Daniel Unplugged

I think it is important to note that when talking about market wages, we are very much not talking in absolutes. Employees are not fungible and neither are jobs. We can say the market rate is $20, but there will certainly be employees that can't get hired at $15, and there will certainly be jobs that can't get filled at $25.

Yes on both counts. Interestingly though, the maximum price an employer is willing to pay is the minimum he can hire the worker for, which is also the minimum the employee will work for, and also the maximum price the employee can get for his labor. ...hope that makes sense. Note that the above assumes all actors are acting solely upon their own financial best interest, which is not necessarily the case, but in economics we always assume that. More generally, the market price of anything, including wages, is the price at which supply=demand. All that means is that if you want to buy, someone will sell to you at the market price, and if you want to sell, someone will buy from you at the market price.

Capitalism is synonomous with the free market/voluntary interactions. Socialism is synonomous with government/forced interactions. If government is doing it, then it's socialism, regardless of whether or not it is the will of the majority.

All good points. I just had a thought. Has there ever been a study of the 'wage gap' that considers whether any of it is due to women (on average) doing a lower quality of work / being less productive at work than men (on average)? It would seem to be the obvious first thing to check when trying to explain a difference in wages between men and women, yet I cannot recall ever hearing of such a study. I suppose the idea that men and women are different is still herecy, and thus shall not be considered possible, at least by TPTB.

It didn't. The ability to evolve is not an evolved trait, logically, it can't be. It's like saying 'I couldn't learn until I learn't how to learn', obviously if you learn't how to learn you always had the ability to learn, and did not learn it. 3 things are necessary for something to evolve. 1. The ability to self replicate. 2. That the ability to self replicate is not a perfect process, that is; sometimes the replica is not an exact copy of the original. 3. The non-exact copy produced also posesses traits 1 and 2 The first thing to evolve was merely the first thing that had those 3 traits. None of those traits could have been evolved traits, since without them, evolution is impossible. As for how something came to have those 3 traits, I can only speculate, but I am certain that it did not evolve them.

Why would a foreign government need to 'Address the society as a whole'? Do foreign governments currently have that need? Have they ever attempted that before? Sure, they sometimes have a need to address other governments, but that is not akin to addressing the whole society. Also, most of reasons for communication between governments only exist because governments exist. However; Say the Russian government wants to get a message out to the US general population. I would suggest following Mcdonalds lead. When Mcdonalds wants the population to know that they are bringing out a new burger, they buy advertising space on TV and newspapers etc. It is a tried and tested method for disseminating information quickly amongst a large number of people.

It would seem that you and your friend are both concerned about orphans. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that you both would be willing to donate a share of your income to help orphans in need. That's 2 from 2. It is reasonable to expect that many others would also be charitable solving the problem. Unless of course, your friend is not willing to donate a share of his income to help orphans he is so concerned about. Inform him that you will donate, ask him if he will donate. If he says no, he is only feigning concern for orphans, and there is not much point discussing the matter further with him.

I don't know about the US, but in Australia, (usually) payments made with more than 10 of the same coins are not legal tender. I'm not sure about notes. However, it turns out, that a merchant is not required to accept Australian legal tender in exchange for goods or services provided (as long as they specify it prior to the trade taking place).

I agree with the OP. If a company commits to purchasing from itself, it is forgoing the option of purchasing at the best price available from other companies.

Seconded.

This is going to be a long post. Not true, free market thinkers use this term to differentiate between monopolies that occur in a free market, and those that are enforced by the government. It should be pointed out, that, with the bear minimum of exeptions, free market monopolies do not exist. Try naming one. Cars? No. Houses? No. Hamburgers? No. Cellphones? No. Mechanics? No. Bakeries? No. Coffee? No. Light globes? No. Software? No. The whole notion of corporations monopolising products in a free market doesn't fit with reality, either through observation, or analysising economic theory. As I understand it, there has only been one monopoly of any significance in recent times, The De Beers diamond cartel. According to economic theory, this is (one of the reasons) why monopolies do not last long in a free market: A monopoly will take advantage of the lack of competition by increasing its prices. The increase in prices encourages new competitors to enter the market to get a cut of the exorborant profits being made in the industry. Whoalla, monopoly gone. I should also point out that 'lefties' do not 'oppose' monopolies or cartels. They might say they do, but they are lying. A 'leftie' will always support labor cartels (unions), and always oppose a business cartel. Given that, it cannot be true that 'lefties' either support or oppose cartels. Their support or opposition of cartels is exposfacto bullshit. They will always take the position that benefits their goals (standard socialist stuff), regardless of its monopolisticness (I so know that's not a real word). Note: As a voluntarist, I have no ethical issues at all with monopolies/cartels, so long as there is no coercion involved. "This stuff happens all the time and you see it in the news every week" Again, can you name a free market monopoly or cartel? Of all the businesses in your area, how much evidence do you have that they are fixing prices, or otherwise behaving monopolistically? FYI I don't consider Starbucks opening a new shop to be anti-competitive or monopolistic. Note: The definitions of monopoly provided are incorrect. (Without even needing to look it up) the definition of monopoly is: "A good or service for sale that is absent of competition." Be aware that it is a common leftist trick to misdefine things in order to manipulate you. Remember that it was not beyond them to redefine "voluntarily engaging in paid work for a business" as "being exploited". While I'm no fan of governments, or the police, the above statement must be rebutted. I could spend 1000 words analysing it's inaccuracies, but I'll just restate it accurately. "Occasionally, police use force to evict union workers when they are trespassing on private property." I would write more, but mr sandman is calling. Maybe tommorow.

