David McWilliams: "Bitcoin Betrayal"?

[time to plan]

You said about that Tulips aren't finite. You stand over precisely what you said above. You've made your position clear.

 

[tecate]

You said about that Tulips aren't finite. You stand over precisely what you said above. You've made your position clear.

Here is my position ->

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]

Here is my position ->

Your argument about a basis of Bitcoin's value vs Tulips would look pretty leaky if it turned out that tulips weren't infinite.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

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

Okay. I suppose there must be a grain of truth in it and I am underwhelmed myself by chatgpt.
That the error of one Nobel has been adopted as a sort of anthem by the cult says it all. They resort to a cheap shot against one of them or accuse the lot of them of being in the pockets of wicked central bankers, rather than address their points.
Like the points in the first minute of this.

 

[tecate]

Your argument about a basis of Bitcoin's value vs Tulips would look pretty leaky if it turned out that tulips weren't infinite.

Incorrect. Firstly, you've rounded on one characteristic of money and/or store of value. Not all of them. Lets take this one (scarcity) first. You reckon tulips are scarce? Great but I certainly don't see that.

Here are the attributes of what makes for a good store of value. If you'd like to grade tulips on that basis, knock yourself out but they're not comparable. I rarely hear any detractor suggesting tulipmania as a fitting analogy relative to bitcoin nowadays.

Okay. I suppose there must be a grain of truth in it and I am underwhelmed myself by chatgpt.

You mean that it is true rather than there just being 'a grain of truth in it'. lol

That the error of one Nobel has been adopted as a sort of anthem by the cult says it all.

As has been outlined to you many times, it's not just any old error. He had no business commenting on the development of the internet! ...but people like you give this guy license on just about anything. He didn't stay in his own lane and opened his big fat mouth. Naturally enough, the internet was technological in nature. While bitcoin crosses over into economics, its also a technological development. What does he know about it anymore than anyone else? And that's before we consider the fact that his life's work revolves around central banking and Keynesian economics. Bitcoin flies in the face of that - and you expect him to have an objective opinion on the matter? Good luck with that!

Beyond that, Fax Machine Guy has been wrong about a whole host of things.

They resort to a cheap shot against one of them or accuse the lot of them of being in the pockets of wicked central bankers, rather than address their points.

Yes, of course they do and meanwhile you're just a model of objectivity on the subject! lol

Like the points in the first minute of this.

Doctor Doom from two years ago? I'll pass but thanks. If he comes out with any new material, let me know!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

In 1998 during the dot-com bubble, Krugman wrote a commentary for Red Herring that urged skepticism of optimistic predictions for technology-driven progress. He followed it with several pessimistic predictions of his own, including 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" and that the number of jobs for IT specialists would decelerate and turn down. In a 2013 interview, Krugman stated that the predictions were meant to be "fun and provocative, not to engage in careful forecasting".

 

[time to plan]

Incorrect. Firstly, you've rounded on one characteristic of money and/or store of value. Not all of them. Lets take this one (scarcity) first. You reckon tulips are scarce? Great but I certainly don't see that.

Here are the attributes of what makes for a good store of value. If you'd like to grade tulips on that basis, knock yourself out but they're not comparable. I rarely hear any detractor suggesting tulipmania as a fitting analogy relative to bitcoin nowadays.

View attachment 8023

You mean that it is true rather than there just being 'a grain of truth in it'. lol

As has been outlined to you many times, it's not just any old error. He had no business commenting on the development of the internet! ...but people like you give this guy license on just about anything. He didn't stay in his own lane and opened his big fat mouth. Naturally enough, the internet was technological in nature. While bitcoin crosses over into economics, its also a technological development. What does he know about it anymore than anyone else? And that's before we consider the fact that his life's work revolves around central banking and Keynesian economics. Bitcoin flies in the face of that - and you expect him to have an objective opinion on the matter? Good luck with that!

Beyond that, Fax Machine Guy has been wrong about a whole host of things.



Yes, of course they do and meanwhile you're just a model of objectivity on the subject! lol


Doctor Doom from two years ago? I'll pass but thanks. If he comes out with any new material, let me know!

Where did I say tulips are scarce? You really seem to lack basic English comprehension skills. YOU said tulips aren't finite, and that was a basis of your argument. If you want to shift your argument from a basis of finiteness to scarcity, then please do so - you've not yet even corrected your error and stated that tulips ARE finite.

 

[time to plan]

Also, that's a poor diagram. Leaving aside Gold for a moment, there should either be a comparison between Bitcoin and a particular currency such as US Dollars or Swiss Francs, or a comparison between the categories of Cryptocurrencies and Fiat currencies. It's a pity that whoever put that diagram together did so with a basic category mistake.

 

[tecate]

Where did I say tulips are scarce? You really seem to lack basic English comprehension skills.

If we're talking about basic skills, you might want to have a look into how to engage in discussion because all you seem interested in is being obtuse rather than furthering the actual discussion.

YOU said tulips aren't finite, and that was a basis of your argument.

So you've said how many times now? YOU have zero interest in furthering this discussion. Finite/infinite - relates to scarcity in the context of what makes for a decent store of value but everything you've come out with in the past 24 hours betrays the fact that you have no interest in discussing that at all. It's more important that you take comments out of context to drag things down to the obtuse so that you can segue into 'you really seem to lack basic comprehension skills' and other such BS.

Also, that's a poor diagram. . . It's a pity that whoever put that diagram together did so with a basic category mistake.

Disagree entirely.

 

[tecate]

In a 2013 interview, Krugman stated that the predictions were meant to be "fun and provocative, not to engage in careful forecasting".

Yeah, of course eight years later he downplayed it as 'fun and provocative'. lol

 

[time to plan]

If we're talking about basic skills, you might want to have a look into how to engage in discussion because all you seem interested in is being obtuse rather than furthering the actual discussion.


So you've said how many times now? YOU have zero interest in furthering this discussion. Finite/infinite - relates to scarcity in the context of what makes for a decent store of value but everything you've come out with in the past 24 hours betrays the fact that you have no interest in discussing that at all. It's more important that you take comments out of context to drag things down to the obtuse so that you can segue into 'you really seem to lack basic comprehension skills' and other such BS.


Disagree entirely.

So you're still muddling finiteness with scarcity.

 

[time to plan]

Disagree entirely.

LOL. Don't tell me you think that Bitcoin is equivalent (for the basis of comparison) to Fiat? As opposed to Bitcoin being equivalent to a particular Fiat currency, and Cryptocurrency as a category of currencies being equivalent Fiat as a category of currencies.

 

[DublinHead54]

Isn't the point of innovation to disrupt? If everybody could foresee the impact of innovations then there would not be disruptive innovation.

It is pretty pointless to disregard a persons opinion on a topic because of something they said on another topic and got wrong.

Hindsight is 20:20.

What is clear is we haven't yet seen the rapid adoption and innovation in crypto/bitcoin that we did with the internet. I don't think we will, at the end of the day bitcoin is just a payments system (original intention), there are only so many ways a payment system can change the world.

Yes we can point to RWAs, or that it is still in its infancy, but I don't see how even the strongest proponents of bitcoin don't have their doubts.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Yeah, of course eight years later he downplayed it as 'fun and provocative'. lol

Krug made a complete ass of himself. You seem to think that proves they are all wrong on btc.

 

[tecate]

So you're still muddling finiteness with scarcity.

This is the appropriate response to this item - and will remain so.

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.

You can go and flail your arms around elsewhere - I won't be singing to your tune on this. If you persist, this is the response you'll be getting.

LOL. Don't tell me you think that Bitcoin is equivalent (for the basis of comparison) to Fiat? As opposed to Bitcoin being equivalent to a particular Fiat currency, and Cryptocurrency as a category of currencies being equivalent Fiat as a category of currencies.

For anyone that has a genuine interest in this subject, all comparative discussion relative to an assessment of what makes for a decent store of value has been broken down in this way. If you're referring to one that breaks that out into specific fiat currencies, by all means cite it but I certainly don't see how that helps. Fiat currencies have some common characteristics in that respect.

 

[time to plan]

This is the appropriate response to this item - and will remain so.


You can go and flail your arms around elsewhere - I won't be singing to your tune on this. If you persist, this is the response you'll be getting.



For anyone that has a genuine interest in this subject, all comparative discussion relative to an assessment of what makes for a decent store of value has been broken down in this way. If you're referring to one that breaks that out into specific fiat currencies, by all means cite it but I certainly don't see how that helps. Fiat currencies have some common characteristics in that respect.

