Can Crypto redefine current economic models?

[deisik]

There's a big difference with the old industrial revolutions.
We're building intelligence, and that intelligence can replace our work/tasks on many fields.
200 years ago, in the industrial revolution, we needed people to repair the machines that were automating certain tasks. But nowadays, we're building intelligence that can learn, even create new languages and process more information than any human could ever process in a matter of seconds. We're creating the intelligence that will fix these machines

You are not the first who are starting this argument

There was a very, very long thread here about that thing specifically and many swords had been crossed and horns locked over this matter. But I have a stronger argument without even evaluating your reasoning for plausibility, i.e. without analyzing whether what you say is actually true

Let's assume that this time it is different (with the old industrial revolutions), that you are right and machines can now fix themselves as well as do other incredible things that will make humans irrelevant. Then you have to face the real stuff. Who will all these intelligent machines be producing for if most people are now jobless and can't buy anything?

[1715133989]

1715133989

[Lucusfoundation]

There's a big difference with the old industrial revolutions.
We're building intelligence, and that intelligence can replace our work/tasks on many fields.
200 years ago, in the industrial revolution, we needed people to repair the machines that were automating certain tasks. But nowadays, we're building intelligence that can learn, even create new languages and process more information than any human could ever process in a matter of seconds. We're creating the intelligence that will fix these machines

You are not the first who are starting this argument

There was a very, very long thread here about that thing specifically and many swords had been crossed and horns locked over this matter. But I have a stronger argument without even evaluating your reasoning for plausibility, i.e. without analyzing whether what you say is actually true

Let's assume that this time it is different (with the old industrial revolutions), that you are right and machines can now fix themselves as well as do other incredible things that will make humans irrelevant. Then you have to face the real stuff. Who will all these intelligent machines be producing for if most people are now jobless and can't buy anything?

Deisik, really interesting question.

Well, the way we see it, technology will produce and that production belongs to the owners.
Now, the great thing that appears is, as you say, where is all these production going? A person can't make use of hundred thousands of KGs of, let's say, potatoes, that are undistributable.

There's many things that can happen. One of them is owners limitating the production in order to mantain a stable supply/demand (Just as you guys in the US did with the New Deal). It's the same paradigm, of competition and scarce. Producers make the resource scarce so it's valuable and only people who can afford it can buy it.

The other paradigm we can get into is collaboration and abundance.
Huge amounts of resources shall be available.

What's the economic incentive of producers? What type of value can they receive?

We believe that we're heading towards a purpose based system. People who actually contribute to the world receive rewards, people who don't receive penalties.

It's really interesting and possibilities are limitless.

What do you think?

[deisik]

You are not the first who are starting this argument

There was a very, very long thread here about that thing specifically and many swords had been crossed and horns locked over this matter. But I have a stronger argument without even evaluating your reasoning for plausibility, i.e. without analyzing whether what you say is actually true

Let's assume that this time it is different (with the old industrial revolutions), that you are right and machines can now fix themselves as well as do other incredible things that will make humans irrelevant. Then you have to face the real stuff. Who will all these intelligent machines be producing for if most people are now jobless and can't buy anything?

Deisik, really interesting question.

Well, the way we see it, technology will produce and that production belongs to the owners.
Now, the great thing that appears is, as you say, where is all these production going? A person can't make use of hundred thousands of KGs of, let's say, potatoes, that are undistributable.

There's many things that can happen. One of them is owners limitating the production in order to mantain a stable supply/demand (Just as you guys in the US did with the New Deal). It's the same paradigm, of competition and scarce. Producers make the resource scarce so it's valuable and only people who can afford it can buy it

This argument is nothing new either

In fact, many who are assuming the position that automation will bring only disaster and poverty eventually back off to it. But that's no more than a poor man's reasoning as producers are economically incentivized to maximize their profits, and that is only possible if they make their product available to the greatest number of people. That's the key reason why such claims are economically unfounded

In other words, if we are talking about free economy (otherwise known as laissez-faire) where there is unrestricted competition among producers and there are no artificially imposed limits on production (like the New Deal you mentioned), that will never be the case. Ultimately, it all comes down to profit margins and costs, but this is exactly what automation is supposed to do, i.e. reduce costs and increase margins

[Lucusfoundation]

You are not the first who are starting this argument

There was a very, very long thread here about that thing specifically and many swords had been crossed and horns locked over this matter. But I have a stronger argument without even evaluating your reasoning for plausibility, i.e. without analyzing whether what you say is actually true

Let's assume that this time it is different (with the old industrial revolutions), that you are right and machines can now fix themselves as well as do other incredible things that will make humans irrelevant. Then you have to face the real stuff. Who will all these intelligent machines be producing for if most people are now jobless and can't buy anything?

Deisik, really interesting question.

Well, the way we see it, technology will produce and that production belongs to the owners.
Now, the great thing that appears is, as you say, where is all these production going? A person can't make use of hundred thousands of KGs of, let's say, potatoes, that are undistributable.

There's many things that can happen. One of them is owners limitating the production in order to mantain a stable supply/demand (Just as you guys in the US did with the New Deal). It's the same paradigm, of competition and scarce. Producers make the resource scarce so it's valuable and only people who can afford it can buy it

This argument is nothing new either

In fact, many who are assuming the position that automation will bring only disaster and poverty eventually back off to it. But that's no more than a poor man's reasoning as producers are economically incentivized to maximize their profits, and that is only possible if they make their product available to the greatest number of people. That's the key reason why such claims are economically unfounded

In other words, if we are talking about free economy (otherwise known as laissez-faire) where there is unrestricted competition among producers and there are no artificially imposed limits on production (like the New Deal you mentioned), that will never be the case. Ultimately, it all comes down to profit margins and costs, but this is exactly what automation is supposed to do, i.e. reduce costs and increase margins

But in Free Markets, those are things that happen.

Let's say that supply is much higher than demand. Of course that producers will lower the supply.

Just as the luxury industries restrict supply to increase price.

It would be self regulated, it happened in many countries, including Argentina (where we're based).

In 2009, prices of food were going down. Farm producers stopped producing in order for the prices to go up again. No regulations, no nothing. What's more, many of them were sanctioned for the measures they took.

It's a complex phenomenon and they are self balancing.

In the end, what happens is that big producers can resist the lower prices and profits while small producers can't. Starts to be a game of financial back, and in the end, the same happens. Big wins small looses.

On the other hand, we already have that problem. For example, food.

Food should be cheap and available in the whole world. The big problem is, societies. There is an over stock in many countries, which have a huge food waste, while there are countries with no food at all (Look at Venezuela right now). That is a problem of distribution, not of amounts or quantity.

[deisik]

In 2009, prices of food were going down. Farm producers stopped producing in order for the prices to go up again. No regulations, no nothing. What's more, many of them were sanctioned for the measures they took

As I said above, it all depends on margins and costs

Indeed, no one will be producing for a loss. Well, technically, this is not completely true as many producers may in fact be producing for a loss for some time so as not to lose their market share (as it often happens in real life, for example, with crude oil), but for simplicity's sake we can just stipulate that they won't

But this apparently contradicts the assumptions set forth hitherto, i.e. producers are automating production to lower their costs since otherwise they simply wouldn't go for it. But in that case they will be expected to lower their prices as well (all other things being the same) as that means more profits in total for the majority of goods

[Best Dreams]

The arrival of Crypto makes changes in life that are able to manage it, many changes are good if crypto can be utilized and bad changes if the manager is unable to get or lose. With crypto, we are free to continue to be able to manage without the interference of other parties who take advantage of us.

Indeed economically crypto has improved life of every normal person and they has given us good life enjoying opportunity, does not matter it is for earning or for using your money in better way, but it has good effect on our daily life, as I think after some year people will not have to travel for paying bills and they will not have to go out in rain or in summer to buy goods for daily life everything will be just on single click.

