Economist are only thinking traditional currencies where they don't want to be get involved in what we are calling cryptocurrencies.
As it is only accessible through the use of internet and digital technologies, they don't want to engage on it.
But some so called lowkey economist who are not popular are absolutely investing on cryptocurrency as they know that cryptos really proved many things.
Topic: Why do many mainstream economists always oppose Bitcoin? - page 4. (Read 1126 times)
Exactly, They are the beneficiary of current financial Model and make their living out of it which makes rich richer and poor poorer. The vested interests will always oppose any new Technology that can potentially challenge their interest but Bitcoin is here to stay and will replace the current financial system which is very un-democratic and serves the interest of elites but commons suffer.
Now that bitcoin has become a reality Where are these people when the bitcoin goes up? Sometimes the bitcoin starts to come down, these people are visible That is their job bitcoin is Bad this is a bubble we are listening to years ago but bitcoin is a new digital asset this is a reality and no buddy can stop bitcoin we are lucky to collect some bitcoins hope we see good futures.Yes, economics is fundamentally different from physics and mathematics. One belongs to the social sciences, and there is no standard answer. The other is natural science and must be rigorous and careful. I believe that as Bitcoin's global consensus becomes stronger and stronger, more and more economists will re-examine the historical role of Bitcoin. They no longer proceed from their own interests, but from the entire human currency system. How to build a more healthy, fair, efficient, and low-cost global currency network. In any case, I firmly believe that Bitcoin is the future of mankind.
Exactly, They are the beneficiary of current financial Model and make their living out of it which makes rich richer and poor poorer. The vested interests will always oppose any new Technology that can potentially challenge their interest but Bitcoin is here to stay and will replace the current financial system which is very un-democratic and serves the interest of elites but commons suffer.
Now that bitcoin has become a reality Where are these people when the bitcoin goes up? Sometimes the bitcoin starts to come down, these people are visible That is their job bitcoin is Bad this is a bubble we are listening to years ago but bitcoin is a new digital asset this is a reality and no buddy can stop bitcoin we are lucky to collect some bitcoins hope we see good futures.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?
It is very easy to know why this is the case, after all if you are being paid to not understand something then it does not matter how many times a concept is explained to you it will be impossible for you to get it.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?
Basically economists are invested in the current model and since they get their living out of it they cannot understand bitcoin at all, also this is a matter of pride, they believe they are the masters of the universe and for an unknown person to create the best currency the world has ever seen is something they cannot tolerate and as such some criticize bitcoin out of envy.
Exactly, They are the beneficiary of current financial Model and make their living out of it which makes rich richer and poor poorer. The vested interests will always oppose any new Technology that can potentially challenge their interest but Bitcoin is here to stay and will replace the current financial system which is very un-democratic and serves the interest of elites but commons suffer.
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?
It is very easy to know why this is the case, after all if you are being paid to not understand something then it does not matter how many times a concept is explained to you it will be impossible for you to get it.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?
Basically economists are invested in the current model and since they get their living out of it they cannot understand bitcoin at all, also this is a matter of pride, they believe they are the masters of the universe and for an unknown person to create the best currency the world has ever seen is something they cannot tolerate and as such some criticize bitcoin out of envy.
Exactly, They are the beneficiary of current financial Model and make their living out of it which makes rich richer and poor poorer. The vested interests will always oppose any new Technology that can potentially challenge their interest but Bitcoin is here to stay and will replace the current financial system which is very un-democratic and serves the interest of elites but commons suffer.
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?
It is very easy to know why this is the case, after all if you are being paid to not understand something then it does not matter how many times a concept is explained to you it will be impossible for you to get it.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?
Basically economists are invested in the current model and since they get their living out of it they cannot understand bitcoin at all, also this is a matter of pride, they believe they are the masters of the universe and for an unknown person to create the best currency the world has ever seen is something they cannot tolerate and as such some criticize bitcoin out of envy.
I think not all economists.do that, there.are still many economists.who also want change, but for.economists who reject it they are afraid.of what they think will be rivaled.by the presence.of the bitcoin world which provides.many changes.to boost the economy.of a country they want. think that the crypto world will rule the world which can make them.slowly disappear
True. Not all but mostly oppose because crypto technology will replace the current banking system which they never want. The lesson of the history is people always oppose change and want to maintain status quo but change is the only constant. Crypto is a reality , better technology and it is unstoppable, we like it or not one day it will rule the world.
