Peter Schiff is a genius and has proven arguments, technical arguments, understands how the economy works. And Michael Saylor is full of creative fantasy - perhaps many of the things he says will happen in the future. He's a great visionary, but perhaps a bit delusional overflowing with wishful thinking. I value both, but perhaps I'm a bit more inclined towards Schiff. Yes, I also think this was a "false rally" and it's highly likely that we will see 10-11 k Bitcoin this year already. I can see a downwards bearish channel (roughly by looking at the charts from the distance).
I wouldn't call him a genius, I understand how the economy works and I'm an idiot. If we take his major themes he makes some valid arguments but also fallacious ones: 1. He understands just as countless millions understand that an economy grows when productivity increases. There's nothing remarkably special about that understanding. 2. He understands that savings are important for everyone as a means to meet expenses and as collateral for loans. However he makes the false assumption that it is savings that funds the capital goods used to provide the goods and services for consumption. This may have been true in the past under when we used commodity currencies and when business entrepreneurs borrowed the savings of others to invest, however the modern system functions differently. Savings are not lent anymore, loans are brought into existence out of thin air and then funded afterwards. This is not an entirely bad thing mind you as even in this modern currency system there is currently not enough collateral in the real economy to fund productivity growth and consumption, especially given the massive increase in the world's population over the past century (population growth is not the problem though), returning to a commodity currency or a system where savings are used to fund productivity expansion and consumption would see living standards drastically decline. 3. He understands comparative advantage. This is good as populists don't and it's not something that every day people get even though Adam Smith was banging on about it nearly 300 years ago. 4. He understands that governments have a role in providing services in the community that the private sector would not provide because there is no profit to be made. However he argues that governments fund this expenditure through taxes ie the government uses savings in the same way the real economy uses its savings as collateral for credit and for consumption. This is false as modern governments are not revenue constrained. Yes the inflationary nature of the modern monetary system, the politicisation of government expenditure and the actions of central bankers create cycles of boom and bust, but again, returning to a commodity currency would not solve our problems and would lead to austerity. Solutions to the problem would include such policy measures as abolishing the bond market, discarding some theoretical concepts such as the Phillips Curve, forward measures of inflation expectations, refocusing policy on employment rather than maintaining a buffer model of unemployed etc etc and the implementation of private currencies that inflate as a means to save and protect purchasing power for example. 5. He argues that the banking system should set the price of borrowing/saving money rather than central banks. That's an interesting argument that I haven't looked into. https://www.getstoryshots.com/books/how-an-economy-grows-and-why-it-crashes-summary/ Back OT as far as his arguments regarding BTC and crypto in general go, among his many complaints chiefly is that value is derived from the utility of an asset to meet demand. That's sound and nothing new, though it was an extraordinary idea when it was first discovered, however he then uses that conclusion to promote gold as an asset class in place of BTC. That would be fine if his arguments as to why BTC does not create value or only appreciates in price due to speculation could also not be applicable to gold. Hayek was a genius, Schiff is just another talking head.
I didn't know about that. Yes, I know he has an interest in promoting gold, because he's also a gold seller, but... he makes countless good points about how the economy works and why it crashes. He also seems to understand better what money is (better than crypto permabulls). But he's a gold permabull. I also started to think (in recent years) about gold's and overall PMs' limitations. They're not a perfect safe haven (look up gold prices in Venezuela and compare them to the inflation rate: gold did not follow the hyperinflation rate... it moved, but barely vs. the galactic inflation rate).
He’s exceptionally shrewd, articulate and passionate. A winning combo for what he does. Genius though… I think that’s a bit offensive to the best of what humans have put forward..
Michael Saylor is very quiet lately. Some old YouTube videos keep getting edited and re-packaged again and again. I think he sailed away on vacation. But he'll be back for the next bull market to teach the world why "he was always right". Right now it's Peter Schiff's turn to prove why "he way right all the time" and that gold is a REAL asset and Bitcoin is headed to zero on the long term.
Saylor, a guy who's famous pretty much only because he spent some of the largest sums of other people's money in crypto. He and his company are and were hardly ever interesting otherwise. Similar to that Raoul Pal chump who sat squawking from a paradise island that everyone was about to get rich pretty much at the top. Now just two squeaky wheels that will use any opportunity to save face. But also true to the nature of these people they will continue to ask for money in some form or another.
Yeah saylor just sounds like a complete tool like cathy wood haha. He just happened into btc at the right moment, got a little lucky but doesnt understand what it is and has never read a chart in his life. Its easy to talk big when its going up but whats he to do now. The expert credentials gotta go both ways.
From my experience he has a thorough understanding of the fundamentals of BTC. Sure he's completely off the spectrum when it comes to his bullishness on BTC as he is convinced it is the premium property of the future (ala gold bugs, RE bugs etc), but I wouldn't say he stumbled upon it by luck nor that he can't read charts. He's not a trader, he's a HODLer. If I had to criticise him it would be that he's nearly the model maxi, not quite because he does see value in Ethereum for instance, but nearly.
BTC at 19.6 k. Perhaps Schiff was right, it can go to ZERO at any moment. Sometimes I ask myself what could hold it even at 1,000 $? It's a cascade downwards. I think crypto is not so much about the masses, but a (relatively) large number of big investors and several giants. The rest are peanuts, teenagers and "wannabe millionaires" who even bought Shiba Inu. Regardless, the trust will be destroyed if it sinks below 10 k. I reckon it will not rise above 50 k for a long time. I still think 10-11 k could be the next stop. But some tremendous force would be needed to make it climb again. Perhaps if this winter will be so devastating (economically), then that might push people more into crypto (especially the big Saylor-type sailors). Vast adoption should occur (Amazon, Apple... Tesla... or Iran, Saudi Arabia to accept Bitcoin for oil...).
How low Bitcoin could go - I sometimes watch this guy, seems to be more realistic. He's anticipating Bitcoin to drop to around 11 k:
