Gordon files a complaint with the thought police again. It seems that relating things together to make a point doesn't require logic any longer.
Crypto Twitter can be great. It can also get under your skin.
I'm convinced; the world has lost it's scruples and if you wait long enough, quantum computing and automation are gonna turn us into Microsoft's crypto mining batteries a la Matrix (look it up dyor).
At this point, I'm not naming names like P.S., R.V. and a few others, and I'm actually going to force myself to be somewhat calmer than I was the first moments I came here to rant.
I'll start with a few things that should be obvious, and therefore the fact that they aren't is cause for alarm.
Here is a reasonable correlative argument; the government should spend less on military and more on preparedness for an outbreak like Covid-19.
Even though the military and a pandemic virus are not usually budgeted towards the same category (crossover? yes. primary intent? no.), one can understand that the argument is based on a $2T+ package that we may or may not bounce back from. The world will never be the same after this one way or another.
Here is a level-headed rebut, whether you agree or not: yes, but if we had a war instead of a pandemic, then people would argue exactly the opposite, looking at how extreme funding may have been in times of ebola, mers, swine flu etc. Preparing for an outbreak to an extreme, to the point of reducing military spending, would anger the masses if there wasn't a risk of outbreak and this was WWIII instead. It is easy to make an argument that too much was spent in one area over another.
That relation of one thing to another makes sense. It has multiple sides. Opinions can be valid.
Now, let's look at an example that does not correlate. Many people are jumping on the bandwagon that we are way over-reacting to the covid-19 pandemic. They are using what they think are good examples to make their point.
X # of people died from the flu; you don't see governments trying to quarantine that, do ya?
Y # of people died from suicide last year; you don't see them spending $2T+ on that, do ya?
People think that correlation of one death toll versus another makes for a valid argument. It does not. It is nonsensical. Illogical.
I would not care... certainly not enough to write a rant like this, if it were just everyday folks making these statements. The fact that it is supposed thought leaders of the crypto community, even the vocal loyalists of specific multi-billion dollar coins, making such unbelievably short-sighted, mind-blowing false correlations that lead me either to the edge of the ledge (add to that suicide statistic?) or the need for a rant.
So, thanks, here I am.
Here is why you need to know better. If you can understand what is wrong with the reasoning, you will be better off in life I promise. What is the real argument they are trying to make? The answer is, they believe the government and health officials are giving too much attention, credence, and money to a mass outbreak. Perhaps they also think more should be spent on other programs. Perhaps also, they may think media is over-hyping the details, and they may even think the whole thing is a hoax for breaking the bank and placing a chip in all of us; certainly not unreasonable since Gates wants to do that for every crisis.
They make a critical error. They believe that the way to make this point is to relate the number of deaths from covid-19 to other things people die from at a much larger number. Ohhhh such bad reasoning; let me count the ways. Nope, just gonna write about them.
Let's say you want to compare the number of people who died from car accidents to the number who died from covid-19.
Let's say you want to compare suicide rate to covid-19 death tolls. Let's toss in the number of deaths from tornadoes and hurricanes. Anything else? Breast cancer? Smoking?
Okay, here's my first point about how insanely wrong this is;
We have fairly reliable data from previous years on just about everything stated. We know, if we wish, how many people die in every state and country every year, from wrecks, natural disasters and a list of related health items. One can easily say "x" people died from breast cancer in Sidney in 2019. How many can you state with certainty have died from covid-19? Really, how many? Do you want to abridge this every time they announce the next number? They're doing so twice a day. Do you want to retract this twice a day, or just be wrong every 12 hours or so?
My point, is that perhaps in 2021-2, you can reflect back on how we handled covid-19, and give an accurate relation between spending for, let's say, the common flu, and covid-19, with solid numbers. You will probably still be making a bad correlation in doing so, but at least you'd be working with actual data. To make sense of this, you need to remember the point you're trying to make. We're talking too much spending, too extreme measures like lockdown and quarantine.
