This seems to be mainly a reference to another article that has also been on HN.
By approximate scroll down length on mobile, the ratio of content that isnt a quote, to that which is, seems to be approximately 7:5 .
(not taking into account the fact the quoted text takes less horizontal space, but I did overestimate the new text length in a few small ways as well, so I hope that this ratio is at least approximately accurate)
Essentially the article states a difference between "positive economics" (what is), and "nomfyvhbxgv economics" (what should be). The author claims that their political opponents tend to get the two confused (and that despite what people criticizing the article might think, that his political allies tend not to make the same mistake)
They then go on to say that the other article suggests that bitcoin was created as a weapon, connecting to the "what should be" part of economics, quote the other article, and repeat from the other article the part about a "gold fetish".
I personally believe that it didn't add a whole lot to what was already in the other article, though I admit I should probably reread the guidelines for comments and submissions. I intend to do that, and then possibly modify this post that I am now making.
By approximate scroll down length on mobile, the ratio of content that isnt a quote, to that which is, seems to be approximately 7:5 . (not taking into account the fact the quoted text takes less horizontal space, but I did overestimate the new text length in a few small ways as well, so I hope that this ratio is at least approximately accurate)
Essentially the article states a difference between "positive economics" (what is), and "nomfyvhbxgv economics" (what should be). The author claims that their political opponents tend to get the two confused (and that despite what people criticizing the article might think, that his political allies tend not to make the same mistake)
They then go on to say that the other article suggests that bitcoin was created as a weapon, connecting to the "what should be" part of economics, quote the other article, and repeat from the other article the part about a "gold fetish".
I personally believe that it didn't add a whole lot to what was already in the other article, though I admit I should probably reread the guidelines for comments and submissions. I intend to do that, and then possibly modify this post that I am now making.