Lot of cherry picking in that analysis and also you are comparing index whereas I meant individual tech stocks. Let’s not forget in speculative bubbles everything has downside volatility but lots of real and important assets undergo manias, real estate, railroads, even 1999 nasdaq then crashing 90%, left out of the analysis conveniently.
I’d go as far as the argue that given the grandiose goal of competing with sovereign fiat as modern private currency, the volatility of Bitcoin is likely lower than one could reasonably expect. If we add in the reality that recent mania and crash was overwhelming instigated by perhaps the largest conventional or legacy financial fraud in modern history, FTX, then Bitcoin looks almost sleepy.
Even funnier in the cherry picked analysis was they included Turkish Lira and it was 8.83, it’s now 18.89 per dollar. It along with numerous other fiat currencies have much higher volatility than Bitcoin.
I'm glad you acknowledge that Bitcoin is vulnerable to having its value cut in half by the collapse of a single company.
People should probably continue to invest long term in index funds, advice that hasn't changed in decades.
Yes, I agree that it's a horrible situation that Americans depend on the stock market whims to retire, but that's more due to America's allergies to socialism than an indictment of the market itself. It's still a demonstrably better investment instrument.
Yes that’s certainly true that index funds are a much safer investment than Bitcoin. I wouldn’t dispute that.
It’s absolutely expected that risk assets will have high uncertainty around their prices. +/- 50% changes is absolutely normal in free markets for many risk assets.
Socialism provides no solutions but in this case there isn’t even a problem. Statism and socialism in my opinion are scourges of human civilization that bring nothing but misery and war. Viable modern private currency like Bitcoin provides great hope for humanity that the war machines funded by fiat currencies might have an end in sight, maybe in next 100 years. most people don’t realize that the type of money we use, fiat sovereign currency, was specifically invented to help wage war and specifically serves this purpose today as well.
I mentioned that Americans depend on the whims of the market for their retirement, rather than most developed nations which have pensions and government sponsored retirement. This is generally what people mean when they say "socialism" as described in the current capitalist system we all live under. In America, you call your politicians that advocate for this sort of thing, "democratic socialists." Bernie Sanders is an example.
Did you think I meant a socialist revolution seeking communism? Is that what you think Germans, Fins, Taiwanese, or Norwegians living on government pensions are doing lol? Well, that demonstrates my point re: americans are allergic to the word "socialism." I mentioned better ways for people to have a guaranteed retirement, such as a socialist policy of government pensions, and you immediately thought I was calling for a Stalinist regime?
Out of curiosity, are you an anarchocapitalist? It sounds like you believe a free market of bitcoin will grant people more freedom than socialistically regulated capitalism. That'd be nice, but the evidence doesn't seem to be in favor of this argument.
Confining socialism to government pension programs I would consider to be deceptive rebranding. I have no problem with government pension or insurance programs as long as governments don’t use monopoly power to ban private competition with such programs and the programs originate via democratic process. Socialism should be reserved as a label for direct government participation and control over economic activity. Of course there is a subtle nuance when redistribution programs are funded by unsustainable fiat money printing.
You asked if I identify with the label anarchocapitalist I don’t personally however I can seen why the need to label might result in that being applied to me when I try to explain my primary thesis. I will attempt it briefly.
However, first let me explain that local and small scale governments that advocate democratic socialism can be excellent healthy communities. The issue is with scale and comes to the fundamental issue of money. Money is a social construction is an often touted liberal arts viewpoint. I will counter that money is actually organic and natural and not purely a human social construct. There are many examples in animal world where organisms use a medium of exchange to collaborate. Experiments in primates show they will intrinsically create a currency framework if provided with an appropriate medium. Females of numerous animals regularly will exchange sexual behavior for food, often in desperation like humans, in situations of abundance they will stop this pattern.
Money and it’s characteristics have a profound impact on human social activity. Our current form of money, sovereign fiat, has only existed since 1000 AD in the east and not until early 1700s in the west. This money form enables war. Period. It was invented in all cases to enable states to wage war without actually having the resources to do so. Much like financial commentators discuss leverage, fiat currency, is the original leverage. Kings borrowing from the future, from their own population, using threat of force and sovereign power.
This fundamental dynamic has driven the last 300+ years of human history and conflict. Private currencies when previously flourished have promoted peace and rapid economic development, of course those period can also have manias and crashes but in comparison to world war are insignificant on the scale of human suffering.
Bitcoin represents the first viable attempt to challenge fiat currency as a form on money. It’s a very exciting development in human progress. Local and state governments promoting what you call socialism can potentially benefit as the enormous tax on human productivity extracted by large federal governments using fiat to fund their militaries and other forms of oppression and violence will be freed up.
I'm curious if you've read David Graeber's "Debt" and if so what were your thoughts? If not, I think you'd find his analysis interesting. It's an analysis that draws a very clear line between the idea of money and things that are valuable. For example, a primate trading sex for food wouldn't be an instance of using money in this framework. I also think you'd enjoy his exploration into the usage of currency as the means to, as you say, pay soldiers.
I think he references much older examples of doing so than the 1700s, such as Roman soldiers being paid in coin, but you might be talking about indications of credit (the early American dollar as an example). This also though has apparently been used for millennia, there's evidence of such in ancient sumeria.
> Local and state governments promoting what you call socialism can potentially benefit as the enormous tax on human productivity extracted by large federal governments using fiat to fund their militaries and other forms of oppression and violence will be freed up.
I'd like to understand better what you mean by this. Are you saying that a reduced usage of usd because people are buying good with Bitcoin (or "paper" issues of credit backed by Bitcoin and tracked by whatever cryptocurrency people call bank ledgers, considering the slow Bitcoin block write speed), will result in a real devaluation in the USD and thus a lesser ability for the USA to do imperialism and police brutality? This is a fascinating and unique argument and I'd like to hear more.
> I'm curious if you've read David Graeber's "Debt" and if so what were your thoughts? If not, I think you'd find his analysis interesting.
I haven’t. You’re correct. I really need to read his book even if I know there will be some conclusions I strongly disagree with. The anthropological analysis will be insightful.
> It's an analysis that draws a very clear line between the idea of money and things that are valuable. For example, a primate trading sex for food wouldn't be an instance of using money in this framework. I also think you'd enjoy his exploration into the usage of currency as the means to, as you say, pay soldiers.
My understanding is a currency medium can often be chosen which are dual use. Cigarettes in jails and we have many example of seeds being used. I’d also point out primates (and possibly other mammals) will adopt non-intrinsic value currency once humans introduce them to it in experiments. If they are taught an item is exchangeable for anything of value they will adopt it and start a micro-economy.
> I think he references much older examples of doing so than the 1700s, such as Roman soldiers being paid in coin, but you might be talking about indications of credit (the early American dollar as an example). This also though has apparently been used for millennia, there's evidence of such in ancient sumeria.
That is certainly true but subtly and critically different. Those coinages were not fiat, they were based on precious metals, and actually the attempt by the Romans to debase their metal backed currency to raise funds beyond their contributed to uncontrollable inflation which factored into to the collapse of Rome. The most important distinction of pure fiat is that the currency is not redeemable and is fundamentally backed by the violence of the state from collection of tax revenue and war and colonization. Western fiat started with Bank of England founding in 1694, explicitly to wage a war of revenge against France without the hard currency funds.
> I'd like to understand better what you mean by this. Are you saying that a reduced usage of usd because people are buying good with Bitcoin (or "paper" issues of credit backed by Bitcoin and tracked by whatever cryptocurrency people call bank ledgers, considering the slow Bitcoin block write speed), will result in a real devaluation in the USD and thus a lesser ability for the USA to do imperialism and police brutality? This is a fascinating and unique argument and I'd like to hear more.
Yes I absolutely. I’m saying that but even further. USD is global reserve and great financial benefits have always been given to the empire whom’s currency is the global reserve, gilder, sterling, this isn’t a new phenomenon.
If Bitcoin can challenge even a small portion of this status it can have an enormous effect. This effect will not be limited to only USD but all major fiat currencies and it can put significant pressure on the expansion of sovereign debt and central bank money creation. Critics of government debt love to focus on the social programs, and yes they can create massive economic inefficiency, extensive socialism is proven to be organically toxic in some sense, it’s simply unnatural when made extreme, however black white thinking can’t capture an important nuance of the balance between competition and collaboration, or socialist structures and capitalist, a healthy system needs a balance because social policies act like insurance systems, which we can prove enable increased risk taking, which enables faster innovation.
But let’s get back to the specifics. Military budgets are distinct in function from social redistribution programs. They purely expend resources not redistribute. Citizens are taxed across each layer of their society but the largest percentage is always the federal entity. This tax collection is only part of it, another huge tax is inflation along with issuance of huge amounts of federal government debt. Significant adoption of Bitcoin and other hard PoW cryptocurrency’s will upend this as reserves are moved to hard PoW private currencies and taxation via inflation and debt will be ineffective. However because local government taxes and budgets don’t utilize these monetary techniques they will not be effected in the same way. On the contrary because you can view society has having a certain optimal tax burden and redistribution framework, then federal burden is squeezing out local governments. The end of fiat currency could give rise to more city state, Renaissance like, structure.
Lastly, remember that industrialization is directly linked to increased government size and also war, this is because factories are large concentrated physical locations of economic production, they can be seized very easily with soldiers. My personal belief is that since crypto currencies are a form of private currency which are resistant to state violence and economic production is becoming so global and nimble, all these variables combined are pointing to the coming end of fiat and large federal governments world wide. Perhaps it will take around 100 years is my guess.
ps. sorry for delay in reply I was traveling with family and didn’t have any spare time.
It appears to be three times more volatile than NASDAQ in the short term, and twice as volatile in the long term. So, yes.
https://medium.com/swissquote-education/bitcoin-vs-risk-unde...