Peter Schiff exposes himself as a fraud ?

[Bitcoinpro]

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

[Dr Bloggood]

OMG, he brings that "It can be broken up in many small pieces" argument again... how ridiculous, ha ha...!

[Bigeyeone]

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

[Dr Bloggood]

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.

[Phrenico]

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?

[overunity]

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 ?

[Erdogan]

[...]
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.

[BittBurger]

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-

[Erdogan]

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.

[BlueNote]

[...]
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.

[Bitcoinpro]

He is just a fraud, scammer, idiot whateva its not that complicated.

[Lethn]

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.

[Bitcoinpro]

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

[Erdogan]

[...]
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.

[BlueNote]

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.

[BlueNote]

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.

[Bitcoinpro]

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

[mindfulmojo]

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...

[Bitcoinpro]

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

[cypherdoc]

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.