Found the show archived at:
http://kiwi6.com/file/9j8g288xs7
http://www.mediafire.com/?a5y5zkituuotfha
http://torrage.ws/torrent/186212A02D679BCA24FEAD1D822F28DC2ADB4831.torrent
http://thehashden.org/torrent/AB87A3F9748D576F63768564519D0DCB0DC338A3.torrent
Topic: Bitcoin will be on the Peter Schiff Show 2011-06-20 at 10AM EDT (Read 7369 times)
No exchange ratio of BTC/USD is any more or less appropriate than any other exchange ratio. The ratio could really be anything. There is no telling whether it will go to 1% or 1000% of its value. The reason the exchange ratio is arbitrary is that it has no value except in exchange.
My interpretation is that this is essentially what Peter Schiff was saying and Donald Norman agreed.
My interpretation is that this is essentially what Peter Schiff was saying and Donald Norman agreed.
That was pretty much how I heard it too.
On the other hand, the exact same argument could be made for every other possible ratio, be it dollars to gold, or gold to chickens, or chickens to apples, or whatever.
Even people that are really good with economics get caught up in these traps. They mistake the ability to eat something (or whatever) with the notion that it has some sort of stable value in relation to something or everything else.
Gold has a lot of industrial uses, just not at these prices. For example, gold is a very good conductor and would be used in electronics a lot if it was dirt cheap. But people value more gold as money than gold as conductor, thus is used as money.
Yes, exactly. Whereas instruments backed by other commodities will more closely follow their industrial value.
Quote
As a medium of exchange, bitcoins do have value, but usefulness as a medium of exchange does not lead to long term stable prices. And perhaps not even short term stable prices. In the interview Donald Norman is completely correct in saying that bitcoins make a good medium of exchange but a poor store of value.
I dont know where you are getting this. Bitcoin has been a good store of value. And the long term or short term stable prices I dont even know where you are getting it.
No exchange ratio of BTC/USD is any more or less appropriate than any other exchange ratio. The ratio could really be anything. There is no telling whether it will go to 1% or 1000% of its value. The reason the exchange ratio is arbitrary is that it has no value except in exchange.
My interpretation is that this is essentially what Peter Schiff was saying and Donald Norman agreed.
Gold and silver have long histories of being valuable. Actually longer than history itself. You can hardly fault a guy for preferring it over this newfangled unproven thing.
But give it time. Bitcoin has virtues that aren't always obvious.
But give it time. Bitcoin has virtues that aren't always obvious.
"Intrinsic" value in this context does not mean intrinsic value in a philosophical sense. Rather, it means having value other than as a medium of exchange. IMO the industrial use for gold is rather weak compared to silver or oil or copper or rice, but even gold has SOME industrial value, while bitcoins do not.
Gold has a lot of industrial uses, just not at these prices. For example, gold is a very good conductor and would be used in electronics a lot if it was dirt cheap. But people value more gold as money than gold as conductor, thus is used as money.
Quote
As a medium of exchange, bitcoins do have value, but usefulness as a medium of exchange does not lead to long term stable prices. And perhaps not even short term stable prices. In the interview Donald Norman is completely correct in saying that bitcoins make a good medium of exchange but a poor store of value.
I dont know where you are getting this. Bitcoin has been a good store of value. And the long term or short term stable prices I dont even know where you are getting it.
Ok, so....BTC. Intrinsic value or use value? Or something else? Novelty value? It certainly has functional value does it not?
BTC has no use value, outside of the context of a medium of exchange. BTC is both the currency and an effective, worldwide, transfer mechanism. Just like gold's intrinsic value is rooted in it's properties that make it an ideal money, BTC's intrinsic value rests in the properties imbued into it by powerful cryptology and rigid code practices.
If you love gold and understand it, then you will love bitcoin for nearly the exact same reasons, as they share most of the same properties of a good medium of exchange. There are an amazing number of people (particularly on youtube) who love gold/silver and *hate* bitcoin, which shows a deep rift in their understanding.
Unfortunately the answer to this is yes, mostly. There are open minded people in the silver/gold community such as myself (i'm not that old) but after several years of bringing them (my people who previously were not even interested in the metals) up to speed on currencies and this being new to me I just don't have the energy to start my crusade all over again.
At least not charging into battle. I'll just leave little notes laying on the ground and if someone should happen upon them, AND act upon them, good for you.
"Intrinsic" value in this context does not mean intrinsic value in a philosophical sense. Rather, it means having value other than as a medium of exchange. IMO the industrial use for gold is rather weak compared to silver or oil or copper or rice, but even gold has SOME industrial value, while bitcoins do not.
