in my opinion bitcoin is still a champion and very profitable than gold, the total supply that bitcoin possesses is definitely less than gold and it will definitely make bitcoin prices very easy to rise and fall in contrast to the gold that its availability is unlimited.
As an investor I would choose bitcoin instead of gold although gold investment is stable and less risky. The value of a bitcoin is much larger than an ounce of gold and I also choose to invest in bitcoin because it gives me more profit despite the risk but I accept this, because the risk is the most interesting thing in business. 
Topic: Bitcoin vs. Gold Prices - page 15. (Read 2319 times)
Got it. But what you call asset price inflation may be another way of injecting money into the real economy. Look, you can inject money via banks by lowering interest rates, as you duly noted, so that banks give out more credit to companies. But if companies don't want to borrow, you can give them money via financial markets. For example, when the Fed ran its QE's, money went to the financial markets, which caused what you call asset price inflation, but this didn't trigger inflation in the prices of goods and services.
I'll understand if you prefer not to call asset price appreciation 'inflation'. It's just terminology. (The Economist magazine uses the term asset price inflation, so I thought it must be pretty common.)
In any case, we have a lot more financial wealth than real wealth (the stock and future stream of goods and services) at current prices. In the longer term, one way or another, goods and services prices must eventually come up to match the financial wealth, or, even worse, asset values collapse and we get another depression.
My thesis has been that, in the relatively good scenario, asset price inflation will eventually become consumer price inflation. So it's not really enough just to measure the latter.
In many ways, what we have is worse than old-fashioned consumer price inflation due to printing and borrowing money by the elites. A small minority of people hold a lot of wealth on paper, thinking they can live so many years with their wealth, but that is all based on today's prices, which are a result of various schemes by the global elites. (E.g. developing countries holding down their exchange rates with implicit agreement by the Fed and the ECB.) So we have a combination of a financial bubble and a social time-bomb from the inequality and unfairness of this system (which brings down working class people in rich countries too.) Future inflation is the best possible outcome from this mix.
But how is it possible? Or rather, what do you mean by asset price inflation? If you mean something like Producers Price Index (PPI), it should in fact be somewhat preceding the consumer price inflation. Consumer prices depend on the costs of production but today's prices of goods are determined by the past prices of raw materials. This is likely the reason why it may look like the PPI is higher than the CPI at a given moment since it lags behind the PPI.
So it seems we have a misunderstanding... Asset price inflation refers to the rising values of financial assets -- stocks, bonds, real estate, what have you. What really matters is the total amount of paper wealth in the economy, so we must also consider the creation of money in the (shadow) banking system as well (under generally low policy interest rates during this period.) This is as opposed to the price of goods and service, things we can actually use (ie consumer prices.)
In the modern world system, what often happens is that there is a lot more total paper wealth than real wealth (goods and services), due to the incentives for the elites to issue paper wealth and use state power to support their values artificially. Over the last two decades, this problem became extreme, and the only other period of modern history that compares with it was the period before the Great Depression.
So I was referring to how this problem came about on the ground, that is, asset price inflation was much higher than consumer price inflation over the last 20 years.
Got it. But what you call asset price inflation may be another way of injecting money into the real economy. Look, you can inject money via banks by lowering interest rates, as you duly noted, so that banks give out more credit to companies. But if companies don't want to borrow, you can give them money via financial markets. For example, when the Fed ran its QE's, money went to the financial markets, which caused what you call asset price inflation, but this didn't trigger inflation in the prices of goods and services.
So I think it is safe to assume that the safest strategy is to hold both bitcoin and gold that way no matter what happens you will be a winner, not as big of a winner if you were to put all your money only in bitcoin or gold but still a big winner at the end, I do not see anything wrong with that strategy except that you will need a bigger capital to perform it effectively.
I agree with your general philosophy, but we also have to decide the ratio of the holdings. Right now, the total market cap of all cryptos is less than 10% of the market cap of gold. If the Western elites want to promote cryptos as another fall-back money like gold, they'll have to raise the market cap. So IMO we should be heavier on Bitcoin/cryptos than gold.
And the price of gold itself is heavily suppressed by the elites (without which their system couldn't possibly survive -- see books 'The Gold Wars' and 'The Gold Cartel' for serious evidence.) But they lose control and/or allow gold to go up during the worst of times (see my post The Real Reason to Hold Gold and Bitcoin.) So if you're young enough and have a long-term horizon, you should at least get even with inflation, but only over the long haul.
Also, it's funny how the centuries-long gold/silver standard period was a time when the elites successfully suppressed the price of gold (to a fixed currency value), while today that has failed and the elites are forced to (effectively) devalue currency against gold on a continuous basis, so that gold went from $35/ounce in 1971 to 30 times that today. But if you listen to the media, economists, etc., you hear the opposite of the truth -- that gold was blessed by officialdom as money during the gold standard, and it's just a barbarous relic today. The entire system is deceptive.
I don't really care about prices atm , but i think gold is gonna lose popularity with the years. Maybe to bitcoin or an other new asset.
But how is it possible? Or rather, what do you mean by asset price inflation? If you mean something like Producers Price Index (PPI), it should in fact be somewhat preceding the consumer price inflation. Consumer prices depend on the costs of production but today's prices of goods are determined by the past prices of raw materials. This is likely the reason why it may look like the PPI is higher than the CPI at a given moment since it lags behind the PPI.
So it seems we have a misunderstanding... Asset price inflation refers to the rising values of financial assets -- stocks, bonds, real estate, what have you. What really matters is the total amount of paper wealth in the economy, so we must also consider the creation of money in the (shadow) banking system as well (under generally low policy interest rates during this period.) This is as opposed to the price of goods and service, things we can actually use (ie consumer prices.)
In the modern world system, what often happens is that there is a lot more total paper wealth than real wealth (goods and services), due to the incentives for the elites to issue paper wealth and use state power to support their values artificially. Over the last two decades, this problem became extreme, and the only other period of modern history that compares with it was the period before the Great Depression.
So I was referring to how this problem came about on the ground, that is, asset price inflation was much higher than consumer price inflation over the last 20 years.
Honestly, I don't think there should be significant difference between asset price inflation and consumer price inflation, at least not in the long term.
This was basically the point I was making. But over the last two decades plus, rich-world consumer price inflation has been seriously and continuously below asset price inflation. What do you think has been happening? And what will happen when the cumulative effect of the difference must eventually be cleared out? (That is, we have much more asset wealth than the wealth in products and services, at current prices -- these must somehow equalize eventually.)But how is it possible? Or rather, what do you mean by asset price inflation? If you mean something like Producers Price Index (PPI), it should in fact be somewhat preceding the consumer price inflation. Consumer prices depend on the costs of production but today's prices of goods are determined by the past prices of raw materials. This is likely the reason why it may look like the PPI is higher than the CPI at a given moment since it lags behind the PPI.
This seems reasonable, but I'll give you an example. I've calculated that the price of a basic, cheap, clean motel room in the US over the last 20 years has really risen on average 6% per year, compounded. Yet the CPI over this period has been 2% in the worst years. Granted, motel rooms aren't part of the CPI 'basket,' the conclusion I had to draw was that, the public don't really hold the CPI accountable over the long term, since few people carry out and publish calculations like this. On a year to year basis, the CPI may be a little on the low side. Over the decades, the cumulative difference is big.
If I'm not mistaken, this type of inflation is called Personal Inflation Rate.
Honestly, I don't think there should be significant difference between asset price inflation and consumer price inflation, at least not in the long term.
This was basically the point I was making. But over the last two decades plus, rich-world consumer price inflation has been seriously and continuously below asset price inflation. What do you think has been happening? And what will happen when the cumulative effect of the difference must eventually be cleared out? (That is, we have much more asset wealth than the wealth in products and services, at current prices -- these must somehow equalize eventually.)It may be so that CPI is somewhat lagging behind PPI but on long enough timeframes they should follow each other pretty close. Besides, the inflation reports can be rigged year in and year out, but you simply can't rig them year after year since the cumulative discrepancy would be too obvious for everyone to notice and point a finger at the government.
This seems reasonable, but I'll give you an example. I've calculated that the price of a basic, cheap, clean motel room in the US over the last 20 years has really risen on average 6% per year, compounded. Yet the CPI over this period has been 2% in the worst years. Granted, motel rooms aren't part of the CPI 'basket,' the conclusion I had to draw was that, the public don't really hold the CPI accountable over the long term, since few people carry out and publish calculations like this. On a year to year basis, the CPI may be a little on the low side. Over the decades, the cumulative difference is big.
in my opinion bitcoin is still a champion and very profitable than gold, the total supply that bitcoin possesses is definitely less than gold and it will definitely make bitcoin prices very easy to rise and fall in contrast to the gold that its availability is unlimited.
If the size is a profit then bitcoin is better than anything, we all know that bitcoin increase reaches more than 1500% and bitcoin is the most profitable thing, and if we want to get the same thing then buy now will be profitable in the next few months.
in my opinion bitcoin is still a champion and very profitable than gold, the total supply that bitcoin possesses is definitely less than gold and it will definitely make bitcoin prices very easy to rise and fall in contrast to the gold that its availability is unlimited.
Bitcoin is worth a lot. Currently bitcoin is a low price. But the demand of the current market is widespread. So it is currently the best. And the price of gold is very high. Since then, the demand has remained the same as before. But gold is weaker than Bitcoin. So Bitcoin is worth more .
To be sincere, Gold is more expensive that Bitcoin. Although I don’t know the market cap of Gold, but I believe that the market cap of gold is worth more than the market cap of Bitcoin, so Gold is worth more than Bitcoin. And you shouldn’t compare them, cause the world has known Gold for a long time now, while Bitcoin is just for a few years. So people trusts Gold more than they do Bitcoin and they also believe that Gold will earn them more than Bitcoin, because they don’t anything about Bitcoin. But that doesn’t make me go for Gold, Bitcoin is still my number one. 
Gold prices are a lot more stable than Bitcoin's prices. Bitcoin (and crypto) prices are known by volatility, while gold is trusted by a large community of people and then its price is somehow stable. But in the other hand , Bitcoin's price is going up faster than gold and the similar physical assets.
Well I believe that bitcoin is really profitable than gold in terms of investing or maybe trading because the price of the bitcoin can really go down and it is really a great opportunity to buy and sell in the near future to earn a lot of profit while in gold we really need a huge amount of capital because it is really almost at the high status of price which makes it so expensive in terms of gaining process.So then i believe that bitcoin is better than gold.
Gold prices are a lot more stable than Bitcoin's prices. Bitcoin (and crypto) prices are known by volatility, while gold is trusted by a large community of people and then its price is somehow stable. But in the other hand , Bitcoin's price is going up faster than gold and the similar physical assets.
Well I believe that bitcoin is really profitable than gold in terms of investing or maybe trading because the price of the bitcoin can really go down and it is really a great opportunity to buy and sell in the near future to earn a lot of profit while in gold we really need a huge amount of capital because it is really almost at the high status of price which makes it so expensive in terms of gaining process.So then i believe that bitcoin is better than gold. 
If you think that gold price has decreased by 33% within a week, I think the world economy was experiencing great chaos. We are living the same chaos now, Bitcoin will come to its former value. Just buying is not enough We need to believe in Bitcoin's power.
Gold prices are a lot more stable than Bitcoin's prices. Bitcoin (and crypto) prices are known by volatility, while gold is trusted by a large community of people and then its price is somehow stable. But in the other hand , Bitcoin's price is going up faster than gold and the similar physical assets.
