This argument format - "if X is responsible for a decrease in Y, then not X is responsible for any increase in Y" - is plainly false and silly in any case it is applied, including this one.
Isn't it obvious? If the fire was responsible for burning down the house, then the fire must have also built it.
Feels close to the theory behind homeopathy. If something can trigger some symptom in a healthy person, then the same something can revert it in a sick person. They just remove any trace of it from the medicine to increase the effect.
English isn't my first language either, and I know how confusing it can be, so let me help here.
Here is the quote from the post: "If crypto people feel that the losses are because of Fed's actions, then they should also agree that the profits are because of Fed's actions". As we know, Fed's actions have changed: from providing "cheap" or almost free money (rate was something like 0.08%) to much more expensive ~4.5% now. It wouldn't be a huge leap of reason to assume that at least some of the impressive growth of crypto was driven by insanely low interest rates. But that's just my opinion, feel free to keep comparing monetary policy to homeopathy.
I understand the point, and obviously interest rates influence pretty much everything and anything. Stocks, tech salaries, housing prices, infrastructure projects, unemployment etc, they are all affected by central banks.
But that's not all, otherwise they'd perfectly align with interest rates, and stagflation would've been impossible, just as whatever it is that we have now.
If you look closely, it's the idea that "if X caused Y, it must have also caused !Y" that I compared to homeopathy, not the idea that monetary policy exists.
