Robert Shiller, a Nobel prize-winning economist, talked about Bitcoin and the implications it has on the economy. During an interview with Bloomberg dated on June the 26th, the economist says that Bitcoin is a ‘social movement’ and an epidemic of enthusiasm.
Robert Shiller on Bitcoin
The Nobel prize winner is a Yale Sterling Professor of Economics and is one of the most recognized economists all over the world. In this occasion he said that Bitcoin is a speculative bubble. Moreover, he explained that the phenomenon is geographical and related to a generation.
Shiller commented about that:
“It is generational and geographic. East coast is less into it than the West coast. Silicon Valley is really into it.”
The professor explains that the unsystemic behaviour in the adoption of the cryptocurrencies shows the irrational response to a new information, according to Yale’s professor. He says that cryptocurrencies are a speculative bubble because there is an exclusive demography for the asset.
The economist has also provided an explanation about how cryptocurrency innovations have raised the attention of many individuals an companies after investors were able to get rich immediately.
“There is also some impressive cryptographic theory that is coming out of computer scientists,” he said. “This particular invention has so much more attention. Do you now what is going on inside your laptop? There are millions of interesting stories about brilliant engineering devices that are in there. But we do not hear about them, that is because they are not part of a bubble. They are not part of investment excitement about a possibility of getting rich over this.”
Back in 2013, Robert Shiller received the 2013 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for their empirical analysis of asset prices. He is also known for predicting the dotcom and housing bubbles and warning about the crisis when these bubbles cannot be sustained anymore and start to burst.
At the moment, and according to him, Bitcoin is the biggest financial bubble and his analysis are based on conclusions on the failed monetary examples of the 19th and 20th centuries.
