Bitcoin Forum

Lets face it, there's a colossal gap between the rich and the poor, and that gap is certainly getting wider. But whose to blame in this economic inequality? Is it the government that favors capitalist who contributed large amount during their campaign periods? Is it our constitution that institutionalized the practice of contractualization and other forms of labor flexibilization, hence undermining job security? Like a joke from my previous job, "If you are not a regular employee, you are casual. And after 5 or 6 months, your employer says TY (Thank You) to you which makes you a casualTY. Can we blame capitalist that hoard as much wealth as possible leaving only a thin slice of the .pie for the average guy to share among themselves?

Nope, it's the corrupt politicians and bankers.  It's the monopoly on the ability to create money that is the problem, not capitalism.

::) It's this kind of useless logic that works against progress, not for it.

Progress will only occur when people choose to opt out of the current fiat, debt-based monetary system.  Anyone trying to improve society within the current monetary system is just spinning their wheels.

That's like saying you have the flu, but the only way to get better is to replace your heart with a heart that we are unsure will work or not.

Again, completely pointless.

but that is tantamount in saying that progress can never be achieve.

It's much worse than the flu, it's a defective heart.  The only way to survive is with a transplant.

Fortunately, Bitcoin is a voluntary monetary system.  Those who feel their needs are being met with the existing fiat monetary system and prefer to continue using it are free to do so.

I think you have to steer the conversation away from "who to blame".

The only solution is to acknowledge the problem and come up w solution w everyone involved.

If you are super rich or corporations, are you willing to pay more taxes?

If you are middle class are you willing to spend more on supporting SMEs

If you are an SME,  will you hire more local labor?

If you are poor, are you willing to work harder? Take some night classes, increase your skillset to gain employment?

If you are gov't,  are you willing to reform taxes? Stimulate SMEs & increase social programs so the underclass can get more education? Focus on employment rather than GDP

The problem can only be solved if the entire society wants it solved

There won't be a single solution for all of society, because not everyone in society has the same goals.  Just find a solution that works for you that doesn't require forcing it on others.

We're talking inequality here.  Its a societal problem not an individual problem.  The only way to solve societal problems is when you get consensus

You never heard of the virtuous circle concept?

There will be no consensus.  Like-minded individuals will have to get together and form societies made up of willing participants.

1. That would be even harder to achieve. Every class in a society have different goals.

2. They are already paying more taxes compared to an average guy, otherwise, the Internal Revenue would be chasing them.

3. Not all middle class are into business or SME's. Some are just contend being an employee of some giant corporations.

4. That could be work out.

5. Working harder is all they could do. How could they even take night classes to upgrade their skill when they are already having hard time to make ends meet.

6. No comment on that. Politicians are trying to balance their their positions on tax reforms, otherwise, they wont get any contributions to fund their campaign. :)

So our current system, what exactly is wrong with it?

The biggest issues are the fact that it's inflationary and debt-based.  It's also controlled by those with political connections and used as a political tool.

Apply this to past problems.  Slavery, labor rights, civil rights and whatever else

Sounds impossible to solve at the time but society did progress. It can either through democratic process or bloody process.  Personally, I prefer the non violent way

The problem w inequality issues is not everyone even recognize its an issue.

The problem w individuals only thinking about themselves and not caring about society as a whole.  Shit doesnt get done.  Trying to blame someone.  Yeah it feels good but its the wrong mindset

I certainly agree with you on that. From the time of campaign up to the time when they are already elected, money is what makes some politicians go round.

Blaming someones misfortune to others is inherent quality as a human. But it does not necessarily mean that the one who is finger-pointing is not taking himself into account. It could be that he has already done all what he could do to address such issues but unfortunately, "OTHERS" are into the equation that ain't doing their part, hence the blaming game starts.

Yep, people that have the ability to create money buy out the politicians.  Then the politicians use the money to buy votes.

Most central banks are generally independent from political affiliation and are not controlled by any political appointee.

First, I object to the concept of people as "workers". "worker" is just a euphemism for "serf" or even "slave". People should take responsibility for their own lives and stop looking for other people to support them. If people approached work not as employment, but as self-employment, they would be much better off.

Second, the claim that capitalists "hoard as much wealth as possible" is odd, since the most successful capitalists hoard very little of their wealth. Instead they utilize it to increase their wealth.

I believe the reason for the disparity is that it takes money to make money and thus people with wealth are able to increase their wealth more than those without. If income disparity has increased, it is probably due to technology increasing the efficiency of using money to make money.

I think it is very apparent that the solution to the problem of income disparity in the past has been revolution. Unfortunately, the ability of people to revolt against their subjugators has been diminished by the growth of government, which ironically also has resulted in the institutionalized corruption that has contributed to this income disparity. In order to eliminate income disparity, there must be a revolution of some kind, and in order to achieve a successful revolution, the size of the government must be reduced. Unfortunately, the people that suffer from income disparity are the majority and they tend to believe that more government is a solution to the problem, when the truth is that big government perpetuates the problem and prevents the revolution.

I believe that Bitcoin may be the revolution we are looking for. Governments certainly see it that way. Just look at how they approach it -- with fear and trepidation. They know how dangerous it is to them.

The Federal Reserve was created by an act of Congress and the president appoints the Fed Chairman.  Also, a significant amount of the federal government's funding has been coming from the Fed.

The president appoints the chairman of the federal reserve (as well as each of the member of the board of governors of the fed) however there is no accountability to the president once they are confirmed by the senate. Also the federal reserve does not receive any funding from the government (it is the other way around) so it is not subject to congressional pressure 

Everyone was born unequal, the only thing people can do is to make a fair-play system for everyone, but that is still a best effort thing

Bitcoin can make the system better by abolishing "creating money out of thin air" scam. Money should always be produced with a cost that corresponding to its value, so it becomes a fair trade between money and goods/services

However, people tends to rely on large and powerful organizations to protect them, it is this demand created the chance for banks to rob people of their wealth, it seems people are volunteered to be the victim

So what we can do is to educate people to be independent about their money, but I don't know if that will work. Banks existed for thousands of years, there is a reason why they are needed, mostly a psychological demand

since the beginning, even when the time that money is not yet in existence, there is already an unequal distribution of wealth. Its already on the system. We cant do anything to have an economic equality.

The goal isn't to have equality.  The goal is to keep inequality gap from getting out of hand.  Would you rather have a distribution like Post War US & UK or Pre Revolutionary France?

That's the issue now as the IG gets close to the levels of Pre Revolutionary France

it all depends on what economic system we use, when we use the system of capitalist economy, economic imbalances will be more visible, the rich will get richer while the poor are getting poorer, there is no economic justice, if we use the capitalist system, economic system this is still used by most major countries are there in the world such as American and European countries

I suggested that we should learn to wear Islamic economic system, where the rich and the poor help each other there is a relationship between one and the other, in the Islamic economic system is no term zakat and charity, where the wealth of the rich are the poor of his rights to be issued immediately when reaching reckoning, I think the Islamic economic system is better than other economic systems such as the capitalist economic system ...  ::)

Careful comrade >:(

http://filmint.nu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/I-Married-A-Communist.jpg

known since the beginning of the capitalist economic system, the economic imbalance occurs, the conglomerates continue to accumulate wealth so that continues to grow, they monopolize every field of business so there is no chance for others to start a business, any business that strategically they controlled, so that the rich get richer while the the poor poorer ...  8)

Ok, you may go in here and reply to these 3 questions, you and everyone else in this thread, it's relevant:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=854589.msg9507742#msg9507742

Very interested in your replies.

Okay, checking out your video now.

we blame capitalist that hoard as much wealth as possible leaving only a thin slice of the .pie for the average guy to share among themselves...rich or poor also depend on hard working and the change of the current money.

Bitcoin is probably going to result in one of the largest redistributions of wealth in history.
Who knows, we may be the lucky few who got in early into this gold rush

::) Really? Come on. This is such fantasy

Well, we know  that the economic inequality has existed since the beginning of civilization so we can rule out all possible reasons listed here, as they are much newer than civilization.  There is clearly something intrinsic about civilization itself which leads to this result.  

Obviously, as the people who are rich are historically the people who make the rules, it stands to reason that they would establish rules that maintain and increase their wealth; this is true regardless of political or economic systems in place.  Further, it is also clear they it is critical to their wealth that they main a lower class (basically everyone else).  Even if there were an abundance of wealth to go around such that we could all be "rich", it is not in their best interests to facilitate this.  After all, I can't hire another billionaire to do my work for me, it requires someone who has no choice but to do my work for me.

“Civilization” began with the ability to “store” (read: withhold to an unnatural degree) value. Prior that, Homo sapiens had to meander about with the animals they hunted—enduring egalitarianism.

Precisely.  If I can't store excess, it makes little sense to extract more than I can immediately consume, especially if the excess comes at your expense (and since we are all equal, even if I wanted to do this everyone else would hate me for it and punish me).  If I *can* store the excess though, and use that excess to do things like, pay someone else to work for me, than that is what I will do.  I can further use this excess to essentially bribe other people to see things my way (especially given that historically, the rate of return on capital vastly exceeds inflation, if my family was rich in say 1800 they are even richer now barring some catastrophic event).  As the ability to store excess is intrinsic to civilization, all these people who think bitcoin is going to magically solve a problem that is older than money itself are simply fooling themselves.

In this case, it is deprivation that is utilized—not “excess.”

I suppose it is a matter of perspective.  From my point of view I am extracting excess, more than I need.  If it comes at your expense, than from your point of view it would be deprivation. 
In reality though it would be both.  Theoretically anyways (since there is no practical way to compare) in a modern, western society, I am of course depriving you of some of the resources you extract by syphoning them off for my own use (without actually having to produce them myself), but because our overall production is so much higher than it would otherwise be, you agree to go along with it.  So instead of producing say, 100 units a day of food that you need to survive, you produce 300 a day and I take half of them. 

the problem is, that all central banks issue more and more money.

the money the issue doesnt get distributed fairly if you look at real wages etc.

so people who already own capital and are invested earn more and more of the newly created money, increasing the gap to the poor..

gravity somehow works for capital as the more capital you have the more capital flows to you

No, it isn't.  Banks have been issuing money for at most a few hundred years.  Wealth inequality has existed for many thousands of years.  Common sense tells us that a problem can not exist before it's cause. 

It is the government that creates increases wealth inequality.

If not for progressive taxes, wealth inequality would be higher.  :)

Prove it.

Cite peer reviewed evidence or argument from first principles.

Common sense tells us that wealth inequality isn't "the" problem or even "a" problem.  Attempting to equally distribute wealth only creates problems.  Understanding the/a problem is key to understanding why Bitcoin is the/a solution.

Because if not for progressive taxation, rich people would pay less in taxes, and poor people would pay more.
Are you suggesting that rich people paying less in taxes would make them poorer?
Or that poor paying more in taxes would make them richer?
Those are the only scenarios which would reduce financial inequality, and both are self-contradictory.

It is "the" problem because the OP identified it as such for this thread. 

It is not so cut and dry. A progressive tax reduces the productivity of the most efficient producers. Reduced productivity results in more expensive goods for the poor, countering the benefits of their lower taxes.

It is as cut-and-dry as that.
If progressive taxation indeed increases the prices of good, those prices are increased for rich & poor alike, allowing us to factor out this [disputable] increase when solving for economic inequality.

Wealth disparity is not a problem in and of itself. The problem is having too many people living in poverty. It can be argued that reduced productivity would lead to this.

^Anything could be argued, that's neither here nor there.
I addressed a specific claim--one of the effects of progressive taxation on wealth disparity.
If you wish to argue that higher taxes for the poor would translate into reduced wealth disparity, feel free.

It is cut and dry.  Trickle down economics works exactly as  common sense says it would, reducing the taxes on the rich leads to the rich being richer, and no one else.  We tried it here in the US in the 80s for many years.  We tried it again just recently.  Exactly as you would expect, reducing taxes on the rich results in the rich being more rich.  None of that wealth ever "trickles down" because they simply pocket it.  The idea that you are taxing the "most efficient producers" is fallacious because it assumes the rich are rich because they are the most efficient producers.  In reality, with the exception of a few rare, lucky cases, the overwhelming majority of the rich are no different then anyone else except that their parents were rich.  Quite the opposite, the people at the top generally speaking don't actually produce anything at all, but rather use their power and position to siphon wealth off from the actual workers who actually create wealth. 

OP could start a thread that identified too many stars in the Milky Way as a problem, that still doesn't make it so.

Couldn't have put it better myself.  ;D
I thought that it was obvious that progressive taxation reduces wealth inequality.

Taxes create more inequality by subsidizing the super rich.

Progressive taxation means the rich paying more than the poor.  What you just described ain't it.
You are correct, the super rich try to avoid paying their fair share--by finding loopholes in the system, and by convincing the credulous rubes that "[t]axes create more inequality."

now it has happened economic inequality that resulted in the economic crisis in some countries, this economic inequality occurred due to no liberal and capitalist system that controls several major countries in the world, this system resulted in the rich getting richer and the poor get poorer, inequality which happens too much, so that the poor will not be able to last longer
This could mengakibatka other effects of socio-economic field, namely massive crimes to cover the cost of the lives of the growing ...  ::)

Capital gains is capped at 15% and it used to be 30%.

Thats why Warren Buffett pats same tax bracket as his secretary.  He's on record somewhere stating tax laws are broken

He ignores the fact that corporate profits are already taxed at 35%, and his total tax rate is actually 50%.

I was looking for this answer.. found it.

+1

It doesn't work like that.  I'm too lazy to explain basic corporate structures & tax codes.  Just look it up or stay ignorant

Also, LOL if you think Warren Buffet doesn't know

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/

I know, and the fanboys like you would somehow find a way to make bitcoin the solution for that, too  ;D
More seriously though, obviously if one is wealthy one probably doesn't consider it a problem, so there is no doubt that there are people who wouldn't consider it a problem.  However OP started a topic to discuss it, so why not just let the discussion go?  That's the whole point about having different threads, with different topics.  You could just easily start a discussion on how wealth inequality is not a problem and then everyone would be happy.

No, fanboys like me don't think Bitcoin is going to solve imaginary, non-existent problems.  It does, however, solve the problem of fiat, debt-based, inflationary currencies by offering people an alternative to them.  People are of course free to discuss imaginary, non-existent problems.  I just think it would be more productive to identify the real problem.

It's also important to point out that not only is wealth inequality not a problem, it's a good thing.  People who are lazy, slack off, are always late, lie, cheat, steal, etc. shouldn't enjoy the same standard of living as someone who works longer, harder, is honest, etc.  Currently, there are too many people that fall into the former category (bankers and politicians) that are able to take advantage of people in the latter category.  The primary tool that allows them to do this is fiat currency, particularly the ability to expand the supply of it.  They get to create the stuff that honest people have to work for.

It has absolutely nothing to do with fiat currency, and this is why bitcoin is not a solution to the "problem" or whatever you want to call it.  It is control of the means of production (historically through force, although the force is more implied these days then actually metted out) that leads to this inequality. 
Yes these days we call these people bankers and politicians; in the past we may have called them Lord, Your Majesty, sir, Pharoah, King, and far too many other titles to list them all here.  Wealth inequality predates fiat currency so it is obviously quite impossible that fiat currency is the cause. 

You may not see fiat currency as a problem, and that's fine.  The bankers and politicians depend on people that think like you to stay on the fiat hamster wheel so they can continue to enjoy the standard of living they currently enjoy while producing nothing of value.  Your masters don't have to break out the whips and chains as long as you willingly use their fiat.  If enough people stop using their fiat, then perhaps they will resort to more violent means.  I highly doubt they have any desire to become productive members of society.  We'll have to wait and see how things unfold.

Nah.
The bankers and politicians depend on stooges like you--to work towards lower taxes on the rich, no minimal wage, to keep repeating nonsense like "wealth inequality is a good thing," etc., etc.
Stay ignorant, angry, and poor :-\

The only stooges that will continue to be ignorant, angry, poor, envious, and befuddled are the ones that plan to keep using their money.  That's okay, using their money is your prerogative.  Enjoy your blissful ignorance.  ;D

^
Lol, by using "their money" over the course of the last year, I can now afford to buy more than double the amount of "your" money.
More than twice the BTC than if I was stupid enough to "invest" in BTC this time last year.

http://s9.postimg.org/yulpwrx1r/halfun.jpg

That's some seriously sound money you got there, Tiger :D  

The past year, sure.  Let's go back two years.  Those that have been converting their fiat to BTC for two years and dollar cost averaging are better off than those just hodling fiat for two years.  If you dive in head first at the top of the exchange rate swings, then you're doing it wrong.  Let's see where things are in another five or ten years.  ;)

Yeah, there was a time when BTCeanie BTCabies where a great investment too.
Sadly, that time has passed.  But hey,

http://s7.postimg.org/4b7wjc6nv/aaa.jpg

From my heart, bro :'(

This is simply common sense.  Enormous wealth inequality has existed since the beginning of recorded history.  Please explain, in your own words, how if fiat currency is the "primary tool that allows them to do this", the "problem" predates the cause by many thousands of years? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBSlSUIT-KM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBSlSUIT-KM)

A fellow member just shared this on here - This video should be watched by everyone!!

Our friend Kevin Dowd was mentioned however, there obviously appears to be a division in his initial analysis of BTC


Video synopsis:

Published on Nov 21, 2014
http://www.positivemoney.org/
On Thursday 20th November 2014, for the first time in 170 years, UK parliament has debated the creation of money. Few people know that 97% of our money supply is created not by the government (or the central bank), but by commercial banks in the form of loans.

