John Haar, a former employee of the Asset Management division at Goldman Sachs, recently released an essay describing Wall Street’s frequently held views on Bitcoin, sound money, and economics.He addressed standard arguments for and against utilizing bitcoin as a worldwide currency in the financial industry.

Why legacy finance hates #bitcoin, per John Haar. Completely consistent with my experience. I agree 100% pic.twitter.com/vjJ2QGzqlN

— Timothy Peterson (@nsquaredmacro) August 20, 2022

Insufficient knowledge of economic history

According to a blog post by Swan on Monday, Haar is quoted as saying that “almost no one” has taken the effort to understand the history of money or its operational principles.

For instance, they do not value the qualities traditionally distinguished gold as the principal medium of exchange, including its durability, divisibility, recognizability, mobility, and scarcity.

This diminishes Wall Street’s comprehension of Bitcoin, which is sometimes referred to as “digital gold” since it has these traits to a greater extent than other cryptocurrencies.

Haar attributed the lack of comprehension to a lack of information, saying that it is mainly influenced by Keynesian and, more recently, MMT economics. He stated that, to the extent that conventional financial professionals have any ideas about the history or origins of money, they are nearly entirely influenced by Keynesian economics.

Modern monetary theory and Keynesian economic theory both support the notion that financial management should include centralized control of a nation’s money supply.On the other hand, Bitcoin more closely resembles commodity money in that its supply is set and cannot be altered.In reality, prominent central bankers such as Ben Bernanke and Christine Lagarde have a history of criticizing the asset.

Despite widespread rumours that they lacked competence in Bitcoin and other financial themes, Wall Street investors tended to “appear” knowledgeable about these subjects. As a result, they often adopt strong stances against Bitcoin that “echo the concerns they have heard from the mainstream media.”

Also read: 7 Ways Asia Is Accepting The Upcoming Metaverse Industry

Inability to investigate things from other viewpoints and a narrow mindset.

Haar has described Wall Street professionals as “very effective consensus followers,” implying that they are unlikely to be early adopters of new technology. “They are the individuals who have, for the most part, lived by the rules their whole lives, and they have a high esteem for authority people and self-proclaimed experts,” he said.

Moreover, the world’s developed nations that are classified as part of the developed world from a financial viewpoint often have relatively stable currencies and protected property rights. In such circumstances, Bitcoin’s need is not as evident as in countries such as Argentina, Turkey, Venezuela, Nigeria, and similar places, where Bitcoin use is rather prevalent.

Haar believes that most traditional financial experts who reject Bitcoin did not arrive at their stance by extensive investigation or comprehension.He thinks that the only individuals who know financial history are high-ranking individuals with a financial motive to criticize the asset. Theoretically, Bitcoin may make it simpler for individuals to “save” their money without “investing” it, which would be disastrous for investment-focused businesses.

Haar said, “They would rather that the world’s funds be invested in assets from which their firms benefit handsomely.”

In addition, they support driving the world’s wealth into investments.