Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 433. (Read 2032286 times)
Transports starting to give it up:
lumber prices breaking down:
here's a representative transport company, UAL, breaking down. you would think their profits would be going up given the falling price of oil that has been going on since last summer. but no, someone is selling it off probably b/c travel is down due to the ongoing deflation and overpriced stock:
ok, we have a dangerous signal on deck when it comes to the stock mkt. the $DJT dipped below the January low which confirms the long term Dow Theory non-confirmation i have been going on about. it needs to close below this level before becoming official. we'll see if it does by the end of the day. either way, it looks like it will either today or in the next few days. of course, the Fed and banks watch the charts too, so it's time for a rescue pump if they're going to do one.
Yes Erdogan those fiat/statist sites and one scam-infused 'coin' site obviously spout nonsense.
But your original claim was about bitcoin knowledge, not gold/money/fiat/old hat knowledge, and mine is that it is better found elsewhere.
Yes op it was stupid of me to make an account on bitcointalk and to attempt to engage your tsunami of trolls.
But your original claim was about bitcoin knowledge, not gold/money/fiat/old hat knowledge, and mine is that it is better found elsewhere.
Yes op it was stupid of me to make an account on bitcointalk and to attempt to engage your tsunami of trolls.
Yes, you are stupid because you come in here with a 2wk account with no arguments, simply accusations. You couldn't possibly have been following this thread for any length of time to know what you're talking about nor form any valid opinions of the people here so yes, you won't get any respect because you haven't earned any.
It is an NLC alt.
given that sporket likes images also, i'd assume his is an alt as well?
You two should start an internet detective agency. If inca isn't just an alt you trot out when things get a bit quiet...
Yes Erdogan those fiat/statist sites and one scam-infused 'coin' site obviously spout nonsense.
But your original claim was about bitcoin knowledge, not gold/money/fiat/old hat knowledge, and mine is that it is better found elsewhere.
Yes op it was stupid of me to make an account on bitcointalk and to attempt to engage your tsunami of trolls.
But your original claim was about bitcoin knowledge, not gold/money/fiat/old hat knowledge, and mine is that it is better found elsewhere.
Yes op it was stupid of me to make an account on bitcointalk and to attempt to engage your tsunami of trolls.
Yes, you are stupid because you come in here with a 2wk account with no arguments, simply accusations. You couldn't possibly have been following this thread for any length of time to know what you're talking about nor form any valid opinions of the people here so yes, you won't get any respect because you haven't earned any.
It is an NLC alt.
given that sporket likes images also, i'd assume his is an alt as well?
Yes Erdogan those fiat/statist sites and one scam-infused 'coin' site obviously spout nonsense.
But your original claim was about bitcoin knowledge, not gold/money/fiat/old hat knowledge, and mine is that it is better found elsewhere.
Yes op it was stupid of me to make an account on bitcointalk and to attempt to engage your tsunami of trolls.
But your original claim was about bitcoin knowledge, not gold/money/fiat/old hat knowledge, and mine is that it is better found elsewhere.
Yes op it was stupid of me to make an account on bitcointalk and to attempt to engage your tsunami of trolls.
Yes, you are stupid because you come in here with a 2wk account with no arguments, simply accusations. You couldn't possibly have been following this thread for any length of time to know what you're talking about nor form any valid opinions of the people here so yes, you won't get any respect because you haven't earned any.
It is an NLC alt.
Yes Erdogan those fiat/statist sites and one scam-infused 'coin' site obviously spout nonsense.
But your original claim was about bitcoin knowledge, not gold/money/fiat/old hat knowledge, and mine is that it is better found elsewhere.
Yes op it was stupid of me to make an account on bitcointalk and to attempt to engage your tsunami of trolls.
But your original claim was about bitcoin knowledge, not gold/money/fiat/old hat knowledge, and mine is that it is better found elsewhere.
Yes op it was stupid of me to make an account on bitcointalk and to attempt to engage your tsunami of trolls.
Yes, you are stupid because you come in here with a 2wk account with no arguments, simply accusations. You couldn't possibly have been following this thread for any length of time to know what you're talking about nor form any valid opinions of the people here so yes, you won't get any respect because you haven't earned any.
