저자: 미상 · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 영상은 제이미 다이먼·찰리 멍거의 '비트코인은 내재가치가 없어 무가치하다'는 주장을 반박하는 강의다. 주장의 성격: 다이먼의 발언은 논증이라기보다 단정에 가깝고, 근거가 제시되지 않았다고 지적한다. 내재가치 개념 분석: 경제학에서는 펀더멘털 분석 기반 내재가치를 말하며, 비트코인 내재가치 계산은 어렵고 수요공급, stock-to-flow, 기대가치, 생산비용, 네트워크 가치 등 여러 방식이 존재한다. 모든 방식에서 0이 나온다는 증거는 없다. 고유 속성 관점: 비트코인은 익명성, 검열 저항성, 탈중앙성, 희소성 등 고유한 속성을 가지므로, 무가치하다는 보편 부정 명제는 성립하기 어렵다. 철학적 관점: 내재가치와 도구적 가치를 구분하면 화폐 일반(달러, 현금, 금)은 내재가치가 없다는 것이 표준 견해다. 따라서 비트코인만 문제 삼는 것은 일관성이 없다. 일관성 지적: 버크셔해서웨이와 JP모건도 막대한 현금을 보유하면서 현금에 내재가치가 없다는 점은 무시하고 있어 모순적이라고 본다. 주관주의 관점: 다이먼·멍거의 의견은 주관적 견해에 불과하며 구속력이 없다. 골드만삭스 CEO들의 비트코인 관심 사례도 언급된다. 예측 발언: 영상은 앞으로 1~3개월 가격 방향에 대한 예측을 하지 않는다.
다듬은 글
so today is the first installment of bad arguments and in this case we want to look at one consideration that's being advanced against bitcoin so if it's not a bad argument at least it is let's say an uncompelling consideration at least that's what i hope to demonstrate today and this one comes from jamie dimon when he says that bitcoin is quote worthless now who's jamie dimon he is the head honcho of jpmorgan chase one of the largest investment banks in the united states and indeed in the world but in fact this same charge that bitcoin is worthless also has been made by charlie munger who is known as warren buffett's right-hand man at berkshire hathaway and according to cnbc munger once stated that bitcoin is worthless and he likened it to artificial gold as for jamie dimon he expanded on the notion that bitcoin was worthless by saying that quote it has no intrinsic value strictly speaking i'm not sure that we would consider this to be an argument of any kind so it couldn't be a bad argument if it's not an argument at all clearly he's making a claim he's asserting something to be true but it's not clear that we should understand this to be an argument an argument is usually construed to be a set of sentences some subset of which called the premises have a special relationship with a further subset call the conclusions and usually that relationship is referred to as entailment so if you accept the premises you have to accept the conclusion at least that would be the case in a deductive argument so it's not clear that jamie diamond or charlie munger are advancing an argument of any kind unless you think that jamie dimon is saying bitcoin has no intrinsic value therefore it's worthless and that's his argument we'll examine some of this but it's probably best to just see those two claims as virtually synonymous he's saying that bitcoin is worthless and he's saying that what he means by that is it has no intrinsic value so intrinsic value is an important part of the diamond monger consideration so what does it mean well it shows up in two contexts the first context is in business and economics here intrinsic value is clearly qualitative and it is typically contrasted with extrinsic value now in business and economics the extrinsic value is more quantitative so an example of that might be if you and your friend want to make a bet as to what ant is going to cross your windowsill first there's no real deeper significance to that event there's no inherent value there's no qualitative value to that ant behavior or anything like that but if you can make a buck betting on that then it has some value for you but let's call that extrinsic value but what we're concerned with here is something that's not extrinsic but getting a fix on it is a bit difficult so for example investopedia speaks in one place as if intrinsic value at least for a company is quote the sum of all the companies assets minus its liabilities but on this definition it makes intrinsic value virtually synonymous with what is usually referred to as equity more typically the intrinsic value is contrasted against equity or other features that an asset can have for example it's market value and often this calculation this determination of intrinsic value is based on something referred to as fundamental analysis i'm not going to get very far into actually investigating what that is or how to perform it however suffice it to say that warren buffett is one of those people who has made this type of analysis fairly well known and warren buffett based his practices at least in part on a book by benjamin graham called the intelligent investor and in the book benjamin graham speaks of comparing a company's intrinsic value against its stock value as it might appear on the dow jones industrial average for instance so warren buffett's method of fundamental analysis involves determining this intrinsic value first and you do this by analyzing a number of what are termed business fundamentals including how much does a company bring in how much cash does it have on his balance sheets how many liabilities does it have and so forth and then you compare your calculation of intrinsic value to the value of the company for example again on some kind of a market index what's its stock worth so to analyze fundamentals number one is done in order to determine their intrinsic value and then you compare this to their market value what you're looking for are companies stocks assets that are quote undervalued meaning that their intrinsic value in your estimation is greater than their market value meaning they make it a deal for you to buy them because they're undervalued from the standpoint of the market now this is referred to sometimes as value investing and on this benjamin graham slash warren buffett approach there is an underlying assumption that the intrinsic value and the market value are going to come together at some point in time and that's often referred to as the principle of convergence without getting too deep into the weeds the fundamental point here is that you could understand what jamie dimon and what charlie munger are saying to basically be this that on some fundamental analysis bitcoin has a value of zero so it doesn't matter what its market value is if it's intrinsic value is zero it's never a good idea to buy it the problem with this is multiple first of all according to investopedia the calculation of intrinsic value is extremely difficult especially when it comes to cryptocurrency it's not clear how to perform that calculation so this is the first problem calculating bitcoin's intrinsic value is very difficult to do and one reason why it's difficult or thought of from a different perspective one outgrowth of its being difficult is that there are several different ways to make that calculation so the second and related problem is that there are different ways to perform a calculation for intrinsic value investopedia calls these competing approaches and without sketching the particulars here we'll just note the first one is supply and demand the second is called the stock to flow ratio other authors refer to this as the hardness factor how hard is bitcoin compared to other forms of money the third way is expected value making a guess as to how much that value is going to be in the future the fourth is cost to production how difficult is this particular asset to create and the fifth is something called network value the point here is that jamie dimon's charged that bitcoin is worthless if we understand it to be pertaining to some kind of fundamental analysis then what we have to ask ourselves is which of these is jamie dimon using in order to arrive at the conclusion that bitcoin's intrinsic value is zero and there are really two options it seems to me first of all he could be saying that regardless of the method you select bitcoin will be determined to have a zero intrinsic value on every way of performing this calculation in other words no matter which one you select supply and demand stock to flow expected value bitcoin always comes out as having zero value on any of those calculations the second way is he's saying that on at least one of these approaches bitcoin's value is calculated to be zero but in none of the articles that i consulted were we even given a single illustration of how one of these calculations shows that bitcoin equals zero so in other words there are five different ways to perform the calculation of intrinsic value on fundamental analysis and we are not even given one that shows bitcoin equaling zero let alone given five we're certainly not given five but even if we were given one spelled out calculation which bitcoin equals zero it wouldn't show that on the other four competing ways of evaluating bitcoin it would also equal zero on those other four ways so in other words we're not given any support for this claim whatsoever and here it's worth pointing out that other commentators certainly appear to think that bitcoin does have some value and we would presume at least a few of them perhaps michael saylor the ceo of microstrategy have carried out one or more of these other calculations and determined that bitcoin does have positive intrinsic value after all now an alternative to fundamental analysis would simply be to say that intrinsic value is whatever it is that makes a certain thing unique so the uniqueness of something is its intrinsic value but if jamie dimon and charlie munger are saying that bitcoin has no intrinsic value maybe what they mean then is that bitcoin has no unique properties so is that true is it true that bitcoin has no unique properties well it seems not there are a number of properties that have been associated with bitcoin including its ability for people to possess it anonymously for you to transact business without being traced resistance to regulation and so forth now to be sure sometimes these properties are referred to as anarchic properties and they're often used by people who are trying to disparage bitcoin or to say it's not worth using or purchasing it's not worth having maybe we should even outlaw it if we can and so these properties are controversial but certainly they're properties that seem to be unique but aside from these bitcoin also has somewhat more positive qualities including its decentralization its efficiency at transacting business the fact that it's limited in amount in theory is going to be a protection against inflation it's also secure in a way that other types of money other types of transaction are not so these at least seem to count as unique properties but then we should take a step back because the statement that bitcoin has no value in logic would be referred to as a universal negative and in logic a statement like that a universal negative is contradicted by a particular affirmative meaning that bitcoin has some value is enough to show that bitcoin has no value is false and if even one of those candidate unique properties pertains to bitcoin then it seems that the idea that bitcoin has some intrinsic value at least in terms of having some unique properties is a defensible statement now the second context in which the phrase intrinsic value is used is going to be more philosophical context it's often used in ethics for instance and here it refers to value that a thing possesses inherently or another way of saying that is intrinsic value is the value that something has in and of itself irrespective of anything external now some examples of this are flourishing or happiness or health in other words it is not typical for somebody to think that health isn't valuable in and of itself it's natural to think that being healthy is simply a good thing in and of itself on the other hand intrinsic value in a philosophical context is once again contrasted with extrinsic value but here it's more that we're thinking of instrumental value now to get a sense of what that means we can turn to an article on intrinsic value published in philosophical studies in the year 2001 and in that article we read that instrumental value is typically defined as value that is used as a means to some other end in other words if something has instrumental value then it's not valuable in and of itself rather it's valuable because of what you can get from it or what you can use it for and the most typical illustration of this that you'll find in the literature is money now we can go one step further than this if we turn to shelly kagan's textbook normative ethics we actually learn that money is not just an example of something with instrumental value but it's generally thought of as something that only has instrumental value in other words something is only instrumentally valuable then it is not intrinsically valuable at all so not to put too fine a point on it but the standard view is that money has no intrinsic value whatever value money has is simply due to its use its use it is an instrument not something intrinsically valuable but this means then that money of any kind lacks intrinsic value no kind of money has intrinsic value and therefore it's not surprising if we turn to investopedia that investopedia writes straight out quote fiat money has no intrinsic value now what is fiat money well if we go to the oxford dictionary we can look up fiat money and we read that fiat money is money that a government has declared to be legal tender even though it has no intrinsic value but then this means that the u.s dollar as a kind of fiat money would also lack intrinsic value max well known in internet circles at least as a proponent of bitcoin has stated the us dollar has no intrinsic value and this point is not unique to max kaiser for example wired.com ran a story in 2017 the title of which was yes bitcoin has no intrinsic value but neither does a one dollar bill or a hundred dollar bill for that matter but maybe none of those sources are persuasive to you how about the st louis federal reserve bank in an article titled three ways bitcoin is like regular currency from 2018 we read that one of the ways is that bitcoin and cash both have no intrinsic value now this isn't a video about gold so i don't want to get too far into this topic it is noteworthy i think that a representative of jp morgan has stated that gold has no intrinsic value either this is interesting to me because we do see in other of his statements that charlie monger does seem to be drawing a rather close connection between gold and bitcoin because he says since i never buy gold i never buy any bitcoin so he does seem to be consistent with respect to gold and bitcoin however it seems arguable that he's a bit inconsistent when it comes to dollars when it comes to cash berkshire hathaway loves its cash it has a huge stockpile of cash even though cash has no intrinsic value and this same inconsistency frankly seems apparent with jamie dimon's jp morgan because just as with berkshire hathaway jp morgan is also quote hoarding cash and as of june of 2021 apparently they had some 500 billion dollars in cash once again even though the dollar has no intrinsic value so they don't seem to be concerned with a lack of intrinsic value when it comes to the dollar somehow they are concerned with it when it comes to bitcoin it seems a bit inconsistent so in summary is bitcoin worthless we have to take a position on what constitutes value or worth so if we think that intrinsic value is bound up with what is referred to as fundamental analysis then the thing to say here would essentially be that there are five different ways to analyze business fundamentals at least five five bit investopedia mentions and it seems to me implausible to think that bitcoin's intrinsic value is zero on all five of these ways of performing the analysis on a somewhat separate but related trajectory if we think of intrinsic value as some constellation of properties that something has uniquely then the idea that bitcoin would be worthless has to mean that bitcoin has no unique properties but this just seems false bitcoin has numerous qualities that have been proposed as unique properties without repeating everything we said earlier again this might include its decentralized nature its enforced scarcity and other things beside now finally on a somewhat separate trajectory if we think of intrinsic value as being opposed to instrumental value then indeed we might think yeah bitcoin on a philosophical analysis then strictly speaking is an instrumentally valuable good and therefore would lack intrinsic value but we would hasten to add that this is no different than the us dollar it's no different than gold all of these on a philosophical way of thinking have instrumental value rather than intrinsic value and so bitcoin is no worse off than any of these other types of money now finally let me say something about the idea that value judgments might be subjective now i'm not a subjectivist but if a person were a subjectivist about value then the important thing to remember here charlie munger and jamie dimon have opinions but on a subjectivist view these opinions should carry no more weight than somebody who has opposite opinions somebody like michael saylor for example and relatedly and maybe even more importantly on a subjectivist view jamie diamond's opinion charlie munger's opinion shouldn't constrain you in any way if you're a subjectivist about value then you would think that you have just as much of a right or just as much of an ability to make a value assessment about bitcoin than any of these people and what they've said about it is irrelevant but maybe you think it's relevant simply because they have more competence maybe than you have so if you're worried about that idea that they're competent to perform this analysis and maybe you're not and we want to ignore for a minute people like max kaiser or michael saylor who are clearly bitcoin enthusiasts then maybe this additional consideration would be of interest to you one of jp morgan's main competitors in the investment banking space is goldman sachs it is interesting then that in 2018 the then ceo of goldman sachs said that it was quote arrogant to dismiss bitcoin now of course the ceo in 2018 was lloyd blankfein but this idea that bitcoin might be worth a second look is repeated by the person who took over for blank fine namely david solomon such that forbes was able to write in july of 2018 that goldman sachs new ceo is keen on bitcoin and crypto
댓글 0