Topic: Will bitcoin change the distribution of wealth in the world? - page 18. (Read 3527 times)
Not really. You have to take into account the fact that rich people can get richer in Bitcoin quicker. There will be plenty of new rich people though, with the number of early adopters.
Bitcoin, of course, is more transparent and fairer. 90% of the wealth of the entity is basically in the hands of 1% wealthy people, and basically monopoly of the industry. Bitcoin is definitely not.
There is hardly any reason to deny this fact that most of the wealth is owned by only a few percentage of people. But it is very much expected that bitcoin after sometime manage to change this trend. Bitcoin is very much capable of making anyone rich. Moreover, there are so many unemployed who are earning from bitcoin now. Time is not too far when most of the wealth will be owned by majority of the population.Does anyone have information whether bitcoin would distribute wealth more equally across people than the current wealth distribution?
Or would the distribution be even more unfair?
not just bitcoin but the cryptocurrencies as well.the blockchain will not only change the distribution of wealth but the distribution of all financial aspect..coz this is the alternative way of aerning in the whole world. Or would the distribution be even more unfair?
Bitcoin, of course, is more transparent and fairer. 90% of the wealth of the entity is basically in the hands of 1% wealthy people, and basically monopoly of the industry. Bitcoin is definitely not.
There is hardly any reason to deny this fact that most of the wealth is owned by only a few percentage of people. But it is very much expected that bitcoin after sometime manage to change this trend. Bitcoin is very much capable of making anyone rich. Moreover, there are so many unemployed who are earning from bitcoin now. Time is not too far when most of the wealth will be owned by majority of the population.
Wealth distribution is in a hand of people,but limiting influance of greedy financial institutions,central banks,big corporation may equal chances and improve economic situation of people living in poor areas.But without people solidarity it cant be done
Even without this though, it would be somewhat not easy for the poor to get their hands on bitcoins so I think there would still be some level of inequality. But as you said, if it's not the greedy bankers and politicians, there are greater chances it would be redistributed.
Just looking around the forums I've seen enough number of people wanting to use bitcoins to donate money. If only the fees were not this high, you can imagine they've already sent thousands of dollars collectively.
It won't change anything. Most of the wealth is in the hands of just 1% of the population. How do you imagine this money is going to be distributed among the people? Bitcoin is nothing more but a tool, just like a gun or a knife. It won't do anything by itself, it needs people to operate it the right way. The only way for people to destroy a corporation and make it lose all its money is to stop buying its products.
,i partly agree with you, anyway lets say giving wealth or money, does it really necessary or would those wealthy personalities agree with it? Of course not. bitcoin is a digital currency, or in other words its money, and the fact that we cannot stop buying what we need from those people who produced our needs, same also as they do, so its not distributed properly, but in fact that money is just circulating, 
Does anyone have information whether bitcoin would distribute wealth more equally across people than the current wealth distribution?
Or would the distribution be even more unfair?
Or would the distribution be even more unfair?
Bitcoin is neither equally distributed nor it's going to create a system of fair and equal distribution of wealth. Early adopters do have an advantage and since Bitcoins total supply is limited, economic/income/wealth inequality further creates an uneven distribution of Bitcoin.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/owns-bitcoins-infographic-wealth-distribution/
https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html
It is just the bridge or the way to distribute fair and neutral wealth to the society and to the people who knows crypto. Central banks, Goverment and any other Authorities in charge for the regulation for the wealth and currency controls and manipulate it for their own selfish reasons like pigs and crocodiles, blockchain technology introduce the freedom and fair way to manage and control your own wealth but the change is always depends to the people.
Does anyone have information whether bitcoin would distribute wealth more equally across people than the current wealth distribution? Or would the distribution be even more unfair?
Bitcoin can help in counteracting inequality but to imagine it becoming the driving force to make wealth get redistributed maybe putting unnecessary stress on cryptocurrency...that can just be a hyped expectation. Cryptocurrency is opening us a better and more fair playing field but it will not guarantee that anybody who get into it would be experiencing the same success and financial windfall as the first adopters. Bitcoin can never be a tool for socialism-oriented people, where wealth redistribution can be one of its many goals.
Distribution of wealth is quite a big range of topic but i think bitcoin will sure help people to become more financially stable. It gives opportunity for people who are looking for a full time and part time job. If you meant to focus on bitcoin then it is not that bad especially when you are wise enough on how you are going to manage your digital currency. If you are just havibg it as part time it is not bad as well since it actually consumes less time of you and you get to earn it.
Bitcoin, of course, is more transparent and fairer. 90% of the wealth of the entity is basically in the hands of 1% wealthy people, and basically monopoly of the industry. Bitcoin is definitely not.
Does anyone have information whether bitcoin would distribute wealth more equally across people than the current wealth distribution?
Or would the distribution be even more unfair?
Or would the distribution be even more unfair?
No,I don't imagine that would happen.Maybe if all this cryptocurrencies hold in future.
For now I think it's doing the opposite.Poor people are promised to get rich if they buy bitcoin and hold,
and the money again goes into the pockets of those rich ones that hold 95 percent of it.
Sure, the distribution of wealth will change, but we're also creating wealth. What one person gains wealth from Bitcoin it doesn't mean that someone else has lost an equal amount of wealth
Nah man. Bitcoin makes the market more free, which makes the playing field more fair. Some people will be wealthy and others will not, but that's not an indicative (solely) by the fairness to all.
Or would the distribution be even more unfair?
Nah man. Bitcoin makes the market more free, which makes the playing field more fair. Some people will be wealthy and others will not, but that's not an indicative (solely) by the fairness to all.
there is no exact information regarding OP questions and bitcoin users still less than the population people in the world although bitcoin was so expensive but don't mean for those who hold bitcoin will automatically health from their wealth conditions because rich people who have a lot of bitcoin still dominate the major of bitcoin users but very unfortunate that poor people who only able to have bitcoin less than 1 bitcoin still being poor people so there is no difference and the distributions still not equally
Does anyone have information whether bitcoin would distribute wealth more equally across people than the current wealth distribution?
Or would the distribution be even more unfair?
Or would the distribution be even more unfair?
Technological advancement is inevitable in the future in considering the phase of changing everything to digital ideally. Slowly, the developed countries are inclined to that change and are already developing mechanisms to be ready for that change. But the problem lies on countries that are still developing and are on the weaker side of the edge. Their priorities as of now are focused on how to fix their country, rather than providing internet access across their country. This would lead to chaos in the economics if we suddenly change our fiats to digital money.
Does anyone have information whether bitcoin would distribute wealth more equally across people than the current wealth distribution?
Or would the distribution be even more unfair?
Bitcoin is not going to change anything like that, you are misunderstanding bitcoin, bitcoin is just a tool, in this case a currency and currencies are only meant to facilitate trade, bitcoin is not going to change the distribution of the wealth, at best the people at the top are going to change and we may avoid some of the issues of fiat but that is all, at the end there are going to be people with many bitcoins and people with almost nothing. Or would the distribution be even more unfair?
I think wealth distribution here in bitcoin is not equal because it varies upon your campaign. But if you have the same campaign then the distribution is equal.
Does anyone have information whether bitcoin would distribute wealth more equally across people than the current wealth distribution?
Or would the distribution be even more unfair?
Or would the distribution be even more unfair?
That probably will change the distribution of wealth in our society. The trend has already started and it will continue for the times to come. There are lot of people earning in bitcoin are living a decent life only because of their earning through bitcoin. The rising price is giving even more profits to them. So bitcoin has created a parallel economy around the world which is more secure and anonymous in nature. Even though the legal status of bitcoin is still not clear in many countries, but still it has managed a way of getting adopted by the mass.
I don't think it will do more damage to the existing system, but it surely increase the wealth of a certain group people who are tech savy and wiling to work hard to achieve their dreams. However, the time hasn't yet come to comment on this matter. I am sure the time will tell us.
No. If you want to have wealth you will still need to be strategical in your life. Don't spect any distribution of wealth from anything, use the tools that are disponible for you and do the best you can to make progress in your life. Bitcoin is just money and those who hold most coins will continue being rich while those who don't have any satoshi or few satoshis will continue being poor...
There are too many wealth redistribution programs which favor the 1% operating in private and public sectors for crypto to make an appreciable difference in status quo, wealth inequality.
Regulations, taxes and economies are structured to ensure the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Bitcoin definitely helps to counteract this negative precedent. But there is such a massive and overwhelming precedent towards wealth being further centralized within an increasingly small minority of the population that it would require major social upheaval and a tremendous paradigm shift for a real difference to be made.
For the last few decades a case could be made for inflation(real inflation) growing at a faster rate than wages. That's a negative precedent which may be maintained for only a very finite portion of time before hitting a catastrophic end point where basic living standards no longer are sustainable. This fundamental observation could be a root problem of why demand for things such as homes and real estate have decreased over time despite the states best efforts to reverse the trend via lowering mortgage loan standards. What are the long term implications of this? That may be a good question.
Regulations, taxes and economies are structured to ensure the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Bitcoin definitely helps to counteract this negative precedent. But there is such a massive and overwhelming precedent towards wealth being further centralized within an increasingly small minority of the population that it would require major social upheaval and a tremendous paradigm shift for a real difference to be made.
For the last few decades a case could be made for inflation(real inflation) growing at a faster rate than wages. That's a negative precedent which may be maintained for only a very finite portion of time before hitting a catastrophic end point where basic living standards no longer are sustainable. This fundamental observation could be a root problem of why demand for things such as homes and real estate have decreased over time despite the states best efforts to reverse the trend via lowering mortgage loan standards. What are the long term implications of this? That may be a good question.
Jump to: