@rxantos > "Money is supposed to represent effort ..."
Actually, units of money are tokens of influence (of the purely psychological, socially agreed kind). So, money represents influence.
Money is a psycho-social influence management tool. Ie. if there's no-one else around, there is no-one to influence -> money is useless. If no-one recognizes your money, it has no influence. The only backing money needs is social acceptance (voluntary or otherwise). Thus, whoever has most money has most influence, regardless of the politics of society. Disproportionate money distribution = disproportionate influence distribution ("democracy" or not). Money = influence -> shapes economics and politics. Lack of money means lack of influence - well .. that kind of influence. Other kinds of influence may be available to those who lack money-influence. Eg. the use of force (arm twisting, shotguns, etc.)
And all this time I though that Dogbert was a member of the FED. Maybe they throw him out and thus the need to create a competing currency.
Money is supposed to represent effort. And yet, we are feed over and over currencies based on nothing in exchange for real things and real work. Currencies backed up by nothing. Some state sponsored. Some private, (like Bitcoin).
For example, in the USA, Gold was $18.32 an once on December 21, 1913 (the day Congress relinquish the USA sovereignty to the Unconstitutional "Federal" Reserve). As of today gold is worth $1,317.38. Meaning one dollar today is worth only 1.3% of what one dollar was worth when the Unconstitutional "Federal" Reserve took control of money. In other words, the FED has either being 98.7% inefficient or 98.7% efficient. Depending if their goal is to better the economy or stealing wealth. They are either really lousy. Or they are efficiently evil.