Topic: Peter Schiff - Who would you like to see debate him? (Read 2744 times)

Schiff is like a child, won't allow someone to finish their point without constantly interrupting. Molyneux has the patience of a monk.

Everyone should listen to this!

Peter Schiff's repeats most all of my points, but he says a gold-backed private bank issued digital currency would be superior. Schiff misses the point that such a private bank issued digital currency isn't decentralized, and thus it is highly vulnerable to government control. Other than that, Schiff and I agree on most of his points, including the coming political threat:

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/social-logins-for-government-services.html

Schiff's main flaw is he thinks a backed-currency is better. If I debated him, I would demolish his logic on this point. You can see my upthread comments (I think starting on page 11) on why fractional reserves and gold-backed private bank issued notes was a failure. The intrinsic value of a decentralized currency is that it is a currency (unfortunately Bitcoin isn't). 100% pure physical gold has never been a currency and never will be-- was always either debased by shaving, impurity, or fractional reserves in order to distribute widely as a currency. Refer to my debate with MoonShadow before page 11.

We already demolished the "it is a standard" argument.

Schiff is correct that it is much easier for the government to track on the internet, and anonymity is very, very difficult. That doesn't mean anonymity is impossible. But for example CoinJoin or coin mixers really won't work unless the other people you are mixing with never reveal their identity accidentally any time in the distant future.

It is true that all of us want a better option than fiat currency. We just don't have it yet.

Personally, I'd love to see a panel of five or six bitcoin bugs debate and school a panel of gold bugs.

Tal Salsa: Bitcoin is a violation of the Regression Theorem.

Not only is Bitcoin not money....it is not even a candidate to become money.

Yes, value is subjective....but Mises explains that to become a medium of exchange, a commodity must FIRST have a NON-MONETARY use. This refutes claims that Bitcoin is money simply because some think it has value.

Christoph Dollis: "I think you are conflating two distinct concepts--currency and the medium of exchange. There are thefts of bitcoin currency to be sure, but the medium of exchange is far more secure than any other."

Andrew, you're confusing a few things, but let me try to point out a couple.

1. That it's useful as a medium of exchange. It is far too volatile to serve this role in any major sense.

2. That leaves it as an investment, which sounds sort of OK, until you realise that it isn't really anything except for some numbers.

3. And then, ya, people hoard it, and it gets stolen. But even if it doesn't, it will inevitably crash at some point as all Ponzi schemes based on non-existent financial instruments do.

Should be another libertarian.  I pick David Friedman...  Because he'd also school him on economics.  

Debating Peter Schiff about Bitcoins in an hour, gimme some brain fooooood!