Topic: Is Bitcoin failing? (Read 4237 times)

Actually, I look at is "these nations have succeeded despite not adopting a truly Capitalist system." We have a mixed economy with the ever increasing reach of government controls will ensure that this breed of "captalism" is doomed to fail. The top 1% has created quite a mess for themselves.

I know, Capitalism is the worst, all those first world nations that have adopted it will never succeed.......

"Capitalism about freedom.  The true test for people is if they support freedom or they support force.  Capitalism (not crony-capitalism) is voluntary. "

This argument is the same as Christians, Communists, Marxists, and even Fascists all use to justify their group. You wash your hands clean by claiming all negative attributes of the ideology "aren't REALLY us, it was our idea being twisted."

Can somebody point to any period in human history where "Free Trade Capitalism" existed without a heavy reliance on slavery, child labor, mass inequality?

None? That tells me all I need to know about Capitalism where you must have a winner and loser.

When the winner no longer has any competition their next step is to manipulate the society so future competitors can no longer challenge them. This is when it becomes "Crony".

What about when your born into a rich family that owns the Government, the police, the maffia, and the businesses. You get the social connections, the best schools, private trainers, and wealth while I am
born into a family of poverty with a worthless school and none of the above so that I can go to work in one of your factories.

Technically "it's volunteer" but not really.


There are flaws with all of these Government systems. No good solution has been found.

Millions of flies can't be wrong? Today, Bitcoin's free market is like a toilet-seat. Everybody sits on it thinking Pecunia non olet; this is very expensive shit gaining value day by day. I wonder about Satoshi's prediction

A currency going so high in price is not falling..

I agree about ethics, values, and social responsibility, but an economic system is (as you seemed to say) amoral and agnostic.  It works better when people are honest, but it doesn't impose it except through contracts and reputation.

Capitalism about freedom.  The true test for people is if they support freedom or they support force.  Capitalism (not crony-capitalism) is voluntary.  Everyone trades with everyone else for what each considers mutual benefit.  Socialism, communism, all kinds of authoritarianisms require you to be forced into their mold.  There is no way out.  You can have a socialist commune in a free country, but not the reverse. 

That should tell you all you need to know about the differences and about the motives of those who are advocating force.

No, it's the opposite of that. Socialism is redistribution of wealth (in this case by force) from those who produce to those who do not. It is socialists who are greedy. Capitalists just want the right to keep what they own. Socialists want the right to take from others.

A society works well with ethics, values, and social responsibility. Capitalism is not honestly and ethically, it's amoral and promotes greed.

However capitalism is born in a Christian ethic, and with that eroding, we now only have self-interest (property without responsibility).

"Freedom"? Do you mean today's Bitcoin-market controlled by 47 'cowboys', is any better than the current system ruled by banksters and govs?

"F-you"? As in, I deserve grapes whereas my neighbor gets cumcumber for the same job?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV0InWq4fZ4

Lol.

Perfect encapsulation of the argument. It always ends in threatened violence as a last resort.

The only thing I'd add is:
A-C: freedom will help everyone out of poverty
A-S: F-you.  It is about my envy and my greed for your stuff

Not even. Some years back the economy in my country was (allegedly, didn't follow credible sources back then) doing great, everyone had more money but some people had more extra money than others and THIS UPSET PEOPLE. It's not poverty, that's just where things become most obvious, it's greed and envy. It's never enough.

An-cap: Leave me alone.

An-soc: F-you. Give us your shit. Or we'll shoot you.

Never a productive argument. It always ends the same.

Wealth distribution isn't the problem - the problem is poverty.

Also some of the bitcoin elite is not known and address != phisical person, take away exchange wallets, etc.
Also the chart should include number of coin owned

To make it more like the fiat system, we could use taxes. A 5% tax on all bitcoin holders each year, to be paid to the early adopters. If you don't think that is reasonable, we could give them fancy titles like chairman, president, banker.

