Ok so @tecate has the respected Krugman card to play, and now you have the respected Ammous card to play, from your standpoint. Where are going with all of this?
Last edited:
Bitcoin in a hyperbolic bubble
- Thread starter Duke of Marmalade
- Start date
- Status
Ok so @tecate has the respected Krugman card to play, and now you have the respected Ammous card to play, from your standpoint. Where are going with all of this?
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
Exactly and one would have thought that bitcoin would have been fertile ground for further disagreement. It is the (near) universal agreement that impresses me. But for avoidance of doubt my skepticism on crypto does not rely in any significant way on this observation.Wolfe Tone said:
Ah, nice move Duke, in chess terms this I think is called "Check". Can I avert this threat. Let's see.
You make a claim of "(near) universal agreement".
For sure, I concede that you can produce a series of heavy-hitters, an almost Olympian dream-team if you like, Krugman, Stiglitz, Roubini,Thaler, and others,....it is quite impressive. And, im not churlish enough not to acknowledage that such a formidable force will bring behind it a resolute cadre of flag-waving fellow economists. Either nodding in agreement (well, if they so...) or, buoyed in their own right that their own conclusions have received the royal endorsement (I told you so!...).
Two points.
The (near) universal agreement is a stretch. Aside from Roubini, little economic research has been done on bitcoin and even what research has been done (Roubini) it is questionable whether it is now, or ever been, on target. It's possible he has been digging in the wrong place. The more I learn about bitcoin, the more I am leaning to that conclusion.
In the main, it is my impression that the economic profession is broadly silent on bitcoin. It is silent because for the most part most are unsure of what it is, and for those who do comment on it, it is predominantly centered around its price action. Namely, anything that rises so fast and so high in value is sure to crash.
Guess what, if we were talking solely about price action I would agree with that also.
Secondly, as I have been pointing out, I am wary of economists giving verdicts on new technologies in industries removed from their field of expertise. I would rather judge economists, and their expertise, on matters of economics.
In no small part macro economics.
Now I will be first to acknowledge their expertise in the field of economics. However, a peculiarity in this field is Roubini's own status. In his own words he became "famous" for predicting the great financial crash. So much so they call him "Dr Doom!"
Now forgive me for thinking it is somewhat an oddity for an economist to become famous for studying economic data and making a correct economic prediction. What next? Mechanic replaces oil in car and declares engine will run smoother?
Of course I'm being facetious here. In order to become "famous" for economic predictions, one would have to stand out from the crowd.
Or to put it another way, to become famous for predicting an economic forecast, there would have to be (near) universal skepticism of his analysis of economic data by all the other economists. Otherwise he would not have become famous.
Economic forecasting is the bread-and-butter of the economic profession. If the profession itself, at a (near) universal scale is analysing the data that Roubini analysed and could not see what he saw, it is indeed a sorry state of affairs.
But in this discourse it is obviously in my interest to beat down on the economists. So I'm reminded of article where they do it themselves
This is how we let the credit crunch happen, m'am
Your move.
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
@WolfeTone I am just saying that the absence amongst bitcoin enthusiasts of any heavyweight economist (sorry Veldes and Amoss are not in that division) Is telling. I am not saying it is checkmate.
The recent 3 fold rise in BTC is extraordinary and I haven’t a clue how 2021 will finish but surely a repeat of 2018 can’t be a remote possibility. Get out while you can and while it exceeds your target price and don’t accept any of that Tether rubbish.
The recent 3 fold rise in BTC is extraordinary and I haven’t a clue how 2021 will finish but surely a repeat of 2018 can’t be a remote possibility. Get out while you can and while it exceeds your target price and don’t accept any of that Tether rubbish.
And Im just saying, it is not telling, not telling at all!
My point is, if trying to understand understand bitcoin do not limit your understanding to economists. For sure, a robust and healthy dose of skepticism is overall beneficial. But you have to be minded to think that perhaps maybe, some of them are looking at bitcoin from the wrong perspective? They have plenty of form in that regard, as the chief Professor of economiss to the London School of Economics testified to his Queen.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
Yes, that seems to be a factor - a big fear of hyperinflation even collapse of our economic system. Antonopoulos (Mr Bitcoin) going so far as to state that he hopes that won’t happen.
But if that were the main explanation wouldn’t gold be also shooting the lights out?
Gold has gone sideways since last September, bitcoin has increased 250%, go figure
But if that were the main explanation wouldn’t gold be also shooting the lights out?
Gold has gone sideways since last September, bitcoin has increased 250%, go figure
Perhaps, but whatever about allegations of bitcoin price manipulation, we know as fact gold price manipulation.
JP Morgan fine
Secondly, the gold market is worth around €9trn?
If bitcoin was not a player, perhaps gold would be worth €9.5trn?
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
Yes, that probably explains it. JP Morgan have turned their spoofing to bitcoin - 10 times its price by 2022.
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
This doesn't make any sense to me. If bitcoin warrants a 250% rise because of its Hyperinflation Insurance then, presuming gold has similar HI characteristics to bitcoin, it too should be showing huge rises. You seem to think that for gold to increase by 250% would need over $20trn to enter the market. Not at all, the price could go there with scarcely any transactional activity at all.
So, other than the JP Morgan spoof (not to be trivialised) nothing has occurred in recent months to give bitcoin such a huge increase, not only against the $ but also against gold.
DazedInPontoon
Registered User
- Messages
- 356
Firstly there was a significant amount of Institutional investment. Secondly, this was enough to be a signal to old time bitcoiners and retail 'investors' that the next growth cycle is beginning, especially when the previous all-time-high was breached.
I'm not sure I understand where you're going with that? Are you suggesting a price collapse and if so, what's the catalyst? How would this give Biden a problem?
Not at all, Duke.
I do not know why the price of gold is subdued. I accept that the proven allegations of malpractice with regards its price will have something to do with it. Im not sure if JP Morgan were the only ones doing it, or just the only one who got caught doing it on a provable scale. There may be others, many others. But Im just speculating, similar to the tether/bitcoin speculation.
The other thing is the gold market is a long established market. From the individual, to the corporation, to the sovereign state, that gold is long accepted on a global scale as a form of money.
Bitcoin is nowhere near that scale of acceptance, it has merely peeped its head over parapet of the global financial system.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
I don't understand your reference to Au going from 9trn to 9.5trn.
Watched Coindesk News. It interviews a few crypto "experts" regarding the surge in price. Explanations seem to split evenly between institutional involvement and hyperinflation hedge. One guy repeated the argument that it was a combination of the increase in institutional demand and the reduction in supply because of the halving. This is such an unreal world that I have to fact check all statements. I can confirm that the supply of bitcoins is higher now than it has ever been.
Don't get hung up on it, as I said I don't really know why the price of gold is subdued.
You do know that it is a reference to the supply of new bitcoin that the halving refers to?
Before Christmas you said that the btc price should be so much higher if monetary expansion was a driver. Now its much higher and you're still not happy. Gold is much higher over the last 18 months and you figure that bitcoin shouldn't outperform it even though its a much younger asset that is coming of age. Also, there has been some limited move from gold directly to bitcoin in recent weeks.But if that were the main explanation wouldn’t gold be also shooting the lights out?
Gold has gone sideways since last September, bitcoin has increased 250%, go figure
He knows well but he's trying to build a different narrative.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
As @tecate observes, I am well aware. I checked on Coindesk. Around 3 million bitcoins traded in the last 24 hours. Even if miners dump every single bitcoin they find as soon as they have washed them, that would account for less than 1k of that 3m i.e. less than 1 per 3 mil. How so called experts can argue that a halving of the new coin supply has any material impact on the supply/demand dynamic is really telling. The crypto phenomenon keeps telling me things.
- Status