Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 10:09:19 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Thought experiment: Resetting spendings each month; what would happen?  (Read 3726 times)
TiagoTiago
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616


Firstbits.com/1fg4i                :Ƀ


View Profile
April 10, 2011, 02:18:03 AM
 #1

Lots of people here seem to have a head for understanding how economies and the people running them tend to behave, and enjoy talking about this. So i offer this idea for you guys to chew on, lemme know what you think:




What if the governament imposed a system like the following: at the beggining of each month, each citizen will own a fixed amount of "money", a virtual currency infinitly divisible, they can spend the money as they want during the month, there would be no enforcements for prices, wages etc. But at the beggining of the next month everyone's bank accounts would be reset, so that once again everyone owns the same amount of "money".

The "money" would need to be a virtual currency (instead of somthing with physical representations like coins paper bills that people can hide) to make it easy for the governament to enforce the monthly reset.




I have the impression this would pretty much extinguish poverty, and the prices of things would quickly reach an optmal value. But without actually doing away with having rich people; the rich would be those that develop means of offering things lots of people want in a big enough quantity so that lots of people can afford to pay for that thing (product, service etc).

I'm not quite sure how things would work when dealing with foreign tourists and busyness people outside the country etc though.


How do you expect things would go with a system like this?

And has anything similar to this idea been tried before in a big enough scale? If yes, how did it go and what were the differences and similarities?

(I dont always get new reply notifications, pls send a pm when you think it has happened)

Wanna gimme some BTC for any or no reason? 1FmvtS66LFh6ycrXDwKRQTexGJw4UWiqDX Smiley

The more you believe in Bitcoin, and the more you show you do to other people, the faster the real value will soar!

Do you like mmmBananas?!
1481191759
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191759

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191759
Reply with quote  #2

1481191759
Report to moderator
1481191759
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191759

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191759
Reply with quote  #2

1481191759
Report to moderator
1481191759
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191759

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191759
Reply with quote  #2

1481191759
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481191759
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481191759

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481191759
Reply with quote  #2

1481191759
Report to moderator
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
April 10, 2011, 02:23:17 AM
 #2



I have the impression this would pretty much extinguish poverty, and the prices of things would quickly reach an optmal value. But without actually doing away with having rich people; the rich would be those that develop means of offering things lots of people want in a big enough quantity so that lots of people can afford to pay for that thing (product, service etc).

I'm not quite sure how things would work when dealing with foreign tourists and busyness people outside the country etc though.

The cause of poverty is not that some have more than others, but the fact that there isn't enough  goods and services to go around.

Gluskab
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile WWW
April 10, 2011, 02:24:30 AM
 #3

A new currency (more likely currencies) would arise almost instantaneously.

What you described isn't money, and unless people were forced to use it for certain things, wouldn't ever be used for anything.

http://www.twitter.com/EverydayAgorism/
Check out my blog on Bitcoin and Agorism! http://www.practicalagorism.com/
BTC : 173nD33C17211xUiViDArdLcriV6NSpaEP
Gluskab
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile WWW
April 10, 2011, 02:25:43 AM
 #4



I have the impression this would pretty much extinguish poverty, and the prices of things would quickly reach an optmal value. But without actually doing away with having rich people; the rich would be those that develop means of offering things lots of people want in a big enough quantity so that lots of people can afford to pay for that thing (product, service etc).

I'm not quite sure how things would work when dealing with foreign tourists and busyness people outside the country etc though.

The cause of poverty is not that some have more than others, but the fact that there isn't enough  goods and services to go around.

and this... currency is the least important part of an economy (except when it's manipulated on a large scale).

http://www.twitter.com/EverydayAgorism/
Check out my blog on Bitcoin and Agorism! http://www.practicalagorism.com/
BTC : 173nD33C17211xUiViDArdLcriV6NSpaEP
rezin777
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
April 10, 2011, 03:43:20 AM
 #5

Wait a second. The money resets every month. Yet you claim there will be "rich" people selling stuff in order to make money? What is the motivation to exchange tangible goods for money when the money will be reset every month?

We both have 1000 stateCoins.
I sell you my TV for 500 stateCoins.
You have a TV and 500 stateCoins. I have 1500 stateCoins.
In a month you have my TV and 1000 stateCoins and I have 1000 stateCoins.

Whoever trades goods for stateCoins loses.

As Gluskab said, no one in their right mind would use it. Force would be required.
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
April 10, 2011, 03:52:39 AM
 #6

Someone would start a business based around petitioning the government to seize assets by eminent domain at the end of every month and selling them for stateCoins at the beginning of every month.  It would be like Christmas twelve times a year.

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
rezin777
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
April 10, 2011, 03:54:21 AM
 #7

Someone would start a business based around petitioning the government to seize assets by eminent domain at the end of every month and selling them for stateCoins at the beginning of every month.  It would be like Christmas twelve times a year.

Christmas in hell!   Cheesy
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
April 10, 2011, 03:57:02 AM
 #8

What if the governament imposed a system like the following:

I stopped reading there since everything that follows is going to be immoral. What if the government reinstated slavery? Well, that would be wrong, just like whatever it is you're suggesting.
rezin777
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
April 10, 2011, 04:00:22 AM
 #9

What if the government reinstated slavery? Well, that would be wrong, just like whatever it is you're suggesting.

Unless the slaves were sexy robots!
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
April 10, 2011, 04:11:56 AM
 #10

Wait a second. The money resets every month. Yet you claim there will be "rich" people selling stuff in order to make money? What is the motivation to exchange tangible goods for money when the money will be reset every month?

We both have 1000 stateCoins.
I sell you my TV for 500 stateCoins.
You have a TV and 500 stateCoins. I have 1500 stateCoins.
In a month you have my TV and 1000 stateCoins and I have 1000 stateCoins.

Whoever trades goods for stateCoins loses.

As Gluskab said, no one in their right mind would use it. Force would be required.

Yeah, this money isn't money because it doesn't have durability.

What would happen if every day your money was reset to the highest it had ever been, but at the same time all accounts were divided by whatever coefficient was necessary to maintain exactly the same total balance?

I guess the strategy would be to make a run at getting really high and then take a break until you wanted to make another big run. Does this have any implications? Is this currency dumb enough that it will take lots of force to keep people using it or just a little force? It certainly doesn't seem to be to be something that would emerge on it's own.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
April 10, 2011, 04:18:06 AM
 #11

What if the government reinstated slavery? Well, that would be wrong, just like whatever it is you're suggesting.

Unless the slaves were sexy robots!

Yeah baby!
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
April 10, 2011, 05:12:03 AM
 #12

What if the government reinstated slavery? Well, that would be wrong, just like whatever it is you're suggesting.

Unless the slaves were sexy robots!

Blade Runner, anyone?

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile WWW
April 10, 2011, 07:13:21 AM
 #13

This so called money or currency you describe sounds more like votes than like money or currency.

You only get so many votes per timespan, depending on how many elections take place you are eligible to vote in.

Naturally we congresspeople vote ourselves higher salaries oops no wait, its the riff-raff who vote themselves bread and circi...

-MarkM- (Yeah yeah I know (or at least suspect) circi isn't quite correct Latin...)

P.S. how much do votes cost in your area? Around here different political parties harvest different numbers of votes per dollar spent on {|trying to get} votes...

--
"Control the coinage and the courts—let the rabble have the rest." Thus the Padishah Emperor advises you. And he tells you: "If you want profits, you must rule." There is truth in these words, but I ask myself: "Who are the rabble and who are the ruled?"
-Muad'Dib's Secret Message to the Landsraad from "Arrakis Awakening" by the Princess Irulan

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
Alex Beckenham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
April 10, 2011, 10:14:15 AM
 #14

Whoever trades goods for stateCoins loses.

Hence it won't eliminate poverty, because no matter how many statecoins you get each month, the baker still won't want to sell you any bread.

FooDSt4mP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
April 10, 2011, 02:29:57 PM
 #15

Whoever trades goods for stateCoins loses.

Hence it won't eliminate poverty, because no matter how many statecoins you get each month, the baker still won't want to sell you any bread.


What if instead of a reset, everyone got 1000 new coins every month.  If we're going to have inflation, it might as well be equally distributed initially.