OK, seeing as you appear to have no interest in furthering the conversation about tulips, I'm happy to park it that you think that tulips are infinite and that there is no distinction between finiteness and scarcity.


In terms of the comparisons, it's a clear category mistake - how you can disagree entirely with that makes no sense at all.

 

[tecate]

Isn't the point of innovation to disrupt? If everybody could foresee the impact of innovations then there would not be disruptive innovation.

It is pretty pointless to disregard a persons opinion on a topic because of something they said on another topic and got wrong.

Hindsight is 20:20.

Duke has told us that he doesn't form his own opinion on this subject - he has said that he will change his view when Krugman and his ilk change their minds. On that basis alone, its important to note. It's also important to appreciate that someone may be a world renowned expert in one area and then on the back of that clout, speak to something that he has no notion about. That's precisely what happened with Fax Machine Guy.

And equally, while Bitcoin is far more adjacent to economics, it's still technological by nature - so he's not likely to be ideally positioned to comment on it. Lastly, many people here have expressed the opinion that there can only be ONE outcome here (i.e. bitcoin will fail) while others have not (In my case I've said many times that it could fail). In that particular context, Krugman's gaff is important to note.

What is clear is we haven't yet seen the rapid adoption and innovation in crypto/bitcoin that we did with the internet. I don't think we will, at the end of the day bitcoin is just a payments system (original intention), there are only so many ways a payment system can change the world.

Yes we can point to RWAs, or that it is still in its infancy, but I don't see how even the strongest proponents of bitcoin don't have their doubts.

If you're going to pigeon hole it into a payments only affair, then maybe it hasn't set the world on fire - but that pigeon-holing is wayward. It needs to be considered in terms of all of its use cases. On that basis, its network effect continues to grow.

Another point to note...what has largely been debated here is its continued success or its ultimate failure. I mean you can if you wish compare its potential impact with other emerging innovations but that's not been the over-riding theme here. To me, its continued growth and use as a means of payment is plenty significant but if you want to size it up against other innovations, maybe start another thread.

Krug made a complete ass of himself. You seem to think that proves they are all wrong on btc.

Thank you for acknowledging that Krugman made an ass of himself. That doesn't mean that I summarily dismiss his view or the view of other Keynesian and central bank economists. However, we should all acknowledge that he could be as far out as a lighthouse. If you think there's strength in numbers on the basis that his colleagues are all anti-bitcoin in their views and reach similar conclusions, I've long since warned you that there's an issue there. Turkey's don't vote for Christmas. If you spent your life's work concerning yourself with central bank tinkering and an automated decentralized innovation comes along that does away with all of that (at least within that network - you'll recall that I don't believe that this is black and white and we end up with one or the other -they can both be used to advantage...with the irony that bitcoin can serve to motivate those behind fiat currencies to run them better), are you really going to talk positively about bitcoin in that context? Highly unlikely.

 

[tecate]

OK, seeing as you appear to have no interest in furthering the conversation about tulips, I'm happy to park it that you think that tulips are infinite and that there is no distinction between finiteness and scarcity.

I'd expect nothing less than further indulgence in the obtuse but at least you get it - we won't be discussing this further.

In terms of the comparisons, it's a clear category mistake - how you can disagree entirely with that makes no sense at all.

Like I said, it's a subject I've spent a bit of time on. I've never seen anyone make that comparison any other way. If you have, by all means cite it. I mean if it "makes no sense" then you'll have no problem whatsoever in digging out what you consider to be a worthy comparative categorization.

 

[time to plan]

I'd expect nothing less than further indulgence in the obtuse but at least you get it - we won't be discussing this further.


Like I said, it's a subject I've spent a bit of time on. I've never seen anyone make that comparison any other way. If you have, by all means cite it. I mean if it "makes no sense" then you'll have no problem whatsoever in digging out what you consider to be a worthy comparative categorization.

It makes no sense that you disagree entirely that it's a category error. The fact that you've never seen anyone make the comparison any other way doesn't stop it being a category error.

 

[tecate]

It makes no sense that you disagree entirely that it's a category error. The fact that you've never seen anyone make the comparison any other way doesn't stop it being a category error.

Of course I can disagree entirely. Maybe if you have a better explanation as to why this categorization needs to change I'd change my mind. However, as it stands right now, that's not the case. I've already articulated the reason why above.