Academy is not a fan of Bitcoin. A large number of professors are widely biased against it. Nuriel Rubini, a professor of economics at New York University, for example, does not even try to hide his intense hatred of bitcoin. Rubini said Bloomberg That “Flintstone had a better financial system than Bitcoin” and it has repeatedly called it a “bubble” since 2015. Asked to testify expertly in the U.S. Senate, Rubini called Bitcoin the “mother of all scandals” and described it as “scammers, fraudsters, criminals, charlatans, insider whales and carnival barkers.”
Rubini is unique among academics because of his hatred of Bitcoin. Prominent academic economists are almost universal in rejecting bitcoin. Very few professors have studied Bitcoin in depth and even very few people have understood it; Yet, many professors have rejected bitcoin.
I am honored and delighted to present to the HxEconomics community recently, a group facilitated by Heterodox Academy, an organization of university professors, students and staff committed to “enhancing the quality of research and education through open research, promoting diversity of perspectives, and constructive dissent in higher education institutions. As proof of living up to their values, the economics discussion group invited me to a panel entitled “Non-Academic, Ignored Orthodoxy, Academia Beyond Again Bitcoin” without a special identity card. Probably true: there is an underlying bias in academia and the economic body of research / theories produces it in favor of “fiat” or managed financial support for the system and especially against bitcoin.
Why Bitcoin in particular? Bitcoin is a set of rules without a ruler, it’s just a protocol. Bitcoin is unique in cryptocurrency in that it is not laser-based (through decentralization and game theory) and consistent (in terms of delivery schedule, economic and sensory rules, uptime and treatment of participants). Bitcoin knows no preference; It treats adolescents from Nigeria as strong members of the Federal Reserve. Bitcoin is by far the least stopped and the most consistent means that can be used online due to its decentralization, network impact, developmental stage, policy and lack of leadership.
Bitcoiners prefer this lack of control over Bitcoin because it prevents the system from settling in favor of the already rich and powerful. In Fiat, on the other hand, those who control the money supply allocate extraordinarily new money to their (elite) missing phenomenon: this is known as the cantilever effect and exacerbates inequality. However, most educators consider the Fiat system of control over money to be legitimate, good and necessary. Academics disagree with many Bitcoiners, including economist Friedrich von Hayek in his 1974 Nobel Prize speech:
“Working on the belief that we have the knowledge and energy that enables us to shape the processes of our society completely according to our choices, knowledge that we don’t actually have, can do us a lot of harm.”
Academics often ignore Hayek’s concerns and place their hopes on financial authorities to intervene for the greater good. Academics generally prefer a managed economy, believing that the Fiat system with central authorities will reduce recession and frustration. Managed money empowers governments and their advisers and unelected financial managers to respond to changes in the world with changes in funding, interest rates, and so on. In fact, Roubini complains of very little central control over the use of cash and the desire of the authorities to have more power over people’s money, saying, 3, -4, -5 (%) You can go whatever you want … the direction we’re going. “
Thus, academics fail to realize the core value proposition of Bitcoin: its lack of central management, lack of control of any party. Bitcoin robs central planners of the power to set the rules for a market, allocates money as they see fit in the economy, confiscates assets from citizens, and prevents the transfer of funds (or censors anyone financially).
Why do academics want so much power in the hands of central planners because of the risk of corruption, misunderstandings and consolidation of power? Why don’t educators often discuss the risks of the underlying Fiat system, such as totalitarianism through money control and kleptocratic or unjust measures by money management?
Because academics are planners! Academics benefit greatly from the centralized Fiat Money system through employment opportunities as decision-makers, advisors or researchers. Decentralized Bitcoin is a unique threat to unselected officials ’centralized control over the Fiat currency system. “Expert” unselected officials control our global monetary system through a variety of mechanisms, such as allocating huge amounts of newly printed money for favorable countries, programs and initiatives, as well as changing interest rates. Unselected central planners choose whether or not to enter the market to acquire wealth for themselves and their families through organizations such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), providing loans and assistance.
Institutions such as the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the World Bank have a revolving door between academics and positions of power as central economic planners. Rubini, for example, has worked at the academy for decades but is currently advising the IMF, the Bretton Woods Committee, and more, and has previously consulted with the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, and the US government. The central planning of the financial system means more power for Rubini, her colleagues and the many organizations that finance and empower them. The image below is among the astonishing number of academics who have achieved significant power, prestige, and financial rewards as unselected managers or advisors to the Fiat Money system.
There is an unknown conflict of interest in academia: since educators are central planners, they are encouraged to come to research conclusions that support heavy central planning. As trusted experts, academic economists are global management managers and thus often blind to the errors and risks associated with trusting our financial system to trusted central managers.
Even professors who are not or do not want to be involved in managing or advising on the Fiat currency system are under pressure to support it. Fiat financial institutions empower their peers (and thus universities in general) and frequently provide research funding to economics departments. There is a lot of pressure on academia to support the Fiat system. Professor Ashley Hodgson, who leads regular discussions with academic economists across the country through Heatherdox Academy, explains:
“In any large organization where the relationship between organizations is social, there is a political element. You have to be sensitive to what insults your coworkers, what insults your superiors. Everyone has a social and professional advantage to being on the good side. In academia especially the currency in which we deal is dignified instead of money … to climb this ladder of dignity and intelligence people are paid less than what they can get outside the academy … academics have to be sensitive to this their credibility can be questioned if they Some say things that insult people in influential circles – so criticizing their ideas is more likely to create real crime in the academic environment. That means If you want to climb into the academy’s hierarchy, you need to be wary of critical ideas, especially those at the top of the field who make decisions.”
Thus, academic economists are reluctant to criticize the Fiat approach, as their most respected colleagues are its central planners. Bitcoin takes away the power of academic economists to influence the financial system, reducing their relevance, prestige, power and thus financing.
Moreover, universities benefit from the Fiat system’s simple monetary policy through government grants and education funding (adopting favorable debt in an inflationary environment like the Fiat system). Economists and research academics are thus biased in support of the inflationary Fiat system. It is no wonder why many academics are vocally opposed to Bitcoin and support central planners in controlling the global monetary system. Note: By no means do I want to convey that I recommend for the mother to be inactive. All people have a tendency to be biased towards their motivations. If only Bitcoiners at universities were not employed as professors in the Fiat system, they would also be biased. But that’s far from the case, instead they have almost no Bitcoin supporters among them.
There is an unknown conflict of interest in academia: Since educators are central planners, they are encouraged to come to research conclusions that favor heavy central planning. Academia instinctively today and Extremely biased against Bitcoin. This is the time when we acknowledge the bias and take steps to correct it.
This is a guest post by Hannah Wolfman-Jones. The opinions are entirely their own and BTC Inc Bitcoin Magazine.