tuco wrote:I will speculate that if posters engaged with you in this thread believed you could be reasoned with on this issue, they would have little trouble pointing out what you are asking. Let me try a short one: FTX token.

You didn't actually ask me a question. Would I invest in FTX token? No. Why? Because it's the native token of a centralised exchange which has already failed many people via the corruption of one man. Could FTX turn things around? Yes, possibly. Do I care? No. Why? Because I don't trust centralised systems and there's plenty of other options.

Any newcomers tempted to invest in crypto should start off with bitcoin, or perhaps ethereum. There are some coins out there which will do better than both, but don't go there until you've invested many hours of your time learning about the space.

THWOTH wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:2 months and then repeat.

I'm not a trader otherwise I'd be posting in this thread every other day commenting upon the price action. I'm a person with a mid-to-long term strategy with economic, philosophical and political reasons for advising members here to buy crypto, especially bitcoin. That's why, after March of this year, I'd only involved myself in discussions about the issue in mid-to-late October and late November to now, since.

I've more-or-less given all of my reasons for why you should be buying crypto, not least of which is the demise and fall of the economic status quo, which is readily evident for anyone with eyes to see. All there is to do now, is to comment occasionally upon the ever-worsening state of said economy whilst pointing out that bitcoin is STILL following the general 4-yearly trend I have predicted since early 2019.

Bitcoin has exceeded my own expectations this year, rising to about 275% of the low in 2022, close to 42K USD as I speak. That steep rise will surely be corrected some time soon, but the true highs of this cycle should not occur until 2025. I still expect a good 6-figure sum even if the economic status quo holds. If not, or if countries and corporations start buying it en masse, then hold on to your hats.

I have no understanding of the economy, beyond what I get in my paycheck and what I do with it, so I thought I'd ask.

It seems to me that inflation is closely tied to an increased amount of currency in circulation.

Assuming I at least have that correct, I'd wonder if the debt is actually increasing? I'm sure the number's gone up, but is the country's debt changing in terms of, for example, the ratio of debt to GDP?

Assuming that the ratio is in fact changing, presumably for the worse, is that alteration occuring as a result of inflation? I would've guessed that that ratio is at its worst in times of recession, where debt is present but productivity has decreased.

Greg the Grouper wrote:Assuming I at least have that correct, I'd wonder if the debt is actually increasing? I'm sure the number's gone up, but is the country's debt changing in terms of, for example, the ratio of debt to GDP?

Greg the Grouper wrote:Assuming that the ratio is in fact changing, presumably for the worse, is that alteration occuring as a result of inflation? I would've guessed that that ratio is at its worst in times of recession, where debt is present but productivity has decreased.

Inflation erodes the real value of debt over time. You are correct that debt to GDP tends to spike during recessions when GDP drops.

The primary concern is the parabolic rate at which debt is growing and continues to grow. I linked to a chart several weeks/posts ago* which shows that US debt has increased by about 350% since 2008, and by about 45% in just the last 4 years.

* https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN

Of course, GDP growth is relatively stagnant in comparison hence the sharp rises evident in Thommo's GDP-to-debt chart. Meanwhile, inflation has been fairly high (recently), but it certainly hasn't kept up with the parabolic rate of increased debt in the last few years nor the last 15-to-20 years. What this means, is that inflation - which certainly erodes the real value of debt - cannot work as a means to erode that debt unless it increases at a rate higher than the rate at which the debt increases, which it hasn't. Which, consequently, means that the parabolic rate of increased debt is a REAL problem that cannot be ignored.

There's no parabolic rise of GDP about to happen. There's no way government borrowing hits a red light anytime soon. And since trust in government bonds/gilts is busted, evident in the trend for increased yields and low prices offered for them, I'd say it's time for us all to pull our heads out of the sand and prepare ourselves for what's coming.

I of course don't get any enjoyment from seeing the demise of the Western economic system and would jump up for joy higher than anyone here should I be proven wrong, but it is clear imo that there's no way that this system can be sustained.

Fenrir wrote:Parabolic?

Lol

Economically, any graph which shows a sustained accelerating tendency towards the upside (or even downside, I suppose) is said to be parabolic, yes. The graph I linked to pertaining to US debt over the last 50 years is actually a great example of such a tendency, so why laugh?

