Topic: What would happen if everyone got 1000 USD every month? (Read 7475 times)
Hyperinflation, it would just make everything cost $1000 a month more.
Money has to be produced to faciliatate the trade, this is the original reason of money printing
If you give people money, it is better ask people to do something to exchange for it, if they can get if for free, then it will lose credibility
But in a rich society, anyway you will give money to some people for free since they are at too low efficiency thus become pure consumers, this is unavoidable due to all the production have been more or less centralized to a couple of international corporations
I have seen a rich family who owns a big enterprise, their children just take what ever job they like in the company, but they do not really contribute anything, just work for fun and take their salary. This is another kind of pure consumer
If you give people money, it is better ask people to do something to exchange for it, if they can get if for free, then it will lose credibility
But in a rich society, anyway you will give money to some people for free since they are at too low efficiency thus become pure consumers, this is unavoidable due to all the production have been more or less centralized to a couple of international corporations
I have seen a rich family who owns a big enterprise, their children just take what ever job they like in the company, but they do not really contribute anything, just work for fun and take their salary. This is another kind of pure consumer
What would happen if everyone got 1000 USD every month?
You may think this is an ideology-neutral idea, but it is not. It works against capitalism. Worker's insecurity is good for the system, etc. So, what would happen is that this imaginary country would first be politely asked to reverse the decision, then a "pro-democracy" movement would be financed by the capitalists, then an armed rebelion might start with their support, then trade sanctions would be imposed, then there would be attempts to poison the president, then this might be escalated to an aerial bombardment by NATO, and if this doesn't work, ground forces would be sent in to invade and re-educate this country. Speaking of which, it would be much harder to find recruits for your ground forces if you were handing out a thousand bucks to each miserable kid in trailer parks of Alabama and Kentucky.
You may think this is an ideology-neutral idea, but it is not. It works against capitalism. Worker's insecurity is good for the system, etc. So, what would happen is that this imaginary country would first be politely asked to reverse the decision, then a "pro-democracy" movement would be financed by the capitalists, then an armed rebelion might start with their support, then trade sanctions would be imposed, then there would be attempts to poison the president, then this might be escalated to an aerial bombardment by NATO, and if this doesn't work, ground forces would be sent in to invade and re-educate this country. Speaking of which, it would be much harder to find recruits for your ground forces if you were handing out a thousand bucks to each miserable kid in trailer parks of Alabama and Kentucky.
Exactly. Just one minor point: It doesn't work against capitalism if you use this as a synonym for "free market system", it works against the fiscal-financial complex, which is about as capitalist as the Soviet Central Planning Comittee.
Over time the language changed but a promise of redemption existed up to the very last US note.
Thanks for that interesting excursion into US Dollar history. Are you sure they didn't rely on people not to actually redeem the notes? I like the rationale of Mephisto in Goethe's Faust: The gold backed currency of the emperor is actually backed by gold yet to be mined. Still good enough to pay the soldiers. Goethe must have known - he was finance minister in Weimar after he left the secret service.
But Lincoln's bag of tricks should provide guidance for today's fuckup. Lincoln had to finance a war. Many similarities to today. The US has to recover from excessive spending for a number of stupid wars, Europe has to recover from an excessive social security system.
Unless you think Bitcoin is ready for prime time and the banksters will peacefully go home and turn off the lights.
The United States Note was the last national currency of the US. I was incorrect in saying it was never unbacked fiat. Due to the cost of the civil war (and the removal of the Congressional seats of the south where "hard money" was more popular) the US federal government did print without backing of precious metal from 1861-1874. Part of the reason was that the civil war was very unpopular in the North (depsite the whitewashing attempts over the years). If the civil war had to be financed by raising taxes it likely would have never been won. Ironically it was the use of "taxation" via deception through inflation which is what I indicated a "print to spend" system does. Much harder to explain the loss of purchasing power due to inflation to the masses then a direct tax. The change was very unpopular and was repealed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resumption_Act
Even with the war time unbacked spending there are two things which separate it from an unbacked fiat currency. The first is that after 1874 all US notes could still be redeemed for gold or silver even the ones issued between 1861 and 1874. Due to the law of 1875 the government in the long run didn't issue unbacked currency it instead incurred a debt. Iit needed to boost its silver/gold reserves of the coming decades so the reserves matched the number of notes minted. Today US notes are no longer redeemable for gold or silver however they remain a debt of the US government, as the government needs to exchange them for Reserve Notes (which is must issue debt to acquire). The treasury estimates there are roughly $230 million US notes (and slowly falling due to loss and redemption) in circulation and they contribute to the total indebtedness of the federal government.
