Put those historical stonk price charts away, you retards. They're totally meaningless, and btw don't you know that even looking at them and noticing generalized patterns over the years constitutes 'technical analysis' which is a bunch of fake low IQ shit for idiots? *You're* not an idiot... are you???

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694326&forum_id=2#48748717

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48750382)

What the intelligent financial advisor actually said: "Bear in mind that past performance is not a guarantee of future success when you invest in ston--"

What "sealclubber" (a retard) heard him say: "THE PAST PERFORMANCE OF A STONK IS AN IRRELEVANT METRIC AND ONLY STUPID PEOPLE CONSIDER IT WHEN INVESTING.... I AM A SMART PERSON, SO THEREFORE I DON'T CONSIDER IT, GOD I HATE STUPID PEOPLE THEY SUCK SOOOO MUCH AND I LOOK DOWN ON THEM AND GRRRR, STUPID 'TECHNICAL ANALYSIS' GRRRR!"

It's amazing how many times this dynamic plays out in all sorts of areas.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48750408)

what your thread title said is

"TSLA has lost >40% of it's value at least 5x since 2018 and always hit new ATHs."

and then you proceeded in your first two posts to say how stupid everyone is because

"To be fair,

Brilliant Jewish XO Pumos: "LOL u retard that's all totally irrelevant, history won't repeat itself again -- this time is totally different for reasons, and TSLA is never going to bounce back up again. Hope u sold it all becuz if not UR FUKT!"

lol"

and

"To be fair,

AMAZING COINCIDENCE (SIT DOWN FOR THIS YOU'LL NEVER SEE THE TWIST COMING):

BTC has also lost >75% of it's value at least 5x since 2010, and every time it also rose once again to achieve new ATHs.

...guess what Brilliant Jewish XO Pumos have also been saying about BTC's latest dip?

;)"

so you doubled down on your stupidity. at least your stupidity is accompanied with arrogance. you're no better than a gambler being confident about a future result because of what you've seen in the past

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48750457)

getting humiliated and then posting a separate thread attacking someone because you're too much of a faggot to defend your idiocy in the original thread

btw, for anyone popping in

i quoted the definition of technical analysis from investopedia and it matched up with exactly with what to be faggot was doing

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48750405)

Sorry bro, but any reference to a stonk's past performance -- no matter how generalized or high-level -- is "technical analysis," that's just the dictionary definition of it bro it's all right there.

BTW the experts all agree that "technical analysis" is a bunch of low IQ bullshit, so I hope you aren't one of those dumb midwit goys who does stupid shit like looking back at the historical performance of stonks and taking that performance into account when you're making speculative investment decisions about where you think they're likely to go in the future. People who do that are performing "technical analysis," and doing that sort of thing makes you a certified moron. You're not a moron, are you?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48753505)

(Zurch is gay is faggot)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48753660)

disagree?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48763633)

Thanks for clarifying this for anyone who wasn't able to click the link I dropped in the OP and spend 30 seconds reading our entire unabridged exchange in context. Very helpful and important addition!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48750412)

i'm gunnerfaggot. tbf is "to be faggot." even his own moniker "sealclubber" is something a lackwit neocon would think is edgy and hilarious.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48752363)

https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5517972&mc=90&forum_id=2#47585650

gold's value today is based partially on the assumption that some parts of spacecraft that will assist human's leaving earth will be made of gold!

my god, the corrosion resistant gold tipped circuit boards!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48752272)

*Ancient Sumerian man shrewdly hoarding all of that pretty stuff he dug up because he knows someday it will help mankind to build complex rockets which will facilitate interstellar travel to new universes he can't even begin to fathom*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48753496)

bitcoin could disappear tomorrow and there would be no tangible effect on anyone

enjoy your tulips while you can, bitch

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48753791)

you're a real fucking pothole on the xoxo road

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48753850)

So you're saying that gold is actually way more expensive than silver and copper because gold has a bunch of very useful traits that give it an "intrinsic value" as a physical material which can't simply be boiled down to "ooooo it's so prettty and shiiiiiny, I liiiiiike it"?

You sure about that, bud?

Because as I understand it, the "price" of any commodity is determined by the global demand for that commodity. And last time I checked, <7% of gold is actually being used for any sort of industrial application in the modern world -- meaning that the global demand for gold's utility in industrial applications only accounts for <7% of its current "price" in the global marketplace. Here's a source on that: https://www.statista.com/statistics/299609/gold-demand-by-industry-sector-share/

As of 2023, ~50% of the global demand for gold came from the "oooo it's soooo prettttty" trinkets and baubles sector, and another ~45% of the global demand for gold either came from investors who want to use it as a vehicle for bald financial speculation (BTC is now widely used for exactly this same purpose and yet you scoff at the suggestion that this use gives BTC any "intrinsic value") or from central banks who want to use it as a vehicle for storing wealth and hedging against inflation (same comment as above).

So what am I missing here? Because to me, it looks like ~93% of the current "price" of gold in the global marketplace can be directly attributed to "oooo it's shiny and pretty" plus two other uses which you yourself have previously stated DO NOT IN AND OF THEMSELVES afford a commodity any sort of "intrinsic value" in your opinion (see, e.g., BTC).

Pretty confused here... suffice to say, I'm really looking forward to you clearing this up for me.

TYVMIA.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48754004)

but it's "intrinsic value" as a currency is exactly the same as anything else we use as a currency. there's nothing that makes gold unique compared to any other precious metal or method of exchange.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48755274)

CR, my thesis is that putting aside the ~7% of its current global market valuation that comes from legitimate industrial use cases, >90% of gold's global market cap can be boiled down to a bunch of humans looking at gold and thinking to themselves, "oooo I wanna own that" (either because they just genuinely like it, or because they think other people really like it and they therefore want to use it as a vehicle for speculative investment). Which is a fine use case, to be clear. I'm not the one who has a problem with calling that a valid source of value for a commodity. Sealclubber is.

But -- and this is an odd case! -- he ONLY seems to have a problem with that calling that a valid source of value when it comes to BTC. Very interesting!

Somehow, the fact that hundreds of millions of people all around the globe also now want to buy and hold BTC is evidence of what a total scam that bullshit is... even though in his view, the very same phenomenon functions as FURTHER PROOF of how INNATELY PRECIOUS physical gold is, for, uh... "reasons."

It's almost like this "Sealclubber" guy is legitimately a low IQ retard who can't actually explain how or why these two phenomena are different from one another in a defensible way.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48757952)

"sound right."

"regardless of how silly an individual may think it is to use one specific shinny metal as a currency, it's just a fact that people do."

"yup"

"likewise, bitcoin is undeniably a store of value and used in the same way gold has. this has happened for over a decade now, and peoples faith in it is high. so even if someone thinks it's retarded, they cannot deny that it simply is a fact."

"btc has no intrinsic value and will someday be worthless. btw im not shorting btc or anything, even though i have unwavering faith in my prediction."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48757996)

*Final three strands of long thin oily hair blown all the way back*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48759077)

i read what he's saying here to mean that no commodity has intrinsic value and its value is derived from the price people are willing to pay for it. he goes on to say that gold, for instance, is mostly not being used for whatever it generally can be used for. it's valuable because people have decided that it is, not because it has inherent value.

i could be wrong, though. i am retarded and gay.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48755471)

CR

Can't wait to see what sealclubber has to say about my analysis of gold above!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48757953)

he's a very good poster boy for "early 2000s free market republican (who used to be a lib, but the zionists all switched over from left to right wing back in the 70s because they have exactly one thing they care about: israel)."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48759085)

It's almost enough to make you think he's schtick, but I think that he's real and he's fantastic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48759213)

Wow!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48759222)

if you are conceding that bitcoin has no intrinsic value, that's what you have failed to do in the past

rather, you go off on lame rants about gold that are desperate and pathetic and inapposite.

glad you finally admit that bitcoin has no intrinsic value, faggot. took you long enough.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48759629)

so what is the significance of that to you?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48759666)

Wow, you got me. Great victory here for you, thanks for tactically pressuring me to finally concede that you were 100% right and I was 100% wrong this whole time, bud. Whew feels good to admit that at last.

*farts cum and gleefully waves Israeli flag*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48759669)

to be faggot skirted the issue and refused to answer.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48759903)

every single poast he made in that thread was an implicit acknowledgment that bitcoin has no intrinsic value. because bitcoin *doesn't exist* in the physical world. the same way the vast majority of dollars don't exist beyond digital tokens.

this is exactly why you're known as the biggest fucking retard who has ever poasted. you've been arguing about this with tbf for months now, dozens of poasts, and you think this is some sort of "gotcha." do you think he was mentioning the scant intrinsic value of gold to justify it's price? no, he's being sarcastic and mocking it.

you are perhaps the only person in the world that can read and understand the words written in that thread and this one and come out thinking "TBF thinks bitcoin has intrinsic value." this is just like the wealth tax thread i always poast with you. it is so obvious that this is his position that it would be insulting to a reader to say it explicitly.

and again, SO WHAT? THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT OF THAT THREAD AND NOW THIS SUBTHREAD WASTELAND IS THAT VALUE AS A CURRENCY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTRINSIC VALUE! THAT'S WHY IT'S A CURRENCY! FEATERS, BONES, SHELLS, PAPER, AND DIGITAL TOKENS (spoiler: the last two are still being used today!) HAVE ALL BEEN USED AS CURRENCY! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTRINSIC VALUE!!! THAT'S HIS POINT!! THAT'S WHAT WE'VE ALL BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU!!!!!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48759977)

not surprising, faggeratttt

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48762381)

CR you tell em buddy, you rocked this thread now's your time to shine keep going -- all of these stupid motherfuckers need to all be exposed as the IDIOTS that they are, starting with me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48760160)

Holy fucking shit how the hell are you STILL asking this question?

This is insane, how are you this goddamn stupid?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48761252)

why do you think that's significant?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48760189)

"Look, pal, I run this show and we do this my way. That's what being the boss is all about. First question, answer fast: *why* are you gay and retarded and always wrong about everything?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48762781)

Bro I don't even know what to say to you at this point.

If I admit that bitcoin has no intrinsic value, will you actually attempt to substantively engage with my points about whether gold has intrinsic value (aside from the 7% that is being used in industrial applications every year), or will you just proudly declare total victory and then in short order revert back to aggressively interrogating me about whether I think bitcoin has any intrinsic value and calling me "to be faggottt"?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48762840)

OK, bitcoin has no intrinsic value.

Your move.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48763369)

is there anything comparable to bitcoin, besides other crypto, that has value to people but no intrinsic value?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48763406)

Whoa -- now you have follow up questions????

Look bud, you put your foot down and ordered me around in this thread and I dutifully obeyed you (as I must), but promises were made that the next order of business after I properly debased myself by admitting that I am gay and retarded and I have been totally wrong about BTC all of these years (since it has no intrinsic value and is fundamentally worthless just like you have been correctly pointing out for a decade now) was for you to go back and substantively address in good faith, point by point, my comments/questions above about the intrinsic value of gold OTHER THAN the 7% that is being put to use for industrial applications each year.

Here's a link to that promise btw: http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48762993

Yet even though I complied with your just and righteous demand, it seems like you're now trying to get me to expand the scope of my pathetic debasement to cover other topics as I continue flagellating myself at your mighty feet.

This doesn't seem fair, brother.

Can we finally just talk about gold?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48763543)

you're the faggot applying retard technical analysis to tesla when that is obviously inapplicable

of course, what else could you do?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48763549)

You can just finally respond to this post ITT:

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48754004

Please respond in detail, however, and please carefully walk me through (don't skip any steps treat me like I'm a retard which I am) how ALL of the use cases for gold that are spelled out in that chart ACTUALLY speak to the deep intrinsic value that gold possesses and which bitcoin lacks. ESPECIALLY the use cases that involve (1) investors buying and holding gold for speculative investment purposes, and (2) central banks buying and holding gold as a hedge against inflation.

TYVMIA. Really looking forward to learning more about this topic from you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48763559)

just because gold's value is 7% industrial at its current price, if it dropped 30% in value, its industrial value would likely increase greatly. its price cannot drop below the next highest priced commodity for which it is a perfect or superior replacement, can it?

you seem to think that industrial value is the only intrinsic value for gold. that is not true. at some point, beauty becomes an intrinsic trait. i don't know what that level of subjectiveness is, but gold is far past the minimum level of human appreciation to meet the definition

when it comes to gold, it is valuable because x, y, z, a, b, and because people consider it to be valuable

you conflate that with bitcoin

which is valuable solely because fools have bought into the game. to be fair, there are a lot of fools.

you appear to acknowledge that the only "value" of bitcoin is that fools are giving it value and therefore it serves as a store of wealth and is no different than the bulk of the value of gold

it is different.

all gold can make jewelry or other beautiful items that can be converted to industrial use, basically instantly

all gold is touchable, seeable, real

crypto? lol, no

93% of gold's value is not x, but many things, including what bitcoin is currently providing.

but bitcoin and gold only overlap on one thing, right? what else does bitcoin provide to its owner?

of course, to be faggot, i know you will not respond to these points in any legitimate way. you're too invested in being a snarky faggot who bats .250 here, but hope i'm wrong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48763624)

OK so if I'm reading this correctly...

1.) I think we both agree that industrial use cases for a commodity material always qualify as imparting intrinsic value to that material. Applying that principle to gold gives us ~7% of the current market value of gold, which neither of us dispute arises from gold's intrinsic value. Agreed so far?

2.) Then we move on to a more contentious use case -- gold used in jewelry. I'll grant that this is also a valid use case, but I think it doesn't really speak to the intrinsic value of gold as much as it speaks to a derivative value: yes, gold is intrinsically pretty, and that's why people like wearing it in the first place... but the reason that people are WILLING TO DROP TONS OF MONEY IN ORDER TO WEAR IT is because it's BOTH PRETTY AND RARE. The most obvious analogy here is diamonds vs. cubic zirconium -- to the human eye, they are basically indistinguishable, and within the context of jewelry they're both equally "pretty." That's why they both get used in jewelry... if they were ugly, nobody would bother to wear either one of them. Yet diamonds are incredibly expensive and CZs are comparatively extremely cheap, and in the context of jewelry that's NOT because diamonds are way harder than CZs (which is an undisputed intrinsic property that gives diamonds their value in industrial use cases but not really in the context of jewelry) -- it's because diamonds are widely perceived (albeit incorrectly, thanks to the Jewish cartel that has intentionally 'managed' the diamond industry for centuries) as being rare, whereas CZs are perceived as being common. Incidentally, the best proof of that is the fact that as lab grown diamonds have become cheaper and easier to make, thereby loosening the stranglehold that Jews have on the diamond industry, the prices for diamonds have gone down dramatically over the last decade. Is that because diamonds are any "less pretty" or "less hard" in 2025 than they were back in 2015? Obviously not. It's entirely because the growing availability of lab grown diamonds has finally started to shift the public perception of their "rarity" within the context of jewelry, and as a result consumers aren't willing to pay as much for them and they have become less valuable within that context.

If you disagree with any part of that assessment, please explain what part you disagree with and why you disagree with it.

Otherwise, assuming that we agree on all of that... HYPOTHETICAL: It's 2030, and it's now very cool to wear a piece of stainless steel jewelry that digitally displays the contents of your BTC wallet on your neck for social clout. Without fighting the hypothetical, IF AND WHEN that happens would you then concede that that use case for BTC gives BTC "intrinsic value" for social clout/decorative purposes, just like the jewelry use case does with gold? If not, why not?

3.) Finally, I can't help but notice that you didn't even attempt to address the last two use cases for gold, which (per that chart) accounted for a whopping ~45% of the global market value of gold in 2023. Those two use cases are (1) private individuals accumulating it for speculative investment purposes, and (2) central banks accumulating it as a vehicle to hedge against inflation.

Do you believe that either or both of those use cases give gold "intrinsic value"?

If the answer is "no," then do you therefore admit that a whopping ~45% of gold's current market value is NOT pegged to its "intrinsic value" (because it derives from use cases that you have just admitted are untethered to its intrinsic value)?

If the answer is "yes," then do you deny that there are now tons of private individuals and a growing number of central banks all around the world are using BTC for exactly the same two use cases? And why wouldn't BTC's widespread and growing use in this context *also* give it "intrinsic value", if gold's use in this context gives it "intrinsic value"?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48763670)

2) yes, more contentious. all things being equal, most people want a real diamond rather than a lab grown 'fake' one. or most people want a real one because they believe most people want a real one. scarcity "rare" is a factor in valuation. we're humans. for some reason this tends to be a factor that increases value. // a replacement product is available that is lowering the value of diamonds. that makes sense.

3) show me the chart again and i'll supplement

for (1) and (2) i don't think those things are intrinsic value. maybe if there is sufficient historical data to prove me wrong, i might consider them quasi-intrinsic value, but that gets very close to technical analysis. so, i'm open for why i'm wrong, but i'll say no

since i said no, i've already established that i believe intrinsic value can be established by gold's substitute uses for other commodities at a lower value, but not zero. that helps give gold a lower floor on a fundamental basis and that is worth something.

nor have i ever said something's value is solely dependent on its intrinsic value. extrinsic value matters, especially in the short term, but perhaps even longer

for example,

mickey mantle baseball cards are worth more than willie mays and ted williams cards mostly because of extrinsic factors, more or less. that is unlikely to change.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48763772)

we used to have actual Poster Feuds on this shitbort, now we just keep shooting the fish in a barrel

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48762403)

CR, I'm an "Influencer" now and this no-name faggot thinks he can step to me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5694649&forum_id=2#48762785)