Can we stop throwing around the term "intrinsic value" and please have this not devolve into a semantics discussion because I did 4 years as a philosophy major and that shit was like a tour of Nam I dont want flashbacks.
I like gold and silver because Im so bearish on fiat. But they cant compare to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is so much more useful to me, personally.
Bullion is simply an insurance policy against shit really hitting the fan. Its not an investment itself, per se. Its just a hedge.
Topic: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? - page 2. (Read 4671 times)
I do respect the differing opinions about gold vs cryptos. And think it worth exploring. Of course cryptos and bitcoin are experiments - just in the first phases of testing. But just thinking it through, makes me want to challenge this whole idea that "gold will be valuable for a 1000 years". I don't really believe that anymore.
I agree gold has won the best money contest to date. But there are new guns in town. New guns that have characteristics and potential future characteristics, that seem to improve on gold in many ways.
Gold's "industrial" and "jewelry" utility value is probably several orders of magnitude lower than its "store of value" utility value (which its price is based on now). Thus when better money comes along, and is trusted and used, then gold will be worth much less than it is today in real terms. Simply not as useful.
Gold will always be pretty, and useful in many ways, but I suspect that as cryptos and other superior forms of money emerge (over some decades of course) gold will lose its special shine. And thus not necessarily a good long-term (decades+) store of value.
We have not seen this before. And we are doing the experiment. So we (or our children) will see how it plays out.
I agree gold has won the best money contest to date. But there are new guns in town. New guns that have characteristics and potential future characteristics, that seem to improve on gold in many ways.
Gold's "industrial" and "jewelry" utility value is probably several orders of magnitude lower than its "store of value" utility value (which its price is based on now). Thus when better money comes along, and is trusted and used, then gold will be worth much less than it is today in real terms. Simply not as useful.
Gold will always be pretty, and useful in many ways, but I suspect that as cryptos and other superior forms of money emerge (over some decades of course) gold will lose its special shine. And thus not necessarily a good long-term (decades+) store of value.
We have not seen this before. And we are doing the experiment. So we (or our children) will see how it plays out.
Gold isn't money simply because of it's properties. It earned it's status by defeating rival commodities in free-market competition and gradually building a reputation. It was able to defeat it's rivals due to it's properties. One of those properties was its "intrinsic value" (originally people wanted gold for it's physical properties and thus bartered for it). Gold could surely not have become the worlds most successful sound money without this property (silver would have kicked it's arse).
Bitcoin has different properties to gold but is establishing itself in the same way, through free-market competition. However, at 5 years of age, it's just an experiment. If it fails, it adds weight to the hypothesis that "intrinsic value" is necessary to "sound money". If it succeeds (is widely held and used as money 50 years from now) it will have disproved the hypothesis.
Peter believes it will fail, that's all. Peter doesn't really understand Bitcoin (evidenced by his repeated assertions that Bitcoin would be better with a gold backing) but, to be fair, very few do.
He sympathises with the community and argues his point fairly well (see the debate with Voorhees). I, for one, welcome his respectful criticism and find it to be a refreshing contrast to the mindless pro-Bitcoin drivel ubiquitous here.
Bitcoin has different properties to gold but is establishing itself in the same way, through free-market competition. However, at 5 years of age, it's just an experiment. If it fails, it adds weight to the hypothesis that "intrinsic value" is necessary to "sound money". If it succeeds (is widely held and used as money 50 years from now) it will have disproved the hypothesis.
Peter believes it will fail, that's all. Peter doesn't really understand Bitcoin (evidenced by his repeated assertions that Bitcoin would be better with a gold backing) but, to be fair, very few do.
He sympathises with the community and argues his point fairly well (see the debate with Voorhees). I, for one, welcome his respectful criticism and find it to be a refreshing contrast to the mindless pro-Bitcoin drivel ubiquitous here.
If you only apply the intrisinct value test gold dosn't have anything compared to the kind of intrinsic trust bitcoin has.
Will BitCoin last forever (as in a thousand years)? Read your history. The answer is No.
1) It's "Bitcoin", not "BitCoin".
2) Forever != 1000 years.
3) The answer is unknown.
Gold isn't money simply because of it's properties. It earned it's status by defeating rival commodities in free-market competition and gradually building a reputation. It was able to defeat it's rivals due to it's properties. One of those properties was its "intrinsic value" (originally people wanted gold for it's physical properties and thus bartered for it). Gold could surely not have become the worlds most successful sound money without this property (silver would have kicked it's arse).
Bitcoin has different properties to gold but is establishing itself in the same way, through free-market competition. However, at 5 years of age, it's just an experiment. If it fails, it adds weight to the hypothesis that "intrinsic value" is necessary to "sound money". If it succeeds (is widely held and used as money 50 years from now) it will have disproved the hypothesis.
Peter believes it will fail, that's all. Peter doesn't really understand Bitcoin (evidenced by his repeated assertions that Bitcoin would be better with a gold backing) but, to be fair, very few do.
He sympathises with the community and argues his point fairly well (see the debate with Voorhees). I, for one, welcome his respectful criticism and find it to be a refreshing contrast to the mindless pro-Bitcoin drivel ubiquitous here.
Bitcoin has different properties to gold but is establishing itself in the same way, through free-market competition. However, at 5 years of age, it's just an experiment. If it fails, it adds weight to the hypothesis that "intrinsic value" is necessary to "sound money". If it succeeds (is widely held and used as money 50 years from now) it will have disproved the hypothesis.
Peter believes it will fail, that's all. Peter doesn't really understand Bitcoin (evidenced by his repeated assertions that Bitcoin would be better with a gold backing) but, to be fair, very few do.
He sympathises with the community and argues his point fairly well (see the debate with Voorhees). I, for one, welcome his respectful criticism and find it to be a refreshing contrast to the mindless pro-Bitcoin drivel ubiquitous here.
I like Peter and watch his videos regularly.
Here are some facts - fiat currencies come and go, they NEVER last "forever". Generally a couple hundred years at most is enough to destroy a currency. Read your history.
Will BitCoin last forever (as in a thousand years)? Read your history. The answer is No. But it may (or may not) last longer than our lifespans, nobody knows.
What about Gold? Well, gold has been valuable for thousands of years and will likely remain valuable for many more centuries. Gold your great great great great grandpa mined in California in 1849 is still sought after and valued today. His gold did not "disappear" or become worthless. Gold is timeless, immutable.
Ultra long term I'd stake my fortune that is to be passed down the generations on Gold. Also Silver, lead, and the other commodities. They will always be useful and sought after. These commodities are a store of value beyond a doubt. They cannot be created out of thin air or destroyed. A chunk of metal is a chunk of metal even centuries from now.
Schiff knows this too and repeats that time and time again.
Here are some facts - fiat currencies come and go, they NEVER last "forever". Generally a couple hundred years at most is enough to destroy a currency. Read your history.
Will BitCoin last forever (as in a thousand years)? Read your history. The answer is No. But it may (or may not) last longer than our lifespans, nobody knows.
What about Gold? Well, gold has been valuable for thousands of years and will likely remain valuable for many more centuries. Gold your great great great great grandpa mined in California in 1849 is still sought after and valued today. His gold did not "disappear" or become worthless. Gold is timeless, immutable.
Ultra long term I'd stake my fortune that is to be passed down the generations on Gold. Also Silver, lead, and the other commodities. They will always be useful and sought after. These commodities are a store of value beyond a doubt. They cannot be created out of thin air or destroyed. A chunk of metal is a chunk of metal even centuries from now.
Schiff knows this too and repeats that time and time again.
Peter Schiff, here is a video to you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15_Y3_eRfOU
You can't just make those AFIRMATIONS, without even knowing how does bitcoin world works! Go home, you're drunk!
Just because someone is wrong doesn't mean they are a fraud, Bitcoin is an incredibly new concept of course some people are going to be very skeptical of it, especially traders who have seen a many bubbles over their lifetimes
Disappointed as a long time Schiff listener/reader. He has his fingers in his ears and is la-la-la all the way on this one.
Well the US government doesn't have to worry about the dollar holdings like China does.
So they will just use Propagandists to help control the price.
China now backs the US dollar, they stupidly took the dead baby of America.
Sun Tzu would be turning over in his grave
There is a split in the libertarian zerohedge crowd about Bitcoin but it doesn't make him a fraud if he's not that positive about Bitcoin. He's old school but that isn't all bad, I mean he knows in another thousand years Gold will still have value but no one here would bet their life that Bitcoin will still be around.
he has not been entirely negative about Bitcoin from what I have seen either? he's a legitimate challenger to bitcoin! the sensible should at least listen to him and have a balanced view.
he has not been entirely negative about Bitcoin from what I have seen either? he's a legitimate challenger to bitcoin! the sensible should at least listen to him and have a balanced view.
Disappointed as a long time Schiff listener/reader. He has his fingers in his ears and is la-la-la all the way on this one.
I don't disagree much with this, except that you say that what I wrote is not really correct.
For bitcoin there is a disconnect, because there is no intrinsic value.
This is a pet peeve of mine. The term "intrinsic value" should not be used at all as it sets people to arguing all over again about stuff that's already been settled and explained to death a thousand times.
People use it in a colloquial sense, like Peter Schiff does, for market value. But if market value is meant, then market value should be used. But when people use "intrinsic value," then suddenly you get all these arguments that go off in every direction talking about why we value everything from warm breezes to pizzas to music to hammers. It's really annoying because it's completely unnecessary. The Austrian understanding that economic value is subjective does away with the necessity to delve into the metaphysical implications of every kind of "value" one can imagine and discuss.
I don't want to go into the question of what intrinsic value is. Read up on it, if you want to continue this discussion.
freedom has intrinsic value
I don't think Peter Schiff is a bad guy. Maybe someday he'll concede, and start to support bitcoin.
I think gold and silver are being heavily manipulated and pushed down, but eventually I think they'll also do really well. Maybe not as well as bitcoin, but if a bitcoiner wants to cash out a bit and diversify, gold and silver are an obvious choice.
I think gold and silver are being heavily manipulated and pushed down, but eventually I think they'll also do really well. Maybe not as well as bitcoin, but if a bitcoiner wants to cash out a bit and diversify, gold and silver are an obvious choice.
I don't disagree much with this, except that you say that what I wrote is not really correct.
For bitcoin there is a disconnect, because there is no intrinsic value.
This is a pet peeve of mine. The term "intrinsic value" should not be used at all as it sets people to arguing all over again about stuff that's already been settled and explained to death a thousand times.
People use it in a colloquial sense, like Peter Schiff does, for market value. But if market value is meant, then market value should be used. But when people use "intrinsic value," then suddenly you get all these arguments that go off in every direction talking about why we value everything from warm breezes to pizzas to music to hammers. It's really annoying because it's completely unnecessary. The Austrian understanding that economic value is subjective does away with the necessity to delve into the metaphysical implications of every kind of "value" one can imagine and discuss.
I don't want to go into the question of what intrinsic value is. Read up on it, if you want to continue this discussion.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
I don't think you understand the definition of fraud...
fraud noun \ˈfrȯd\
: the crime of using dishonest methods to take something valuable from another person
: a person who pretends to be what he or she is not in order to trick people
: a copy of something that is meant to look like the real thing in order to trick people
If he doesn't understand bitcoin, it doesn't mean he is being a fraud.
He will come around much like Ron Paul...
SPAM
I don't think you understand the definition of fraud...
fraud noun \ˈfrȯd\
: the crime of using dishonest methods to take something valuable from another person
: a person who pretends to be what he or she is not in order to trick people
: a copy of something that is meant to look like the real thing in order to trick people
If he doesn't understand bitcoin, it doesn't mean he is being a fraud.
He will come around much like Ron Paul...
He is just a fraud, scammer, idiot whateva its not that complicated.
Peter Schiff is none of those things. He's one of the few commentators who actually understands economics and could explain the banking crisis when it happened. In fact, he predicted it.
so he understands economics but dosn't understand bitcoin
or is willing to talk crud about it before he does
or he doesn't understand bitcoin and it is worthless
but it isn't worthless hmmm
I don't disagree much with this, except that you say that what I wrote is not really correct.
For bitcoin there is a disconnect, because there is no intrinsic value.
This is a pet peeve of mine. The term "intrinsic value" should not be used at all as it sets people to arguing all over again about stuff that's already been settled and explained to death a thousand times.
People use it in a colloquial sense, like Peter Schiff does, for market value. But if market value is meant, then market value should be used. But when people use "intrinsic value," then suddenly you get all these arguments that go off in every direction talking about why we value everything from warm breezes to pizzas to music to hammers. It's really annoying because it's completely unnecessary. The Austrian understanding that economic value is subjective does away with the necessity to delve into the metaphysical implications of every kind of "value" one can imagine and discuss.
He is just a fraud, scammer, idiot whateva its not that complicated.
Peter Schiff is none of those things. He's one of the few commentators who actually understands economics and could explain the banking crisis when it happened. In fact, he predicted it.
Jump to: