저자: FernandoUlrich · 외국인
요약 보기
한 줄 결론: 발표자는 비트코인이 가치 없는 버블이라는 Peter Schiff의 주장을 반박하며, 금 역시 신뢰에 기반한 자산이므로 비트코인도 본질적으로 다르지 않다고 주장한다. [Peter Schiff 소개 및 과거 적중] 발표자는 2008~2009년 Peter Schiff에게 큰 영향을 받았다고 말한다. Schiff는 2005년 강연에서 미국 주택 버블을 예견했고, 2008년 금융위기 때 이를 정확히 짚었다는 평가를 받는다. [금에 대한 과거 주장과 현재 평가] Schiff는 금이 신뢰 회복 후 금본위제로 돌아갈 것이라고 봤다. 발표자는 2011~2012년까지 금이 800~900달러에서 1,900달러 역사적 고점까지 오른 좋은 투자였지만, 2013년 이후에는 대체로 횡보하는 평범한 투자였다고 평가한다. (자막 수치 일부 인식 불명확) [Schiff의 비트코인 비판 반박] 발표자는 Schiff가 비트코인을 투기적 광기, 이용 가치 없는 버블로 본다는 입장을 전하며 이를 틀렸다고 주장한다. 비트코인 가치가 다른 사람들이 계속 수용할 것이라는 기대에 기반한다는 점에서 금과 같은 구조라는 것이다. [본질적 가치와 신뢰 논쟁] 발표자는 '본질적 가치'라는 개념 자체를 부정한다. 가치는 주관적이며, 금도 다른 사람들이 계속 가치를 인정할 것이라는 신뢰에 기반한다고 본다. 금의 화폐적 가치는 전체 가치의 일부에 불과하다는 주장도 편다. [금 vs 비트코인 비교] 발표자는 금이 운송, 분할, 검증 측면에서 물리적 한계가 있어 미래 공통 화폐로는 가능성이 낮다고 본다. 반면 은은 화폐적 특성이 더 우수하다고 주장한다. 비트코인은 디지털 특성상 공급이 본래 희소하므로 금으로 담보할 필요가 없고, 담보는 제3자 신뢰를 다시 도입하는 모순이라고 주장한다. [결론 및 리스크] 발표자는 모든 자산의 가치가 신뢰에 기반하며 이는 금도 마찬가지라고 말한다. 자막 품질이 낮아 일부 내용은 불확실하다. [투자 관련 예측] 발표 내용 중 비트코인·금·기타 대상 자산의 1~3개월 가격 방향에 대한 명시적 예측은 확인되지 않았다.
다듬은 글
One of the people who most influenced me early in my life at the Alcina school, particularly in economics around 2008-2009, was a guy named Peter Schiff. For those who don't know him, Peter Schiff is an American investor who subscribes to the Austrian school of thought. He became very famous during the 2008 financial crisis because he was one of the few people who showed incredible accuracy in understanding everything that was happening.
He was the only thinker to identify that the booming American economy was actually a huge housing bubble and that it would all collapse. There are also videos of his lectures; he has a sensational one, a lecture he gave in 2005 to the American Mortgage Brokers Association, where he explains everything that was happening, that it was a house of cards.
There's also a compilation of his interviews, debates, and discussions on various American television networks like CNBC, MSNBC, Bloomberg, Tetra, in which he is ridiculed when he says that the American economy wasn't doing well, that it wasn't on solid ground. Solid, unsustainable growth, and the Bolivian situation would lead to a major crash.
He was ridiculed, but all his pronouncements and arrests proved correct. The fact remains, he had a significant influence, especially regarding his view of gold as an asset and as an alternative to the financial crisis. He believed the world would inevitably return to gold, and that his monetary system would have to revert to a gold standard.
The fact is, gold as an asset and investment, from the crisis until 2011-12, was an excellent investment, rising from $800-900 to $1,900, hitting a historical high. However, since 2013, it has been a rather mediocre investment, remaining very stable between $1,000 and $150,000. It hasn't strayed from this range, and if it had, it would have for some time.
The reason the Central- West region is wrong is that recently he gave an interview to Max Cais Advocacia on Torque, a guy who is quite familiar with the subject today and is a 40-year-old investor. In that interview, Peixe said... Many things he summarized very well in his position, and I think he's precisely wrong about almost everything he talks about regarding Bitcoin globally.
Perhaps a good fish is convinced that the PT (Workers' Party) is nothing more than a speculative mania, and that this asset is a bubble with no use, all based on the belief that it will have some use, and that it will take a long time because it has no use. He prayed and the squirrels kept talking, and in this video he makes it very clear that everything is based on the series that other people will follow suit, and that's why people are buying now because they will be able to sell to some other idiot later.
It's the classic type of bubble; this happens because it has no value, it has none. As old Thor says, it has no value to be kept. Nobel Prize winner... I say that he doesn't understand that he's wrong, and I think it reflects something I've already told him in articles I've written: there is indeed an intergenerational component in this whole issue, and it's no use; older people have a harder time conceiving this notion, and it's digital and perhaps somewhat abstract, of a commodity that really has a scarcity.
Authentic scarcity is a true scarcity; it 's not simply something that was invented and anyone can go there and be related to it. There really isn't a scarcity. Don't even try gold; it's always the comparison that makes you look like gold. PTX disagrees and thinks that gold, being the panel, has value or has other uses besides just monetary use, and victory has no other use.
Now, you also said that they seek intrinsic value, but in this interview you didn't use that expression. Banana street, on several occasions, they don't have intrinsic value. That makes no sense at all. Value is always something subjective. What I think goods, commodities, or assets have are intrinsic properties that relate to their own nature, what they are objectively, not that they can be used where they can be valued by people, and therefore value is always a subjective matter.
Nothing has intrinsic value, and gold itself is based on trust. The value of gold is based on the trust that other people will continue to accept it, that other individuals will continue to value gold as an asset. Monetary value as a safe-haven asset is a small portion of its total value, even if we were to estimate the value of $1,200.
What exactly is an ounce of gold? How much of that, what percentage of the total price, comes from its monetary use? I'm sure most people would say it's a very small part, 15 or 20 percent. Therefore, the value of gold comes from the expectation that other people will continue to accept it, that they will continue to value gold.
The same principle applies to gold; it's based on the trust people have in it, that others will continue to value it as well, for the same intrinsic properties. It doesn't have an intrinsic value. With gold, state currencies are only valued, or primarily valued, because there is a sovereign, a state government, that determines that this painted piece of paper should be used for tax payments.
And for me, any book of pre-contracted gold—this is the case with currency—which has the privilege of the law. The text discusses the importance of using gold in this context, suggesting it doesn't exist or how it works. It then explains that it depends on people's trust in the market, both in the market and in the market.
It also mentions that nobody accepts Bitcoin for purchases or anything else, and that this is a misinterpretation of the original text. The text then shifts to a discussion of goldman's deliberate approach, suggesting that companies and merchants accepting Bitcoin as payment are dealing with the real world.
The text also mentions that some may be interested in goldman, suggesting that the company might accept Bitcoin for purchases, but the text is unclear. Gold, and for him and for Sergipe itself, for many goals from the bank, it 's almost impossible to conceive of that because gold has several characteristic properties that are inferior to them.
If we compare Bitcoin with gold, we see the gold is perfectly visible; gold is not perfectly visible or chosen. It can be transported anywhere on the planet, sewn by anyone at low cost and with great security. Gold cannot; it is difficult to transport it over long distances in relevant volumes. So, gold suffers from this problem of its materiality.
And if we imagine the future of currency, how money will evolve, I think it's very unlikely that gold will be used as a common currency, as a medium of exchange. The monetary system, state currencies like the dollar and the euro, may return to having a role in gold, gold serving again as the monetary reserve of central banks or the backing of the country's largest currencies.
This may happen, but accepting gold as a common currency, a medium of exchange, I think is very unlikely because it is very inconvenient to be used that way, and this has been the case for quite some time. So, this issue, he says, that gold will be accepted by many, I think it's very difficult and difficult.
What they will accept stems from the gold, and then another point, which is what she said, that he said to the cancer, the actor, the rest of the background, LatiBex, dancing club, QGOG, believing, father in front, so a digital currency needs to be backed by gold and not backed by anything, and I return to the question that obtaining chips doesn't understand how it works, the BTOY doesn't understand how the issue of lapse works, perhaps, and at that time, because of this view, I'm not saying he's wrong, it will reintroduce counterparty risk by having a backing, a digital currency is something physical, this requires having someone, custody, physical, it requires some company or entity, there is something centralized or decentralized that would be responsible for the backing of this, like a digital currency in a physical commodity like gold, it's impossible to do this without resorting to a third party, so it reintroduces the view of another party that introduces a trusted third party, which is precisely what one seeks to avoid or seek to solve, a system with victory depends on no intermediary, and this is an advantage, it's not a flaw, and introducing this as intended, having a chip to be backed by gold, a digital currency is precisely a great vulnerability, it's a contradiction to resort to This doesn't make sense, and why?
Because Bitcoin is already scarce due to its digital nature, it's impossible to inflate the supply, so it doesn't make sense to back it with a good that is naturally scarce. Another point is that backing something with gold serves the purpose of preventing inflation, as was done with state currency in the past.
Hello sir, it was precisely to avoid an excess issuance of paper money. The conviction is necessary because the rules of the system already prevent inflation, which prevents the excess issuance of glucose. So it is naturally scarce due to its own digital nature, due to its cryptographic properties. It doesn't need a foreign element; it would be a huge contradiction to have such a great vulnerability.
Doing this would be going back to a necessary past. Another point that the PT (Workers' Party) talks about with yesterday's goal is the monetary values desired by the various factors that existed in 1940, and that's why the other has analysis. That's why gold is unique in the periodic table, just as silver also has some of the desirable monetary properties.
Second or third, and I believe that this is a little misguided. There is a way, point, because it's important to make the difference between how they are. Valued or spoken of well, anchored by individuals subjectively, and on the other hand, there are the intrinsic properties, the natural characteristics of a commodity.
Of course, gold, even with this natural characteristic of wonder , has its natural characteristic of its shine, its color, and this is intrinsic to it; there's no way to change it, it's part of its nature. And silver also has its characteristics. In my opinion, it has the best monetary characteristics because it is perfectly visible, because it can be transferred to anyone, anywhere on the planet instantly, because it is very easy to safeguard, because it is very easy to transfer, because it does not depend on third parties.
It brings together the best monetary characteristics, despite not having another use other than that use as currency, as it is used for exchange. According to the text, some economists point out this great flaw, where they chose another use to serve as currency, and even that is wrong. Today, technology and the boxing of cuts are already used and demanded for other purposes; it has nothing to do with its use as currency, for example, when a note is used for proof of existence.
Regarding documents for registering ownership of shares and other assets, or any type of digital information residue that requires a high degree of accounting and cannot be altered, gold already serves this purpose, and it has nothing to do with its use for monetary purposes. Its use as a means of payment has become, and is already, demanded for other units, already non-monetary uses of this technology, this commodity.
Even those in the tractor industry are critical; they are also wrong. But returning to the characteristics, another characteristic that another license fee decides to be extremely important, and that exists in gold, is its value stability. But this is wrong; this is not beneficial. Value stability is extremely important and necessary for a currency to become the most used and demanded medium of exchange, to the point of becoming the universal medium of exchange.
But value stability is not something intrinsic to its nature; it is a consequence of the demand for this commodity. Gold has several properties: visibility, its color, its scarcity. These are properties of gold, and its supply in relation to these properties has made it increasingly used in exchanges, increasingly demanded as a medium of exchange, to the point of becoming the currency.
Universally accepted, and thus achieving high value stability, but the stability of value for her will be a celebration for her, it is related to the subjectivity of the value given by individuals to this commodity. This value stability is a consequence of its opposites, it is a consequence of the demand of individuals by virtue of the properties of gold, it is not intrinsic stability, it is intrinsic to gold, just as it is intense, which is what silver is, just as it is not intrinsic, and because of this, in my opinion, there have been known to have monetary properties superior to gold, it will continue to be demanded to the point that one day, at some point in history, it will be a means of exchange or an asset with a relative value stability that we obviously have today, but in my presence here, yes, we will have in the future.
So this value ability is 100% beneficial, but it is not intrinsic to gold, it is a consequence of its properties and its entire history, and that, for me, is the great advantage of gold today, it is still the great history it has in the face of the big phone, it is the asset that is used as currency, the protection coach of millennials, no.
Having to pay for this collective story overnight, that's obviously not going to happen, but that's not an insurmountable obstacle. And finally, the fifth point is that all of this is really based purely on people's trust that someone will accept Bitcoin in Japan, not even Vogue, or import what has a great chance of success.
It's done just like with Briscoe, gold also depends purely on people's trust in this asset, on the continued demand from other people, they will continue to import, they will continue to import, whether it's the subjective value of this commodity. This is not a prerogative of the record, it's a prerogative of any asset that does n't have the privilege of a forced course, which is the support or for the state to do something that intrinsically would have almost no demand, which ends up having paper money in trust.
It's not a flaw of gold, a serious dependence, a flaw only of the current or a dependence restricted to the icon. Gold also suffers from this same problem, in quotes. ah
댓글 0