Reasons not to Buy Bitcoin

Other Arguments:

  • Bitcoin is a scam because “they” can always print more.
    • No, only 21 million Bitcoins will ever be created.  This limit is hard-coded into Bitcoin’s code.  This can only be changed if a majority of holders agree to change it. The holders of Bitcoin have an interest in Bitcoin staying scarce.  If they were to change this limit they would be devaluing their own ownership stake.
  • What if inflation doesn’t go up, but stays low?
    • Your investment assets may inflate in nominal value, but if the interest rates stay depressed (low-interest rates), retirees won’t be able to live on the interest, even with high nominal portfolio values.
    • Reasons why inflation may rise:
      • If we don’t get a depression, one potential cause of inflation is commodity scarcity in 2 or more years.
      • The Federal Reserve will have a hard time keeping inflation under control by raising rates because the Federal Government can’t afford to raise the federal funds rate.  Doing so would cause the government to pay higher interest on its debt, which the government can’t afford.
  • What if the government develops its own digital currency?
    • The digital dollar will have the same monetary policy (more money printing).  Bitcoin’s rationale still holds up because its 21 million coin limit is its competitive advantage.
  • Bitcoin’s mining process uses too much energy.
    • The dollar is a currency backed by the US military.  Which is worse?


Joe Rogan Questions Jordan Peterson about Inequality of Outcome

“he Canadian psychology professor and culture warrior Jordan B Peterson could not have hoped for better publicity than his recent encounter with Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News. The more Newman inaccurately paraphrased his beliefs and betrayed her irritation, the better Peterson came across. The whole performance, which has since been viewed more than 6m times on YouTube and was described by excitable Fox News host Tucker Carlson as “one of the great interviews of all time”, bolstered Peterson’s preferred image as the coolly rational man of science facing down the hysteria of political correctness. As he told Newman in his distinctive, constricted voice, which he has compared to that of Kermit the Frog: “I choose my words very, very carefully.””*

The Smear Campaign Against Mueller: Debunking the Nunes Memo and the Other Attacks on the Russia Investigation

When Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel in May 2017 to lead the inquiry into Trump campaign ties to Russia, leading Republican voices sang his praises, calling him a man of “uncompromising integrity,”2 with a “stellar” reputation3 and the “right credentials for this job,”4 who will conduct a “thorough and fair”5 investigation with “trust and confidence of the American people.”6 As Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn stated, “Robert Mueller is perhaps the single-most qualified individual to lead such an investigation…and he’s certainly independent.”7 Just a few months later, that attitude has changed.

.. Individually, these allegations are unfounded, as we detail below. Collectively, they amount to one of the most sustained smear campaigns against honest government officials since Senator Joe McCarthy’s attacks of the 1950’s.

.. a pattern has emerged of the President and/or his enablers making wild allegations, dominating a media cycle, then pivoting away as the falsity of the claims emerge. Rather than defending the spurious attacks, after a short interval, a new and baseless charge is launched, and the vicious cycle is repeated.

.. We think the pattern is highly relevant to the credibility of each new charge

.. Myth #5: The Special Counsel’s inquiry is partisan and tainted because it was premised on Clinton campaign-funded and unreliable reports known as the “Steele Dossier.”

The Facts: The hack of Democratic Party emails and a report from Australian intelligence that Trump campaign staff may have knowledge of the hack were reportedly “driving factors” in the FBI’s decision to open an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

.. Although it is challenging to analyze the memo because neither it nor the underlying documents have been released, there are 7 multiple reasons to doubt its credibility. It appears that Representative Nunes and the other members of the House Intelligence Committee have not actually reviewed the classified source materials that were used to support FISA warrant applications. Any warrant for electronic surveillance would have been required to meet statutory requirements and withstand scrutiny from a judge. The memo is reported to be part of the effort to obstruct the Mueller investigation by discrediting and laying the groundwork to replace its supervisor DAG Rosenstein, and Rep. Nunes has consistently sought to discredit the investigation and bolster the President.

.. Critics argue that Mueller has a conflict of interest because of an alleged friendship with former FBI Director James Comey.12 This notion can be traced to a 2013 article published by the Washingtonian, 13 which describes how the two men were both mentored by Eric Holder in the 1990s and bonded over their roles “in the crucible of the highest levels of the national security apparatus after the 9/11 attacks.”14 As evidence of this friendship, the article cites general similarities including attendance at “Virginia universities with a strong public service tradition,” early success at DOJ, and a view that life at private law firms was unfulfilling that drove each to give up lucrative firm jobs “to return to the trenches of prosecuting criminals.”15 Their friendship was cemented, the article argues, when they both threatened to resign in 2004, because they believed that the Bush Administration’s post-9/11 domestic wiretapping was unconstitutional.16

As a factual matter, this article likely overstates the closeness of the professional relationship between Mueller and Comey, as they never worked in the same office at DOJ simultaneously, 17 and in threatening to resign in 2004 Mueller and Comey were not a unique duo but rather two among a number of DOJ employees who took the same position.18 Further, there is little specific evidence in this Washingtonian article or elsewhere indicating that Mueller and Comey have a close personal relationship, and the facts publicly known indicate that they don’t.

Comey’s attorney has stated outright that the men do not “really have a personal relationship,”19 that the two have never been to each other’s houses, and they have only ever shared one lunch and two dinners.20 As described by Benjamin Wittes, a journalist who does have a friendship with Comey,21 Mueller and Comey “are not, to my knowledge, personal friends,” but rather are “cordial former colleagues and two of the only people alive who have done a particular job.”22

.. A second way of explaining the conflicts of interest argument is that then-Director Mueller was purportedly protecting Hillary Clinton by not bringing Uranium One related charges against her.50 This theory relies on the premise that the Uranium One involved a corrupt quid pro quo between Hillary Clinton and Russian interests under which she advanced the deal in her capacity as Secretary of State in exchange for “a big payment”51 from Uranium One investors to the Clinton Foundation.52

.. These arguments too lack factual and legal merit. As a starting point, proponents of this theory have offered no evidence that Clinton personally participated in the CFIUS decision to approve the Uranium One deal or was even aware of it.54 That no prosecutor filed charges against Clinton during Mueller’s tenure as FBI Director does not suggest that he has a pro-Clinton bias or an anti-Republican or anti-Trump bias; it merely suggests that prosecutors did not believe that a provable crime had occurred. Tellingly, in the time since Special Counsel Mueller left the FBI no charges have been filed against Clinton. Moreover, Clinton’s State Department was only one of nine U.S. government agencies that approved the Uranium One sale.55 There is simply no credible basis to conclude that then-Director Mueller impermissibly singled out Clinton for preferential treatment.