Over the past few years, Paul Krugman, “economist” and University of New York professor, continuously criticized Bitcoin and its decentralized nature, describing it as an anti-social network because it does not depend on a state-owned or controlled money supply.To start with, Bitcoin can be perceived as an abstract financial and technological concept within the traditional frame of Economics and Finance.The Bitcoin network represents the potential of peer-to-peer and open financial networks that eliminate the necessity of the third party institutions or governing entities in order to efficiently facilitate payments between users in a practical ecosystem.Conventional “economists” such as Krugman have been introduced to state-owned, controlled and manipulated currencies, assets and stores of value for an immense period of time that they often struggle to understand the necessity of digital currencies like Bitcoin.In his blog he writes: “At the end of 2013, I wrote a post titled “Bitcoin is evil,” riffing off Charlie Stross’s “Why I want Bitcoin to die in a fire.” Charlie and I both keyed in on the obvious ideological agenda: Bitcoin fever was and is intimately tied up with libertarian anti-government fantasies.” The “Bitcoin is antisocial” argument has been the core of Krugman’s criticisms against the cryptocurrency.

Ironically, however, Bitcoin has demonstrated the highest level of user freedom, as it relies on a peer-to-peer protocol as its foundation.Another ridiculous statement of Krugman that he frequently pushes in mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times, for example, is that “Bitcoin is not state-owned,” which misleads users and investors on the primary purpose of Bitcoin.Basically, he says that Bitcoin was created to weaken the global banking system.In 2009, Bitcoin was introduced with the sole purpose of providing financial freedom, sovereignty and independence to users.So far, it has succeeded in offering an unprecedented level of financial freedom to the general population, proving that financial networks can exist without the involvement of governments and the existence of authority.Bitcoin serves as evidence that peer-to-peer networks can exist and that users are responsible enough to lead a peer-to-peer protocol in a civilized manner.The global financial system utilizes cash as its basis.

Banking systems and financial services are deployed on top of the monetary framework, offering digitalized methods of transacting cash.The role of the government within a cash-based monetary system is to provide enough supply of physical cash to support the economy.Governments have abused this power over the cash-based monetary system to print fiat money at their demand.bitcoin 2048Termed as “quantitative easing,” central banks print a certain amount of cash and distribute that among banks.bbc radio 4 bitcoinWhile governments claim that this new set of printed money ends up at the bottom of the economy, in actuality, billions of dollars created on an annual basis are sprinkled on top of the economy for top-tier organizations and financial institutions.bitcoin sofort nutzen

Bitcoin has proved that a state-owned money supply is redundant and unnecessary.In a social network, a peer-to-peer protocol like Bitcoin, each individual plays a role in maintaining an autonomous financial network.Search The Long Cryptocon At the end of 2013 I wrote a post titled “Bitcoin is evil,” riffing off Charlie Stross’s “Why I want Bitcoin to die in a fire.” Charlie and I both keyed in on the obvious ideological agenda: Bitcoin fever was and is intimately tied up with libertarian anti-government fantasies.bitcoin nedir nas?l cal?s?rSo how’s it going?transfer bitcoin from coinbase to btc-eBitcoin prices are down by two-thirds from their peak, and Izabella Kaminska, who has stayed with the subject, finds the sad story of a gullible rube who appears to have impoverished himself by believing in the hype.nxt coin bitcoin

She comments: Some extremely wealthy libertarians have a lot to answer for if these sorts of ppl lose all due to believing in them But this is nothing new.Back in 2012 Rick Perlstein published an eye-opening piece titled The Long Con, in which he documented the close association that has always existed between right-wing organizing and direct-mail commercial scams — in fact, it’s pretty much impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins.why did bitcoin difficulty dropSend us money to keep Obama from imposing Sharia law; invest in this sure-fire scheme to profit from the coming hyperinflation.ethereum foundation membersWas Glenn Beck selling paranoid politics or Goldline?litecoin shares per blockBitcoin may be sold as a technical marvel, and it does indeed solve an interesting information problem — although it’s not at all clear whether solving that problem has any economic value.

But the psychology and sociology of the phenomenon are the same old same old.The vast majority of economists seem to have a serious distaste for Bitcoin.Whenever an economist who has received a Nobel Prize, teaches at an Ivy League school or works at a central bank comments on Bitcoin, they always seem to have something negative to say about the technology.Some of these individuals simply say that Bitcoin has no future whatsoever, while others go as far as to claim it is pure evil.Paul Krugman, who won the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics, has ridiculed Bitcoin on multiple occasions.Late last month, fellow Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz shared his own disdain for the peer-to-peer digital cash system at the London School of Economics.Former International Monetary Fund Chief Economist Kenneth Rogoff also recently spoke negatively of Bitcoin, saying the U.S.Government should eventually ban the digital money, in addition to cash bills over $10.There is no shortage of economists who want to see Bitcoin crash and burn.

