Joseph Stiglitz may have won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 2001, but he certainly hasn\u2019t done much to keep up with the changing times since then. Stiglitz believes that the world doesn\u2019t need cryptocurrencies, saying that they should be \u201cshut down,\u201d but his supporting reasons defy all logic and common sense and prove that certain people would do better to remain silent instead of voicing an opinion on a subject of which they have very little knowledge.\u00a0 Stiglitz told CNBC that he supports digital payment systems, stating, \u201cI\u2019ve been a great advocate of moving to an electronic payments mechanism. There are a lot of efficiencies. I think we can actually have a better-regulated economy if we had all the data in real time, knowing what people are spending.\u201d\u00a0 He added, \u201cWe have a very good currency. There is no need for anybody to go to a cryptocurrency. We talk about the attributes of a good currency and the US dollar has all those attributes. The cryptocurrencies do not have those attributes. I actually think we should shut down the cryptocurrency.\u201d Stiglitz went on to state that crypto is only good for \u201cillegal activities\u201d and that transactions are \u201cuntraceable.\u201d If being used for illegal activities and being untraceable were enough of an argument to justify a currency being shut down, fiat would have been eliminated as quickly as it was introduced.\u00a0 Stiglitz has apparently relegated himself to just perusing news headlines and not learning the true substance behind certain topics, as many legitimate experts have already shown that crypto is no good for terrorists and that criminals are not using crypto as much.\u00a0 The idea that crypto transactions are untraceable is completely erroneous\u2014hopefully Stiglitz was more thorough in his previous research. Analysts have been able to trace crypto transactions to Hamas operatives and even exchange hackers in a lot less time than it typically takes most investigations.\u00a0 Even beyond the obvious flaws in his argument, there remains one glaring issue with the economist\u2019s theory. He wants to shut down a peer-to-peer system that isn\u2019t controlled by a government. Who exactly would lead the endeavor and how would it happen? Shutting down crypto through some mystery kill switch, as he has alluded to in the past, would be so resource-intensive that it becomes mind-boggling how he could have won any prize for economics work.