25 Jan Economist Stiglitz Calls for Bitcoin Regulations to “Drive it out of Existence”
It has been well known that Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz is not a big fan of bitcoin. At the World Economic Forum annual meeting taking place this week in Davos, Switzerland, he told Bloomberg reporters that bitcoin serves no function other than being useful in illicit activities such as money laundering and tax evasion.
Just yesterday, Bill Browder spoke out about the ‘death of bitcoin‘!
His rationale is based on his belief that bitcoin is no better than the dollar as a medium of exchange, and the cryptocurrency is basically there to solve a problem that never existed.
“We have a good medium of exchange called the dollar,” stated Stiglitz. “We can trade in that. Why do people want bitcoin? For secrecy.“
The economist explained that the global banking system is already implementing digital payment technologies, so having bitcoin is just unnecessary. On top of reiterating his aversion for the cryptocurrency, Stiglitz also called for bitcoin to be regulated.
“My feeling is that when you regulate it so that you couldn’t engage in money laundering and all these other things, there would be no demand for bitcoin,” he added. “So by regulating the abuses, you are going to regulate it out of existence.”
Stiglitz was also joined by Swiss National Bank chairman Thomas Jordan, who gave a speech on why tough restrictions should be placed on bitcoin.
“There is an important principle: Similar activities should be similarly regulated, and bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have some characteristics of other investment instruments,” Jordan told listeners.
In a previous interview conducted in November 2017, Stiglitz condemned the cryptocurrency and said it was “successful only because of its potential for circumvention [and] lack of oversight.”
Stiglitz is only one of many famous economists to be super skeptical of bitcoin. Last year, Robert Shiller, another Nobel Prize winner, described bitcoin as “the best example of a bubble” and considered its valuation “exceptionally ambiguous.”
Featured Image: twitter