There's a guy that I like to read or listen to on youtube, whose name's Matthew Kratter. Look him up and you won't regret if you're a bitcoin supporter but don't really like altcoins too much. He's got that sarcastic, yet informative way of talking about all the attacks on bitcoin from banks, old farts, scammers and politicians. He's got a video about these two old donkeys: Warren Muppet and Charlie Muppet, as he calls them.
Hydrogen pretty much answered the question as to why these guys are against bitcoin. They read about crypto millionaires and feel like the young generation didn't put enough effort into this. They didn't have to do analysis, set up companies, take loans. They just did a few clicks on their computers in 2012 or 2013 and 5 years later were millionaires. That's how these old people see them, like the millenials are making money out of nothing.
Sad news for you Muppets. In 10 years bitcoin will be worth $200k+, there will be a lot of young people running around in bitcoin t-shirts with hardware wallets in hand, but you won't live long enough to see it. If you do they'll be feeding you through a tube (Charlie is going to be long gone by then, he's 99, so this bitcoin rant is his last stand).
Bottom line, I wouldn't focus on what these old guys are saying. There's a 50/50 chance that they'll live to see the next halving.
Topic: Berkshire Hathaway's Charlie Munger Calls for Crypto Ban in the US - page 2. (Read 230 times)
February 02, 2023, 10:51:25 AM
February 02, 2023, 10:26:26 AM
Surely the point in sounding negative is to get melleniels, boomers and gen x to give up on the idea of investing in cryptocurrency and move to investing in stocks.
"100% house edge" is also not something that makes sense. Did they try investing (with a tiny amount) at its peak and are now disappointed they've lost. Are they worried it gives a whole new precident on how people are more solvant than companies in the sector (ftx and others v retail investors). Warren Buffet does claim to prefer investments in the production of assets rather than investments in the underlying asset so it would make sense why they don't like bitcoin.
"100% house edge" is also not something that makes sense. Did they try investing (with a tiny amount) at its peak and are now disappointed they've lost. Are they worried it gives a whole new precident on how people are more solvant than companies in the sector (ftx and others v retail investors). Warren Buffet does claim to prefer investments in the production of assets rather than investments in the underlying asset so it would make sense why they don't like bitcoin.
February 02, 2023, 08:37:25 AM
Quote
Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) vice chairman and staunch bitcoin skeptic Charlie Munger has called for the United States to follow in the footsteps of China and ban cryptocurrencies.
In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Munger attributed the rise of cryptocurrencies to a gap in regulation as crypto assets aren't currencies, commodities or securities.
"Instead, it’s a gambling contract with a nearly 100% edge for the house, entered into in a country where gambling contracts are traditionally regulated only by states that compete in laxity," Munger wrote. "The U.S. should now enact a new federal law that prevents this from happening."
In 2021, Munger labelled bitcoin's (BTC) relative success, at the time as "disgusting" after alluding to how it is used by kidnappers and extortionists. A year later, the 99-year-old called bitcoin an "investment in nothing" as he doubled down on his skeptical stance.
This isn't the first time Munger or Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren Buffett, also known as the "Oracle of Omaha," have gone after crypto with Munger even going as far to say that he wished crypto had “never been invented."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/berkshire-hathaways-charlie-munger-calls-094144939.html
In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Munger attributed the rise of cryptocurrencies to a gap in regulation as crypto assets aren't currencies, commodities or securities.
"Instead, it’s a gambling contract with a nearly 100% edge for the house, entered into in a country where gambling contracts are traditionally regulated only by states that compete in laxity," Munger wrote. "The U.S. should now enact a new federal law that prevents this from happening."
In 2021, Munger labelled bitcoin's (BTC) relative success, at the time as "disgusting" after alluding to how it is used by kidnappers and extortionists. A year later, the 99-year-old called bitcoin an "investment in nothing" as he doubled down on his skeptical stance.
This isn't the first time Munger or Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren Buffett, also known as the "Oracle of Omaha," have gone after crypto with Munger even going as far to say that he wished crypto had “never been invented."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/berkshire-hathaways-charlie-munger-calls-094144939.html
....
I never understood how wealthy and successful men can sound so negative at times:
Quote
This isn't the first time Munger or Berkshire Hathaway chairman Warren Buffett, also known as the "Oracle of Omaha," have gone after crypto with Munger even going as far to say that he wished crypto had “never been invented."
For successful billionaire investors to say they wish crypto had never been invented. This sounds serious! Is crypto a big deal for them? Why would such be the case?
I get that millennials, generation Z and the youth demographic love crypto and have been known to throw their money at it in the hope of someday becoming millionaires.
Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger want investors and the youth demographic to throw all their cash at stocks instead. To keep stock indexes rising and make berkshire hathaway a more profitable venture.
Buffett and Munger are upset all of the liquidity directed towards crypto, isn't being thrown at things they own to make them richer. But what would they do if they had additional billions at their disposal? Would it make a significant change to their lifestyle, net worth or holdings?
What if Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger both had $200 billion dollars more than they have now. Wouldn't they be saying the exact same thing, doing the same thing they are right now? In which case, why be upset when it wouldn't have a noticeable effect on their lifestyle or standard of living?
Jump to: