Why do many mainstream economists always oppose Bitcoin?

[RainbowKun]

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?

[StanleyBoyle]

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,
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.

[BitcoinBarrel]

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.

[pooya87]

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.

[Kong Hey Pakboy]

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.

[StanleyBoyle]

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.

[leea-1334]

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:)

[cryptomaniac_xxx]

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.

[Renampun]

...

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.

[Max_Headroom]

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

[bittraffic]

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.

[buwaytress]

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!

[tiCeR]

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.

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.

[RainbowKun]

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.

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.

[tbct_mt2]

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.

[DapanasFruit]

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.

[caffu chino]

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.

[ropyu1978]

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..

[Xinarae*]

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.

[tiCeR]

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.

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.