General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

JP 72
The Plain Bagel
comments

Comments by "JP 72" (@739jep) on "The Plain Bagel" channel.

He has interviewed many experts in various fields related to cryptocurrencies and has looked at what academic research there is on the topic. Did he say something factually incorrect that you can verify? He said Bitcoin has its roots in libertarianism, anti regulation and anti government - while that isn’t synonymous with the Austrian school of economics it’s pretty darn close. So it can’t be this point you think he was wrong on. He certainly didn’t suggest it was a Keynesian idea. Regardless theres little concrete evidence what ideology the creator of Bitcoin subscribed to, be it Austrians economics or otherwise. This was discussed recently on his podcast by a technological historian. The Austrian school of economics is like any economic school of thought, it has good ideas and bad ideas and the usefulness of these ideas changes as economies change. The Austrian school itself is, for the most part, narrative and makes it’s arguments a priori - whereas Ben being a researcher cares what the empirical results tell us and that is what he came to talk about today.
13
@OK-Computer he’s literally said that the markets arnt perfectly efficient. Market efficiency isn’t a true or false situation , it matters to what degree markets are efficient. He says markets are efficient enough , often enough , that investors should invest AS IF they were perfectly efficient. This is supported by mountains of evidence, which he discusses in his videos. That’s starkly different to how you represented his position.
9
And what’s the problem with having a trade deficit?
4
Or USA could simply honour their agreements and not betray their allies 🤷‍♂️ just a thought.
3
The country that is failing to honour their end of a free trade agreement is the one more open to trade? Good one 😂
3
False equivalency. Trumps plan is legitimately moronic.
3
@ED_Valentin trumps press secretary literally called them that. The White House seems to think they’re a tax cut to Americans and that foreign exporters pay the tariffs. USA elected a clown.
3
Market beta explains far more than 5% of the price variance of stocks. It’s meant to be used when analysing differences in cross sections of stocks (although yea there are much better models now) , not individual stocks. The problem isn’t the model but how it’s being used here.
3
How so?
3
Trade balance is not necessary at all. In fact there are no perfect trade balances anywhere unless you’re talking about countries that just don’t trade at all with each other. They’re always offset somewhere else in the economy. You can be prosperous and grow all while running continuous trade deficits. You can also fail and slip into recession while running trade surpluses.
3
You don’t seem to have any knowledge of what’s actually happening ? Do you form all your opinions based on memes from maga twitter ?
3
That’s not what they’re doing - they’re charging extra tariffs across the board. The protections other countries had in place were agreed upon already , and the UsA had their own protectionist policies in place along side them. What they’re doing now is breaking their agreement and increasing tariffs substantially. It’s not even close to the same thing.
2
@ am I detecting a hint of the famous American exceptionalism? of course Canada benefits from the US , but the US benefits from Canada as well. That’s the whole point of partnerships. As for benefiting from military spending , sure , but you don’t think America position in the world both politically and economically has also benefited from their military spending? It’s not completely altruistic, not by a long shot. And many Canadians have died being pulled into Americas many pointless wars. When has Canada actually asked America to defend it from a foreign enemy ? As for the ports , the lack of manual inspections isn’t unique to Canada at all. The same thing occurs in the states. This is 2025. We rely on intelligence, risk assessment and scanning technology. We also have this thing called statistics , it enables us to make estimates about what is happening on a population level based on sample data. The amount of illegal drugs and firearms coming into Canada far exceeds that going the other way. As for Canadas geographical location , not sure what point you’re trying to make - you can say the same thing about lots of well developed countries. Ultimately, the shared success of both the U.S. and Canada is built on mutual cooperation, not one-sided dependence. That shared success is currently being threatened by the current administration.
2
They weren’t correct in principle at all.
2
You’re either a bot or an idiot. Which one ?
2
Gold was used as a unit of account and it was certainty not the first item to be used in this manner. Humans didn’t discover gold and decide to use it as money. Credit came first , and in early civilisations these were just recorded as obligations people had to one another (maybe not even recorded , only remembered) . It was only later when civilisations became more complex that humans developed ‘money’ as a way to measure the value of these obligations. Being defined as money in the constitution doesn’t mean anything in this conversation. The original constitution also treated people like property.
2
Yes that was Canadas attitude already ? Canada was the side honouring their agreement , America is the one turning their back on their agreement and betraying their ally.
2
The tariffs in place are in place for a reason and are carefully reasoned and agreed upon by both parties. US has their own policies that restrict Canadian exporters or give American companies artificial advantages. The difference is Canada honoured that agreement and USA did not. There’s no equivalency here - there’s clearly a party at fault.
2
There’s nothing really to address , because a trade deficit isn’t an economic loss like the president seems to think it is. It reflects respective economic size , consumer demand and respective goods and services each country needs and so forth. You can run a trade deficit and still grow. Tarrifs on the other hand cause economic loss.
2
That’s not true at all. You don’t ‘dump’ (like you have in the past) because of the well planned and agreed upon tarrifs that are applied at a certain quota in order to prevent dumping.
2
Watch him calmly and rationally communicate the truth more like 😂
2
Even if one day chatgpt became advanced enough to do this , it wouldn’t be a secret and everyone would rush to use it and compete away any opportunity for alpha anyways.
2
@raylopez99 haha yeh I’ve always enjoyed that one. Too bad these days it’s not two finance professors finding the $20 dollar bill though it’s very sophisticated trading algorithms run on very large computers owned by very powerful investment banks. 🤷‍♂️
2
It is true that the same can be done for credit cards , gold etc but I think that was the point. The same problems that exist for those forms of money exist for bitcoin, just in some other form. Bitcoin was proposed by some to be the solution to this problem in these countries that have unstable governments , but in reality it’s still possible for these authorities to control your use of btc and other crypto currencies , because they can control ports of entry and exit to the btc/crypto market. They can control whether vendors can accept it as payment , they can control the exchange of btc for the national currency that is required to pay taxes , you even need an isp to have access to the market so they have some influence there as well. Until there is a technological development to fix these problems I don’t think btc will be of much use to these kinds of nations in the long run.
2
And how did Trumps ass taste ?
2
Market efficient is a model used to explain reality and using modern asset pricing models it actually explains reality quite well. It’s not perfectly efficient of course but nobody is saying that it is . Market efficiency isn’t an on/off switch , it’s a scale. To say that it’s inefficient is as uninformative as saying that it is efficient. It’s not like there 0 information present in prices is there? - what matters is how efficient is it and what it means for investors. Broadly speaking we consistently find in the data that investing ‘as if’ the market is efficient consistently outperforms investing strategies that attempt to systematically exploit inefficiencies. This is a pretty strong indicator that markets have a significant degree of efficiency.
2
@gabrielleblanc353 you’re discussing something that has been proposed by a few financial economists. Prices are set by trading not by assets under mgmt - most of the daily trading volume is still made up by active investors , as the trading done with index funds is mostly within the fund and the net redemptions or purchases are the only thing that hits the active market. It also depends on what kind of information is leaving the active space. If more uninformed investors are leaving active share and becoming passive they’re even a chance markets become more efficient (at least in terms of how accurately shares are priced to intrinsic value) You’ll always run into the grossman stiglitz paradox when talking about this concept (another collab done by these two) - that is if less price discovery starts to occur and prices become more inefficient then this should attract active investors back to the market to take advantage of the inefficiencies , making the markets more efficient yet again. There’s always going to be some level of inefficiency to entice active investors to contribute to price discovery , but can the average investor profit from this ? It doesn’t appear so.
2
For the same reason you might have harsh punishments for terrible crimes , even if those crimes don’t occur. Not the best analogy perhaps but hear me out. The tariffs are not effective in raising tax revenue or impacting the competitiveness of American producers , but that’s fine because that’s not their intent. They’re there to stop anti competitive behaviours such as dumping - and for that they have been effective.
2
Well put , that’s been my experience as well. They also tend to subscribe quite passionately to the Austrian school of economics. I can’t tell which is the chicken and which is the egg though. Obviously Austrian economics is older , but it seemed to get re popularised since btc was invented.
2
I think the credit theory of money proposes that money itself is credit , and the units of account that we use to measure and record credit , and transport it through time are ‘currencies’. Problems may arise if you use ‘commodities’ as a unit of account for something that isn’t itself a commodity , but credit. Just my thoughts , probably a better explanation out there - it’s a tricky thing to define 🤷‍♂️
2
Your country is the laughing stock of the world 🤷‍♂️
2
Trump doesn’t even know what a tariff is. The man is a complete buffoon as are his supporters.
2
The fentanyl and immigration ‘issues’ are non issues. They are smokescreens, there is far more illegal activity going into Canada from the US than vice versa. The only country practicing unfair trading practices in this instance is the US. Canada was honouring their agreement , the US broke it. Canada has been used by the US for defence. Canadians have died fighting Americas wars , Canada has never called on the US to assist them. In fact in NATO America is the only nation to have invoked article 5. Canada hasn’t. Canadians don’t hate Americans , they hate the current administration. Who can blame them, he’s threatening to annex them , he doesn’t respect their sovereignty and he’s started an unjustified trade war against them. America is betraying its allies.
