Holy Hell, that was more of a drive by shooting of Bitcoin than an interview. This "economist" has never investigated the other side of his bullets, which is ignorant or dishonest; either way unacceptable and ruinous to his credibility.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
@way-truth-light, I actually enjoyed the discussion. I am pro-crypto, but I feel that Ken's points on (or against) Bitcoin were better than the average arguments which would usually state, "Bitcoin can't be money because it doesn't have a 5000 year history!" blah, blah blah... Sometimes it's good to hear points from the opposite side. Might've been a drive by shooting, but no kill shots were produced.
Problem is, he's flat out wrong because he is not reasoning from first principles, he operates on an agenda. His paycheck comment ignores the fact that Bitcoin goes down 8 decimal points, the lowest being a Satoshi. Our paychecks will say 250,000 Satoshis a week, not 0.025 Bitcoin. It's just so disingenuous and his credibility is shot. There are plenty of economists who have given Bitcoin a fair chance, ken has failed. The fact that he spends so much effort on it without ever having used it exposes him....