Why well-distinguished economists are negative on bitcoin

[ridertiger]

One would be quite hard-pressed to find a positive thing that well-distinguished economists had to say about crypto. However, it could be argued that, since crypto is an attack on traditional economics - the field most of them devoted their lives to - they feel there is nothing that crypto, and by extension Bitcoin, can bring to the table.

This is not a new thing, though: most great inventions were brought into the world while old people were complaining that it was all better in their day. And while the opinions of Nobel Prize awardees should count for something - who was ever stopped by that?

Here is a summary of what six of them said, with pictures:
https://cryptonews.com/exclusives/what-six-nobel-laureate-economists-have-to-say-about-crypto-1402.htm

[1713908850]

1713908850

[1713908850]

1713908850

[1713908850]

1713908850

[bitmover]

Keynesians are not capitalists, they don't really get economics.

[ridertiger]

Yeah, always wrong, am i right or am i right

[RodeoX]

It's the same stupid blindness that led to Blockbuster video thinking streaming is no threat. Somehow people who are winning in business can't see the changes coming. Why? Because they don't want it to happen.

[hase0278]

It's the same stupid blindness that led to Blockbuster video thinking streaming is no threat. Somehow people who are winning in business can't see the changes coming. Why? Because they don't want it to happen.

It can also be the other way around. They might have had seen bitcoin and crypto in general as something with potential, but they don't want it to go up in price yet. There are many reasons why they don't want it to happen, one of it is that they are gaining profit more in fiat and credit cards when compared to the profit they will get in crypto atm. I wonder though, what will the future present to us? Will it be a future where bitcoin is massively used? We will find that out within 10-20 years from now.

[pitiflin]

Because bitcoin is a a currency. Economics deals with issue of scarcity and choice and stuff. The subject of economics is to understand a nation/an economy, how its resources are utilized and how production is taking place, effectiveness and efficiency and all that shit. So economists would find it hard to come to a conclusion about bitcoin. They just feel like assuming, hence making an ass out of themselves. Just ignore them man.

[catok broek]

Businessmen are not able to see the future, they see profits. they would stay where profit can be always gained. it is their comfort zone that they won't get away from it. only scientists see the future, like Mr Satoshi. 

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

One would be quite hard-pressed to find a positive thing that well-distinguished economists had to say about crypto. However, it could be argued that, since crypto is an attack on traditional economics - the field most of them devoted their lives to - they feel there is nothing that crypto, and by extension Bitcoin, can bring to the table.

This is not a new thing, though: most great inventions were brought into the world while old people were complaining that it was all better in their day. And while the opinions of Nobel Prize awardees should count for something - who was ever stopped by that?

Here is a summary of what six of them said, with pictures:
https://cryptonews.com/exclusives/what-six-nobel-laureate-economists-have-to-say-about-crypto-1402.htm

because they are too stupid to understand anything related to the market or economy and it's not in their text books, so they are still completely at loss... bitcoin proves them their stupidity and naivity and lack of critical thinking, it exposes them for their worthless piece of leech they are. simply.

edit: they are like scamcoin and icoscam promoters... only they believe their shit  .

[btc_angela]

One would be quite hard-pressed to find a positive thing that well-distinguished economists had to say about crypto. However, it could be argued that, since crypto is an attack on traditional economics - the field most of them devoted their lives to - they feel there is nothing that crypto, and by extension Bitcoin, can bring to the table.

This is not a new thing, though: most great inventions were brought into the world while old people were complaining that it was all better in their day. And while the opinions of Nobel Prize awardees should count for something - who was ever stopped by that?

Here is a summary of what six of them said, with pictures:
https://cryptonews.com/exclusives/what-six-nobel-laureate-economists-have-to-say-about-crypto-1402.htm

I didn't read the article but here's my take:

1. Economics doesn't understand what crypto is because they are very traditional. And there are only some basic economic law that is applicable to bitcoin market. Supply and Demand. Other laws doesn't apply because crypto is based on pure speculation.
2. Crypto are very disruptive technology. - again, they are not to use to see technology affecting the imbalance of the financial and economic world. Just look at how Warren Buffet attacks crypto because he was afraid of this technology, he is old and just wanted to invest on something that he knows about.

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

One would be quite hard-pressed to find a positive thing that well-distinguished economists had to say about crypto. However, it could be argued that, since crypto is an attack on traditional economics - the field most of them devoted their lives to - they feel there is nothing that crypto, and by extension Bitcoin, can bring to the table.

This is not a new thing, though: most great inventions were brought into the world while old people were complaining that it was all better in their day. And while the opinions of Nobel Prize awardees should count for something - who was ever stopped by that?

Here is a summary of what six of them said, with pictures:
https://cryptonews.com/exclusives/what-six-nobel-laureate-economists-have-to-say-about-crypto-1402.htm

I didn't read the article but here's my take:

1. Economics doesn't understand what crypto is because they are very traditional. And there are only some basic economic law that is applicable to bitcoin market. Supply and Demand. Other laws doesn't apply because crypto is based on pure speculation.
2. Crypto are very disruptive technology. - again, they are not to use to see technology affecting the imbalance of the financial and economic world. Just look at how Warren Buffet attacks crypto because he was afraid of this technology, he is old and just wanted to invest on something that he knows about.

no it's because to get good grads they have to be parrots, the smart one can do it while staying smart but leave asap, so stay behind are only the dumbest and most naive, and they become teachers, and in this position become arrogant... arrogant fools.

edit: there are few exceptions but they aren't in academics... it's more high school and trade schools... in university it's the dumbest of the dumb.

[Hydrogen]

One would be quite hard-pressed to find a positive thing that well-distinguished economists had to say about crypto. However, it could be argued that, since crypto is an attack on traditional economics - the field most of them devoted their lives to - they feel there is nothing that crypto, and by extension Bitcoin, can bring to the table.

This is not a new thing, though: most great inventions were brought into the world while old people were complaining that it was all better in their day. And while the opinions of Nobel Prize awardees should count for something - who was ever stopped by that?

Here is a summary of what six of them said, with pictures:
https://cryptonews.com/exclusives/what-six-nobel-laureate-economists-have-to-say-about-crypto-1402.htm

I don't agree with the view of bitcoin representing an "attack" on traditional economics. I think collectively we should welcome bitcoin and crypto currencies with open arms due to the much needed competition they bring to markets. They introduce incentives which will drive banking and finance industries to offer better terms to consumers and distribute more investment towards industry wide advancement. Bitcoin also provides an opportunity for experimentation and broadening economic and financial knowledge, which can be invaluable in terms of satisfying the learning curve. This could gives us better and more reliable real world knowledge of deflationary currencies, which could be superior to much of what "traditional economics" says about deflationary money.

It is possible that the nobel prize system has lost credibility and is no longer legitimate. There were brows raised when Obama was awarded a nobel peace prize. Al Gore's nobel peace prize for a slideshow on global warming may also have been questionable. Recent economics winners of the nobel prize like Paul Krugman have not offered much beyond "we're obligated to kick the debt can down the road, as we previously have done with debt". Ridiculous for someone whose job it is to help maintain the stability and prosperity of our economy.

The nobel prize system also might be traced back to bankers who fund the system and maintain it indirectly. In which case, they may not function as an independent or unbiased body of work. They may have had much more credibility in past decades than in recent times.

[kaya11]

The messages of the traditional economist are only for the people who are living in the urban areas or cities that are well developed, but for most of us living in a rural areas where news via internet are broadcast, it's impossible for their voice to reach out here. Most people here are living like what old folks do, farming and fishing and don't even know a single thing about the economic growth that is happening right now.

[mpetyunov10]

Paul Krugman, who won the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics, already ridiculed bitcoin several times. In his first mention of the crypto currency, Krugman called bitkoyn an evil for the economy.
"I have to say that I still doubt if bitkoyn can work at all."
Three years later, bitkoyn continues to work and process approximately 225,000 operations per day.
In 2014, Krugman continued to call bitcoin as a matter of fact a scam. In 2015, Krugman seemed to lack the basic understanding of bitcoin when he was asked about it on The Genius of Economics.
"At the moment, bitkoyn does not look good," he said.
Then one bitkoyn was traded at the level of $ 279.63. Since then, the price has more than doubled, and now it is above $ 600. In fact, bitokoyn reached its current state less than two months before Krugman's statement. Of course, Krugman's analysis was not so blatant or specific as a specialist at the University of Boston, Mark T. Williams, who shamefully predicted the collapse of the bitcoin price to $ 10 by mid-2014.
I must say, it is difficult to find any true predictions made by Krugman about bitkoyne up to this point.

[ausbit]

Yeah, always wrong, am i right or am i right

Everyone has his own way of looking up at the things and that you cannot force anyone or can impose anything on anyone. There is a freedom of expression and that we all need to respect each other.

Not everyone out of us in favor of the bitcoin and the crypto currencies and that all of them have their own reasons behind that. We should not rely on others to make our decisions and that we need to make the decision which seems to be more suitable to us.

[vaughn125]

One would be quite hard-pressed to find a positive thing that well-distinguished economists had to say about crypto. However, it could be argued that, since crypto is an attack on traditional economics - the field most of them devoted their lives to - they feel there is nothing that crypto, and by extension Bitcoin, can bring to the table.

This is not a new thing, though: most great inventions were brought into the world while old people were complaining that it was all better in their day. And while the opinions of Nobel Prize awardees should count for something - who was ever stopped by that?

Here is a summary of what six of them said, with pictures:
https://cryptonews.com/exclusives/what-six-nobel-laureate-economists-have-to-say-about-crypto-1402.htm

You are absolutely right. It is most likely that they are too afraid to take on something new because it is completely unfamiliar which is why they completely close their minds to it and says all sorts of unprecedented things about this industry relying on their outdated knowledge or expertise just to hide their real reasons in doing this and protect their names and pride. Just look at the fact that most of the ones that are considering bitcoins are big company owners because they are open into accepting new ideas and taking risks. Oh well, that's just that. There's completely no way or is close to impossible to change these type of people.

[ridertiger]

This is what happend to Kodak and Blockbuster. Kodak never tried digital cameras, and nobody bought their cameras. By the time they went to the digital camera world, everyone already had cell phones to take pictures.
Now, they are trying to get into cryptocurrencies

[ylnar123]

One would be quite hard-pressed to find a positive thing that well-distinguished economists had to say about crypto. However, it could be argued that, since crypto is an attack on traditional economics - the field most of them devoted their lives to - they feel there is nothing that crypto, and by extension Bitcoin, can bring to the table.

This is not a new thing, though: most great inventions were brought into the world while old people were complaining that it was all better in their day. And while the opinions of Nobel Prize awardees should count for something - who was ever stopped by that?

Here is a summary of what six of them said, with pictures:
https://cryptonews.com/exclusives/what-six-nobel-laureate-economists-have-to-say-about-crypto-1402.htm

We know that these economists wants only an insured way to earn, without thinking about the volatility of an investments. Volatile investment for them made them think about how risky it is. High risk investment is not what these economists want to instill to the minds of the people and not having anything to think about these volatile business.

[gentlemand]

If you're an economist then surely you would be absolutely beyond fascinated at being there to witness the birth of a brand new economic system, even more so if you're an economic academic.

Even if you hate it or have severe doubts, it can't be ignored and should be studied intensely. I would expect a vocal hater to demonstrate greater knowledge than a supporter if they're to be taken seriously, yet what comes out of their gobs is far less informed than some dark web LSD seller who's permanently high on their own supply.

Anyone with any sense would sensibly voice some scepticism but sit back and watch it play out with great interest.

[buwaytress]

One would be quite hard-pressed to find a positive thing that well-distinguished economists had to say about crypto. However, it could be argued that, since crypto is an attack on traditional economics - the field most of them devoted their lives to - they feel there is nothing that crypto, and by extension Bitcoin, can bring to the table.

This is not a new thing, though: most great inventions were brought into the world while old people were complaining that it was all better in their day. And while the opinions of Nobel Prize awardees should count for something - who was ever stopped by that?

Here is a summary of what six of them said, with pictures:
https://cryptonews.com/exclusives/what-six-nobel-laureate-economists-have-to-say-about-crypto-1402.htm

You sort of answered your own point of discussion, really. Bitcoin (I won't say crypto) was and is an attack on the established order of all things money. So it's hardly a surprise that banks and by extension traditional economists, must feel defensive and critical of Bitcoin. I'd seen movements and slideshows they've shown in some universities from 2013 even painting Bitcoin with all the different shades of black.

They're forced to study how money works in unis, and even when faced by growing evidence that their systems aren't just flawed, but false, they need that validation or they're all out of jobs. Just my sweeping generalisation. Economists and their fixation on rational theory.

[amishmanish]

Let's see what they are all saying one at a time:

1. Paul Krugman: 2008 Noble Nobel Laureate:
"So is Bitcoin a giant bubble that will end in grief? Yes. But it’s a bubble wrapped in techno-mysticism inside a cocoon of libertarian ideology."

So if you don't understand how cryptography ensures security of the private keys or how mining ensures protection against double-spend, It becomes mysticism. This is an outright baseless and dishonest statement. People who are familiar with the system and are actually studying it don't find anything mystical about it.
For calling this mysticism, can he explain what exactly goes on behind all the "Financial Engineering" of bringing out derivatives and then using the invested money to generate bonuses for traders and bankers??

2. Eugene Fama: Noble Nobel Memorial Prize 2013
"if it doesn’t have a stable value it’s probably not going to survive as a unit of account."

Jumping the gun again. You cannot know what you don't know. How does he know that the value cannot stabilize? If there is enough consensus on using bitcoin the way it is meant to be, it can stabilize as much as any of the other 'settlement methods' that had been in vogue through centuries.

3.Robert Shiller: Noble Nobel Prize 2013
"It’s such a wonderful story. If it were only true.”

Reverse psychology for those who get easily floundered. Yes it's a wonderful story and it's true. Yes you have to be smart and fast to understand it. Not old and smug about your scholarship.

4.Joseph Stiglitz: Nobel Memorial Prize, 2001
"We have a good medium of exchange called the dollar. We can trade in that. Why do people want Bitcoin? For secrecy."

Yes we have the dollar. Before that it was bullion. We can trade in yuan, ruble as much as we can trade in dollar. People want bitcoin because you cannot simply generate more of it to write-off bad debts coming out of financial mismanagement. You cannot simply give bonuses to all the people who cause mayhem in investment banks by bail-outs and pass the burden on to the working class. Of course they want a system that can be held more accountable than this. If bitcoin is that system, then yes, people want it.

And Secrecy. Yes why not?? Did we have any less drug and guns trade even without bitcoin?

5. Bengt Holmström: Nobel Memorial Prize 2016
"That’s an example of where you think you’re doing something good, you’re creating a lot of safety, but the consequences are actually potentially catastrophic [...] The bigger the calamity, the more safety there was initially,”

This is the only response which i find worthy of discussion. He says that centralized cryptocurrencies would be bad in the event of a crisis.  If the money rushes back to the central bank in the event of a crisis (as the central bank would be seen as the one dependable intermediary), what is wrong with it.
He says it'll see the central bank become an intermediary. Well, isn't that exactly what happens after the crisis anyways. All the central banks become the sole source of bail-out funds. Only with bitcoin, that wouldn't be an unlimited supply.

The problem is that the idea of bitcoin challenges the control that Central banks exercise through monetary and fiscal policy. It is not an easy thing to change and much research is still needed to determine how a financial system with a settlement currency like bitcoin will look like. These people are intellectually intimidated by bitcoin and simply want to brush this aside. These reactions are something we shouldn't really heed much.