1
And you’re going to look dumb doing so becuase Americas justifications for this nonsense are also dumb
1
@drpapi444 I’ll tell you why , just need to know which of the justifications you’ve fallen for , and I’ll address those specifically - your president seems to change what they are every couple hours.
1
@drpapi444 do you usually evaluate trade policies based on what you pay for gas?
1
@uiliumpowell4684 Canada is fighting back. That’s what you have to do with bullies. If America wakes up and stops being stupid Canada will go back to being the good neighbor they’ve always been and supporting the US whenever they need it.
1
Do you believe every tweet you see ?
1
Everyone loses a trade war. Canada will lose. But so will the US.
1
Well yeh, basically. The two policies are not equivalent in the slightest.
1
@ because they are tariffs , just different rates, with different conditions and different products they’re being applied to. Different countries and states have different income tax polices too - they’re still income taxes. 🤷‍♂️
1
So you think trump should scrap his tariff plan then ?
1
Reasonable restrictions (when well thought out and agreed upon) make sense in order to prevent dumping or to level the playing field when foreign exporters have access heavy govt subsidies or practice unethical trading practices.
1
Maybe it’s cause they’re not a nation of idiotic assholes so not that worried about being attacked? Only time they’ve needed their military was to help others - and in recent years that’s been mostly the USA - so who needs who?
1
@venusrise it’s not a pointless fact , but being used for a really long time doesn’t mean it has a place in a modern economy. If anything is short sighted it’s that. Things change. Economies are vastly different to even 100 years ago let alone 6000. There’s many good reasons we went off the gold standard. Slavery was also crucial to economies for thousands of years , but nobody is seriously arguing for slavery to be a viable means of supplying labour today. If how long something has been around matters then credit has been around far longer than gold and continues to this very day. Saying money is credit makes perfect sense using that reasoning. ‘Gold is money.’ Only if we arbitrarily choose it to be used as money, there’s no outright physical or economic law that makes gold money. Money could be anything. The true value is in the goods and services that are exchanged.
1
@venusrise gold can be debased and has been as well - it’s not different to fiat currency in that sense. It has held its value in the long term , but in the short term it’s been volatile and not a great inflation hedge for individual savers and investors (citing ‘the golden dilemma’ by erb and Harvey) . What do you mean by working? While I concede there are advantages to gold over other forms of money , there are plenty of disadvantages. In what sense did gold work better than fiat currency? Every developed economy in the world didn’t leave the gold standard for no reason. Sure one ounce of gold may have held its value in relation to one dollar note , but it’s not like people are less wealthy now than they were during the gold standard. Incomes and wealth can and have risen faster than prices. Could we return to a gold standard now that the world economy is so financialised , exchange rates are floated and would individuals be willing to suffer periods of high unemployment for the sake of a stable monetary supply. A stable money supply doesn’t guarantee no inflation by the way , purchasing power can still be eroded.
1
@venusrise I agree that too much debt is a potential problem , especially fiscal debt. I’m not sure it can be claimed people are less wealthy , you said yourself that asset prices have increased. People are certainly way better off these days compared to even just 100 years ago. We could probably agree however that wealth distribution has become less equal however. As you pointed out , assets such as homes have priced a lot of people out of the market , and raising asset prices only increase wealth for those who hold assets. I’m not saying we should print money endlessly , there should be constraints - and there is.
1
@jasonmaguire7552 my comments were regarding slavery’s role in earlier economies. It wasn’t a comment on the morality of slavery or colonisation , just acknowledging that it happened and likely played a large role in economic growth. Economic growth isn’t the most important objective humans should be pursuing.
1
Tariffs are by definition about trade. A republican starts the dumbest trade war in history by implementing the dumbest trade policies and you want to shift blame to communists ? The blame lies with the current administration.
1
@ whatever protectionist policies Canada has (I’m sure you think they’re worse than they actually are but anyways), it was agreed upon in the trade agreement that trump himself signed. America also has protectionist policies that were agreed to and you don’t hear Canada whining about it. USAs newest measures however are a direct violation of the agreement, and go beyond normal protectionist policies - they are predatory. Did you forget the threats to annex Canada and the lack of respect shown to Canadas sovereignty? Again … More open to trade? Good one 😂
1
That’s not what’s happening here. Tarrifs are so high at a certain quota on certain products so that the other country can’t dump their goods in Canada. Dumping is something America has done in Canadian markets in the past. Most of Canada/US trade is free. Until recently.
