Inflation, deflation, both...how do you see the future?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think it's such a large grain of salt. Most people here have investments. If you have a 401k, for example, you are probably invested in dozens of companies. Personally I still have a lot of Tesla and Microchip stock. I still technically have Enphase stock but it's in an exchange fund now. I even still have some Qualcomm stock.

Just for fun I checked my 401k. It is a mix of eight funds. I looked at the biggest fund - VOO (Vanguard S&P 500 exchange-traded fund.) It in turn is made up of:

Apple Inc
Microsoft
Amazon
Alphabet
Berkshire Hathaway
NVIDIA Corp
Exxon Mobil Corp
Unitedhealth Group Inc
Tesla (so even more Tesla!)

I often post here on topics related to EV's, telecommunications, environmentalism and alternative energy. You could think I am biased towards renewables because I own Enphase, which is a solar inverter company. You could think I am biased against renewables because I own Exxon through my 401k. But when I am posting, ownership of those stocks really doesn't affect how I think about those topics. I think that's true of most people - me, Seattle, you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's also ridiculous to call discussing a current relevant topic like Bitcoin as advertising and promoting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What if I was discussing the internet or email in the days when people were dismissing those as useless?

People used to dismiss email with "who am I going to send an 'email' to? No one has email."
Or "Computer, my secretary does all that, I don't even know how to type" or "Internet, that's just for the military, academic research, and kids".

I guess you would be upset that they were "promoting the internet" or advertising computers?

By the way, no one outside of Australia, knows what "spruiks" means.

 

I'm not promoting anything and nothing that could occur as a result of a Bitcoin discussion here could result in any gain for me.

If everyone one here put all of their money into Bitcoin it wouldn't move the needle. I hope you've now learned something.

 

Well, but there's two possible explanations for something like that, right?

One is that the person has invested in a random fund/company/concept and is now trying to make more money by touting it, pretending it is better than it is.
The other is that the person is really interested in this concept. and thus talks about it a lot AND invests in it AND does a lot of research into it etc.

The latter is certainly why I invested in Enphase. I support renewable energy and Enphase had a technology (their IQ8 distributed gridforming inverters) that looked very very promising, so I invested even while I was telling people on Facebook that distributed solar energy was the answer to supporting the greater demand that EVs will bring on. I don't really connect that to "promoting solar for my benefit" but I guess some might see it that way.

 

Why do you keep implying that I am encouraging people to buy Bitcoin?

You also keep implying that I would somehow benefit if they did. I have pointed out twice (or more) now that if everyone on this forum put all of their life saving into Bitcoin it wouldn't move the needle and benefit me in any way and yet you keep repeating that it would.

How is talking about Bitcoin encouraging people to buy Bitcoin? It's like talking about ChatGPT except that ChatGPT isn't a public product at the moment that one can invest in (maybe indirectly) but it is an interesting subject. So is Bitcoin, blockchains, deflation vs inflation, etc.

Quite frankly you're off base with this one, IMO. Now there is a "warning" for "trolling" when I try to point out your faulty logic by applying it to the ghost subforum and your comments there?

Ninety percent of forum traffic seems to be "voodoo" related and when I try to discuss subjects I find more interesting it's "trolling" and worthy of a "warning". That's a bit stifling for discussion don't you think?

 

The only irrelevance is your continued request for a declaration of vested interest. Shame you can't see that.

There you go again trying to paint the other person as arguing from emotion, and being emotional, as if that, too, is impacting their arguments. More fallacious and dishonest behaviour from you, James R. Please stop.

If you think calling you out as a dishonest troll, and a bully, is personal, no, it's not. You're just not that important, although I'm sure your ego thinks you are.

Read. Thought. Rejected as wrong for the reasons given. You read those. You think. Then tell me: how does a vested interest alter the veracity or otherwise of what is stated? If one already is influenced by emotion, or personality, then I can see how someone's enthusiasm might persuade, but that is fallacious reasoning in and of itself. So, tell me, how does whether I or Seattle having a vested interest in Bitcoin alter the veracity of what we say on the matter?

No, you didn't. You explained the relevance to those who think irrationally/fallciously on the matter, as explained. You have not explained how it alters the veracity of what is said. Until you can do that, you have explained nothing about the relevance, other than it's irrelevance. Try again. This time actually think about it.

Grateful to you for being wrong? Does your arrogance know no bounds? Your error has been explained to you. Repeatedly. The rest is up to you.

I demand nothing. I post replies in the hope that someone gives their attention. I don't fret when someone doesn't reply within 10 hours or so, for example. But I don't demand it. Again, all very egotistical of you to think that anyone cares enough about you to demand your attention. You're just not that bright, or interesting.

If anything I do becomes a relevant matter for moderator attention then I will be informed. That's the way moderation works: you inform the person. Do you not read what you write?

 

That's what replying is, James R. Haven't you figured that out yet? Feel free to stop wanting my attention, though.

You just have to read and comprehend, James R. Try it. You might be surprised at actually discovering what people said.

Did I say the irrelevance was in continued requesting from me? No. So, again, go back and read what was said, not what you wanted it to say.

I never said it was bad, but thanks for yet another strawman.

Of course I can be critical if it gets in the way of understanding the truth. Oh. Wait. That's why you wouldn't be critical, 'cos you have no desire for truth when you can just bully and argue fallaciously until you get to your conclusion, right.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No one likes criticism or being wrong, you of all people are proof of that. So, yeah, you would understand. But that's not relevant to me here, as I'm not wrong. You are, even in your pathetic assessment, yet again, of a person's state of mind, in an effort to belittle and bully.

No contradiction, if you actually read, and understand, what was written. But that's a failing you have shown repeatedly, so your failure to comprehend shouldn't surprise.
Let me reiterate: you're not important enough for me to make it personal. I don't know you from Adam, couldn't care less who you are, but I react to what is written. If I see trollish behaviour, or dishonest behaviour, I often call it out. Nothing personal. Maybe that more seems to be coming your way makes you think that? Cest la vie.

You're not. Your trolling, your dishonesty, is important because it is detrimental to this site. But beyond that, no, you are not important to me.

Following you around?? Are you not even aware of the size of your own ego? You have an overinflated sense of significance. Yes, you're a moderator. But as a poster, you're... dull and uninteresting. You have flaws that manifest through your bullying, your fallacious arguments, your trolling, for example, which I'd prefer you didn't do.
That's pretty much the extent of any interest I have in you. You're just... not interesting.

Then stop pushing the matter.

I do grasp it, but none of it applies in the cases here. Noone is selling, buying, or looking to benefit, and nothing said here could influence such in any way. That is what you don't grasp about this. Shame.

Ah, the false dichotomy fallacy. Thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Defiant to the last, I see.

Again with the false dichotomy. Nice.

Oh, I know I'm arrogant. And that means you're not... how? But thanks for again arguing and hominem. Again.

You should give it a go, then.

But your ego isn't about me, James R. Focus. Read what is being written, not what you want it to say. Reflect.

Don't falsely accused, James R.

Alas, no. Your ego is running away again. Cest la vie.

It's all relative.

 

I'm just curious if you see any difference between talking about something and pitching it.

Seattle, in #5↑ is pitching a fantasy. Most of the conversationalism about his narrative is internal, easily presupposing through and around what would otherwise be important issues, such as the presupposition that the means of exchange in society should be immune from societal policy, or ahistorical presupposition about capitalistic and bourgeois behavior vis à vis pretenses of abundance.

It's like his opening line, "Traditionally we have been in an inflation/debt system". That may or may not be accurate, but we don't know because it appears to be make-believe, an unreliable dichotomy that just happens to be convenient in the moment. Or perhaps it's something he gets from a software CEO and Bitcoin enthusiast; it's hard to know, without more reliable citation, but perhaps it comes from Jeff booth, who, per Seattle, "has written a lot about this along with others but I think this idea is pretty accurate but that's only as accurate as predicting the future can be".

Every paragraph of that post is not simply weird or flawed, the whole thing is just kind of bizarre. In order:

• What is that inflation/debt dualism? The words, "I think", are doing all the lifting in the second paragraph. The third is carried by the words, "should", "if", and "if". Another "if" in the fourth, which is entirely speculative according to a whole lot of if and should. The three sentences of the fifth paragraph might make sense to Seattle, but the rest of us have to speculate on his behalf in order to imagine what he means. The sixth is entirely presumptuous, such that it's hard to know where to start, but we ought not presuppose the debasement of national currency is a good thing, and, moreover, the part about, "but it's not in your face as is the case in many 3rd world countries", is entirely internalized, and is more a persuasive statement than expository—i.e., it's pitch language. The seventh paragraph is similarly internalized, and just as an example we might wonder how many people in Africa are using how much of how many bitcoins. The eighth paragraph observes its own priority, and seems largely make-believe. The ninth is a statement of inevitability that would appear to describe a surrender of the public trust to a private-sector altruism not only unseen in capitalism, but denounced as antithetical. Namedropping Jeff Booth in the tenth is almost useless, a fallacious albeit thin appeal to authority Eleven, twelve, and thirteen are internalized; we might be able to discern his meaning if we know any of the reference points upon which the rest of the post was based, but we don't: Eleven is a generalized truism that could work with elephants and cheese, or mozzarella sticks and watching paint dry, or any number of seemingly irrelevant juxtapositons.¹ Twelve is internalized. Thirteen is perversely perfect, the craven nothingness of the line, and accentuated by the exclamation point that lends the sentence, and, really, the whole pitch, that dubious feeling that came with watching youth preachers of my time trying to convince the young people that Jesus was a cool rebel, and it's hip to have faith. It's an interesting topic? What is the topic? How Bitcoin will save the world?​

It is, to say the least, an interesting post.²

Now things get complicated.

