MUST READ: Jam tomorrow Jam yesterday. NEVER EVER JAM TODAY!

By   /   March 26, 2016  /   42 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

A basic income for all as a solution to poverty traps and income insecurity is a futuristic idea about a Utopia. I hope we get there one day too but let’s be real about it. Children are dying and lives are being stunted right now.

Screen Shot 2016-03-26 at 11.44.22 am

Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments. But….. I can’t help but feel some stirrings of irritation at Labour’s new found enthusiasm for a universal basic income.

Good stuff to recognise all the future shocks of new technology and the impact on jobs.  Great to have the debate today at the Future of Work conference. It’s about time.

And a hearty yes. We can all agree more income security for the bulk of workers will greatly improve well-being. Such improvements are required with urgency as the casualisation of the labour market grows and misery deepens for too many in the digitalised world.

But a basic income for all as a solution to poverty traps and income insecurity is a futuristic idea about a Utopia. I hope we get there one day too but let’s be real about it.  Children are dying and lives are being stunted right now.

Typically serious writers on the basic income like Max Harris are very careful to say they are talking about a concept not a fully-fledged costed workable blueprint for the Labour government to implement after winning election in 2017. See A Universal Basic Income for New Zealand by Max Harris and Sebastiaan Bierema.

The problems of the basic income are enormous. When writing a chapter for “Basic Income in the Antipodes: Perspectives from the ‘Other Side of the World’. (Editors: Jenni Mays, Greg Marston and John Tomlinson, 2016) I checked out the Garth Morgan proposal and wrote this:

The basic income idea has many admirers but few ask the practical question of how we get from where we are to an ultimate, basic income “Nirvana”. A big bang approach, such as suggested by Morgan and Guthrie in the Big Kahuna (2011) is unlikely to be politically acceptable. People are nervous about large shifts from one paradigm to another. The essential trade-off is that a level of basic income for all that removes poverty would be very expensive. Moreover the taxes necessary to fund it would entail high marginal rates and would have an impact on behaviour, for example, the willingness to earn extra income.  Thus, while the idea of a basic income is intellectually appealing, unless we can realistically show how to get there it will remain in the textbooks.

It will also fall flat unless it clearly and meaningfully reduces poverty. New Zealand has high rates of family poverty (Perry, 2014a) and reducing child poverty is a pressing and urgent social issue (Dale, O’Brien, & St John, 2014). Thus Gareth Moran’s Big Kahuna falls short when calculations under their changes show that a sole parent on a benefit with two children will actually be worse-off. The personal calculator on the website that delivers this information, chirpily appeals her sense of being happy for others:

Oh no, you’ll be worse off. But others won’t be!

Even if she earns as much as NZ$35,000 per annum in paid work, the calculator finds she will be NZ$6000 worse off than before. This is not a minor inconvenience but a major structural challenge to the acceptance of the universal basic income.

Nevertheless we are faced with the precarious state of employment and the ongoing casualization of the labour market in the 21st century that demands new thinking of our support systems and antipoverty measures. The consequences of not doing so and of continuing to link social provision to paid work will be increased poverty and insecurity.

Let’s not pretend we can achieve the basic income nirvana in anything but the long run.

So my plea to the basic income advocates is please demand changes that move us towards better policy in line with the principles of the basic income right now.

Our struggling families and sick children cant wait.

First, we need an individually based benefit system that does not penalise relationships. What we do now belongs in the dark ages but in line with the basic income concept for a modern world, benefits should not be based on the couple as the unit, see CPAG Complexitity of relationship report.   

Second, like the basic income, we need secure child payments can be relied regardless of employment status of parents. Currently families in insecure work have enormous variability in the Working for Families payments.  Labour has said it wants to leave no one behind. But it was the party that introduced the fixed hours of work that families must achieve every week if they want their children to benefit from the full package of tax credits.

Those fixed hours 20 for a sole parent and 30 for a couple are anachronistic in the extreme in the world described this week at the ‘Future of work conference.

Working for family tax credits are for the children and should be secure and regular. If a sole parent’s hours of work fall to 19 for instance, she loses $72.50 a week for her children. This is 44 percent of her Working for Families tax credits for her children.    I am waiting to hear Labour pledge to remove all fixed hours of work requirements from Working for Families to show us they really mean what they say about basic incomes.

