World renowned economist Robert Shiller, entitled to the Nobel Prize in 2013, received an article entitled “The New Paranin Album” on May 21, 2018. The Shiller article looks at the crypto paralara’s newest representative of the “alternative currency idea”.
Shiller’s article deals with various alternative currencies that have been put forward throughout history. Shiller said that “new ideas about the notion of money are moving in the same direction with the idea of the revolution,” and found the famous thinker Josiah Warren, who succeeded in finding an interesting place in American history. Warner, who tried to sell the “work force” in the shop he founded in 1827 under the name “Cincinnati Time Shop” and interpreted the “labor-value theory” differently, is taking its place among those who look for an alternative to money. Warren’s suggestion, however, was that the shop was closed in 1830 when the “labor note”, the currency that offered the work force in certain periods, was not much sought after.
Shiller proceeds to evaluate the ideas of thinkers like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. These two names, which define the communist order in which the concept of private property was lifted from the beginning, suggested that “the idea of buying and selling should be lifted”. It is possible to come to the conclusion that this proposal is presented as an alternative method to the traditional currency.
Shiller, who is continuing his evaluations, is getting closer to the day-to-day and is sending his work to the Great Depression movement called “Technocracy”. This movement suggested that the gold-backed dollar at that time be replaced by an energy measure. The forerunners of the movement propose the creation of an economy based on energy in a book they published under the name “A to Z Technocracy”.
Finally, Shiller, who is evaluating the time we are in, uses interesting expressions about crypto money. Nobel prize-winning economist, who handled in detail the history of his predecessors of crypto money on the way to becoming a traditional parallel alternative, emphasizes that crypts are “a revolution in the community.” On the other hand, Shiller does not understand publicly how crypt money works; but he claims that this creates a sort of allure for the crypto:
Almost all of those who are not academically interested in the field of computers are unable to explain exactly how crypt money works. The resulting mystery peculiar to this situation, the crypto paradise is overcoming the charm of being a new money, and the revolutionary enthusiasm of crypto-savvy.
Shiller’s article also mentions the decentralized structure of crypto money. It says that digital money with revolutionary qualities is an escape route for the individual who thinks that the states are causing elements like inequality and war. Shiller, however, believes that “no one is new” of different crypto money concepts. In other words, Shiller crypto money is like the financial innovation movements in history.
I mentioned that Robert Shiller, the author of the article, who has come up with interesting nuances about crypto money, has won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2013. Robert Shiller, Eugene Fama and Lars Peter Hansen have been awarded this praise for their “experimental analysis of asset prices.” Shiller has developed the “Case-Shiller index”, now used by the renowned credit rating agency Standard’s and Poor’s, along with his colleague Karl Case.
We have witnessed over the past few weeks that the crypto money has been severely criticized by the giants of technology and finance worlds like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Charlie Munger, Berkshire Hathaway’s vice president Charlie Munger, a financial institution based in Warren Buffet, has crossed the line by trading in crypto money, likening to buying and selling baby’s organs.
The crypto money, which has been the target of harsh criticism from the time of its creation, continues with sure steps in spite of everything. The number of experts who expressed that such criticisms should be ignored by users is unimportant. It would be absurd to expect these names, which have already obtained great interests from the global financial system, to act in contradiction to their interests and to make pro-cryptographic statements.