If you look close you will notice something interesting about this note. Today most people would call this a "twenty dollar bill" right? Well not exactly. Notice it says "will pay twenty dollars to bearer". This note wasn't twenty dollars. This note was an IOU. A promise to pay the redeemer twenty dollars. So what was a dollar? 371 grains of silver. So you could redeem this note (which isn't dollars) for twenty dollars worth of silver. Notice that dollar was a unit of measure. Like saying a gallon of water, or an ounce of gold you could say twenty dollars of silver.
Over time the language changed but a promise of redemption existed up to the very last US note. After 1900 dollars were no longer redeemable for silver (only gold) so when the treasury would run short of gold and had an excess of silver it would issue silver certs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resumption_Act
Even with the war time unbacked spending there are two things which separate it from an unbacked fiat currency. The first is that after 1874 all US notes could still be redeemed for gold or silver even the ones issued between 1861 and 1874. Due to the law of 1875 the government in the long run didn't issue unbacked currency it instead incurred a debt. Iit needed to boost its silver/gold reserves of the coming decades so the reserves matched the number of notes minted. Today US notes are no longer redeemable for gold or silver however they remain a debt of the US government, as the government needs to exchange them for Reserve Notes (which is must issue debt to acquire). The treasury estimates there are roughly $230 million US notes (and slowly falling due to loss and redemption) in circulation and they contribute to the total indebtedness of the federal government.
If you look close you will notice something interesting about this note. Today most people would call this a "twenty dollar bill" right? Well not exactly. Notice it says "will pay twenty dollars to bearer". This note wasn't twenty dollars. This note was an IOU. A promise to pay the redeemer twenty dollars. So what was a dollar? 371 grains of silver. So you could redeem this note (which isn't dollars) for twenty dollars worth of silver. Notice that dollar was a unit of measure. Like saying a gallon of water, or an ounce of gold you could say twenty dollars of silver.
Over time the language changed but a promise of redemption existed up to the very last US note. After 1900 dollars were no longer redeemable for silver (only gold) so when the treasury would run short of gold and had an excess of silver it would issue silver certs.
What would happen if everyone got 1000 USD every month?
You may think this is an ideology-neutral idea, but it is not. It works against capitalism. Worker's insecurity is good for the system, etc. So, what would happen is that this imaginary country would first be politely asked to reverse the decision, then a "pro-democracy" movement would be financed by the capitalists, then an armed rebelion might start with their support, then trade sanctions would be imposed, then there would be attempts to poison the president, then this might be escalated to an aerial bombardment by NATO, and if this doesn't work, ground forces would be sent in to invade and re-educate this country. Speaking of which, it would be much harder to find recruits for your ground forces if you were handing out a thousand bucks to each miserable kid in trailer parks of Alabama and Kentucky.
You may think this is an ideology-neutral idea, but it is not. It works against capitalism. Worker's insecurity is good for the system, etc. So, what would happen is that this imaginary country would first be politely asked to reverse the decision, then a "pro-democracy" movement would be financed by the capitalists, then an armed rebelion might start with their support, then trade sanctions would be imposed, then there would be attempts to poison the president, then this might be escalated to an aerial bombardment by NATO, and if this doesn't work, ground forces would be sent in to invade and re-educate this country. Speaking of which, it would be much harder to find recruits for your ground forces if you were handing out a thousand bucks to each miserable kid in trailer parks of Alabama and Kentucky.
Exactly. Just one minor point: It doesn't work against capitalism if you use this as a synonym for "free market system", it works against the fiscal-financial complex, which is about as capitalist as the Soviet Central Planning Comittee.
The US government never issued debt free fiat. The US govt did issue gold back currency but that wouldn't be fiat.
Then could you please explain me what a greenback is? In my understanding, it was a treasury note which was spent into existence and not created from debt - just what OP proposes.
Which is very much not the same as a Federal
You honestly think it would be better if governments simply printed what they wanted when they wanted?
My opinion?
No, I agree with you that governments have been proven untrustworthy time and again. But unlike you I don't see how a central bank and fractional reserve banking makes things better. On the contrary: The whole fiscal financial complex is a huge machine for redistribution of wealth from the hard working to the ultra rich. The existence of the Reichsbank certainly did nothing to prevent the hyperinflation in 1923. Nor the deflation after 1929 which made many house owners default without even a bubble bursting. Which was of course the intention after the Hauszinssteuer was introduced, so the banks could gobble up all the real estate. So much for the beneficial role of the Reichsbank in particular and central banks in general.
I think everyone, including the government, should be able to create fiat. If they find people to accept them - why not. There should not be legal tender laws to coerce people to accept a particular currency. Of course it will depend on your reputation if people will accept your fiat.
I think it should be illegal to charge interest on money that comes into existence by the act of lending it out. The whole fractional reserve banking is a scam.
The ultimate money is commodity. I think in a system with no legal tender, Gresham's law will sort things out. If there is a role for fiat, it willl play one. If not, then not. I will not be sad.
But this is all my wish thinking for a financial system. From where we are now I think it would indeed be a good idea if govt monetizes the debt necessary to eliminate the central banks. Under such measures, OPs proposal makes sense to me.
What would happen if everyone got 1000 USD every month?
You may think this is an ideology-neutral idea, but it is not. It works against capitalism. Worker's insecurity is good for the system, etc. So, what would happen is that this imaginary country would first be politely asked to reverse the decision, then a "pro-democracy" movement would be financed by the capitalists, then an armed rebelion might start with their support, then trade sanctions would be imposed, then there would be attempts to poison the president, then this might be escalated to an aerial bombardment by NATO, and if this doesn't work, ground forces would be sent in to invade and re-educate this country. Speaking of which, it would be much harder to find recruits for your ground forces if you were handing out a thousand bucks to each miserable kid in trailer parks of Alabama and Kentucky.
You may think this is an ideology-neutral idea, but it is not. It works against capitalism. Worker's insecurity is good for the system, etc. So, what would happen is that this imaginary country would first be politely asked to reverse the decision, then a "pro-democracy" movement would be financed by the capitalists, then an armed rebelion might start with their support, then trade sanctions would be imposed, then there would be attempts to poison the president, then this might be escalated to an aerial bombardment by NATO, and if this doesn't work, ground forces would be sent in to invade and re-educate this country. Speaking of which, it would be much harder to find recruits for your ground forces if you were handing out a thousand bucks to each miserable kid in trailer parks of Alabama and Kentucky.
The US government never issued debt free fiat. The US govt did issue gold back currency but that wouldn't be fiat. During the period of "free gold" you could bring 1 oz of gold to US Bank and receive 1 oz worth of dollars or bring dollars worth 1oz of gold and receive 1 oz of gold. The gold would then be shipped to a US repository and formed the "backing" for the notes issued. Alternatively you could bring 1 oz of gold to the US mint and they would mint it into a new US coin (for a small seignorage fee). In the early history of the US government it didn't have much of a credit rating. The gold backing was the only reason anyone (foreign govt or individual) would accept the notes.
Countries which simply print as much money as they need end up in hyperinflation.
I mean look at the US debt expansion (excess spending is covered by debt financing rather than pure printing). In 1941 the US national debt was ~$50B. Really think about that. The combined surpluses and shortfalls of the US federal government for the first 165 years was $50 billion. By 2000 that had reached $5,600B. Still it took six decades. Another way to look at it is the federal govt was spending beyond its means by "less than" $1,000B per decade. The federal debt is now $15,500B. An expansion of almost $10,000B in little over a decade. The government overspent in the last year 20x as much as it did in the first 165 years COMBINED. Without the "debt ceiling" the projected budgets (which likely are overly optimistic) through 2016 put the debt expansion to $20T (more than 120% of GDP). The government is spending over a $1T a year more than it has. A trillion dollars a year.
You honestly think it would be better if governments simply printed what they wanted when they wanted? A trillion, ten trillion, hundred trillion, a quadrillion dollars? Even with the token constraint of the need for the government to balance receipts and revenue (and fund the difference with debt) governments (not just the US but all modern governments) have borrowed utterly insane amounts.
They have shown an utterly reckless inability to "leave within their means" even with the ability to unilaterally confiscate any and all wealth they see fit. Government aren't responsible. Given them the ability to print unlimited money and they certainly will try to print an unlimited amount.
The end result of every government which hasn't balanced receipts with revenue has been Hyperinflation.
Countries which simply print as much money as they need end up in hyperinflation.
I mean look at the US debt expansion (excess spending is covered by debt financing rather than pure printing). In 1941 the US national debt was ~$50B. Really think about that. The combined surpluses and shortfalls of the US federal government for the first 165 years was $50 billion. By 2000 that had reached $5,600B. Still it took six decades. Another way to look at it is the federal govt was spending beyond its means by "less than" $1,000B per decade. The federal debt is now $15,500B. An expansion of almost $10,000B in little over a decade. The government overspent in the last year 20x as much as it did in the first 165 years COMBINED. Without the "debt ceiling" the projected budgets (which likely are overly optimistic) through 2016 put the debt expansion to $20T (more than 120% of GDP). The government is spending over a $1T a year more than it has. A trillion dollars a year.
You honestly think it would be better if governments simply printed what they wanted when they wanted? A trillion, ten trillion, hundred trillion, a quadrillion dollars? Even with the token constraint of the need for the government to balance receipts and revenue (and fund the difference with debt) governments (not just the US but all modern governments) have borrowed utterly insane amounts.
They have shown an utterly reckless inability to "leave within their means" even with the ability to unilaterally confiscate any and all wealth they see fit. Government aren't responsible. Given them the ability to print unlimited money and they certainly will try to print an unlimited amount.
The end result of every government which hasn't balanced receipts with revenue has been Hyperinflation.
Statistics. Does that include the fact that people have 2 jobs now? Or the whole family 3? While in 1970 it was sufficient to feed a family with one earner?
But the real issue is IMHO OP's proposal that govt issues debt free fiat (as opposed to central bank created debt money). Like the US did in it's early history in periods when central banks have been banned - like under President Jackson. And also Lincoln, I believe.
I never really understood why governments have to issue bonds for debt that always expands when they can also issue notes.
Money isn't wealth. Increased money doesn't result in increased wealth. Money is merely an accounting system. Increased Productivity results in increased wealth. You can't produce wealth by merely changing the accounting "rules". All you are doing is moving wealth from one person to another. The net effect is zero.
The type of money matters. Our money is all created from debt, which means there is interest on all money. This is at the heart of the current debt crisis.
The proposal was to spend debt free fiat money into existence. The proposal further was to simply give the newly created money equally to citizen.
If you think this is socialism and paid for by the rich: Did you ever wonder why productivity in many industries increased 1000% and more the last 40 years while wealth declined for 99%? Is it maybe because interest payment of the 95% wage slaves go to the 0.0001%, leaving a mere 5% of free citizen? (Free = not too poor to quit)
If you want to debate come armed with facts (or at least fake stats which could possibly be mistaken for correct).
Hint: interest doesn't make up 95% of anything.
Wealth has increased for the 99% over the last 40 years.
Money isn't wealth. Increased money doesn't result in increased wealth. Money is merely an accounting system. Increased Productivity results in increased wealth. You can't produce wealth by merely changing the accounting "rules". All you are doing is moving wealth from one person to another. The net effect is zero.
The type of money matters. Our money is all created from debt, which means there is interest on all money. This is at the heart of the current debt crisis.
The proposal was to spend debt free fiat money into existence. The proposal further was to simply give the newly created money equally to citizen.
If you think this is socialism and paid for by the rich: Did you ever wonder why productivity in many industries increased 1000% and more the last 40 years while wealth declined for 99%? Is it maybe because interest payment of the 95% wage slaves go to the 0.0001%, leaving a mere 5% of free citizen? (Free = not too poor to quit)
OP it is still socialism and it is still paid for (mostly) by the rich.
It is a indirect form of wealth confiscation and transfer. Not materially different in the outcome of using taxes to fund welfare or other programs.
The fact that you make it universal doesn't really change anything other than how it is implemented.
Now lets compare two example persons in this economy:
Now lets look at the "post print & give" economy.
You have taken wealth from one person and given it to another.
Note that for these two people you could acheive the exact same goal (transfer of wealth from rich to poor) via a tax funded welfare program.
Say instead of operation "print & give" you had instead given $7,500 in welfare to anyone below the poverty line and paid for it with a tax increase of 13% on the income of everyone above it.
Under that scenario:
Homeless man. $5K in income + $7,500 govt handout = $12,500 in income (money supply not expanded) An increase of 150%.
Business owner. $250 income - (13% tax = $33K tax) = $216K in income (money supply not expanded) A decrease of 13%.
Exactly the same outcome (in inflation adjusted dollars = purchasing power) as the "print & give".
Money isn't wealth. Increased money doesn't result in increased wealth. Money is merely an accounting system. Increased Productivity results in increased wealth. You can't produce wealth by merely changing the accounting "rules". All you are doing is moving wealth from one person to another. The net effect is zero.
Also to expand your mind a little a similar though process ... a government with control of the printing presses doesn't even need to collect taxes (or borrow). They govt can simply print enough money to cover operations and thus "tax" people indirectly via inflation. For example the US govt spends roughly 25% of GDP. The govt could simply print 25% more money each year and collect no taxes and issue no treasury bonds. Someone making $100K would simply be "taxed" $20K because the price of all goods and services would rise 25% and thus $100K would only buy what $80K bought the year prior. Government choose taxation over monetizing operation costs because it allows them to influence (manipulate) via tax policy. With indirect "taxation" via inflation the effect is universal (i.e. solar panels rise in price as much as crack cocaine does).
