Bitcoin....who's gotten into it?

[shera]

I swapped more bitcoin for chainlink, now feel like I'm in deep enough. We'll see.

[MakersTeleMark]

Link has been down steadily against BTC since 2020. I don't see how that makes any sense.
https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/chainlink/btc

[byates1]

I know nothing about chain link, old one I believe. She must have conviction.

[byates1]

https://dailyhodl.com/2024/03/22/167...line-insanity/

168B in 20 days. No big deal.

Thank God our elected officials are so wise w our money. It's over. Clown show.

[garyfromterrace]

https://dailyhodl.com/2024/03/22/167...line-insanity/

168B in 20 days. No big deal.

Thank God our elected officials are so wise w our money. It's over. Clown show.

So I googled "is the daily hodl a legitimate news source?":

The Daily Hodl strives for editorial and factual accuracy. However, The Daily Hodl does not warrant that the content of this site is error-free. Content on The Daily Hodl may in fact not be accurate, complete, reliable or current, including content labeled as “news”, “press release”, “sponsored” or “guest blog”.

Yeah, ok. I see very similar disclaimers on all the news sources I rely on. NOT.
Bitcoin is a fucking Ponzi Scheme. Fact.

[jackstraw]

My people!!!

"The value of the Bitcoin was worth around £2bn at the time of initial estimates - but due to the fluctuation in the currency's value, it has since increased to around £3.4bn."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-68620253.ampAttachment 491434

Yeah. The theft and fraud with Bitcoin, especially in the early days was horrible. At least now they can trace some or most? But if it's going to Putin's hacking army that money is long gone.

[byates1]

Adding 168B of wasteful spending in 20 days of our money is theft of the highest order.

[Harry]

Adding 168B of wasteful spending in 20 days of our money is theft of the highest order.

What does that have to do with Bitcoin though ?


Sent from my island using TGR Forums

[Bunion 2020]

Even better, wtf does that even mean?

[J. Barron DeJong]

Even better, wtf does that even mean?

Nothing. It means nothing.

Even the politicians who complain about it don’t actually believe there’s much there.

In graphic form:

[byates1]

yeah everything is fine. nevermind.

[J. Barron DeJong]

yeah everything is fine. nevermind.

Government spending is fine:



Taxes need to be increased to pay for it. Try focusing on real problems.

On the upside, since spending isn’t actually that high, it’s not a dire situation. The capacity to pay is there, it’s just the will that’s missing.

[byates1]

I'm not paying.

[byates1]

Killdozer BTC marches on

[shera]

Killdozer BTC marches on

70k - the battle over the prev ath.

This is fun.

[MultiVerse]

These guys are insane: https://mises.org/mises-wire/deflati...s-good-economy

First, let’s define inflation in a way that no one else does, and under our unique definition of inflation, you all are wrong and stupid.

Check…

Now our theory says that printing money MUST lead to prolonged slumps, and we’re quite fond of our theory, so we’re just not going to bother to check the historical record to see if the theory holds.

… and, mate.

Suck it socialists! (Anyone not a libertarian is a socialist, I believe?)

After reading the article and Jong's response, it's hard to say who is more badly misinformed. I think you have to go with Jong and internet Austrians are equally ignorant of economics. Jong's fundamental error is not understanding a simple identity. The article defines deflation: "inflation is an increase in the money supply, deflation is a decrease in the money supply." At an aggregate level that's fairly accurate. The Fed controls the nominal supply of money and the public controls demand for money through the Equation of Exchange::

MV=PT = P=M/(M/P) = inflation/deflation = (money supply rate of growth) – (% change the real demand for money)

Where P = price level, and M = money supply. So the article is using a standard definition of deflation where deflation is just the sign change of inflation. Over time the rates of M and P rarely diverge by more than ten percent except when there's a crisis causing either T = transactions or V = velocity of money to rise or fall dramatically. In an accounting sense it's all pretty standard.

Where internet Austrians, like the Mises article, go off the rails is they tend to only look at money growth (usually M2) without taking into account peoples demand for money. The article correctly defines deflation as a good thing when it comes from technological innovation, but falsely defines all deflation as good when there's bad deflation too caused by falling demand or falling supply.

Where socialist Jongs go off the rails is with the opposite side of the same coin. The government is in fact resource constrained by inflation. Economic fads go in and out of style. Just a couple of years ago MMTers held a lot of weird beliefs about how government spending doesn't matter. Now those views are sidelined by high rates of inflation. Krugman led the point of view inflation is transitory (cleverly updated to 'long transitory') and there are still people making that argument even though a reasonable definition of 'transitory' implies doing very little, not the Fed raising rates very fast from 0% to 5%.

To summarize, internet Austrians and Jongs rely on soundbites and false narrative because they are badly misinformed about mainstream macro economic thinking. The most important takeaway: 1) other things besides government debt drive inflation, and 2) governments can run deficits but not without real constraints destroying its currency.

[shera]

Sorry I am trying to learn something here, this is hard, but why do you say " The article correctly defines deflation as a good thing when it comes from technological innovation, but falsely defines all deflation as good when there's bad deflation too caused by falling demand or falling supply."

Why is falling demand or supply bad? Is this demand/supply of goods/services or of money?

I don't have a problem with Keynesian economics simply because reasonably intelligent people that specialize promote it across many wealthy democracies around the world. It's de facto anyway so what's the point of fighting for change, wasted breath and why? Austrian is an unknown to me in practice. If it has worked well somewhere I would like to know.

All that said, I like the hard properties of bitcoin and see it as an upgrade to gold as a store of value. An ounce of gold will always buy a good suit? I'm not sure that index funds can do the same job any more. Also opportunity for outsized returns on bitcoin due to adoption, maybe over the next ten years?

[shera]

I have some libertarian tendencies and some socialist tendencies so I wouldn't fit into the predefined boxes. And I'm sure not into playing red team vs blue team, stupid game could've been invented by the romans for the arena...mob control cr@p.

[summit]

After reading the article and Jong's response, it's hard to say who is more badly misinformed. I think you have to go with Jong and internet Austrians are equally ignorant of economics. Jong's fundamental error is not understanding a simple identity. The article defines deflation: "inflation is an increase in the money supply, deflation is a decrease in the money supply." At an aggregate level that's fairly accurate. The Fed controls the nominal supply of money and the public controls demand for money through the Equation of Exchange::

MV=PT = P=M/(M/P) = inflation/deflation = (money supply rate of growth) – (% change the real demand for money)

Where P = price level, and M = money supply. So the article is using a standard definition of deflation where deflation is just the sign change of inflation. Over time the rates of M and P rarely diverge by more than ten percent except when there's a crisis causing either T = transactions or V = velocity of money to rise or fall dramatically. In an accounting sense it's all pretty standard.

Where internet Austrians, like the Mises article, go off the rails is they tend to only look at money growth (usually M2) without taking into account peoples demand for money. The article correctly defines deflation as a good thing when it comes from technological innovation, but falsely defines all deflation as good when there's bad deflation too caused by falling demand or falling supply.

Where socialist Jongs go off the rails is with the opposite side of the same coin. The government is in fact resource constrained by inflation. Economic fads go in and out of style. Just a couple of years ago MMTers held a lot of weird beliefs about how government spending doesn't matter. Now those views are sidelined by high rates of inflation. Krugman led the point of view inflation is transitory (cleverly updated to 'long transitory') and there are still people making that argument even though a reasonable definition of 'transitory' implies doing very little, not the Fed raising rates very fast from 0% to 5%.

To summarize, internet Austrians and Jongs rely on soundbites and false narrative because they are badly misinformed about mainstream macro economic thinking. The most important takeaway: 1) other things besides government debt drive inflation, and 2) governments can run deficits but not without real constraints destroying its currency.

Good post

[MultiVerse]

Sorry I am trying to learn something here, this is hard, but why do you say " The article correctly defines deflation as a good thing when it comes from technological innovation, but falsely defines all deflation as good when there's bad deflation too caused by falling demand or falling supply."

Why is falling demand or supply bad? Is this demand/supply of goods/services or of money?

I don't have a problem with Keynesian economics simply because reasonably intelligent people that specialize promote it across many wealthy democracies around the world. It's de facto anyway so what's the point of fighting for change, wasted breath and why? Austrian is an unknown to me in practice. If it has worked well somewhere I would like to know.

All that said, I like the hard properties of bitcoin and see it as an upgrade to gold as a store of value. An ounce of gold will always buy a good suit? I'm not sure that index funds can do the same job any more. Also opportunity for outsized returns on bitcoin due to adoption, maybe over the next ten years?

1) The answer to the first question is both. There can be real supply & demand shocks, and there can be nominal supply & demand shocks. Nominal shocks can happen in the form of a liquidity crisis, which is what we saw in 2008.

2) Keynesian economics has evolved (now called new-Keynesian or the monetary-Keynesian synthesis). Keynesian thinking doesn't per se argue for large government deficits except during a crisis. The way it was supposed to work is for governments to run deficits during recessions and surpluses during booms.

People often associate deficits with Keynesianism. But, big deficits don’t necessarily mean higher interest rates because real interest rates are determined by financial markets. Deficits are not necessarily a problem if rates stay low. They become a big problem when rates rise because of the cost associated with servicing the debt. That's a real constraint. It's kind of a tautology—deficits aren't a problem, until they are.

Just as a thought experiment, I think everyone can agree hyperinflation is caused by way, way, too much money printing. I think everyone can agree on that. But if that's the case then it stands to reason the money supply also controls nominal GDP growth (Nominal GDP = Real GDP plus or minus inflation)

[J. Barron DeJong]

Good post

Way to once again argue a point I did not in fact make, and assume I don’t know things I do.

Nothing you say here is anything I don’t know. Nothing you say here is a contradiction to what I said.

Did the article I linked to mention ‘velocity of money’?

No, it did not.

Go fuck yourself again and again.

ETA: directed at MV, obviously.

[Foggy_Goggles]

Solid 300 level Econ rant

I'm giving it +500 winning the internet points, no for factual accuracy (I have no idea, my econ degree is 30 years stale), but for effort and giving me some good search terms for econ youtubes.

Zero points for the go fuck yourself response. I suggest a more well crafted style burn.

Sent from my SM-X200 using Tapatalk

[byates1]

After reading the article and Jong's response, it's hard to say who is more badly misinformed. I think you have to go with Jong and internet Austrians are equally ignorant of economics. Jong's fundamental error is not understanding a simple identity. The article defines deflation: "inflation is an increase in the money supply, deflation is a decrease in the money supply." At an aggregate level that's fairly accurate. The Fed controls the nominal supply of money and the public controls demand for money through the Equation of Exchange::

MV=PT = P=M/(M/P) = inflation/deflation = (money supply rate of growth) – (% change the real demand for money)

Where P = price level, and M = money supply. So the article is using a standard definition of deflation where deflation is just the sign change of inflation. Over time the rates of M and P rarely diverge by more than ten percent except when there's a crisis causing either T = transactions or V = velocity of money to rise or fall dramatically. In an accounting sense it's all pretty standard.

Where internet Austrians, like the Mises article, go off the rails is they tend to only look at money growth (usually M2) without taking into account peoples demand for money. The article correctly defines deflation as a good thing when it comes from technological innovation, but falsely defines all deflation as good when there's bad deflation too caused by falling demand or falling supply.

Where socialist Jongs go off the rails is with the opposite side of the same coin. The government is in fact resource constrained by inflation. Economic fads go in and out of style. Just a couple of years ago MMTers held a lot of weird beliefs about how government spending doesn't matter. Now those views are sidelined by high rates of inflation. Krugman led the point of view inflation is transitory (cleverly updated to 'long transitory') and there are still people making that argument even though a reasonable definition of 'transitory' implies doing very little, not the Fed raising rates very fast from 0% to 5%.

To summarize, internet Austrians and Jongs rely on soundbites and false narrative because they are badly misinformed about mainstream macro economic thinking. The most important takeaway: 1) other things besides government debt drive inflation, and 2) governments can run deficits but not without real constraints destroying its currency.

Appreciate your insight.

Bottom line for me: I don't like how cavalier we are w our money, our gov is mainly a bunch of nepotistic morans, shit is getting.way too far over our tips.

[stalefish3169]

Even gold miners know that BTC is the future.

https://twitter.com/DylanLeClair_/st...7Ctwgr%5Etweet

[J. Barron DeJong]

Even gold miners know that BTC is the future.

https://twitter.com/DylanLeClair_/st...7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Am I right in seeing that this company has a stock price of less than two cents, and a market cap of less than 5 million?