2012-11-04 ZeroHedge.com - The Gloom Of Central Banking

[Stephen Gornick]

The Gloom Of Central Banking by Tuur Demeester

 - http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/10-2/gloom%20of%20central%20banking.pdf (PDF)
 - http://bit.ly/U2hOUC (Web-view of PDF via Google Docs)
 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/112086564/Gloon-of-Central-Banking (Web-view of PDF via Scribd)

This was shared on ZeroHedge in the post:

BitCoin Seen Through The Eyes Of A Central Banker

The ECB has far more existential issues to worry about than whether people will be paying for that house in Calabria with BitCoin (they won't; at least not any time soon),

 - http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-04/bitcoin-seen-through-eyes-central-banker

[Stephen Gornick]

The thread with what is likely the most relevant discussion on this:

Get ZeroHedge to publish an article about Bitcoin
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=100699.msg1313899#msg1313899

[Spekulatius]

TLDR, resumé to share anyone?

[blablahblah]

TLDR, resumé to share anyone?

Friday's "humour" article was pretty good, short and sly, and the comments made me hopeful the publicity might be well-received.

Today's follow-up... a bit hit-and-miss. They said that "others have written far more informed articles on [Bitcoin]", ironically quoting that famously bad FUD from Wired. Trouble is, judging by the variable quality of the comments, at least a few of their readers use Wired as their go-to source of knowledge on everything.

Meanwhile, the "Gloom of Central Banking" PDF, supposedly the inspiration for this follow-up, seems so long and boring (not to mention: liberally uses words like 'psychological'), I swear ZH only used it as an excuse for a new Bitcoin article to stir the pot.

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

I swear ZH only used it as an excuse for a new Bitcoin article to stir the pot.

Perhaps the "Tylers" monitor pageviews or comment metrics on their site, and adjust their choice of published articles accordingly?  Friday's article probably got a decent number of hits through the links here and on Reddit/Twitter...so perhaps now they will be more receptive to Bitcoin-related content and the Bitcoin keyword.

Imagine if Bitcoin had the same quantity of coverage on ZH as precious metals, and a guaranteed daily article in the style of Goldcore.

[Wekkel]

Any mention of Bitcoin at ZH helps. The comments show that the ZH public is very well aware of the concept. Any movement towards liberty is a good movement, they regularly state.

[jojo69]

just logged on to make sure this was up


this is huge

[sunnankar]

The comments show that the ZH public is very well aware of the concept.

Now that people are increasingly aware of Bitcoin I think the next step is to start calling people out who pontificate about Bitcoin but have never actually engaged in a transaction. It would be as simple as: "Well, have you ever sent a bitcoin? No? Are you sure you know what you are talking about?"

[Spekulatius]

The comments show that the ZH public is very well aware of the concept.

Now that people are increasingly aware of Bitcoin I think the next step is to start calling people out who pontificate about Bitcoin but have never actually engaged in a transaction. It would be as simple as: "Well, have you ever sent a bitcoin? No? Are you sure you know what you are talking about?"

If their arguments are valid, they dont need to have practical experience. Just try to be nice and win them over with love, like Jesus <3

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

The comments show that the ZH public is very well aware of the concept.

Now that people are increasingly aware of Bitcoin I think the next step is to start calling people out who pontificate about Bitcoin but have never actually engaged in a transaction. It would be as simple as: "Well, have you ever sent a bitcoin? No? Are you sure you know what you are talking about?"

Yep.  Only after owning bitcoins, did I truly understand Bitcoin.

Marc Faber often asks around the CNBC table who has owned gold, and no one ever does, yet the idiot hosts all have outspoken authoritative opinions about gold.

No one's opinion should be trusted on any topic that they don't have a personal stake in.  Preferably, a monetary stake.  Only when facing the prospect of real loss, are humans motivated enough to do proper due diligence.  And sometimes, not even then (see: Pirate@40).

Still, Spekulatius is right that carrots are much better than sticks as an educational tool. I bet most skeptics can be steered towards the right path by gifting them some BTC.

[FreeMoney]

I don't see the logic. Could someone not criticize a Pirate Pass-through without owning shares of it?

There is a difference between ever having tried something and currently holding a stake in it though. And someone ridiculing something they clearly don't understand and without using it is pathetic and it ought be pointed out.

[jojo69]

trust me

all publicity is good publicity

zh is one of the most influential sites of our time

this bodes well

[sunnankar]

If their arguments are valid, they dont need to have practical experience. Just try to be nice and win them over with love, like Jesus <3

I agree but only to a point. A good analogy is aviation where there is a knowledge test and a practical test. You can know all the knowledge test answers, which is a prerequisite to taking the practical test, but if you have no practical ability then it does not really matter because you will fail as a pilot and probably kill yourself or others. So likewise with Bitcoin I do not think it is possible to have knowledge of the subject if one lacks practical experience.

And telling someone they are incompetent and unknowledgeable can be a form of niceness and love. It just may help them save their fortunes and possibly their lives especially if using Bitcoins is the only way they will be able to get the life savings pharmaceuticals which will be in shortage once the Obamacare price controls are implemented.

[evoorhees]

I don't see the logic. Could someone not criticize a Pirate Pass-through without owning shares of it?

There is a difference between ever having tried something and currently holding a stake in it though. And someone ridiculing something they clearly don't understand and without using it is pathetic and it ought be pointed out.

Agreed. You don't need to be involved with something necessarily to be able to intelligently speak on the issue. However, when it comes to Bitcoin, there is such a steep learning curve that you can't really trust anyone's opinion on it unless they have at least gone through the motions of opening an account, and sending/receiving coins.

I think Marc Faber's criticism of TV hosts for not owning PM's isn't quite fair. They know enough about the market to be able to talk about it without owning it. The fact that they're wrong on their opinions is the result of flawed reasoning, not a result of total ignorance of the topic.

[sunnankar]

I think Marc Faber's criticism of TV hosts for not owning PM's isn't quite fair. They know enough about the market to be able to talk about it without owning it. The fact that they're wrong on their opinions is the result of flawed reasoning, not a result of total ignorance of the topic.

Precisely, even if someone does not own a bunch of gold or silver most people have handled gold or silver. They have held a ring or other piece of metal in their hands. So they are able to comprehend by experience what a piece of metal is and how it operates.

The problem with most people pontificating about Bitcoin is that they do not currently comprehend it because they lack practical experience.