Here's the next issue; correlation requires a base for comparison. Death is not a base for comparison, otherwise you are now making the wrong argument!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your point is that the media is reporting too much, causing FUD, governments are evil and spending too much, that they need to use XRP or BCH or the system needs to break so we can all buy crypto with our dollars we no longer have (another argument that they lose on big time). Your point is NOT to prove that the number of deaths are worse for one catastrophe over another. If that were the case, you could just say "more people died from lung cancer last year than from purple reptilian wigwams" because you might be correct. Again, that isn't your point, is it?
I get it. Everyone is cynical. Everyone is skeptical. Everyone thinks everyone else is gullible. I would prefer people be gullible than just plain lost. I don't care if we disagree on whether leaders are trying to handle things correctly; there are plenty of good arguments or discussions to spread around. Most have validity on both ends. But, don't mistake comparing number of death statistics to correlation.
Spending too much on military versus spending too much on a virus? Perfectly valid, though easy to pretty much paint anyone into a corner under any miscalculated event. Media pushing out propaganda on the virus? Youbetcha- agreed! But, if the doctors, nurses, medical staff are telling us the truth, they are exhausted, they are watching colleagues die, they are worried, they are telling family members of completely unexpected deaths and they are telling us from one country to another this is worse than anything they have ever seen, and they are crying, telling us they will never come out of this the same. These are doctors who trained to look at you in the eyes with zero emotion and tell you your child just died and they tried everything they could. These people are either hired, remarkable crisis-actors (which do exist yeah), or they are telling us the truth.
None of these variables can be improved, argued, elaborated upon, or disputed by saying "yeah, but more people died from heart disease". Did you just sneeze and give someone heart disease? If the world were that fragile, then the real argument for you should be that the messaging on how to eat healthy is a giant lie from big pharma or Atkins. If your point is that you don't trust the government, then find a better example than careless # of car wreck-related deaths to make your point.
Let me try to make it clear in case you're just fuming reading this, and certain you are still right. Can you explain to me how the response to "don't sneeze on me, I don't want to die from covid-19" makes sense to say "you are more likely to die from cancer"? Please try to think this through.
You can't accidentally rub a car wreck off on someone else, unless you're into voodoo... that's a whole new problem I ain't gonna fix.
You can't unknowingly catch suicide that just sat open on a surface too long (unless it's phetanyl and you just coincidentally had negative thoughts at the same time, but that isn't the point).
Dude, where's your mask? Stay away I don't wanna catch breast cancer, okay?
My point; comparing government spending, media craze, change to business and lifestyle of a global pandemic to something that is not communicable, does not correlate, and it leads people to believe that logic is no longer important in order to make a point.
The government responds to every example people are trying to hold up, from strong medical studies on heart disease to ad campaigns on wearing one's seatbelt and not texting while they drive (how about a campaign for not eating a ham sandwich or putting on lipstick?). If we weren't on lockdown, I'm sure the millions spent on these have outraged someone somewhere as well, but now they all seem reasonable in comparison to a $2T+ package that will forever change the economy.
You know what? We could find out at some point that it really was all staged, the Rothschilds were behind it, and no one has ever gotten sick from covid-19. It is one of the zillion possibilities out there. If that ends up being the case (we probably still won't know... but), the point on government, media, capital institutions etc. still cannot be made by comparing unrelated death tolls. It just can't. It sounds like you can... but it doesn't hold up and it's embarrassing to see smart people try.
We don't have complete data.
Despite these extreme measures, the growth of infections, and thus deaths (which are actually a correlation) are still growing exponentially. They're out of control. This means if people aren't obeying the rules, like washing everything, wearing masks, avoiding distance, going to beach parties, licking toilets (oh wait, those last two are just stupid things people ARE doing), the spread of a pandemic is still getting out of hand. It means that there is a concern the whole world spreads this virus. It means the leaders of the world, prepared or not, are trying to contain something on a massive scale and it is hard to do. Unless you want to point out death tolls once we are sure this virus has ended its course, any comparison is bad data in unrelated categories.
What if we take it into a completely new category. I like music. I am a recording engineer, mastering engineer, composer. I like recording gear. There are always debates on analog versus digital still to this day. One person will say "analog sounds better" and another person will say "yeah, but digital has less noise". That is logical. I prefer one quality over another, or I see balance in the two. Logical, right? What if someone said "I prefer the sound of analog recordings" and someone replied "more people like chocolate". Tell me you truly think this is different from comparing awareness for suicide and preventing a pandemic? Both people have ears and mouths, yet liking analog has no connection to eating chocolate. It still involves humans using their senses, doesn't it? What if I had statistics to show how many people like chocolate, and another stat showing how many prefer the sound of digital to analog? Are my numbers in any way making a good argument for myself? Please tell me you aren't about to write me to explain how chocolate is better than analog, or I really might become another statistic.
But wait, there's more!
What about the number of people who die in wrecks or from lung cancer in Russia versus China versus the U.K.? If we go just based on interim data, apparently Russia and Mexico have this virus thing wrapped up. Do they handle heart disease the exact same way? That's a whole new correlation. We don't know if Barbosa from Mexico is right, that only rich people catch viruses, and drinking bad water cures all viruses, or if China did such an extremely good job that there are zero infections after exactly two weeks. Whatever studies were released early on from Russia, apparently if you're Russian you don't get sick. Perhaps, just gonna throw this out there, perhapssssss... corrupt governments also historically known for their pride, don't report, don't test, or any combination of the two? Could there be a political angle here?
If you have completely different outcomes for how a virus spreads based on how people respond in different areas, and you have different reporting based on how corrupt a government is, then once again you have an issue with relating this to any other category of life-threatening scenarios.
In addition to the logic just being bad, and in addition to the fact you can't catch a car wreck, and also in addition to the fact that we don't have complete, conclusive data on the virus and it's number of deaths, we have an issue of certainty. When most people die in a car wreck, the only thing required for a statistic is knowing they died in a car wreck. If someone dies from cancer, the medical staff determines that was the cause. This data is collected and made available. Sure, there's probably corruption in all of these studies, but for the sake of comparison, the way we arrive at these data sets is because we know those people died from those things. How can we relate that to a pandemic in process? If there are entire continents that may or may not have adequate test kits, while others that don't have masks, or ventilators, where one place has citizens out and about, and another country will arrest you for going out to walk your dog, how can anyone think they are able to report accurately how one form of death, and the spending involved, relates to another. We're in the middle of a pandemic! The numbers are growing, and growing quickly. Or, they aren't. The truth is we don't know how bad it is.
What about the closest correlation? What about the common flu? Millions have been spent every year trying to coax every citizen to get flu shots. Every pharmacy pushes the campaign. In some cases, the shot has led to extreme side effects, so much that in asking hospital staff about this, none of them are willing to take the shots. Something ain't right there. But, the money is spent, the ads are played, and attempts are made to reduce the number of people who die from the flu. The range of deaths have been from 20-60,000 the past several years. There is a slight correlation. But, there is also a difference. The flu; you sneeze, you know you might be sick. Someone sees you lookin' all wack, they might keep their distance (unless they're weird or they're Phoebe and they want raspy folk singer voice- you figure it out). Walk around spreading covid-19 with no symptoms for 2 weeks; who's gonna know unless we're all told to stay away and wash wash wash.
And even if comparing on spending for the flu and covid-19, most people may lose a little work time from the flu, and sometimes it does disrupt business, but it is very rare that businesses fold and banks fail because everyone is dropping like flies from the flu. The real issue, is exactly how much spending at exactly what date, will reduce the most chance of critical mass (one could say a half life, ahem) for the spread of a pandemic.
Comparison to mers, swine flu and the sort, again, studies are already complete, extreme actions were taken but the level of infection and spread were so drastically different, if anything, one can blame the death toll on previous outbreaks to a lack of response problem. If more people die from "x" than "y", one of the contributing factors could be that governments didn't do enough! People probably complained they wanted all of us to die. So, it really causes the opposite effect you were hoping for if this is the correlation you want to make. If we're all way over-reacting, our rights are being removed, and that's the real thing going on, then don't use an example of how bad it was the last time we did too little. That would actually be a negative correlation and again, you're still thinking you have a point, so I know you aren't thinking this through. That thing you're reaching for, is if we did nothing, and barely anyone died from the swine flu, then this is out of control and is a pull for our freedom. That's the point you wanted to make. But no, instead by listing those stats, you're actually making the point that the less we do, the worse it gets. Whoopsidaisy.
So, to prove a point how bad these examples are, and how misled people are, I'm gonna throw in something seemingly unrelated.
Because I wanna, that's why!
In similar circles, we see all of these twitter feeds about overspending, government take overs etc, and how they relate to crypto. There is one particular anti-Bitcoin person who claims to know more than a few things about economics. Their entire thing is really just about getting you to buy gold. We've seen big scary banner ads and listened to the Libertarian-friendly radio warnings about the big global shutdown that is coming. If the bottom line truly is to protect your rights and love freedom, cool. But, the bottom line is always, to buy gold. Okay, let's remember a few times that it was made illegal to own, buy, sell gold, and just realize crypto ain't in THAT much of a different class. So, this one person in particular, loves to remind all of us all the time, about that time he told us to buy gold at $300, $500, even $1100. They like to remind us that gold went up to this price, that price etc. Then, they'll tag their little stab at crypto by asking how many people told someone to buy Bitcoin at $20,000? Most likely, they're still just mad that they lost their private keys.
Again, I throw this in, because the same circles are tossing around these ridiculous correlations like they mean something, and it is always such a slant, it makes my blood boil.
Why do I care? Responsibility; that's why.
If you're recommending people invest in something, that is a big deal. You have a personal responsibility to give sound advice and not to try to stir someone up to make them buy something. Especially in a time where people are worried and the world is upside down, opportunism is particularly ugly. So, here's the main thing; people who are pro-crypto are going to recommend buying Bitcoin. It's going to happen. The price of Bitcoin, much like gold, has been very low, and very high. If you enter crypto thinking it will not be volatile, you aren't paying attention to anything on the internet and you probably should have someone else in charge of your finances. But, people who recommend Bitcoin do so roughly in the same manner as those who recommend gold. Many who have the funds to do so, buy both. Smart.
To pretend that you have never recommended a bad price for gold is dishonest. To pretend you recommend gold only at good prices in order to suggest anyone recommending Bitcoin probably told people to buy the top is a bad correlation. It is just as bad as trying to make government over reach logic comparing how many people die from peanut allergies and pandemics. There has been one time where there was an opportunity for people to make a bad buying recommendation; one time. In a year's time, we will know whether global conditions were enough to wreck Bitcoin forever. From mining issues to people dying and lockdowns, Bitcoin is at a very, very strong $5900. Hey, I want it back to $9K like the next guy.
Did you happen to notice the stock market triggered safety halts 4 times? That is unprecedented. It still dropped over and over again. It started a little rebound twice. Bitcoin outperformed by staying above $5400 that entire time. If it was crap, it would have gone below $1000. If there is no value, it could not trade at 4X the volume in a pandemic.
I'm forcing myself to stop at this point, because there may actually be somewhere out there who would benefit from this. When we all go through a crisis together, we see the best and worst of one another. I never wish for my frustrations to paint a picture of someone who is highly critical for the sake of being so. I like to laugh, joke, have fun, place smiles on faces, and discuss things that seem to matter historically. When I see people that tend to be blinded by extremes, jaded and confused, I can certainly understand it, but when that person is a leader in many circles, or a personality a lot of people will base their world views upon, I think it matters to call them out. How else might it help others along in this journey we're on together?
Now, go and survive this pandemic... or... whatever it is. Also, don't die of suicide, heart disease, drugs, cancer, or car wrecks. Okay?
Gordon Freeman Out.