Paul Krugman Gets It Wrong on Bitcoin Before getting into the recent comments from Stiglitz and Rogoff, let’s take a closer look at Krugman’s comments about Bitcoin over the years.In his first post on Bitcoin, Krugman called it evil.“I have to say that I’m still deeply unconvinced,” Krugman wrote in regard to whether Bitcoin could even work.Three years later, Bitcoin is still working and processing roughly 225,000 transactions per day.Krugman also didn’t understand that censorship-resistant online transactions are the underpinning value of bitcoin, as Silk Road had illustrated that use case two years prior.In 2014, Krugman went on to essentially call Bitcoin a scam.In 2015, Krugman seemed to lack a basic understanding of Bitcoin when asked about it at The Genius of Economics.“At this point, bitcoin is not looking too good,” he noted., one bitcoin was trading at $279.63 the day Krugman made that statement.The price has more than doubled since then and is now above $600.

In fact, bitcoin hit the bottom of its current rally a little under two months before Krugman’s statement.Of course, Krugman’s analysis wasn’t as blatant or specific as that of Boston’s University’s Mark T. Williams, who infamously predicted a collapse of the bitcoin price to under $10 by the middle of 2014.Having said that, it’s difficult to find any correct points made by Krugman about Bitcoin up to this point.Although Stiglitz hasn’t talked about bitcoin much over the years, he appears to hold a view similar to Krugman’s.“My own view is bitcoins have been greatly exaggerated, and a common medium of exchange and store of value is a basic public function and needs to be regulated,” he recently stated at the London School of Economics.“The main use of bitcoins has been to circumvent tax authorities and regulation and I think the U.S.government did the right thing by trying to shut it down.And I think, effectively, it has done that.” Stiglitz is correct in that the main use case of Bitcoin is for regulatory arbitrage (outside of its use as a store of value), but his comments regarding a U.S.

government shutdown of Bitcoin are unfounded.It’s unclear what Stiglitz was referring to when he said the U.S.government tried to shut down (or effectively shut down) the peer-to-peer digital cash system.Much like Krugman, Stiglitz reveals his disdain for Bitcoin due to its use in avoiding financial and monetary regulations.Ken Rogoff Wants Less Cash in the World Now for Rogoff.This Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Harvard University would like to see Bitcoin banned if it gains further traction.“You have to play whack-a-mole with all these things,” he stated during a recent appearance on CNBC.“There are always going to be these other things: gold coins, uncut diamonds, [and] now bitcoin.” “[Bitcoin] is at a very low scale now, and you can’t go into the drug store and use it,” Rogoff continued.“They’ll prevent it in the future.They’re, you know, allowing innovation.” In a recent article for Project Syndicate, Rogoff claimed governments have many tools at their disposal for limiting the use of bitcoin.

The one example tool he provided was a ban on the acceptance of bitcoin by banks and retail stores.Although he doesn’t want to get rid of cash completely, Rogoff would like to gradually remove bills larger than ten dollars from circulation.This, obviously, would have the side effect of making bitcoin an even more attractive offering for censorship-resistant transactions.In fact, a cashless (or in Rogoff’s case, less-cash) society has the potential to create new opportunities for Bitcoin.Ironically, Rogoff hints at the opportunity a less-cash society could create for Bitcoin in his aforementioned article.“Scaling back paper currency would hardly end crime and tax evasion; but it would force the underground economy to employ riskier and less liquid payment devices,” he wrote.Why Does This Hatred Exist?The reasons these economists (and others) hate Bitcoin should be obvious.In their view, it is the government’s job to regulate currency in an effort to provide greater stability for the economy.

They also clearly believe the government should be able to decide what is and is not a legitimate or legal transaction.This point of view is cited in the posts by Krugman, mentioned earlier in this article.In both of those pieces about Bitcoin, Krugman links to a Charlie Stross blog post titled, Why I Want Bitcoin to Die in a Fire.In the piece, Stross complains about a variety of perceived issues with Bitcoin; including, the 21 million bitcoin cap, the amount of energy burned to secure the network, any possibility of anonymity or privacy within the system, how digital cash has incentivized the creation of new malware, uncensorable markets, and more.“To editorialize briefly, BitCoin [sic] looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind — to damage states’ ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions,” Stross concludes.In other words, these economists would like the government to be able to regulate the economy and they view Bitcoin as a possible threat to that philosophy.