One must appreciate the self-assurance of the economist. Nouriel Roubini is carrying around. In a recent In a recent outburst, the well-known economist unleashed yet another criticism toward crypto, blockchain, and anyone not sharing his seemingly inherent disdain for what's often presented as 'just an Excel spreadsheet with a fancy name.'
Nouriel Roubini didn't stop at critiquing the technology; he went on to make broad assertions that are as incorrect as they are outlandish. This excerpt from his piece stands out for its boldness.
'In reality, blockchain is merely an enhanced ledger. Yet, it has been appropriated by those espousing libertarian beliefs, viewing government entities, central banks, and traditional financial institutions as harmful power aggregates needing dismantling.'
The notion that blockchain serves as a synonym for libertarian thought is utterly preposterous. Major corporations are actively securing patents and implementing blockchain platforms, such as Walmart, which hardly embodies libertarian principles. major banks , and international powerhouse IBM is currently pushing forward with blockchain solutions alongside partners like Walmart. Discovering a global company less libertarian in ethos than Walmart or top-tier banks would be quite the task.
Nouriel Roubini isn’t Getting It
Let's set the record straight—cryptos never qualified as 'the mother of all bubbles.' At their height, their collective valuation remained below a trillion dollars, trailing Apple's market cap at that moment. Bitcoin is an innovative tool for internet use, an achievement no one can diminish.
Is Bitcoin Poised to Shape the Future of Global Finance?
Probably not.
Realistically speaking, Bitcoin was likely never meant to supplant world’s banking system It has sparked innovative advancements across numerous centers such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada, and Thailand—an impressive feat for technology birthed just a decade ago.
The World Bank is also issuing bonds on a blockchain framework, though Mr. Roubini appears unfazed by the actual truths at play.
Read: World Bank Collaborates with CBA to Launch Blockchain Bonds
When Does a Blockchain Cease to Be a Blockchain?
It's undeniable that substantial funds are being poured into developing blockchain platforms ventures unrelated to cryptocurrencies. Faced with these facts, Nouriel Roubini seems to adopt a page from Orwell's 1984, tweaking definitions to fit his narrative.
Disregard the fact that his explanation of blockchain requires one dive headlong into cognitive dissonance: 'Moreover, when enterprise distributed ledger technologies are in use, they diverge from true blockchain. These systems are private, centralized, and maintained on a handful of secure ledgers by trusted authorities. Access is restricted to vetted individuals. Essentially, these are 'blockchains' in name alone.'
If you can swallow such reasoning, North Korea might have just the job for you within its Truth Department or whatever they dub their propaganda wing.
Mr. Roubini also applied the GINI coefficient to Bitcoin, inaccurately treating it as a standalone nation. His criticism extended to accusations of white male billionaires in savior roles and price manipulation in the crypto markets by countries like China and Russia.
Methinks Mr. Roubini Protests a Bit Too Much
Hurling vitriol at cryptos and blockchain was all the rage last year. JP Morgan's CEO Jamie Dimon went that route, and China wasn't far behind. Fast forward, and JP Morgan is securing blockchain patents, while China furthers blockchain development. Hong Kong deems blockchain developers crucial, offering immigration incentives, while Singapore's startup scene remains scorching hot.
In today's terms, cryptos never genuinely represented an immense bubble (evidently last December's crypto prices brought its own mania). Presently, the combined value of all cryptos hovers around a quarter of a trillion dollars, nearly half of Facebook’s current valuation. See, it's not such a behemoth of a market.
A little over a decade ago, when Nouriel Roubini championed his stance against synthetic bonds, he tackled a vast segment volatile enough to nearly halt global finance. His iconoclastic approach paid off, earning him credibility. Now, he forges another intellectual crusade, assuming larger risks against a flourishing, yet smaller-scale market.
One wonders why.
1Comment
Who even takes this guy seriously? Proclaiming oneself an expert (in this case, economics) doesn't translate to knowing every detail across fields. I wouldn't be surprised if he condoned limitless spending by the US because some textbook insisted it was fine. College education inducing brainwash, hmm?
He's so out of touch; attempts to educate him would be sheer futility.