The reverse is also true. In the US there has over the years been a proposal called the "fair tax" it would be a flat sales tax to replace all other forms of taxation in the country. One criticism of sales taxes is they hurt the work (especially the working poor). The "fair tax" system would use a prebate. If the sales tax is 20% and you wanted to in effect make the first $30K in income "tax free" the government would simply (in this case via collected funds not via printing) send $30,000 * 20% = $6,000 to every person. So a family making $50K would have $50K + $6K = $56K. Lets pretend they save nothing and spend it all. They would pay 20% * $56K = $11K in taxes at the cash register - $6K prebate = ~$5K in taxes for an effective tax rate of 10%. Someone making $30K would have an effective tax rate of 0%. Someone making (technically spending) $1,000,000 would have an effective tax rate of 19.4%. Someone making $200M would have an effective tax rate of 19.997%.
It is a indirect form of wealth confiscation and transfer. Not materially different in the outcome of using taxes to fund welfare or other programs.
The fact that you make it universal doesn't really change anything other than how it is implemented.
Quote
Hypothetical scenario.
Population is 1 million people.
Total GDP: $50 billion.
Most modern economies have a velocity of ~1 so lets assume monetary base (pre "print & give") is ~= GDP = $50 billion
We will call this the "pre print & give economy".
Population is 1 million people.
Total GDP: $50 billion.
Most modern economies have a velocity of ~1 so lets assume monetary base (pre "print & give") is ~= GDP = $50 billion
We will call this the "pre print & give economy".
Now lets compare two example persons in this economy:
Quote
homeless man
Income of $5,000 annually (odd jobs, panhandling, crime, etc).
The $5K has $5K of purchasing power in the "pre print & give economy"
small business owner
Income of $250,000 annually.*
The $250K has $250K of purchasing power in the "pre print & give economy"
* Technically the the SB owner would pay taxes and thus his post tax income would be lower however it doesn't materially change this comparison so for simplicity it has been left off.
Income of $5,000 annually (odd jobs, panhandling, crime, etc).
The $5K has $5K of purchasing power in the "pre print & give economy"
small business owner
Income of $250,000 annually.*
The $250K has $250K of purchasing power in the "pre print & give economy"
* Technically the the SB owner would pay taxes and thus his post tax income would be lower however it doesn't materially change this comparison so for simplicity it has been left off.
Now lets look at the "post print & give" economy.
Quote
Now the govt prints an additional $10K and gives it to every person so that increases the money supply by $10B.
No additional wealth has been created. Money is merely an accounting system. You now have more slips of paper (physical or digital) which can be exchanged for the same amount of goods and services.
We would expect to see ($10B + $50B) / ($50B) = 20% price inflation.
So lets go back to our two persons.
The homeless man now has $5K + $10K = $15K in income.
However prices have increased 20% so his purchasing power (in pre "print & give" dollars) is $15K / 1.2 = $12.5K annually.
An increase of 150%. Remember nominal numbers are irrelivent. If tomorrow your central bank doubled the effective money supply you would expect prices (including your wages) to double however you wouldn't be any richer
or poorer. Adjusted for inflation (in real terms) you income and wealth would be exactly the same.
The business owner now has $250K + $10K = $260K in income.
However prices have increased 20% so his purchasing power (in pre "print & give" dollars) is $260K / 1.2 = $216K annually.
An decrease of 13%.
No additional wealth has been created. Money is merely an accounting system. You now have more slips of paper (physical or digital) which can be exchanged for the same amount of goods and services.
We would expect to see ($10B + $50B) / ($50B) = 20% price inflation.
So lets go back to our two persons.
The homeless man now has $5K + $10K = $15K in income.
However prices have increased 20% so his purchasing power (in pre "print & give" dollars) is $15K / 1.2 = $12.5K annually.
An increase of 150%. Remember nominal numbers are irrelivent. If tomorrow your central bank doubled the effective money supply you would expect prices (including your wages) to double however you wouldn't be any richer
or poorer. Adjusted for inflation (in real terms) you income and wealth would be exactly the same.
The business owner now has $250K + $10K = $260K in income.
However prices have increased 20% so his purchasing power (in pre "print & give" dollars) is $260K / 1.2 = $216K annually.
An decrease of 13%.
You have taken wealth from one person and given it to another.
Note that for these two people you could acheive the exact same goal (transfer of wealth from rich to poor) via a tax funded welfare program.
Say instead of operation "print & give" you had instead given $7,500 in welfare to anyone below the poverty line and paid for it with a tax increase of 13% on the income of everyone above it.
Under that scenario:
Homeless man. $5K in income + $7,500 govt handout = $12,500 in income (money supply not expanded) An increase of 150%.
Business owner. $250 income - (13% tax = $33K tax) = $216K in income (money supply not expanded) A decrease of 13%.
Exactly the same outcome (in inflation adjusted dollars = purchasing power) as the "print & give".
Money isn't wealth. Increased money doesn't result in increased wealth. Money is merely an accounting system. Increased Productivity results in increased wealth. You can't produce wealth by merely changing the accounting "rules". All you are doing is moving wealth from one person to another. The net effect is zero.
Also to expand your mind a little a similar though process ... a government with control of the printing presses doesn't even need to collect taxes (or borrow). They govt can simply print enough money to cover operations and thus "tax" people indirectly via inflation. For example the US govt spends roughly 25% of GDP. The govt could simply print 25% more money each year and collect no taxes and issue no treasury bonds. Someone making $100K would simply be "taxed" $20K because the price of all goods and services would rise 25% and thus $100K would only buy what $80K bought the year prior. Government choose taxation over monetizing operation costs because it allows them to influence (manipulate) via tax policy. With indirect "taxation" via inflation the effect is universal (i.e. solar panels rise in price as much as crack cocaine does).
The reverse is also true. In the US there has over the years been a proposal called the "fair tax" it would be a flat sales tax to replace all other forms of taxation in the country. One criticism of sales taxes is they hurt the work (especially the working poor). The "fair tax" system would use a prebate. If the sales tax is 20% and you wanted to in effect make the first $30K in income "tax free" the government would simply (in this case via collected funds not via printing) send $30,000 * 20% = $6,000 to every person. So a family making $50K would have $50K + $6K = $56K. Lets pretend they save nothing and spend it all. They would pay 20% * $56K = $11K in taxes at the cash register - $6K prebate = ~$5K in taxes for an effective tax rate of 10%. Someone making $30K would have an effective tax rate of 0%. Someone making (technically spending) $1,000,000 would have an effective tax rate of 19.4%. Someone making $200M would have an effective tax rate of 19.997%.
All of this! Op, I think your intentions are basically good but what you have to realize is that inflation is just another tax when the gov prints more money. It also disproportionately affects the rich (just like the current tax code). Printing more money and/or taking more from the rich (job creators) is, IMO, never the correct answer to fixing an economy.
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" 
every single person would receive 1000 USD (like direct from the printing press) could improve things.
Governments certainly could spend money into existence like that. Unfortunately they are under the influence of the banking system. As it is, everyone believes that new money must be created as debt and everything else (including Bitcoin) is evil.
That said, creating $1,000 per nose and month would certainly debase the money even faster than the ECB and the FED is doing it now. But a smaller amount, say, $100 per nose of debt free money would IMHO do much more good than those $100 by getting things going again.
[EDIT] I should make it clear that YOU exist for the benefit of the fiscal financial complex, not the other way round. So it should be clear that your idea is completely counter productive as it would set you free from wage slavery. The system wants you to be indebted. Submit to it.
Looks like you didn't read my post. I am not saying everyone basically gets the same, like in socialism. I ask about people receiving an addition to whatever they earn anyways. Things would not change other than that. Please, either learn about what socialism is or read my post.
Looks like you didn't understand my post. If you do not understand that your proposal is wealth redistribution, and that this could have reduced incentive to work as an effect, well...
Only for a while though, if your 1000$ bonus is fixed and not adjusted for inflation, it would soon be pretty worthless...
By the way, the reduced incentive thingie is still somewhat debatable, whereas claiming this proposal wouldn't result in inflation is downright laughable...
Please, either think some more about what you are proposing or stop giving arrogant answers.
EDIT: Afterwards I realised this wasn't a very mature reply, I know you mean no harm, I was just quite pissed at the time :-)
Why kill anyone ? Where this come from ? No need to kill anyone !
Scarcity is the product of the monetary system we all live in.
There is much more ressource than needed to fullfill anyone needs and more !
Scarcity is the product of the monetary system we all live in.
There is much more ressource than needed to fullfill anyone needs and more !
Money is evil, Capitalism, Socialism, FreeMarketism, any-money-involved-ism is can't be a good way to manage peoples, population. Go read about RBE (Ressource Based Economy) - the only way I know that could be sustainable, durable, and good for each and every earthling.. To acheive it, we must first make big change in our value.
And our population. Kill 'em all!