Property rights are necessary for capitalism. According to one definition, capitalism refers to private ownership of the means of production, so yeah, property rights are a must. To me, the basis for capitalism is freedom. I consider capitalism a manifestation of freedom. When people are free to own capital, some people will exercise that right and acquire some capital. Some people will not. Either choice is acceptable, what is important is that people are free to choose how they wish to live their own lives. Another way I can put it is this: 1. Slavery is immoral, therefore I oppose it. 2. Therefore every person owns themself. 3. Therefore every person owns the product of their labor. 4. Therefore every person may use the product of their labor as they see fit. 5. Therefore every person may purchase capital if they wish to. Addition to post: I decided I wanted to make something more obvious. 6. Therefore if a person opposes capitalism, they are supporting slavery.

To simplify the question, I think it is better to ask: Is it immoral to trade in stolen goods? And Is it immoral to receive stolen money in exchange for providing goods or services? If one is not aware that the goods (or money) are stolen, then no, it is not immoral. If, however, one is aware that the money is stolen (such as when a person works for the State whilst knowing that taxation is theft), then I do consider it immoral. However, if working for the state is necessary for one's survival, such as in North Korea, then I am willing to forgive the immorality, just as I am when a person dying of thirst in the desert steals a bottle of water. Almost everywhere in the world, working for the State is not necessary to survive, so it remains immoral. I disagree. You are using an ends justify the means argument here. Achieving good, by doing something immoral, doesn't change the fact that what was done is immoral. Be very careful about buying into an ends justify the means mentality - The entire State is based on variants of that philosophy.

For the purpose of this post I will refer to an increase in prices as inflation, and money printing as, well, money printing. A government bond is nothing more than a fixed term loan to a government. Merely printing money does not necessarily cause inflation. Try this thought experiment: The federal reserve prints up a trillion in new notes. It sticks them all in a warehouse, and doesn't tell anybody what it has done. Does this cause inflation? No. Prices will not change at all due to this. For the printing of money to cause inflation, it needs to be spent on goods and services in the real economy. This is why the Fed's QE program has not caused rampant inflation. (Almost) all of the money it has printed up to buy government bonds has not been spent in the real economy, it is just sitting in the vaults of the worlds banks. Arguably the most important equation in economics is MV=PQ. M= money supply V= money velocity P= the general price level Q= the quantity of goods and services sold. P and Q havent moved much the last 5 years. Since M has been greatly increased, it must be true that V has greatly decreased, and it has. What all this means is that the US monetary system is a ticking time bomb. Should the money velocity increase back to it's normal level, and the money supply remain unchanged, there will be a period of very high inflation. If (when) the money velocity picks up, it remains uncertain whether the Fed will be able to prevent an economic catastrophe. Your friends correct, as long as: 1. They don't have to pay tax on their profits. 2. The government actually repays their loan. 2. The inflation rate is what the government says it is. 4. The inflation rate does not increase much prior to the bond expiring. They are taking on a lot of risk for a miniscule return.

Sorry mate, I accidently downvoted your post when trying to click on 'quote', I'm using my S5 and i have fat fingers. I'll email Mike and get it fixed. A large group of people selling at the same time (or one person selling a lot at once) will cause the price to drop. Say there is someone offering to buy a bitcoin for $200, and someone else offering to buy a bitcoin at 199, someone at 198, someone at 197....all the way to 191. Then say a seller comes in with 10 Bitcoins, wants to sell all 10 straight away, and is willing to accept any price. He will sell his first bitcoin at 200, his second at 199, his third at 198 etc. The last Bitcoin he sells will be at $191. The Bitcoin price at this point will be $191. This is called a 'flash crash' If there is a flash crash, the price will usually recover quickly (within seconds or less). Almost everyone at the exchange will assume that some idiot just hit the wrong button on his keyboard. It is not rational to dump a huge quantity of Bitcoins and sell them at any price. A smart seller will sell a few at a time every few minutes so that he doesn't push the price down.

Yes, some extra sellers came into the market. There was not enough buyers, so the sellers agreed to lower their prices in order to attract a buyer (at a lower price, more people will be willing to buy). All I was saying before, is that if a Bitcoin is bought, then a Bitcoin was sold, it has to be.

Have a look at the price ticker here to see what I mean. https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/btce/btcusd Prior to the price going down, the number of buyers and sellers would be equal. If demand then drops, there would be a shortage of buyers. The sellers would have to lower their asking price in order to sell their Bitcoins. At the Bitcoin market there are many buyers and many sellers. Whenever a buyer and seller agree on a price, a trade takes place. That price becomes the 'price' until another trade takes place. No central authority sets the price. There is always someone offering to sell and someone offering to buy, but these people have not agreed on price yet. Say the last sale was at $199, the highest bid offer is at $199 and the lowest sell offer is $200. If a new buyer comes in and agrees to buy some of the $200 Bitcoins, $200 becomes the price. If then, a new seller comes in and agrees to sell some bitcoins at $199. $199 becomes the price again. This can happen over and over again, with the price going from 199 to 200 to 199 to 200 many times. It's just noise in an imperfect market.

Nice.

One dollar movement in the price doesn't mean much at all for Bitcoin - the spread between the buy and sell orders on the exchanges is usually more than that. Note that the 'price' only refers to the last price at which an exchange took place. Price only exists in the moment of trade. All market prices fluctuate by small amounts in the short term. In a more general sense, price changes are determined by supply and demand. If Bitcoin goes down, it is because demand has dropped or supply has increased or both.

While I know he is a major Statist, I did like this video. He shows once again that the glass ceiling does not exist. The cream will always rise to the top.

I'm sure this is not directed towards anybody in the FDR community.but I'm in the mood for a massive rant, so here we go: When you arrive home with a bootload full of groceries do you carry them to your backyard, leave them there for 5 minutes, and then pick them up again and bring them into your kitchen? Of course not! That would be stupid. So why, when I place every item in the pantry, neatly stacked, with the labels facing outwards, do you call me OCD? I have a disorder? I have a mental illness? There is something wrong with me? F@#$ you, you unorganized, inefficient A@#hole! Your pantry is cluttered, and you can't tell exactly what is in there just by opening the door! There is nothing wrong with me. My system is perfect! ...sometimes my partner places the labels facing the back (oh yes she does), so I need to remind her how it should be done...just kidding. Disclaimer: Technically I am not OCD, I just looked it up in the DSM, but I have been called it many times. Nothing was getting in the way of this rant.

I have heard this argument many times, and I don't buy it. ... a person buys some Bitcoins from an exchange, uses those Bitcoins to buy a pair of shoes from an online retailer, and then the retailer sells those Bitcoins back to the exchange. Once all is done and dusted, the transaction had zero effect on the demand or supply of Bitcoins (there was a short period where the demand for Bitcoins was increased while the shoe buyer was holding them). Some Bitcoins were purchased at the market price and the same quantity of Bitcoins were sold at the market price. The two transactions cancel each other out. I hate to nitpick, but being OCD and all, I am compelled to do so. The quantity of Bitcoins sold (or anything else for that matter) is always exactly equal to the quantity of Bitcoins purchased, it cannot be otherwise. A more accurate statement would be: "The price of Bitcoin will increase when the demand at the current price exceeds the supply at the current price." Just trying to help. Dan.

I just want to point out that neither the Bitstamp hack, nor the MTGOX fraud demonstrated any flaw whatsoever with Bitcoin. Websites are vulnerable to hacking, always will be. Financial institutions are vulnerable to fraud and mismanagement, always will be. Money, whether electronic or made of paper, is vulnerable to theft if not kept in a safe location. A park bench is not a safe place to keep US dollars and an online exchange is (although much less so) not a safe place to keep Bitcoins. Bitcoin is as secure as ever.

Ok, but I think I'm missing the point of what you are trying to say. Can you elaborate or put it another way?

Bitcoin's value may be primarily determined by speculators, but that is no different to the US dollar. Anybody who holds bonds, cash or money on deposit is 'speculating' that those dollars will have value in the future, just like those who hold bitcoin.