In my opinion, Freicoin can also still be used as a store of wealth, be used to manipulate exchange prices for profit and also undermine democratic systems. Interest is not the only mechanism money is distributed to the rich.
Arguably any free market money system forms a democracy where the amount of votes someone has is proportional to the amount of money they can spend. For example buying a product can be compared to a vote saying you support a companies products or policies. Therefore the more money you have the more voting potential you have. My opinion is also that money should attempt to be used as a form of exchange only. Freicoin could also be effectively used for more than just a form exchange.
If you had a money system which provided more equality(close to uniform distribution) but still maintain opportunity you would need less government control of it. The system would try to govern itself.
A more uniform distribution of money between people means the money voting system on the economy is more equal.
I never said FRC wouldn't be a store of wealth, this is a common misconception that just because FRC loses 5% it's not a store of wealth, it store 95% of the wealth put into it by itself and when the liquidity premium to sold (by loaning it) the lender will make back the remaining 5% to reach parity. The key is that FRC is not a SUPERIOR store of value compared to real assets the way normal money is. And even hard-money dose not store-value, it extracts value from the rest of the economy in the form of rent/interest, their really is no such thing as perfect loss less store-of-value.
As for market manipulation, this is obviously separate from a currencies store of value function because markets are an exchange. Any scamming, insider-trading and other fraudulent activity that may redistribute wealth is a product of the market place and its lack of reputable actors or enforcement of ethical standards. No matter WHAT your using as money this can happen, your statement is the equivalent of saying beads are illegitimate because some folks once used them to fraudulently buy Manhattan. The fraud is outside the money system and the solution to fraud is always going to be likewise outside the money system.
Your terrible confusion of the term 'democracy' for what is nothing more then 'spending power' and 'purchasing preference' is galling. Democracy has always meant a system of rule by the people, not by the wealthy, if your trying to say that wealth disparity undermines democracy I can agree with that. But you seem to imply that money-mandated wealth redistribution to flatten disparity is the only answer.
I think you fail to understand how large the wealth redistribution power of the normal money paradigm actually IS, it is alone capable of explaining virtually the entire existing wealth disparity because the interest rate enters into the cost of everything in our economy and ends up being far more then 5% of the goods cost, the bottom 80% pay huge sums every year in indirect interest to the top 10%.
Because you don't recognize this redistribution (or think it to be insignificant) you ascribe wealth disparity to other specious actions of the wealthy like market manipulation or perhaps some vague worker exploitation. And then in response you propose to create some kind of vast wealth pump in the opposite direction that will robin-hood back the wealth for the poor. But this is fatally flawed, you would be running two pumps opposite each other and while they might theoretically cancel out each others flows, each is going to create horrible inefficiency.
Were already suffering under the inefficiencies of the first pump that no one acknowledges exists its called the 'business cycle' and gives us recessions and depressions, chronic unemployment, all the knocks against capitalism that are routine now. A second pump will create yet more inefficiency, reduced work incentives, corruption all the stuff conservatives use to attack the welfare state. The correct solution is to just shut off the first wealth pump which will rebalanced wealth while increasing efficiency and being immune to all the standard welfare state criticisms.
Poll