1
76% of their exports is not the same as 76% of the GDP. Canada is the top trading partner for over 30 US states. Trade deficits are not economic losses. Tariffs on the other hand cause economic loss.
1
@ once again a trade deficit isn’t a sign of economic loss nor is it a sign of extortion. Most of the deficit is due to oil and natural gas which America needs! Canada actually sells these products to the US at a discount which America then uses to make other goods and services which it then exports to other markets at a profit.
1
@ you are actually you just don’t realise it. ‘We allow their imports and they restrict ours’ This isn’t reflective of reality at all. Both countries have some protectionist policies yes , (not just Canada) but these have been agreed upon and both parties agreed on the justifications for them. The CUSMA dispute resolution process plays a role as well - and Canada has won cases against the US where certain protections exist. Complaining about it now kind of makes America a sore loser tbh. As a whole though trade between the two countries is fairly free. The differing % of gdp taken up as exports to each country isn’t evidence that one country restricts more than the other st all. The differences are due to the respective size of the economies , the specific good and services each country wants and needs , different supply chains and so forth. Most of it is actually due to energy that Canada provided to the US at a discount. The US uses that discounted energy to produce goods and services which it then exports all around the world for profit. Canadas restrictions probably arnt as tight as you think they are anyways (see the video ) and in any case , America has their own versions of these. In most cases they exist simply as a mechanism to prevent anti competitive trade practices like dumping (which America has practiced against Canada historically) or to level the playing field if one country has tighter health regulations or if one country heavily subsidises a particular industry. America has turned their back completely on this agreement. They havnt honoured their end of the agreement. There’s world is watching America betray their enemies. Americas word means less and less every day. To cope with this a lot of Americans seem to be engaging in victim blaming it seems.
1
@Fire.thewoke art of kissing putins ring
1
@Zacon2mlg Canadas measures are a part of an agreement that trump himself signed , and are only tariffs once a certain quota is met. The reason it is done this way is to prevent ‘dumping’ and to give Canadian producers a more level playing field because they face harsher health and safety regulations and because America heavily subsidises their own ag industries (which itself goes against free trade ideals ) Again this is something trump agreed to because Canada provided good reasons for them , America themselves already had counter measures in place in this agreement. Canada is honouring that agreement. America is turning their back on it. The effective tariff rate is tiny, trump is proposing a wide spread 25% tarriff on all goods. This is in no sense retaliatory. It’s predatory , and seems to be in line with his rhetoric involving annexing Canada. That makes this an act of war rather than an act of commerce as it is in Canadas case. That’s just the start , there’s also the rhetoric surrounding it. Trump at first said this was due to fentanyl, which is nonsense. More fentanyl goes into Canada from the USA than the other way around. And he knew it was nonsense because now he’s using other reasons just justify the tariffs. Those reasons seems to change every day. Regardless the mature sensible way to deal with this would be to work with both countries and develop a strategy , rather than attacking them and harming consumers in both countries. He’s also introducing uncertainty into the market by continually changing his mind. There’s also the legality of it , trump is doing this using executive orders , rather than having it go through congress. To do this he makes up phony ‘emergency’ confusions that allow him to create the executive order - and these conditions have no basis in reality.
1
They’re not reciprocal at all , that’s just another lie from the Whitehouse.
1
The tweets are incorrect. Canada is doing what was agreed upon between both nations. Before this all went down - the USA also had protectionist policies in place. Now the US turned their back on their agreement - something Canada didn’t do. The US can fuck right off.
1
What do they say about trump imposing tarrifs on Australian then? USA has never had a trade deficit with Australia.
1
@ it was the steel and aluminium tariffs. Trade imbalances are not in and of themselves a problem , there not a sign of economic loss or exploitation. Although the current administration seems to think so. They are simply mistaken. And there are many who believe in free trade - In fact most economists would I’d say - with some caveats of course.
1
@ so are you in support of Americas recent changes to trade policy , particularly with its closest allies?
1
@ sure , in general I’d agree. I’m not absolutely for or against free trade in all scenarios - there are arguments for or against and it’s always context dependent. But were not talking about free trade in a general sense. But in this case we know the context. We know who is being targeted. We are told the reasoning behind the decisions made (defence , fentanyl immigration) we know the facts about those issues , and we know the broader context the policies are being implemented in (annexing Canada) I think fence sitting in this situation , given what we know, is worse than the problems you’re worried about.