As a medium of exchange, bitcoins do have value, but usefulness as a medium of exchange does not lead to long term stable prices. And perhaps not even short term stable prices. In the interview Donald Norman is completely correct in saying that bitcoins make a good medium of exchange but a poor store of value.
As a medium of exchange, bitcoins do have value, but usefulness as a medium of exchange does not lead to long term stable prices. And perhaps not even short term stable prices. In the interview Donald Norman is completely correct in saying that bitcoins make a good medium of exchange but a poor store of value.
yeah, like telling them at what speed they should screw him over .... if he's lucky.
Lie down with dogs and you get fleas.
If he's not doing anything illegal why should the regulators get involved at all? Governments need to be reined in, not encouraged to expand ... has no one been paying attention recently?
Lie down with dogs and you get fleas.
If he's not doing anything illegal why should the regulators get involved at all? Governments need to be reined in, not encouraged to expand ... has no one been paying attention recently?
You are right, but we live in the world we live. I dont think there are other options. Governments are going to get into Bitcoin related companies whether we like it or not. Its not a choice, its just a matter of how and when, so you might as well look for the best "deal" (and yes, its going to be nasty and governments are not going to play "fair").
Lets be realistic: One exchange going heroic and figthing against the system is not going to acomplish anything. Probably its going to be contraproductive because it will give bad press to bitcoins. Let them regulate the exchange so people have a easy way to get into bitcoins and we can fight the system from within.
Donald Norman from bitcoin consultancy sounds like he is fast getting out of his depth. He mentions in one breath about the genesis block referring to "bailouts for banks" and in same interview unashamedly is asking for UK regulator assistance to run his Britcoin operation ... one conflicted individual.
I am a market anarchist but I think its good that they want regulation of the exchanges. How can that be? Some people will distrust bitcoins, and some others will try to attack it. By seeking to be regulated they are shielding themselves from this types of attacks. Also, its not like the governments were going to let them be. Governments were going to go for them anyways at some points, so you must as well do it on your own.
Yeah, at least if it's his idea, he has some say in how it's done.
yeah, like telling them at what speed they should screw him over .... if he's lucky.
Lie down with dogs and you get fleas.
If he's not doing anything illegal why should the regulators get involved at all? Governments need to be reined in, not encouraged to expand ... has no one been paying attention recently?
Donald Norman from bitcoin consultancy sounds like he is fast getting out of his depth. He mentions in one breath about the genesis block referring to "bailouts for banks" and in same interview unashamedly is asking for UK regulator assistance to run his Britcoin operation ... one conflicted individual.
I am a market anarchist but I think its good that they want regulation of the exchanges. How can that be? Some people will distrust bitcoins, and some others will try to attack it. By seeking to be regulated they are shielding themselves from this types of attacks. Also, its not like the governments were going to let them be. Governments were going to go for them anyways at some points, so you must as well do it on your own.
Yeah, at least if it's his idea, he has some say in how it's done.
Donald Norman from bitcoin consultancy sounds like he is fast getting out of his depth. He mentions in one breath about the genesis block referring to "bailouts for banks" and in same interview unashamedly is asking for UK regulator assistance to run his Britcoin operation ... one conflicted individual.
I am a market anarchist but I think its good that they want regulation of the exchanges. How can that be? Some people will distrust bitcoins, and some others will try to attack it. By seeking to be regulated they are shielding themselves from this types of attacks. Also, its not like the governments were going to let them be. Governments were going to go for them anyways at some points, so you must as well do it on your own. And remember that Bitcoin is imposible to regulate, they are just regulating the exchanges.
Btw, I am still shocked that Peter used the concept of intrinsic value when he knows very well instrinsic value does not exist.
Donald Norman from bitcoin consultancy sounds like he is fast getting out of his depth. He mentions in one breath about the genesis block referring to "bailouts for banks" and in same interview unashamedly is asking for UK regulator assistance to run his Britcoin operation ... one conflicted individual.
Ok, so....BTC. Intrinsic value or use value? Or something else? Novelty value? It certainly has functional value does it not?
BTC has no use value, outside of the context of a medium of exchange. BTC is both the currency and an effective, worldwide, transfer mechanism. Just like gold's intrinsic value is rooted in it's properties that make it an ideal money, BTC's intrinsic value rests in the properties imbued into it by powerful cryptology and rigid code practices.
If you love gold and understand it, then you will love bitcoin for nearly the exact same reasons, as they share most of the same properties of a good medium of exchange. There are an amazing number of people (particularly on youtube) who love gold/silver and *hate* bitcoin, which shows a deep rift in their understanding.
I hate it when Schiff is talking nonsense like that -- intrinsic value. Great analogy with seashells, libertyzeal.
Yeah sure, gold silver & lead are solid investments in my book. Are those goldbugs way too old to understand P2P, I wonder?
And bitcoin is way more attractive when it comes to capital controls.
For selfish reasons, I'm in no great hurry to educate the masses, they will figure it out eventually, and in the meantime I'd like to accumulate a nice little horde for myself with as little competition as possible.
Amen to that. Keep the bad news coming. It'll keep the riff-raff out long enough for me to add more savings.
Ok, so....BTC. Intrinsic value or use value? Or something else? Novelty value? It certainly has functional value does it not?
BTC has no use value, outside of the context of a medium of exchange. BTC is both the currency and an effective, worldwide, transfer mechanism. Just like gold's intrinsic value is rooted in it's properties that make it an ideal money, BTC's intrinsic value rests in the properties imbued into it by powerful cryptology and rigid code practices.
If you love gold and understand it, then you will love bitcoin for nearly the exact same reasons, as they share most of the same properties of a good medium of exchange. There are an amazing number of people (particularly on youtube) who love gold/silver and *hate* bitcoin, which shows a deep rift in their understanding.
For selfish reasons, I'm in no great hurry to educate the masses, they will figure it out eventually, and in the meantime I'd like to accumulate a nice little horde for myself with as little competition as possible.
Ok, so....BTC. Intrinsic value or use value? Or something else? Novelty value? It certainly has functional value does it not?
BTC has no use value, outside of the context of a medium of exchange. BTC is both the currency and an effective, worldwide, transfer mechanism. Just like gold's intrinsic value is rooted in it's properties that make it an ideal money, BTC's intrinsic value rests in the properties imbued into it by powerful cryptology and rigid code practices.
While I have a lot of respect for what Peter says most o the time, he clearly has not done his homework here. I don't think he's just talking his gold and silver book as many have suggested -- it seemed to me that he really doesn't (yet) have a full grasp of the bitcoin concept. As I posted on the press hits thread though, no doubt there are a whole lot of knowledgeable, savvy (and possibly quite wealthy) investors doing research right now on bitcoins since hearing this interview today. I'm sure Peter will come around in the long run after he sees bitcoins from a few more angles.
Ok, so....BTC. Intrinsic value or use value? Or something else? Novelty value? It certainly has functional value does it not?
I'll say it again... As long as Western Union, MoneyGram, etc., charge those usurious fees, Bitcoins will have value.
It's a shame that very few people seem to know what "backing" means and what "intrinsic" value is.
I almost fell out of my chair when Peter said gold had intrinsic value because you could craft jewelry from gold or use it in electronics. While being true, you can do the same with seashells and silicon, those properties have nothing to do with why gold is a good medium of exchange.. I thought Peter was smarter than that.
Well I'm sure he's trying to make sense of it too. He needs an education just like everyone else. Does he have the wisdom to feed his intellect?
He was talking about an Austrian economist stating that gold had intrinsic value by reason of it's use value. Austrians don't normally talk in those terms, because use value doesn't equate to an intrinsic value. Value is always subjective, and an 'intrinsic' value would necessarily have to exist, if it did exist, by reason of a commodities natural characteristics. Gold's use value is not very closely related to it's elemental properties, but it's monetary value is related to it's elemental properties. If gold has an intrisic value, it's directly related to it's quality as an ideal money, not it's industrial or commercial uses.
You're quite right! The fact that gold has almost no industrial uses, is one of the properties that it make it a great medium of exchange, you want your unit of account to be in stable and in predictable supply. Silver on the other hand has many industrial uses, it's a key component in PV cells for solar panels for example, so it's a lot less stable than gold in terms of supply/demand.
It's a shame that very few people seem to know what "backing" means and what "intrinsic" value is.
I almost fell out of my chair when Peter said gold had intrinsic value because you could craft jewelry from gold or use it in electronics. While being true, you can do the same with seashells and silicon, those properties have nothing to do with why gold is a good medium of exchange.. I thought Peter was smarter than that.
Well I'm sure he's trying to make sense of it too. He needs an education just like everyone else. Does he have the wisdom to feed his intellect?
He was talking about an Austrian economist stating that gold had intrinsic value by reason of it's use value. Austrians don't normally talk in those terms, because use value doesn't equate to an intrinsic value. Value is always subjective, and an 'intrinsic' value would necessarily have to exist, if it did exist, by reason of a commodities natural characteristics. Gold's use value is not very closely related to it's elemental properties, but it's monetary value is related to it's elemental properties. If gold has an intrisic value, it's directly related to it's quality as an ideal money, not it's industrial or commercial uses.
Ok, so....BTC. Intrinsic value or use value? Or something else? Novelty value? It certainly has functional value does it not?
Jump to: