Bitcoin Wealth Distribution (Bitcoinica data) - page 2.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote

but it the case of long-term loans it would mean that the lender is getting back less in real value than they loaned

+1! Interest, if seen as, and if charged as simply compensation for the declining value of the fiat currency cannot be seen as immoral.

What about Bitcoins? Theoretically, with a fixed number of Bitcoins and a growing use/desire/need/price for them if I borrow 1000 BTC from you today and promise to pay them back to you in 10 years or over the next 10 years I may be contracting to give you back a HUGE amount of value over the original loan amount. This "interest" may be very high and is in fact almost unbounded. So it may be reasonable in the future to contract to pay back LESS than the original loan amount.

We currently compensate for the loss in value over time of the fiat currency by charging interest. Wouldn't it make sense that we will have to account for the rising value of the Bitcoins over time with a corresponding "negative interest"?

Would you consider these "negative interest" contracts to be unethical?

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Then I need a system where long term loans aren't necessary. Shouldn't be that hard .

I perfectly understand the 'need' for loans in the current system, It's just not the system I want to live in.
Also missing out interest on a system which doesn't give you the right on it would be kind of not possible, you'd just have to loan your money to someone who likes you more. Wink

The whole concept of long term loans.. Borrow something for 10-20 years, might as well own it. IMO these kind of arrangements are only necessary in a system where it is the norm that some debts are never payed off. (like greece, or what about the usd? lol Lips sealed

)
In a system in which debt is all there is (fiat money) it is perfectly understandable interest is necessary, but we are heading to the end of the game and the people who are sitting on vaults of gold ain't gonna give tem back.

repentance

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 07, 2011, 09:30:21 AM

Quote from: evoorhees on November 06, 2011, 10:17:56 PM

Electric... if you believe lending at interest to be immoral and wrong, that is a fine opinion to have. But trying to force your morality on other people who disagree with you seems antagonistic to the "trust and compassion" you use to justify your position.

...

If your policy were implemented as law, I promise you society would be impoverished for its lack of "usury."

Well I wouldn't make it illegal, just only provide the legal right from a contract to get back the loan itself.
So if then anyone decides to give back a surplus it would be arbitrary and voluntary.

I'd imagine the cases were this would actually happen would be quite frequent, I would like to think of it like giving a tip at the restaurant.

This might be viable for short-term loans, but it the case of long-term loans it would mean that the lender is getting back less in real value than they loaned. They'd literally be better of financially letting their money sit in a savings account at low interest or investing it elsewhere than directly loaning it to another person. Few people are in the financial position where they can afford to have their net worth eroded by using their money to give interest-free loans of any size. The majority of people will have inadequate funds for their retirement as it is - they need their money to be earning them more money.

Andrew Vorobyov

hero member

Activity: 558

Merit: 500

Quote from: evoorhees on November 06, 2011, 10:17:56 PM

Electric... if you believe lending at interest to be immoral and wrong, that is a fine opinion to have. But trying to force your morality on other people who disagree with you seems antagonistic to the "trust and compassion" you use to justify your position.

Personally, I've loaned money, and I've borrowed money at interest. Both behaviors made me better off, and they made the person on the opposite side of the trade better off as well. Far from "pushing society apart," interest-bearing loans help society to flourish, for resources which may be more profitably used by others are able to be acquired in a free and open bidding process... an "interest rate" is simply the price that such a process results in, at any given time.

Your alternative of "only relying on trust and compassion" for lending is a great policy among friends, but limits the scope of the marketplace for money solely to close groups of friends.

If your policy were implemented as law, I promise you society would be impoverished for its lack of "usury."

True true..

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: evoorhees on November 06, 2011, 10:17:56 PM

Electric... if you believe lending at interest to be immoral and wrong, that is a fine opinion to have. But trying to force your morality on other people who disagree with you seems antagonistic to the "trust and compassion" you use to justify your position.

...

If your policy were implemented as law, I promise you society would be impoverished for its lack of "usury."

Well I wouldn't make it illegal, just only provide the legal right from a contract to get back the loan itself.
So if then anyone decides to give back a surplus it would be arbitrary and voluntary.

I'd imagine the cases were this would actually happen would be quite frequent, I would like to think of it like giving a tip at the restaurant.

Andrew Vorobyov

hero member

Activity: 558

Merit: 500

Quote from: LightRider on November 07, 2011, 02:23:28 AM

All currencies inherently favor an arbitrary group of people, and so corrupts that group. Any system that requires one person to submit to another in any fashion is going to develop into a corrupt and tyrannical one given enough time. Learning to use our technological capabilities for the benefit of all people would obviate the need for any currency, and therefor any need for submission or slavery.

The root of the problem is human nature.. not methods... Bitcoin just removes another instrument in arsenal of power.
Leaving more radical methods the only options... There will be blood - definitely...

Things like Bitcoin just haste development of the people and everything will come down to... If you wanna live - change yourself from inside.. ( and no technology will ever help you with this no matter how developed it is)

LightRider

legendary

Activity: 1500

Merit: 1022

I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.

All currencies inherently favor an arbitrary group of people, and so corrupts that group. Any system that requires one person to submit to another in any fashion is going to develop into a corrupt and tyrannical one given enough time. Learning to use our technological capabilities for the benefit of all people would obviate the need for any currency, and therefor any need for submission or slavery.

evoorhees

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1023

Democracy is the original 51% attack

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 06, 2011, 09:40:14 PM

It might be something different with a (self!) reproducing good like seeds or chickens (would be debatable but I would still advise against it), but for a limited commodity or money I don't see it as ethical. In my opinion lending should rely on trust and compassion only.

It is my opinion that interest pushes society further apart, and that as a lender you would have greater benefit from the bonding and reputation within society than from the interest. Usury (as refereed to as charging of any interest in the traditional definition) results in the general feeling of disconnectedness which is commonly believed in our society as professionalism which is just another illusion that the exploitation of others would yield in a long term personal benefit.

The harm is mainly substantiation for this connection by means of currency, and to a lesser extent the tendency to increase the steepness of the wealth pyramid. So while there may be a case where no subjective exploitation takes place, in a systematic view I still consider it harmful.

Electric... if you believe lending at interest to be immoral and wrong, that is a fine opinion to have. But trying to force your morality on other people who disagree with you seems antagonistic to the "trust and compassion" you use to justify your position.

Personally, I've loaned money, and I've borrowed money at interest. Both behaviors made me better off, and they made the person on the opposite side of the trade better off as well. Far from "pushing society apart," interest-bearing loans help society to flourish, for resources which may be more profitably used by others are able to be acquired in a free and open bidding process... an "interest rate" is simply the price that such a process results in, at any given time.

Your alternative of "only relying on trust and compassion" for lending is a great policy among friends, but limits the scope of the marketplace for money solely to close groups of friends.

If your policy were implemented as law, I promise you society would be impoverished for its lack of "usury."

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: Etlase2 on November 06, 2011, 09:52:05 PM

Electric, does what you mentioned in the PM to me have anything to do with the JAK lending system? I think it's a great idea, but I don't see how it can really work on a global scale or be provided by a currency itself.

Well, I haven't really considered that the currency aspect of the system. And it could, if bitcoin just suffers from growing pains be based around it. (If the issues we both agree on are solved)

A global scale system would try to incorporate recent developments like bitcoin, ripple, community networks and decentralized production with open source ecology into something known as in the 80s as the Abundance data entry software. A system written to enable charities to create an abundance of food, water and shelter on the planet.
Only this time not rely on any institution but rather make it profitable for everyone to contribute to the effort. The whole thing would be a gargantuan task if attempted in the way systems are currently developed so we need a new system for collaboration first.

This is all very difficult to summarize and I need to write something down soon, it's about time...

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Electric, does what you mentioned in the PM to me have anything to do with the JAK lending system? I think it's a great idea, but I don't see how it can really work on a global scale or be provided by a currency itself.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

It might be something different with a (self!) reproducing good like seeds or chickens (would be debatable but I would still advise against it), but for a limited commodity or money I don't see it as ethical. In my opinion lending should rely on trust and compassion only.

It is my opinion that interest pushes society further apart, and that as a lender you would have greater benefit from the bonding and reputation within society than from the interest. Usury (as refereed to as charging of any interest in the traditional definition) results in the general feeling of disconnectedness which is commonly believed in our society as professionalism which is just another illusion that the exploitation of others would yield in a long term personal benefit.

