What does he mean by "deprived"? And "their own means of production"? Were these means of production their property in the first place? Have they been stolen? If so, those workmen should ask for justice. Theft is a crime even in anarcap-land.
No, I think he means that since less factories are built than what would be profitable without basic interest, they're being forced to compete for artificially scarce means of production. But, sorry, I can't be sure what he meant exactly.
Let me ask you. Is it unfair that an unemployed workmen receiving his weekly unemployment subsidie from government? Isn't that also a rent? Why would such a rent be acceptable when the person who benefits it has done nothing to benefit it except gathering in flocks and use political threats and physical bullying in order to get it from force?
Well, yes, it is kind of a rent, but not exactly. In my country, Spain, I'm forced to pay an all-in-one health and unemployment insurance to a public company called "Social Security".
So I won't feel like I'm stealing anything when I receive unemployment subsidies if I ever do.
Of course, this goes against the free market and private companies could make this more efficiently. That's not what we're proposing here and we don't have force to use.
Yeah, having and using sound money is a good economic move and it does indeed provide an economic advantage other people using shitty money. Yes, being smart pays. I don't understand why you think this is unfair.
Actually most people pay far more interested priced in the products they consume through their lives than they get from their savings. Even most entrepreneurs and smart guys.
By accepting free money, you're making more investments profitable and you're getting lower prices for yourself. That's why I believe free-money will be competitive against capital-money on a free market.
You didn't quite get my point. To me saving and exchanging are really the same process. They just happen on different time scale. So there really is only one function, it just that it is very elastic as far as time is concerned.
I disagree with your point. Saving and trading are different things. The financial market is not "just another market", it greatly influences all the other ones. Because it is very important for investment and real capital accumulation (which I think you'll agree is the root of prosperity).
There are way too many economic assumption I don't agree with in this reasoning. I just can't debate it. I disagree with pretty much every single sentence.
Let me try to summarize it on separate statements. All assuming a free market but for an enforced gold monetary monopoly.
1) nominal interest = real interest + inflation premium = basic interest + risk premium + inflation premium
2) Capital yields naturally tend downward through competition, just like other profits. While they're positive, there's unsatisfied demand for producing goods (real capital) and more could be invested with no loss.
3) Capital yields and the Basic interest/liquidity premium/time preference tend to be equal
4) The basic interest is always positive (obviously we disagree on why) and therefore capital yields can never be zero.
I don't understand why you keep talking about interest rates and capital yield when bitcoin is not about that at all. Bitcoin is jjust a currency. It does not say anything about credit and investments.
Apparently now you're saying that the structure of money doesn't have any influence on investments. This is not what I'm used to hear from austrians but, sorry, I don't think we can debate demurrage without talking about interest and yields. I have tried...