Generally, that's true. Recalling what happened in the 2008 housing market crash, only about 10 or 12 among 15,000 professional economists in the US have seen the crisis coming (Tom Woods, Meltdown, 2009). As for cryptocurrency, I suspect that even these 10 or 12 economists still do not understand this tokenization thing. However, in my more or less 11 months of stay in the crypto space, I stumbled so far with two students of Austrian economists who talk about crypto. One appears to be a bitcoin maxi and the other seems to be open to other alternative coins.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I find those who do have a few things going for them. To start, they managed money or worked for outfits that did that. Also, they do have some grasp of the shadow money (banking) system, something most economist discount.
They dismiss reserves, for the most part, in the equation, knowing they do little for economic output. Collateralization and cash flow is more important.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I never encounter shadow banking in my previous reading that's why I am really clueless about the Eurodollar market. Reserves too, I find it a controversial topic. At first, it was unthinkable for me for a bank to operate without reserves, but when I think of cryptocurrency we are doing here exactly the same thing. As for collateralization, it is interesting that I find confirmation even from the pens of the experts themselves in international finance an alarming admission about the existence of a significant percentage of questionable assets. As for cash flow, yes it is king.