A man named David Rosenberg thinks that bitcoin is not a good way to make money. He says that real ways to make money are by buying stocks, bonds, or things like gold and silver. These things have value because people need them or want them. Bitcoin does not have this kind of value, so he compares it to gambling or buying lottery tickets. He believes that bitcoin's price depends on finding someone who will pay more for it than you did. Read from source...

1. Rosenberg uses the term "speculative asset" to describe Bitcoin without providing a clear definition or criteria for what makes an asset speculative. This is a vague and subjective term that can be applied to any investment that has high price volatility and uncertain future returns, such as stocks, bonds, commodities, etc. Therefore, his statement is unfairly negative and dismissive of Bitcoin without acknowledging its potential advantages or merits.
2. Rosenberg compares Bitcoin to gambling rather than sound investing, implying that there is no rational basis for valuing or predicting its price movements. This is a fallacious argument because it ignores the fact that many traditional assets, such as stocks and bonds, are also influenced by random factors and uncertainties that cannot be accurately modeled or forecasted. Moreover, Bitcoin has some unique characteristics that make it different from other assets, such as its decentralized nature, capped supply, network effects, and innovation potential. Therefore, his comparison is inaccurate and misleading.
3. Rosenberg claims that stocks represent a stake in a company's future earnings, while bonds and savings accounts yield consistent interest. This is true, but it does not mean that these assets are inherently more valuable or desirable than Bitcoin. In fact, many investors might prefer Bitcoin over traditional assets because of its potential for higher returns, diversification benefits, and hedging properties against inflation, currency devaluation, and financial instability. Therefore, his statement is irrelevant and incomplete.
4. Rosenberg asserts that commodities possess industrial value and their demand can be forecast using economic data. This is also true, but it does not mean that commodities are the only or best way to invest in real assets. In fact, some commodities might be subject to supply gluts, environmental risks, regulation changes, and technological disruptions that could reduce their demand and value over time. Moreover, Bitcoin can also be seen as a digital commodity that has scarcity, divisibility, verifiability, portability, and intrinsic value properties that make it attractive to investors who seek alternative store of value and medium of exchange. Therefore, his statement is partial and incomplete.
5. Rosenberg suggests that Bitcoin holders should balance their portfolio with lottery tickets, implying that they are both equally risky and irrational forms of gambling. This is a fallacious argument because it equates Bitcoin with low-probability, high-impact outcomes while ignoring the possibility of high-probability, high-impact outcomes. It also implies that there is no way to

bearish

Key points:
- David Rosenberg, a prominent economist, criticizes Bitcoin as a speculative asset that has no intrinsic value and relies on the "greater fool" theory.
- He contrasts Bitcoin with more conventional investments, such as stocks, bonds, commodities, which have earnings potential, interest income, or industrial value.
- He suggests that people who want to get rich by believing in crypto should also buy lottery tickets, implying that they are both highly risky and highly uncertain bets.