|
Title: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Bitcoinpro on January 05, 2014, 01:34:38 PM he fails to realize that the increased money velocity actually creates wealth for the bitcoin users and that's why the price is rising
the wealth generation is not coming from a pyramid scheme ? http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000217255 Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Dr Bloggood on January 05, 2014, 02:35:06 PM OMG, he brings that "It can be broken up in many small pieces" argument again... how ridiculous, ha ha...!
Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Bigeyeone on January 05, 2014, 03:18:53 PM Peter Schiff dont like bitcoin because he is pumping gold basically, FIAT is flowing out of gold at the moment and into BTC and he don't like that, that is all there is to it basically, he spreading FUD about bitcoin
Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Dr Bloggood on January 05, 2014, 03:27:09 PM I wouldn't doubt Schiff's legitimacy. He is going against the government and powerful people all the time, he is no opportunist.
This is a guy whose dad is 70-something and in jail for refusing to pay tax out of protest. Not evasion, just protest. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Phrenico on January 05, 2014, 09:38:25 PM he fails to realize that the increased money velocity actually creates wealth for the bitcoin users and that's why the price is rising Either that's not explained well, or it's wrong. ;) What exactly do you mean? Velocity of USD? Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: overunity on January 05, 2014, 11:21:39 PM I see this bubble analogy being banded about .
What makes anything a bubble ? A bubble as I understand is something that is artificially pumped up with no real underlying market to support the bloated price ,so eventually the overinflated balloon has to burst and return to the underlying market price as made by the real economic market . An example I have, Is the policy in the UK were the government has taken funding from all public services and reallocated it to give people loans so they can afford the 20% deposits they need to buy property . The bubble in our housing market is caused by this artificial pump by our government ,Now we know the bubble will burst, when the government first remove this loan feature ,which they just have started to do, then the pin that will pop this particular bubble will come when after the next election they allow the artificially low interest to rise to their natural rate which will quite quickly be 6% ish. Property prices will crash and all the people who overextended themselves by taking the government loan for deposit initiative . The bubble will pop and the price of property will crash to the real market value which is :- (3 times average wages will equal the price of an average house). average wage currently, UK 30,000 = average house real price 90,000 The current average is around 200,000 pounds or around 7 times average income .,so obviously either wages rise to average 65,000 or house prices reduce to 90,000 natural supply demand and loan structure . Government create bubble =keep interest rate at .5% artificially and loan people deposits allowing people to purchase what they cannot afford . We can see this bubbly it is so obvious Now given my example how does this relate to bitcoin . From what I know there is no government or bank or any one individual or even group of individuals capable of creating artificial price increases ,there are high wealth people able to move price higher but it would not benefit any one ,it would benefit every single holder of any amount of bitcoin . pyramid scheme = benefit a few not masses ,The opposite happens with bitcoin . pump and dump = benefits a few ,the dump happens once and the few that benefit exit with fast profit . Bitcoin has had big highs over its 5 year existance and also large drops but this multiple highs lows eliminates this as a bubble since the dump reduces price to worthless and it never recovers leaving the masses with worthless holding ,since bitcoin is held by millions of individuals all over the globe using bubble beside bitcoin is becoming increasingly ludicrous . My question is why would a highly publicised economist like schiff with a great reputation keep saying these things ,I would love him to explain how is it even possible to honestly with a straight face say these silly statements . Millions can mine ,so millions own a part of bitcoin . millions can buy ,so millions lose or gain from highs or lows What small group of people would benefit if this was some elaborate scheme ? The merchants accepting bitcoin is growing daily providing a base market value . The only thing that can send bitcoin to worthless is a major flaw in the protocol everything else sends it higher ,surely there is no were for a scheme to be had from bitcoin ? Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Erdogan on January 06, 2014, 12:20:08 AM [...] My question is why would a highly publicised economist like schiff with a great reputation keep saying these things ,I would love him to explain how is it even possible to honestly with a straight face say these silly statements . [...] He does not understand bitcoin completely yet. Like many libertarians, he is locked up in the intrinsic value controversy. Austrian economics requires the money stuff to have intrinsic value. It was Mises who expressed it with his regression theorem. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. Gold glitters. We think either it doesn't matter, or that there is a miniscule intrinsic value, enough to satisfy the requirement. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: BittBurger on January 06, 2014, 01:00:54 AM Guys -