1
They’re using ‘random’ in the sense that it’s difficult to predict these events BEFORE the price adjusts to reflect this new information. Theyre not suggesting prices move independently to events such as the ones you listed. They’re saying prices reflect known information already - and that future prices will adjust to unknown future information - which occurs randomly.
1
Do you measure your wealth in dollars or shares outstanding? Case closed.
1
@noneednoneed5752 in a liquid market you can be pretty confident , but no you can’t be sure. But it’s entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. The fact is , and it’s demonstrable with both theory and data that dividend policies of companies have no impact on the shareholders overall return.
1
It serves a purpose simply by existing - if stops anti competitive behaviour like dumping.
1
You’re not one of those people who believes tariffs are actually tax cuts are you? 😂
1
I get the impression from watching Sven Carlin that he’s disregarded a large portion of what is general taught in finance degrees. Personally I think he discarded the wrong content , but that’s just me.
1
Your perception of reality is warped. More fentanyl as well as other illegal goods go into Canada from the US than vice versa. Canada has honoured the free trade agreement. USA has not. They have betrayed their allies.
1
@xRichy68 Austrians economics is merely another school of economic thought , it proposes an explanation but it’s purely narrative , there’s no way of demonstrating the truth of their claims if it can’t be verified with experiment and data. Now admittedly this is a major problem with economics in general , but truthfully just because a school of economic thought proposes an explanation that makes logical sense , even one that maybe seemed to work in the past (although that’s debatable) it doesn’t mean it works in reality and it especially doesn’t mean it works in todays modern economy which differs highly from even how economies functioned 50-100 years ago. That said , Austrian economics thoughts on the monetary system are not widely shared by most economists. Id be careful basing my own ideas about money around Austrian teachings. Many bitcoin fans tend to become fans of Austrian economics simply because they think jt confirms their dearly held ideologies. Forgive me , but you don’t seem to be given the hosts the fairest interpretation of what they’re saying. The one flaw in what was said that you identified wasn’t even what they said. They havnt confused exchanges with the network, they’re identifying ways in which a decentralised network can become centralised - and one way is by controlling the ports of entry. This has happened a multitude of times throughout history (think telecommunications , private money , energy etc). One way to do this is controlling the exchange or btc into fiat currency , another is by regulating isps , large parties can gain controlling interests in the underlying assets , control of nodes , concentration of mining etc etc etc. True they are not talking about the network itself but those issues are highly relevant. This isn’t an obscure opinion either , it’s shared by many experts in multiple arenas including technological, data systems , regulatory , financial, economics and cryptography. Now none of this is to say that technology and policy implementation couldn’t develop solutions to these problems , but these are fair points to be raised currently. There may very well be many benefits to come from bitcoin and cryptocurrencies , but blindly worshiping it without acknowledging it’s flaws isn’t going to end well for policy makers , investors , consumers etc Perhaps we all need to learn more about bitcoin and cryptocurrency, including yourself.
1
@xRichy68 your English is excellent! I understand your argument. And you have made some good points. These are concepts widely understood however , and because someone may be agaisnt bitcoin it doenst mean they don’t understand these points. They just disagree. Where we probably disagree the most is I don’t place much stock at all in Austrian economics as a whole. Which is fine , and hey maybe I’m wrong about the general legitimacy of Austrian economics. It certainly has some very useful ideas , but I think it’s limited , especially with its thoughts on monetary economics. Just my opinion. While I agree there are potential downsides to having a flexible money supply , there are certainly downsides to a fixed money supply as well , and I’m just not convinced that a fixed money supply would work in a modern economy which highly financialised , has floating exchange rates and a much lower tolerance for longer periods of unemployment. To even operate as money bitcoin has to get a lot more stable , it also needs wider acceptance for payment (something else that can be regulated) . Can this change / improve in the future? Certainly, but it’s a fair concern to raise now, a large shift in behaviour is needed before btc becomes stable enough to work as a currency. Those changes often don’t happen organically very quickly.
1
But that’s not what’s happening in this case , so ….