I don't really want to waste my time here arguing about the definitions of concepts, when the gist of what I'm talking about is all that matters. The gist here, is that your kangaroo money is about to be worthless. What are you going to do about that? Nothing? Fine. But at least I tried to warn you.

Any time bitcoin gets to $35k or more people start frenziedly writing about it, but if you didn't cash in during the pandemic you'll never see those tokens transformed into the same amounts of real money ever again.

jamest wrote:The primary concern is the parabolic rate at which debt is growing and continues to grow. I linked to a chart several weeks/posts ago* which shows that US debt has increased by about 350% since 2008, and by about 45% in just the last 4 years.

* https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN

250% increase, not 350%. And only in nominal rather than real terms.

Also (not that it's in any way a meaningful term in this context anyway) the curve isn't parabolic.

The eagle-eyed (and really anyone who remembers the 2008 financial crisis and the 2020 global pandemic that made it into at least a couple of news articles at the time) might also take note of the cherry-picking involved in comparing results from 2008 and Q3 2019 as bases.

jamest wrote:What are you going to do about that? Nothing? Fine. But at least I tried to warn you.

You also "warned us" we had only months left years ago though*.

Have you ever heard the parabolic* tale of the boy who cried wolf?

*Free pun! A word with two meanings!

*E.g. Mar 18, 2020

jamest wrote:I am certain though, that the financial crisis I've been prediciting for over a year now, has started.

On that last point jamest, you were kinda right. It started in 2007/8, and continues.

THWOTH wrote:Any time bitcoin gets to $35k or more people start frenziedly writing about it, but if you didn't cash in during the pandemic you'll never see those tokens transformed into the same amounts of real money ever again.

What? I've been writing about it since early 2019, priced 3.5K, after it had dropped in price from 20K a year-or-so earlier. I've continued writing about it ever since, priced high or low.

The_Metatron wrote:The problem jamest continues to have with crypto is its value. He thinks it’s valuable because it’s rare. Only so many bitcoins can exist, that sort of thing.

Rarity is a prerequisite for the increasing value of an asset, as it facilitates a situation in which demand far exceeds supply. In less than 15 years, Bitcoin has risen from almost nothing to 70K at its height, so to laugh about that is just silly.

Poor fellow. Rare doesn’t equate to valuable. It just feeds the greater fool theory. Bitcoin value is based on how many fools think it’s valuable at any one moment. Hence the instability.

If I'd been 'fool' enough to invest what I did in early 2019, in early 2009, I'd have had more than 250000 bitcoin now (valued at about $0.1 back then, but at more than 40K now) and would now have 10 billion USD! Regardless, if I'd had sold all my crypto at ANY point since early 2019, I would still have made a gain, even after the covid crash. There is not a single piece of rationale, other than to argue that its price is destined to become zero, which can justify anything you have said above.

Which gets us back to using it as a unit of exchange. If it’s unstable, no one is agreeing on its value. If they can’t do that, it’s nearly useless as a unit of exchange.

Stability is a relative term, since there are no stable mediums of exchange. Indeed, if one considers that the USD has lost about 95% of its purchasing power within the last century, one has to wonder about the kind of stability you covet.

The truth is that crypto is in its infancy and the kind of stability you are talking about will only come with larger adoption.

Does anyone else note how evasive James is with his actual position? How many times have I asked him what he has now as a result of his crypto investments? If that shit is better than equity investing, James should possess wealth we do not.

I don’t think he does.

Money talks. Bullshit walks.

I was never a rich man. Back in 2019 I invested a 5 figure sum which almost enabled me to buy a house in 2021, but it went pear-shaped and the bear-market happened. I still had a 6 figure sum though by the end of it and now I am in bull-market 2.0. We shall see. At the end of the day, the bitcoin chart from early 2019 (and before) is what matters, not the size of my wallet. If you'd have invested X when I first started advising you to do so, it would now be worth 12X. That's a fact.

Thommo wrote:

jamest wrote:The primary concern is the parabolic rate at which debt is growing and continues to grow. I linked to a chart several weeks/posts ago* which shows that US debt has increased by about 350% since 2008, and by about 45% in just the last 4 years.

* https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN

250% increase, not 350%. And only in nominal rather than real terms.

In Q1 2008, the chart reports debt of about $9.5 trillion. Since today's debt is approaching $34 trillion, 350% is about right?

And though you talk about real terms as opposed to nominal terms, the graph you yourself reported showed that there has been a very significant rise in debt relative to GDP since 2008. That is, debt is a very serious problem even in real terms.

Also (not that it's in any way a meaningful term in this context anyway) the curve isn't parabolic.

Within the context of investments and investors, the term "going parabolic" is used frequently/casually to denote an asset whose price rises sharply and steeply (on a chart) within a short time. However, I accept that this does not accurately reflect any formal definition of that concept.

Fenrir wrote:

THWOTH wrote:On that last point jamest, you were kinda right. It started in 2007/8, and continues.

Hmm. Bitcoin was invented in 2008.

Coincidence? I think not.

Bitcoin was surely the invention of someone utterly disillusioned with the status quo during/after the financial crisis of 07/08, I agree. Whatever you think about bitcoin, SN was 100% justified in his/her feelings, for sure.

The whole fucking system is a crock of corrupted shit and is destined to implode on itself.

jamest wrote:

Thommo wrote:

jamest wrote:The primary concern is the parabolic rate at which debt is growing and continues to grow. I linked to a chart several weeks/posts ago* which shows that US debt has increased by about 350% since 2008, and by about 45% in just the last 4 years.

* https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN

250% increase, not 350%. And only in nominal rather than real terms.

In Q1 2008, the chart reports debt of about $9.5 trillion. Since today's debt is approaching $34 trillion, 350% is about right?

A 350% increase is not the same as a 350% multiple, which is a 250% increase. You can observe this distinction being correctly made in the same sentence of your same post - marked in blue above.

jamest wrote:And though you talk about real terms as opposed to nominal terms, the graph you yourself reported showed that there has been a very significant rise in debt relative to GDP since 2008. That is, debt is a very serious problem even in real terms.

I know. I've been disagreeing with some people on these forums about the need to control debt since 2008. So my opinions on the matter are pretty well established.

The thing is that debt affordability is what matters, and that's got nothing to do with nominal values and literally nothing to do with meaningless jargon about parabolic growth. In practical terms the most important factors are debt to government income (for which GDP serves as a useful proxy in almost all cases) and interest rates (bond/gilt coupon values in most cases).

This is a very similar situation to me having meaningful concerns this year about 12% inflation in the UK - a real concern that has affected ordinary people's lives in no small way - but none about the jamest warnings of "four figure inflation" that will make my money "worthless". The issue is not that there aren't real underlying factors involved, it's that the ludicrous completely out of touch with reality exaggeration of the issue you engaged in makes any sensible discussion of the issue impossible.

Currency isn't becoming worthless in just the same way that half the people in the world aren't being killed by covid. Three years ago you loudly, repeatedly and insistently told anyone who would listen both were true and already happening in a way that would play out in the coming months (not even years in the original incarnations of your claims). It wasn't true then and it's not true now.

In those intervening years bitcoin has continued as a speculation vehicle, but in terms of solving the underlying technical challenges of scaleability, power consumption, lack of regulation etc. etc. that form necessary preconditions for it actually vying for a meaningful position as a token of exchange in the global economy no progress has been made.

If someone wants to gamble on bitcoin that's fine with me, I really don't mind. But it is still a gamble and it is still a gamble on an asset with no fundamental underlying value. It's not equivalent to stocks. It's not equivalent to commodities. It's not equivalent to traditional currencies.

jamest wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Any time bitcoin gets to $35k or more people start frenziedly writing about it, but if you didn't cash in during the pandemic you'll never see those tokens transformed into the same amounts of real money ever again.

What? I've been writing about it since early 2019, priced 3.5K, after it had dropped in price from 20K a year-or-so earlier. I've continued writing about it ever since, priced high or low.

You fapping away at you keyboard over bitcoin here is not what I was talking about - and I think you know that.

Ready to take up my questions re value yet?