Financial topics

[aeden]

I was hired to do a job said the President.
Republican efforts to suppress the vote as "un-American" as Georgia's state House and Senate passed
a sweeping bill that would vastly limit access to the ballot.
As you can see both Party's pretend not to get it.
Beamed in got called out and they cannot win with a straight face.
They are judged from a higher Court. Poor bastards.

[aeden]

Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

[Higgenbotham]

You told John only a few days ago that you can't prove to him that Bitcoin is not a bubble. Now you can?

Obviously, I accept that it isn't a bubble based on several data points. He has a non-falsifiable approach that I don't, that's why "I can't prove it to him" = he won't let the facts or me persuade him. In this manner, I stick to scientific principles. He will not allow for it to be proven to him, because he can't set criteria that will sate him. I'm not that way. Are you?

I'll take a pass on this one.

As far as Metcalfe's Law, you seem to think there is some secret sauce you're aware of that distinguishes you from the mass of ignorants who are not as aware as you are. That seems to apply to all topics you give opinions on. You've made similar references to stock to flow. So here's what I don't want to do. I don't want to try to tell you anything. I want you to continue to believe that I don't understand Metcalfe's Law or stock to flow and the only reason I'm not a believer in Bitcoin is because there are things you understand that I don't. Please continue to believe what you post.

[Cool Breeze]

Here's your problem, and why you can't think straight about this topic: everything is a bubble to you. You can't even differentiate value from a bubble, because your whimsical approach doesn't define what either is. Sorry, you don't get to just declare something is a bubble without any reasoning. Tell me something that ISN'T a bubble (for example, something that is increasing in price, just to make it a comparison) and why?

I hope everyone notices the response to this, will yet again, be a nothing answer.

The trick isn't in differentiating value from a bubble. It's not an either/or proposition. We're in an all one market bubble where, as I've said, there are ~5,000 bubble items to differentiate. The trick is to differentiate relative value within the all one market bubble. At any given time, there will be a few items out of those ~5,000 that represent the best relative value. I look at my job as to find those and flip them as their price goes up and other items displace them as having better relative value.

Ok, I agree with this. (-:

[Cool Breeze]

You told John only a few days ago that you can't prove to him that Bitcoin is not a bubble. Now you can?

Obviously, I accept that it isn't a bubble based on several data points. He has a non-falsifiable approach that I don't, that's why "I can't prove it to him" = he won't let the facts or me persuade him. In this manner, I stick to scientific principles. He will not allow for it to be proven to him, because he can't set criteria that will sate him. I'm not that way. Are you?

I'll take a pass on this one.

As far as Metcalfe's Law, you seem to think there is some secret sauce you're aware of that distinguishes you from the mass of ignorants who are not as aware as you are. That seems to apply to all topics you give opinions on. You've made similar references to stock to flow. So here's what I don't want to do. I don't want to try to tell you anything. I want you to continue to believe that I don't understand Metcalfe's Law or stock to flow and the only reason I'm not a believer in Bitcoin is because there are things you understand that I don't. Please continue to believe what you post.

No, there are a lot of smart people, smarter than I am and smarter than you are, and far wealthier, that have actually put their money on it to boot. They do because of the REASONS I have stated; they come to the same conclusions because they are really likely to occur, persist, remain, etc.

You have never answered what WOULD make you a believer in BTC. The reason this is a problem is that you clearly believe in certain things and when you do, you buy them. So you hold the same paradigm, you just don't like BTC but you don't give any real reason. Everything in the universe is a speculation, and everything has to start as something that doesn't have history. I'm just telling you that this is going to last, and I give reasons. You just say no and don't give real reasons, you just state meaningless words like "bubble" which is not a reason.

So either tell me that the masses have to accept BTC and you have to see it as an end product, then you'll believe in it, or stop trying to act like you have reasons, because you don't. Either way, my point is proved. By the time it is legit, you will be back at square 1 looking for the next thing to "make it" but for some reason you don't want to give that to BTC, you wait for other things you are comfortable buying into, and suggest there is a reason there that is unlike BTC, but in reality it's the same thing (you buy it because you believe that others are not seeing the value, but eventually will when it realizes).

This is basic but very important. Others who are open minded will understand. Perhaps you will now, too. I don't know.

[Higgenbotham]

You've demonstrated nothing. I will never put a penny into Bitcoin. Please continue to believe what you believe.

I will continue to add your talking points to the list of bubble talking points and update that as you post them. And I've learned from your posts that there is another list to generate - the "secret sauce" talking points.

[aeden]

The study of networks and network science as most network models fail to capture the costs or loss of value of exclusion from the network.
We get the reference no Biggy Cariboo. This was the ip6 packet identification map of routers you must garner to your actual vulnerability that will be utilized. We do not have enough time to explain the router protocols that can be used against you. Remember we did for a living and why do think the great fire was not a one off. They got powned and decided to eliminate traffic to issues before you had been conceived. More than not they are still stuck at red and black ants diatribes while goods and services are produced in contracts under purview. It should settle down as the narrative hone in the stupidity of the American voters.

thread: Unit 78020
The only people who believe, are paid to. The rest have already been labeled idiots.

One might ask the question, "Aren't American socialists in favor of their own country's survival?"
To answer this question, we must turn to abnormal psychology.

“We rely upon the stupidity of the American voter” gruber

[Higgenbotham]

It might be worthwhile to collect some phrases that people were using at the top of the stock (2000)... bubble...

Stocks in 2000
Stocks return more than any asset class over time.
It's a new era.
People just don't get it.
He gets it.
Dow 100,000.

Thanks to Cool Breeze, for the 2021 Bitcoin Bubble, I can now generate an equivalent list to this one I posted in 2011 for the 2000 Stock Market Bubble. It's nearly identical, but there's an additional phrase to add: Bitcoin has special features that give it value.

So here are the complete lists for comparison that I will be working off:


Year 2000 Stock Market Bubble

Stocks earn more than any asset class over time.
It's a new era.
People just don't get it.
He gets it.
Dow 100,000.


Year 2021 Bitcoin Bubble

Bitcoin has outperformed every other asset in history.
It's a new era.
People just don't understand it.
Bitcoin has special features that give it value.
He understands it.
Bitcoin 100K.


I think the reason the additional tout that "Bitcoin has special features that give it value" is necessary is because stocks have earnings or may have earnings in the future, so this additional justification was not needed during the Year 2000 stock market bubble. All that was needed was to talk about the incredible amounts of money these companies were going to make. Since it's obvious that Bitcoin is worth nothing and anybody can see it, similar to the Hans Christian Andersen tale "The Emperor has no Clothes", something must be said to give justification to the price, any price. The obvious thing to say, therefore, is that Bitcoin has special features that give it value.

[aeden]

Now seeking its 22nd IMF program since 1956.
Gellin Yellon for 650 billion down payment on a North America taxpayer now unrecognizable crushed into debt bondage
as the show kicks in to high gear with body farm ear tag maniacs'.

[Higgenbotham]

Who should be listened to when trying to determine whether Bitcoin has value or is a bubble?

At the top of any bubble, by definition, the maximum number of participants will have been sucked in. Likely, there will be a well known person, probably several, who is touting it for whatever reason, probably to induce greater fools to buy. For example, at the top of the South Sea Bubble, it is known that Isaac Newton had a very large position in the South Sea Company, and it can be imagined that many people thought that was sufficient reason to be in South Sea Company stock.

My guess is the best bet to determine whether Bitcoin has value or is a bubble is to find the opinions of Nobel Prize winning economists and to critically think about the reasons they give. One may agree or disagree with those reasons. To that end, I found many Nobel Prize winning economists who have weighed in on this topic. There's no scarcity of information in that regard.

I just finished going through everything I could find from Nobel Prize winners in Economics. In particular, I was looking for opinions from people who are not very prominent in the media, people other than Shiller, Krugman, and Stiglitz. I found several besides those, around 6. Mostly, I would characterize them as hesitant to say much. The best example of such responses I can think of is here: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/good-dru ... 03784.html I couldn't tell for sure from reading these types of articles whether they generally think the issue is simple and needs no further explanation or whether it seems too difficult for them to say much more, but it seems to be the latter. I wasn't able to glean any new ideas from any such articles.