Topic: will bitcoin reduce/eliminate purchasing disparity? (Read 1051 times)
I hope so, purchasing disparity is an undervalued problem but maybe bitcoin will change something.
For example, Tennessee is a low-price state, where $100 will buy what would cost $110.25 in another state that is closer to the national average. You can think of this as meaning that Tennesseans are about ten percent richer than their nominal incomes suggest.
The states where $100 is worth the least are the District of Columbia ($84.60), Hawaii ($85.32), New York ($86.66), New Jersey ($87.64), and California ($88.57). That same money goes the furthest in Mississippi ($115.74), Arkansas ($114.16), Missouri ($113.51), Alabama (113.51), and South Dakota ($113.38).
A person who makes $40,000 a year after tax in Kentucky would need to have after-tax earnings of $53,000 in Washington, DC just in order to have an equal standard of living, let alone feel richer.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-24/whats-100-really-worth-each-state
A very educating write up.However, i believe the influence will definitely be based on the states and individual ability to control their economy.
In theory yes it should be capable of reducing disparities between regions in terms of pricing
Since the buyer can choose where he gets his products from and try to optimize the price.
Factoring in tariffs and fuel costs associated with logistics and there will still be discrepancies but less market oriented ones where individuals push up the price to extort more profit.
I think these costs are the main reasons that the price discrepancies exist today. Before bitcoin it would be possible to choose where you buy products from. Today you can pay for something in fiat and choose where to buy something from, both by physical location and by the actual supplier. Since the buyer can choose where he gets his products from and try to optimize the price.
Factoring in tariffs and fuel costs associated with logistics and there will still be discrepancies but less market oriented ones where individuals push up the price to extort more profit.
In theory yes it should be capable of reducing disparities between regions in terms of pricing
Since the buyer can choose where he gets his products from and try to optimize the price.
Factoring in tariffs and fuel costs associated with logistics and there will still be discrepancies but less market oriented ones where individuals push up the price to extort more profit.
Since the buyer can choose where he gets his products from and try to optimize the price.
Factoring in tariffs and fuel costs associated with logistics and there will still be discrepancies but less market oriented ones where individuals push up the price to extort more profit.
ive been pointing out this cost of living index element for 2 years now. seems like people are beginning to listen.
if bitcoin was not measured against the dollar. but instead measured against X weeks of CoL where this week it may be 2 weeks CoL and in a years time bitcoin maybe 20 weeks CoL. it would atleast help people to DIRECTLY value bitcoin in their native currency without having to rely on the dollar
How the value of bitcoin is measured does not change it's value. No matter how you value it, it will buy the exact same goods/services as long as the actual value is the same.if bitcoin was not measured against the dollar. but instead measured against X weeks of CoL where this week it may be 2 weeks CoL and in a years time bitcoin maybe 20 weeks CoL. it would atleast help people to DIRECTLY value bitcoin in their native currency without having to rely on the dollar
I don't understand how the OP thinks that bitcoin would eliminate purchasing disparity. The reason that things cost different prices throughout the country (and the world) is partly because of the cost to get these goods to this part of the country. If a supplier needs to spend a lot of money to ship their goods to a certain area then they will either charge a higher price for their goods in that area or will simply not sell their goods in that area at all.
ive been pointing out this cost of living index element for 2 years now. seems like people are beginning to listen.
if bitcoin was not measured against the dollar. but instead measured against X weeks of CoL where this week it may be 2 weeks CoL and in a years time bitcoin maybe 20 weeks CoL. it would atleast help people to DIRECTLY value bitcoin in their native currency without having to rely on the dollar
if bitcoin was not measured against the dollar. but instead measured against X weeks of CoL where this week it may be 2 weeks CoL and in a years time bitcoin maybe 20 weeks CoL. it would atleast help people to DIRECTLY value bitcoin in their native currency without having to rely on the dollar
I think that would be ideal. The "basket of goods and services" used by economists comes to mind as a way to quantify it on a broad basis.
For example, Tennessee is a low-price state, where $100 will buy what would cost $110.25 in another state that is closer to the national average. You can think of this as meaning that Tennesseans are about ten percent richer than their nominal incomes suggest.
The states where $100 is worth the least are the District of Columbia ($84.60), Hawaii ($85.32), New York ($86.66), New Jersey ($87.64), and California ($88.57). That same money goes the furthest in Mississippi ($115.74), Arkansas ($114.16), Missouri ($113.51), Alabama (113.51), and South Dakota ($113.38).
A person who makes $40,000 a year after tax in Kentucky would need to have after-tax earnings of $53,000 in Washington, DC just in order to have an equal standard of living, let alone feel richer.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-24/whats-100-really-worth-each-state
the price disparity still exists, only in each state it would exist as not being able to buy and spend as many bitcoins. so 100 dollars of bitcoin in one stats where one person makes 40k is not able to buy more bitcoins compared to the same guy whose 100 dollars is worth less and he makes the same 40k.
so there are less bitcoins and the price disparity stays the same, now if u can get paid in btc and buy mostly in btc that is a game changer though, you see what i mean there? but likely your employer will still pay u 40k worth of bitcoin and the local places will still charge the 15% higher. so i dont see how it helps either way..
ive been pointing out this cost of living index element for 2 years now. seems like people are beginning to listen.
if bitcoin was not measured against the dollar. but instead measured against X weeks of CoL where this week it may be 2 weeks CoL and in a years time bitcoin maybe 20 weeks CoL. it would atleast help people to DIRECTLY value bitcoin in their native currency without having to rely on the dollar
if bitcoin was not measured against the dollar. but instead measured against X weeks of CoL where this week it may be 2 weeks CoL and in a years time bitcoin maybe 20 weeks CoL. it would atleast help people to DIRECTLY value bitcoin in their native currency without having to rely on the dollar
For example, Tennessee is a low-price state, where $100 will buy what would cost $110.25 in another state that is closer to the national average. You can think of this as meaning that Tennesseans are about ten percent richer than their nominal incomes suggest.
The states where $100 is worth the least are the District of Columbia ($84.60), Hawaii ($85.32), New York ($86.66), New Jersey ($87.64), and California ($88.57). That same money goes the furthest in Mississippi ($115.74), Arkansas ($114.16), Missouri ($113.51), Alabama (113.51), and South Dakota ($113.38).
A person who makes $40,000 a year after tax in Kentucky would need to have after-tax earnings of $53,000 in Washington, DC just in order to have an equal standard of living, let alone feel richer.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-24/whats-100-really-worth-each-state
I don't see why it would since price disparity is usually caused by different real costs in a region. For example Texans on average make more money and suffer less poverty than Californians when incomes are adjusted for purchase power parity. This is probably because of California's heavy taxes and regulations, which unfortunately still apply to Bitcoin purchases.
Off-topic: Notice how the states that tend to be in favor of larger government and less market freedom suffer from much higher costs of living.
For example, Tennessee is a low-price state, where $100 will buy what would cost $110.25 in another state that is closer to the national average. You can think of this as meaning that Tennesseans are about ten percent richer than their nominal incomes suggest.
The states where $100 is worth the least are the District of Columbia ($84.60), Hawaii ($85.32), New York ($86.66), New Jersey ($87.64), and California ($88.57). That same money goes the furthest in Mississippi ($115.74), Arkansas ($114.16), Missouri ($113.51), Alabama (113.51), and South Dakota ($113.38).
A person who makes $40,000 a year after tax in Kentucky would need to have after-tax earnings of $53,000 in Washington, DC just in order to have an equal standard of living, let alone feel richer.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-24/whats-100-really-worth-each-state
That is an interesting article. Being a borderless currency I wonder what effects it would have on prices between countries as well.
My simplistic thought on this is that larger population centers will have higher prices no matter what due to demand and regulations but I imagine it would have some effect.
For example, Tennessee is a low-price state, where $100 will buy what would cost $110.25 in another state that is closer to the national average. You can think of this as meaning that Tennesseans are about ten percent richer than their nominal incomes suggest.
The states where $100 is worth the least are the District of Columbia ($84.60), Hawaii ($85.32), New York ($86.66), New Jersey ($87.64), and California ($88.57). That same money goes the furthest in Mississippi ($115.74), Arkansas ($114.16), Missouri ($113.51), Alabama (113.51), and South Dakota ($113.38).
A person who makes $40,000 a year after tax in Kentucky would need to have after-tax earnings of $53,000 in Washington, DC just in order to have an equal standard of living, let alone feel richer.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-24/whats-100-really-worth-each-state
Jump to: