Still think of all the Beeenie babies wastefully produced and ending up in landfill. Now we achieve the same thing but without the Beenie baby. So kind of a little bit of progress.
Think Beenie babies are closer to NFTs that *coins.
Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’
181–190 of 280 posts
Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’
#182The context of the quote: > I don’t welcome a currency that’s so useful to kidnappers and extortionists and so forth... So, I think I should say modestly that the whole damn development is disgusting and contrary to the interest of civilization. I find it strange to criticize an asset for how it gets used in extremis. I feel like the same criticism could be levied against the dollar.
The explicit purpose of bitcoin is to avoid government interference. In all other respects, it is inferior to standard government-backed currency, with slow transactions and huge amounts of wasted electricity. We should therefore expect BTC's primary use-case to be activity the government would interfere with, i.e. illegal activity.
True, but "illegal" is dependant on the nation it is relevant to, as an international currency legality is relative. Another way of seeing this: the benefits of global government / infrastructure without the need for global control - few nations are so democratically representative that the tax laws well represent the wills of the people.
Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they bought the stock they are helping fund the business. The shareholders are keeping the stock because it represents their stake but the actual money paid can be used by the company selling its stock and that’s the primary purpose. Whether the buyer/investor votes, or knows what they bought, doesn’t change anything in that respect.
If you buy into an IPO you're helping the business raise funds. If you buy stock from other stock owners it doesn't help the business.
> If you buy stock from other stock owners it doesn't help the business
Incorrect. That's what keeps the market for the stock liquid, and that contributes to value which the company can exploit through future stock issuing. Not to mention the indirect benefits to stakeholders within the company in terms of price and liquidity.
Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm the furthest thing from a technical analysis expert of price movement, but the BTC chart looks manipulated to me. I assumed at first that it was just people trading BTC between themselves to move the market, but this theory makes more sense. BTC miners are extracting USD from their mining, while the price is controlled by other coins printing and buying BTC. New buyers of BTC are providing the cashflow into the s…
What does "manipulated" mean to you? What does a "manipulated" chart look like? (I'm not being cheeky, I am just trying to get a grasp on your perspective)
For the past 8 weeks it has traded in a 10% band. Why have none of the events or momentum moved the price by more than 10%. You can make the case that Tesla selling some wasn't a big deal. But with everything happening over the past 2 months there should have been at least 1 swing up or down by a lot.
Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the democratic world fell under fascist and/or Marxist-Leninist totalitarian regimes within living memory. There’s only four independent democracies uninterrupted over the past century. Two have widespread civilian firearm ownership.
> Most of the democratic world fell under fascist and/or Marxist-Leninist totalitarian regimes within living memory. Are you suggesting that a few extra light weapons floating around in the 1930s would have stopped the Nazis and Soviets steam rolling across the Europe? Are you suggesting civilian firearm ownership somehow prevented the Nazis from skipping over the Atlantic and taking over America? Why did America was…
[flagged]
Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you buy into an IPO you're helping the business raise funds. If you buy stock from other stock owners it doesn't help the business.
> If you buy stock from other stock owners it doesn't help the business Incorrect. That's what keeps the market for the stock liquid, and that contributes to value which the company can exploit through future stock issuing. Not to mention the indirect benefits to stakeholders within the company in terms of price and liquidity.
If I buy the stock in order to hold it for 30 years, doesn't that reduce liquidity?
Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they bought the stock they are helping fund the business. The shareholders are keeping the stock because it represents their stake but the actual money paid can be used by the company selling its stock and that’s the primary purpose. Whether the buyer/investor votes, or knows what they bought, doesn’t change anything in that respect.
Well, of course there are other subtleties involved, but even the money that I pay for a given stock doesn't just go to the company unless it's an IPO. It might indirectly benefit the company because I'm adding to the demand and driving the stock price up, which helps all holders of the stock, including the company that issued the stock originally. However, my point is that people are not buying stocks to own OR to b…
A trillion dollars a year are disbursed by the companies of the S&P 500 to their shareholders, in the form of dividends and stock buybacks. Berkshire Hathaway itself bought back $25B of its stock in 2020.
Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’
#188Remember that Coca-Cola is responsible for one of the biggest health issue of our civilisation: obesity, and Berkshire invested heavily in it.
Warren Buffet has given many interviews on the topic, and on the topic of Berkshire's investments in tobacco companies. His view is basically that as long as those industries are legal he has a responsibility to his shareholders to invest in them because it is so profitable to do so. He has also summarized his views on Bitcoin many times -- he has no interest in investing in it because it is not a productive asset (t…
I call it hypocrisy.
Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’
#189The context of the quote: > I don’t welcome a currency that’s so useful to kidnappers and extortionists and so forth... So, I think I should say modestly that the whole damn development is disgusting and contrary to the interest of civilization. I find it strange to criticize an asset for how it gets used in extremis. I feel like the same criticism could be levied against the dollar.
Dollars are inflationary and therefore primarily currency, not assets. They're also far more useful, so people are likely to only pay the massive crypto tax (exchange fee, loss of liquidity) if they need to be outside of a legal system. Also, is it "in extremis"? It seems like the vast majority of transactions of crypto are for ransomware, contraband (guns, drugs, humans), or exchange between speculators.
> the vast majority of transactions
Are transactions relevant though? A lot of BTC is just being held, presumably for the sake of future popularity. You could see BTC investment as a bet on the future of BTC as a normal/common currency.
Re: Berkshire: Bitcoin is ‘contrary to the interest of civilization.’
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you buy stock from other stock owners it doesn't help the business Incorrect. That's what keeps the market for the stock liquid, and that contributes to value which the company can exploit through future stock issuing. Not to mention the indirect benefits to stakeholders within the company in terms of price and liquidity.
If I buy the stock in order to hold it for 30 years, doesn't that reduce liquidity?
No, because your holding increases the price until someone else decides it's time to tell. In other words, the lack of liquidity increases price. Regarding your original question, that increase is GOOD for the company because it can raise more money for selling the same amount of stock.