Moreover for working families, one expects to hear condemnation of the subtle reductions National is making over time for families in low paid work as outlined in the Fix Working for Families campaign to be launched 1 April. See also FWFF Facebook page

***
Want to support this work? Donate today
***
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
***

About the author

Co-director retirement policy and Research Centre, CPAG management committee

42 Comments

  1. Otto Mann says:

    A UBI makes sense and could easily be paid for by abolishing (or stripping back) WINZ. Less spent on bureaucracy, more on people’s income. And businesses benefit when that money is spent.

    If the Nats could justify tax cuts by saying it is money that is injected into the economy, then a UBI would achieve precisely the same thing.

    • Susan St John says:

      Otto
      Does that mean you support moving today’s polices more in the UBI direction. Not the same as a theoretical argument for the big bang

    • Waz says:

      I doubt you’d actually save that much money. The cold hard reality is that we will have to claw back money from those who made out like bandits from Neoliberalism.

      Property tax, wealth tax, capital gains tax, death duties, cut GST, raise the high end of progressive tax. Close loopholes for landlords and corporations. Put people in prison if they try to evade it.

      I’d like to see WINZ made more user friendly, rather than abolished. Helping people find work or top up their income could be a rewarding job. You should be able to just ring up, report your hours, and get a top up if you need it.

      • Lara says:

        Or just a FTT at <1% would do it.

        • Waz says:

          A FTT would get the money maybe, but I don’t think it would address the structural inequality that has built up over the last 30 years.

          Perhaps a FTT could be designed to be non regressive, and hard to avoid, but direct progressive taxes still seem like the fairest way to me.

          • Lara says:

            True. I really was only addressing the argument that a UBI is unaffordable.

            A FTT would pay for it.

    • Lloyd says:

      it also facilitates the closing of ACC.. it is no longer needed and a massive reduction at inland revenue.. a follow up of a reduction in crime because there will be weekly income, thus less police ;less courts and staff less probation service less prisons and staff, less insurance bills, the list of less outgoings is large… we have reached the stage where human workers as taxable units do no longer equate with numbers needed, so the system needs to be output driven

      • Sam Sam says:

        While there are speech writing apps currently available that can right speeches in a matter of seconds. Where as a human would take an hour or a week depending on the amount of research. You could replace all parliamentary speech writers with computers now. How ever I’m not entirely sure a computer would make an adequate fall guy.

    • JanfrieW says:

      By all means progress discussion about the feasibility of the UBI but FIRST IMMEDIATELY AND URGENTLY remove the paid work requirements that deny the support of the In-Work Tax Credit – come April1, at least $72.50 /week – to some 230,000 children in the lowest families. This discriminatory policy, a contributory factor to high levels of child poverty is based on the very insecure employment conditions now commanding attention. Furthermore it takes no account of the demanding but valuable work of parenting. These children need and deserve that support NOW!
      No doubt the Chilean Nobel Laureate meant girls too when she wrote …”Many things we need can wait. The child cannot. Now is the time his bones are being formed; his blood is being made; his mind is being developed. To him we cannot say tomorrow. His name is today.” — Gabriela Mistral

  2. Sam Sam says:

    We don’t want a UBI to morph into Rogernomics mrk2. A UBI is essentially a people’s QE (quantitative easing) and just like QE for the banks it’s got the same pitfalls of asset price inflation. admittedly New Zealand could do with a bit of real inflation in wages. But no one is even talking about increasing investments in entrepreneurship while undermining debt.

    • Susan St John says:

      The point of article is to argue for TODAY’s policies to reflect the UBI principles more. We wont get a big bang UBI utopia over night

      • Sam Sam says:

        But we already had an unconditional income. It was called pension funds, the health and welfare department. It’s actually good that we know how those things have or are failing.

        When Bernie Sanders becomes president of the United States. We will be able to reverse our bets and start talking sense about how to get the real economy and the middle class popping again.

        • Lloyd says:

          health and welfare never failed rogerknomes and spudites and cullens and dbl dippers raped it

      • weka says:

        “The point of article is to argue for TODAY’s policies to reflect the UBI principles more. We wont get a big bang UBI utopia over night”

        This is a good point. In light of that I’d like to ask if there is a structural rather than ideological reason for focussing on families who are on benefits rather than all beneficiaries? I understand why some people ethically prioritise children, but if we are talking about moving in the direction of universal income security, why not start with all beneficiaries now?

        • Sam Sam says:

          If you look at any comparisons between a sigle parent receiving a UBI and a two parent house hold. The solo mother on a DPB would get less, even less than she receives now.

          A UBI isn’t a clearance price for poverty per say, it’s more to make a work force more mobile to increase aggregate demand.

          • weka says:

            “If you look at any comparisons between a sigle parent receiving a UBI and a two parent house hold. The solo mother on a DPB would get less, even less than she receives now.”

            Are you saying that it’s impossible to design a UBI system that doesn’t disadvantage single parents? I’m aware of Morgan’s proposal, but that’s an argument for having people who understand poverty and benefits be an integral part of the design the system instead of just wealthy people.

            I don’t know what you mean by “a clearance price”. A UBI isn’t a panacea, it’s one tool.

            • Sam Sam says:

              You know what a clearance price is. Shops do it all the time to get rid of last seasons stock. Or in our case poverty.

              Back to the UBI. Tax revenue isn’t a stable number, it goes up and down every day, week, year, and with each change of Priminister.

              All a UBI is, is an expanded kiwi saver. Except with a UBI that security of payment is extended to 18-65 year olds. We can’t even garrentee kiwi saver payments for the people already on that scheme. It only funds some one up to a 5 rears retirement.

              So before expanding a retirement scheme into a UBI I think we should get kiwi saver working properly first.

          • weka says:

            btw, in the comment you were replying to I was asking why focus on children rather than all beneficiaries if the aim is to move towards a universally just system, and whether the reasons were ethical or structural.

            • Sam Sam says:

              Its a backwards logic when applying a UBI to children. The slogan is a UBI for every one, that’s not true, it should read UBI for 18-65 because that’s all the strain our tax revenue can take at present, with out radically altering how we collect taxes.

              So if adults are receiving a below minimum wage (remembering that’s all our current tax regime can take) then a solo mother on a DPB with one child just went from 300 to 200 dollars. Two parent families would receive a payment for each adult. And there’s no winz.

              So I hope you can see that there is a huge problem implementing a UBI with our current tax system.

              New Zealand has a lot of solo mothers on the (I don’t even know what we call the DPB now) benifit that we can not ignore in the UBI debate.

        • Sam Sam says:

          Further. A minimum wage is meant to be a clearance price for poverty.

        • Susan St John says:

          Weka
          The article DOES say that
          “First, we need an individually based benefit system that does not penalise relationships. What we do now belongs in the dark ages but in line with the basic income concept for a modern world, benefits should not be based on the couple as the unit,”

          So for example if you lose your job you should have the jobseekers benefit without regard to your partner’s income.

          CPag also says that all benefits needed to have the 8% rise that sole parents get this week. it is a big mistake to put any child component back into the core benefit.

          • weka says:

            That’s not a focus on all beneficiaries, that’s a focus on couples and families. Maybe we’re talking at cross purposes. Making urgently needed changes to how the system deals with couples or children isn’t universal (it leaves out many single people on medical benefits for instance). I’m asking if what the reason for not approaching this as universal rights is.

            • Sam Sam says:

              She’s talking about a UBI that dosnt massively re-jig the tax system to pay for it. I should also point out that increasing taxes is political suicide and won’t likely last the following election.

        • Susan St John says:

          Weka
          The article says
          First, we need an individually based benefit system that does not penalise relationships. What we do now belongs in the dark ages but in line with the basic income concept for a modern world, benefits should not be based on the couple as the unit,

          If we did that it would greatly help. And as CPAG has argued all those on benefits should have had the 8% rise given to those with children as the OECD recommended.

          • Sam Sam says:

            The problem is the money that we want to redistribute is worth next to nothing. The government has already raided pension funds and kiwi saver so there is no savings left to confiscate. Interest rates are low so there is no earnings growth. And we’ve been going after probing cuts to welfare and state housing to fund speculative bets on the housing and dairy markets and massively inflated national debt, further debasing our dollar. Now ques and waiting times are growing because we a government hell bent on pinching pennies and calling it sound monatary and fiscal policies.

            The poverty numbers are blowing out because we are feeling the full force of neoliberalism instead of labours Neo lite stuff. The number of homeless and kids going to school hungry are growing. We have surrounded the poor and disenfranchised with rentiers. So any increase in welfare subsidies will be gobbled up by rentiers. Further entrenching poverty.

            So yeah, if we reverse all those neoliberal policies we might be able to reset the monopoly board game to get the economy going again. With some other velocity of money tricks.

          • Sam Sam says:

            I’m just going to go ahead and write something in favour of a UBI that can achieve our goals while solving the relationship problem and post it later on today.

  3. darth smith says:

    heres another take on how a basic income would world from professor steve keen
    https://youtu.be/_juHR5uodjU

    • Sam Sam says:

      It’s a bit of a stretch for people to spot the links to a UBI because none of the cast say UBI directly. But yeah, judging by the number of thumbs down my other comment on this post got, those people at least need to watch this episode to get a better understanding of the cyclical nature of markets. The link is that government policy has driven down savings: lowered capital; destroyed what made capitalism good; there for destroying any notion of democracy and equality. The show ends with a prediction of the end of neoliberalism and that we must reverse the monatary policies of the last 30 years.

      QE for the banks is a policy. According to the prediction that must be reversed. So instead of QE distributing money at the top. That QE money should be redirected to the bottom half of society and distributed. There are a whole bunch of warnings through out the show about why QE/for the people is bad but you need a doctorate in economics because all the theories that explain why central banks are so shit don’t come up until the 4th year of economics degrees.

  4. Mike in Auckland says:

    As much as I like the idea of a UBI, I fear it is not going to happen.

    It would only work in a somewhat more regulated world, where there would be less economic and financial volatility, such as market adjustments driving down commodity prices and even other products.

    We live in a very volatile world, and we live in a high risk environment, given the market system as it is, and given the financial system as we have it.

    A UBI requires enough stability to uphold a system, some minor fluctuations, e.g. normal ups and downs between boom and recession can be managed, but if we have another GFC or worse, forget the UBI, the money paid may be worthless, as you will not be able to buy much for it.

    And as we are locked into a system where overseas banks dominate our finance sector, that is besides of the Reserve Bank, we face reactions and possible aberrations, that would force governments to reduce the UBI in times of long term recession, as the UBI could not be financed.

    As we have it everything is a commodity now, that includes the currency, the goods we make and sell and buy, it even includes as made from flesh and blood, we are played off against each other on competitive job and investment and business markets.

    There is NO level playing field, as overseas corporations shaft us and dodge taxation. There is no security, and while we may dream of improvements under a Labour led government, they are bound to be minimalistic.

    Half of economics consists of managing people’s psychology, and to channel it to create economic activity and growth, or stimulation. We do have wide spread mistrust of each other, hence people “save” and “invest” in their personal savings and investment schemes.

    As long as people distrust each other, as long as every one is acting only to secure his or her personal interests, or that of the family or whanau and no-one else, we cannot have stability and trust in collective systems, which is a prerequisite to have something like an UBI.

    Perhaps a start can be made by imposing minimum obligations for all, to either do or make efforts to, either study, work, offer community services, participate in collective social projects or whatever else. Having no obligations will not convince enough voters for a start, to even vote in a government that may consider an UBI.

    So indeed, at this stage it seems more of a dream and utopia, and believe me, the powers that be will do all to stop anything like this coming true. They will get their whole propaganda arsenal together to shoot it down, before it is even seriously considered.

    They already started firing the first shots, just look at how the MSM reported on it, and how the PM and government have ridiculed it. That is just the beginning.

    I resign to the fact, under the given circumstances, unless people stop distrusting and competing with each other, it will never happen.

    • Doubting Thomas says:

      It’s self-interest and selfishness that’s attempting to scuttle it.

      In other words it’s ok to go into $40 billion debt to give the rich tax-cuts, but not to make New Zealand as a whole a fairer society.

      A fairer society that it used to be before neoliberal trickle-down bullshit took root in 1984 and has continued unabated for 33 years.

      I remember when National had a slogan that would have fitted so well into the UBI debate “A decent society”.

      But now National’s slogan should be, “A decent society for the long white, rich crowd and my chums”

      If the inequality is not addressed with UBI or some viable alternative, then walls of gated communities aren’t going to be high enough to keep out the hungry.

  5. Jeni says:

    In an evermore disgruntled society as ours has come to be in recent times, it is no surprise that Labour looks to the popular innovations by Scandinavian countries for social reform solutions. The problem with that is implementing such systems as basic income in New Zealand would mean a great amount of research and calculation to determine what dollar value was actually adequate and years of trial and error would ensue before it was feasible to roll out on a wide scale. The shifting of tax rates and brackets hasn’t even come into the conversation yet, nor would it if taxation were likely to be much higher for those earning much greater incomes through paid work? I’m not inclined to say these are pipe dreams, I’m all for setting goals and working towards them, but if we talk policy promises too soon to be able to deliver then we end up with a disappointed nation and a disappointed nation is a disunited one. What our people need to know is that immediate problems are going to be addressed in the short term, while the other things tinker along as long-term goals. We need to know our policies are shifting towards allowing people more choice, such as whether to work in low-paid, unworthy jobs or to choose not to forsake a certain freedom for that continual oppression. That is great if in time a basic income can achieve that! What they need to know NOW is that these things will take time but in the short term, there are immediately attainable goals, small realistic changes that can be made without great financial overhauls, that will alleviate the harm done to those in greatest need – our children of low-income families. That is why fixing working for families is a no-brainer. It is something that can be done now, to lift up basic income where it is needed most. And we can ruminate on the rest while our government goes and does its homework to bring the bacon later.

  6. Jeni says:

    In an evermore disgruntled society as ours has come to be in recent times, it is no surprise that Labour looks to the popular innovations by Scandinavian countries for social reform solutions. The problem with that is implementing such systems as basic income in New Zealand would mean a great amount of research and calculation to determine what dollar value was actually adequate and years of trial and error would ensue before it was feasible to roll out on a wide scale. The shifting of tax rates and brackets hasn’t even come into the conversation yet, nor would it if taxation were likely to be much higher for those earning much greater incomes through paid work?

    I’m not inclined to say these are pipe dreams, I’m all for setting goals and working towards them, but if we talk policy promises too soon to be able to deliver then we end up with a disappointed nation and a disappointed nation is a disunited one. What our people need to know is that immediate problems are going to be addressed in the short term, while the other things tinker along as long-term goals. We need to know our policies are shifting towards allowing people more choice, such as whether to work in low-paid, unworthy jobs or to choose not to forsake a certain freedom for that continual oppression. That is great if in time a basic income can achieve that!

    But what they need to know NOW is that these things will take time but in the short term, there are immediately attainable goals, small realistic changes that can be made without great financial overhauls, that will alleviate the harm done to those in greatest need – our children of low-income families. That is why fixing working for families is a no-brainer. It is something that can be done now, to lift up basic income where it is needed most. And we can ruminate on the rest while our government goes and does its homework to bring the bacon later.

    • Michael O'Brien says:

      UBI is worth examining closely but it is not a solution to the major question of child poverty and it is confusing to link the two together. Current proposals for UBI will not improve the position of our poorest children and that is the most important immediate priority. Children cannot wait while we sort out a better and fairer income system that puts children first. Lets fix the discrimination against beneficiary children now (can be done immediately) and keep working towards a better income support system – but it must reduce poverty if it is to be meaningful.
      Mike

      • Sam Sam says:

        I think the answer to child poverty is in a UBI. It’s just the benefits to children are so abstract that it is hard to quantify. A UBI is actually a right wing policy to deal with globalisation. The over arching idea has always been to raise the tide of money in an economy there by raising all boats. The trick is getting value for money instead of inflating asset prices. It’s just one big monatary policy.

  7. Sofya Semyonovna says:

    We are confronting epochal changes to our economic systems, as Capitalism, Globalisation and Neoliberalism all conspire to destroy the current system of work. This, like Climate Change, is inevitable, and will happen much sooner than we realise. Susan St. John is correct, that Labour’s “Jam tomorrow” approach verges on being disingenuous. But similarly, Incrementalism, as Susan proposes will also not suffice in the face of this tsunami of change.

    Neoliberalism is currently the default paradigm. Neoliberals are not perturbed by the coming work crisis, because their answer is always the same; individual competition will sort it out. Wealth and prosperity await those who can compete, and the Favela awaits those who can’t. We can expect the National government to do precisely nothing to alleviate this problem.

    We should expect more from Labour, but that would likewise be foolish. Labour is like a fly struggling in amber; it has the urge to be free, but it is deeply committed to the process of fossilisation.

    However, we are only really constrained by the limits of our mental horizons and the laws of physics. It is possible to conceive of a new economic system based on computing power, mathematics and reason which makes a Universal Basic Income a reality, and much more besides.

    If you are not familiar with digital currencies and blockchain technology, you will not be aware of the fact that an entirely new, parallel global financial system is being created that rivals the current one in many ways. Ethereum in particular allows for the creation of automated “smart contracts” which can emulate and replace entire industry sectors. These contracts are completely transparent and open, and can be made absolutely scrupulous and fair. With Ethereum, it is entirely possible to create a Universal Basic Income for all New Zealanders. It would take a year or two to develop, but it can be done.

    The challenge of course is not technical, it is social and political. If we can create a UBI using Ethereum, what else could we do? Well, it turns out that we can create Ethereum contracts to replace all paper-based Government registry systems, the national currency, all taxation, all welfare services, the stock market, and all banks, including the Reserve Bank.

    In the process, we could completely reinvent society itself. We don’t have to live in a world where the penalty for unemployment is death. We could easily program governance systems which accept the principles of human dignity and fairness. In other words, any new system that we made need not, and almost certainly would not be the heartless Capitalist meat grinder we have. It could be made more like Athens than Rome, Mondragon than Madrid, and Paris than Pittsburgh. In other words, our greatest technological achievement could be our most humane accomplishment, if we could make a clean break from the worst of our past.

    What could prevent this? Three things; small thinking, evolutionary thinking, and the current Establishment.

    “Small thinking” is cured by education, and by discovering what is possible. Evolutionary thinking is cured by realising we are all passengers on a sinking ship that cannot be saved by bailing harder.

    It is the third failing that is the greatest cause for concern. The Establishment has a death-grip on our society. Most of its members are approaching the end of their lives, and no longer care what may happen after they leave. They are concerned only with holding onto the luxury and power they now possess. The Establishment will need to be swept aside if we are to survive.

    Just as the time is long past when Incrementalism could solve Climate Change, so our most dire and fundamental economic problems cannot be solve by cadging a dollar here and there. We need more and better solutions, and radical movements to drive them through to implementation. But expect the Establishment to fight dirty and hard to drag us all down with the ship.

    Who will win? That’s up to you.

    • Kate Kate says:

      Wow, well said.

      • Sam Sam says:

        Crypto is for us, not every one else. It takes just enough time and money to make it not worth while for the average joe. Because mining rigs have doubled in power in the last 6 months, the average joe has missed the boat. The world has will have to wait at least 20 years before enough stores take up crypto payments for every one else to get in the game.

        Bitecoin has such a market share now that any prototype block chain that makes it into the market will eventually be striped out and added to Bitecoin. Unless you can get central banks to revoke bite coins currency licence.

        I think for block chain to be viable in NZ or any other country our government and currency will have to be more disfunctional. Let’s say as Europes disfunctional currency. The reason I follow Europes Bitecoin trade is because it’s been the best performing currency two years in a row. Greek business had to take up crypto to get around trading with the euro dollar, that’s why I say it is for us, at least until some crypto entrepreneur can by his own logistics network.

        • Lara says:

          Is is just me or are others having a really hard time understanding what Sam is saying in this and other comments?

          Maybe its the language you’re using Sam, but I suspect it is some assumptions you are making which may not be correct.

          I use Bitcoin in my business. Or at least, I offer the choice of paying by Bitcoin. So I know how much time and effort it takes to choose to use it, and it’s not much at all. So your first assumption I think is incorrect.

          The average joe has missed the boat? No. Bitcoin is still another option for a medium of exchange. The value will go up and down, but as a medium of exchange it remains valid. No one has missed the boat on that. It’s small but growing, and it’s still in it’s infancy.

          So your statement seems to contradict itself: the average joe has missed the boat but not enough businesses use it so the average joe can’t use it because it’s not yet widespread enough.

          Just because another type of alternative currency may come into the market does not mean it must be eventually swallowed by Bitcoin, or any other currency. Just because we have only one currency in any one place currently (NZDUSD in NZ for example) does not mean this single currency system must persist. It is entirely possible for a geographic location to have more than one currency option at any one time. So this assumption too appears to be incorrect.

          Your last paragraph I agree with. I expect things will have to get very bad indeed before they get better.

          The biggest problem I see for ideas like Bitcoin and Ethereum is a lack of understanding of how they work and indeed what they are and how they can be used by the majority of people.

          • Sam Sam says:

            Well that was a big he said she said tirade that I’m not going to get all off topic about for to long.

            I’ll finish with this.

            This list of distinguishing characteristics doesn’t change the market price overnight. Like many coins, Ethereum has seen its share of malicious miners, speculative traders, and committed internet trolls. These people are either jealous or simply foolish and enjoy throwing away treasure. I genuinely think that altcoins is a bargain wonder coin. On the markets, it is at historic lows. But objectively, given its present goals, is at historic highs.

            • Lara says:

              Crikey.

              It wasn’t a “he said she said tirade”

              It was a carefully constructed and rather polite (sticking to facts only) comment.

              Which was done to illustrate why I’m finding it very difficult to read your comments.

              And you’ve addressed exactly zero of my points.

              I’m done here.



Authorised by Martyn Bradbury, The Editor, TheDailyBlog, 5 Victoria St East/Queen St, CBD, Auckland, New Zealand.