The harm is mainly substantiation for this connection by means of currency, and to a lesser extent the tendency to increase the steepness of the wealth pyramid. So while there may be a case where no subjective exploitation takes place, in a systematic view I still consider it harmful.

evoorhees

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1023

Democracy is the original 51% attack

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 06, 2011, 08:44:49 PM

That is something born out of the current system, only possible because the existence of banks and compound interest. If the banks weren't already in the position to lend money (and factor out derivatives) you wouldn't be able to get into this position.
The charging of interest is a self perpetuating mechanism which works both ways. If nobody charges interest and only relies on trust and/or compassion it is no longer needed.

But anyway: I recon, that lending for interest might not be feasible to prohibit but rather only provide the legal right to get back the loan without interest. On the other hand the lender might come up with other, yet prohibited ways to collect interest which is why it might be wise to prohibit it in the first place.

PS: All these considerations are theoretical in nature, since I have no idea how it would be like living in a system without usury. It is only the way I personally think thing should work and it might not be feasible in current society. I attribute myself to parts of syndicalist and primitivist schools of anarchism with a spice of futurism, so it might be understandable that my views might seem a little ''far fetched' or 'conflicting' but it makes sense to me Wink

Let's examine this a bit further...

-Assume we live in a free society where some commodity like gold or bitcoin has become the general money
-Assume I have lots of this money, and another guy wants some of it as capital to start his business... he wants a loan from me.
-I am willing to loan him the money at 10% interest per year until principle + interest is paid back
-He is willing to take that offer and agrees to the terms

Now... what part of that is immoral?? You call it "usury". By what right do you decide for either of us what is the "acceptable" price of money? Under what justification do you tell the man he may not borrow my money, or tell me I must refund the interest after the debt is paid?

Where is the harm? Your idea doesn't seem "far fetched"... it just seems "wrong." For if it's immoral to loan a man a money-commodity at a price, then it ought to be immoral to loan other commodities at a price... such as seeds or lumber or xbox games.

Why is it okay to loan a man one seed in return for two later, but it's not okay to loan him one dollar in return for two later?

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: evoorhees on November 06, 2011, 08:29:50 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 06, 2011, 07:34:38 PM

hehe, you are arguing around my point.
The lender automatically is in the stronger position.

So when I lend money to the bank for cumulative interest, you are suggesting that I am automatically in the stronger position?

I'm really trying to understand why interest is immoral in your opinion, because you're not the only one who says that and I'm totally confused. To me it's just a mutual exchange by two interested parties, and whether one has a "stronger position" or not is irrelevant if both parties believe themselves better off by the trade.

Please help me to understand.

That is something born out of the current system, only possible because the existence of banks and compound interest. If the banks weren't already in the position to lend money (and factor out derivatives) you wouldn't be able to get into this position.
The charging of interest is a self perpetuating mechanism which works both ways. If nobody charges interest and only relies on trust and/or compassion it is no longer needed.

But anyway: I recon, that lending for interest might not be feasible to prohibit but rather only provide the legal right to get back the loan without interest. On the other hand the lender might come up with other, yet prohibited ways to collect interest which is why it might be wise to prohibit it in the first place.

PS: All these considerations are theoretical in nature, since I have no idea how it would be like living in a system without usury. It is only the way I personally think thing should work and it might not be feasible in current society. I attribute myself to parts of syndicalist and primitivist schools of anarchism with a spice of futurism, so it might be understandable that my views might seem a little ''far fetched' or 'conflicting' but it makes sense to me Wink

evoorhees

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1023

Democracy is the original 51% attack

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 06, 2011, 07:34:38 PM

hehe, you are arguing around my point.
The lender automatically is in the stronger position.

So when I lend money to the bank for cumulative interest, you are suggesting that I am automatically in the stronger position?

I'm really trying to understand why interest is immoral in your opinion, because you're not the only one who says that and I'm totally confused. To me it's just a mutual exchange by two interested parties, and whether one has a "stronger position" or not is irrelevant if both parties believe themselves better off by the trade.

Please help me to understand.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: evoorhees on November 06, 2011, 07:28:58 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 06, 2011, 07:23:06 PM

The problem is considering competition and compound interest. Suddenly this seemingly innocent act becomes a major influence on behavior. It's mainly a cultural issue.... A weak comparison: In some places the age of consent is 14 in some 16, in some 9...

Now I attribute the to lender a similar responsibility an adult has in respect to sex with younger partners. Understood?

I assumed we were discussing behavior between "consenting adults"... let's say two 35 year old men. Why is interest "financial violence"?

And is it immoral of me to ask my bank to pay me interest in return for letting them borrow my money? (let's assume honest banks operating under sound money, not gov-subsidized banks operating under fiat)

hehe, you are arguing around my point.
The lender automatically is in the stronger position.

evoorhees

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1023

Democracy is the original 51% attack

Quote from: Etlase2 on November 06, 2011, 07:04:10 PM

Quote from: evoorhees on November 06, 2011, 05:58:12 PM

So, properly read, a stat like "the top 1% own 50% of the wealth" should be understood as "the top 1% produced 50% of the wealth"... and then with that understanding it quite quickly shows the folly of policies which punish, tax, and otherwise hinder such people. It also illustrates the sheer productive uselessness of vast swaths of the population.

That's great in a real economy where people actually produce something (usually) to earn wealth. What about bitcoin?

I just wrote some site content for a guy and was paid in Bitcoin. What are you talking about?

evoorhees

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1023

Democracy is the original 51% attack

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 06, 2011, 07:23:06 PM

The problem is considering competition and compound interest. Suddenly this seemingly innocent act becomes a major influence on behavior. It's mainly a cultural issue.... A weak comparison: In some places the age of consent is 14 in some 16, in some 9...

Now I attribute the to lender a similar responsibility an adult has in respect to sex with younger partners. Understood?

I assumed we were discussing behavior between "consenting adults"... let's say two 35 year old men. Why is interest "financial violence"?

And is it immoral of me to ask my bank to pay me interest in return for letting them borrow my money? (let's assume honest banks operating under sound money, not gov-subsidized banks operating under fiat)

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: evoorhees on November 06, 2011, 06:59:52 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 06, 2011, 06:26:30 PM

Interest imo is a kind of financial violence.

Hmmmm is interest only "financial violence" when it's applied to money? Or to any commodity?

Meaning, if I have a bag of seeds and can be productive in the quantity of X with them, but you can be productive with the seeds in the quantity of X+Y. Am I being financially violent by asking for X+ (Y/2) seeds back at a future date?

I have never understood the intense antagonism toward interest. It is merely the price asked for in return for use of a commodity. Most importantly, it's voluntary... what's the problem?

The problem is considering competition and compound interest. Suddenly this seemingly innocent act becomes a major influence on behavior. It's mainly a cultural issue.... A weak comparison: In some places the age of consent is 14 in some 16, in some 9...

Now I attribute the to lender a similar responsibility an adult has in respect to sex with younger partners. Understood?

Etlase2

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: evoorhees on November 06, 2011, 05:58:12 PM

So, properly read, a stat like "the top 1% own 50% of the wealth" should be understood as "the top 1% produced 50% of the wealth"... and then with that understanding it quite quickly shows the folly of policies which punish, tax, and otherwise hinder such people. It also illustrates the sheer productive uselessness of vast swaths of the population.

That's great in a real economy where people actually produce something (usually) to earn wealth. What about bitcoin?

evoorhees

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1023

Democracy is the original 51% attack

Quote from: ElectricMucus on November 06, 2011, 06:26:30 PM

Interest imo is a kind of financial violence.

Hmmmm is interest only "financial violence" when it's applied to money? Or to any commodity?

Meaning, if I have a bag of seeds and can be productive in the quantity of X with them, but you can be productive with the seeds in the quantity of X+Y. Am I being financially violent by asking for X+ (Y/2) seeds back at a future date?

I have never understood the intense antagonism toward interest. It is merely the price asked for in return for use of a commodity. Most importantly, it's voluntary... what's the problem?

Topic: Bitcoin Wealth Distribution (Bitcoinica data) - page 2. (Read 34597 times)