Economics has always been a game of trial and error. Many brilliant economists have walked on this earth for the past centuries. They debate, discuss, disagree with each other. Some theories prevail over others. New theories replace another. An emerging one debunks an old standard. And so on. But look where we are now.
The point is that some economists are not supporting Bitcoin not because they are somehow committed to the government but because they simply have different views. And considering that Bitcoin is generally alien and is also more than just economics, many economists must have been confused with it, the technology behind it, how it works, and so on.
It is simply coming from a strange paradigm which mustn't have been thoroughly explored by majority of the economists. Who would've theorized on a monetary system which is beyond the power of the state and its sanctioned entities? No mainstream economist would have imagined of a certain country's economy to be built on a currency which is beyond the control of those who are tasked to create the nation's economic blueprint for the next years or decades.
Topic: Why do many mainstream economists always oppose Bitcoin? - page 6. (Read 1126 times)
Economists see bitcoin as a threat and bitcoin mining also has problems for the environment. this is the basis of their reason why against bitcoin. but they don't see the potential for bitcoin and the crypto market. they do not want the current centralized financial system to be replaced by a decentralized one. this will only make them lose, they cannot benefit from the new system. that's why they balk, and always try to prevent bitcoin from being adopted.
Because they think that their knowledge is absolute and that they don't consider new technology in finances such as bitcoin as a thing. Plus they really have this subconscious feeling that they are saving people from potential scam just because they don't exactly understand how bitcoin works. Ignorance isn't a bliss sometimes because you have to be open to new knowledge and information, it's how learning should be, continuous.
It is simply because of the danger it imposes to a certain economy considering how much financial freedom it gives to people. They tend to choose to go against bitcoin because they are too afraid to accept the fact that at some point, it can save a country's economy and make it improve after just a short period of time. Nevertheless, it doesn't remove the fact that bitcoin is a risk that a country should never take right away, it needs to be thought through before committing completely. Soon they will see how useful bitcoin can be and start agreeing with it regulation in improving the economy.
They cant see the bitcoin's worth yet. All they believe is that, bitcoin is a threat towards government and can not be a help in economy. On the other side, bitcoin can still see as a good reason to contribute to the economic rise. As some point, it can also be a help to boost those contries that are at developing stage.
...
economists only understand the old economic theory they get from their lectures...while Bitcoin is a new thing that they can't understand with their theory that's why they always associate Bitcoin with tulipmania. if they care about people then they will definitely say Bitcoin is the right choice for investing and also transacting large amounts.
not only that. they also think bitcoin is too risky an investment, because it looks like a big bubble. nor can we assume that their choice is wrong. because in fact it is. but what I regret is that they only see that extent. economists don't see the full potential of blockchain. they just see bitcoin as a threat. but turn a blind eye to the underlying technology.
what these.economists do, of course, has.an instant. basis, for example, a change that occurs.in an.instant that makes.everyone astonished.but they only see the results and do not see when we experience a loss and then they make a statement that is.hateful.towards the crypto currency
Not many, only some.
And the media is only reporting what gets them the more attention. At times like this when price has not made any major moves for more than 2 months the negative articles will get the most amount of attention so obviously they keep quoting those who have said something negative about bitcoin. In a couple of months ago when price was rising consistently every week the exact opposite was true as they published anything that was positive.
Why are these people positive or negative about bitcoin? In my experience it is almost always out of self interest.
And the media is only reporting what gets them the more attention. At times like this when price has not made any major moves for more than 2 months the negative articles will get the most amount of attention so obviously they keep quoting those who have said something negative about bitcoin. In a couple of months ago when price was rising consistently every week the exact opposite was true as they published anything that was positive.
Why are these people positive or negative about bitcoin? In my experience it is almost always out of self interest.
I would say the OP is right and the majority of economists calls Bitcoin out as being a big fat bubble but nothing else. Maybe they lack understanding, maybe they are even right. First and foremost I think that a lack of knowledge in technology combined with monetary theory may lead them to their negative conclusions about Bitcoin. Most of them often argue that it is inconvenient and expensive to use, but that is only the first half of the sentence because Bitcoin can improve. If you just look at that statement, they are correct. For now Bitcoin isn't what it probably is supposed to be, but that doesn't mean it is the end of the story as those economists often put it.
