No, I'm making the point that volatile currencies are not a hedge against inflation. That having a fixed money supply is not a guard against inflation. Bitcoin is not a hedge against inflation.
Volatility is fine if the price is moving up and down, but generally in a more up direction over time, just like in Bitcoin. In case you didn't realize it, currency values do fluctuate and do have volatility. Gold is considered a hedge against inflation, and it also has volatility. Is Bitcoin's volatility higher? Yes. But that doesn't mean it can't be a hedge against inflation.
Sounds like a very, very inefficient market. This is just more indication that bitcoin isn't tied to any fundamental principle, it's pure animal spirits.
Having a 4-year cycle has nothing to do with efficiency. Again, you don't understand Bitcoin.
That's not what ad hominem means.
I do know what ad hominem means, but I don't think you do. I have not made any personal attacks against anyone here. I've only proven the lies and misinformation to be wrong. That was the point of what I said.
Sure, maybe it makes sense to invest in a crypto exchange but not in crypto itself. Your argument here is that Apple products are useful so people should spend $2 to increase their Apple Cash balance by $1. Does that make any sense to you?
No it doesn't, because it's completely nonsensical. People invest in Bitcoin so that they can make money. EVERYONE who has bought Bitcoin in the past and held their investment is currently in the profit, unless they bought in the past week between the current price of $99.5K and $104K. Yes, Bitcoin is down 5% or so from all-time highs. But the point is
that if you have held Bitcoin for more than 1 week at this point you're at profit, and if you held it for more than year you're up at least 150%.
There currently is no one who invested in Bitcoin and is still holding that has their investment currently worth 50% of what it was.
Should Apple stock be worth more if they left the Nasdaq and started trading it on blockchain? I think blockchain would be great for that purpose, but I don't think it changes the value of Apple's stock.
I never said Bitcoin's value is solely because of blockchain. If it was then you'd have any crypto on any blockchain be tremendously valuable. That's not the case. The value of Bitcoin comes from the immutable ledger, security, monetary policy, etc. that I described before.
I have to say you surprised me-- I thought I heard all the crazy arguments in support of crypto, but this is wholly new to me. Inefficiency is a feature?
You surprise me in how little you appear to know about economics. I even explained the concept.
That's a good point, my Visa is much more useful than bitcoin...
They serve completely different purposes. I would not store money or value on a credit card. In fact, you can't. You can put cash in a bank account and use a Visa debit card. But you'll lose spending power over time. So in that regard, Bitcoin as a long term store of value is more useful.
I haven't seen a bunch of tycoons in cuffs? Bankman-Fried shares a cell with Diddy, last I heard (for real).
So there are some crypto execs and fraudsters in jail. That's great actually. You act like there haven't been scam artists and fraudsters in traditional finance that have ever gone to jail. Remember Bernie Madoff? Or was that before your time? There are plenty of others too. Maybe you should go do some research and enlighten yourself to the realities of crime in finance.
I simply said I find it amusing that crypto fanatics use "don't trust the government" in their pamphlets but when their unregulated gambling den gets stuck up, they find the government much more trust worthy.
I never said don't trust the government. However, we should all take a good look at how the government has been running things. Running up a $36T debt and not bothering to do anything about it is pretty irresponsible to say the least. The government is great for many things, but I don't think the government is handling currency, inflation, and debt appropriately. There are even people in the government who say that the current trajectory is not sustainable.
fiscal.treasury.gov
Again, yes. It is.
The Roosevelt administration's policies in 1933-34 regarding gold and dollars were both controversial and consequential.
www.federalreservehistory.org
Executive Order 6102 made private ownership of monetary gold illegal.
So yes, the US and all major nations had to leave the gold standard to recover from the Depression and take extreme measures to devalue their currencies.
The 2020 recession was 2 months long. Is that the one you mean?
Please, read your history. Provided funding how? Tax revenues?
You are the one who needs to read your history. Why don't you read the whole article? Maybe you'll actually realize the truth and how much you actually don't know. It was a temporary
"suspension" of the gold standard. About 8 months later the gold standard was reinstated and the dollar was again fully backed by gold. Again, another example that you don't understand the subject matter and need to educate yourself better.
Minimum wage is not a function of money supply, it's determined by statute. Median income has increased and poverty fallen since the US left the gold standard.
I didn't say it was. Also, I never said anything about poverty. Read again what I said.
Ok, then maybe this is where to start. What do you think "debasement" means?
It's the intentional reduction of a currency value, which is what the U.S. government is going to need to do to get out the the debt crisis that is looming. It's a bigger issue, because it will cause much greater inflation than from other normal factors.
And here again you make an assertion, claim the person who disagrees doesn't know anything, but never actually support your assertion or explain anything. Show you understand.
I did demonstrate multiple times how you don't know what you're talking about.
A ledger has a function. A decentralized ledger is simply a different kind of ledger-- it performs the same function with slightly different mechanics. It performs the same core functions differently. Perhaps it even provides those functions better-- but that's an incremental value, not a compounding value.
Bitcoin is more than its ledger, and I've explained where there value is. I keep asserting you don't know what you're talking about because you keep demonstrating that you don't.
In aggregate, people can not expect to get more from crypto than they put into it. Unlike a stock or a bond, there is no outside source of money to make that possible. It is, by the very definition of its structure, a zero sum game-- worse when you account for the management fees.
Again, in aggregate, people who have bought Bitcoin and held it for more than a couple weeks right now can get more out of it than they put into it. I don't see how you don't see that. They are all in a profit right now.
Yes, yes, I've read the brochure. At least you're finally on board with seeing it as a currency. It has no monetary policy for the very reason that it's decentralized. Disinflationary is fortunately bunk, as we've been discussing-- it's too volatile to be considered disinflationary and disinflationary is truly bad for an economy if any were to chose to adopt it as a currency. As Powell pointed out, it's a bad store of value for the same reasons. It's instability also makes it lousy for cross border transactions, you're better off using one of the two national currencies.
What? Are you serious or trying to be funny?
No monetary policy? Wrong.
Disinflationary is bunk? Again, wrong. It is disinflationary by code that won't change.
Again, you demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. You're just making stuff up to support your argument.
So now Powell is someone we should listen to when he says something that supports your line of thinking? Powell is wrong. Many more experts call it a store of value. Powell even said it's a competitor to gold, which is a known store of value. The U.S. government even has a strategic reserve of gold as a store of value.
Leaving all those issues aside, are these services provided by this fancy money three times as useful as they were a few months ago? If not, then the rise in price of bitcoin is simply a bubble.
Supply and demand.
It's a scam, it has no inherent value, the use cases can be achieved in much less risky ways.
Again, wrong and disproven.
I get that crypto investors live in fear of the child shouting the emperor has no clothes and the whole house of cards coming down, but I don't take kindly to being told what to say and not say. I'm open to having my view changed, but not suppressed.
Then don't spread lies and misinformation. It's not a scam, and you haven't been able to prove it's a scam because it isn't a scam.
Yeah, that's what they were saying about collateralized debt obligations and default swaps back in the day. "If they weren't worth anything, then why are so many people buying them? They're complicated and sophisticated, and you don't understand. This is a new economy." Turns out they were wrong and the whole world plunged into recession because of it. Turned out to not be the complicated or sophisticated after all, just all rather opaque and obfuscated.
Totally different. No one knew what was in those CDOs. Even the credit rating companies didn't know and gave A ratings when they were full of junk. It was all masked so no one knew what was really going on. With Bitcoin it's different. You can look at the code since it's open source. You can view all the transactions that have ever occurred on the network. You can even see the transactions in real time, including those that haven't been confirmed yet. It has transparency, which is something CDOs didn't have.
I'm sorry it's hard for you to understand. Similar to blockchains, Visa offers services through the use of their card, insurance, easy cross border transactions, convenience, etc. They charge a 3-5% service fee to use their system. If Visa were to sell me credits to use their system, like selling crypto coins giving access to the features of the block chain, I'd be willing to pay a 3-5% premium, once. The benefits are per transaction, not per time, so for a constant set of services I'd expect Visa credits (what I called "Visa dollars") to remain at a fixed exchange rate to the dollar not to continue growing in value over time.
Oh. My. God. What nonsense. You're just making stuff up now. Visa dollars? Bwahahaha!
There is no justification for crypto growing in value. To the extent that it is growing in price indicates it is in a massive bubble.
You're repeating something that's been said for more than 10 years. Bubbles don't last that long.
By your reasoning, anything in the stock market that is growing at a high growth rate is a bubble. This includes top companies like Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Tesla, etc. Such nonsense.
