What happens if someone destroy money?
Depending on the country, nothing.  For example, the US has about $1.3 trillion dollars of cash in circulation.  Which means that if you were to burn a million dollars of it, that would be 0.000077% of  the circulating cash.  But cash is a small portion of the actual money in the US.  Only about 8% of all money is in cash, the rest is in other forms of value, which means that you'd only be destroying 0.0000062% of the US's money if you burned a full $1,000,000.
"I appreciate the detailed responses, truthfully however I feel like at least half of your points are either just argumentative for its sake alone, display a deep lack of understanding of unions, collective bargaining, and the histories of both, or ignore pragmatism and cling to an uncompromising and ultimately self-defeating ideology.  &gt; Collective bargaining is an ambiguous term that could refer to many concepts. There is voluntarily agreed to collective bargaining, which has nothing wrong with it, and then there are laws that FORCE the employer to collectively bargain with a union if a union requests it, which is a mandate and violates the employer's contract liberty.  The law forces the two parties to sit at a table. The law forces the two parties to discuss a few core things, like wages. The law *doesn't* force anyone to agree to anything, and very often they don't. I don't see how this is a violation of anyone's ""contract liberty"" (a term I've actually never heard before). The idea is since these worker-employer disputes exist naturally, making them at least sit at a table together and talking is helpful in avoiding ego and testosterone fueled disruptions where no one benefits. If this you see this as a violation of one's liberty, I really don't know what to say to that.   &gt; The prevalence of child labor was decreasing long before any law was created prohibiting it. Child labor is necessary in poor countries because people are far less productive per hour worked.   I'm not saying I don't believe you, but citation needed.  &gt; As productivity increases, parents can afford to send their children off to school instead of working, since their own work is enough to support the family.  Wouldn't educating children first lead to an increase in productivity? Also, what if the owners of the means of production, only a few in an given area, have incomes 100x greater than the workers? They seem to be producing enough wealth to support themselves, only they're not the beneficiaries. What's the solution here?  I understand that in a poor country child labor is seen as a necessity; however I think there is a moral issue when someone from a developed nation opens a factory in a third-world country with conditions that they would not want someone in their own family subjected to. Maybe these conditions are standard in the third-world country, but just because they're standard that doesn't mean the people there are happy with them.  &gt; In other words, no government mandate created due to union-pressure can possibly lead to beneficial change, since laws that limit people's economic rights, under the assumption that 51% knows what's better for the minority than they themselves do, generally do much more harm than good.     This is quite a leap. Problem is you always assume that a company is always paying workers as much as it can instead of having a net income that can absorb an uptick in overhead.   &gt; As history over the last century has shown, it's no hyperbole. Labor unions-backed regulations (soft-socialism) has succeeded in spite of the resistance of employers.  And you owe this to violence or the threat of violence? Citation needed.  &gt; Because unions have destroyed nearly every major industry where they had a natural tendency to form (large scale capital intensive manufacturing operations where large numbers of workers were concentrated in one place).  This is typical anti-union propaganda, and it's funny you pull it out since it ignores your own ideology. What interest would a union have in destroying the very industry it needs to exist? Answer: none. This is just a way for a business to deflect criticism when they want to outsource, killing US jobs just to increase their net income. Unions make concessions when they have to.  &gt; The force of government prevents companies from refusing to collectively bargain with a labor union. Threat of violence? Violent strikes? This is a straw-man if I've ever seen one. Who is threatening violence here? This existed before government laws were created that made legal threats on behalf of employees that want to keep unionized employees employed and force companies to collectively bargain with a union. Now of course the strikers themselves are not directly threatening violence, since they are backed by the force of government.  This is just showing a tremendous amount of ignorance regarding the way  things actually happen.  &gt; Collectively bargaining doesn't benefit workers in general. It benefits in the short-term, those workers who are employed and unionized, at the expense of long-term wage growth and employment opportunities for the unemployed and non-unionized employees.  I have no idea how one could come to this conclusion. I can only assume it  stems from the same old idea that employers are always paying out the most that they can afford.   I happen to have first-hand knowledge that it's false however - when my workplace unionized recently, one of around a dozen locations nationally and the only one to organize, the company responded by increasing wages and benefits to all locations. Have any locations closed? No. Has anyone been laid off? No. Is the company still mad profitable? Yes." What happens to consumer debt if a   country defaults on its debt?  Nothing, just as nothing happens to your debt when your neighbor defaults. If you have debts that have floating interest rates - those may (and probably will) hike. how will a debt default by a country   affect government-backed loans such as   mortgages and student loans? Those that are already closed will probably not be affected, as you've got the money already and signed the loan agreement. Those that are not closed - will probably be delayed or not funded at all. However, if any of the debts allows the debtor to request an early collection (which I think is rather rare on the consumer market) - someone else's default may lead to the debtor's request for the money earlier than expected. While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started as a relative moderate price insurance, it quickly became expensive, unaffordable, tax for those who don't want/need it, and hard to get as in some states you have only one choice (or no choices very soon).  It destroys and destroyed the medical profession. Doctors have no control on how and what they get paid for their work. You can't be an independent doctor and what you paid is very little, not worth your time in many cases.  It's even costly for the insurance companies and many of them dropped from the program.  Trump and I are NOT(!) against National healthcare system.  Both Trump and me want to fix the system and make it reasonable, better and fair. The title of your question basically asks: What can I do? And you state this regarding the meeting and “advice” they gave towards criticism of their method: While this they also indoctrinated that you should avoid talking to   people talking bad about it (or say it is scam) because you gain no   money from them and they just want to destroy your business. First, you really cannot do anything to “save” your friend if they have bought this nonsense. You are right, it’s a scam. But past stating as such to your friend, there is not much you can do past shielding yourself. The reality is this: Any scenario you are in where you cannot ask basic questions and get a reasonable response or are given—at least—the option to walk away unscathed or uninsulated is basically a cult-like mentality. Simple as that. If the first thing someone tells you is “Don’t listen to others, just listen to me…” then you need to excuse yourself to go to the bathroom or something and just leave. From my personal experience meeting people who are successful and have power, they always—and I mean always—ask questions and are critical of things they invest in… Whether that investment is time, money or just basic mental energy. Rich people are just like you and me! Except they have more money so they can take bigger risks. Critical thinking and the ability to walk away from something are key life skills. Now others have talked salesman psychology which is on point. But here is something else you brought up in your question: He also wants to use his position as respected member of multiple   local youth and other communities to get their members as referals or   in his words “…to give them the oppurtunity to also simply earn   money.” Okay, so you can set personal boundaries between you and this clown, but you cannot stop him. But if he plans on targeting people and organizations in your community, you can warn them about him and his behavior and this scam. Chances are other people will know right away it’s a scam, but honestly if you feel the need to help others, that’s the most reasonable thing you can do to help them. But whatever you do, don’t take any of this emotional crap personally. If anything, maybe you can learn some reverse salesman techniques to get this “friend” to disengage. Such as only meeting with them in public and if they say something really vile to you, repeating what they said back to them as a question… Maybe even louder so everyone can hear. Remember a harsh reality of life: Public shaming can work to change someone’s behavior but you never want to do something like that unless you have utterly no choice. That last bit of advice is pretty harsh, but the reality is at some point you need to do something to “smack” reality into the situation. "Absolutely no conditions.  The central bank just uses the money as if it were real money, which is technically becomes.  They just simply buy financial products.  It's as if I had a printing press in my basement.  I would just print the cash, then walk into a store and buy some products.  Anyone with half a brain can obviously see that this is not a solution, but a temporary band-aid with devastating consequences.  I believe there are three types of people involved here.  People who don't understand what's going on (most people), people who understand it and are OK with the obvious fraud, inflation, and wealth re-distribution which benefits the 1%, or people who are against it and actively seek to abolish central banks.  We're the ones the media calls ""crazy"".  You'd be surprised at how many people understand it and still advocate it.  If you'd like to read a book about this topic and the other horrible practices of today's major central banks, read ""[End the Fed](http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/0446549193)"" by Ron Paul." u just dont understand how money works.  u think u do, but u dont.  u dont even understand the problem.   the govt printed over 7 trillion, where is the hyperinflation?   explain to me what caused the inflation from 2001 to 2007 up until the bubble collapse and financial collapse of 2008.    and don't say fed 'money printing' coz it ain't true. don't say fractional reserve multiplier effect, coz that ain't true either.  see u don't even know.  if u keep arguing with me ur gonna get embarassed.  if u ask nicely, maybe i'll tell u. What about people who's products aren't bought?  People who get paid to make money out of thin air.    And what happens when those people make enough money to buy legislation that benefits themselves while hurting people who actually do make stuff for a living?  And what happens when those people's activities cause the world economy to come crashing down?  And what happens when those people's losses are involuntarily insured by people who had nothing to do with the problem in the first place?  This isn't as simple as not buying an iPad because you think Apple charges too much. Nothing really tangible is lost when bits of paper or shiny rocks disappear.  Economies are built on raw materials, equipment, production facilities, and people doing work.  Compared to that, any medium of exchange can easily be replaced.