In many cases, Bitcoin is inherently opposed to governments. What the government pursues is centralized power and centralized management. What Bitcoin pursues is decentralized governance. These are two completely different concepts. At the same time, it is more important that Bitcoin is a collection of multidisciplinary knowledge. Economists mainly focus on thinking in the field of economics. They do not understand knowledge other than Bitcoin economics, so they cannot make an objective assessment of the value of Bitcoin.
Very well said, Bitcoin is indeed a lot of things. It combines literally any science out there in one or or another way or at least touches upon them or has an impact on them. Only because Bitcoin is about decentralized governance, mainstream economists should still be able to objectively get their head around Bitcoin and whether it could play an important role in global monetary order and systems.
There are many economists who oppose bitcoin it usually depends on their personal interests in some countries there is no law on bitcoin, while in many countries bitcoin transactions are legal however regulators economists and other stakeholders around the world have warned that investing in cryptocurrencies is risky as their prices rise and fall sharply. I think investing in bitcoin without opposition will help improve their country's economy.
it's all personal interest, now it's time for settings, other mouths are different in the heart, there are some people who always post negative things about bitcoin, even though he always collects bitcoins, for the benefit of his assets, because nowadays it's hard to distinguish which is sincere and No, sometimes the mouth is sweet but the heart is rotten, and vice versa, what is certain is that whatever they post is definitely for their personal interests, to seek sensation, to seek sympathy, some are looking for profit..
something that can't be controlled is a scary thing. maybe this is what they think, and also seems to interfere with the existing system. that's why economists don't like crypto. they fear that crypto is undermining the current financial system, which gives them an advantage. they resist change. do not want to develop for the better and are comfortable with existing technology. this kind of thinking is already primitive, and if they don't change they will be left behind by the times.
We have to understand that these economists have not actually studied and observe Bitcoin for a considerable period of time and so they have no clear basis for the warnings that they are spewing except the fact that they are fearing that what happened with the Tulip mania before can also happen with Bitcoin. And for the past more than 10 years, Bitcoin has had proved these economists wrong plain and simple. In the past, many experts pronounced Bitcoin to be dead...unfortunately for them Bitcoin keep on resurrecting itself. There must be something with Bitcoin that these so-called experts don't and maybe could not comprehend.
Economists are traditional ones and they mostly can not accept what Bitcoin brought to the world, change the world, and made the financial party becomes more decentralized.
Most of them are old enough to reject new terminologies and weird technology. In fact blockchain technology has no longer been weird after more than 10 years of growth.
Some of them oppose Bitcoin and crypto because they want to protect what they love and what they are familiar with, under central bank control.
Most of them are old enough to reject new terminologies and weird technology. In fact blockchain technology has no longer been weird after more than 10 years of growth.
Some of them oppose Bitcoin and crypto because they want to protect what they love and what they are familiar with, under central bank control.
Not many, only some.
And the media is only reporting what gets them the more attention. At times like this when price has not made any major moves for more than 2 months the negative articles will get the most amount of attention so obviously they keep quoting those who have said something negative about bitcoin. In a couple of months ago when price was rising consistently every week the exact opposite was true as they published anything that was positive.
Why are these people positive or negative about bitcoin? In my experience it is almost always out of self interest.
And the media is only reporting what gets them the more attention. At times like this when price has not made any major moves for more than 2 months the negative articles will get the most amount of attention so obviously they keep quoting those who have said something negative about bitcoin. In a couple of months ago when price was rising consistently every week the exact opposite was true as they published anything that was positive.
Why are these people positive or negative about bitcoin? In my experience it is almost always out of self interest.
I would say the OP is right and the majority of economists calls Bitcoin out as being a big fat bubble but nothing else. Maybe they lack understanding, maybe they are even right. First and foremost I think that a lack of knowledge in technology combined with monetary theory may lead them to their negative conclusions about Bitcoin. Most of them often argue that it is inconvenient and expensive to use, but that is only the first half of the sentence because Bitcoin can improve. If you just look at that statement, they are correct. For now Bitcoin isn't what it probably is supposed to be, but that doesn't mean it is the end of the story as those economists often put it.
In many cases, Bitcoin is inherently opposed to governments. What the government pursues is centralized power and centralized management. What Bitcoin pursues is decentralized governance. These are two completely different concepts. At the same time, it is more important that Bitcoin is a collection of multidisciplinary knowledge. Economists mainly focus on thinking in the field of economics. They do not understand knowledge other than Bitcoin economics, so they cannot make an objective assessment of the value of Bitcoin.
Not many, only some.
And the media is only reporting what gets them the more attention. At times like this when price has not made any major moves for more than 2 months the negative articles will get the most amount of attention so obviously they keep quoting those who have said something negative about bitcoin. In a couple of months ago when price was rising consistently every week the exact opposite was true as they published anything that was positive.
Why are these people positive or negative about bitcoin? In my experience it is almost always out of self interest.
And the media is only reporting what gets them the more attention. At times like this when price has not made any major moves for more than 2 months the negative articles will get the most amount of attention so obviously they keep quoting those who have said something negative about bitcoin. In a couple of months ago when price was rising consistently every week the exact opposite was true as they published anything that was positive.
Why are these people positive or negative about bitcoin? In my experience it is almost always out of self interest.
I would say the OP is right and the majority of economists calls Bitcoin out as being a big fat bubble but nothing else. Maybe they lack understanding, maybe they are even right. First and foremost I think that a lack of knowledge in technology combined with monetary theory may lead them to their negative conclusions about Bitcoin. Most of them often argue that it is inconvenient and expensive to use, but that is only the first half of the sentence because Bitcoin can improve. If you just look at that statement, they are correct. For now Bitcoin isn't what it probably is supposed to be, but that doesn't mean it is the end of the story as those economists often put it.
Remember. Every discipline has its disciples and every school of thought can be found. Economists aren't a bunch of people just siding with one ideal or other.
And the media probably isn't going to sit around and wait for pro Bitcoiners to reach out for an interview.
Most of what you read is directed media. Media got to eat too so they find opposing thoughts. Makes for better readership.
Think you'll find more plurality in universities teaching economics. Maybe not even more Bitcoin enthusiasts but even crazier guys!
And the media probably isn't going to sit around and wait for pro Bitcoiners to reach out for an interview.
Most of what you read is directed media. Media got to eat too so they find opposing thoughts. Makes for better readership.
Think you'll find more plurality in universities teaching economics. Maybe not even more Bitcoin enthusiasts but even crazier guys!
For one is that even if they agree to adopt Bitcoin, they seem too late to buy at $30,000 each. The price is just not going to make them think their holding will be profitable for them to stack. And second, they are very much rooted in the fiat system which they know the government still will bail them out.
They are still in the delima whether they really could adopt Bitcoin while the rest had thousands of BTC in their wallet because they are early investors.
Economy is a Social Sciences.
"Economics is a social science because it examines the social behavior of human beings with regards to allocation of scarce resources in order to meet the needs of each individual in the society. Economics does not only involve production and distribution of goods and services, but also the human factor."
--Web Bot Crawlers
"Economics is a social science because it examines the social behavior of human beings with regards to allocation of scarce resources in order to meet the needs of each individual in the society. Economics does not only involve production and distribution of goods and services, but also the human factor."
--Web Bot Crawlers
...
economists only understand the old economic theory they get from their lectures...while Bitcoin is a new thing that they can't understand with their theory that's why they always associate Bitcoin with tulipmania. if they care about people then they will definitely say Bitcoin is the right choice for investing and also transacting large amounts.
For some mainstream economist, they see bitcoin as something that can disrupt the norm. And we all know that people resists changes. But there are some who are very positive on what bitcoin can bring specially to the majority. They saw it as something that can tip the balance of power, sort of. And it can give financial freedom specially for those who are unbanked. Giving them a lot of opportunity to manage and earn.
Jump to: