Search the Community

Here's a conversation from facebook I had about the conceivable value of bitcoin vs. gold with a fellow FDR member. I wonder what sort of general thoughts or criticism yous udder guise might have for either Christoph or me. Excuse me for the poor formatting. Facebook does not copy/paste over very well. Below is a direct link to the conversation if you find it to difficult to follow on this page. . https://www.facebook.com/ChristophDollis/posts/10151994643083548?comment_id=27932048&offset=0&total_comments=19¬if_t=share_reply ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Christoph Dollis [*] Per Bitcoin's recent plunge: some wise people (or at least astute sharks) took profits*. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-01/bitcoin-plunges-bear-market (*As in cashed the hell out of Bitcoin and moved their money to dollars or another government currency like yen or Canadian dollars.) [*] Claire Haus I was quite fortunate and lucky to sell at 990$. If I didn't need it dearly in cash, I would probably kept it intact. [*] Joshua Stebell It's back up to 1090 now. [*] Christoph Dollis It's highly volatile. [*] Joshua Stebell We must keep in mind it is such a very small market relative to the usd and gold. Extreme fluctuations can be expected in btc's infancy before it becomes more widely adopted (if it does). [*] Christoph Dollis There is no reason to believe this is true. As Peter Schiff pointed out during the debate with Stefan Molyneux over Bitcoin, and as I remember at the time, market cap rose with a highly volatile series of minibubbles, punctured during the dot com tech bubble - then the whole thing crashed with a resounding thud. This is what I expect to happen with Bitcoin. [*] Joshua Stebell I do see the faint correlation here, because these are both instances of new technologies influencing the economy, but I don't believe it's a proper comparison. This is just my amateur idea of how these markets both function, and I may very well be mistaken, but let me make my case. Dot com's are essentially businesses that must return a profit from their website in order to pay their shareholders. That where their value as an investment comes from. But btc is in part alternative currency that's market value is based upon the value of utility that offers as a medium for exchange to those who wish to deal in it. I can buy btc to trade for something and then that other person I traded with can cash that btc back out for usd to buy whatever else they wish. This is a form of utility in that the btc is being recognized by both parties as a unit of value. I believe as more businesses begin to accept bitcoins as a form of payment in exchange for goods and services it will hold even more utility (be more valuable), because the second party will not require as often to trade their btc back out for usd to buy whatever it is they wish. [*] Christoph Dollis Did you watch this? If not, do. http://youtu.be/0L7SOPDOvvI [*] Pilar Cooke Isn't that how everything works in the malets? The numbers rise and fall at will and there is no hold in which one person can tell it otherwise. I feel your argument has no volume at this moment. I can careless about Bitcoin...I never had anything to do with it to begin with. I once said that it may be a "building block" to independent currency...yet it isn't Bitcoin [*] Joshua Stebell Okay. I'll check it out. [*] Joshua Stebell Oh yeah. I had seen this. I really do like Peter as an austrian economist, and I believe he's highly intelligent. However, I believe his view on "intrinsic value" is flawed. I don't believe that aesthetics, perceived value, can be objective. So when he says that gold has an "intrinsic value" I however don't believe anything does. I haven't had to write out my argument for this before, so I may make a mistake, but again, I'll give it go. If something, an item or action, is intrinsic to any form of status of market or moral value, that item or action must universally, under all circumstances, retain that status. If you can imagine any type of situation that could make that item or action not equal to that status then that status must not be objective or intrinsic to that thing, but is instead subjective. This is where the aesthetic market value, price, of gold fails to this requirement of having intrinsic value. Imagine I'm lost in the desert and find a bar of gold and a loaf of bread. I pick them up. Later I am getting dehydrated and need water soon or I'll die. I then cross paths with a man who owns access to an oasis. He just so happens to be starving. When I approach him, he'd more than likely be willing to trade my temporary access to his oasis for the loaf a bread for an entire brick of gold. Now, we both know that in the middle of a city a bar of gold is worth much more than a loaf of bread. More than thousands even. Now if the value of the gold was intrinsic to it's nature a bar of gold would always, under every conceivable circumstance, be worth the same in relation x-number loafs of bread. So, we both see that the value of gold can vary from 0 to whatever the circumstances call for. This does not coincide with the definition of something that retains some sort of intrinsic value, like how the moral value of the threat of or initiation of the use of force or fraud, by definition, is always in the negative as I know we both already agree to as the rational type folk we are who accept the non-aggression principle. Unfortunately though for Peter's case there's no irrefutable principle for the intrinsic value of gold as any type of commodity or medium of exchange, so as he makes his case that gold has a definite intrinsic value while bitcoin does not is incorrect. Neither of them retains the objective quality of price. They are both subjectively valuable in their own respects. [*] Christoph Dollis "I really do like Peter as an austrian economist, and I believe he's highly intelligent. However, I believe his view on "intrinsic value" is flawed. I don't believe that aesthetics, perceived value, can be objective." No it isn't objective. It's actually subjective second and third-order value, but I explain, including using a colourful analogy, how certain libertarians and anarchists go way wrong here (and cause people to roll their eyes) in this conversation, starting with this comment: "I think a gold-backed digital currency could be a good idea, or backed by another commodity. Other than that, barring government order, I don't see how you give a currency any kind of stable value. It will always depend on psychological popularity in a free market unless it has some kind of "intrinsic value" in the financial sense. Now you don't believe in it, but I think those arguments are silly. Of course gold doesn't have value itself, nor does a man floating in space alone with no one else ever to be reached, but it has second-order value. So if you don't use it to buy something, it still has other uses. It can be bartered away if nothing else. Good luck doing that with a blockchain, but I digress." You'd need to read from there. I won't retype it all. https://www.facebook.com/stefa.../posts/10152379827421679... Stefan Molyneux The Sunday Freedomain Radio Call In Show is now live! Listen live at fdrurl.com/stream or fdrurl.com/chat [*] Joshua Stebell Alright, I will. Thanks. [*] Christoph Dollis You're welcome. [*] Joshua Stebell Okay. So, I'm still failing to see how Peter's and your argument makes sense. He says bitcoin is an attempt to replicate a digital version of gold, but fails, because it's missing a property that gold is. "Intrinsic value." If we both agree that nothing has an objective market value than how does Peter's argument back you in opposition to my case that BTC, a tool for the measure and exchange of subjective value (money), is not analogous to what happened to DOT COM's, businesses that failed to profit and reimburse their stockholders. [*] Christoph Dollis It doesn't have to have an objective market value, whatever that could mean. It has other uses. This creates, as I've said, second and third order value. Basically, you can use it to barter with. Somehow anarchist libertarians get themselves trapped in really black and white literal definitions of things in a statistical world. [*] Joshua Stebell Is that not also a function of bitcoins though? Also, I don't think that by implying my being trapped in a psychological world of using definitions as evidence in order to reason towards a conclusion being a negative thing is all that of a clinching argument against the one's I've put forward. [*] Christoph Dollis "Is that not also a function of bitcoins though?" No, it's all tied to its use as a currency/speculative investment. [*] Joshua Stebell Gold is also seen as a currency and a speculative investment. Is it not? I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two for the reason why you believe bitcoin is such a malinvestment. Bitcoin is digital, and gold is physical. Gold has additional properties of being used in technology, as jewelry, as decoration, and more that may add to it's subjective value. Bitcoin is anonymous, open source, can be used as a contract, and other things that adds to it's subjective value. If we both agree these qualities of both gold and bitcoin are subject to the unpredictable nature of aggregating individuals in a market, then I do not see your case. [*] Christoph Dollis "Gold is also seen as a currency and a speculative investment. Is it not?" Do people wear Bitcoin necklaces? Us it in industrial processes? Put them in their teeth? "I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two...." Indeed. [*] Christoph Dollis "Bitcoin is anonymous, open source, can be used as a contract, and other things that adds to it's subjective value." All of which are completely and utterly worthless except as regards to the specific transaction. Whereas gold can be traded to others who value it. A piece of paper works as a contract. [*] Joshua Stebell I don't believe you read my last comment thoroughly. "Gold has additional properties of being used in technology, as jewelry, as decoration, and more that may add to it's subjective value." -Me. "Do people wear Bitcoin necklaces? Us it in industrial processes? Put them in their teeth?" -You. I clearly pointed that out. Also, I do not appreciate you using a quote of mine out of context as well. I said, "I'm still failing to see the distinction between the two... for the reason why you believe bitcoin is such a malinvestment." I already pointed out that there is a distinction between the two in that one is digital and the other is physical, and we've already agreed these distinctions that have the potential to add to the subjective value of each of these commodities. If you do not believe bitcoin is a good investment for the lone reason that it is not physical than make that claim outright, but remember we've already established the physical quality of gold and everything that entails is in the same category of value as the bitcoin's quality being digital an everything that also entails in that their values are both purely subjective. This means that your argument for bitcoin being a bad investment on the ground that it is conceivably worthless applies equally to gold. If you think that gold's physical properties of utility are more subjectively valuable than bitcoins' digital properties of utility which also retain a subjective value know that this is purely your opinion. If the properties of each these things only retain a subjective value than any case made in reference to their properties is just your opinion, an argument you're perfectly free to make. Please acknowledge you're only advocating your opinion, and not making any universal claim about the value of a commodity.