You're bound to see some idiot come in here and use words like "excess wealth" "increasing rich-poor gap" "fairness"

I tried make it sound as stupid as possible, so it would be obvious.




The sad thing is, as hard as I tried to be too stupid, it wasn't enough because this is what the average person actual thought process looks like.

Governments are run by corporations through lobbies that lobby congress to appropriate funds to their corporations. The people from the corporations also lobby other departments of the federal government to regulate industries so that only the few big corporations that can afford to lobby can compete, while regulating the smaller corporations out of business.

If you think government is benevolent and will appropriate funds 'fairly', then you would have loved to live in one of the command economies of the 20th century (you would have probably starved to death under those conditions)

It's because people like you are ignorant of how the price system works to allocate resources, and how governments mess that up and cause shortages and economic depressions.

The assertion that free markets lead to monopoly is wildly incorrect. If the market is allowed to work freely over time, an apparent monopolist soon discovers that it indeed has competition. A company operating in a market economy looks like a monopoly only under myopically static analysis. A broader definition of any industry will show that there is plenty of competition, just as a narrow enough definition will show that any brand name product has some monopoly characteristics, such as a popular brand of ice cream.

The airline industry is an example. There are now two manufacturers of large passenger jets: Boeing and Airbus. Punditry has expressed inevitable fears over monopoly profits and passenger safety. However, Boeing's actions in the last three years--most notably, attempts to cut costs by modernizing the entire production process --suggest that Boeing believes it has competition.

Boeing is right, and the competition is not just from Airbus. Suppose Airbus closes its doors, and only Boeing remains. Suppose also that Boeing faces no government regulation. Can Boeing raise prices at will? If it does, in the short term, people who have to travel will find alternatives to air flight in increasing numbers. Airlines would use smaller planes as much as possible. In the long term, companies such as Beechcraft and Cessna, seeing higher than normal profits available to an interloper, might build larger jets.

Consider too the electricity business: As reported by The Economist (August 2000), deregulation in many places around the world is bringing about huge changes in the industry, including movement toward smaller local producers. Most countries and communities value a pristine environment, and smaller power plants can be "greener" than large ones. And sending power over smaller distances means that local plants, with higher at-source costs, are competitive with giant, distant plants because they save the costs imposed by distance. Thus, smaller local plants may be competitive with large producers very soon.

Automobile manufacturing provides another good example. In the early, less-regulated years of the 20th century, there were dozens of small automakers, from Deusenberg to Rambler. Now, with the purchase of Chrysler by Daimler Benz, it would appear the United States is down to two. Worldwide, Ford, General Motors, Daimler Benz, BMW, and others (even Fiat!) are buying out such storied makers as Rolls Royce, Land Rover, Jaguar, and Lamborghini.

These acquisitions seem superficially to suggest that monopolies are forming. Looking more closely, we see that the four acquired companies mentioned above were all suffering financial difficulties when purchased by others, and notably, the acquired represent marques many automobile enthusiasts consider worth saving. They were purchased because they weren't making money, yet offered appealing products that should be profitable. That someone was losing money building popular cars suggests not that the industry tends toward monopoly, but that there were management shortcomings.

The automobile business continues to be stiffly competitive. Startups such as Hyundai and quasi-independent marques such as Saturn and Geo show that the high cost of entry into this capital-intensive industry is not enough to dissuade newcomers. Further, new trends such as the SUV and specialty vehicles such as the popular retro-kitsch Chrysler PT Cruiser show that even established automakers still must innovate to survive.

These three industries--planes, automobiles, and electricity--are three of the most capital intensive, and all show that when the market is free, there is no monopoly. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that your electric company decides to triple its rates. What would happen? In the short term, people would use candles for light, turn down their thermostats, and find other ways to use less power. In the longer term, we would find alternatives to our current provider, and the freer the market, the less time this would take. Economic profits attract entrepreneurs from under rocks, and some of these new competitors will offer truly good deals.

If your electric company, or Boeing, decided to raise prices arbitrarily, and customers were forced to find long-term alternatives, would there be inconvenience? Certainly. But any inconvenience would signal entrepreneurs that profits were available, and they would act. Over time, this natural market process would have us enjoying more choices, and more affordable ones. Contra Marx and Galbraith, free competition does not generate monopolies, but rather stymies them.

(Mises.org author: Brad Edmonds) http://mises.org/daily/621

Take a guess as to why Spain (and much of Europe) is currently suffering economic woes.

Our current unregulated free markets are not fair. Prices fluctuate all the time. Free markets will create too much wealth for people. And when everybody is free, it becomes unregulated, and bad things can happen. This can't be. It's not fair for poor people. What we need is fair markets. In fair markets, a government body is established to determine a fair price for every good. Any reseller wanting to jack up prices is revoked from his license to sell things. In fair markets, the government is able to care for everyone, and able to squeeze productivity from everybody who can, without anyone becoming too rich. Life should be fair.

HAHAHAHAHHAHHAHA

Do you even know what a free market is?

Government spending is stupid and never works. For the government to spend, it has to tax. When it taxes, it is suctioning up capital from one sector of the economy, to decide what sector it will inject it in. Government cannot create wealth out of thin air.

Dude, if you could make a youtube vid explaining bitcoin to people, that'd be great.

That is because what I failed to mention is that once information is published, it becomes non-excludible. It remains excludible only as long as it remains secret, ie, you are the only one that knows it.

I can't believe a devout Austrian such as Schiff would use the 'intrinsic value' fallacy. There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is subjective. This is a tenet of Austrian economics.

I would only give it out if a huge government bureaucracy is created to insure that if I give it out, they would prevent people like you from abusing it. Only a megalithic government institution can prevent the bad stuff you will do after I give you my bitcoin private key.



Oh wait, it won't. It's my responsibility what information I give to what people.

Respect.



How much money did you make?

Don't use mybitcoin

Just use the bitcoin software to generate keys and receive BTC

If people value something, it has value; if people do not value something, it does not have value; and there is no intrinsic about it.

Man what I love about this is that, when statists argue for more regulation here, we don't even need to explain why it's wrong to regulate. Any regulation is simply un-enforceable 

Bitcoin is relatively rare aswell. No person can suddenly and rapidly produce a large amount of bitcoins as to drastically alter total supply.

It's a classic statist's appeal to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is used to justify fascism and general totalitarianism.