, but the people who like it right now are doing so for the wrong reason.”