Uh oh, Guerilla read another book and thinks that no one else can talk about economics competently but him.
My post in this thread was about philosophy not economics.
Btw, Guerilla, "qua" isn't a $10 word.
It's latin.
And, might I add, you don't have any idea what you're talking about. None of your arguments are rational, nor are they based on any economics.
Up to this point you still haven't specifically addressed my argument. It's all ad hominem thus far (that's also latin).
Please show me a graph based on math that indicates what the real price of BTC is since you seem to know.
I don't remember claiming I knew Bitcoin's price.
Also, "graph based on math" LOL. As opposed to a graph based on ???
Explain to me why the market price is inflated, since you seem to know.
The market price is the market price. If you've ever read my posts, I would never indicate a "market price" was inflated.
Give me an indication of what factors into your economic model, since that is what an economist would do. I'd like to see it, because real economists don't do talking out of their ass qua talking out of their ass.
I think you're confusing econometrics with economics. Which is normal for someone who doesn't understand economics.
You have NO idea whether this is speculation or whether the actual value of btc is reflected in the current price.
There is no such thing as an "actual value".
Whether this is speculation or not has everything to do with millions of variables that you have no control of: international monetary policy, number of users who adopt and begin actually purchasing goods with the currency (which does in fact happen on a regular basis), the continued liquidity of the market, a continued and real reason to use btc (anonymity, laundering, etc).
If you're buying BTC (as many people here are) to watch it appreciate in price, rather than using it as a medium of exchange, then you are speculating.
I'd guess that most of the upward price movement isn't due to people buying BTC to use as a medium of exchange, as people would lose purchasing power as the price rises.
Thus, I'd think it's a speculation.
But you haven't raised any reasonable concerns about it ever save for un-updated, antiquated Austrian theses.
I think you mean theories. I don't recall posting anything about Austrianism in awhile.
Is this another one of your rant posts where you haven't actually read what you're responding to?
Even big-name adopters of Austrian economics have begun to change their tune on BTC.
That's an appeal to authority, ironically you're appealing to the same people you claim do not have authority.
BWhy? Because when Mises wrote his masterpiece, the internet didn't exist. Maybe you didn't know that. So this sort of thing wasn't feasible. It couldn't enter into the theory of money. So instead of ascribing 100% to a dead guy's work on financial markets, think for yourself for a change. Why the hell would you spend so much time spewing someone else's ideas without actually having any of your own?
I am wondering how you can criticize anything Mises wrote, when you haven't read any of it, let alone comprehend any of it.
I think that's lazy, and it's intellectually dishonest.
If you had read anything by Mises, you'd know that the idiotic "the internet didn't exist" argument doesn't apply.
Nowhere in your post did you actually address anything substantive that I said. If you were intellectually honest, that would really bother you to write something like that.
I've sort of burnt out on arguing with random mongoloids on the internet. So like,
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c]Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - YouTube[/ame]
