He specifically says that Bitcoins value derives from perception.
He further says that it’s value is largely derived from its “potential for circumvention”.
The idea that random dude on the internet can call a Nobel Laureate & one of the most cited economists in history “ignorant” about these issues is hilarious.
I think Stiglitz is coming from the position that ALL 'circumvention' is a societal harm. He is working from a position which supports Federal govt first, and individuals second.
Confiscating money from child pornographers is a pretty clear moral good.
Civil asset forfeiture, the confiscating the cash a poor single-mom is taking to buy the car because "it could be drug money" is a pretty clear moral evil to me.
Which one of those happens more often? I'd guess the later is 100-1000x more frequent.
Bitcoin is not moral, it offers circumvention to all, for better or worse.
He further says that it’s value is largely derived from its “potential for circumvention”.
The idea that random dude on the internet can call a Nobel Laureate & one of the most cited economists in history “ignorant” about these issues is hilarious.