In my opinion the real reason behind some of the statments that a bunch of these econimmest that give about bitcoin and crypto, is generaly because they wanna protect their investments, because if you think about it who is going to get hurt from crypto rising up and becoming more mainstream, the awnser is the banks it eliminates the need for them, and if crypto rises above all the other investments these poeple will lose money, so its in thier best intrest to talk shit about it.
Not all economists are investors but they know the importance of investment and if someone being an economist then they are not going to invest on any assets which will depreciate with the fall of fiat purchasing power so if fiat losses they are going to make more money actually but the real reason is they don't understand the technology behind it even though they understand the decentralization, most of them believes that bitcoin can be made with a single click on a computer but it will never be like that.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?
Here is the list of reasons that I think cause mainstream economists oppose bitcoin:
1. Economists are sponsored by the government to study economics and they are obliged to follow some sort of instruction that could gain and win the citizens' heart, in favor of course, to the state.
Maybe the economists that we keep on seeing opposing and invalidating the victories of bitcoin are allied of the state that is against cryptocurrency community. With this, they just have to follow their higher ups command that is to negate the positive claims in using bitcoin, so that they would look superior and people will not be enticed to enter crypto world.
2.These kind of economists follow the old teachings, hence, aren't open-minded about what bitcoin has to offer.
Like what they often say, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Maybe this applies to them. Some people have the tendency to be stubborn because they are confident enough that they know it all. They don't want to view things from a different angle. They don't want to discover and try new things. What they have learned and knew before, they will apply it up until the present, disregarding the updated facts and additional information.
3. Economists don't really care about the needs and disposition of the people.
Economists are not financial advisors and they do not aim to help us achieve our aspirations such as climbing the top. They are in it for money, to serve the well-being of the state and not the citizens. Maybe they are opposing bitcoin for a reason of not wanting the majority achieve financial freedom and financial independence. Because if that thing happens, the people will be completely free of what they will say. People will not mind their prediction because they have proven that bitcoin has indeed a lot of benefits and can really save them to a lot of troubles.
These three summaries of yours are very good and very systematic. I believe many friends have similar views. Nowadays, many economists are more defenders of the old economic and financial system. They are employed by the government and naturally stand in opposition to ordinary working people.
They don't categorically oppose bitcoin. The news cycle however tends to magnify those economists who are not fans of bitcoin more so than those whose opinions are supportive.
They are actually opposing bitcoin and the majority of them are waiting for bitcoin to fall. Even if it's just a bear market, they'll say such negative thoughts that it's bound to go zero and its death. That has been heard so many times that it made bitcoin died 400+ times in the record. They are more with the traditional assets and these economists in the mainstream are not yet willing to adopt the newest trend in investing and that's all about the digital assets and economy. 
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?
I think you just nailed it. We see the so called specialists because they appear on the media (our main source of information), so it's natural the media only invites specialists who corroborate with their point of view, that is the same point of view of governments, since there is a lot of public sponsorship at mainstream media channels or sponsorship from businessmen who have deals and are benefited by the governments.This is my point of view, what do you think of this?
All these people are linked in a chain that will defend the interests of each other, while the individuals stay outside this chain, only being abused by these entities who rule the world as we know. But I believe there are many economists who also think the opposite of what we see on the main channels, however they are never going to be highlighted anywhere.
They don't categorically oppose bitcoin. The news cycle however tends to magnify those economists who are not fans of bitcoin more so than those whose opinions are supportive.
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?
I think it's just a trick so economists can buy bitcoin at a cheaper price. In recent years we can see that bitcoin has experienced a very high price increase compared to gold. From the fact that we have seen that bitcoin is very promising for its holders if they are willing to be patient to hold bitcoin until the price rises very high. Even though the price of bitcoin has decreased very far but at some point the price of bitcoin will definitely rise higher and it will definitely happen, so don't be disappointed if the price of bitcoin has decreased.
why most mainstream economists always oppose bitcoin, in my opinion the reason is simple, they are afraid of being rivaled, since the presence of bitcoin many people have moved to bitcoin, you can say they are very afraid, because people who invest with them move to bitcoin, so they always slander bitcoin , let people feel afraid to play in bitcoin...
Now suddenly uneducated people are trading Crypto currencies without intermediaries and broker fees and "special" knowledge and those people hate that.
I couldn't agree more, because when my lecturer taught me how the stock investment flow, that looks like only for they are clever who can invest in stock market meanwhile I was a poor student without much pocket money but really want to come out from the poverty then I found BTC. Although for the first time, I dont believe with BTC but for next my friend encourage me to start investing in BTC and I feel better than before, in crypto market the flow is easy to understand and without broker fee or anything else. Just use ur own brain and that really helps me.
Now suddenly uneducated people are trading Crypto currencies without intermediaries and broker fees and "special" knowledge and those people hate that.
I couldn't agree more, because when my lecturer taught me how the stock investment flow, that looks like only for they are clever who can invest in stock market meanwhile I was a poor student without much pocket money but really want to come out from the poverty then I found BTC. Although for the first time, I dont believe with BTC but for next my friend encourage me to start investing in BTC and I feel better than before, in crypto market the flow is easy to understand and without broker fee or anything else. Just use ur own brain and that really helps me.
The old school FIAT system has to protect their economic hold over people, so they keep with the old school education. Sheep will go where the "sheep dogs" will guide them..... Why? ....because they fear the dogs. These old school economist fear their peers and also the government and Banks that tells them what to do. 
Also, the old Fiat Stock markets and trading platforms are the playground of the rich and the educated.... they have to protect that advantage and the "fees" that they charge for financial advice. (Brokers)
Now suddenly uneducated people are trading Crypto currencies without intermediaries and broker fees and "special" knowledge and those people hate that.
Also, the old Fiat Stock markets and trading platforms are the playground of the rich and the educated.... they have to protect that advantage and the "fees" that they charge for financial advice. (Brokers)
Now suddenly uneducated people are trading Crypto currencies without intermediaries and broker fees and "special" knowledge and those people hate that.
The opposition.made by economists.of course, there are several factors.including dropping.bitcoin so that there will be less interest.in investing.their shares.in bitcoin, of course they are also very surprised.by the real development of bitcoin because it will also involve.the future of their business which will reduce the interest.in them.to their business
In my opinion the real reason behind some of the statments that a bunch of these econimmest that give about bitcoin and crypto, is generaly because they wanna protect their investments, because if you think about it who is going to get hurt from crypto rising up and becoming more mainstream, the awnser is the banks it eliminates the need for them, and if crypto rises above all the other investments these poeple will lose money, so its in thier best intrest to talk shit about it.
Not all economists are investors but they know the importance of investment and if someone being an economist then they are not going to invest on any assets which will depreciate with the fall of fiat purchasing power so if fiat losses they are going to make more money actually but the real reason is they don't understand the technology behind it even though they understand the decentralization, most of them believes that bitcoin can be made with a single click on a computer but it will never be like that.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?
Here is the list of reasons that I think cause mainstream economists oppose bitcoin:
1. Economists are sponsored by the government to study economics and they are obliged to follow some sort of instruction that could gain and win the citizens' heart, in favor of course, to the state.
Maybe the economists that we keep on seeing opposing and invalidating the victories of bitcoin are allied of the state that is against cryptocurrency community. With this, they just have to follow their higher ups command that is to negate the positive claims in using bitcoin, so that they would look superior and people will not be enticed to enter crypto world.
2.These kind of economists follow the old teachings, hence, aren't open-minded about what bitcoin has to offer.
Like what they often say, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Maybe this applies to them. Some people have the tendency to be stubborn because they are confident enough that they know it all. They don't want to view things from a different angle. They don't want to discover and try new things. What they have learned and knew before, they will apply it up until the present, disregarding the updated facts and additional information.
3. Economists don't really care about the needs and disposition of the people.
Economists are not financial advisors and they do not aim to help us achieve our aspirations such as climbing the top. They are in it for money, to serve the well-being of the state and not the citizens. Maybe they are opposing bitcoin for a reason of not wanting the majority achieve financial freedom and financial independence. Because if that thing happens, the people will be completely free of what they will say. People will not mind their prediction because they have proven that bitcoin has indeed a lot of benefits and can really save them to a lot of troubles.
Jump to: