Distribution of Wealth

[MoonShadow]

The thing about "big" traders is that one day there were all "small" traders ... but not many vice versa.

Unless they inherited their money, which is the case for about 3/4 of the wealth in the US today.

No one inherited bitcoin.

[weston.markham]

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder....

Let's suppose that for each of the 1000-or-so nodes in the Bitcoin network, there are actually 6000 users of Bitcoins.  That's a ridiculously high estimate, of course.  But out of 6 billion people, that's still less than 0.1% of the population holding all of the Bitcoins.  (Well, ignoring the generation of new Bitcoins.  But it's obvious that not everyone has a "fair" chance to claim those.)  The wealth distribution of Bitcoins is, viewed in this manner, far, far more inequitable than stated.  It's nowhere near that Pareto 80-20 rule.

I believe that this is a big impediment to mainstream acceptance of Bitcoins.  In the long run, I don't think it's insurmountable.  But I worry that perhaps a significant fraction of the Bitcoin community has somehow convinced itself that technical superiority alone makes the adoption of Bitcoins inevitable.

[ribuck]

...Unless they inherited their money, which is the case for about 3/4 of the wealth in the US today.

We needn't fear inherited wealth, because within a generation or two the family inevitably procreates a playboy who blows all the family's wealth on hookers, coke, yachts, and fast cars.

What we do need to fear is a society that is structured to funnel the wealth of the poor into the pockets of the rich on an ongoing basis.

[ryepdx]

The thing about "big" traders is that one day there were all "small" traders ... but not many vice versa.

Unless they inherited their money, which is the case for about 3/4 of the wealth in the US today.

No one inherited bitcoin.

You can buy bitcoins with inherited money though. So in a sense, yes, anyone who has bought bitcoins with inherited money has inherited bitcoins, albeit indirectly.

[Anonymous]

...Unless they inherited their money, which is the case for about 3/4 of the wealth in the US today.

We needn't fear inherited wealth, because within a generation or two the family inevitably procreates a playboy who blows all the family's wealth on hookers, coke, yachts, and fast cars.

What we do need to fear is a society that is structured to funnel the wealth of the poor into the pockets of the rich on an ongoing basis.

Bitcoin - voluntary wealth redistribution   

[kiba]

Bitcoin - voluntary wealth redistribution  

There's only the haves-now, and haves-later. We rich folk got the first crappy first version of technology, while the poor use technology that are already refined.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Bitcoin - voluntary wealth redistribution .

Nice, catchy too.

Like "Voluntary Socialism" .... or decentralised communism.

[hannah3talor]

Ya actually the economic condition depends on how well the wealth is distributed.
Redistribution of wealth can also be gained by property distribution and taxation.
The concept of Voluntary Socialism is really appreciable but was just wondering how it could be put into the action!!!

[Timo Y]

The concept of Voluntary Socialism is really appreciable but was just wondering how it could be put into the action!!!

Some form of voluntary socialism could be offered by insurance companies and banks.

For example, a bank would offer to pay for someone's entire higher education upfront, including an allowance for the cost of living.

In return, the student would sign a contract promising to leave 50% of their income (in excess of $20k) to the bank for the next 20 years.

The advantage compared to regular student loans, from the bank's perspective, is higher revenues because a fraction of students would pay back the loan many times over.

The advantage from a student's perspective is less risk. The student would not need to take out a loan that they may struggle to pay back, in order to enjoy university or vocational training.   A higher education does not guarantee a higher income, it only increases the likelihood.  

In order to remain profitable, aptitude tests would be necessary to avoid too many free riders from joining who will never be able or willing to earn more than $20k.  That's the main difference to true socialism, where every member of society is included.

True, even then this scheme would still have a lot of free riders who take more than they give, but that is true for many insurance products, and that doesn't prevent them from being profitable either.




A similar scheme could be used for health insurance:  "We will pay upfront for a state-of-the-art cancer treatment if you leave us 50% of your income for the next 20 years".

For housing: "We will save you from eviction and buy your house from your creditors. You may live in there for free for the next 20 years but must leave 50% of your income."

etc.

[da2ce7]

The core fact is there are two types of interactions in this world:   voluntary   or    violent

Morality also lies upon these two types of interactions also.  (Moral) consensual iterations  or   (In-moral) violently forced actions

The big and small traders alike are not forced to use MTGox.  They both choose to use if out of their free will.

imanikin is declaring that the traders (big or small) committed a 'in-moral' act by using MTGox, however has not presented any evidence of violence.

Whatever happens on MTGox is moral! as long as there is no violent force to use MTGox.


sidenote//
(economically speaking dark pools are great!  They improve the efficiency of the market, making the trading price of Bitcoin many times more stable!  I am always amazed to see how stable the Bitcoin price is considering how low the trading volumes are).

[Timo Y]

We needn't fear inherited wealth, because within a generation or two the family inevitably procreates a playboy who blows all the family's wealth on hookers, coke, yachts, and fast cars.

Evidence?

What you describe is not a new phenomenon and "old money" families are well aware of this problem. Some have devised sophisticated systems to prevent this from happening.    

I know of one super rich extended family where all wealth is held by a trust and never inherited to an individual family member.  If a family member wants to access the money in the trust they have to work their way up in the corporate hierarchy of the family company.  The ones who make it to the top become shareholders, but even they don't have the power, individually, to blow it all on yachts and hookers.  As soon as they retire they are forced to return all their shares.  

This system has been working successfully for 6 generations now, and there is no indication that the family company will fail.  

I'm not sure if this kind of condensation of wealth is good or bad. Family companies often make sounder investments because they lack perverse incentives such as bonuses for taking excessive risks or boosting short term profits at the expense of long term sustainability.  

[da2ce7]

What you describe is not a new phenomenon and "old money" families are well aware of this problem. Some have devised sophisticated systems to prevent this from happening.    

I am glad that they have worked out a solution!  It seems like they are happily existing without violence, in that case it is moral, I am glad for them.

The free market is based upon people having 'free interactions.'  A free interaction is not a interaction where you know everything, but rather an interaction that one choose to do on your own terms, (whatever they may be).

If both parties to the interaction are in agreement, then it is good.  If the parties cannot agree on the terms, they walk away.

imanikin prerogative is to control his (or her) own actions.   I guess it is a hard spot, declaring dark-pools as immoral yet unable to stop other people from trading (without the use of violence), I guess they only he  can do is shout louder.  However I'm not one to declare something a illegal just because I do not like doing it.

[gene]

The concept of Voluntary Socialism is really appreciable but was just wondering how it could be put into the action!!!

Some form of voluntary socialism could be offered by insurance companies and banks.

For example, a bank would offer to pay for someone's entire higher education upfront, including an allowance for the cost of living.

In return, the student would sign a contract promising to leave 50% of their income (in excess of $20k) to the bank for the next 20 years.

The advantage compared to regular student loans, from the bank's perspective, is higher revenues because a fraction of students would pay back the loan many times over.

The advantage from a student's perspective is less risk. The student would not need to take out a loan that they may struggle to pay back, in order to enjoy university or vocational training.   A higher education does not guarantee a higher income, it only increases the likelihood.  

In order to remain profitable, aptitude tests would be necessary to avoid too many free riders from joining who will never be able or willing to earn more than $20k.  That's the main difference to true socialism, where every member of society is included.

True, even then this scheme would still have a lot of free riders who take more than they give, but that is true for many insurance products, and that doesn't prevent them from being profitable either.




A similar scheme could be used for health insurance:  "We will pay upfront for a state-of-the-art cancer treatment if you leave us 50% of your income for the next 20 years".

For housing: "We will save you from eviction and buy your house from your creditors. You may live in there for free for the next 20 years but must leave 50% of your income."

etc.

What you've described here is indentured servitude.

[gene]

Morality also lies upon these two types of interactions also.  (Moral) consensual iterations  or   (In-moral) violently forced actions

The idiocy here is astounding. I'm actually embarrassed for having read this.

[fergalish]

The idiocy here is astounding. I'm actually embarrassed for having read this.

I agree.  That some people view the world in such stark terms shows a strong lack of wisdom and experience.

The core fact is there are two types of interactions in this world:   voluntary   or    violent

The world is not so black and white.  I have already thought of a scenario involving a non-voluntary but non-violent interaction, I'm certain the forum could think of more.  If I tell you, da2ce7, will you soften your attitude?  I respectfully suggest that your kind of thinking does nothing other than polarise people, causing them to harden their views both for and against you.  Whatever it is you want, you'll never find a solution that way.

[kiba]

The idiocy here is astounding. I'm actually embarrassed for having read this.

I agree.  That some people view the world in such stark terms shows a strong lack of wisdom and experience.

The core fact is there are two types of interactions in this world:   voluntary   or    violent

The world is not so black and white.  I have already thought of a scenario involving a non-voluntary but non-violent interaction, I'm certain the forum could think of more.  If I tell you, da2ce7, will you soften your attitude?  I respectfully suggest that your kind of thinking does nothing other than polarise people, causing them to harden their views both for and against you.  Whatever it is you want, you'll never find a solution that way.

Will people like you actually rebuts the actual argument instead of calling your opponent unwise and inexperienced?

[BitterTea]

I have already thought of a scenario involving a non-voluntary but non-violent interaction

Really? I just did a search for posts by you containing either "violent", "violence", or "voluntary" and of the three posts, none of them contained this scenario. Care to enlighten us?

[fergalish]

Really? I just did a search for posts by you containing either "violent", "violence", or "voluntary" and of the three posts, none of them contained this scenario. Care to enlighten us?

Yes really.  I just thought of one.  I didn't write it down yet - I'm sure I'm allowed to have thoughts without writing them down ;-)   I'm waiting to see if da2ce7 will agree to temper his (what I consider to be) extreme view of human nature before writing it.  How about you?  The example I thought of is actually quite a frequent occurrence.
But really, it's quite easy.  All you need is some scenario which involves unforeseeable or unintended consequences and, hey presto! you can have your very own non-voluntary, non-violent and unpleasant interaction.

Will people like you actually rebuts the actual argument instead of calling your opponent unwise and inexperienced?

I will.  I'm waiting for a response from da2ce7.  But let me ask you, do you think all human interactions can be put into one and only one of two possible classes: voluntary or violent?  Are there no others?

[da2ce7]

I will.  I'm waiting for a response from da2ce7.  But let me ask you, do you think all human interactions can be put into one and only one of two possible classes: voluntary or violent?  Are there no others?

You are quite correct, the world is in shades of gray.

I used the black and white example to polarise people on purpose as the thread was going in circles with detail.

The case with MTGox is black and white, either people are forced with violence to use it, or not.   So my argument even when it is simplified to a black and white contrast, still holds strong.

However, often the world doesn't provide such clear cut cases.  The often there is a need for careful weighing and the balancing of actions,  this sort of thing requires a court or adjudication system.  However how a court system would operate in a free society, has yet to be defined and has been the argument of philosophers for the ages now and past.  Somethings are never quite worked out, until they are done.

[da2ce7]

You are quite correct, the world is in shades of gray.

Just a clarification, there are still only two types of actions, however in gray cases normally both parties have committed violent actions.  So it is hard to say one party is in the 'right.'
The other type of gray actions are actions that use a debatable degree of force, such as making threats.  These ones need some court of court system to work out if it was violent or not.

A free society is never going to be easy to achieve, and nobody really knows quite how it will work.  But it is a worthy goal to work towards.