Is Buffet right or wrong?

[heskey]

I strongly feel that Buffet has some money invested into cryptocurrencies despite publicly speaking it down...

Keep smoking that weed.

Illogical. He has no incentive to, because he knows very well the plan. He told you right there. Bitcoin will not become a unit-of-account. The banks will retain control. You don't want to believe this because it flies in the face of everything you want to believe about Bitcoin. But the facts is, he is correct.

Only with anonymity will he be possibly incorrect.

Mark my words. Come back to this post in a couple or 3 years max.

I feel that even the coming 6 moths in the crypto world will bring as much change as the past 5 years combined. Time is speeding up since a lot more people are involved - especially in the alt-coin business. It's almost silly to speculate 2-3 years ahead.
Bon fyah!

[1714958590]

1714958590

[1714958590]

1714958590

[1714958590]

1714958590

[RodeoX]

I think some of the confusion is that people think rich people know something about money others don't. They do not.
Most wealthy people are born wealthy and learn how to manage their family money over a lifetime. The ones like Buffet who make it themselves become rich from hard work and a psychotic drive to beat others. They wake up at dawn and can't stop working, even if it means pain for their family and personal life. They are like a winning race horse, they would just as soon die as loose the race.

[conspirosphere.tk]

a technical objection about the feasibility of tracking all of those dirty satoshis, from a comment to this article:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/missing-boat-on-bitcoin-ownership.html

...For each bitcoin node to be aware of each "unspent" satoshi, would require on the order of 10^16 bytes of RAM, or 10,000,000 Gigabytes. A typical computer may have 8 Gbytes of RAM, so we're talking an amount of RAM equal to one million average computers just to run a single bitcoin node. So, no I don't think it would be physically possible redesign bitcoin in a way that the "stolen parts" could be tracked and peeled off in the future. 
 
I think this is a good thing because for money to be useful it must be fungible. We should fight crime at the source--not by impinging on people's ability to use and transact money freely.

[franky1]

buffet loves his fiat currency and businesses like mastercard.

he thinks bitcoin has no value in the real world. so maybe he should watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ0sqgQ5lkA

[AnonyMint]

As a programmer I'd think you would need to be deliberate and concise with things you do and "say" for lack of a better word? Guess not, huh?

Exclusion is precise logic. That is unless you think the universe isn't infinite and you can enumerate everything. Just try to enumerate everything and you will be enumerating for a looooong timeee my stupid nemesis. That will fly over your head. You may think you are a programmer, but you are obviously no where near my level.

Perhaps you've never heard of Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem. That is because you are not a computer scientist.

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

From here on I ignore you, because you are a certified imbecile with a big cocky mouth and too stupid to even realize it. (a quality shared by many who reside in the 50 states these days unfortunately, and I'm a U.S. citizen)

As for predicting the future, Armstrong's A.I. computer has been regularly doing it, because history repeats itself. This is a precise science. You ignore him at your peril. This is all discussed in more detail at the Economic Devastation and Mad Max threads.

All of what I wrote is just a re-summary of Martin Armstrong's Pi model of international capital flows. It has enabled him to make the following correct predictions years in advance of the predictions coming true. He spent $100 million developing the research and having his computer find all the correlations. That is when he discovered that human nature and thus international capital flows also move in waves, just like everything else in the The Universe (my blog) does. That doesn't mean we can predict what any individual human will do, only that we can predict the macro waves. Martin Armstrong helped me to make a public prediction that gold would decline from $1550 to under $1200. I was also the person who exactly predicted the 2011 price moves of silver back in Oct 2010. So shut your birdmouth. It is also allowing me to predict that the DJIA will go to 39,000 before 2015.75 and that gold will probably go up to 1424 - 1550, then crash back down to 1050 or below. Gold will not make new highs under after 2015.75. Now you just wait and see if I am correct again or not. I made one mistake betting too early on China's collapse last year, because I wasn't reading Armstrong (who makes it very clear China won't collapse until 2016).

...

=================================

Note I was starting to lean towards Armstrong's cycles when I INDEPENDENTLY discovered his 78 year cycle in Feb. 2013. The key was looking at long-term charts for strange patterns that stand out like a bloody nose. This caused me to integrate his 3 x 26 = 78 year model into my understanding of technological unemployment (follow the sub-links at the above linked pages to get to a table of historical dates evidence of the 78 year cycles).

Ah I see that gold prediction from last year is now coming true exactly as I expected it would rise to $1400s this spring then decline again. Now watch it decline again

Note gold only hit a low slightly below $1200 in 2013, thus it still needs to make a bottom yet. We see two bounces off that $1175ish level and both have been dead cat bounces that have failed. Thus we are going lower than $1175.

The reason I can say that with confidence is because the dollar and the NYSE will become very strong in 2015. The NYSE is likely to double from here. This is all due to international capital flows as the capital is no running from emerging markets (only the retail investor thus far but the institutional investors will follow soon then it will accelerate) and later this year or next running from Japan and Europe too. All headed into the dollar.

Kevin explains well Armstrong's model for emerging markets:

http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/will-emerging-markets-come-back/#comment-17790

Emerging markets are due for a lot more pain. The recent U.S. taper-induced selling was limited to retail investors mostly. As this crisis and the current geopolitical issues worsen, we will also see institutional investors exit emerging markets. With europe and the euro at their peak, the U.S. is the only market to absorb this capital and a subsequent dollar rally will squeeze emerging nations further.

The emerging market corporations are laden with dollar bond issues debt as they were soaking up the free money from Q.E. which left the USA to find higher rates of return. Because under ZIRP the fixed interest investor (e.g. pension funds) was getting killed.

So now the emerging markets have to repay dollar debt with local currencies which will be declining relative to the dollar. This will force their currencies lower spiraling the toilet bowl. Also all the emerging markets have negative trade deficits once the China bubble busts. For example here in Philippines they show an official current account surplus of $11.3 billion but this doesn't include $19 billion of unrecorded smuggling of rice from ASEAN and cheap products from China.

Meaning more dollars going out than coming in. Thus the emerging markets will exhaust their dollar reserves and default again.

Borrower is slave to the lender. Bernanke made the dollar the lender of last resort to the entire world. Now the world is slave to the dollar.

[AnonyMint]

a technical objection about the feasibility of tracking all of those dirty satoshis, from a comment to this article:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/missing-boat-on-bitcoin-ownership.html

...For each bitcoin node to be aware of each "unspent" satoshi, would require on the order of 10^16 bytes of RAM, or 10,000,000 Gigabytes. A typical computer may have 8 Gbytes of RAM, so we're talking an amount of RAM equal to one million average computers just to run a single bitcoin node. So, no I don't think it would be physically possible redesign bitcoin in a way that the "stolen parts" could be tracked and peeled off in the future.  
 
I think this is a good thing because for money to be useful it must be fungible. We should fight crime at the source--not by impinging on people's ability to use and transact money freely.

That is nonsense. For that same reason, Bitcoin can't even technically function if everyone has a public key with a 1 Satoshi balance.

Also on the issue of taint here is legal precedent analysis:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=491181.msg5497952#msg5497952

Mish is also ignorant:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/missing-boat-on-bitcoin-ownership.html

Theoretically, if each bitcoin (and fraction thereof) had a unique number ID (and I believe it would have been possible to have set bitcoin up this way), then they could be traced.  But if the bitcoin-blockchain was traceable in such a manner now, it would have already been done.

There is already research showing it can be done. The block chain is very traceable. Nothwithstanding that, I argued at the above legal analysis link that a more likely equitable restitution for widespread theft in mixed funds is a tax to pay for deposit insurance on Bitcoin, i.e. a shared and collective solution to theft.

[tokeweed]

Bitcoin is essentially a modern  moneygram.


This example is based on bitcoin maintaining price stability which is likely to occur when widely adopted.

Any comments?

bolded statement remains to be seen.

[Peter R]

a technical objection about the feasibility of tracking all of those dirty satoshis, from a comment to this article:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/missing-boat-on-bitcoin-ownership.html

...For each bitcoin node to be aware of each "unspent" satoshi, would require on the order of 10^16 bytes of RAM, or 10,000,000 Gigabytes. A typical computer may have 8 Gbytes of RAM, so we're talking an amount of RAM equal to one million average computers just to run a single bitcoin node. So, no I don't think it would be physically possible redesign bitcoin in a way that the "stolen parts" could be tracked and peeled off in the future.  
 
I think this is a good thing because for money to be useful it must be fungible. We should fight crime at the source--not by impinging on people's ability to use and transact money freely.

That is interesting.  The way bitcoin tracks outputs, as opposed to individual "satoshis," significantly lowers the memory requirements imposed on the nodes.  This makes the system feasible and improves fungibility.    

Bitcoins are melted, mixed with other bitcoins, and reforged each time a transaction occurs.  It reminds me of how some of the atoms of gold in the 1/10th oz coin my father gave me could have been from a bank robbery in the Old West, which had gold atoms from jewellery stolen from a maiden in medieval times, which was forged in part from gold coins looted by Caesar's army in Ancient Rome.  

[bitminerinthecloud]

(...)
Mark my words. I am 100% sure I am correct.
(...)

I am sorry for taking your time, but how to be so sure of something? Being sure of something garantee you are correct? I sometimes am sure of things and then it turns out I am wrong and then I feel stupid. I beg, if not take too much of your time, to teach me how to be more sure and correct? I think I will be able to accomplish a lot of things, if I devise a system to be sure of things. Please help me.

[MarketNeutral]

Bitcoin ≠ IOU

...among other obvious differences.


Buffett has morphed from being an incredible investor into being an incredible actor. He's fond of his 'kindly old grandpa' role more than his learning about cryptocurrencies.

[AnonyMint]

(...)
Mark my words. I am 100% sure I am correct.
(...)

I am sorry for taking your time, but how to be so sure of something? Being sure of something garantee you are correct? I sometimes am sure of things and then it turns out I am wrong and then I feel stupid. I beg, if not take too much of your time, to teach me how to be more sure and correct? I think I will be able to accomplish a lot of things, if I devise a system to be sure of things. Please help me.

All of us have made failed predictions (myself included). And your question is very humble and astute. Thank you.

I am confident of two predictions:

1. Crypto-currency can't become a unit-of-account without stronger anonymity (i.e. in an altcoin) or unless Bitcoin becomes effectively controlled by the government(s) and they decide then to give it legal-tender status. The latter can happen if most activity will be done offchain in banking institutions, which toknormal was advocating upthread.

2. Severe global economic collapse before 2020, mostly likely quite evident by 2016ish.

The reason I'm very confident of #2 is because due to the invention of central banking we are at a 200+ year high in debt, at a level that has never been seen before at 313% of global GDP (376% of developed country GDP if we exclude emerging markets), $223 trillion of debt, $1000 trillion of derivatives, and $1000 trillion of government promises to the people which are yet to be funded. That simply can't sustain and at the same time the computer is going to automate 47% of existing jobs according to Oxford University research, thus massive technological unemployment coming until the youth learn to adjust to the new paradigm. On top of that, Armstrong's computer models agree. Note although central banking was invented at the end of the Middle Ages, it didn't become globally ubiquitous until the 20th century. Central banking is what enabled the debt and socialism above to grow so humongous, because it prevented defaults and corrections by being the lender of last resort.

The reason I'm very confident of #1 is because (to re-summarize what I've written in the two Buffet threads) Max Weber's canonical definition of government (i.e. society!) is "a monopoly on force". Autonomous money goes to battle against the entire concept of society. And from a technical and human nature perspective most people prefer everything easy, thus they will not prefer to use decentralized on-chain paradigms. They will prefer to do what toknormal suggested which is use offchain accounts at banking institutions. Bitcoin currently has no compelling advantage over credit cards and paypal for most consumers (thus very few merchants accept BTC exclusively), thus it will require offchain accounts to make it more competitive. Offchain accounts is centralization and fractional reserves, and/or government regulation and oversight. We see this happening before our eyes (Mt.Gox!), yet most are still in denial?!

Thus I conclude (as much as I hate it) to admit that the old fart is correct. But I think the smart people who want to survive this coming crisis (because governments will be taxing and confiscating all the wealth due to the severe global economic collapse) will adopt an anonymous altcoin which has decentralized on-chain exchanges, payment services, etc.. And I think Buffet will be wrong about that. The quality of the implementation will determine if this is realistic or not.

Add this:

Something big is coming? 4 bankers suicide last week

Necessity: The Argument of Tyrants

Also:

You better save your money, there are going to be much bigger wars with larger stakes before 2020.

This is only the beginning. Don't even imagine you will stop it in Ukraine, because the problem driving increasing strife (e.g. see China becoming aggressive in ASEAN) is global bankruptcy. That is what is forcing every man's hand. Russia's economy is also threatened and the gas pipeline to Europe passes through Ukraine.

Did you know years ago Armstrong's computer predicted the rise in strife to come in 2014? Did you know early in 2013 Armstrong pinpointed Ukraine and Russia threatening Europe again?

http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/will-emerging-markets-come-back/#comment-21244

Even the IMF has admitted that global debt is at a 200 year high. Central bank was invented a the end of the Middle Ages, but it wasn't ubiquitous until the 20th century. In addition to the $223 trillion debt which is 313% of global GDP, there is something on the order of $quadrillion of derivatives and another $quadrillion of actuarial promises to society which are unfunded. Central banking being the omnipresent lender of last resort is the cause of humongous monstrosity, because it prevented liquidation of TBTF throughout the 20th century.

For example the emerging markets are heavily laden with corporate dollar bond debt because due to ZIRP the fixed income investments (e.g. pensions) were forced to seek higher returns abroad. Thus emerging markets are mathematically betting short the dollar. Thus as capital flees the peripheral (i.e. non-reserve currency) markets (to include Europe and Japan by next year), there will be massive strength in the value of the reserve currency (the dollar) in 2015 and concomitant doubling in the NYSE index. This would put a spiraling (the toilet bowl) pressure on emerging markets, because they will be repaying debt with weakening local currencies. This will spiral until they exhaust dollar reserves and default on external debt, because once you take away the bubble veneer, none of them have positive current accounts. Argentina is approaching default the earliest probably in 2016.

Central banking is an abject failure.

But there is currently no better solution on tap. The fundamental issue and potential solution is much deeper than I can insert into a blog comment.

[vleroybrown]

Buffet is right.. He is releasing TRAINCOIN next month!  Allllll ABOARD  CHOOO CHOOOO MFERS!!!

[jonald_fyookball]

Buffet wrong just like Alan Greenspan and Jamie Dimon.

there's a lot of other wealthy powerful people who say just the opposite.

[AnonyMint]

Buffet wrong just like Alan Greenspan and Jamie Dimon.

there's a lot of other wealthy powerful people who say just the opposite.

What qualities does Buffet have in common with Greenspan and Dimon?

Buffet invests for long-term, conservative income. His favorite holding period is forever.

Greenspan is a shrill for central banking. Dimon is member of the investment (e.g. junk bonds, etc) bankers who privatize profits and charge speculative losses to the public.

Buffet is tied into central banking and government because he needs his long-term business investments to not be subject to a global economic collapse and because he needs regulatory licenses for his Geico insurance, Wells Fargo bank, etc.. But his investment acumen is not of the same quality as the two you mentioned.

[jonald_fyookball]

I never said they have anything in common.  (Just that they all are naysayers and get press.)

[BigBoy89]

He doesn't understand concept of bitcoin
if he undestand enough, he will invest to BTC too
or maybe he said like that to wait BTC price down and buy a lot BTC for himself?

[toknormal]

toknormal, I already explained upthread that offchain accounts lead to fractional reserves and failure

LoL. That's like saying that "not trading in gold" leads to fractional reserves and failure. Is that gold's problem ?

You haven't thought this through. I'm afraid the only alternative to trading in proxies for value is a barter economy.

Whatever the pros and cons of a crypto-economy, speed of transactions, consumer protection et al have nothing to do with a given medium's suitability to act as a store of value.

[Sitarow]

He is wrong. Just like he was wrong about Microsoft and Facebook.

Can you please explain why he is wrong

Bitcoin protocol is akin to tcp/ip for authenticated messaging.

Sure it is being used and pushed as a payment process.

Unlike promissory notes from one bank to another (not all banks trust one another), the present use of this protocol and its network participants is just one way to utilize this tool.

This technology has far greater implications and usage than most "established" businessmen understand.

[BitCoinDream]

Buffet is right for choosing a stock. But while it comes to internet, follow Winklevoss, the Buffet of the internet.

[AnonyMint]

The intellectual content of the comments has increased significantly. I appreciate this one:

toknormal, I already explained upthread that offchain accounts lead to fractional reserves and failure

LoL. That's like saying that "not trading in gold" leads to fractional reserves and failure. Is that gold's problem ?

Yes it is gold's fault (and kudos/thanks for pointing that out), because gold has severe weaknesses such that it can't be realistically employed in commerce and thus lead to the use of proxies instead:

• Can't be instantly transferred across distance
• Physically visible thus a target for theft and confiscation- think roadblocks and holdups
• Each unit of gold has only one copy, thus if you lose the one copy you've lost its value.
• Standardized units (e.g. coins) depend on centralized authority for reputation, are not easily divisible, and can be shaved or filled with impurities.

If you've noticed, crypto-currency doesn't have those weaknesses, yet also lacks one critically important quality that gold has:

• anonymity

You haven't thought this through. I'm afraid the only alternative to trading in proxies for value is a barter economy.

That changed when Satoshi invented a solution to the Byzantine General's problem, known as proof-of-work.

Whatever the pros and cons of a crypto-economy, speed of transactions, consumer protection et al have nothing to do with a given medium's suitability to act as a store of value.

Disagree. Gold maintains value because it has physical rareness (along with being durable, fungible, divisible with some effort, etc). Crypto-currency has no such rareness and can be easily duplicated. The value of crypto-currency has always been its ability to do autonomous (i.e. onchain) decentralized transactions due to proof-of-work.

If you remove that with offchain, then you've destroyed the only value that was there.

It is hoped that if there is value due to the onchain capability that the community will not prefer duplicates. It may also be the case that over time there will be too many network effects of higher degree (not just merchants who only accept one of the crypto-currencies), so duplicates are not desirable. We don't yet have that with Bitcoin because it doesn't have anonymity and also it can't do everything onchain including represent stocks, contracts, etc...partially due to technical reasons and partially due to lack of development and community adoption of decentralized onchain paradigms.

He is wrong. Just like he was wrong about Microsoft and Facebook.

Can you please explain why he is wrong

Bitcoin protocol is akin to tcp/ip for authenticated messaging.

Sure it is being used and pushed as a payment process.

Unlike promissory notes from one bank to another (not all banks trust one another), the present use of this protocol and its network participants is just one way to utilize this tool.

This technology has far greater implications and usage than most "established" businessmen understand.

+1. Very astute. Thanks.