1
@lukisz111 I guess I’m saying that what is physically used for exchange isn’t really what money is , it’s just the unit of account for what money is - and that is credit. In the earliest societies there were no barter systems or even metal forms of money - someone would provide a service and they would know that the person they provided the service to would owe them something in the future. Perhaps they recorded this on a clay tablet , or perhaps they merely remembered this because these societies were so small. Everyone has some form of debt to another person in the community. Every exchange of value between people involves debt , even if it’s only for a moment and it is cleared immediately. Even in a gold standard system of money people are exchanging goods and services , and at the point of exchange a debt is created - gold was just what was used to measure the value of that transaction and what was used to hold that value through time until the debt could be paid. ‘…but isn’t that just loaned (delayed) barter?’ Yes and that’s kind of the point , the credit came first , the method of settling the credit comes second. Humans didn’t discover gold then decide to start exchanging it with each other , humans exchange goods and services of value and whenever they do an obligation arises. They then decide the best way to settle that obligation , but it was the obligation itself that has true intrinsic value , not whatever is being used to settle the debt. What we have used as ‘money’ has changed a lot through history but the presence of credit has always been there.
1
@lukisz111 yes ok that’s maybe where I’m wrong , seems more like a argument about semantics at that stage The opposing idea would be that money is a commodity is it not? And that gold itself has intrinsic value? All I’m suggesting is that a credit arises , due to an exchange of something of value , before gold even enters the equation. The value of money is derived from a mutual agreement that it represents soemthing that can be used to settle credit , (even if it’s gold) , and that that something doesn’t have any real intrinsic value itself if it can’t be used to settle credit. The use of credit doesn’t exclude barter as a means of exchange , that is correct, it’s more that historians find little evidence that barter was ever actually used. That argument is one of history not philosophy.
1
@lukisz111 I probably am , I wanna say I agree mostly with what you say. But I’ll just ask , why couldn’t you exchange credit? If you think of credit as an obligation to someone else , I can’t see any reason why it couldn’t be exchanged. I don’t see why debt couldn’t be settled with other debt. Money is just the tech that makes that easier and more efficient. And if debt could be settled by either debt or money, could you see why I’d draw a link between the two as if they’re at least very similar?
1
@lukisz111 yeh ok I think I see where you’re coming from. Thanks for a good discussion , if anything maybe we can both agree that ‘what is money’ is an interesting question. All the best.
1
Yes , but trade imbalances between two nations are normal. They’re are not an economic loss. Each side gets something in a trade. Tarrifs on the other introduce economic loss.
1
They sound pretty irrelevant to me, at least where it matters 🤷‍♂️
1
This entire video was about his own country?
1
It’s insignificant in terms of the effect on the competitiveness of American producers. It’s significant in stopping anti competitive behaviour such as dumping.
1
You must not be aware of Ben’s podcast series. He’s has spent a lot of time on the subject, whether it involves reading academic research or interviewing experts within the field. I recommend checking it out. He has experts on who are pro bitcoin as well. Regardless , the origin of money isn’t the reason he is saying it might not beneficial to society.
1
@martinlutherkingjr.5582 I’m merely pointing out that in this video the hosts are not claiming that crypto isn’t a benefit to society because money is/originated as credit. The point was just that many people, and this isn’t limited to bitcoin proponents , don’t have a good idea of what money is. Heck economists and philosophers have pondered over that question for thousands of years. Probably also should be noted that ‘not being a benefit to society’ is different to being harmful to society. Although there are areas of concern where bitcoin could be a direct harm to society. These range from issues of fraud to environmental challenges to dangers for investors (know your client type thing) to regulatory problems to economic issues related to having a decentralised monetary system. ‘Sometimes centralisation is a good thing.’ But I think the main idea is that crypto will not likely deliver on its proposed benefits to society. Reasons for this range from not being as censorship or centralised proof as people want it to be , the costs involved (both monetary and environmental) , how for the sake of decentralisation economies or scale and efficiency and security are sacrificed, it is highly volatile and not accepted as a method of payment at most vendors , the main use of crypto so far as been for speculation …. and there are many more considerations. None of this is to say , as they discuss in the podcast , that technology couldn’t find a solution to some of these problems. I’m probably doing the podcast series injustice , i have missed a couple episodes. Better to go and hear it straight from the horses mouth- they do have pro crypto discussions on there as well.
1
Nobody’s denying they exist , they’re denying the insinuation that they exist in an unfair manner. The tarrifs that do exist were included in a few trade agreement and they were agreed to by the current president of the United States. They exist for a multiple justifiable reasons , and the US also had protectionist policies in place as well. The difference is one country is honouring their agreement and the other isn’t. The other is also lying about the nature of the policies that exist already and changing the justification for retaliation every second day. And that’s before considering they’ve threatened to annex Canada.
1