At large, I agree that with US Treasury bonds you are as safe as the government which issues them. If it gets kicked out for whatever reason, these bonds won't be worth the paper they are printed on, metaphorically speaking. Nevertheless, if we care about inflation only discarding the possibility of default by the government on their "promises", we can buy Treasury inflation-protected securities, also known as TIPS. Their principal is tied to the inflation rate, more specifically the Consumer Price Index, so with these securities you are sort of protected from inflation. It is just that most people want more than that.
There's a big grey area between a store of value and outright default. Certainly, the nature of the government has a lot to do with the performance of its debt. What applies universally is that the incentives for the elites are to maximize the debt issuance and to inflate away their debt over the long term.
The consumer price index is known to be manipulated to show lower figures over the decades. Even if it was accurate, it would only reflect consumer price inflation, not asset price inflation which is much higher. Consumer prices are artificially suppressed by various financial-repression measures jointly put in by the elites of the US and developing countries to prop up the dollar. Among all the paper wealth created by central banks, governments and 'markets', eventually at least a large proportion will go into consumer price inflation, one way or another (otherwise, there would be a complete financial meltdown by debt default.)
Honestly, I don't think there should be significant difference between asset price inflation and consumer price inflation, at least not in the long term. It may be so that CPI is somewhat lagging behind PPI but on long enough timeframes they should follow each other pretty close. Besides, the inflation reports can be rigged year in and year out, but you simply can't rig them year after year since the cumulative discrepancy would be too obvious for everyone to notice and point a finger at the government.
Bitcoin is worth a lot. Currently bitcoin is a low price. But the demand of the current market is widespread. So it is currently the best. And the price of gold is very high. Since then, the demand has remained the same as before. But gold is weaker than Bitcoin. So Bitcoin is worth more .
At large, I agree that with US Treasury bonds you are as safe as the government which issues them. If it gets kicked out for whatever reason, these bonds won't be worth the paper they are printed on, metaphorically speaking. Nevertheless, if we care about inflation only discarding the possibility of default by the government on their "promises", we can buy Treasury inflation-protected securities, also known as TIPS. Their principal is tied to the inflation rate, more specifically the Consumer Price Index, so with these securities you are sort of protected from inflation. It is just that most people want more than that.
There's a big grey area between a store of value and outright default. Certainly, the nature of the government has a lot to do with the performance of its debt. What applies universally is that the incentives for the elites are to maximize the debt issuance and to inflate away their debt over the long term.
The consumer price index is known to be manipulated to show lower figures over the decades. Even if it was accurate, it would only reflect consumer price inflation, not asset price inflation which is much higher. Consumer prices are artificially suppressed by various financial-repression measures jointly put in by the elites of the US and developing countries to prop up the dollar. Among all the paper wealth created by central banks, governments and 'markets', eventually at least a large proportion will go into consumer price inflation, one way or another (otherwise, there would be a complete financial meltdown by debt default.)
Honestly, I don't think there should be significant difference between asset price inflation and consumer price inflation, at least not in the long term. It may be so that CPI is somewhat lagging behind PPI but on long enough timeframes they should follow each other pretty close. Besides, the inflation reports can be rigged year in and year out, but you simply can't rig them year after year since the cumulative discrepancy would be too obvious for everyone to notice and point a finger at the government.
Well comparing gold to bitcoin can teach us another thing about the so called Bitcoin 'bubble'. A currency is just something what we attach value to. Your shopkeeper accepts a dollar because he can further use for his own purposes; it is 'valuable' to him. This is the subjective value of a dollar. Similarly, gold has been the oldest currency since forever, making it is safe and stable. Therefore it has subjective value but no real intrinsic value as it has very few credible uses. Similarly people saying bitcoin has no intrinsic value need to realize if bitcoin stays afloat after a few years and surviving some financial crisis, it won't need any intrinsic value.
Jump to: