Bitcoin in a hyperbolic bubble

Status
Not open for further replies.

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,880
It strongly suggests that there is nothing at all in what the entrepreneurs are saying.
Suggesting that Roubini has no notion? If you had watched it then you would know he doesn't have a full understanding. That's why he was told during the course of the debate, maybe you should go buy some bitcoin and find out how it actually works.

It's a common problem. He decided early on that there was no value in bitcoin without ever gaining a full understanding. He's been doubling down on that position ever since - from as far back as when bitcoin was at $13!! I've listened to similar panel discussions involving Krugman and it's exactly the same.

I had watched that original debate in 2018 but decided to watch it again - just to see how accurate either party was. When Mashinsky claimed that institutional investment was coming, Roubini said it would never come (wrong!). When asked if he saw anything positive in the technology, he spewed out the 'blockchain not bitcoin' nonsense that the banking set were running with at the time. Practically everybody else has given up with that nonsense - but in 2021, he persists with it. He has declared bitcoin dead following a number of peaks and troughs over the years - and clearly he's been wrong in those assessments each time.
 

SGWidow

Registered User
Messages
212
That's why he was told during the course of the debate, maybe you should go buy some bitcoin and find out how it actually works.

That's such an interesting observation. Reminds me of...…..the Catholic priest of old dishing out direction on appropriate behaviour in a particular room of the house.

It's a common problem. He decided early on that there was no value in bitcoin without ever gaining a full understanding. He's been doubling down on that position ever since - from as far back as when bitcoin was at $13!!

A common problem indeed. Reminds me of...……it ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble - it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,788
It says, that a Professor of Economics is no more qualified to identify what increases value in a hairdressing salon than a professional hairdresser is.
Meaning, an economist is no more qualified to comment on bitcoin as a technology than say, a computer programmer, a financier, a physicist, a hedge fund manager, etc
theo To me technology is a means not an end. Take television, now there is a marvelous technology. The entertainment, news, sports etc. industries exploit it to great effect. and of course billions of people own TV sets. I suppose once in a while someone watching a live tennis match in Australia might for a brief moment ask herself "how can this be?", but quickly gets over the moment and sits back to enjoy the game.
Your depiction of bitcoin seems to turn this on its head. It is the technological marvel of a distributed ledger that is the overriding attraction to the bitcoin owner. (Aside: IMHO a technology not quite on a par with television but that is a subjective call).
The bitcoin owner's occasional pause for thought is "but what do I use it for?". She might consult the White Paper and see that it was intended as a medium of exchange. She might think "but I don't actually need it for that" but she gets over her moment of doubt and goes back to wondrous contemplation of a computer doing billions of SHA trials and errors.
Economists are not especially qualified to comment on the nuts and bolts of blockchain technology but they are qualified to comment on whether it can achieve its purpose of being a medium of exchange.
 
Last edited:

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,880
Economists are not especially qualified to comment on the nuts and bolts of blockchain technology but they are qualified to comment on whether it can achieve its purpose of being a medium of exchange.
How can they be authoritative on the subject when they simply don't understand the technology and how it works. I've often given you Krugman's fax machine example. He should have stayed in his own lane. Roubini should do the same - or otherwise, be open to understanding the proposition at hand.
 

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
47,679
I suppose once in a while someone watching a live tennis match in Australia might for a brief moment ask herself "how can this be?"

It is the technological marvel of a distributed ledger that is the overriding attraction to the bitcoin owner. ...

The bitcoin owner's occasional pause for thought is "but what do I use it for?"

Duke - that is a really brilliant comparison.
 

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,880
Duke - that is a really brilliant comparison.
I agree that many technologists have created 'solutions' or standalone tech that doesn't have a real world use. That's not the case when it comes to bitcoin. It's found its identity as digital gold. There may be other use cases it makes inroads in - as we progress.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,788
How can they be authoritative on the subject when they simply don't understand the technology and how it works. I've often given you Krugman's fax machine example. He should have stayed in his own lane. Roubini should do the same - or otherwise, be open to understanding the proposition at hand.
I wasn't aware that @WolfeTone was making the same point as I. I will answer for us both. Krugman misjudged the business potential of internet. That has nothing to do with his understanding of the technology. But you know that but had to play your Krugman iron for the umpteenth time. Have you no other clubs?
 

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,880
Krugman misjudged the business potential of internet. That has nothing to do with his understanding of the technology. But you know that but had to play your Krugman iron for the umpteenth time. Have you no other clubs?
1. He misjudged it because it's outside of his area of expertise.
2. It's incredibly important - to this most recent point that you're trying to make and to the overall discussion. It's not just Krugman and Roubini that have misunderstood the bitcoin proposition. We have plenty of examples much, much closer to home.

Added to that, yesterday you said bitcoin would only be of interest to you if the right type of economist gave it the thumbs up. How about forming your own opinion? You also said recently that you were concerned about monetary expansion but said you'd have to trust these economists and central bankers. Blind trust makes no sense to me. They should be held to account and made explain how they get out of this money printing vortex.
 
Last edited:

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,788
Added to that, yesterday you said bitcoin would only be of interest to you if the right type of economist gave it the thumbs up.
That's not my position. If the viability of bitcoin was a raging debate in academic economist circles, I would be on the side of those arguing against it. It is the fact that it is dismissed almost universally by the economics profession which strikes me as very telling.

You seem to take comfort that because one of their Nobels made a spectacular boo-boo over 20 years ago that you can dismiss the whole profession.
In passing, what do you think of Warren Buffet's assessment of bitcoin as "rat poison squared" or have you a similar club for banging him into the long grass?
 
Last edited:

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,880
That's not my position. If the viability of bitcoin was a raging debate in academic economist circles, I would be on the side of those arguing against it. It is the fact that it is dismissed almost universally by the economics profession which strikes me as very telling.
Ok, so you are using Keynesian economists (bearing in mind this economic approach is diametrically opposed to the notion of bitcoin) as a crutch to validate your politically motivated take on bitcoin? Even the political motivation is wayward. You said yesterday that the original proponents of bitcoin want to put an end to capitalism. Yourself and Brendan made references previously to socialist views in this context. There are many people involved with bitcoin - but amongst them there are a large swathe of right-wingers who are far more capitalist than you or I.

If the viability of bitcoin was a raging debate in academic economist circles, I would be on the side of those arguing against it. It is the fact that it is dismissed almost universally by the economics profession which strikes me as very telling
It's not dismissed universally. There are many economists and the like who oppose your view. Wolfie already provided you with a couple of examples - but according to you they're not the right type of economists. You'll then roll out a book review of some randomer in a desperate attempt to blacken a respected economist....therefore, there's little point in providing you with more examples.

You seem to take comfort that because one of their Nobels made a spectacular boo-boo over 20 years ago that you can dismiss the whole profession.
I think that only a fool would ignore that instance. As per my previous post, it's very much prescient. If anyone took his word as gospel back then, then they missed out on one of the greatest waves of innovation we've ever seen.

In passing, what do you think of Warren Buffet's assessment of bitcoin as "rat poison squared" or have you a similar club for banging him into the long grass?
We've discussed it before but if you need a refresher, no problem. I said back then that Buffett has to be respected according to his moniker (the oracle of omaha). However, it's precisely the same scenario as with Krugman and Roubini. He is on record as saying that he got it completely wrong when it comes to the tech monoliths that arose out of the ashes of the dot.com boom/bust. He has said that he misunderstood the technology.
Buffett called bitcoin rat poison squared. I agree with him insofar as it's rat poison for cash/sovereign money.
 
Last edited:

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,084
To me technology is a means not an end. Take television, now there is a marvelous technology

I couldnt agree more.

Economists are not especially qualified to comment on the nuts and bolts of blockchain technology but they are qualified to comment on whether it can achieve its purpose of being a medium of exchange.

