Economic Inequality

[shawshankinmate37927]

The biggest issues are the fact that it's inflationary and debt-based.  It's also controlled by those with political connections and used as a political tool.

Most central banks are generally independent from political affiliation and are not controlled by any political appointee.

The Federal Reserve was created by an act of Congress and the president appoints the Fed Chairman.  Also, a significant amount of the federal government's funding has been coming from the Fed.

[dontCAREhair]

The biggest issues are the fact that it's inflationary and debt-based.  It's also controlled by those with political connections and used as a political tool.

Most central banks are generally independent from political affiliation and are not controlled by any political appointee.

The Federal Reserve was created by an act of Congress and the president appoints the Fed Chairman.  Also, a significant amount of the federal government's funding has been coming from the Fed.

The president appoints the chairman of the federal reserve (as well as each of the member of the board of governors of the fed) however there is no accountability to the president once they are confirmed by the senate. Also the federal reserve does not receive any funding from the government (it is the other way around) so it is not subject to congressional pressure 

[johnyj]

Everyone was born unequal, the only thing people can do is to make a fair-play system for everyone, but that is still a best effort thing

Bitcoin can make the system better by abolishing "creating money out of thin air" scam. Money should always be produced with a cost that corresponding to its value, so it becomes a fair trade between money and goods/services

However, people tends to rely on large and powerful organizations to protect them, it is this demand created the chance for banks to rob people of their wealth, it seems people are volunteered to be the victim

So what we can do is to educate people to be independent about their money, but I don't know if that will work. Banks existed for thousands of years, there is a reason why they are needed, mostly a psychological demand

[Cassiopeiae]

since the beginning, even when the time that money is not yet in existence, there is already an unequal distribution of wealth. Its already on the system. We cant do anything to have an economic equality.

[twiifm]

The goal isn't to have equality.  The goal is to keep inequality gap from getting out of hand.  Would you rather have a distribution like Post War US & UK or Pre Revolutionary France?

That's the issue now as the IG gets close to the levels of Pre Revolutionary France

[DhaniBoy]

it all depends on what economic system we use, when we use the system of capitalist economy, economic imbalances will be more visible, the rich will get richer while the poor are getting poorer, there is no economic justice, if we use the capitalist system, economic system this is still used by most major countries are there in the world such as American and European countries

I suggested that we should learn to wear Islamic economic system, where the rich and the poor help each other there is a relationship between one and the other, in the Islamic economic system is no term zakat and charity, where the wealth of the rich are the poor of his rights to be issued immediately when reaching reckoning, I think the Islamic economic system is better than other economic systems such as the capitalist economic system ... 

[NotLambchop]

...
Progress will only occur when people choose to opt out of the current fiat, debt-based monetary system.  Anyone trying to improve society within the current monetary system is just spinning their wheels.

Careful comrade

[cutesakura]

known since the beginning of the capitalist economic system, the economic imbalance occurs, the conglomerates continue to accumulate wealth so that continues to grow, they monopolize every field of business so there is no chance for others to start a business, any business that strategically they controlled, so that the rich get richer while the the poor poorer ...  

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

...Can we blame capitalist that hoard as much wealth as possible leaving only a thin slice of the .pie for the average guy to share among themselves?

Nope, it's the corrupt politicians and bankers.  It's the monopoly on the ability to create money that is the problem, not capitalism.

Ok, you may go in here and reply to these 3 questions, you and everyone else in this thread, it's relevant:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=854589.msg9507742#msg9507742

Very interested in your replies.

[shawshankinmate37927]

...Can we blame capitalist that hoard as much wealth as possible leaving only a thin slice of the .pie for the average guy to share among themselves?

Nope, it's the corrupt politicians and bankers.  It's the monopoly on the ability to create money that is the problem, not capitalism.

Ok, you may go in here and reply to these 3 questions, you and everyone else in this thread, it's relevant:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=854589.msg9507742#msg9507742

Very interested in your replies.

Okay, checking out your video now.

[Jihaqy]

we blame capitalist that hoard as much wealth as possible leaving only a thin slice of the .pie for the average guy to share among themselves...rich or poor also depend on hard working and the change of the current money.

[pattu1]

Bitcoin is probably going to result in one of the largest redistributions of wealth in history.
Who knows, we may be the lucky few who got in early into this gold rush

[worle1bm]

Bitcoin is probably going to result in one of the largest redistributions of wealth in history.
Who knows, we may be the lucky few who got in early into this gold rush

Really? Come on. This is such fantasy

[brian_23452]

Lets face it, there's a colossal gap between the rich and the poor, and that gap is certainly getting wider. But whose to blame in this economic inequality? Is it the government that favors capitalist who contributed large amount during their campaign periods? Is it our constitution that institutionalized the practice of contractualization and other forms of labor flexibilization, hence undermining job security? Like a joke from my previous job, "If you are not a regular employee, you are casual. And after 5 or 6 months, your employer says TY (Thank You) to you which makes you a casualTY. Can we blame capitalist that hoard as much wealth as possible leaving only a thin slice of the .pie for the average guy to share among themselves?

Well, we know  that the economic inequality has existed since the beginning of civilization so we can rule out all possible reasons listed here, as they are much newer than civilization.  There is clearly something intrinsic about civilization itself which leads to this result.  

Obviously, as the people who are rich are historically the people who make the rules, it stands to reason that they would establish rules that maintain and increase their wealth; this is true regardless of political or economic systems in place.  Further, it is also clear they it is critical to their wealth that they main a lower class (basically everyone else).  Even if there were an abundance of wealth to go around such that we could all be "rich", it is not in their best interests to facilitate this.  After all, I can't hire another billionaire to do my work for me, it requires someone who has no choice but to do my work for me.

[username18333]

Lets face it, there's a colossal gap between the rich and the poor, and that gap is certainly getting wider. But whose to blame in this economic inequality? Is it the government that favors capitalist who contributed large amount during their campaign periods? Is it our constitution that institutionalized the practice of contractualization and other forms of labor flexibilization, hence undermining job security? Like a joke from my previous job, "If you are not a regular employee, you are casual. And after 5 or 6 months, your employer says TY (Thank You) to you which makes you a casualTY. Can we blame capitalist that hoard as much wealth as possible leaving only a thin slice of the .pie for the average guy to share among themselves?

Well, we know  that the economic inequality has existed since the beginning of civilization so we can rule out all possible reasons listed here, as they are much newer than civilization.  There is clearly something intrinsic about civilization itself which leads to this result.  

Obviously, as the people who are rich are historically the people who make the rules, it stands to reason that they would establish rules that maintain and increase their wealth; this is true regardless of political or economic systems in place.  Further, it is also clear they it is critical to their wealth that they main a lower class (basically everyone else).  Even if there were an abundance of wealth to go around such that we could all be "rich", it is not in their best interests to facilitate this.  After all, I can't hire another billionaire to do my work for me, it requires someone who has no choice but to do my work for me.

“Civilization” began with the ability to “store” (read: withhold to an unnatural degree) value. Prior that, Homo sapiens had to meander about with the animals they hunted—enduring egalitarianism.

[brian_23452]

Lets face it, there's a colossal gap between the rich and the poor, and that gap is certainly getting wider. But whose to blame in this economic inequality? Is it the government that favors capitalist who contributed large amount during their campaign periods? Is it our constitution that institutionalized the practice of contractualization and other forms of labor flexibilization, hence undermining job security? Like a joke from my previous job, "If you are not a regular employee, you are casual. And after 5 or 6 months, your employer says TY (Thank You) to you which makes you a casualTY. Can we blame capitalist that hoard as much wealth as possible leaving only a thin slice of the .pie for the average guy to share among themselves?

Well, we know  that the economic inequality has existed since the beginning of civilization so we can rule out all possible reasons listed here, as they are much newer than civilization.  There is clearly something intrinsic about civilization itself which leads to this result.  

Obviously, as the people who are rich are historically the people who make the rules, it stands to reason that they would establish rules that maintain and increase their wealth; this is true regardless of political or economic systems in place.  Further, it is also clear they it is critical to their wealth that they main a lower class (basically everyone else).  Even if there were an abundance of wealth to go around such that we could all be "rich", it is not in their best interests to facilitate this.  After all, I can't hire another billionaire to do my work for me, it requires someone who has no choice but to do my work for me.

“Civilization” began with the ability to “store” (read: withhold to an unnatural degree) value. Prior that, Homo sapiens had to meander about with the animals they hunted—enduring egalitarianism.

Precisely.  If I can't store excess, it makes little sense to extract more than I can immediately consume, especially if the excess comes at your expense (and since we are all equal, even if I wanted to do this everyone else would hate me for it and punish me).  If I *can* store the excess though, and use that excess to do things like, pay someone else to work for me, than that is what I will do.  I can further use this excess to essentially bribe other people to see things my way (especially given that historically, the rate of return on capital vastly exceeds inflation, if my family was rich in say 1800 they are even richer now barring some catastrophic event).  As the ability to store excess is intrinsic to civilization, all these people who think bitcoin is going to magically solve a problem that is older than money itself are simply fooling themselves.

[username18333]

Lets face it, there's a colossal gap between the rich and the poor, and that gap is certainly getting wider. But whose to blame in this economic inequality? Is it the government that favors capitalist who contributed large amount during their campaign periods? Is it our constitution that institutionalized the practice of contractualization and other forms of labor flexibilization, hence undermining job security? Like a joke from my previous job, "If you are not a regular employee, you are casual. And after 5 or 6 months, your employer says TY (Thank You) to you which makes you a casualTY. Can we blame capitalist that hoard as much wealth as possible leaving only a thin slice of the .pie for the average guy to share among themselves?

