Your submission has been flagged for removal because it is considered off topic for the Bitcoin subreddit.
^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot ^^and ^^cannot ^^respond. ^^Please ^^contact ^^r/Bitcoin ^^moderators [^^directly ^^via ^^mod ^^mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBitcoin) ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^questions.
1. Most academic economists are full of shit and should be made fun of.
2. Professors are also often full of shit and don't know much about the real world.
I don't know what's confusing about this. It's uphill for you even if you're way above average.
Practical knowledge is preferable to theoretical knowledge in the real world as it is much more difficult to accomplish results. Theoretical knowledge is more of an academic endeavor as it is much easier to acquire said knowledge.
Partially, it is because academic institutions have developed a reputation of being propagators of Marxism, socialism, communism, Keynesianism, and every other variation of leftism imaginable...economic or otherwise. As someone with three university degrees, I can say that I sympathize with and understand this criticism to a certain degree. In my observation, the insulated university bubbles that most academics inhabit has isolated them from the needs and interests of normal people to such a degree that the general public no longer places trust in them.
Also, I believe that average people are developing a much higher skepticism for people who claim to be subject matter experts simply because they have a piece of paper that says they are an expert. People want to see proof, especially when you are dealing with matters such as money and finance. For example, say you are an average person who wants advice about the economy and how they might invest their hard earned money. Who are you more likely to trust; the broke college professor or the self-made multi-millionaire who built his own business from the ground up or invested his way from nothing to a multi-million dollar balance sheet?
This is not to say there is no value in what academics in your field do, it just means you are going to have a much steeper hill to climb to convince average people that you actually know what you are talking about when you are not wealthy but the guys in the private sector are. It's basically the oversimplified world of Robert Kiyosaki...are you going to listen to your "poor dad" or your "rich dad" when learning about finance?
You know what I was taught in the first lesson of my finance degree? The EMH. Had to read up on Eugene Fama and all and get brainwashed into all these academic BS.
I didn’t know better back then, I thought I was learning something super cool, the secret of financial success. But now, much later having observed how the market works and worked in the financial industry myself for more than two decades, I have zero respect for these papers and studies. They simply do not work. Period. Sorry I have to break it to you like that.
Funny you brought up this real world vs academic topic because just a couple days ago Preston Pysh’s podcast had a guest talking about how stupid the idea of CAPM is, which is probably still being taught in universities today. I literally laughed out loud listening I could not possibly agree more to that guest and Preston.
From an academic perspective differentiating between crypto and Bitcoin doesn't necessarily make sense. Academia discussing and studying a topic in no way suggests an endorsement of anything within the topic.
If you want to explore the possibilities of Bitcoin you have to talk about broader topics than what Bitcoin is at this time. Otherwise you can only talk about what is... and that's not useful to exploration of anything new that might apply to Bitcoin.
That's not theoretical at all, it's an application of law.
Wut.
I don't know any authors but there are most definitely papers out on blockchains and proof of work. How else could there be papers discussing Bitcoin, it exists within a context and not on its own. I have read papers on blockchains, they end with "none of this makes sense because it's stupid expensive" which is precisely why there are folks who study(-ied) crypto and no one who uses it.
Right now, crypto is largely just something people use to try to get rich instead of a set of theories. As a professor, you're not going to make them rich with your theories unless you have thoughts on social psychology, beauty contests, and Telegram groups. Teaching them to analyze and appreciate something based on its actual merits, however noble, will just make them poor or begging for a 5x so they can get back to even.
Because the beauty of markets—money talks. You can’t just spit out theory and expected to be taken serious unless you have a proven track record (IE already built up wealth).
Originally I went to college for an Economics degree, which I did well in. However at some point I realized a job with that degree was more likely to have me managing others’ money, while having little money of my own to build experience with. So I went into earth sciences to go work in oil industry for that $$ . Why would I want to pay someone to manage my money who has little experience when I’ve been trading my own money for over a decade
Paul Krugman, "the internet will have no greater impact on mankind than the fax machine"
This guy is award winning economist/journalist. This is why no one takes you guys serous.
I think the main difference perceived by students is that real-world experts put their money where their mouth is. (if they also disclose their holdings that is)
Your submission has been flagged for removal because it is considered off topic for the Bitcoin subreddit. ^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot ^^and ^^cannot ^^respond. ^^Please ^^contact ^^r/Bitcoin ^^moderators [^^directly ^^via ^^mod ^^mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBitcoin) ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^questions.
It's it a serious question? He who can, does. He who can not, teaches.
1. Most academic economists are full of shit and should be made fun of. 2. Professors are also often full of shit and don't know much about the real world. I don't know what's confusing about this. It's uphill for you even if you're way above average.
Practical knowledge is preferable to theoretical knowledge in the real world as it is much more difficult to accomplish results. Theoretical knowledge is more of an academic endeavor as it is much easier to acquire said knowledge.
Partially, it is because academic institutions have developed a reputation of being propagators of Marxism, socialism, communism, Keynesianism, and every other variation of leftism imaginable...economic or otherwise. As someone with three university degrees, I can say that I sympathize with and understand this criticism to a certain degree. In my observation, the insulated university bubbles that most academics inhabit has isolated them from the needs and interests of normal people to such a degree that the general public no longer places trust in them. Also, I believe that average people are developing a much higher skepticism for people who claim to be subject matter experts simply because they have a piece of paper that says they are an expert. People want to see proof, especially when you are dealing with matters such as money and finance. For example, say you are an average person who wants advice about the economy and how they might invest their hard earned money. Who are you more likely to trust; the broke college professor or the self-made multi-millionaire who built his own business from the ground up or invested his way from nothing to a multi-million dollar balance sheet? This is not to say there is no value in what academics in your field do, it just means you are going to have a much steeper hill to climb to convince average people that you actually know what you are talking about when you are not wealthy but the guys in the private sector are. It's basically the oversimplified world of Robert Kiyosaki...are you going to listen to your "poor dad" or your "rich dad" when learning about finance?
You know what I was taught in the first lesson of my finance degree? The EMH. Had to read up on Eugene Fama and all and get brainwashed into all these academic BS. I didn’t know better back then, I thought I was learning something super cool, the secret of financial success. But now, much later having observed how the market works and worked in the financial industry myself for more than two decades, I have zero respect for these papers and studies. They simply do not work. Period. Sorry I have to break it to you like that. Funny you brought up this real world vs academic topic because just a couple days ago Preston Pysh’s podcast had a guest talking about how stupid the idea of CAPM is, which is probably still being taught in universities today. I literally laughed out loud listening I could not possibly agree more to that guest and Preston.
Why are you asking us at r/Bitcoin, Professor? We don't do crypto.
From an academic perspective differentiating between crypto and Bitcoin doesn't necessarily make sense. Academia discussing and studying a topic in no way suggests an endorsement of anything within the topic. If you want to explore the possibilities of Bitcoin you have to talk about broader topics than what Bitcoin is at this time. Otherwise you can only talk about what is... and that's not useful to exploration of anything new that might apply to Bitcoin.
IOW, they're paid not to think.
What? The opposite, the exact opposite. They're not paid to act, they're paid to think.
Name one crypto-brainiac who will mention the Howey test.
That's not theoretical at all, it's an application of law. Wut. I don't know any authors but there are most definitely papers out on blockchains and proof of work. How else could there be papers discussing Bitcoin, it exists within a context and not on its own. I have read papers on blockchains, they end with "none of this makes sense because it's stupid expensive" which is precisely why there are folks who study(-ied) crypto and no one who uses it.
Bitcoin is probably the only practical use of a distributed blockchain. Crypto uses centralized POS. Notice a difference now?
Right now, crypto is largely just something people use to try to get rich instead of a set of theories. As a professor, you're not going to make them rich with your theories unless you have thoughts on social psychology, beauty contests, and Telegram groups. Teaching them to analyze and appreciate something based on its actual merits, however noble, will just make them poor or begging for a 5x so they can get back to even.
Because the beauty of markets—money talks. You can’t just spit out theory and expected to be taken serious unless you have a proven track record (IE already built up wealth). Originally I went to college for an Economics degree, which I did well in. However at some point I realized a job with that degree was more likely to have me managing others’ money, while having little money of my own to build experience with. So I went into earth sciences to go work in oil industry for that $$ . Why would I want to pay someone to manage my money who has little experience when I’ve been trading my own money for over a decade
Paul Krugman, "the internet will have no greater impact on mankind than the fax machine" This guy is award winning economist/journalist. This is why no one takes you guys serous.
I heard someone say once that 'shouldn't all economists and finance profs be millionaires? '
I think the main difference perceived by students is that real-world experts put their money where their mouth is. (if they also disclose their holdings that is)