Thought experiment: Resetting spendings each month; what would happen? - page 2.

ffe

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: Alex Beckenham on April 10, 2011, 09:52:16 AM

Quote from: FooDSt4mP on April 10, 2011, 09:44:55 AM

Good points... I was grasping at straws to push this thread a little further

. However, I think it might be a little more fair than what happens today if the only way to introduce new money was to split it among every citizen.

If that really were the case, then I absolutely can't see any reason to increase the money supply.

Let's say the entire population consists of:

Alice who has $10
Bob who has $10
Ben B. who has $5

Ben decides to double the money supply, distributing equally as you have suggested.

Alice now has $20
Bob now has $20
Ben B. now has $10

They all have exactly the same purchasing power as before, so the whole exercise was pointless.

The only reason I can see for Ben B. to increase the money supply is to increase his (or his friends') percentage of the total purchasing power (Which is basically a tax on Alice and Bob).

Why else would he do it?

This is one thing bitcoin can do by adding a fixed multiplier to each block such that at the end of the day the output value of each block 24 hours old is doubled. The client would do this when calculating the value of a block that is buried n blocks deep in the chain.

You have 10 bitcoin today -> tomorrow you can spend 20 bitcoin.

A recipe for hyperinflation for sure :-)

Alex Beckenham

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: FooDSt4mP on April 10, 2011, 10:33:06 AM

Quote from: Alex Beckenham on April 10, 2011, 10:30:10 AM

Quote from: FooDSt4mP on April 10, 2011, 10:25:01 AM

if the money were doubled and distributed equally, not proportionally

Ah, I messed that up, sorry.

Definitely nothing fair about equal distribution though.

Why not? Is unequal distribution more fair?

Most definitely, yes.

When in your example Ben B distributed equally, he stole a little bit of Alice's and Bob's purchasing power (their money), to keep for himself.

If he had distributed unequally in a proportional manner, he wouldn't have taken anything from anyone.

FooDSt4mP

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: Alex Beckenham on April 10, 2011, 10:30:10 AM

Quote from: FooDSt4mP on April 10, 2011, 10:25:01 AM

if the money were doubled and distributed equally, not proportionally

Ah, I messed that up, sorry.

Definitely nothing fair about equal distribution though.

Why not? Is unequal distribution more fair?

Alex Beckenham

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: FooDSt4mP on April 10, 2011, 10:25:01 AM

if the money were doubled and distributed equally, not proportionally

Ah, I messed that up, sorry.

Definitely nothing fair about equal distribution though.

FooDSt4mP

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: Alex Beckenham on April 10, 2011, 09:52:16 AM

Quote from: FooDSt4mP on April 10, 2011, 09:44:55 AM

Good points... I was grasping at straws to push this thread a little further

. However, I think it might be a little more fair than what happens today if the only way to introduce new money was to split it among every citizen.

If that really were the case, then I absolutely can't see any reason to increase the money supply.

Let's say the entire population consists of:

Alice who has $10
Bob who has $10
Ben B. who has $5

Ben decides to double the money supply, distributing equally as you have suggested.

Alice now has $20
Bob now has $20
Ben B. now has $10

They all have exactly the same purchasing power as before, so the whole exercise was pointless.

The only reason I can see for Ben B. to increase the money supply is to increase his (or his friends') percentage of the total purchasing power (Which is basically a tax on Alice and Bob).

Why else would he do it?

I don't want there to be a reason to increase the money supply Wink

. I would prefer it being pointless to the current state of affairs where the Fed can tax Alice and Bob freely.

Also, if the money were doubled and distributed equally, not proportionally, it would be more like:

Alice now has 18.33
Bob now has 18.33
Ben B. now has 13.33

25/3 ~= 8.33

The absolute gap between the rich Alice and Bob and the poor Ben B. is the same, but the percentage difference has narrowed from 20% to 10% of the total economy.

Alex Beckenham

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: FooDSt4mP on April 10, 2011, 09:44:55 AM

Good points... I was grasping at straws to push this thread a little further

. However, I think it might be a little more fair than what happens today if the only way to introduce new money was to split it among every citizen.

If that really were the case, then I absolutely can't see any reason to increase the money supply.

Let's say the entire population consists of:

Alice who has $10
Bob who has $10
Ben B. who has $5

Ben decides to double the money supply, distributing equally as you have suggested.

Alice now has $20
Bob now has $20
Ben B. now has $10

They all have exactly the same purchasing power as before, so the whole exercise was pointless.

The only reason I can see for Ben B. to increase the money supply is to increase his (or his friends') percentage of the total purchasing power (Which is basically a tax on Alice and Bob).

Why else would he do it?

FooDSt4mP

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: Alex Beckenham on April 10, 2011, 09:36:27 AM

Quote from: FooDSt4mP on April 10, 2011, 09:29:57 AM

Quote from: Alex Beckenham on April 10, 2011, 05:14:15 AM

Quote from: rezin777 on April 09, 2011, 10:43:20 PM

Whoever trades goods for stateCoins loses.

Hence it won't eliminate poverty, because no matter how many statecoins you get each month, the baker still won't want to sell you any bread.

What if instead of a reset, everyone got 1000 new coins every month. If we're going to have inflation, it might as well be equally distributed initially.

Then if a poor person has debt to a rich person for example, that 'initially' might only be 4.2 nanoseconds, before the wealth is redistributed.

Also, the only way 'inflation' could be equally distributed, would be if everyone had exactly the same amount of cash at the time of minting new money. Because if I have $10,000 in cash, and you have $6000 in cash and a $4000 widget, then when new money gets minted it affects me more than it affects you, even if we both get the same $ amount from the government.

Good points... I was grasping at straws to push this thread a little further

. However, I think it might be a little more fair than what happens today if the only way to introduce new money was to split it among every citizen.

Alex Beckenham

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: FooDSt4mP on April 10, 2011, 09:29:57 AM

Quote from: Alex Beckenham on April 10, 2011, 05:14:15 AM

Quote from: rezin777 on April 09, 2011, 10:43:20 PM

Whoever trades goods for stateCoins loses.

Hence it won't eliminate poverty, because no matter how many statecoins you get each month, the baker still won't want to sell you any bread.

What if instead of a reset, everyone got 1000 new coins every month. If we're going to have inflation, it might as well be equally distributed initially.

Then if a poor person has debt to a rich person for example, that 'initially' might only be 4.2 nanoseconds, before the wealth is redistributed.

Also, the only way 'inflation' could be equally distributed, would be if everyone had exactly the same amount of cash at the time of minting new money. Because if I have $10,000 in cash, and you have $6000 in cash and a $4000 widget, then when new money gets minted it affects me more than it affects you, even if we both get the same $ amount from the government.

FooDSt4mP

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: Alex Beckenham on April 10, 2011, 05:14:15 AM

Quote from: rezin777 on April 09, 2011, 10:43:20 PM

Whoever trades goods for stateCoins loses.

Hence it won't eliminate poverty, because no matter how many statecoins you get each month, the baker still won't want to sell you any bread.

What if instead of a reset, everyone got 1000 new coins every month. If we're going to have inflation, it might as well be equally distributed initially.

Alex Beckenham

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: rezin777 on April 09, 2011, 10:43:20 PM

Whoever trades goods for stateCoins loses.

Hence it won't eliminate poverty, because no matter how many statecoins you get each month, the baker still won't want to sell you any bread.

markm

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1090

This so called money or currency you describe sounds more like votes than like money or currency.

You only get so many votes per timespan, depending on how many elections take place you are eligible to vote in.

Naturally we congresspeople vote ourselves higher salaries oops no wait, its the riff-raff who vote themselves bread and circi...

-MarkM- (Yeah yeah I know (or at least suspect) circi isn't quite correct Latin...)

P.S. how much do votes cost in your area? Around here different political parties harvest different numbers of votes per dollar spent on {|trying to get} votes...

--
"Control the coinage and the courts—let the rabble have the rest." Thus the Padishah Emperor advises you. And he tells you: "If you want profits, you must rule." There is truth in these words, but I ask myself: "Who are the rabble and who are the ruled?"
-Muad'Dib's Secret Message to the Landsraad from "Arrakis Awakening" by the Princess Irulan

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: rezin777 on April 09, 2011, 11:00:22 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on April 09, 2011, 10:57:02 PM

What if the government reinstated slavery? Well, that would be wrong, just like whatever it is you're suggesting.

Unless the slaves were sexy robots!

Blade Runner, anyone?

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: rezin777 on April 09, 2011, 11:00:22 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on April 09, 2011, 10:57:02 PM

What if the government reinstated slavery? Well, that would be wrong, just like whatever it is you're suggesting.

Unless the slaves were sexy robots!

Yeah baby!

FreeMoney

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1016

Strength in numbers

Quote from: rezin777 on April 09, 2011, 10:43:20 PM

Wait a second. The money resets every month. Yet you claim there will be "rich" people selling stuff in order to make money? What is the motivation to exchange tangible goods for money when the money will be reset every month?

We both have 1000 stateCoins.
I sell you my TV for 500 stateCoins.
You have a TV and 500 stateCoins. I have 1500 stateCoins.
In a month you have my TV and 1000 stateCoins and I have 1000 stateCoins.

Whoever trades goods for stateCoins loses.

As Gluskab said, no one in their right mind would use it. Force would be required.

Yeah, this money isn't money because it doesn't have durability.

What would happen if every day your money was reset to the highest it had ever been, but at the same time all accounts were divided by whatever coefficient was necessary to maintain exactly the same total balance?

I guess the strategy would be to make a run at getting really high and then take a break until you wanted to make another big run. Does this have any implications? Is this currency dumb enough that it will take lots of force to keep people using it or just a little force? It certainly doesn't seem to be to be something that would emerge on it's own.

rezin777

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: NghtRppr on April 09, 2011, 10:57:02 PM

What if the government reinstated slavery? Well, that would be wrong, just like whatever it is you're suggesting.

Unless the slaves were sexy robots!

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: TiagoTiago on April 09, 2011, 09:18:03 PM

What if the governament imposed a system like the following:

I stopped reading there since everything that follows is going to be immoral. What if the government reinstated slavery? Well, that would be wrong, just like whatever it is you're suggesting.

rezin777

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: benjamindees on April 09, 2011, 10:52:39 PM

Someone would start a business based around petitioning the government to seize assets by eminent domain at the end of every month and selling them for stateCoins at the beginning of every month. It would be like Christmas twelve times a year.

Christmas in hell! Cheesy

benjamindees

legendary

Activity: 1330

Merit: 1000

Someone would start a business based around petitioning the government to seize assets by eminent domain at the end of every month and selling them for stateCoins at the beginning of every month. It would be like Christmas twelve times a year.

rezin777

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Wait a second. The money resets every month. Yet you claim there will be "rich" people selling stuff in order to make money? What is the motivation to exchange tangible goods for money when the money will be reset every month?

We both have 1000 stateCoins.
I sell you my TV for 500 stateCoins.
You have a TV and 500 stateCoins. I have 1500 stateCoins.
In a month you have my TV and 1000 stateCoins and I have 1000 stateCoins.

Whoever trades goods for stateCoins loses.

As Gluskab said, no one in their right mind would use it. Force would be required.

Gluskab

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: kiba on April 09, 2011, 09:23:17 PM

Quote from: TiagoTiago on April 09, 2011, 09:18:03 PM

I have the impression this would pretty much extinguish poverty, and the prices of things would quickly reach an optmal value. But without actually doing away with having rich people; the rich would be those that develop means of offering things lots of people want in a big enough quantity so that lots of people can afford to pay for that thing (product, service etc).

I'm not quite sure how things would work when dealing with foreign tourists and busyness people outside the country etc though.

The cause of poverty is not that some have more than others, but the fact that there isn't enough goods and services to go around.

and this... currency is the least important part of an economy (except when it's manipulated on a large scale).

Topic: Thought experiment: Resetting spendings each month; what would happen? - page 2. (Read 4420 times)