Well, we know  that the economic inequality has existed since the beginning of civilization so we can rule out all possible reasons listed here, as they are much newer than civilization.  There is clearly something intrinsic about civilization itself which leads to this result.  

Obviously, as the people who are rich are historically the people who make the rules, it stands to reason that they would establish rules that maintain and increase their wealth; this is true regardless of political or economic systems in place.  Further, it is also clear they it is critical to their wealth that they main a lower class (basically everyone else).  Even if there were an abundance of wealth to go around such that we could all be "rich", it is not in their best interests to facilitate this.  After all, I can't hire another billionaire to do my work for me, it requires someone who has no choice but to do my work for me.

“Civilization” began with the ability to “store” (read: withhold to an unnatural degree) value. Prior that, Homo sapiens had to meander about with the animals they hunted—enduring egalitarianism.

Precisely.  If I can't store excess, it makes little sense to extract more than I can immediately consume, especially if the excess comes at your expense (and since we are all equal, even if I wanted to do this everyone else would hate me for it and punish me).  If I *can* store the excess though, and use that excess to do things like, pay someone else to work for me, than that is what I will do.  I can further use this excess to essentially bribe other people to see things my way (especially given that historically, the rate of return on capital vastly exceeds inflation, if my family was rich in say 1800 they are even richer now barring some catastrophic event).  As the ability to store excess is intrinsic to civilization, all these people who think bitcoin is going to magically solve a problem that is older than money itself are simply fooling themselves.

In this case, it is deprivation that is utilized—not “excess.”

[brian_23452]

Lets face it, there's a colossal gap between the rich and the poor, and that gap is certainly getting wider. But whose to blame in this economic inequality? Is it the government that favors capitalist who contributed large amount during their campaign periods? Is it our constitution that institutionalized the practice of contractualization and other forms of labor flexibilization, hence undermining job security? Like a joke from my previous job, "If you are not a regular employee, you are casual. And after 5 or 6 months, your employer says TY (Thank You) to you which makes you a casualTY. Can we blame capitalist that hoard as much wealth as possible leaving only a thin slice of the .pie for the average guy to share among themselves?

Well, we know  that the economic inequality has existed since the beginning of civilization so we can rule out all possible reasons listed here, as they are much newer than civilization.  There is clearly something intrinsic about civilization itself which leads to this result.  

Obviously, as the people who are rich are historically the people who make the rules, it stands to reason that they would establish rules that maintain and increase their wealth; this is true regardless of political or economic systems in place.  Further, it is also clear they it is critical to their wealth that they main a lower class (basically everyone else).  Even if there were an abundance of wealth to go around such that we could all be "rich", it is not in their best interests to facilitate this.  After all, I can't hire another billionaire to do my work for me, it requires someone who has no choice but to do my work for me.

“Civilization” began with the ability to “store” (read: withhold to an unnatural degree) value. Prior that, Homo sapiens had to meander about with the animals they hunted—enduring egalitarianism.

Precisely.  If I can't store excess, it makes little sense to extract more than I can immediately consume, especially if the excess comes at your expense (and since we are all equal, even if I wanted to do this everyone else would hate me for it and punish me).  If I *can* store the excess though, and use that excess to do things like, pay someone else to work for me, than that is what I will do.  I can further use this excess to essentially bribe other people to see things my way (especially given that historically, the rate of return on capital vastly exceeds inflation, if my family was rich in say 1800 they are even richer now barring some catastrophic event).  As the ability to store excess is intrinsic to civilization, all these people who think bitcoin is going to magically solve a problem that is older than money itself are simply fooling themselves.

In this case, it is deprivation that is utilized—not “excess.”

I suppose it is a matter of perspective.  From my point of view I am extracting excess, more than I need.  If it comes at your expense, than from your point of view it would be deprivation. 
In reality though it would be both.  Theoretically anyways (since there is no practical way to compare) in a modern, western society, I am of course depriving you of some of the resources you extract by syphoning them off for my own use (without actually having to produce them myself), but because our overall production is so much higher than it would otherwise be, you agree to go along with it.  So instead of producing say, 100 units a day of food that you need to survive, you produce 300 a day and I take half of them. 

[bitdraw]

the problem is, that all central banks issue more and more money.

the money the issue doesnt get distributed fairly if you look at real wages etc.

so people who already own capital and are invested earn more and more of the newly created money, increasing the gap to the poor..

gravity somehow works for capital as the more capital you have the more capital flows to you

[brian_23452]

the problem is, that all central banks issue more and more money.

the money the issue doesnt get distributed fairly if you look at real wages etc.

so people who already own capital and are invested earn more and more of the newly created money, increasing the gap to the poor..

gravity somehow works for capital as the more capital you have the more capital flows to you

No, it isn't.  Banks have been issuing money for at most a few hundred years.  Wealth inequality has existed for many thousands of years.  Common sense tells us that a problem can not exist before it's cause.