The dude OWNS a company that *he fears* will go under if Bitcoin succeeds. He owns an offshore Gold trading company. Peter Schiff is nothing more than someone playing the role of an actor, who hates Bitcoin, because he has to. And he's a terrible ... terrible actor. -B- Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Erdogan on January 06, 2014, 05:40:23 AM Guys - The dude OWNS a company that *he fears* will go under if Bitcoin succeeds. He owns an offshore Gold trading company. Peter Schiff is nothing more than someone playing the role of an actor, who hates Bitcoin, because he has to. And he's a terrible ... terrible actor. -B- I don't think so. He could, if he understood it, use it in his business and create a bitcoin debit card, just like his gold debit card. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: BlueNote on January 06, 2014, 07:03:54 AM [...] My question is why would a highly publicised economist like schiff with a great reputation keep saying these things ,I would love him to explain how is it even possible to honestly with a straight face say these silly statements . [...] He does not understand bitcoin completely yet. Like many libertarians, he is locked up in the intrinsic value controversy. Austrian economics requires the money stuff to have intrinsic value. It was Mises who expressed it with his regression theorem. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. Gold glitters. We think either it doesn't matter, or that there is a miniscule intrinsic value, enough to satisfy the requirement. That's not really correct. Austrians hold that economic value is subjective. The regression theorem is simply an inference about the emergence of money from barter. It's saying that a medium of exchange must have been valued for itself by the market prior to being adopted for use as a money. From the point of view of monetary theorists, it was necessary to break the perceived infinite regression of saying that something always had value as a medium of exchange. Obviously you have to close the loop somewhere, so this is just a logical inference which keeps you out of the circular logic of saying that something always had medium-of-exchange value when discussing the emergence of money. Peter unfortunately does use the term "intrinsic value," but he's not an academic. What he means is market value apart from its use as a medium of exchange. What people in the hard money crowd find it hard to grasp is that human beings can quite easily ascribe value to something that was initially valueless (no market price) like the tokens produced by the Bitcoin software on Day 1 of its launch. No bickering about monetary theory can contradict what we actually observe in the marketplace. We see clearly that people started valuing Bitcoin for itself due to its perceived utility or novelty or whatever. It's irrelevant what the reason to value it was in the minds of the participants. The relevant point is that they then form the market for Bitcoin, and it's off to the races. Bitcoin is being used as a medium of exchange now, and so it obviously had to have had a value to people (if not a price) before it started being traded for pizzas and such. That's the point of the theorem. It's expressing the idea that this is a logical necessity. But the regression theorem should not be used as a predictor. It just says that if something becomes a medium of exchange then it was valued for itself immediately prior to that. People tried to use it as a predictor when it came to Bitcoin and got confused. So one persistent error is in thinking that if something did not always have a market price (like the original BTC tokens), then it was never really valued for itself in the marketplace, and therefore can't become a money (due to the regression theorem). This is obviously a misunderstanding of the theorem, but it's hard to catch when you've focused on the virtues of hard money for so long. We never think of gold and silver as being valueless at one time because most pat explanations of the emergence of money start with precious metals being valued commodities already. But originally they did not have prices at all - just like Bitcoin. They were newly discovered curiosities at one point too. So this failure to go back to the beginning of the story of precious metals led to confusion when people analyzed Bitcoin as being merely valueless tokens with "no intrinsic value." Add to that the fact that Bitcoin was engineered on a computer and you get an understandable resistance in people who have been immersed in classical monetary theory. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Bitcoinpro on January 06, 2014, 07:08:01 AM He is just a fraud, scammer, idiot whateva its not that complicated.
Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Lethn on January 06, 2014, 07:08:16 AM I do find it annoying and a bit disappointing that Peter chose to dismiss Bitcoin, I think in his more recent videos though he is trying to understand it better but I hardly think he can be called a fraud in any sense of the word. He's often been called a gold bug and has always been a long term gold advocate, but unlike those other cunts who call themselves financial advisors and economists he's being honest about where he stands and you won't really get that anywhere else and since Bitcoin will be cutting into gold it's only natural he'd be wary of it.
I think eventually he'll just sit back and enjoy the U.S government trying to attack Bitcoin because in recent videos like when he debates with Stefan Molyneux he seems to be trying to understand it, Ron Paul was a bit baffled and dismissed it a first but now he's just decided it's a form of currency competition which it is, right now I'd like to class Bitcoin as Germany has, private money, but at the moment it really is only a very experimental technology. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Bitcoinpro on January 06, 2014, 07:18:31 AM I do find it annoying and a bit disappointing that Peter chose to dismiss Bitcoin, I think in his more recent videos though he is trying to understand it better but I hardly think he can be called a fraud in any sense of the word. He's often been called a gold bug and has always been a long term gold advocate, but unlike those other cunts who call themselves financial advisors and economists he's being honest about where he stands and you won't really get that anywhere else and since Bitcoin will be cutting into gold it's only natural he'd be wary of it. I think eventually he'll just sit back and enjoy the U.S government trying to attack Bitcoin because in recent videos like when he debates with Stefan Molyneux he seems to be trying to understand it, Ron Paul was a bit baffled and dismissed it a first but now he's just decided it's a form of currency competition which it is, right now I'd like to class Bitcoin as Germany has, private money, but at the moment it really is only a very experimental technology. If he wasn't a fraud he would have just refused the interview ;) Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Erdogan on January 06, 2014, 07:29:32 AM [...] My question is why would a highly publicised economist like schiff with a great reputation keep saying these things ,I would love him to explain how is it even possible to honestly with a straight face say these silly statements . [...] He does not understand bitcoin completely yet. Like many libertarians, he is locked up in the intrinsic value controversy. Austrian economics requires the money stuff to have intrinsic value. It was Mises who expressed it with his regression theorem. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. Gold glitters. We think either it doesn't matter, or that there is a miniscule intrinsic value, enough to satisfy the requirement. That's not really correct. Austrians hold that economic value is subjective. The regression theorem is simply an inference about the emergence of money from barter. It's saying that a medium of exchange must have been valued for itself by the market prior to being adopted for use as a money. From the point of view of monetary theorists, it was necessary to break the perceived infinite regression of saying that something always had value as a medium of exchange. Obviously you have to close the loop somewhere, so this is just a logical inference which keeps you out of the circular logic of saying that something always had medium-of-exchange value when discussing the emergence of money. Peter unfortunately does use the term "intrinsic value," but he's not an academic. What he means is market value apart from its use as a medium of exchange. What people in the hard money crowd find it hard to grasp is that human beings can quite easily ascribe value to something that was initially valueless (no market price) like the tokens produced by the Bitcoin software on Day 1 of its launch. No bickering about monetary theory can contradict what we actually observe in the marketplace. We see clearly that people started valuing Bitcoin for itself due to its perceived utility or novelty or whatever. It's irrelevant what the reason to value it was in the minds of the participants. The relevant point is that they then form the market for Bitcoin, and it's off to the races. Bitcoin is being used as a medium of exchange now, and so it obviously had to have had a value to people (if not a price) before it started being traded for pizzas and such. That's the point of the theorem. It's expressing the idea that this is a logical necessity. But the regression theorem should not be used as a predictor. It just says that if something becomes a medium of exchange then it was valued for itself immediately prior to that. People tried to use it as a predictor when it came to Bitcoin and got confused. So one persistent error is in thinking that if something did not always have a market price (like the original BTC tokens), then it was never really valued for itself in the marketplace, and therefore can't become a money (due to the regression theorem). This is obviously a misunderstanding of the theorem, but it's hard to catch when you've focused on the virtues of hard money for so long. We never think of gold and silver as being valueless at one time because most pat explanations of the emergence of money start with precious metals being valued commodities already. But originally they did not have prices at all - just like Bitcoin. They were newly discovered curiosities at one point too. So this failure to go back to the beginning of the story of precious metals led to confusion when people analyzed Bitcoin as being merely valueless tokens with "no intrinsic value." Add to that the fact that Bitcoin was engineered on a computer and you get an understandable resistance in people who have been immersed in classical monetary theory. 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. Personally, I think that a stuff that has the necessary money capabilities can start out with no intrinsic value, a minimum distribution, and that you can apply a force (or let the environment do it) like clap your hands, and the exchange value will come into being. You can kickstart the otherwise circular value-argument. The other option, that bitcoin has miniscule intrinsic value, is rather stretched, because if really that is the only thing that is needed for the regression theorem, the whole theorem is just hairsplitting. Gold, before it being used as money, was supposedly a commodity just like other commodities on the market, happily traded for its intrinsic value. Before gold money, supposedly some other commodity was money, maybe because gold was not sufficiently known by all traders. So bitcoin and gold is different, with relation to the regression theorem. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: BlueNote on January 06, 2014, 07:30:47 AM 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. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: BlueNote on January 06, 2014, 08:02:40 AM 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. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Bitcoinpro on January 06, 2014, 08:04:40 AM 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 http://go.prognosis.com/rs/prognosis/images/email%20payments-%20fraud.jpg Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: mindfulmojo on January 06, 2014, 08:11:12 AM 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... Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Bitcoinpro on January 06, 2014, 08:15:17 AM 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 Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: cypherdoc on January 06, 2014, 08:18:25 AM Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Erdogan on January 06, 2014, 08:45:29 AM 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. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: dave3 on January 06, 2014, 09:01:30 AM 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. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Bitcoinpro on January 06, 2014, 09:20:18 AM 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 Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: btbrae on January 06, 2014, 10:19:11 AM 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.
Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: hyunsookmom on January 06, 2014, 10:49:59 AM 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. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Bitcoinpro on January 06, 2014, 10:54:32 AM 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 :D http://www.easy-strategy.com/images/president-barack-Obama.jpg Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Misesian on January 06, 2014, 12:09:28 PM 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
Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Morphling4047 on January 06, 2014, 01:23:43 PM 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! Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Johnny Bitcoinseed on January 06, 2014, 01:38:02 PM 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. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: teukon on January 06, 2014, 01:43:31 PM 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. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: teukon on January 06, 2014, 01:48:57 PM 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. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Bitcoinpro on January 06, 2014, 01:49:29 PM 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. If you only apply the intrisinct value test gold dosn't have anything compared to the kind of intrinsic trust bitcoin has. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: bitrider on January 06, 2014, 02:12:24 PM 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. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: cdog on January 06, 2014, 02:13:05 PM 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. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Dr Bloggood on January 06, 2014, 02:32:49 PM [...] My question is why would a highly publicised economist like schiff with a great reputation keep saying these things ,I would love him to explain how is it even possible to honestly with a straight face say these silly statements . [...] He does not understand bitcoin completely yet. Like many libertarians, he is locked up in the intrinsic value controversy. Austrian economics requires the money stuff to have intrinsic value. It was Mises who expressed it with his regression theorem. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. Gold glitters. We think either it doesn't matter, or that there is a miniscule intrinsic value, enough to satisfy the requirement. That's not really correct. Austrians hold that economic value is subjective. The regression theorem is simply an inference about the emergence of money from barter. It's saying that a medium of exchange must have been valued for itself by the market prior to being adopted for use as a money. From the point of view of monetary theorists, it was necessary to break the perceived infinite regression of saying that something always had value as a medium of exchange. Obviously you have to close the loop somewhere, so this is just a logical inference which keeps you out of the circular logic of saying that something always had medium-of-exchange value when discussing the emergence of money. Peter unfortunately does use the term "intrinsic value," but he's not an academic. What he means is market value apart from its use as a medium of exchange. What people in the hard money crowd find it hard to grasp is that human beings can quite easily ascribe value to something that was initially valueless (no market price) like the tokens produced by the Bitcoin software on Day 1 of its launch. No bickering about monetary theory can contradict what we actually observe in the marketplace. We see clearly that people started valuing Bitcoin for itself due to its perceived utility or novelty or whatever. It's irrelevant what the reason to value it was in the minds of the participants. The relevant point is that they then form the market for Bitcoin, and it's off to the races. Bitcoin is being used as a medium of exchange now, and so it obviously had to have had a value to people (if not a price) before it started being traded for pizzas and such. That's the point of the theorem. It's expressing the idea that this is a logical necessity. But the regression theorem should not be used as a predictor. It just says that if something becomes a medium of exchange then it was valued for itself immediately prior to that. People tried to use it as a predictor when it came to Bitcoin and got confused. So one persistent error is in thinking that if something did not always have a market price (like the original BTC tokens), then it was never really valued for itself in the marketplace, and therefore can't become a money (due to the regression theorem). This is obviously a misunderstanding of the theorem, but it's hard to catch when you've focused on the virtues of hard money for so long. We never think of gold and silver as being valueless at one time because most pat explanations of the emergence of money start with precious metals being valued commodities already. But originally they did not have prices at all - just like Bitcoin. They were newly discovered curiosities at one point too. So this failure to go back to the beginning of the story of precious metals led to confusion when people analyzed Bitcoin as being merely valueless tokens with "no intrinsic value." Add to that the fact that Bitcoin was engineered on a computer and you get an understandable resistance in people who have been immersed in classical monetary theory. Great post! You just put 500 pages of discussion about "intrinsic value" to rest... I have said it in a different way, but probably essentially wanting to express the same thing: BTC has "intrinsic value" because of X,Y and Z (X,Y and Z being, for example cheap transactions, independence from governments and being easy to transport). Just like gold has brought intrinsic value before it was used as currency/store of value for the first time because of U,V and W. Erdogan and BlueNote, can I ask you where you come from - is it the academic world, have you privately studied this and/or have you been investing for some time (and if yes into what if you don't mind me asking)? Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Dr Bloggood on January 06, 2014, 02:49:15 PM For bitcoin there is a disconnect, because there is no intrinsic value. I have to disagree for reasons mentioned many times - good intrinsic value, no disconnect. It's a good discussion though! :) Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Dr Bloggood on January 06, 2014, 02:52:01 PM 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. +1 Schiff is awesome and has some huge balls too. He just doesn't get BTC. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: bitrider on January 06, 2014, 02:55:53 PM That sounds fair.
Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Erdogan on January 06, 2014, 03:09:47 PM [...] My question is why would a highly publicised economist like schiff with a great reputation keep saying these things ,I would love him to explain how is it even possible to honestly with a straight face say these silly statements . [...] He does not understand bitcoin completely yet. Like many libertarians, he is locked up in the intrinsic value controversy. Austrian economics requires the money stuff to have intrinsic value. It was Mises who expressed it with his regression theorem. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. Gold glitters. We think either it doesn't matter, or that there is a miniscule intrinsic value, enough to satisfy the requirement. That's not really correct. Austrians hold that economic value is subjective. The regression theorem is simply an inference about the emergence of money from barter. It's saying that a medium of exchange must have been valued for itself by the market prior to being adopted for use as a money. From the point of view of monetary theorists, it was necessary to break the perceived infinite regression of saying that something always had value as a medium of exchange. Obviously you have to close the loop somewhere, so this is just a logical inference which keeps you out of the circular logic of saying that something always had medium-of-exchange value when discussing the emergence of money. Peter unfortunately does use the term "intrinsic value," but he's not an academic. What he means is market value apart from its use as a medium of exchange. What people in the hard money crowd find it hard to grasp is that human beings can quite easily ascribe value to something that was initially valueless (no market price) like the tokens produced by the Bitcoin software on Day 1 of its launch. No bickering about monetary theory can contradict what we actually observe in the marketplace. We see clearly that people started valuing Bitcoin for itself due to its perceived utility or novelty or whatever. It's irrelevant what the reason to value it was in the minds of the participants. The relevant point is that they then form the market for Bitcoin, and it's off to the races. Bitcoin is being used as a medium of exchange now, and so it obviously had to have had a value to people (if not a price) before it started being traded for pizzas and such. That's the point of the theorem. It's expressing the idea that this is a logical necessity. But the regression theorem should not be used as a predictor. It just says that if something becomes a medium of exchange then it was valued for itself immediately prior to that. People tried to use it as a predictor when it came to Bitcoin and got confused. So one persistent error is in thinking that if something did not always have a market price (like the original BTC tokens), then it was never really valued for itself in the marketplace, and therefore can't become a money (due to the regression theorem). This is obviously a misunderstanding of the theorem, but it's hard to catch when you've focused on the virtues of hard money for so long. We never think of gold and silver as being valueless at one time because most pat explanations of the emergence of money start with precious metals being valued commodities already. But originally they did not have prices at all - just like Bitcoin. They were newly discovered curiosities at one point too. So this failure to go back to the beginning of the story of precious metals led to confusion when people analyzed Bitcoin as being merely valueless tokens with "no intrinsic value." Add to that the fact that Bitcoin was engineered on a computer and you get an understandable resistance in people who have been immersed in classical monetary theory. Great post! You just put 500 pages of discussion about "intrinsic value" to rest... I have said it in a different way, but probably essentially wanting to express the same thing: BTC has "intrinsic value" because of X,Y and Z (X,Y and Z being, for example cheap transactions, independence from governments and being easy to transport). Just like gold has brought intrinsic value before it was used as currency/store of value for the first time because of U,V and W. Quote Erdogan and BlueNote, can I ask you where you come from - is it the academic world, have you privately studied this and/or have you been investing for some time (and if yes into what if you don't mind me asking)? I am an economist of education from a long time ago, but the real interest and self-education came a few years ago, when I found austrian economics. I have not read all the books necessary to be a real economist. I don't need or want to hammer people with famous names, but what I write is certainly mostly from the masters. I have the confidence to declare Mises' regression theorem ... just wrong. It is interesting, but not necessary for bitcoin now. That does not make Mises any smaller. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Dr Bloggood on January 06, 2014, 03:23:14 PM I do not agree with this. Intrinsic value is well defined in economics. All economic things, basically, have that kind of value. Money, because it is used in indirect exchange, get additional value, called exchange value. Can something exist that has only exchange value, as contrast to something that has intrinsic value and gradually gets exchange value in addition? It might be usable as currency/money with just exchange value, but I think that descussion is not even needed for BTc (although of course it makes BTC even more interesting). Oh, and the most decorated heads in the economical academic world are the most stupid ones. Those professors really can just draw pretty charts on a blackboard, that's all. Janet Yellen's husband got a nobel prize, that should tell you a lot, ha ha... Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: westkybitcoins on January 06, 2014, 04:36:44 PM That's not really correct. Austrians hold that economic value is subjective. The regression theorem is simply an inference about the emergence of money from barter. It's saying that a medium of exchange must have been valued for itself by the market prior to being adopted for use as a money. From the point of view of monetary theorists, it was necessary to break the perceived infinite regression of saying that something always had value as a medium of exchange. Obviously you have to close the loop somewhere, so this is just a logical inference which keeps you out of the circular logic of saying that something always had medium-of-exchange value when discussing the emergence of money. Peter unfortunately does use the term "intrinsic value," but he's not an academic. What he means is market value apart from its use as a medium of exchange. What people in the hard money crowd find it hard to grasp is that human beings can quite easily ascribe value to something that was initially valueless (no market price) like the tokens produced by the Bitcoin software on Day 1 of its launch. No bickering about monetary theory can contradict what we actually observe in the marketplace. We see clearly that people started valuing Bitcoin for itself due to its perceived utility or novelty or whatever. It's irrelevant what the reason to value it was in the minds of the participants. The relevant point is that they then form the market for Bitcoin, and it's off to the races. Bitcoin is being used as a medium of exchange now, and so it obviously had to have had a value to people (if not a price) before it started being traded for pizzas and such. That's the point of the theorem. It's expressing the idea that this is a logical necessity. But the regression theorem should not be used as a predictor. It just says that if something becomes a medium of exchange then it was valued for itself immediately prior to that. People tried to use it as a predictor when it came to Bitcoin and got confused. So one persistent error is in thinking that if something did not always have a market price (like the original BTC tokens), then it was never really valued for itself in the marketplace, and therefore can't become a money (due to the regression theorem). This is obviously a misunderstanding of the theorem, but it's hard to catch when you've focused on the virtues of hard money for so long. We never think of gold and silver as being valueless at one time because most pat explanations of the emergence of money start with precious metals being valued commodities already. But originally they did not have prices at all - just like Bitcoin. They were newly discovered curiosities at one point too. So this failure to go back to the beginning of the story of precious metals led to confusion when people analyzed Bitcoin as being merely valueless tokens with "no intrinsic value." Add to that the fact that Bitcoin was engineered on a computer and you get an understandable resistance in people who have been immersed in classical monetary theory. Wow. Well said, particularly the highlighted portion. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: BlueNote on January 06, 2014, 06:11:52 PM Great post! You just put 500 pages of discussion about "intrinsic value" to rest... ...BlueNote, can I ask you where you come from - is it the academic world, have you privately studied this and/or have you been investing for some time (and if yes into what if you don't mind me asking)? Thank you. I'm not an academic, but I have followed the Austrian school generally through articles and lectures put out by the Mises Institute and such. As a long-time libertarian I have always been interested in money and alternative currencies. Bitcoin has provided an exciting challenge to those who think intently about economics and money, so I've had to wrestle with every pro and con argument that's out there relating to cryptocurrency. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: proton on January 06, 2014, 06:41:31 PM It is a bad idea to take Peter Schiff seriously. Not only on bitcoins, but also on money and economics. He cried wolf so often that even when the wolf was to come, nobody would believe him. According to him, we were supposed to see 5 major crisis in the last 4 years plus major hyperinflation. He is just a media personality, serving as a Cassandra counterpoint to market’s eternal optimists. All are opportunists. Let’s focus on those who know what they are talking about when it comes to money and digital world. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: BlueNote on January 06, 2014, 07:23:38 PM 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. The Austrian school holds that all economic value is subjective. Since economic value is subjective, i.e., in the mind of the subject, all we need to know to do objective economic analysis is that someone values something. The way human beings express that they value something is that they seek to acquire it, either through some type of original appropriation or through exchange. So properly observing human action is what gives us an objective view of what people subjectively value. That's all we need. Note that this approach to economic value is merely methodologically subjective. It is not an attempt to philosophically deny objective value, rather it is simply seeking to explain human action as it pertains to the field of economics. Economics is a narrow discipline while exploring the notion of value in general is a wider philosophical endeavor. Not understanding this is what leads people into endlessly arguing the semantics of every conceivable notion of value. We do not need to go there. The use of the term "intrinsic value" leads us away from the narrow field of economics because it strongly implies a philosophical worldview where objects are constitutionally endowed with value in themselves apart from the human subject who values them. While this may be appropriate in another context, it doesn't help us within the discipline of economics. That many people, including Peter Schiff, will use this term at times to refer to market or exchange value should be viewed merely as the use of a colloquialism. It simply fails as a technical term to describe economic value because people routinely misunderstand and misapply it when it's taken that way, and so go far afield of the narrow purpose of economic inquiry. You only need to search this forum for "intrinsic value" to see how useless and distracting the term can be. Language is supposed to help us clarify thought. So if a term produces more heat than light in a given context, then it's not working for us and we should abandon it. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Dr Bloggood on January 06, 2014, 07:57:20 PM Bitcoin has provided an exciting challenge to those who think intently about economics and money, so I've had to wrestle with every pro and con argument that's out there relating to cryptocurrency. Me too, I'm sure this is true for a lot of the smarter minds on this forum. Btw, the phrases westkybitcoins highlighted in your post above are exactly the key phrases for me as well. That's the whole point. So what are your conclusions - how far can BTC go and what are the biggest dangers to it? How likely is it that it will still exist in 4 years from now? Erdogan, those questions go to you as well - I'm really interested in your opinions! Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Erdogan on January 06, 2014, 07:58:44 PM 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. The Austrian school holds that all economic value is subjective. Since economic value is subjective, i.e., in the mind of the subject, all we need to know to do objective economic analysis is that someone values something. The way human beings express that they value something is that they seek to acquire it, either through some type of original appropriation or through exchange. So properly observing human action is what gives us an objective view of what people subjectively value. That's all we need. Note that this approach to economic value is merely methodologically subjective. It is not an attempt to philosophically deny objective value, rather it is simply seeking to explain human action as it pertains to the field of economics. Economics is a narrow discipline while exploring the notion of value in general is a wider philosophical endeavor. Not understanding this is what leads people into endlessly arguing the semantics of every conceivable notion of value. We do not need to go there. The use of the term "intrinsic value" leads us away from the narrow field of economics because it strongly implies a philosophical worldview where objects are constitutionally endowed with value in themselves apart from the human subject who values them. While this may be appropriate in another context, it doesn't help us within the discipline of economics. That many people, including Peter Schiff, will use this term at times to refer to market or exchange value should be viewed merely as the use of a colloquialism. It simply fails as a technical term to describe economic value because people routinely misunderstand and misapply it when it's taken that way, and so go far afield of the narrow purpose of economic inquiry. You only need to search this forum for "intrinsic value" to see how useless and distracting the term can be. Language is supposed to help us clarify thought. So if a term produces more heat than light in a given context, then it's not working for us and we should abandon it. You can abandon it, but in that case it does not make sense to discuss the regression theorem, and what is the difference of money to other things. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: BlueNote on January 06, 2014, 09:22:17 PM 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. The Austrian school holds that all economic value is subjective. Since economic value is subjective, i.e., in the mind of the subject, all we need to know to do objective economic analysis is that someone values something. The way human beings express that they value something is that they seek to acquire it, either through some type of original appropriation or through exchange. So properly observing human action is what gives us an objective view of what people subjectively value. That's all we need. Note that this approach to economic value is merely methodologically subjective. It is not an attempt to philosophically deny objective value, rather it is simply seeking to explain human action as it pertains to the field of economics. Economics is a narrow discipline while exploring the notion of value in general is a wider philosophical endeavor. Not understanding this is what leads people into endlessly arguing the semantics of every conceivable notion of value. We do not need to go there. The use of the term "intrinsic value" leads us away from the narrow field of economics because it strongly implies a philosophical worldview where objects are constitutionally endowed with value in themselves apart from the human subject who values them. While this may be appropriate in another context, it doesn't help us within the discipline of economics. That many people, including Peter Schiff, will use this term at times to refer to market or exchange value should be viewed merely as the use of a colloquialism. It simply fails as a technical term to describe economic value because people routinely misunderstand and misapply it when it's taken that way, and so go far afield of the narrow purpose of economic inquiry. You only need to search this forum for "intrinsic value" to see how useless and distracting the term can be. Language is supposed to help us clarify thought. So if a term produces more heat than light in a given context, then it's not working for us and we should abandon it. You can abandon it, but in that case it does not make sense to discuss the regression theorem, and what is the difference of money to other things. That doesn't make any sense at all. You don't have to use "intrinsic value" to explain money or the regression theorem. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Johnny Bitcoinseed on January 06, 2014, 09:32:05 PM I am 100% certain that sometime in the future Bitcoin will be worth Zero.
I am 100% certain that gold and silver will always be worth something. That said, for the foreseeable future, Bitcoin is very valuable indeed. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Johnny Bitcoinseed on January 06, 2014, 09:33:40 PM 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. LOL 1) who cares 2) it is forever as compared to your lifetime 3) I stand by bitcoin not being worth anything 1000 years from now, as something better will come along. Technology changes rapidly to be sure. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: BlueNote on January 06, 2014, 11:56:46 PM Bitcoin has provided an exciting challenge to those who think intently about economics and money, so I've had to wrestle with every pro and con argument that's out there relating to cryptocurrency. Me too, I'm sure this is true for a lot of the smarter minds on this forum. Btw, the phrases westkybitcoins highlighted in your post above are exactly the key phrases for me as well. That's the whole point. So what are your conclusions - how far can BTC go and what are the biggest dangers to it? How likely is it that it will still exist in 4 years from now? How far can it go? We can only guess. The demand for this kind of currency is potentially huge and the supply of the standard Bitcoin unit is relatively small, so barring any insurmountable interventions by colluding governments or unforeseen bugs in the system, it seems to be on pace to take significant market share from fiat currencies and therefore rise in price indefinitely until it reaches the saturation point. The argument that its utility is the same regardless of the price and that this will keep the price down doesn't take into account the liquidity (in BTC) needed to provide that utility to a large number of people across the world on demand. As long as most holders are not selling, new buyers will have to outbid each other for the newly-created units coming from mining in order to gain that utility. Adoption and use of the currency must keep pace with the price increases in order to sustain them long term. It has to be used in commerce in an ever-increasing way, otherwise the price will be driven by mere speculation (which is not a demand for utility but profit). I think it will be here in 4 years. It's very hard to kill. What are the dangers? The shutting down of exchanges and/or merchant services is probably the main danger from governments. They are able to act swiftly and decisively on any part of the ecosystem exposed to them. So exchanges, merchant services, and other Bitcoin related businesses are at risk directly if they are out in the open and the government decides it wants to crack heads, but as long as this is not a worldwide coordinated effort, it will be limited in effect. Bitcoin should be highly resilient to bureaucratic attack due to is design. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Bismarckbkk on January 07, 2014, 12:32:02 AM http://www.europac.net
I watched a discussion with peter schiff where he said investing in BTC now is more dangerous then 3 years ago. He said someone investing 50$ 3 years ago had much less risk then someone investing 10 000$ now. After that it was clear he was just attention whoring for media attention. Also possible he is afraid BTC will hurt his mutual funds performance. He likes to claim to have predicted the 2008 crash yet his customers lost alot of money back then because he didnt actually believe any of what he said. Hes just fishing for customers thats all. Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: Dr Bloggood on January 07, 2014, 01:45:36 AM Thanks for your little essay there!
Adoption and use of the currency must keep pace with the price increases in order to sustain them long term. It has to be used in commerce in an ever-increasing way, otherwise the price will be driven by mere speculation (which is not a demand for utility but profit). In times of huge inflation and bail-ins, couldn't the function of preserving your wealth be enough? Especially once this crisis accelerates, as I expect it will. I think when the shit hits the fan, BTC will get a huge boost, even without many merchants accepting it (of course that would help additionally). Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: BittBurger on January 07, 2014, 02:17:25 AM 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. Really? He's so intelligent, yet he can't come up with a single convincing argument to defend his position? Have you ever heard him speak (verbally / audibly) about why Bitcoin is going to fail? Its like listening to someone with a speech impediment. He can't even finish a sentence without "huffing" and cutting himself off halfway through, becuase he's got absolutely nothing solid to grasp onto. He just has an inflammatory tone, and acts extremely irritated. No substance to anything he says. That's why I am convinced he's doesn't even believe what he says. He's shitting on BTC because he fears it will put him out of business. Plain and simple. Therefore he's playing a very unconvincing "acting" role, which bleeds through in every word he speaks. -BB- Title: Re: Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ? Post by: _Miracle on January 07, 2014, 07:16:16 AM Peter Schiff spent years being ridiculed for calling the R.E. bubble while it was booming. He is not a fraud , he's just not a fan
and has stated that he doesn't fully understand bitcoin. Any economist or financial advisor worth 2bits will understand the assets/instruments that they are evaluating/advising on and it's going to take some time to get a group of those well blended professionals established. Until then it would do many economists/advisors well to understand crypto currencies and all of us enthusiasts well to listen [especially] to the naysayers with open minds. |
