Topic: Why are economists so afraid of Bitcoin? - page 5. (Read 5285 times)

Were you born before 1940? yes: I shutup it's up to you to defend your generation.
Why I am a teacher at a Greek Elementary school, does that count as goverment contractor?

"Naturally, I would be scared as well, and woud be fighting agains at all costs to sustain domination"

Then how can you blame them, if infact by your own implication, you would do the same thing?

Feudal Europe was such a peacefull time...


So all  naysayers are Bankers? or on the payroll? mind we are not against the idea of cryptocurrency, but on the choice of parameters.

For centuries bankers tries to 'enslave' mankind using fiat currency as tool ( they can manipulate it towards their own aim )
suddenly something new and revolutionary appears and now they facing the threat of loosing control of the lever.

Naturally, I would be scared as well, and woud be fighting agains at all costs to sustain domination




 

Deflationary currencies make it harder for governments to start wars.

Do you live in the same world that I live in?  I am of one of the two older generations that you speak of, and your statement couldn't be further from the truth.  Do you draw a paycheck from a government contractor, by any chance?

This generation is all about accusing the previous for the economic mess they created, true, true but in the lulaby of peace they have forgotten that the 2 previous generation main concern was: Peace
All decisions made in political and economic level had that principle in mind. So why do economists hate deflationary currencies? because it leads to conflict inside and between countries. Look at the Feudal age in europe, those economies were perfect from economic perspective, no inflation, full employment
But... Feud has a double meaning doesnt it?

It's simple really, it's a living example of something that goes against all their commonly held beliefs and prejudices, just like with religious people, they'll attack anyone or anything that goes against that belief system until they've either destroyed it or made people believe it's not worth their time. Economics nowadays is often a religion rather than a science or form of mathematics, to the people in charge now it doesn't matter if they are trillions in negative numbers and are committing blatant fraud against other countries by printing their currency out of thin air as long as they and their people believe in it it's okay.

I would say "economists" are not so much afraid as either ignorant, or know full well bitcoin technology will oust them as the clueless money magicians they are. Paul Krugman is a prime example of a corporate mouthpiece who apparently doesn't understand basic mathematics or economics.

They warn of Bitcoin but not of their own flawed, corrupted currency system that is edging on an unprecedented financial catastrophe.

I agree. And - if an altcoin should have good and different qualities, so that is just as useful as bitcoin, that altcoin should only reduce the value of bitcoin by half, at the endgame. Which is nothing to cry about.

Here's my economic opinion.

Why the claim that copycat currencies are a threat to Bitcoin is a nonargument.

The value of a currency is the value of goods or currency that are demanded for the currency minus the transaction costs of that currency. These transaction costs tend to be so small that they may as well be ignored for established currencies.

Take for instance, paper money. Anyone can actually design and print paper money. Ignoring instances where people attempt to copy money, unique paper currencies not issued by a government are valueless for one reason: people are less likely to accept them, and it is more difficult to transmit them across vast geographic distances (no banks, no cheque clearinghouse). Both increase transaction costs, if one accepts the paper money, in order to purchase intermediate goods or pay for labor, one can either pay for it in paper money (which wouldn't be accepted), or exchange it for government money (which would be accepted).

You might note that there is a tautology there, value is linked to what you can exchange a currency for minus the transaction costs. If you can't exchange a currency for anything, then the transaction costs are high, and those high transaction costs will discourage people from accepting it because the currency has low value. The reverse will also be true. This is what gives the American dollar it's high value.

Now lets compare ACoin to BCoin. ACoin is accepted at as many places as American Express. BCoin is a new currency. ACoin can be exchanged for hard currency. You have to exchange BCoin for ACoin to get to government money. Which would you use?

Classic example of the kind of blind-sided thinking that the academic world cultivates.

If we had less emphasis on specialisation strictly within a single field of study, at least some economists would end up doing a little computer science or programming. As things are in academia today, too many end up drilling down into too narrow a field of focus. An economist that knows their monetarism well, and also their systems design, would be capable of recognising the potential in the Satoshi cryptocurrency model.

It's bizarre to think that this forum is infested with people that know just enough computer science and/or just enough economics that we can see what the so many so-called experts in finance and economics cannot.

And having a doctorate in physics does not mean you understand physics...  A bit over a hundred years ago, an awful lot of mainstream physicists rejected Einstein's Theory of Relativity too (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity for details).  Their reasons were numerous yet we all know he was vindicated within a handful of decades.  The analogy isn't perfect as Bitcoin isn't a new economic theory, but it definitely threatens to expose the theories of Keynes as fundamentally flawed which apparently makes a lot of closed-minded economists uncomfortable.

Having an economics degree sadly does not mean you understand economics.

Economics has never been a science, it is always related to politics, giving up the power of printing money endlessly is the biggest political failure 

Economists and banksters can go get real jobs.

That is good news.  The longer Bitcoin can grow and mature without these guys' interference, the stronger it will be in the long run.  Let them fawn over whether or not the Federal Reserve will 'taper' or not.

Respect

and workforce

Bitcoin as a decentralised automated monetary system also obviates the need for economists and central banksters.