This is the first time that we've interacted in one of these discussions @Colm Fagan and what's disgusting is that you should make such an allegation. That reflects on you - not on me.
I won't hold back my disgust Colm. It doesn't set you in a good light. I approach these discussions with a view towards learning and open discussion of a topic that I'm deeply interested in. I stand over every single post that I've made here - including my last post which you make accusations of dishonesty about. If you have a grain of decency, you'll roll back on that assertion.
Firstly, how are you sure that I know well it was important where the price of gold was concerned? Secondly, what of it if it did have an impact? Quite the opposite in fact. It makes my point - and to not mention such a thing would only weaken the argument I put forward. I'm comparing an extraordinary period for gold with an extraordinary period for bitcoin. It's entirely fitting and suitable to be examined. I outlined explicitly an extraordinary event in the '70s relative to gold (the introduction of gold futures and derivatives). You were left under no illusions but that my understanding was the period was an extraordinary one where gold was concerned. Not itemising the USD coming off the gold standard in '71 doesn't in any way take away from that. Furthermore, it doesn't in any way make me 'dishonest' in this discussion.
If you are saying that the rampant money printing began in '71 and gold being hard money responded to that, then that actually supports my position. If I was trying to dishonestly hide the fact, I would have been doing myself a disservice (because it supports the very point I set out to make).
I provided you with on the matter. Clearly, you either ignored it or couldn't be bothered to take the time to read it.
Here's a snippet of what he had to say:
"Bitcoin reminds me of gold when I first got into the business in 1976. Gold had just been productized as a futures instrument (like Bitcoin recently) and had enjoyed a heck of a bull market, almost tripling in price. It then corrected almost 50% in nearly two years similar to Bitcoin’s 28
-month 80% correction!"
Clearly there were three major events relative to gold in that decade. From the very outset, I referred to one of them (the introduction of gold futures and derivatives). Tudor Jones doesn't mention anything about the USD coming off the gold standard. Is he to come in for a charge of dishonesty also? He does mention that the 70s was a time when fiat currencies suffered from high inflation. He also points to the similarity of gold in the 70s with regard to volatility - the very same volatility we see with bitcoin today. He refers to the productization of gold - the very same productization that is happening with bitcoin right now.
He refers to gold and the 70s as being an extraordinary period. He likens it to bitcoin - as clearly bitcoin is in an extraordinary period as it proves itself and comes to the fore. You'll also note the economic backdrop we have right now - with rampant money printing the likes of which we have never seen. The Fed printed more monopoly money in the month of June ( '2 Centuries of Debt in One Month' ) than was issued in the first 2 centuries of the existence of the United States. Tudor Jones' thesis is very much taking into account these conditions as a backdrop to gold and bitcoin.
You say that you prefer to invest in companies that bring about growth through their trading activities - and that you don't favour gold nor bitcoin on this basis. I acknowledged your point. However, I pointed to the fact that I don't expect there to be major opportunities to make gains on Bitcoin once it has been established as a digital asset.
You point to the performance of gold in the '80s and with that you completely miss the point. Gold was being productized in the 70s against a backdrop of inflation, money printing and the dropping of the gold standard. Bitcoin is coming of age right now. It has a fixed cap supply. If it achieves adoption - whether that be as a store of value/digital gold/hedge against fiat currencies or further down the road as a means of exchange/transactional money, it's reasonable to assume that such demand will create pressure on its price. Volatility is a bad feature for a means of exchange. However, it provides a great opportunity for those that wish to trade bitcoin. I see it as a temporary one off event - albeit that it will need to play out over a number of years. Eventually, when bitcoin matures, I believe it will be as boring as gold.
It's on that basis, we have the comparison with gold in the 70s and it's on that basis, that I asked you the following:
"When gold increased 2,300% over the course of the 1970s, there would have been no value in holding it?"
I also asked you this: "What do you think the folks that contribute to the $9 trillion market cap of gold are playing at exactly? Why is there a market for gold to the value of $9 trillion dollars if you say that it's pointless?"
And in the 1970s you would have missed out on a gain of 2,300% in the appreciation of gold with that stance.
Last edited:
That is the whole point. He points out that bitcoin is not like gold in this respect. Bitcoin cannot pull off gold's transition from medium of exchange to store of value because it's use as a store of value is 100% dependent on its utility as a medium of exchange. I think you disagree with him. I think you believe that bitcoin can become a gold, a work of art, a piece of jewellery, something with a store of value but with nada utility as a medium of exchange. JK profoundly disagrees with you and I agree 100% with him on this aspect.