True, which is why when I listen to people who do know the nuts and bolts of the technology they are investing in first. Then I can listen to economists, afterwards, when they can tell us why a particular technology failed, or succeeded, not when it is clearly going through a significant period of innovation.

I can only imagine back in the 19th century that the concept of moving pictures transmitted across analog signals would have met with some heavy doses of skepticism?
So having a quick read of the history of television I came across this on the wiki page

"On March 25, 1925, Baird gave the first public demonstration of televised silhouette images in motion, at Selfridge's Department Store in London.[11] Since human faces had inadequate contrast to show up on his primitive system, he televised a talking, moving ventriloquist's dummy named "Stooky Bill", whose painted face had higher contrast. By January 26, 1926, he demonstrated the transmission of image of a face in motion by radio. This is widely regarded as being the world's first public television demonstration."

It was certainly a long way from 52" HD surround-sound Smart flatscreen TV.
Outside those, like Baird, who were developing the technology, was there anyone who could have envisaged television to become the game-changer of communication that it became?

I don't know, maybe its just me, but 10,000 BTC for two pizza just popped into my mind.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,788
Wolfie already provided you with a couple of examples - but according to you they're not the right type of economists. You'll then roll out a book review of some randomer in a desperate attempt to blacken a respected economist....therefore, there's little point in providing you with more examples.
I am confused by this and previous posts. Who is the randomer? Is it Quickpenguin or Dr Ammous? Wolfie responded to my post by giving the more complete Quickpenguin review of his book The Bitcoin Standard, suggesting I was talking about the right Dr Ammous albeit Wolfie spelt it Ammos.
 

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,880
@dukey - that's it, keep trying to tar and feather with book reviews from guys called "Jeff", whoever "Jeff" is ... :rolleyes:
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,084
I am confused by this and previous posts? Who is the randomer? Is it Quickpenguin or Dr Ammous? Wolfie responded to my post by giving the more complete Quickpenguin review of his book The Bitcoin Standard

I think you understand the point I was making was that the "review" was somewhat shallow, and very, very selective.
Nevertheless, producing book reviews was only a diversion on your part. Perhaps Ammous ( darn those mid-Eastern names always catch me, Solamani/Sulemani? Achmed/Achmad? Muhammed/Mohammad?) style of writing didn't engage the reader.

I have to admit myself, the bible of all economic thought "Wealth of Nations" is a bit of a brain-draining drooler at times. Surely the publisher could've seen the value of shaving off a couple of hundred pages?
I give it 3.5 stars! :rolleyes:
 

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
3,788
I am gobsmacked! Wolfie cites Dr Ammos. I Google search and find a book review of The Bitcoin Standard. I think to myself that is the guy even though it is spelt wrong. I read the review and thought of the reviewer "another one duped by bitcoin". But there was the bit about international settlements so yes I selectively chose to focus on that.
But to the true cultists, giving 3.5 stars to a bitcoin prophet is tantamount to blasphemy. BTW I haven't a clue who Jeff is and why it is relevant.
 

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,084
I am gobsmacked! Wolfie cites Dr Ammos. I Google search and find a book review of The Bitcoin Standard. I think to myself that is the guy even though it is spelt wrong. I read the review and thought of the reviewer "another one duped by bitcoin". But there was the bit about international settlements so yes I selectively chose to focus on that.
But to the true cultists, giving 3.5 stars to a bitcoin prophet is tantamount to blasphemy. BTW I haven't a clue who Jeff is and why it is relevant.

Duke, your question was "are there any respected economists...", you have admitted that there are, being the aforementioned Dr Ammos/Ammous.

If you want to discuss the content of the book, then fine, but I suggest another thread. It may well be worth "3.5 Stars", maybe you would think it is a poor book, I just happen to think it was a poor review (see my review of Wealth of Nations).
 

tecate

Registered User
Messages
1,880
@dukey - Because you don't want that to happen, not because it cant happen or it isn't happening to some extent. Your political outlook blinds you on this subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top