So, this is what myrkul asks for:






Emphasis added.

And this is what Findeton responds with:




It seems as if Findeton simply will never answer the request to illustrate how a minimum wage actuallly increases prosperity (or wealth, or whatever he wants to call it.) I wonder if it's because, really, he knows he can't.

That is your opinion. Funny how you're so eager to have guns pointed at people to force your opinion on them.



...

Can you please explain how deliberately causing unemployment (how noble!) redistributes wealth? Who loses wealth, and who gains it? (And just to preempt you, please keep in mind that by not having a job, it is NOT Dan who is on the receiving end of any supposed wealth redistribution.)

Most of us using this forum are old enough and smart enough to be able to handle risk analysis on our own. We can determine what we consider a safe amount to put into online wallets, and can even point all this out when recommending them to others.

Yes, because that's the point: Bill doesn't WANT to hire him because he's not worth minimum wage! He comes to work drunk, causes trouble and does a sloppy job. Bill might be willing to hire him for $5 an hour, but not for the minimum wage of $10 an hour. And Bill won't pay him that if there's any way around it, because it's a bad deal for Bill.

Your minimum wage cost Dan a potential job. At this point, probably NO ONE will hire him, because his labor is only worth $5/hr.


Yeah, that makes him better off. 



Tell that to all the Dans out there. You have a strange definition of "works."

How can you even make that statement?

In example #1, no one got paid more. Instead, one worker is made to work harder with no increase in pay.

In example #2, A MACHINE does the job.

In example #3, we have no idea if someone somehow gets a pay raise. For all we know, the pre-cut peppers could be produced by child labor in a third-world country.

In none of those examples do we see Dan the Drunk, who isn't worth minimum wage, suddenly start making it. Please note that THAT is the point I'm trying to make.

Of course all the legal workers still left employed make minimum wage. No one argued otherwise--it's a strawman. But to say that poor people are all suddenly made better off through the decree of a minimum wage is nonsense. See examples 1-7.



Enumerate all you like. It still doesn't change the fact that forcing a minimum wage on a society does NOT magically cause all otherwise-employable people to suddenly start earning that wage. There are simply too many ways around a minimum wage, in most cases, for it to do anything. (And even if it did--congratulations! You just caused every employer to raise prices to compensate! Now those "wealthier" employees can spend their newfound wealth on more expensive goods and services. Winners all around!)


Actually, history shows minimum wage is, at best, a joke, and at worst, an impediment to workers, and to the economy at large.

You act like Big Boss Bill only has two options: hire Dan the Drunk for an inflated wage to cut the peppers for his pizza, or go without having peppers on his pizza. You seem to be refusing to take the perspective of the employer, and actually stop and think about what else might be done.

1) Bill can tell Overworked Oliver that, in addition to making the pizzas, he now has to also cut the peppers

2) Bill can buy an automatic pepper-cutter

3) Bill can pay more to buy pre-cut peppers

4) Bill can hire Efficient Ernie instead, who can cut peppers, olives, tomatoes and pepperoni, to get more bang for his buck

5) Bill can cut the peppers himself

6) Bill can hire an intern, spin some tale about how pepper-cutting is the key to the pizza business, and get it done for free (until the intern wises up)

7) Bill can hire an illegal immigrant for less than minimum wage, and pay him off the books

And yeah... he can also just decide to do without peppers on his pizzas from now on.

In each of those cases, Dan was not made wealthier. He's still poor, and now he won't even be employed. You have an unrealistic view of things if you think employers just eat losses because some law tells them to, rather than doing whatever they can to avoid it.

I think its unreasonable to presume that the bulk of savers die before they hit retirement, when they would start to pull from their savings. Of those who do croak, it seems even less likely that their heirs will simply sit on the cash until they die.

But even if all that money did remain unspent, it would still circulate thanks to the banks making loans.

I've been finding it odd that your concerns were being ignored. Not being able to send 10btc received an hour ago without paying a transaction fee seems a bit harsh. Perhaps the client coin selection algorithm is trying to send other coins instead of the 10btc one. Maybe "one-hour old" is considered immature by the coders (although for an amount like 10btc, I find that a little surprising.) But it seems like the requirements to prevent dust spam need to be relaxed a bit, at the very least... at the worst, there may be some subtle error in the calculation for spam.

But as is often said on these forums... it's open source, you can make any changes you feel you need. And so you have. Personally, I'm curious as to how problematic your changes actually are/aren't. I'd appreciate hearing if you wind up with unconfirmed transactions, how long they stay that way, etc., if you wouldn't mind keeping us up to date on the performance.

You might be surprised how many people actually wouldn't have a problem with "beating it out of them."

OK. Do you agree that the primary beneficiary in a centralized, inflationary monetary system is the one who gets to create more money? If not, who is the primary beneficiary?



OK.

(1) Who initiates these wealth transfers in a non-inflationary system?

(2) Who SHOULD be the initiator of these wealth transfers in a monetary system?



I really didn't think you would even dispute this. I actually thought "no one would publicly try to defend the idea that the majority of people would voluntarily choose an inflationary currency over a non-inflationary one."

Once I saw that you did, I even got ready to ask you what sort of evidence you were going to accept to the contrary, and to spend time accumulating it for this post.

But I have a better idea....

Let's presume for the moment that you might be right. That people, in general, naturally gravitate toward an inflationary currency as opposed to a non-inflationary one.

If so, would you advocate for the abolition of legal tender laws and of the mandatory payment of taxes in a government-created medium of exchange?

That would seem to be the most important point here.

If yes, then good, I agree with you. Let's just see for ourselves the result.

If no, then why not, if doing such wouldn't result in an exodus of people from inflationary currencies anyway?

(EDIT: Slight tonal adjustment)

OK. Fair enough that you don't dispute it. Let's just focus on that then.



Three points.

First, let's look at "who benefits and who suffers." In a centralized, inflationary monetary system, this is pretty clear. The primary beneficiary is the one who gets to create more money (or I suppose more accurately, those immediately able to use the new money in exchange for goods and services at full value. This could be the central bank itself. This could be the entities bailed out via newly minted cash.) The primary suffering are those forced to hold the money, those holding it out of ignorance, and those holding it out of necessity--the system as it is requires us all to use dollars for our everyday needs. There will always be some of these people. In fact, for the monetary system to actually function, the money MUST be in someone's hands. And those someones get screwed.

What about with bitcoins? Well, remember that the bitcoin network doesn't go and periodically destroy bitcoins. There's simply a cap on the number of them that will ever exist. So the primary beneficiaries of any deflation are ALL the voluntary holders of bitcoins. So far, no problem there, is there? And the primary suffering in this case? Those who lose their bitcoins.

Please take a second and think about how ingenious that is.

Some people will irretrievably lose their money in ALL monetary systems. Under inflation, these people lose 100% of their lost money, and will also lose some % of their remaining money due to their central bank. Under a non-inflationary money, these people still lose 100% of their lost money, but they gain some % of that value back in their remaining money. Even if they have no remaining money, then they've just broken even with the inflationary system... they certainly didn't fare any worse for it.

This reduces the group of sufferers to the ideal, most fair group... those who would have lost purchasing power anyway. They are demonstrably never worse off than they would be under an inflationary system, and periodically are better off. This arrangement seems far, far superior to one where the politically connected profit at the expense of the poor, the uneducated and the coerced.


Second, there's a big difference in how any transfer of wealth occurs under an inflationary and a non-inflationary system. In a non-inflationary system, any wealth transfer can only be initiated by the person who would lose their purchasing power... for example, those who lose their bitcoins. Call such a situation what you will, but at best, their loss of purchasing power is an accident, at worst, it's just their own fault.

Under an inflationary system, the wealth transfer can be initiated pretty much at will by those who would gain the purchasing power. Which is so ripe for abuse it stinks. Moreover, that purchasing power comes AT THE EXPENSE of the suffering. And remember: for the monetary system to even work, SOMEONE has to be holding the money, so there is NECESSARILY a patsy. Before we started redefining terms in western society, we used to call that sort of a wealth transfer theft. And considering it's a system forced onto some segment of the society or another, I prefer to just call it getting screwed.


Third, there's something far more fundamental we're overlooking. Our opinions on the issue don't matter. The fact is: people choose non-inflationary systems. You can call that stupidity, ignorance, cowardice, whatever. People do. They do it over and over, every time. They choose non-inflation over inflation. This is proved by the fact that governments have to resort to legal tender laws and having tax payments required to be in their own currency. Gresham's law ceases to exist in the absence of coercion. Thought experiment: go to a nation, any nation. Give them a choice: they can transact in a non-inflationary fiat money, or some other inflationary fiat money, or even both, with all contracts and debts honored equally. They can pay taxes in either form of money they wish. Of course, they still can have access to all the other means of asset protection; just ensure there will be no penalties or punishments given to them for choosing one fiat money over the other in regular use. Oh, and don't bar anyone from informing others about the true natures and consequences of each.

Which of the fiat monies do you think people will choose? Seriously, is there even any question?

So say what we will, people have spoken. They don't want inflationary monies. THE MASSES DISAGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE ILLS OF A NON-INFLATING CURRENCY. They only deal with it because it's forced down their throat by people who feel the need to save them from themselves.

But considering that (a) they're the ones who have to use it, and (b) the whole issue is supposedly about what's in their best interests... I'd say the people themselves are best suited to determining what is best for them.

I understand you're trying to suggest that inflation shouldn't be a problem, because it's avoidable. But I believe you've missed my point.

Do you think the average person throughout the 20th century managed their finances with an eye toward inflation? If you do, may I suggest you have a rather generous view of "the average person throughout the 20th century?"

Think of the people who were present during the transition in 1913. They were used to a monetary system that was totally fixed to precious metals. Do you think most of them knew, and really understood, that first their paper dollars were going to be devalued in 1933, and then continually devalued from then on, all due to the deliberate actions of men, rather than natural market forces?

Think of poorer people who didn't have access to a lot of wealth, and hence much of the wisdom regarding it's proper handling. Think of grandpa stuffing money under the mattress because he didn't trust banks. Think of the poor family who diligently saved their coins (and even the occasional bill!) in a large jar as an emergency fund for when times got bad, trying to improve their condition. Think of people NOW who may not have a 401k or a stock broker, but have a money market savings account, and think that they're doing well because of it.

These people all got--and are getting--screwed.

If your attitude is that they're just not educated, then you're forgetting that education isn't free ("free" public education is the worst) and that even then there's much pressure to miseducate. Many people of modest means know they need to save to get ahead. But the Keynesian crap pushed in the classroom doesn't give them the tools to realize just saving dollars isn't enough, and that one of the best ways to save and avoid inflation is through that "relic" called gold.

If your attitude is that, well, some folks are just less intelligent, and can't be helped, then we have a problem. Fifty percent of any given society is going to be of less than average intelligence. What sort of man-made system requires us to take 50% of the population and just accept they're going to get robbed annually by their central bank? Especially considering this 50% is frequently the less-well-off?

That's my main beef with an centralized, inflationary monetary system. It's bad enough that it steals, moreso from the poorer and less educated. It's that at its core it's a fundamentally dishonest system, and one that to some extent (thanks to legal tender laws) is forced onto the society.

It's just plain wrong, regardless of whether I can personally figure out how to beat it.

To the contrary, I imagine plenty of the people who received silver dollars in 1913 expected those dollars to have the same purchasing power... or even greater... by the end of their children's lifetimes. And, hey, they pretty much were right! It's those who held paper dollars that got screwed.

Oh, but that's their own fault though, right? These largely rural, pre-WWI folks should have known not to trust the government, and to save and conduct business in precious metals only... that's what their government schools taught them to do, after all. (Not.)



Yes, it absolutely is the fault of the central bank. Inflation is an increase in the money supply. The central bank is the primary entity which increases the money supply. Ergo, the central bank is responsible for inflation throughout the 20th century.

For me, liquidity.

I don't do much online shopping in the first place. But I like bitcoins. If I could replace my stash fairly easily and quickly, I'd actually be on the lookout for opportunities to buy what I need online in bitcoins. My first purchase of bitcoins was ridiculously slow, even though it was via money order (who waits for those things to clear?) I immediately looked for a faster alternative. Fortunately, bitcoinexchange.cc exchanges bitcoins for MoneyPak codes, and I used their service a few times afterward. It's convenient, enough that spending my bitcoins is a possibility now, but still.

I guess what I really want is a little stand in the mall where I go and pay cash, and they send me bitcoins immediately. I know, I want a whole lot, and right now, but I'm just saying. That might actually get me to stop being so miserly with them and to spend bitcoins like I do cash.

I understand the OP's frustration, though.

Could you post a link to your website?

I guess we'll see what the market decides. Let us know how it goes.

Glad to hear it.

Be sure to let us know when you have it up and running....

The way to do this with greater certainty would be by actually sending the bitcoins to an inaccessible address, rather than deleting the wallet. Never know when some pesky thief, who copied the wallet via a trojan a while back, might decide to access the coins himself.

But really, you'd just be redistributing wealth to all the other holders of bitcoins. It would take acquisition of a significant majority of the bitcoins in existence before any lack of liquidity affects the marketplace. Right now, we're only using 4 digits beyond the decimal point, right? So there's still plenty of room left for finer divisions. Even acquiring (somehow) and wiping out 50% of the 6-7 million bitcoins that have been mined so far probably wouldn't require any greater accuracy.

And then the remaining 14-15 million bitcoins eventually get mined.

Any attacker attempting to use this method just to "sabotage Bitcoin" is not one to be feared, but rather laughed at.

But hey, if you know anyone wanting to burn their own money, have at it:

1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE

I'd love to see this tried out.

But... what will you do if the exchange rate for bitcoins falls to $10/coin and stays there for a few months?

No. It benefits all of us who use it. Hopefully it will benefit all of society.

Of course he probably figured it would make him rich. That's proof he did a great job. If I built a better mousetrap, you can bet I'd be hoping it made me a lot of money.

My second post in this thread describes someone who had that happen to them. I thought of a bitcoin black hole as a way for her to accomplish her goal without being thrown in jail.