Dissecting a bullshit artist bitcoin pusher ‘analysis’
Posted by John T. Reed on
Here is an item I posed on my Facebook wall (https://www.facebook.com/johntreed.publishing)
“Do not buy bitcoin. It is a will ’o the wisp and if it inflates due to hyperinflation, it will trigger huge capital gains taxes on what is not a real gain. Actually, with bitcoin, nothing is real but the taxes.
.
“I am about ready not to feel sorry for you bitcoin guys. You are terminally stupid and may deserve what you get given how many warnings you have received.”
.
And here is one reader’s response:
.
.
And here is one reader’s response:
.
“I hear you on the taxes. There are a lot of smart people on the ‘buy’ side of the Bitcoin discussion, and I’ve done my due diligence before investing.
“I’m not “terminally stupid,” John, and my net worth, education, military, business and investing history bear that out. Yeah, this is your wall, and you can call people names here. But I could make an argument about the wisdom of referring to people who disagree with you that way, especially your readers. Do better, John.
“As with all speculative investments, I invest only what I’m prepared to lose. That said, I’ve doubled my money recently and it’s gonna double again when it hits $44k. As for when the next correction comes, I welcome that as the next buy signal. Create an awesome day.”
.
And here is my reply to all that.
.
.
And here is my reply to all that.
.
Mazz says, “I’ve done my due diligence before investing.[in bitcoin]”
.
The fact that you can use “due diligence” in a sentence does not prove that you are competent at due diligence in general or in this instance. This is a conclusory sentence which violates my rule #64 as well as the federal rules of evidence.
.
Regarding my due diligence on bitcoin, I have discussed it at length here and at my blog and unlike you, I showed my work.
.
The overarching rule here is that this wall is about truth and the way we find it is by citing the pertinent facts and applying logic to draw a conclusion. If you draw a different conclusion than I or another commenter here, you must point out the error or omission in my facts or my logic. You did neither.
.
.
Mazz also says, ‘I’m not “terminally stupid,” John, and my net worth, education, military, business and investing history bear that out.’
.
A. This is another conclusory statement. For all we know you are a homeless, grade-school dropout, PFC, whose childhood lemonade stand failed.
B. More importantly, this statement is irrelevant.
.
Mazz says, “Yeah, this is your wall, and you can call people names here.”
.
My dishonest arguments rule #1 bans “1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive.”
.
In this case, where I have discussed the case against bitcoin in detail and at length over years, calling someone stupid for investing in it is not subjective.
.
Mazz says, “But I could make an argument about the wisdom of referring to people who disagree with you that way.”
.
The word “disagree” suggests an opinion. My dismissal of bitcoin as a store of value is not an opinion. It is a fact based on the analysis I have explained before. Again, if have drawn an incorrect conclusion, point out the error or omission in my facts or logic. Conclusory statements and absence of proof of claims combined with all the analysis I previously provided on this topic constitutes an incorrect conclusion on your part.
.
Mazz says, “As with all speculative investments, I invest only what I’m prepared to lose.”
.
The phrase “speculative investment” is a contradiction in terms. Bets are speculative. The word “investment” connotes that there is reason to believe that purchase will probably be successful. There is no such connotation in “speculation.” Buying bitcoin on the basis that you can afford to lose the investment is in investing. It is thrill seeking. Adolescent. An adult family’s finances should not have a “money we can afford to lose category.”
.
The phrase “what I am prepared to lose” is ancient, common, and stupid. It is an all-purpose excuse used to justify speculative purchases.
.
.
Mazz says, “That said, I’ve doubled my money recently”
.
My dishonest-arguments rule # 44 bans “Evaluating decisions based on results.” I also discussed that mistake at length in my book How To Spot Dishonest Arguments and keep your own thinking straight.
.
.
The only correct way to evaluate decisions is based on what the decider knew at the time he made the decision.
.
Mazz says, “and it’s gonna double again when it hits $44k.”
.
This statement is speculation, conclusory, and as far as we know, based on nothing but hope and bravado. It is childlike. Bitcoin hitting $44K, if and when it does, is irrelevant. All that matters is what Mazz knew when he made the prediction and there is no way he or anyone else could know what bitcoin will be worth in the future.
.
Mazz says, “As for when the next correction comes, I welcome that as the next buy signal.”
.
Being able to use the word “correction” in a sentence also does not prove that the speaker can tell what is a temporary dip in an asset price and what is a permanent downturn. No one can do that. There is no factual or logical basis for concluding that the price of an asset dropping is a good time to buy. There is no basis for knowing whether a small downturn in market value is insignificant or the first day on the road to bankruptcy.
.
Benjamin Graham said a stock selling for less than its intrinsic value based on fundamentals was a buy signal. There is some logic and empirical evidence to support that, but it did not prevent Graham from losing 60% of his net worth in the Great Depression. The market went down 90% at the time so maybe he deserves the Investor of the Year Award for 1932.
.
I want to thank Mr. Mazz for being such a multifaceted training aid relating for this article on recognizing bullshit artist investors.
Share this post
0 comment