...This thread, compared to the IMF website, that of Bank of England, New York Times blogs, Forbes, Coindesk... they are all inferior to this thread in knowledge about money. ...
Yes Erdogan those fiat/statist sites and one scam-infused 'coin' site obviously spout nonsense.
But your original claim was about bitcoin knowledge, not gold/money/fiat/old hat knowledge, and mine is that it is better found elsewhere.
Yes op it was stupid of me to make an account on bitcointalk and to attempt to engage your tsunami of trolls.
But your original claim was about bitcoin knowledge, not gold/money/fiat/old hat knowledge, and mine is that it is better found elsewhere.
Yes op it was stupid of me to make an account on bitcointalk and to attempt to engage your tsunami of trolls.
I don't mind other opinions, but they are better with arguments. If there are good sites, there must be, the internet is big, I want to know about them. By the way, I like zero hedge, because a small percentage of posts there are non-confused, and david stockmans site.
Yes Erdogan those fiat/statist sites and one scam-infused 'coin' site obviously spout nonsense.
But your original claim was about bitcoin knowledge, not gold/money/fiat/old hat knowledge, and mine is that it is better found elsewhere.
Yes op it was stupid of me to make an account on bitcointalk and to attempt to engage your tsunami of trolls.
But your original claim was about bitcoin knowledge, not gold/money/fiat/old hat knowledge, and mine is that it is better found elsewhere.
Yes op it was stupid of me to make an account on bitcointalk and to attempt to engage your tsunami of trolls.
But in this thread, which is the center of bitcoin knowledge,
are you on crack? sane people occasionally pop in here, but mostly it's a troll thread for self-deluding old scatterbrains
uh huh. declared by a 2 wk newbie account trying to hold back the avalanche.
But in this thread, which is the center of bitcoin knowledge,
are you on crack? sane people occasionally pop in here, but mostly it's a troll thread for self-deluding old scatterbrains
Not a crack user. This thread, compared to the IMF website, that of Bank of England, New York Times blogs, Forbes, Coindesk... they are all inferior to this thread in knowledge about money. Have you read those sites? I wonder, they all ramble about the virtue of central control, the evil of anonymity, confusion about intrinsic value (I mean confusion as in total confusion), why money has value, not to mention all the non-knowledge of cryptograpy and computer security they put forward, unchallenged. If you want to know about money, fiat, gold and bitcoin, how they work and why, come here.
Example: People use gold for itself (jewellery etc). Therefore gold has "intrinsic value".
You can call it whatever you want, thing is, it's something fiat money or bitcoin don't have.
Whether that "intrinsic value" is culturally determined or not doesn't matter. RIGHT NOW people use gold for itself. They don't do that with fiat or bitcoin.
It's quite simple really.
By the way, I'm no gold bug and I don't use that argument to say that gold is better money (because I don't think it is).
"Im here to tell you the ability to publish information to an immutable globally shared memory system (history) is its intrinsic use"
^^^How is that the intrinsic value of a bitcoin? It's the blockchain that can do that not bitcoin, bitcoin is the blockchain security mechanism/reward token. Any distributed ledger/database could do that.
I happen to agree with you but I would tend to use ironic statements instead:
I can blow my nose with paper money. So it has "intrinsic value". I look at people who would waste gold on making jewlery and find it is rather analogous. Copper is much more useful than paper, but the same weight of paper in paper money is considered more valuable. Miners for some reason do not want to accept $200 in pennies for a bitcion.
But the next time someone says gold has intrinsic value therefore worth more, offer that five cents in pennies should be considered worth more than a hundred dollar bill by the same argument. Dollars, Euros, bitcoin, they are all tokens in a monetary system.