As the results of our recent poll show, most MPs lack a sufficient understanding of money creation. A worrying number of our MPs do not understand where money comes from. This leaves them ill-equipped to predict another financial crisis, deal with rising debt, housing bubbles or understand a fundamental driver of inequality.

You're making two false assumptions:

 1. That wealth inequality is a problem
 2. That problems have only one source.

If we ignore #1 and just focus on #2, then according to your logic, wealth inequality existed before fiat currency, therefore fiat currency can't cause wealth inequality.  This is equivalent to saying, death existed before guns, therefore guns can't cause death.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a gun is a modern tool that can cause death and that fiat currency is a modern tool that can cause wealth inequality?

It's a 'problem' not worth losing sleep over, economic equality is never going to happend. I've even seen some advocate "redistributing wealth" like it's gonna happend!

but yes, it's grown and will continue to do so because of interests on interests generation to generation.
And by your question "Who's to blame" I say it's just how humans work.

Hopefully those considered poor have their living standards improved through the years

It would be (well actually no, fiat currency doesn't do it but I will assume it for the sake of argument).  And following your logic to it's conclusion, saying bitcoin will solve income inequality is like saying getting rid of guns will stop people from dying. 

Incidentally, yes wealth inequality is a problem, in that 99% of the people on the planet do 100% of the producing but only get to keep 40% of what they produce, while the other 1% that produce nothing, get to keep 60% based entirely on the luck of what family they were born into. 

Access to quality health care and legal representation is a huge issue that comes with income inequality. Also, if you are poor there is the negative social aspect of it. Others will look down on you, companies looking to hire people will not necessarily pick you up. Who wants to hire someone that is homeless? Huge liability on their part. I think being on the other end of the spectrum can have downsides too but no one is arguing being on the former end is not the worse side.

So am I right in discerning that the problem for you is not in wealth disparity per se, but specifically in wealth disparity at birth?  If two people are born with equal wealth and opportunity but one works hard while the other squanders their resources then is it ok for the more productive person to become wealthier?  Is it ok for him to then afford his children a comparative advantage in wealth and opportunity?

Might it be that the root problem behind wealth inequality is in the love of one's children?

It's not how human work. Humans act like this if there is scarcity, if we reach post scarcity due technology in 1000 years, any currency and forced labour and unequalities is objectively stupid and not necessary.

If this justifies anything, it justifies everything.  Those in power today--bankers, politicians, etc.--all either worked for their position, inherited them, or both.

This really is the best of all possible worlds :)

I don't think so.  Obviously the problem goes beyond just one thing, or one cause.  The problems with wealth inequality in general are:

1.  I personally think there is a problem where, based on my particular station in life, I am afforded the opportunity to syphon off about 60% of my worker's productivity.  I don't actually produce anything, and yet I get the lions share of the profits of their work.  This isn't because I worked hard to get where I am, although I did.  I am well aware that it is based almost entirely off of where I was born and who I was born to.

2.  Looking at the larger picture we see that despite what the wealthy would have you believe, that they are wealthy because they earned it and worked hard, a quick glance at a list of the 0.1% will show you that in virtually every single case, they are there because they were born there.  As well, if you are in the 99.9%, you are there not because you worked less, but because you were born there.  And there is no crossover, ever.

3.  The wealth disparity itself makes it impossible to change the situation, bitcoin notwithstanding, simply because the wealthy are the ones that make the rules that everyone else has to follow.  In this day and age that often involves money policy but in previous ages it was land use, etc. 

I am sure a deflationary currency (like bitcoin) is the worst for society in general, it's just a brake on economic growth. But happily we don't need to wory about that, your dreams will never come true  :D I have some bitcoins (because I want to earn some money) but it would be disastrous to society if it would be the main global currency, surpassing the market cap of the dollar... But I'm sure that will never happen and we will not even get close to that =)

This is true. However bitcoin is not deflationary (yet). It will also technically be neither inflationary nor deflationary once all the bitcoin are mined as the number of bitcoin in circulation will never decline (at least not as part of the protocol).

Deflation is bad for the economy as it delays necessary purchases which slows economic growth

Kid alert 2 posts above me ,

KID ALERT

why is deflation delaying purchases?

We already have delaying of purchases. Student loans, mortgages and retirement funds are all dollars that could be going towards consumer purchases.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say that fiat currency causes wealth inequality or that Bitcoin will solve the problem of wealth inequality.  In fact, I'm saying that wealth inequality isn't a problem.  I was just pointing out that for those who do think that wealth inequality is a problem, it's illogical to conclude that a cause has to exist before an effect.  Saying that fiat currencies don't cause wealth inequality because wealth inequality existed before fiat currencies is like saying that guns don't cause death because death existed before guns.


Wealth inequality, in a free market, not only isn't a problem, it's a good thing.  A person that lives below their means and saves and invests the difference between their income and expenses should have more wealth than someone who squanders their money or lives beyond their means and accumulates debt.  In a world without wealth inequality, there is no incentive to be responsible, productive, or save, invest, and work harder because your wealth would just be transferred to those that aren't/don't.  Saving should be rewarded, not punished.

In a free economy, saving in money,  investment and consumption will have a balance guided by prices, including the interest rate. Investments are also of different types. Some are in the production structure near the consumption, and some is far away.

Something like:

Surveying for metal -> building a mine -> produce from mine -> transport ore ->  smelt metal -> metal products -> produce metal parts -> produce metal things -> distribute by sea and land -> show off and sell to consumer.

Another one for energy

Seismic surveying -> build platforms -> drill -> produce -> transport -> refine -> transport -> produce electric power -> build distribution network -> consume

Normally, extended saving will reduce consumption and the interest rate, leading to investments in the early stages, which is smart, because the savings will be consumed later. If the public consumes more, investments will come in the shops and services, investments will increase because savers will have to protect their money from inflation.

A QE and ZIRP environment (which have to go together), will tend to prioritize investments in the early stages (because for example surveiling will end up at consumers after ten or twenty years or more, so the interest rate is absolutely critical), and the QE and ZIRP environment will at the same time prioritize consumption.

The result is that we invest too much in the early stages, and we get too low prices on ore and other raw commodities. And we invest too little in the latest stages, giving too high consumer prices.

Eventually, the imbalances will have to correct itself, with much suffering in the form of loan defaults and bankruptcies in the earlier stages, and reduced total output, meaning people have less stuff to consume. That is where we are now, or are about to find ourselves soon.

Take away point: You can not just invest, you have to invest at all times in the most profitable production, and ZIRP makes that impossible.

The belief is that if the value of the money rises, people are less inclined to spend it. I feel that the ramifications of this effect are vastly overblown.

yeh, i know this is "the belief". the reason why i was asking for an explanation is, that i somehow dont really agree with that belief.
i think its just a "theory" that justifies the use of inflationary currency

It's common sense.  To see if you agree, try it yourself:

1. You have 378 worthless paper dollars.  You can spend them today on a shiny new Bitcoin,* or wait until next year, when you could buy 1/2 of a Bitcoin with your 378 worthless paper dollars because inflation.
What would you do?

2. You have one shiny new Bitcoin, and, for reasons known only to statist pigs and other Keynesian, you wish to invest it in USD.  You can buy 378 dollars with it today, or wait until next year, when you could buy 756, because dollar inflation.
What would you do?

*This is a perfect, hypothetical Bitcoin, it's buying power will never go down.

I think that even with wealth inequality, poor people now are still better off than poor people 100 years ago. the issue that I have is that wealth inequality shifts us away from a meritocracy. If you are born rich you have access to better schools, more money to invest, and a culture that encourages growth. Being born poor means lower-grade schools and less of a chance to really push forward. This, I believe (I could be wrong), leads to an inefficiency. Instead of say 100 people in the position to realize great ideas we would now only have 10. This leads to stagnancy.

It is not applicable always.
You have 500 worthless paper dollars. You can spend them today on an i-Phone. Or you could wait till next year and buy it a lot cheaper.

People still choose to buy i-phones because there see utility value in the one year that they hold an i-Phone. Similarly, even in a deflationary environment people will continue to make purchases if they see value in what they buy.

Poor ppl in 1st world yes. Poor people in ROW no. The difference is social net and public services that are on much higher level in rich and mid-income countries.

Alternative pow is that poor ppl today are worse off, because nobody gives a shit about them. In the past even the poorest had some space in society. Even slaves were at least tools that were needed by their owner. The truth about recent capitalism maybe is that it does not need majority of people.

It is not a theory, it is fact that overall deflation hurts the economy that experiences deflation. History has shown that modest amounts of inflation tend to result in higher overall economic growth then the inflation rate. Also the fewer examples of deflation that are available has also had economic negative growth (eg - recession/depression).

Why don't you think of it like this - If you might need to buy a new TV in the near future - you know your current one is going to fail in the near future - are you going to buy one today at current prices, or would you rather wait a few months when the price will be a few dollars more expensive? All else being equal, you will buy it today. If you were in the reverse situation in that the price will decline in a few months then you would delay your purchase which would result in less economic activity in the current month which means the retailer and the tv manufacturer is able to employ less workers (due to lower revenue/profits) which means each of them has less money to spend

Bullshit.  This nonsense is the sort of propaganda that comes from the money printers who are hoping to keep their fiat scam alive.  Fortunately for them, there are plenty of sheeple out there willing to fall for it, even when it's clearly contradicted by the facts (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2014/09/03/the-alleged-threat-of-deflation-in-europe-is-y2k-silly/).

I agree BTC will be very rough for society, but I do not see why BTC should not go forward.

BTC, like capitalism, will not be good for people, but for market. And capitalism is the philosophy or system that won in the competition. And pure rough unhuman capitalism needs currency like bitcoin, where nobody can regulate it.

BTC as deflationary currency is overreacted. "Debt derived" money that will be based on Bitcoin monetary base can well be inflationary (as we can see deflation with pure fiat money).

It's simple really. I'm surprised that nobody seems to be able to grasp the fact that money only works because of that gap, it is primordial that there be 2 extremities, the extremely rich and the extremely poor. If everyone were equal, the system would break down. Money would no longer 'flow' and society/the world would crumble because everything you see around you exists because of power.
Ironically, the wider the gap between the rich and poor, the more possibilities there exist. So unless you're willing to give up your way of life completely, your quest for equality amounts to pure hypocrisy because you always welcome all the new technology and cure for diseases that power brings to you.

Even more funny is that the hypocricy you are talking about is an opportunity for the people who spot it and sell to the majority of the people with hypocricy a dream they need to stay schizophrenic. So the more inconsistent people give away their money and the more consistent, who see a bit more, make the money and become rich.

Yeah, dollar is so worthless that it gets accepted world wide and you can buy anything with it. If you bought a Bitcoin last year for nearly 1K, you would have lost 40% of it's buying power now.
Get some perspective.

The questions is what time period are you looking at. Do you believe Bitcoin has long term potential? If you have to leave an inheritance in 30-40 years, would you rather bury some dollars today or save equivalent bitcoins?

A dollar in 1980's used to go a lot farther than a dollar today. Bitcoin has built in mechanisms to prevent this from happening. That is the beauty.

That isnot the good way of thinking. If you want to leave inheritance and you want to maximize it, you should invest the money into real business and it does not matter which money. USD is now better than BTC exactly at this. You have much wider investment possibilities with USD than BTC.

The idea to sit on money and let their value rises, which is normal by bitcoin, probably made your thought unclear. Not everything is about money, it is just a proxy. It is about economy in the end.

If I were forced to sit on money for decades (which I am a bit), the way is of course to buy BTC. But the market opportunities are in USD. The fiat money maybe lose most if the value, but big businesses were created with them and such biz can produce money to owner in any currency.

So yes... people who are unable to create anything and gotsome money by accident and they have the only two opportunities - to leave money at bank or change them to BTC - those people should buy at least some BTC. The other people shouldconsider investing the money into economy and their work.

It is exactly my story here. I have registered myself at this forum in summer 2011. I was considering buying bitcoins fof few thousands. It seems to be like bad decision that I did not do it, but in fact, it was not.

- 100x appreciation by now seems to be like certaininty, but things might go wrong and appreciation could have been much smaller

- I would be forced to sell BTC's as price went up, so I would not make 100x profit, probably much less

- I would maybe not have enough money for my investment in IT. Maybe the extra few thousands caused that I actually made much more money during the 3.5 years with fiat money economy. Now I am buying BTC of course.

Writing off USD in 2014 is simply ridiculous idea.

When you talk about the dollar here, you really talk about three fundamentally different things. One is to hold the dollar, the second is to store dollars in an account, which (in a sound savings and loan regime) is the same as investing, except you let others take investment decisions in order to get some safety in exchange for a smaller part of the profit. The third thing is direct investment, which is exactly NOT holding the dollars but rather holding something else of value.

It is prudent to save some of your value, and some must be held in money just to make daily exchanges. In a freedom environment, it is up to the saver to decide what is to be saved in money and what is to be invested. All the wisdom that an individual is able to acquire is used for this. A prudent way is to first make sure that you have some money set aside. If a safe bank is available, use that (which means someone else is using your value for investments), then consider investing.

So that is the platform of language to start the discussion.

If you only have money available, that you know will loose value (due to experience and due to the expressed goal of the managers of that money), you will tend to invest. This is staging the scene by the managers of the money system, in reality they extract value out of the holdings of the constituents. The value is extracted on all levels: The money itself, bank deposits through the reduced interest rate, and investments through the low expected return, which might seem better than holding money and bank deposit, but which carries increased risk of asset value destruction.

So your answer to the diminishing value of the standard money is to hold less money and find some other way.

My answer is change to better money.

There is no ethical problem: The forced investments are often bad investments with negative wealth creation, the effects on investments are socialized anyway, so it does not make much difference who in society does it, and you could even view holding bitcoin as an investment creating a new and better money system.

Since your chosen date of 1980 [34 years ago], the USD has depreciated approximately as much as BTC has in just one year [one year, YTD].
That is the beauty.

http://s23.postimg.org/an9ctd8fv/Kermit_stool.gif

What about two years?

^There was a time in the past when Bitcoin prices skyrocketed.  There was a time when BTCeanie BTCaby prices skyrocketed.  That time is over.  Why is this so difficult for some to understand? 
Artificial scarcity is a marketing gimmick used by both Ty Co. and Bitcoin.  That gimmick works on the less-educated for a while, until it doesn't. 

http://s9.postimg.org/ho2cvaodr/railroad.jpg

:'(

You start from an assumption that economic inequality is a bad thing and that the gap between rich and poor should decrease. You will never ever get consensus on that.

Poor people are poor not because they do not have money, but because they can not/do not want to use money properly.
E.g. they invest too little and spend too much.

To give money to poor solves nothing, because the money are immediately spend and flow to capitalists. It already happens. Government taxes people with money and gives it to poor, but nothing changes and if yes, then it changes only to higher economical stratification.

There is no point to give money to poor people. The challenge is to persuade poor people to stop acting like idiots. But that is:
1. hard to be done
2. neither rich nor poor want it - poor have the misery of life and they do not want to listen to talks how they have to save etc. when they can not buy everything they want or need; rich people are well aware that it is better to deal with mass of poor or relatively poor consumists from which fraction ends like homeless, than to deal with tough competition

if you define consensus in bitcoin terms >50% then im sure you get to the consensus that it is a problem, just from the fact that most people are poor...

There was a time when morons compared a true gimmick like beanie babies to a piece of technological disruption like Bitcoin. Oh wait, these times are still not over.

This moron stacked cheddar throughout 2013.  Lol @ "technological disruption."  Continue being angry & mangling marketing buzz phrases :D

I do not buy that "superrich fenomena". I am fairly rich from zero. Yes, I do not have billions or hundreds of millions dolars, but I see even this mark is possible to reach. The worst is the first million, truly. Then the rest is about motivation.

It is easy to describe / harder to do - if you want money that belong to someone else - simply sell him what he wants and buy it elsewhere cheaper.

Many of superrich people did exactly that. Everyone could make at least millions of USD, if he read the reality well 3 years ago. Everyone who has millions now can be superrich in 3 years. It is only about hard work. Think brighter than other people, join 2 or more relatively cheap sources and sell the output relatively high (yet lower than competition). It is no mystery to become rich.

This issues is talked about a lot but not often side by side with working to find better opportunity. It's a law of nature that there won't be enough of the best "meat" for everyone to catch and eat. Competition is natural and I feel like this requirement in nature is ignored in this conversation. Opportunity exists for everyone to increase their income, complaining only defers action.

Equality? As far as I know there is no such thing as equality. If we live in a perfectly 'equal' world, hell we might not even be around and survive. Fact is there will always be one part of society that lives life comfortably and there is another group bound to serve these rich people. You can't have everyone rich and if this is the case, then who is going to work to serve the rich people? I hope I make a point here.

Well, you might complain why there are so many rich people but the fact is they get rich mainly not only because they use their brain but also because they are willing to take risk and when opportunity arises...know how to seize it.

Why not?

I would like to paraphrase a quote in a different context
"It is through competition that the human race evolves"
You compete for everything... to the winner goes the spoils. You can't say that a perfectly equal world is good.

Sure, and...
"It is through cooperation that the human race evolves"
"It is through mutation that the human race evolves"
"It is through adaptation that the human race evolves"
"It is through time that the human race evolves"

You're right though, competition is a part of it.  But when a heavyweight boxer and a 3-year-old girl are competing, it's better described as "slaughter."  Though the loli has a better chance against the boxer than some poor, uneducated piece of trailer trash has competing against a rich ivy league d00d.


You mean a world without economic inequality?  It's not realistic, but certainly something to shoot for.
But we aren't talking about "a perfectly equal world" here.  Just a world where inequality is a few orders of magnitude lower.