Topic: peter schiff disses bitcoin (Read 1663 times)

Peter Schiff not only doesn't understand the first thing about bitcoin, he even has wrong understanding of his claimed area of expertise, i.e. monetary systems. His main thesis has been a bullish call for gold and a prediction of imminent hyperinflation on the basis of money printing i.e. increase of base money, ignoring the simultaneous decrease in total credit in the US economy. Hyperinflation of course in not coming when the economy is deleveraging at a pace faster than the increase on base money (as total demand depends on the sum of base money and credit, which has been very stable throughout the financial crisis).
The irony of it is that the reason he is calling for gold to go to the moon is that according to his theory (read: religion), total gold value has to mirror the monetary base. By the same argument then, a bitcoin should be worth > $100,000, even more considering it's a global currency, which makes him look ridiculous when he makes both claims at once. Of course, in reality, the total value of any commodity does not need to match the monetary base of any fiat-based system, especially one with such a developed credit system around it, with total credit dwarfing the monetary base, rendering it practically useless for any fundamental analysis.

great stuff! thanks

i like Peter he's wrong on lot of issues but he has a point with the whole 'gold had a 5k year history'. The problem i see with that statement is that I wont be alive for 5k years. In my lifetime gold may turnout to be a crap investment, just like in the 20 years from 1980-2000.

I disagree that Bitcoin is superior to gold, neither do I say Bitcoin is inferior (maybe close to Silver as an equivalent, hence the current price vs "the poor mans gold"  ).
Bitcoin is to online transactions as gold is for storing physical wealth as an investment [or hedge if you can look past the propaganda in shows like 'Preppers' or whatever it is  ] against currency instability.
They both have their uses that best suits the pro's and cons (sending Gold/Silver in the mail is much slower than sending Bitcoins for example) which is why I would not simplify the value between the two.

Bitcoin is superior to gold. Bitcoin's value is in its code. Facebook and twitter aren't tangible but no one questions their value. I think the problem is that people are focusing on the unit rather than what bitcoin allows users to do.

Actually 100%. Gold is like Bitcoin in that it has no value in itself and is not backed by anything. 5,000+ years of history do not guarantee future usage or value (actually the number of people getting married and buying jewellery is getting lower) . It's purely based on supply and demand.

Of course almost everything is better to have than government money, but I'd never tell anyone to put 100% of his/her wealth in one thing.

Thanks. Was having Flash issues. Was able to DL with alternate browser.

Weird, borked in Chrome but worked in Safari.

Well, he's not wrong.  The question is kind of dumb.  Bitcoin isn't tangible.  But debts aren't tangible either, and we kill people over those.  Tangibility's got nothing to do with it.  Gold's as useless as you'll let it be (unless you're using it for certain mechanical applications.)  But it's shiny and tangible and orangey-yellow, like the sun, so it must be worth loads, right?  Right?

...right?

Someone needs to remind Schiff that none of his bank accounts are real.

"You must be a Schiff Premium Member to listen to this audio. Please upgrade to a Schiff premium membership."

Peter obviously knows next to fuck all about the subject.
I stopped reading after this little gem....

"Peter: It is not tangible at all, as it exists in cyberspace and so you can’t hold onto it. It’s in a computer somewhere. "

Stick to Gold and Silver if you like Peter Schiff but leave your ignorant opinions about Bitcoin at the door to the benefit of all others.

On Pets.com, note the .com and the crashes ties to the US Federal Reserve (hasn't been a market since before then, US Fed's been involved for longer than many realise).

Bitcoin itself may come and go, but the idea of a complete anonymous crypto currency for online transactions won't end with it. Bitcoin let the cat out of the bag on this one, and regardless of the name of said cat (currency, Bitcoin or otherwise) won't change a thing ultimately in the grand scheme of things to the detriment of the IMF and all that entails.

edit .dom to .com, crash's to crashes.

How old is this interview?

No. Just click on the "Erik Voorhees Interview" link.

Hes probably trying to downplay bitcoin so he can buy them cheaper.

Please don't dismiss Peter Schiff's opinion. He makes a strong argument. You are blind if you don't understand that bitcoin could end up being just another fad (like Beanie Babies). Back before the dot com bubble burst, people were saying how the new internet companies were the "new economy", and how they made the rest of the economy obsolete. And then they all went out of business, and the people that believed in the "new economy" lost all their money.

I believe he is being too conservative and timid. Bitcoin is an incredible invention, and even though adoption isn't guaranteed, I think it is likely: "build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." Still, I'm not foolish enough to convert all my money into BTC.

Sigh I have to sign up and give a credit card just to listen? And then figure out how to cancel? I only pay for Howard Stern.

Once again great job in informing the masses Erik.