What gives bitcoin more value over say, its many other altcoins? It is all of the people who decide to back it. It ironically is the most light weight cryptocurrency because there are many spv-wallets, whereas often altcoins only have Satoshi clients.
sdp
You are both basically correct, and I love it when people use the word intrinsic correctly. You can find intrinsic value in most everything, like you said with blowing your nose with a fiat bill. We know that gold has intrinsic value, because it has been used to make beautiful things, it is easy to form and it is in fact shiny. What we don't know, and cannot know, is the extent of the intrinsic value compared to the total value. With the bills, we can know that the intrinsic value is small, because you can use cheaper stuff to blow your nose. It is so small that the most correct thing is to disregard it completely, and say that fiat money has no intrinsic value. The same goes for bitcoin.
There is a problematic point with fiat for example used to light up your cigar - destruction of value just to show that you can afford it, to display your wealth. The same with gold, you don't have to destroy it, albeit that is also possible, as people eat leaf gold sometimes. With bitcoin it is also possible to show off, you can flash your phone's wallet, or even better, you can sign a message with the key of a large wallet, as Loaded did. None of this is in my opinion intrinsic value, but maybe we can invent a new word for the concept: Meta-value, the value of displaying value.
You say intrinsic value as gold have, does not make it better money. I agree, in fact I think the money is better without intrinsic value, and I like to call that pure money. But in saying so, we disagree with Aristoteles and Mises, both reputable and well known persons. I think they were wrong, good money does not have to have intrinsic value. To excuse the old masters, it can be said that money with no intrinsic value in fact was impossible at the time. The general population at the time would never prefer a written note or a copper token coin to gold, so it would be impossible. Then and now, it is the traders who define, with their preference, what is the best money.
A contemporary gold bug says that gold is better because gold has intrinsic value. Bitcoin is nothing because it lacks intrinsic value. They are wrong, and this is the crux of the discussion. The gold bugs will have to come over, and they will.
Absolutely true. Value is a "nominalization" to borrow a term from NLP: http://youtu.be/1sceRsmT1yc
To further elucidate the points made in the video, nominalization (a.k.a. reification, or what Mises called hypostatization, the tendency toward which he named "the worst enemy of clear thinking") is when you convert an abstract concept or action/process into a noun, and then end up treating that noun as a sort of "thing in itself" and allow it take on some properties of a physical object. As a loose figure of speech it is innocent enough, but - as is always the case - when we try to take loose phrasing from everyday talk into more rigorous contexts without cleaning it up, the result is mass confusion leading to all sorts of fallacious reasoning. As the speaker said, politicians love to make use of this confusion.
Another way to talk about this is to call any conversion of an abstract concept or action/process into a noun "nominalization," since that what it literally is, but then to call the fallacious taking-seriously of this "reification" or "hypostatization." My preferred term is reification to refer to the error.
Some classic nominalizations and corresponding reifications:
As may be evident from the examples, when you start off with a loose nominalization (using nouns because they're convenient in English) you can end up committing the fallacy of reification. How exactly does the slip happen? There is actually another semantic error at work here: equivocation, where a word is used in two different meanings at the speaker's convenience, or inadvertently.
In other words, what happens in each case is that the noun form of the word being the same as the verb form makes it especially easy to switch back and forth between them, and pretty soon the people forget that the noun they are talking about is not an entity, but actually some process that itself involves physical objects or entities: water molecules that wave, people that value gold bars, mileposts that are spaced out. It's incoherent to speak of a wave without something doing the waving, or to speak of gold having value without someone doing the valuing, or to speak of space curving if we are maintaining that space=nothingness. It becomes an implied equivocation because the meaning of "wave," "value," and "space" has subtly been allowed to change in the course of the argument. Whereas we started off taking it as obvious that some objects were waving, some people were valuing something, and some objects were spaced, we ended up silently shifting the meaning to exclude those objects and people.
Now the term "intrinsic value" might have been useful if not for this reification trap. We could use it to refer to the direct use value people place on something, as opposed to its exchange value in the market, as even Mises himself did. Unfortunately, all experience hath shewn that the word intrinsic overwhelmingly tends to lead people into the reification error described above, because this is a basic human tendency baked into the social pressure of language (things that "sound right" tend to carry a weight that feels like social authority). Intrinsic sounds like "in and of itself," with no reference to a valuator. This tendency makes using this word just asking for trouble. It invites misunderstanding time and again.
