John Haar
@john_at_swan • 6,967 subscribers
Private Client Services @swan, the World's #1 Bitcoin-Based Wealth Platform Former Wall St Portfolio Manager & Instl Investor of 13 years
Videos
When someone goes on a Bitcoin podcast w/out having any substantial understanding of the history or nature of money… Props to them for going on the show & learning in public? Or knock against them for having views that have clearly not been researched? Honestly torn on this
John Haar54,241 views • 11 months ago
Mike Green: "No, that's not the system that we live in now. This is actually why the inflation that you were describing is somewhat endemic. You need to increase the supply of money in order to allow the resources and credit creation that allows the next generation to buy into the system. That's why there's an inflationary characteristic to it. Again, it could be reduced if we reduce the preference for debt financing relative to equity financing. But the simple reality is is if you look at the population of the United States over the past 100 years, it's grown from about 75 to 100 million people to today 350 million people. If we had been on a Bitcoin standard, that would mean that every single person that was born after the vast majority of Bitcoin was created, which by the way started several years ago, would have no real access to them to that Bitcoin under the same terms. It would prove incredibly deflationary in terms of its underlying characteristic. It would require interest rates that were extraordinarily high to offset the non-recoverability of that Bitcoin. And you're effectively creating conditions under which the system would cease to function. and permanently disadvantage those who were born after the initial round of Bitcoin had been printed. It's just a mathematical property of the system as it's set up." -------------------- Mike Green is yet another confused person who pushes the false narrative that we must increase the units of money in order to achieve economic cooperation & growth. He fearmongers in vague terms about "deflation" causing the system to "cease to function." allen farrington Sacha Meyers Saifedean Ammous you will probably want to see this.
John Haar10,630 views • 3 months ago
More sophistry and revisionist history from Mike Green. He claims: "Money exists to cancel debt. That's all it does. That's what it says on your dollar bill. This is legal tender for settlement of debts both public and private. It continues to function in that manner. It never stopped functioning in that manner. That is what it does. That's what it's supposed to do. It's not meant to store value. It's not meant to retain its value. It doesn't say that on there. There's no statement on your dollar bill that says this is good for three cowhides, right? It says this is for the settlement of debts, public and private." -------------------- His statements would only be sensible to someone who thinks money has been fiat for all of time. However, his claims are ahistorical (a word Green likes to use himself). Paper money was introduced as a representation of a specific amount of precious metal. Dollar bills once stated exactly how much silver or gold they were redeemable for. When the Coinage Act of 1792 was passed (and all the way up to 1971), you would have been laughed out of the room if you stated that "all money does is cancel debt." In fact, even after 1971, you would have been laughed at for claiming this, because Nixon's suspension of gold convertibility was "temporary," of course. When money was a specific representation of gold and silver, it DID store value. Of course paper money never stated that it can be exchanged for three cowhides. But when dollars stated exactly how much precious metal they were redeemable for, citizens KNEW that the underlying precious metal stored value over time. This is why the fiat rug-pull happened over many decades rather than overnight (central banking --> gold seizure --> "temporary" removal of gold convertibility --> fiat money). The best defense of Mike Green's claims are that they apply to the nature of fiat money TODAY. But Green leaves out that, historically (while competing monetary theories did exist), people correctly treated gold/silver-backed money as a store of value. Money DID store value. Everyone knew this to be true, and wanted it to be true (except banks and governments).
John Haar10,393 views • 3 months ago
Why would you invest in Bitcoin when it has no cash flow, earnings, or management team? John Reed Stark confidently repeats one of the most common misunderstandings of Bitcoin. Here's my response in the video. The funniest part is when you consider the following question, saying yes or no are both supportive of Bitcoin 🤣 Should you hold any portion of your wealth in dollars, an asset with no earnings or cash flow? — If yes, then surely you can understand holding Bitcoin, which has no earnings or cash flow (and btw is the best performing asset for 7 out of the past 10 calendar years) — If no, then you're admitting dollars are perpetually debased/inflated, which is also supportive of holding Bitcoin H/T to Sunny Po for sharing the clip
John Haar21,116 views • 1 year ago
No more content to load