This seems like a great illustration about Bitcoin's main problem; its distribution. In a previous post I already expressed my concerns rather euphemistically. So, what's the Bitcoin-community going to do about this paradox in this new currency, because the graph shows that a limited group of people (can) control the currency. Again, my doubt reads: Is it any better to have a new currency controlled by a small group than traditional currencies controlled by the bankers and governments? What's wrong in thinking that this group determines today's value in the (free ?) market?

Please note that this "info-graphic" was derived from Risto's thread here on bitcointalk.org: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/distribution-of-bitcoin-wealth-by-owner-316297  The MSM reported this as "fact" but of course we cannot know the true bitcoin wealth distribution because it is not possible to be sure which and how many addresses correspond to which individual.  

Also note this estimated bitcoin distribution is an improvement to the current state of affairs: instead of 0.1% controlling 80% of the wealth, Risto estimated that about 1% control 80% of the bitcoins.  So the bitcoins are spread 10X more widely, based on this simplistic estimate, and will probably become further distributed as bitcoin grows. 


+1

No, but the current fiat system is designed to steal money from your pocket, from your bank account and your savings every day! Each five years or so, someone takes half of it. The invisible hand of QE and ZIRP.

Bitcoin is designed to fix that.

Cutlure and social cohesion are as important as economy.

According to Wikipedia:

Among the effects of inequality researchers have found include higher rates of health and social problems, and lower rates of social goods, a lower level of economic utility in society from resources devoted on high-end consumption, and even a lower level of economic growth when human capital is neglected for high-end consumption.

2013 Economics Nobel prize winner Robert J. Shiller said that rising inequality in the United States and elsewhere is the most important problem. Increasing inequality harms economic growth. High and persistent unemployment, in which inequality increases, has a negative effect on subsequent long-run economic growth. Unemployment can harm growth not only because it is a waste of resources, but also because it generates redistributive pressures and subsequent distortions, drives people to poverty, constrains liquidity limiting labor mobility, and erodes self-esteem promoting social dislocation, unrest and conflict. Policies aiming at controlling unemployment and in particular at reducing its inequality-associated effects support economic growth.

Health and social cohesion

British researchers Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have found higher rates of health and social problems (obesity, mental illness, homicides, teenage births, incarceration, child conflict, drug use), and lower rates of social goods (life expectancy, educational performance, trust among strangers, women's status, social mobility, even numbers of patents issued) in countries and states with higher inequality. Using statistics from 23 developed countries and the 50 states of the US, they found social/health problems lower in countries like Japan and Finland and states like Utah and New Hampshire with high levels of equality, than in countries (US and UK) and states (Mississippi and New York) with large differences in household income.

Social cohesion

Research has shown an inverse link between income inequality and social cohesion. In more equal societies, people are much more likely to trust each other, measures of social capital (the benefits of goodwill, fellowship, mutual sympathy and social connectedness among groups who make up a social units) suggest greater community involvement, and homicide rates are consistently lower.

Crime

Crime rate has also been shown to be correlated with inequality in society. Most studies looking into the relationship have concentrated on homicides – since homicides are almost identically defined across all nations and jurisdictions. There have been over fifty studies showing tendencies for violence to be more common in societies where income differences are larger. Research has been conducted comparing developed countries with undeveloped countries, as well as studying areas within countries. Daly et al. 2001 found that among U.S States and Canadian Provinces there is a tenfold difference in homicide rates related to inequality. They estimated that about half of all variation in homicide rates can be accounted for by differences in the amount of inequality in each province or state. Fajnzylber et al. (2002) found a similar relationship worldwide.

Social, cultural, and civic participation

Higher income inequality led to less of all forms of social, cultural, and civic participation among the less wealthy. When inequality is higher the poor do not shift to less expensive forms of participation

Maybe I wasn't clear. What I meant was, explain, in practical terms, how a more even distribution of wealth will benefit the economy. Additionally, explain how it could happen without confiscations at gunpoint.

Because countries that have reduced poverty and income inequality are civilized countries!

The United States has such an unequal distribution of wealth so that it's in the league of corrupt underdeveloped countries, no longer in the league of the developed nations, according to the latest edition of the world's most thorough study of wealth-distribution.