To be clearer, then, I strongly recommend avoiding the term "intrinsic value" and instead using "direct use value" or similar to distinguish from exchange value.
You are right that the word can be misused. I protest the distruction of the word through this misuse, and state that "intrinsic" value as the value otherwise referred to as value "for direct use", is good.
The alternative "for direct use" can also easily be muddled by people not wanting the secrets of money to be revealed. For example, a wholesaler have no direct use for his wares, due to the share volume he trades, that does not mean that the value of his commodity is not intrinsic.
I am really annoyed by the "intrinsic value is impossible, the value is subjective, stupid" lectures that is going on. I put forward that the value of something is intrinsic, not that it is objective. Of course it is subjective, no value can exist unless there is someone that prefers one thing over another, with no responsibility towards nature or anyone else to explain why he thinks so.
If we let trolls destroy every word, discourse is made impossible, which may be the purpose of the destruction of the word. Again I propose that this forum and this thread is at the forefront of understanding gold, fiat and bitcoin, and we need clear concepts. I cannot correct these errors in all threads, the volume of confusion is too high, but in this limited space it is possible.
Example: People use gold for itself (jewellery etc). Therefore gold has "intrinsic value".
You can call it whatever you want, thing is, it's something fiat money or bitcoin don't have.
Whether that "intrinsic value" is culturally determined or not doesn't matter. RIGHT NOW people use gold for itself. They don't do that with fiat or bitcoin.
It's quite simple really.
By the way, I'm no gold bug and I don't use that argument to say that gold is better money (because I don't think it is).
"Im here to tell you the ability to publish information to an immutable globally shared memory system (history) is its intrinsic use"
^^^How is that the intrinsic value of a bitcoin? It's the blockchain that can do that not bitcoin, bitcoin is the blockchain security mechanism/reward token. Any distributed ledger/database could do that.
I happen to agree with you but I would tend to use ironic statements instead:
I can blow my nose with paper money. So it has "intrinsic value". I look at people who would waste gold on making jewlery and find it is rather analogous. Copper is much more useful than paper, but the same weight of paper in paper money is considered more valuable. Miners for some reason do not want to accept $200 in pennies for a bitcion.
But the next time someone says gold has intrinsic value therefore worth more, offer that five cents in pennies should be considered worth more than a hundred dollar bill by the same argument. Dollars, Euros, bitcoin, they are all tokens in a monetary system.
What gives bitcoin more value over say, its many other altcoins? It is all of the people who decide to back it. It ironically is the most light weight cryptocurrency because there are many spv-wallets, whereas often altcoins only have Satoshi clients.
sdp
Value, as a concept, is inherently subjective.
Therefore the "intrinsic" adjective is redundant so should be just dropped for correctness once you grok the value=subjective bit. Intrinsic value is a sloppy term, historically used to describe the objective physical properties, e.g. conductivity, malleability, corrosion-resistance of gold, silver, lead. The intrinsic properties of objects can be valued, but the existence of the properties themselves is an objective reality that can not be extended to the human values placed upon them.
Therefore the "intrinsic" adjective is redundant so should be just dropped for correctness once you grok the value=subjective bit. Intrinsic value is a sloppy term, historically used to describe the objective physical properties, e.g. conductivity, malleability, corrosion-resistance of gold, silver, lead. The intrinsic properties of objects can be valued, but the existence of the properties themselves is an objective reality that can not be extended to the human values placed upon them.
^ This
"If people value something, it has value; if people do not value something, it does not have value; and there is no intrinsic about it."
or, as someone on reddit put it more boldly:
nothing is fucking intrinsically valuable.
in yet other words: "the eval() function is context-sensitive"
Example: People use gold for itself (jewellery etc). Therefore gold has "intrinsic value".
You can call it whatever you want, thing is, it's something fiat money or bitcoin don't have.
Whether that "intrinsic value" is culturally determined or not doesn't matter. RIGHT NOW people use gold for itself. They don't do that with fiat or bitcoin.
It's quite simple really.
By the way, I'm no gold bug and I don't use that argument to say that gold is better money (because I don't think it is).