As we slide down the banister of life, this is just another splinter in our ass.
Alex Beckenham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
April 10, 2011, 02:36:27 PM
 #16

Whoever trades goods for stateCoins loses.

Hence it won't eliminate poverty, because no matter how many statecoins you get each month, the baker still won't want to sell you any bread.


What if instead of a reset, everyone got 1000 new coins every month.  If we're going to have inflation, it might as well be equally distributed initially.

Then if a poor person has debt to a rich person for example, that 'initially' might only be 4.2 nanoseconds, before the wealth is redistributed.

Also, the only way 'inflation' could be equally distributed, would be if everyone had exactly the same amount of cash at the time of minting new money. Because if I have $10,000 in cash, and you have $6000 in cash and a $4000 widget, then when new money gets minted it affects me more than it affects you, even if we both get the same $ amount from the government.

FooDSt4mP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
April 10, 2011, 02:44:55 PM
 #17

Whoever trades goods for stateCoins loses.

Hence it won't eliminate poverty, because no matter how many statecoins you get each month, the baker still won't want to sell you any bread.


What if instead of a reset, everyone got 1000 new coins every month.  If we're going to have inflation, it might as well be equally distributed initially.

Then if a poor person has debt to a rich person for example, that 'initially' might only be 4.2 nanoseconds, before the wealth is redistributed.

Also, the only way 'inflation' could be equally distributed, would be if everyone had exactly the same amount of cash at the time of minting new money. Because if I have $10,000 in cash, and you have $6000 in cash and a $4000 widget, then when new money gets minted it affects me more than it affects you, even if we both get the same $ amount from the government.


Good points... I was grasping at straws to push this thread a little further Smiley.  However, I think it might be a little more fair than what happens today if the only way to introduce new money was to split it among every citizen.

As we slide down the banister of life, this is just another splinter in our ass.
Alex Beckenham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
April 10, 2011, 02:52:16 PM
 #18

Good points... I was grasping at straws to push this thread a little further Smiley.  However, I think it might be a little more fair than what happens today if the only way to introduce new money was to split it among every citizen.

If that really were the case, then I absolutely can't see any reason to increase the money supply.

Let's say the entire population consists of:

Alice who has $10
Bob who has $10
Ben B. who has $5

Ben decides to double the money supply, distributing equally as you have suggested.

Alice now has $20
Bob now has $20
Ben B. now has $10

They all have exactly the same purchasing power as before, so the whole exercise was pointless.

The only reason I can see for Ben B. to increase the money supply is to increase his (or his friends') percentage of the total purchasing power (Which is basically a tax on Alice and Bob).

Why else would he do it?

FooDSt4mP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
April 10, 2011, 03:25:01 PM
 #19

Good points... I was grasping at straws to push this thread a little further Smiley.  However, I think it might be a little more fair than what happens today if the only way to introduce new money was to split it among every citizen.

If that really were the case, then I absolutely can't see any reason to increase the money supply.

Let's say the entire population consists of:

Alice who has $10
Bob who has $10
Ben B. who has $5

Ben decides to double the money supply, distributing equally as you have suggested.

Alice now has $20
Bob now has $20
Ben B. now has $10

They all have exactly the same purchasing power as before, so the whole exercise was pointless.

The only reason I can see for Ben B. to increase the money supply is to increase his (or his friends') percentage of the total purchasing power (Which is basically a tax on Alice and Bob).

Why else would he do it?



I don't want there to be a reason to increase the money supply Wink.  I would prefer it being pointless to the current state of affairs where the Fed can tax Alice and Bob freely.

Also, if the money were doubled and distributed equally, not proportionally, it would be more like:

Alice now has 18.33
Bob now has 18.33
Ben B. now has 13.33

25/3 ~= 8.33

The absolute gap between the rich Alice and Bob and the poor Ben B. is the same, but the percentage difference has narrowed from 20% to 10% of the total economy.

As we slide down the banister of life, this is just another splinter in our ass.
Alex Beckenham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
April 10, 2011, 03:30:10 PM
 #20

if the money were doubled and distributed equally, not proportionally

Ah, I messed that up, sorry.

Definitely nothing fair about equal distribution though.

Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!