Topic: Why do many mainstream economists always oppose Bitcoin? (Read 1133 times)
we can say that bitcoin investment is the largest investment in this century, maybe we don't know about the most detailed things why economists are against the mainstream of bitcoin, is it possible that with bitcoin their investment is disrupted.I think bitcoin is not at all detrimental to the party because there is no interference from any party in this matter
with the current development of bitcoin that is so rapid and we can say that bitcoin is the largest crypto investment in this century, so many are interested in investing in the crypto world, maybe this is what makes economists continue to strongly oppose this investment. we don't know what factors make them hate bitcoin so much, are they bothered by the existence of the business that makes them no longer get big profits maybe we don't know about it
They don’t like change, they don’t like innovation & people upsetting their apple cart. It’s all a moot point any because they won’t have a choice other than to shut up & accept they were wrong soon any way.
Many of them are obsessed with bitcoin & tweet negatively about it regularly. Peter Schiff is one of the worst.
Many of them are obsessed with bitcoin & tweet negatively about it regularly. Peter Schiff is one of the worst.
It speaks volumes about how leaders view their people. They clearly think so little of us that they assume that if people have the ability to do illegal or unethical things that we definitely will. The rich and powerful view the masses with suspicion, and their disdain is palpable.
Everyone has their own opinion and they are all entitled to it. Some of them that are talking about Bitcoin do not understand what Bitcoin is all about, if you ask them to explain it to you they won’t be able to explain it at all, so they are saying it based on what they have heard others say they just think that it is scam while it is not.
So, due to their lack of understanding and what they are being told, they’re just going to assume that bitcoin is a scam and they will say things that are bad about it. And then As for others they just feel it is bad because of how Bitcoin is, because they don’t see any company that is behind it as the owner or controls it; a company or someone who can be held responsibility in case of any problem that happens, so that’s why they don’t like it, simply because there is no central control unit.
So, due to their lack of understanding and what they are being told, they’re just going to assume that bitcoin is a scam and they will say things that are bad about it. And then As for others they just feel it is bad because of how Bitcoin is, because they don’t see any company that is behind it as the owner or controls it; a company or someone who can be held responsibility in case of any problem that happens, so that’s why they don’t like it, simply because there is no central control unit.
Its been 10 years and Economist cant even explain how a non tangible asset kept on growing. The hate comes with their prediction and their study but they are proved to be wrong. I think they need to study about crypto in order to give a definite answer and the hate will be replace with knowledge about crypto/btc
The economist has an agenda. And they have a strict line. So you can't blame them for taking the side of the people who are financing the magazine and publication.
Just like you cannot expect Bitcoin.com or any other Bitcoin-related crypto media to suddenly start talking nicely about centralized finance and banking.
Bitcoin people are also predicting fiat and bank collapse since years and it doesn't look like happening anytime soon.
Its been 10 years and Economist cant even explain how a non tangible asset kept on growing. The hate comes with their prediction and their study but they are proved to be wrong. I think they need to study about crypto in order to give a definite answer and the hate will be replace with knowledge about crypto/btc
Economists view bitcoin still negatively because they have not fully delved into the development of bitcoin which until now is very high in value, and economists still see the legal status of bitcoin so they still consider bitcoin a bubble that will eventually disappear, and I am sure later economists will believe bitcoin is a digital currency that is worthy of full support from the government for the benefit of the country in increasing its income. Because of this, in the future the development of bitcoin will continue and they will certainly consider.
They do not yet understand the Bitcoin proposition. They think that its "just a currency based on belief of value". They do not see the bigger picture. Simply put, they are talking out of their asses. Mansplaining.
well because bitcoin is a very unorthodox type of investment, and for the past few years the price of bitcoin has been slowly getting bigger and bigger, this alarms the economists because bitcoin does not depend on the stock market and it is intangible thus making it hard to believe that bitcoin will be a safe investment for the people.
besides, another reason is because the development of bitcoin is feared to make the economy unstable. Many people think that bitcoin will replace fiat someday. while bitcoin is not centralized. so, it will be challenged by the economy in general. in fact, some countries have made regulations banning bitcoin as a currency because it makes fiat endangered, tax problems, and creates some resistance in other economic systems, especially for large countries and corporations.
well because bitcoin is a very unorthodox type of investment, and for the past few years the price of bitcoin has been slowly getting bigger and bigger, this alarms the economists because bitcoin does not depend on the stock market and it is intangible thus making it hard to believe that bitcoin will be a safe investment for the people.
With the increasing influence of Bitcoin in the world, more and more people are supporting and approving Bitcoin. Few mainstream media can directly say that Bitcoin is a scam. However, there are still many opinions saying that Bitcoin is a bubble, and this bubble will eventually burst. Many mainstream economists hold this view. They always oppose Bitcoin for different reasons. Economists are scholars who study economics. They have knowledge and social status far beyond ordinary people. Logically speaking, they should be more able to see the value contained in Bitcoin. Why are some economists always opposed to Bitcoin?
In my opinion, this is determined by the interests they represent. Many economists currently do not live independently. They need to depend on the government to survive. They need to help the government formulate various economic policies, financial policies, and monetary policies, so their starting point and interests must represent the government's will and interests. Therefore, in their world, the status of legal tender must be the most important and correct. On the contrary, they have forgotten the demands of the people and the interests of the people. Bitcoin stands on the side of the people, allowing the people to obtain their own asset freedom, and naturally stands on the opposite side of some economists.
This is my point of view, what do you think of this?
In my opinion, this is determined by the interests they represent. Many economists currently do not live independently. They need to depend on the government to survive. They need to help the government formulate various economic policies, financial policies, and monetary policies, so their starting point and interests must represent the government's will and interests. Therefore, in their world, the status of legal tender must be the most important and correct. On the contrary, they have forgotten the demands of the people and the interests of the people. Bitcoin stands on the side of the people, allowing the people to obtain their own asset freedom, and naturally stands on the opposite side of some economists.
This is my point of view, what do you think of this?
Yes, you are right, economists are against BTC as they are an element of another financial system, namely the dollar one. And in more detail, economists are part of the banking system, and BTC is part of the digital one, and at the moment there is a struggle for power between them, at least in the United States. This is why we can observe such a behavior of economists and others towards BTC and the entire crypto industry.
Yes, there are currently two financial systems. One is the existing US dollar-centric world monetary system, and it is also a group of vested interests. Most economists belong to this system. Another system is the booming Bitcoin currency system, which is a brand new currency system based on mathematical algorithms. It is a decentralized currency system. The new system is now revolutionizing the old system. In the process, it will definitely be suppressed by the old system.
Surprisingly the so called professional economist have been calling bitcoin a bubble and bitcoin it still proofing them wrong for over ten years now. They should review their professionalism, maybe bitcoin analysis is out of their scope. Bitcoin existence will never be affected by mainstream economist perception about bitcoin and their news.
The main job of mainstream economists is to study how to manage and protect existing systems. Even if they are optimistic about Bitcoin, they will not praise Bitcoin.
There are not a few well-known scholars who are optimistic about Bitcoin, but most of them belong to the Austrian school and believe in the free market and free economy.
The main difference between the two factions is their view of the country. Liberal supporters who believe in Bitcoin believe that the government is an oppressive force and hope that its power will be constrained.
Andreas Antonopoulos once said that comparing Bitcoin to traditional currencies is like comparing meteors to dinosaurs. There is no competition between the two-everything is just a matter of time.
There are not a few well-known scholars who are optimistic about Bitcoin, but most of them belong to the Austrian school and believe in the free market and free economy.
The main difference between the two factions is their view of the country. Liberal supporters who believe in Bitcoin believe that the government is an oppressive force and hope that its power will be constrained.
Andreas Antonopoulos once said that comparing Bitcoin to traditional currencies is like comparing meteors to dinosaurs. There is no competition between the two-everything is just a matter of time.
The economy that many economists understand is the economy they derived from theory, but digital cryptocurrency is a new type of theory. These economists may not have time to fully understand what this digital cryptocurrency is, but some Economists simply and crudely define it as a scam, which I think is inappropriate.
There are also many who even understand Bitcoin, they represent the government. They cannot express their love for Bitcoin, but can only look for the shortcomings of Bitcoin.
There are also many who even understand Bitcoin, they represent the government. They cannot express their love for Bitcoin, but can only look for the shortcomings of Bitcoin.
One of the biggest employer of mainstream economists are central banks. Their potential employer is the one that will be out of a job if crypto takes off -- of course economists will be against Bitcoin.
Because they didn't buy bitcoins until 2017
In my opinion, this is determined by the interests they represent. Many economists currently do not live independently. They need to depend on the government to survive. They need to help the government formulate various economic policies, financial policies, and monetary policies, so their starting point and interests must represent the government's will and interests. Therefore, in their world, the status of legal tender must be the most important and correct. On the contrary, they have forgotten the demands of the people and the interests of the people. Bitcoin stands on the side of the people, allowing the people to obtain their own asset freedom, and naturally stands on the opposite side of some economists.
Because that’s not what they were thought. Economists see things differently, and the reason why some of them oppose Bitcoin is because they can’t see where the value is coming. They believe that since whatever value we are seeing there is there because someone says so, then it’s not real. They want it to have somewhere that the value is attached to, and not just a value that is there because people says so.It makes them to feel that Bitcoin is scam. If you look at Bitcoin the value that we have now is there because of trust; the more we invest in it the more the value grows. So, most of them can’t come to agree with this. That’s what I feel is making a lot of them to believe in Bitcoin being legit. But, that shouldn’t be a problem for us since it is not meant for everyone.
Yes, you sum it up very well. Many economists can't see the value of Bitcoin. Let's not talk about the position they represent. The most basic thing is because they don't understand the source of Bitcoin's value. The source of Bitcoin's value is based on trust, based on the trust of more and more people in Bitcoin. They are willing to store their wealth in the form of Bitcoin.
In my opinion, this is determined by the interests they represent. Many economists currently do not live independently. They need to depend on the government to survive. They need to help the government formulate various economic policies, financial policies, and monetary policies, so their starting point and interests must represent the government's will and interests. Therefore, in their world, the status of legal tender must be the most important and correct. On the contrary, they have forgotten the demands of the people and the interests of the people. Bitcoin stands on the side of the people, allowing the people to obtain their own asset freedom, and naturally stands on the opposite side of some economists.
Because that’s not what they were thought. Economists see things differently, and the reason why some of them oppose Bitcoin is because they can’t see where the value is coming. They believe that since whatever value we are seeing there is there because someone says so, then it’s not real. They want it to have somewhere that the value is attached to, and not just a value that is there because people says so.It makes them to feel that Bitcoin is scam. If you look at Bitcoin the value that we have now is there because of trust; the more we invest in it the more the value grows. So, most of them can’t come to agree with this. That’s what I feel is making a lot of them to believe in Bitcoin being legit. But, that shouldn’t be a problem for us since it is not meant for everyone.
many mainstream economists are always against bitcoin, in my estimation, not many are against bitcoin, I think only the media exaggerates such negative news, only people like warren buffett say Bitcoin has no unique value at all,
Warren Buffett dislikes Bitcoin because he considers it an unproductive asset.
Warren Buffett dislikes Bitcoin because he considers it an unproductive asset.
Jump to: