David McWilliams: "Bitcoin Betrayal"?

[time to plan]

You brought up tulips as being a fitting analogy for bitcoin (when they're anything but). You don't know how many of them are out there today or will be tomorrow.

You brought up the claim that tulips aren't finite as a fitting argument You now appear to be very reluctant to say whether you believe tulips are finite or infinite. Which do you think it is?

 

[time to plan]

To paraphrase Lincoln. A NL can be wrong some of the time but they can't all be wrong at once. There isn't a NL or any senior economist for that matter who thinks btc makes any sense.

To paraphrase tecate: Tulips are infinite.

 

[tecate]

To paraphrase Lincoln. A NL can be wrong some of the time but they can't all be wrong at once. There isn't a NL or any senior economist for that matter who thinks btc makes any sense.

Its the opposite of what they work on (central bank tinkering). Asking a central bank Keynesian economist to relay the qualities of bitcoin is like asking a Corkman to confirm that Dublin is the real capital. They will be the last hold-outs to confirm bitcoin's qualities.

 

[tecate]

To paraphrase tecate: Tulips are infinite.

To paraphrase Time to Plan -> no interest in furthering the discussion, my point is without merit, I won't admit it though so instead I'll engage in deliberate obtuseness.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

It doesn't make sense but yet it's the best performing asset of the last decade in FIAT terms, go figure.....

Oh no, the tecate tactic of changing the subject.
You made the assertion that "the" (who?) NL opposing btc came from a different cult - the Keynsians? Do you hold that view for them all?

 

[tecate]

Oh no, the tecate tactic of changing the subject.
You made the assertion that "the" (who?) NL opposing btc came from a different cult - the Keynsians? Do you hold that view for them all?

I think you'll need to go back and re-read the past few posts. I've not changed any subject. I've simply responded to what others have posted - and that seems to have switched to Fax Machine Guy and the other "revered" economists.
If you're asking me if anyone who's life's work as an economist has revolved around central banking for the most part can have an objective view on bitcoin, no I don't think they can.

 

[time to plan]

To paraphrase Time to Plan -> no interest in furthering the discussion, my point is without merit, I won't admit it though so instead I'll engage in deliberate obtuseness.

Let's give you another chance to further the discussion. Do you think tulips are finite are infinite? You said before that they're NOT finite, but I'd like to give you a chance to correct yourself.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

.I've simply responded to what others have posted - and that seems to have switched to Fax Machine Guy and the other "revered" economists.

Let's consult your latest oracle.

You know I actually believed you. This shows just how insecure the cult feels. It resorts to lying ad hominem attacks on its critics.

 

[tecate]

Let's give you another chance to further the discussion. Do you think tulips are finite are infinite? You said before that they're NOT finite, but I'd like to give you a chance to correct yourself.

Doubling down on this I see ->

To paraphrase Time to Plan -> no interest in furthering the discussion, my point is without merit, I won't admit it though so instead I'll engage in deliberate obtuseness.

 

[time to plan]

Let's consult your latest oracle.
View attachment 8018

You know I actually believed you. This shows just how insecure the cult feels. It resorts to lying ad hominem attacks on its critics.

It's not lying if you believe something to be true, but are wrong. It's like saying tecate is lying when saying tulips aren't finite. It's not a lie, just an error, but an error I am giving tecate every chance to correct.

It's simply not fair to call deluded people liars.

 

[time to plan]

Doubling down on this I see ->

I'm really curious as to why you won't back up or correct you claim that tulips aren't finite. It seemed important in your attempting to draw a distinction between bitcoin (finite) and tulips (according to you, not finite). Why is it?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

You know I actually believed you.

Amazing. I just assumed it was true because it was repeated so often and never challenged!

 

[tecate]

Let's consult your latest oracle.

You know I actually believed you. This shows just how insecure the cult feels. It resorts to lying ad hominem attacks on its critics.

lol. So here's what I said on ChatGPT a couple of days ago ->

"while you say that the views of the Nobel Laureates are a proxy for your views, ChatGPT doesn't take on that role in my case. I just threw it in there for fun to freshen up discussion on specific points that have been done to death."

To your point, it's clearly wrong in this instance.

This is a direct quote from an opinion piece Fax Machine Guy wrote in that rag, the New York Times, years later ->

"Life being what it is, several people came back at me, citing a prediction I made in 1998 that the internet’s growth would soon slow and that “by 2005 or so, it will become clear that the internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.” I did indeed say that"

I'm really curious as to why you won't back up or correct you claim that tulips aren't finite. It seemed important in your attempting to draw a distinction between bitcoin (finite) and tulips (according to you, not finite). Why is it?

Here's the answer you'll be getting to this nonsense of yours ->

To paraphrase Time to Plan -> no interest in furthering the discussion, my point is without merit, I won't admit it though so instead I'll engage in deliberate obtuseness.

I can post it again if you persist.

 

[tecate]

Amazing. I just assumed it was true because it was repeated so often and never challenged!

Bad news I'm afraid - the quote is accurate. He is the one and the only FAX MACHINE GUY

 

[time to plan]

lol. So here's what I said on ChatGPT a couple of days ago ->

"while you say that the views of the Nobel Laureates are a proxy for your views, ChatGPT doesn't take on that role in my case. I just threw it in there for fun to freshen up discussion on specific points that have been done to death."

To your point, it's clearly wrong in this instance.

This is a direct quote from an opinion piece Fax Machine Guy wrote in that rag, the New York Times, years later ->

"Life being what it is, several people came back at me, citing a prediction I made in 1998 that the internet’s growth would soon slow and that “by 2005 or so, it will become clear that the internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.” I did indeed say that"



Here's the answer you'll be getting to this nonsense of yours ->

I can post it again if you persist.

So we'll take you at your word. You think Tulips are infinite.

 

[tecate]

So we'll take you at your word. You think Tulips are infinite.

Here's your answer ->

To paraphrase Time to Plan -> no interest in furthering the discussion, my point is without merit, I won't admit it though so instead I'll engage in deliberate obtuseness.

If you insist on asking that again - this is the answer you will be getting. Have some respect for people who wish to read through this discussion and put an end to this petty, bitter n' twisted obtuse nonsense.

 

[time to plan]

Here's your answer ->


If you insist on asking that again - this is the answer you will be getting. Have some respect for people who wish to read through this discussion and put an end to this petty, bitter n' twisted obtuse nonsense.

It didn't need an answer because it wasn't a question. I simply stated that you think Tulips are infinite. You then responded in a rude manner.

 

[tecate]

It didn't need an answer because it wasn't a question. I simply stated that you think Tulips are infinite. You then responded in a rude manner.

The truth hurts but it cures. I stand over precisely what I stated above.

 

[time to plan]

The truth hurts but it cures. I stand over precisely what I stated above.

Perfect - you are still saying Tulips are infinite. Understood.

 

[tecate]

Perfect - you are still saying Tulips are infinite. Understood.

No. Here's what I'm saying ->

To paraphrase Time to Plan -> no interest in furthering the discussion, my point is without merit, I won't admit it though so instead I'll engage in deliberate obtuseness.