7 ms·

She also said that her son owns cryptocurrency, "because he's a free man." I think it's quite an odd remark for a person in her position. The whole thing could

by Geee 4y ago

She also said that her son owns cryptocurrency, "because he's a free man." I think it's quite an odd remark for a person in her position. The whole thing could be interpreted in a way that she has to be officially against bitcoin, but she also wants to signal that maybe bitcoin is a good idea too, given a free choice.

grumpitron 4y ago
Interesting- I had interpreted it as "he's free [to make his own decisions ... and mistakes]". Who knows (I don't!) what she actually meant
mattmanser 4y ago
It'd be far more normal to read it as: 'I'm going to let my child make his own mistakes, despite my view that it's a stupid idea'
seydor 4y ago
What s the implication, that those who don't own are not free?
- Geee 4y ago
  She is trying to say that don't listen to me, listen to my son. She is not free herself, because she has to defend the ECB and the euro. She implies, by using his son as an example, that ECB and the euro can't compete with bitcoin in a free market.
  - elliekelly 4y ago
    This is not at all a reasonable interpretation of what she's saying.
    - Geee 4y ago
      It's quite reasonable. Otherwise, she wouldn't mention him at all. She wanted to signal that 'son of the president of ECB owns bitcoin'. It's open to interpretation.
sprocket 4y ago
I would interpret that remark to mean more than "Yes, I'm the president of the ECB, and my son is free to make his own choices, even if I regard them as stupid ones."
filmgirlcw 4y ago
Why is that an odd remark? She’s not a fan, but she’s acknowledging her son has holdings, as he is his own person. Is she supposed to control what her (presumably adult) son spends his money on or invests in? I think most coins are Ponzi schemes. I still have a very small investment in a few coins, because why not. I was dumb and didn’t get out when I had a 4x return, but it honestly isn’t enough money to matter to me in the slightest. I also think this is an area that should be regulated in some way (or at the very least, the large exchanges should be regulated), because too many people are going to lose too much money, but I don’t think crypto should be illegal or anything. I just don’t see the problem with her acknowledging that she knows people who have holdings but also that she doesn’t see the real value basis and thinks it is a space that should be regulated.
- a2800276 4y ago
  No, it's clearly a coded message to her crypto bro minions for them to hodlr. Open your eyes man!
- Geee 4y ago
  Well, she leaves the reader to question: which one of them is smarter, the mom or the son. She clearly (or officially) doesn't understand money and subjective value, which implies that her son is the smarter one.
  - elliekelly 4y ago
    > She clearly (or officially) doesn't understand money and subjective value I can only assume you don't know who Christine Lagarde is because to suggest she doesn't understand money is not only ridiculous but bordering on offensive. Here is her wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Lagarde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Lagarde To say Lagarde doesn't understand money is like saying Paul Graham doesn't understand startups. It's absurd on its face. You may disagree with their philosophy but there's absolutely no denying their deep understanding of their respective subject matters.
    - 4y ago

by Geee 4y ago

grumpitron 4y ago

Interesting- I had interpreted it as "he's free [to make his own decisions ... and mistakes]". Who knows (I don't!) what she actually meant

mattmanser 4y ago

It'd be far more normal to read it as: 'I'm going to let my child make his own mistakes, despite my view that it's a stupid idea'

seydor 4y ago

What s the implication, that those who don't own are not free?

Geee 4y ago
She is trying to say that don't listen to me, listen to my son. She is not free herself, because she has to defend the ECB and the euro. She implies, by using his son as an example, that ECB and the euro can't compete with bitcoin in a free market.
- elliekelly 4y ago
  This is not at all a reasonable interpretation of what she's saying.
  - Geee 4y ago
    It's quite reasonable. Otherwise, she wouldn't mention him at all. She wanted to signal that 'son of the president of ECB owns bitcoin'. It's open to interpretation.

sprocket 4y ago

I would interpret that remark to mean more than "Yes, I'm the president of the ECB, and my son is free to make his own choices, even if I regard them as stupid ones."

filmgirlcw 4y ago

Why is that an odd remark? She’s not a fan, but she’s acknowledging her son has holdings, as he is his own person. Is she supposed to control what her (presumably adult) son spends his money on or invests in? I think most coins are Ponzi schemes. I still have a very small investment in a few coins, because why not. I was dumb and didn’t get out when I had a 4x return, but it honestly isn’t enough money to matter to me in the slightest. I also think this is an area that should be regulated in some way (or at the very least, the large exchanges should be regulated), because too many people are going to lose too much money, but I don’t think crypto should be illegal or anything. I just don’t see the problem with her acknowledging that she knows people who have holdings but also that she doesn’t see the real value basis and thinks it is a space that should be regulated.

a2800276 4y ago
No, it's clearly a coded message to her crypto bro minions for them to hodlr. Open your eyes man!
Geee 4y ago
Well, she leaves the reader to question: which one of them is smarter, the mom or the son. She clearly (or officially) doesn't understand money and subjective value, which implies that her son is the smarter one.
- elliekelly 4y ago
  > She clearly (or officially) doesn't understand money and subjective value I can only assume you don't know who Christine Lagarde is because to suggest she doesn't understand money is not only ridiculous but bordering on offensive. Here is her wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Lagarde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Lagarde To say Lagarde doesn't understand money is like saying Paul Graham doesn't understand startups. It's absurd on its face. You may disagree with their philosophy but there's absolutely no denying their deep understanding of their respective subject matters.
  - 4y ago