[altoz]

Not surprising: Keynesian economist doesn't like Austrian economics explanations.

Surprising: Bitcoin part is largely left uncriticized.

I would say the author of this article is clearly biased against the Austrian view that make Bitcoin attractive to the libertarian types so the criticism is largely unsurprising.

What we do see is that the author of the critique and the author of the book can't be both right, especially about history. The success of Bitcoin does seem to favor the Austrian interpretation, though I'm sure many will disagree. Whatever the case, the experiment that is Bitcoin will continue and give us more data to make the case ourselves.

[davidgerard]

> Not surprising: Keynesian economist doesn't like Austrian economics explanations.

When an Austrian economics fan says "Keynesian economist", it's like a creationist calling any sort of scientist who disagrees with them "evolutionary".

Coppola's assertions on history are reality-based. If you have particular objections, you'll need to go into more detail than just saying "Keynesian".

> Surprising: Bitcoin part is largely left uncriticized.

This was largely left to my review: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/04/07/saifedean-am... He makes a lot of assertions about Bitcoin that are simply factually untrue in plain English, and would only be barely true even being generous in assuming particular jargon.

To Ammous' credit, he appears to know more about the Bitcoin sphere than about ... basic economic history.

[ghazak]

My feeling is that either system can probably work if there is some level of known policy stability, education, and the freedom and incentive to innovate. Most improvements to living standards are thanks to innovation (business, process, technological, etc).