†​

It is actually more difficult than it should be to describe James R's performance as comedy, but it's also true it feels that way; it gets complicated, though, and thus is not the best explanation for what we see. If we go back to December, we find James R doing the vested interest bit; he was picking on a particular statement↗, and that after razzing↗ him earlier for what "sounds like an advertisement".

Consider a dualism: If James is wrong, does that mean Seattle is correct? Of course not. I don't think Seattle's strange statement about Bitcoin↗ establishes the institutional definition of vested interest, but I do get the idea in a more colloquial context. Seattle's posts about Bitcoin are laden with pitch language, to the point that he reads like an advocate.

Comparatively, and vis à vis particular developments in this thread, I might not find Sarkus' discussion of cryptocurrency convincing, but there is a clear difference in tone and focus. Sarkus reads like someone hopeful about a cryptocurrency future; Seattle reads like an advocate.

(Note aside: How subtle is this getting, or perhaps we should consider how subtle we wish to get. There is a certain amount that stands out, seems kind of apparent at first read; if the hard part is explaining each and every one of those details, part of that difficulty is in comprehending the context of each point individually and collectively, which, it is important to remind, is a dynamic expression perpetually revising in accord with new data input. Still, though, some other things really do stand out.)

While you list some of your investments, I would suggest that ceteris paribus is not in effect. If I imagine some political interest to assign you, I end up focusing on what you might think your interests are in mushing up the discourse; for instance, I don't recall you being so zealously focused.

In my time, sometimes people include themselves with infamy in order to oppose someone or something else. It happens a lot in discussions about other people's human rights, when some who would otherwise think themselves not of a particular crowd will include themselves in order to complain about being defamed or denigrated.

That's not quite what you're doing, but I do think it would be strange if you're not suggesting some sort of false equivalence: Do you really think your writing is no different than Seattle's?

It's not mere matters of style³, but that our neighbor's easy, conversational presentation is built around unsupported presupposition, much of which is crackpottery. It's not quite a gish gallop, but the effect is similar: If we take the time to address everything awry, that can become all we do. We might not look at it like religious evangelization, but it is similar; the main difference is that it's not theistic. Even more, though, Seattle's posts about Bitcoin are really focused. Compare James R's three-point summary↑ about disclosure with two considerations: First, someone of Seattle's education, experience, and intelligence ought not need that reminder; part of it all is argumentative time-wasting. Second, Seattle's pretense of confusion, such as #53↑, "Why do you keep implying that I am encouraging people to buy Bitcoin?" is absurd.

Here, let me attempt his defense: He's not really pitching Bitcoin, but, rather, simply communicating and expressing in the only way he knows how, so honor diversity and lay off. And if that version sounds condescending, it's not that I'm trying to be, but now we see why I ought not write his defense. If he spent his career in sales, and this manner of communication has become praxis, then no, he's not really trying to pitch Bitcoin so specifically. But isn't that a rather specific presupposition for someone else to conceive of and then grant him, especially compared to the idea that Seattle has no idea why his posts about Bitcoin read like a pitch?

Seattle has interest in normalizing cryptocurrency in general and Bitcoin in particular; discursively, that's not really a big deal. But his pitch language stands out; the political and advertising language of persuasion, as well as design or lack thereof resulting in a string of discursive points that do not necessarily flow from one to another, becomes hard to not notice.

Once upon a time, someone acknowledged to me that they were a participant in their local Republican Party, which isn't disqualifying, but it certainly did explain his penchant for reciting talking points. If people were better at supporting their bullet points and mythopoeia, certain associations or mere appearances would matter less.

I don't know what to tell people about colloquy; proverbially, everybody uses it but nobody ... what, likes it? ... understands it? And the idea of James R razzing someone in this way is apparently rarefied. And our neighbor, Seattle, "How is talking about Bitcoin encouraging people to buy Bitcoin?" is duplicitous. Unless he's not.

But I also think there's a difference: It's not all the same from one member or post to the next.
____________________

Notes:

¹ For the record, it doesn't work with golf and gay sex because we eventually run into a no-true-scotsman fallacy. I blame alliteration.

² cf. "cryptocurrencies" #137↗ (November, 2022): Seattle in re benefits of Bitcoin, "Anyway, it's an interesting subject."

³ see, in re "style", #3592788 (Aug. 2019)↗, 3607598 (Nov. 2019)↗, 3681684 (Aug. 2021)↗, 3702361 (Aug. 2022)↗, 3703472 (Sep. 2022)↗, 3703483 (Sep. 2022, twice in one day)↗, 3709400 (Jan. 2023)↗.​

 

Speaking of bizarre...pot/kettle.

What is bizarre is what follows after "In order:...".

It's entertaining I guess but ultimately what we have here is a personality case study of two individuals and the rest of the site can be lumped under the category of unintended consequences.