I disagree. All it requires is that economic power be non-uniform. If we all have equal amounts of bitcoins at our disposal, then no-one can lend. But as soon as one person becomes monetarily richer and start to make loans, he will accumulate more and more money, and therefore wealth. In your $10 loan scenario, how can I trade anything for dollars, if all my neighbours need all the dollars they have to pay the interest on their loans too? I'd end up bartering with my neighbours and your $100 economy would start to become irrelevant. Of course, your thugs might beat me up to get the repayments, but they'd only do that as long as *they* were happy to accept your dollars in payment too.
1. Hogwash, it does not matter how many bitcoins I have in relation to anyone else, I can lend them if I value the future bitcoins over the present ones...
2. Strawman
Exactly! You would start to barter too. But it's not necessary for you to have them all. A thousand people with 21000 bitcoins each in an economy of a million people is just the same.
Like I said to suggester, hoarding devalues the medium, and inherently destroys the whole point of hoarding...
And what you are not understanding about my points is that interest happens regardless of inflation...
How can I explain myself. This thread started about the pros and cons of bitcoin, and I wanted to differentiate between dishonest use of a currency, and honest use of a currency to carry out 'dishonest' trades. I don't mean to judge whether some things (e.g. selling home-grown tobacco) should be illegal or not - that's not what this thread is about. I'm simply stating that some things have been declared as illegal. Now, the sheep amongst us will consider a thing dishonest simply for the fact that it has been declared illegal; others will think about the issue and consider it dishonest in itself and so agree with the law; others again might disagree but choose to respect the law anyway; some will disagree and ignore the law; others will agree but ignore the law anyway; few might say it's ok on saturday.... and so on. For example, I don't mind people using illegal substances as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else (victimless crimes, yeah?); however, I have (for example) a real problem with exploitation or abuse of children - be that pedophiles, drug pushers or whatever. Your attitude above suggests that you think it should be ok to sell home-grown tobacco, so I was just trying to find an example of something you *would* find dishonest. Everyone draws their own line, but if you don't want to go to prison, the only line that really counts is the one the state has drawn.
I am an anarchist.... I could tell you where the state can kiss.... But I am sure you know...
No it doesn't. There are monopolies everywhere, and where one company hasn't enough muscle for a monopoly, it can engage in price collusion with others.
I would suggest the lecture series about American economic History "The End of Laissez Faire: 1870 to WWII". Monopolies do not exist without state coercion to protect the monopoly status, if entry is free for all, if regulation by a state is non existent, how exactly do you propose a monopoly to exist in the essence that it does the "monopoly thing" (Cut production and raise price) and not lose market shares to new competition...
American History proves this example...