In a bitcoin world the only diffrence is that he wouldnt have a job
This may be true, and if it is it highlights the source of the problem.
If “he” is unemployed, and is capable of contributing to society but is prohibited because he can’t find a Job, (people with capital are reluctant to put it to work for “valid” economic reasons) or “he” can’t get hold of the means of production because people who own the means – the land and tools are reluctant to share.
The Neoclassical economic model is to create debt with interest (treasury bonds) to encourage and benefit those with capital to lend to those who manage the economy so they can create money to lend, to be paid back with interest and taxes so those who have the means, can partake in the economy.
The simplified problem above and its proposed solution is what led Marx to ridicule capitalism. Although Marx had insights as worthy as Keynes as and Hayek, he undermined entrepreneurship and innovation to the determent of his ideas.
The problem is a meme of Human rights, sustainable rights do not infringe on each others rights. except for the right of property provided by god. A claim to have a right to god given property, denies all otter human that right, and thus should come with some responsibility.
And as long as we construct economic systems to preserve that meme, they will fail, Marx, Keynes as and Hayek, all saw the benefits and perils of right to god given property, Mark sort to eradicate it, Hayek sort to strengthen it, and Keynes sort to manage it with tax and a welfare state.
Untested to date is Hayek’s approach your comment above suggests we will all wind up unemployed, I bet we won’t all wind up unemployed but we will test the limits of the meme of private property and what responsibilities are fair and emerge with a sustainable system.
Since you take the conversation to a higher ground
I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money
Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.
Money needs a definition, I see Money as historically an emergent market phenomenon established from commodity money,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money.
I can reconcile your 3 points only by attributing the purchasing potential money if we put our trust in its value. In our centrally controlled fiat world we do that, we trust “the money” to have its value. Given its value has been diluted and abused and used to squander our natural capital by those who manage it, those institutions are now dysfunctional and beyond repair .
Some like I presume Lloydie and I have been irreversibly abused by the system and are now virulently opposed to it. (Joe average in the West with a mortgage may be OK will a little inflation but it is causing the biggest wealth inequality in the history of the world and has to stop before all our natural capital has been plundered.)
To be honest Bitcoin 5 years ago was not worth anything, and 6 months later you could buy
BTC1000 for $5 US, and today it’s purchasing potential is phenomenal .
In Bitcoin the purchasing potential is only backed up by what individuals are willing to exchange for it. i.e. Bitcoin is backed by a P2P network of users who are willing to give it value, while idiots buy and sell Bitcoin for stupid reasons, the purchasing potential is voluntarily given by the users, not taken by the hoarders. So I don’t think having lots of Bitcoin = having lots of wealth, Having lots of Bitcoin and managing the distribution among the network of willing participants in an equitable and fair manner as is possible within the laws of supply and demand will result in benefits to all and naturaly reword those who have lots of Bitcoin. If not, trust will fade and value will diminish.
There are other distribution models coming to the cryptocurrency space that will address your concerns directly they will emerge when the time is right, but for now I don’t believe they will supersede Bitcoin, they will just complement it.
In shot I feel the same about those who own property as you feel about those who have money, sill I partake willingly and by the rules, just Bitcoins rules are voluntary equitable and irreversible, and I love that.
