I do not think this is really true though. I am sure a lot of mainstream economists if you put them in a room will have 10 different point of views and argue about everything a lot. And maybe Bitcoin could be one of 10 opposing views,,, this is not for BTC or against BTC, BTC is just one of many alternatives.
Even Nobel Prize winners in Economy never got their recognition right away, some waited decades before people saw their truths:)
Topic: Why do many mainstream economists always oppose Bitcoin? - page 7. (Read 1126 times)
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.
Yes, yes, although I am not an economist, I do not allow other people to come up in my bed, and the title of economist is also given by the government, which is more like the government’s mouth talking, telling everyone, This is not allowed, this is a Ponzi scheme and so on. 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.
The mainstream media has repeatedly been wrong about Bitcoin among other things. They will publish stories that generate clicks based on ignorance and hysterics.
More recently however, there has been positive stories about Crypto especially with NFTs.
I think the moment that the most influential and controversial investigative journalists died, media was never the same, it became a way to make money by manipulating the thoughts of many people. So I am not surprised that they are attacking bitcoin through mainstream media. This is just my theory but the growth of Axie Infinity might be the reason why there is a positive stories regarding NFTs. More recently however, there has been positive stories about Crypto especially with NFTs.
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.
The mainstream media has repeatedly been wrong about Bitcoin among other things. They will publish stories that generate clicks based on ignorance and hysterics.
More recently however, there has been positive stories about Crypto especially with NFTs.
More recently however, there has been positive stories about Crypto especially with NFTs.
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?
Because the development of things does not happen overnight, just like turning a book, 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?
Although the content of this page is different from the previous page, it still maintains continuity.
No matter how small it is and how weak its current impact is, bitcoin digital currency has become a fait accompli. The reason many economists reject it is simply that the existence of bitcoin has affected the existing economic order. For the country , The macro economy receives a shock, or the hegemony of a currency, or the current SWIFT settlement system may go bankrupt. Bitcoin affects national interests.
A very simple example, if you smoke a cigarette,Would you light the cigarette in reverse？ When the inherent economic model and habits are broken, there will always be different voices and rejections. This is normal, and it also shows that the development trend of Bitcoin is irreversible.
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?
Jump to: