Topic: Can Crypto redefine current economic models? - page 2. (Read 932 times)

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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?

It's not necessarily disadvantage against competitors...
Profits are also given out in dividends and companies not always reinvest the money in their products. Many times they use the money to buy other companies, etc. which makes their group bigger and valuation higher, but does not make them more competitive.
On the other hand, it can give them a great brand awareness and attract new clients.


Thanks Ulhaq for the new answer.

1) Not really... You need to study on the future of work to make that assumption, and you'd find out that technology is killing many more jobs than it's creating.
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.
Future of work is a beatiful topic, get on it!

2) Not necessarily. It actually depends on economics and finance. Automation may mean lower costs for a huge company that can see the long term impact and ROI of automating something (Considering its an expensive investment) while other producers/industry players may not do that investment as they'll go off before they can see that ROI. It's the same as mining, for large scale people it's profitable, for small people it probably isn't. It's not something lineal, and there's many things/variables to take into account.
That's the whole point! In most of cases, yes, it makes this "product" cheaper, but how do you balance things? It may be cheaper for the company producing it, but it creates a new big cost within the community that just got a new unemployed person.
Moreover, the jobs you're thinking about are all qualified jobs. That thinking takes into consideration a little part of the population in our societies.
How can we expect for certain people to go for qualified tasks/skills when they are still not receiving any education at all?

3) We're just posting questions for people to answer and debate... Of course it's understood that Bezos does not have 150B into his account, but as you say, if he sells amazon, he'll have them. Which is not bad at all, don't get it wrong. He deserves them, he built a great company. And if he sells it, don't worry, theres hundred of super capable CEOs that can take charge.
The real question is, can we sustain a future where economies are going more transparent (Fiat: Shady, Blockchain: Transparent) where certain individuals huge portions of capital? Emission is something that shall be regulated...

And yes, we totally agree. We need to solve the problem of all the funds being used for war. And thats the whole point... Can you imagine a Weapon Factory actually fulfilling purpose based initiatives? Of course not, they create guns. The future we need is a purpose based one, not a profit only world. Profit only takes to enterprises, like guns and war, indeed.

And please, don't get it the wrong way. Freedom, always freedom. What we ask is to debate, not what shall be done...
Again, we've already seen what happens when things are imposed.

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.

To change our economic to will not only be the equipment to redefine our society because it will not enough to maintain our economic problems so the people also need to change something better for our self will definitely helpful for the Crypto to improve much more for economic changing in the future.

You continue to make many assumptions.
1) You are assuming discrete jobs, so of course if there more supply for a SPECIFIC JOB, wages will go down. But there is an infinite number of jobs that can be done. If there is a lot more wealth in the world (which happens with automation), then people have to spend it on something. And the job distribution will not only look completely different to how it looks now, it will not even be conceivable to you what it will look like, just as a huge number of jobs today were completely inconceivable to people 100 years ago.
2) Automation DOES mean lower cost. There is no reason to automate unless it is saving money, or made at higher efficiency (which also saves money), all of which means that the product can be sold at a lower cost. If the company does not charge a lower cost, then the competitor will, so the cost goes down regardless. If the cost to produce the product is more than the purchase price, then the company will go out of business. Look at any product and you will see that the cost has gone down over time, while the quality has gone up, or some combination of these 2.
Inflation has nothing to do with anything. That is dependent on the currency that one uses. Eg, you should know that bitcoin is deflationary.
3) Jeff Bezos does not have $150B in his bank account. His wealth is OWNERSHIP of amazon. So to use that $150B, he has to SELL amazon. Meaning that someone else now becomes owner or part-owner of amazon and starts to be able to run the company. How successful do you think that other person, or persons are going to be at running amazon? Amazon will be run into the ground. Amazon now no longer can provide cheap, quality products to the world, and that makes the world, and the population of the world, poorer. By the way, Amazon became successful BECAUSE Bezos was able to provide cheaper or better quality products to people, faster. People VOLUNTARILY gave their money to him because it made them better off. If those people wanted to give the money to environmental causes instead, they were free to do so. And again you talk about freedom, but say "What's the point of having US$ 150B on Jeff Bezos' Bank Account?". You are obviously not for freedom, because you keep suggesting what people should do with their money.
Regarding Bill and Melinda gates, they only started their charitable work AFTER leaving microsoft, because before that he was running the company. Also how do you know that the money spent on those causes is the best use of the money? Don't you think that the trillions spent on wars, and all the death and destruction, is a bigger problem than what the gates foundation is working on?

I suggest studying economics, it will answer all of these questions that you have.

This can both good and bad. Good is that blockchain as technology is to good to not use it or at least consider creating something similar for economy usage in everyday life. Bad is that this will not happen any time soon and even is so this wont effect so much current economy as we know.

It will change hw the money were working so it actually can relate to the changes in economy because most of the economy in this world are filled with fiat based calclation and it was created from nothing so if cryptos adopted by everyone it may replace the part of fiat economy and gradulally it will takes place completely.

But that is the problem, the exchange that donates 20% of their profits will be at a disadvantage compared to the rest of their competitors and eventually the service they offer will not be as good and once that happens clients will begin to move to other platforms and the revenue of that charitable exchange will go down making their service even worse, you bring an interesting discussion about the future of the world and how machines are replacing us but I do not see this solution you are proposing gaining any strength.

The fact that there are few employees in a technology enterprise is no stranger, but the salary funds are still high because the nature of the job requires a lot of gray matter and businesses need to pay a lot of salary to some of the developers. soft.
I understand that technology is growing strongly, but in a world there are many different areas.
The technology sector caters to a part of the world, other areas will serve the rest. so there will never be a lot of people being unemployed.

Thanks @Ulhaq for the answer!

1) It's hard to see how human needed jobs will increase their payouts/salaries as there will be more people (Supply) for these jobs (Demand). Basically, there will be lots of workers available for the tasks (As almost every manual job is replaced, only "Soft skilled" jobs may be available) and, following economic theories/basics, salaries should go down...
2) Automation does not necessarily mean lower costs. We all live in a world of inflation, can't see how people will need to earn less to make more.
3) The statements are clear... Should/Could companies redirect profits? We're leaving the questions for the discussions. As stated in other posts above. We believe in a free world were no obligations should be set. Everyone can do what they want, free markets shall decide. We have already seen what can happen with examples like Venezuela, URRS, Mao's China, etc.
We're not talking about depleting company's profits, we're talking about a more inclusive economy.
What's the point of having US$ 150B on Jeff Bezos' Bank Account? Bill and Melinda gates prove what we're talking about by spending billions of dollars in social/environmental change without killing Microsoft's profits.

If humans choose pollution because they're undereducated. Why not reinvesting part of the profits in education? When helping societies and the environment, we're helping ourselves and our future generations...

There are all kinds of faulty assumptions here. Some good points by hatshepsut93, stompix.

1. When AI causes many jobs to be lost, it does not mean that there are going to be no jobs for the vast majority of the people. Look at history and you will see that the jobs that people do change as well as the amount that they are willing to pay for them. So eg, wages may go up dramatically for something it requires a human to do (and there will always be plenty of such jobs, even if only because there is so much wealth that ppl are willing to pay a lot for service jobs), even if there is no other reason for the wages to go up. Eg, look at the US and the cost of labor, even for menial jobs.
2. Automation results in a lower cost of goods and services. So the amount of money that people need to earn to make a living becomes dramatically less.

3.@Lucusfoundation, every post you have made seems to totally contradict itself. You keep talking about freedom, and then in the next sentence you say that companies should give 1/3 of profits to xyz cause. If companies are compelled, it is not freedom! And if the company has free choice, then you trying to control their decision is not freedom. What gives you the right to make decisions on the redistribution of wealth? As others have mentioned it has only led to mass catastrophe, death, and destruction. How are you going to determine what is a "good cause"? There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism which leads to your beliefs. If a company gives x % of profits to cause y (let's call the amount of money "z"), that money is deprived from going to another purpose. Eg, the company could invest z by reinvesting into the company instead, in order to create a cheaper product that allows millions of persons to escape poverty. Just look at history, there has been a dramatic reduction in poverty over the past 100 years and it was created by improved and cheaper products, which were all created by private companies! It was not caused by any government redistribution or forced redistribution. But if z was instead given to your "positive cause", the money is depleted in a one-time transaction and after that day or month there is nothing to show for it, it is all consumed. So by depleting companies' of their profits so that it can go to the, people, NGOs, Social and Impact Entreprises, or in government taxes, all of them are creating a poorer world.

You bring up the environment, let's take your example that there are 2 companies with the same product and a pollutes more than b. The customers should in that case purchase more from company b, but only if the customer cares about pollution, and in general many people do not care about it. The reason is undereducation. So the solution is more and better education. It has nothing to do with blockchain. Also many people do not have the time to care about it because they are struggling to get by and make a living, because of all of the redistribution of wealth that has gone to worthless causes.