"Im here to tell you the ability to publish information to an immutable globally shared memory system (history) is its intrinsic use"
^^^How is that the intrinsic value of a bitcoin? It's the blockchain that can do that not bitcoin, bitcoin is the blockchain security mechanism/reward token. Any distributed ledger/database could do that.
still doesn't get it
just do us a favor and get your sorry concern troll ass out of here.
Value, as a concept, is inherently subjective.
Therefore the "intrinsic" adjective is redundant so should be just dropped for correctness once you grok the value=subjective bit. Intrinsic value is a sloppy term, historically used to describe the objective physical properties, e.g. conductivity, malleability, corrosion-resistance of gold, silver, lead. The intrinsic properties of objects can be valued, but the existence of the properties themselves is an objective reality that can not be extended to the human values placed upon them.
Therefore the "intrinsic" adjective is redundant so should be just dropped for correctness once you grok the value=subjective bit. Intrinsic value is a sloppy term, historically used to describe the objective physical properties, e.g. conductivity, malleability, corrosion-resistance of gold, silver, lead. The intrinsic properties of objects can be valued, but the existence of the properties themselves is an objective reality that can not be extended to the human values placed upon them.
^ This
"If people value something, it has value; if people do not value something, it does not have value; and there is no intrinsic about it."
or, as someone on reddit put it more boldly:
nothing is fucking intrinsically valuable.
in yet other words: "the eval() function is context-sensitive"
Example: People use gold for itself (jewellery etc). Therefore gold has "intrinsic value".
You can call it whatever you want, thing is, it's something fiat money or bitcoin don't have.
Whether that "intrinsic value" is culturally determined or not doesn't matter. RIGHT NOW people use gold for itself. They don't do that with fiat or bitcoin.
It's quite simple really.
By the way, I'm no gold bug and I don't use that argument to say that gold is better money (because I don't think it is).
"Im here to tell you the ability to publish information to an immutable globally shared memory system (history) is its intrinsic use"
^^^How is that the intrinsic value of a bitcoin? It's the blockchain that can do that not bitcoin, bitcoin is the blockchain security mechanism/reward token. Any distributed ledger/database could do that.
still doesn't get it
just do us a favor and get your sorry concern troll ass out of here.
But in this thread, which is the center of bitcoin knowledge,
are you on crack? sane people occasionally pop in here, but mostly it's a troll thread for self-deluding old scatterbrains
Value, as a concept, is inherently subjective.
Therefore the "intrinsic" adjective is redundant so should be just dropped for correctness once you grok the value=subjective bit. Intrinsic value is a sloppy term, historically used to describe the objective physical properties, e.g. conductivity, malleability, corrosion-resistance of gold, silver, lead. The intrinsic properties of objects can be valued, but the existence of the properties themselves is an objective reality that can not be extended to the human values placed upon them.
Therefore the "intrinsic" adjective is redundant so should be just dropped for correctness once you grok the value=subjective bit. Intrinsic value is a sloppy term, historically used to describe the objective physical properties, e.g. conductivity, malleability, corrosion-resistance of gold, silver, lead. The intrinsic properties of objects can be valued, but the existence of the properties themselves is an objective reality that can not be extended to the human values placed upon them.
^ This
"If people value something, it has value; if people do not value something, it does not have value; and there is no intrinsic about it."
or, as someone on reddit put it more boldly:
nothing is fucking intrinsically valuable.
in yet other words: "the eval() function is context-sensitive"
Example: People use gold for itself (jewellery etc). Therefore gold has "intrinsic value".
You can call it whatever you want, thing is, it's something fiat money or bitcoin don't have.
Whether that "intrinsic value" is culturally determined or not doesn't matter. RIGHT NOW people use gold for itself. They don't do that with fiat or bitcoin.
It's quite simple really.
By the way, I'm no gold bug and I don't use that argument to say that gold is better money (because I don't think it is).
"Im here to tell you the ability to publish information to an immutable globally shared memory system (history) is its intrinsic use"
^^^How is that the intrinsic value of a bitcoin? It's the blockchain that can do that not bitcoin, bitcoin is the blockchain security mechanism/reward token. Any distributed ledger/database could do that.
Jump to: