I think you may have misunderstood. BTC10 is the price I'm selling at, not buying.

I also think large trucks are too loud. Trains as well. But noise pollution is one of the least problematic externalities. It's short-lived, easy to block out, and unless it's really extreme, does no actual harm. It's just annoying.

Something like this, maybe?

"Spending" it first, to a new address is a simple matter, and what I would do in that situation. But the hacker has still committed trespass, perhaps even a form of "breaking and entering," and both of those are offenses which can have consequences attached to them.

Sadly, I don't have to imagine:

Of course it works, but the point is, why do it? Why intentionally cause a shortage of money?

And who is best suited to determining the level of risk? The lender? Or a bureaucrat with no knowledge of the borrower at all? Legal definitions of usury are necessarily arbitrary price ceilings. And price ceilings, when they do anything, cause shortages.

Your views color your perception of the world, Impaler. By looking at interest with a bias, you seek evermore complex "solutions" to a problem that isn't there.

You are like the early astronomers who, because a biased view that Earth was the center of the universe, had to concoct elaborate schemes to explain the motion of the planets, when a simpler, heliocentric model would explain it all, without planets having to do loop-die-loops in the sky.

Interest is not bad, it is not good, no more than the price of grain is good or bad. Interest is simply the price of money.

You're projecting, my friend. Your use of the word "usury" indicates that you make a value judgment on interest, and because Austrian theory provides a valid explanation for why interest happens, you assume that we take the opposite position, and are defending interest. That's absurd. We are explaining it, as a natural part of the economy, the price of money. But because you view it as bad, we who do not agree with you must therefore view it as good. It's not bad, it's not good. It just is.

Now, the interest rate can tell us a great deal about the underlying economy, but only if it is left, like other prices, to float in the marketplace.

Revolution.

Sarcasm comes across poorly in dry text, anyway. You basically have to know the other person's views well enough to detect that he's saying something that doesn't fit.

(Pssst: that was his point.)

Yeah, he's getting a little mixed up. Personal finance is not national monetary policy. Personal finance, borrowing/saving dichotomy is no big thing. National monetary policy, borrowing/saving becomes a big thing.


You know, they charged interest on loans denominated in gold, too. "Debt money" is a relatively new concept.

This.

Ahh. I missed that bit about being old enough to live on their own. But the point is moot. I place no such restrictions on treating people like people, and not property. I place no arbitrary age limits on competency. Age is a number. Maturity is not measured in years.

Old enough for what? Dress themselves? Most kids can do that by five.
Cross the street? 7, maybe 8 for the slow ones.
Drink responsibly? Hell, even some adults aren't mature enough to handle that.
Age is a number. Maturity is not measured in years.

I quoted the "natural monopoly" page, and the "economies of scale" page. Not the diesconomies of scale page.

Point me to any monopoly not granted by government, and I'll cede the point.

What makes you think they aren't?

Have you read any book on economics that wasn't Keynesian?