You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Exactly. I've been particularly disappointed in modern Austrian economic scholars who had the tools to understand the emergence of #Bitcoin yet missed the most important monetary innovation in a thousand years (exceptions are you, Saif and Konrad Graf)https://twitter.com/real_vijay/status/1032509406196379648?s=19 …
Early understanding of the value of Bitcoin involved a very rare combination of certain advanced parts of computer science with nondogmatic knowledge of deep monetary history. No surprise this combination was and is scarce in our age of hyperspecialists and ideologues.
Reminds me of this classic passage of yourshttps://twitter.com/real_vijay/status/1160054756649271297?s=19 …
I’ve read Shelling Out but I don’t remember hearing a rebuttal of regression theorem (is that where the link goes?). Regardless, the use-value requirement is well established and necessary to avoid infinite regress.
Wrong. This is dogma gone amok. This is why dogmatists can never understand money or Bitcoin. It's like insisting that an insurance contract must be useful as something else, maybe for wiping your butt, before it can be useful as an insurance contract. It's idiotic.
To explain prices today, we point to prices yesterday and so on, in infinite fashion until we reach non-monetary value in a direct exchange economy.pic.twitter.com/cK2L6fGdXj
The original exchange value can be for any reason and is not at all important. If the first person who accepted the good did so purely on a whimsy, it establishes an original value. The obsession that this usage must necessarily be a commodity usage was Rothbard's error.
Also, and especially now in our world full of expertise, people have brains and foresight and can actually think about and design things to be good as money.
Also, Laura & Walter did a fairly good job parsing through these points years ago, how the theorem doesn’t apply to bitcoin: https://twitter.com/crypto_voices/status/1134807882757758977?s=21 … (And... personally agree the dogma isn’t helpful).
I agree. But we are rapidly approaching, maybe have already past, the point where monetary economists can be forgiven for ignoring bitcoin. Your above makes it clear that without understanding the tech the price history alone suggests something important is happening.
Yes. The strong market signal itself tells you that something important is very likely going on. But to go further and understand the value you have to among other things understand the tech. That, and the central bank ideology that is macroeconomics, are chief stumbling blocks.
I think it would be respectable if they said, “I don’t know enough about computer science to know if this can scale, remain secure, etc, but if I assume that I would expect it to be adopted as money.” Or if they had honest objections. But I’ve yet to see even that. Lots o liars.
When people who dont get it despite prolonged exposure it always seems to be because it challenges their worldview - tech objections usually a facade. E.g. Austrians have a hard baked interpretation of the regression theorem, Keynesians obsessed with aggregate demand & inflation
When you first read about Bitcoin, did you immediately think that it would work and succeed? Or what were you skeptical of, and what made you change your mind?
The idea of translating it in Italian is intriguing.
I can add it to my list of n articles I want to translate in Italian 
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
