Everybody can do mining without exception. Not everybody can receive your funds. This initial distribution of coins is necessary in both coins and also freicoin needs the miners to protect it. My opinion? We'll see.
This is not exactly true. Many people don't have access to the necessary equipment or just lack the technical capabilities to mine.
I didn't ask to influence it. I want nobody to influence it. I want to know up-front what will happen to 80% of the freicoin economy.
Ok. Then you would have preferred that everything went to miners. That we had only made one experiment instead of two at the same time.
My bet (after a couple of years advocating for bitcoin and explaining it to very different people) is that more people will prefer our solution, some may even be skeptic about that 20% and require an explanation. But as you say, we'll see.
With Freicoin I might end up subsidizing armed forces and high security houses to defend the core developers?
Please, this is ridiculous.
Yet if the majority thinks it makes sense to fund a moon expedition, a moon expedition it will be, right? Oh yes, not right. The veto lies in the hands of one person, so if he finds it ridiculous, ridiculous it is.
Ok, sorry, I wasn't getting your point.
Yes, this is complicated. We will try to define some rules first. The more objective and clear we can, so that the "veto" doesn't seem arbitrary.
What would be the risk-free interest on expocoin ?
I would say something close 10%, in any case, surely over 5%
What would be the risk-free interest on freicoin ?
I would say something close to 0%, surely under 5%.
It is the same. I hold a diploma in maths, so I couldn't care less about the balance of my wallet as long as my share of the scarce commodity is the same and that's the case no matter if you use inflation or demurrage. Freicoin for me is just a fancy hype kind of thing that doesn't change the economics of bitcoin the way it promises except for 80% being held by one individual upfront.
Good to have mathematicians around. So tell me, if they're equivalent what will it be more like? 10% or 0% interest rates?
What's your prediction for both equivalent schemes?
It's not just the word "proletariat", although it is indeed a very good hint: generally whoever pronounce this word is either a communist, or a capitalist mocking communists.
Well, Silvio Gesell was neither of those. He just defined that word as: "Proletariat: workmen deprived of their own means of production."
First: "unfair economic advantage of simply being wealthy". Why is this "unfair"? Being wealthy is not a privilege: it's the result of an open competition. In the past (and still nowadays in some countries), some people could not practice some professions or own certain things, whatever they do. You had to be born in a certain way. That was what one might call privileges. But it is not the case anymore in most countries.
He means unfair in the same sense cartels and government subsidies are unfair. In the "economic rent" sense. We believe gold-like monetary systems give an economic rent to both money lenders and "real capital" owners.
Second: your idea of money is just wrong. People do not just work to survive. Most of them, and especially people who work A LOT (like chinese people working to build the stuff we use all around the world), work in order to save money SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORK ANYMORE IN THE FUTURE. Sorry for using high caps but I really wanted to stress this.
That's perfectly possible with free-money. There's many ways to SAVE besides hoarding. It's not even the more common when there's capital yields. Only when capital yields are below the basic interest (or when money issuers manipulate interest rates), money runs to the mattress. The most common way to save is to invest/lend.
Storing value is a perfectly normal and economically sane use case for money. Storing money is really a mean of buying and exchanging stuff, it's just being done with a much longer time scale.
If having both functions on the same tool causes great waste of resources (unemployment, cycles, destruction of capital...), we need to separate each function on a different tool.
Third: nowadays most people don't work anyway. At least because of the high unemployment rate. So talking about the 99% of "producing" people is just weird.
I don't think that's accurate. I would say that most of the people of the world sell their labor. But anyway I think you just don't like the style how that part is written, because you just don't sympathize with the people that may like it.
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.