[efxtrader]

Bitcoin and the other cryptocurrencies have effectively changed their consumer and business models in it, not in vast degree and not officially but rather there is unquestionably some impact. Positive control would intiate further changes however it's difficult to anticipate that on a worldwide scale.

To my sentiment economy based on.a blockchain innovation is future yet changes are going on very gradually and organizations are as yet hesitant to execute it.

I am agree, blockchain can change economic models gradually. With central banks dominant in our current economic system, hard for blockchain or cryptocurrency to replace current system. But company can use blockchain for their purpose because its more transparant and saving cost

[Best Dreams]

Bitcoin and the other cryptocurrencies have effectively changed their consumer and business models in it, not in vast degree and not officially but rather there is unquestionably some impact. Positive control would intiate further changes however it's difficult to anticipate that on a worldwide scale.

To my sentiment economy based on.a blockchain innovation is future yet changes are going on very gradually and organizations are as yet hesitant to execute it.

I am agree, blockchain can change economic models gradually. With central banks dominant in our current economic system, hard for blockchain or cryptocurrency to replace current system. But company can use blockchain for their purpose because its more transparant and saving cost

Sure about it because as new companies are adopting blockchain it is being famous for fast transaction and transformation of money from one country to the other which was taking more than 24 hours in long ago but now it is possible to complete any of this process within one hours, so I really think our economy is improving after using crypto currency in this regard.

[Menawi12]

Bitcoin and the other cryptocurrencies have effectively changed their consumer and business models in it, not in vast degree and not officially but rather there is unquestionably some impact. Positive control would intiate further changes however it's difficult to anticipate that on a worldwide scale.

To my sentiment economy based on.a blockchain innovation is future yet changes are going on very gradually and organizations are as yet hesitant to execute it.

I am agree, blockchain can change economic models gradually. With central banks dominant in our current economic system, hard for blockchain or cryptocurrency to replace current system. But company can use blockchain for their purpose because its more transparant and saving cost

Sure about it because as new companies are adopting blockchain it is being famous for fast transaction and transformation of money from one country to the other which was taking more than 24 hours in long ago but now it is possible to complete any of this process within one hours, so I really think our economy is improving after using crypto currency in this regard.

Cryptocurrency can change our transaction way because its more faster and cheaper. But to change current economic system, i dont think so. Bankers still have power to control current system

[juragane]

Crypto has a lot of room to grow, but I believe government currency will remain dominant.  There is just too much volatility in bitcoin to be widely used right now.  Also, people like the safety that banks and credit cards provide.  If your crypto gets stolen you have virtually zero chance to recover it.

bitcoin still needs a long process to become a currency that can provide facilities in the world economy, so while bitcoin can only be an alternative currency in the world. to be able to replace the currency of each country needs recognition from the world bank that regulates all world currencies. not all people understand about bitcoin so paper currency is still used for a long time.

[awawo]

I think socioeconomic goals are human base and at that the whole economic process drive on human involvement and the role of machine can not replace that of human resources so at this cryptocurrency can only enhance human economic situation, but can not drive mean of replacing the economic process of the human populist.

[Hannahanto]

I think socioeconomic goals are human base and at that the whole economic process drive on human involvement and the role of machine can not replace that of human resources so at this cryptocurrency can only enhance human economic situation, but can not drive mean of replacing the economic process of the human populist.

Unless and unill government accepts bitcoin, no change is going to take place. Bitcoin can change the economy standard of a country. To be fact, the government who accepts bitcoin is going to be the top developed country.

[Lupus Solitarius]

At present, the transaction volume is too small to have any influence.
But, who knows, may be in the next future...

[karloscimot]

A more blockchain based economy would increase the level of automation,which means less workforce required,but I'm not sure that it will help for a fair redistribution of wealth.The current tech corporations have little amount of employees,but they have lots of other costs and they invest a lot in startups.
There's no easy answer for your question.

Crypto currency technology can only reach places where there is an internet connection and supporting facilities in the region. something like this is an obstacle for crypto currencies to be able to replace paper currencies. if we see that the current sale and purchase is still dominated by traditional buying and selling and that there are still many remote areas, it still takes a long time to be able to make a blockchain based economy.

[fauzan Ichsan]

I think socioeconomic goals are human base and at that the whole economic process drive on human involvement and the role of machine can not replace that of human resources so at this cryptocurrency can only enhance human economic situation, but can not drive mean of replacing the economic process of the human populist.

Unless and unill government accepts bitcoin, no change is going to take place. Bitcoin can change the economy standard of a country. To be fact, the government who accepts bitcoin is going to be the top developed country.

I think it is precisely the government that legalizes bitcoin is a developed country. only a few received btc when their country collapsed, and bitcoin became the solution to solve the super inflation problem

[BitTraderCute]

I think socioeconomic goals are human base and at that the whole economic process drive on human involvement and the role of machine can not replace that of human resources so at this cryptocurrency can only enhance human economic situation, but can not drive mean of replacing the economic process of the human populist.

Unless and unill government accepts bitcoin, no change is going to take place. Bitcoin can change the economy standard of a country. To be fact, the government who accepts bitcoin is going to be the top developed country.

I think it is precisely the government that legalizes bitcoin is a developed country. only a few received btc when their country collapsed, and bitcoin became the solution to solve the super inflation problem

not only bitcoin to solve super inflation problems,moreover much people already thinking bitcoin as risky investment portofolio.maybe they will prefer put their money into commodity such as gold or silver that already proved as safe heaven.

[Vaskiy]

I think socioeconomic goals are human base and at that the whole economic process drive on human involvement and the role of machine can not replace that of human resources so at this cryptocurrency can only enhance human economic situation, but can not drive mean of replacing the economic process of the human populist.

Unless and unill government accepts bitcoin, no change is going to take place. Bitcoin can change the economy standard of a country. To be fact, the government who accepts bitcoin is going to be the top developed country.

I think it is precisely the government that legalizes bitcoin is a developed country. only a few received btc when their country collapsed, and bitcoin became the solution to solve the super inflation problem

not only bitcoin to solve super inflation problems,moreover much people already thinking bitcoin as risky investment portofolio.maybe they will prefer put their money into commodity such as gold or silver that already proved as safe heaven.

In someway bitcoin has got its importance around the world. The inflow of money to bitcoin is high in a short time period which can never be achieved or could have got achieved through gold or other digital commodities in the past. This assure the growth of the market and the network be more stronger to overcome inflations.

[iMark]

I think socioeconomic goals are human base and at that the whole economic process drive on human involvement and the role of machine can not replace that of human resources so at this cryptocurrency can only enhance human economic situation, but can not drive mean of replacing the economic process of the human populist.

Unless and unill government accepts bitcoin, no change is going to take place. Bitcoin can change the economy standard of a country. To be fact, the government who accepts bitcoin is going to be the top developed country.

Replace it? no way! from ancient times, there will always be a government and a controller. decentralization will not take over as long as the government still exists. the country's economic system will still be like this, relying on fiat and centralization

[cahbagus555]

I think socioeconomic goals are human base and at that the whole economic process drive on human involvement and the role of machine can not replace that of human resources so at this cryptocurrency can only enhance human economic situation, but can not drive mean of replacing the economic process of the human populist.

Unless and unill government accepts bitcoin, no change is going to take place. Bitcoin can change the economy standard of a country. To be fact, the government who accepts bitcoin is going to be the top developed country.

Hard for bitcoin to replace current economy system. Our current system dominated by bankers and government like or not depend on central banks to boost growth. Bitcoin have limited supply and its not flexible for government to adopt bitcoin as national currency

[Colan Zolo]

There are still many who rely on fiat and banks, so bitcoin functions as usual and may only be able to change the economy of individuals.
It is not easy for crypto to define the economic model with many governments that have not been able to adopt it.