Academy members are inherently biased against Bitcoin, but there are smart and curious members who could change that.
This is an opinion editorial by Hannah Wolfman-Jones, author of “System Override: How Bitcoin, Blockchain, Free Speech, & Free Tech Can Change Everything” and founder of We The Web.
Can the academy consider Bitcoin fairly?
No. Or at least, not yet.
The academy has a huge and inherent bias against Bitcoin that it has yet to acknowledge. Academics, particularly academic economists, are the central planners who advise and run fiat monetary institutions. As such, they often ignore the drawbacks of decentralization. Bitcoin not only threatens the revolving door of academic economists with fiat monetary institutions, but also their egos and research. As ashley hodgsonassociate professor of economics at St. Olaf College and moderator of the HxEconomics Community at Heterodox Academy, explains in a draft chapter of a forthcoming book:
“To consider Bitcoin, one must change the question from ‘What would you do if you controlled the money supply?’ to ‘Should anyone (including economists like me) be able to control the money supply?’ In this way, Bitcoin is potentially disempowering for the thinking economist… Even for the thought experiment of limiting the power and status of one’s profession (academic economists) and one’s peers is something that can taste bad for the people who spent so many years and gave up so many other life opportunities to enter this profession.
“Academics work hard in their early careers to publish and generate new ideas… The newest and freshest ideas can sometimes push old ideas aside, which goes against the interests of senior academics, whose own sense of identity is based on the importance and correctness of their ideas. As such, clever new ideas and bright young academics pose a threat to senior academics in their role as thought leaders, especially if new ideas displace the prestige of old ones… Egos play a role in the academic environment, especially since we are essentially paid in prestige rather than money. Most economists could make more money by moving into industry. They stay in academia for glory and influence… (Junior economists) know that they are more likely to rise in their profession if their ideas and research topics support the existing paradigm, therefore they do not pose too great a threat for senior colleagues who decide on them. your custody case. By the time someone is ready for tenure, he has built a body of thought that he now identifies with. While they have the freedom, potentially, to deviate from that, the ideas may have solidified into their world view.”
Unsurprisingly, academic study of Bitcoin has so far been very sparse and the research that has been carried out, with few exceptions, has been superficial, unreliable, and decidedly anti-Bitcoin. faulty research based on misunderstandings about how Bitcoin works, they are used as the basis for peer-reviewed academic and government research papers and ossified within academia, as these error-ridden papers are cited in subsequent academic research.
Real Bitcoin experts, the vast majority of whom are not in academia or government, are not considered “peers” by the credential-focused hierarchical academic system and therefore cannot contribute to peer review of Bitcoin. The academy. Has been egregious examples of academia that publishes research in reputable journals that are, like reason had noticed, “extravagantly and demonstrably false”. This “logically flawed” research (conducted and reviewed by academics who do not adequately understand the basic workings of Bitcoin) is widely published and propagated within academia and the media. Reason surmises that the “apocalyptic” and “fundamentally incorrect” Bitcoin research is given a semblance of credibility by academia “as a ploy by economic, media, and political elites to undermine a powerful new form of money they cannot control.” “.
Is academia a lost cause to understand the future of the economy?
Somehow, yes. Academics are mostly ignorant of the paradigm shift brought about by Bitcoin and how it provides an alternative (and is therefore a threat) to authoritarian global monetary forces, including the petrodollar, the subjugation of the developing world through IMF loans and the World Bank (see the book “Confessions of an economic hitman” for more), the Cantillon effect and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) advancing social credit systems and “The Great Reset”.
Academics often summarily dismiss such authoritarian fiduciary forces as “conspiracy theories,” a realm they do not consider worthy of investigation. Since academics are almost universally from the developed world and are in good standing with powerful governments (who have high social credit), they never face the oppressive nature of fiduciary control in their own lives. Therefore, academics are largely blind to the pitfalls of fiat money and the benefits of Bitcoin as a runaway monetary system.
In other ways though, no, it’s not a lost cause. The faculty is far from a monolith and most of them are highly intelligent and curious truth-seekers who sincerely want to improve the world. Most economics professors have no intention of working for the IMF, Federal Reserve, or similar trust institutions, so they themselves are not particularly conflicted.
Bitcoin has already made some headway in universities, as there are many independent thinkers within the academic ranks. For example, Texas A&M does astute and extensive technological and economic research on Bitcoin, even having a “bitcoin class” dedicated to it. Academics from many different universities have come together in the Bitcoin Policy Institute resulting in high-quality and in-depth Bitcoin research.
There are also some academics who do not understand/appreciate Bitcoin, but find value in increasing the diversity of viewpoints to improve the quality of research produced and may be receptive to further inclusion of Bitcoin as a topic. In particular, there are thousands of professors at Heterodox Academy, a nonprofit organization dedicated to open research, whom I hope you will soon recognize the still unrecognized strong bias of academia against Bitcoin..
While these newer research activities will not be incorporated into formal economics curricula any time soon, they are widely discussed in academic spheres. Bitcoiners have a lot to learn from academia about the fiat system, which will continue to dominate for a long time to come. The professors are real experts on the fiat system and often influential advisers. In particular, they will advise government officials and the unelected global elite on CBDCs and related cryptocurrency policies and fiat system management through upcoming challenges. Bitcoiners can also benefit cognitively from listening to informed opinions that are contrary to their own.
This is a guest post by Hannah Wolfman-Jones. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