Money is evil, Capitalism, Socialism, FreeMarketism, any-money-involved-ism is can't be a good way to manage peoples, population. Go read about RBE (Ressource Based Economy) - the only way I know that could be sustainable, durable, and good for each and every earthling.. To acheive it, we must first make big change in our value.
What if we say like this: You get $10000 dollar for free each month, but you must guarantee that you don't make inflation rate higher!
And we tell you that inflation rate is measured by calculating the price of a basket of goods, so please do not buy any goods in that basket with your free money
You end up buying a house instead
And we tell you that inflation rate is measured by calculating the price of a basket of goods, so please do not buy any goods in that basket with your free money
You end up buying a house instead
Printing money and give it to everyone at the same time seems will lift the price of every thing, but that is not exactly true either, since some people will save some of that extra income
Surely some people will save more, but on the whole people will flee from saving in a unit that is being debauched. Unless it can be done in a way that gives credibility to the notion that it will not be done again (highly unlikely) prices will rise by more than the increase in the supply. The existence (or lack of) of alternatives is an enormous factor as well.
This is very true, but I think the people's believe in USD is still mainstream
This would completely devalue the USD and make coins completely worthless. The paper that is used to make a dollar bill will probably become worth more than the dollar itself.
Consumer prices would rise.
When NATO soldiers take time off in a small city, in their country of occupation. Local shop owners bump their prices to meet the extra demand - and the local starve as their living costs have risen.
Ten years ago, we started getting a yearly October "childrens-cheque", around 300$ pr. child in every family. It was thought like a tax break for families. in reality the retailers go into Christmas overdrive late September and we have two extra months with elevated prices. So the market adjusts to higher purchasing power with higher prices. Government get most of it back in sales taxes and employment in retail get a boost, but the families don't have more purchasing power than before. Poor families have a benefit as they extra money are used on basics.
So if you gave everybody 1000$/month it would just be inflation, prices would adjust and some businesses would make some extra profits the first months, but no one would get richer or gain a better standard of living. It's just like changing the denomination of a currency, everybody are now "Cents millionaires"..
Export of goods and services, and national natural resources gives wealth to society. Money are only for playing monopoly.
When NATO soldiers take time off in a small city, in their country of occupation. Local shop owners bump their prices to meet the extra demand - and the local starve as their living costs have risen.
Ten years ago, we started getting a yearly October "childrens-cheque", around 300$ pr. child in every family. It was thought like a tax break for families. in reality the retailers go into Christmas overdrive late September and we have two extra months with elevated prices. So the market adjusts to higher purchasing power with higher prices. Government get most of it back in sales taxes and employment in retail get a boost, but the families don't have more purchasing power than before. Poor families have a benefit as they extra money are used on basics.
So if you gave everybody 1000$/month it would just be inflation, prices would adjust and some businesses would make some extra profits the first months, but no one would get richer or gain a better standard of living. It's just like changing the denomination of a currency, everybody are now "Cents millionaires"..
Export of goods and services, and national natural resources gives wealth to society. Money are only for playing monopoly.
Increased money supply will not directly result inflation.
Oh, yes, it will and here is why.
Take for example state of Georgia where minimum wage is less then $5.15. A person who earns that for living and works full-time makes about $824.00 a month. The $1000 incentive gives him a pretty good reason to quit his job. You can say that a person might keep his job after he receives the check. I highly doubt this though. In my experience, people usually choose their dignity if circumstances allow. Who would want to work a crappy job if they have money rolling in guaranteed?
Now, a person who makes minimum wage usually works somewhere maintaining a business asset (cleaning it or what have you). If a whole bunch of people leave their jobs or posts rather, a whole lot of business assets are going to be unattended losing value even faster. I hope I do not have to illustrate the connection between inflation and asset devaluation to prove to you that you're wrong.
What will happen?
Printing money and give it to everyone at the same time seems will lift the price of every thing, but that is not exactly true either, since some people will save some of that extra income
Surely some people will save more, but on the whole people will flee from saving in a unit that is being debauched. Unless it can be done in a way that gives credibility to the notion that it will not be done again (highly unlikely) prices will rise by more than the increase in the supply. The existence (or lack of) of alternatives is an enormous factor as well.
Increased money supply will not directly result inflation, because there are two type of requirements of money:
1. transaction
2. saving
The first requirement is related to the produced goods and services in the whole society
The second requirement is much more complex. It varies a lot. During bad times, people tends to save a lot to deal with the bad perspective. And even during good times, people still save for the uncertain future, and this saving can continue endlessly (seen those people with lot's of heritage?), which dry up the money supply constantly
Banks will lend those saved money out, but in bad times, they could not lend that much, even in good times, they have to keep some reserve, saving anyway have an impact on money supply
Back to the topic, if everyone get $1000 per month, there will still be some people save part or all of that money, so the inflation will not be that significant
Inflation is a difficult topic, because it is dynamic. Technology advance will always create a downward pressure of price and increased money supply will counter this effect
Print and give me one thousand dollar, I put it under matress and I can guarantee it won't create any inflation for the society
1. transaction
2. saving
The first requirement is related to the produced goods and services in the whole society
The second requirement is much more complex. It varies a lot. During bad times, people tends to save a lot to deal with the bad perspective. And even during good times, people still save for the uncertain future, and this saving can continue endlessly (seen those people with lot's of heritage?), which dry up the money supply constantly
Banks will lend those saved money out, but in bad times, they could not lend that much, even in good times, they have to keep some reserve, saving anyway have an impact on money supply
Back to the topic, if everyone get $1000 per month, there will still be some people save part or all of that money, so the inflation will not be that significant
Inflation is a difficult topic, because it is dynamic. Technology advance will always create a downward pressure of price and increased money supply will counter this effect
Print and give me one thousand dollar, I put it under matress and I can guarantee it won't create any inflation for the society
Money isn't wealth. Increased money doesn't result in increased wealth. Money is merely an accounting system. Increased Productivity results in increased wealth. You can't produce wealth by merely changing the accounting "rules". All you are doing is moving wealth from one person to another. The net effect is zero.
This is mathematically correct, but time is missing in the formula, increased money supply normally do not reach everyone of the society at the same time
Money is a driven power, it drives activities where it flows. Everyone have experienced this: It is the area with most of heavy investments created most job, and those job will in turn result in more produced goods and services. And this is especially clear in a society with high jobless rate
Printing money and give it to everyone at the same time seems will lift the price of every thing, but that is not exactly true either, since some people will save some of that extra income
A Super-Duper-Hyperinflation and consequences of thereof...
Many people would take $1000 and quit their jobs, maybe most people
Won't be most of the people, only those people with bad paied jobs
Many people would take $1000 and quit their jobs, maybe most people
For anyone who thinks this would not be harmful, what is the problem (if any) with giving $10000 or $100000/mo?
Or just make the minimum wage law $100,000 per year (and while your at it tax income at >$100,000 at 100%). See the government doesn't own the means of production, it is still capitalism right?
For anyone who thinks this would not be harmful, what is the problem (if any) with giving $10000 or $100000/mo?
possible duplicate of https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/basic-income-guarantee-opinionscriticism-welcome-109958 ( Basic income guarantee - opinions&criticism welcome)
from there:
Bureaucracy is growing like cancer in Germany and is already suffocating the country. Like many things the welfare system is just too bureaucratic. There does not have to be a difference in the financial result for anyone compared to the current situation, basic income would just make things much easier and probably also have some positive psychological side effects.
Of course there needs to be something (majority vote?? ??) to keep the basic income from ever increasing.
[...]
so what would happen? if done right it would make the social system more efficient and make people happier. but the chance of politicians abusing it is quite high ("vote for me and I will double the basic income").
from there:
[...]
I welcome it in a very pragmatic sense for drastically reducing bureaucracy of our social system (only in theory though... we're in Germany after all
). I furthermore welcome the idea of eliminating existential fears, which I'm confident will create a better and more human standard of living with more care and happiness, and I do believe (unlike most libertarians) that a society with insufficient equality can not realize its full potential.
[...]
thisI welcome it in a very pragmatic sense for drastically reducing bureaucracy of our social system (only in theory though... we're in Germany after all
). I furthermore welcome the idea of eliminating existential fears, which I'm confident will create a better and more human standard of living with more care and happiness, and I do believe (unlike most libertarians) that a society with insufficient equality can not realize its full potential.[...]
Bureaucracy is growing like cancer in Germany and is already suffocating the country. Like many things the welfare system is just too bureaucratic. There does not have to be a difference in the financial result for anyone compared to the current situation, basic income would just make things much easier and probably also have some positive psychological side effects.
Of course there needs to be something (majority vote?? ??) to keep the basic income from ever increasing.
[...]
so what would happen? if done right it would make the social system more efficient and make people happier. but the chance of politicians abusing it is quite high ("vote for me and I will double the basic income").
Hey,
I didn't study economics, but I always was interested. With all the discussions about how fair things are these days I wonder whether a system where every single person would receive 1000 USD (like direct from the printing press) could improve things. I am not talking about minimum wage or whatever.
I didn't study economics, but I always was interested. With all the discussions about how fair things are these days I wonder whether a system where every single person would receive 1000 USD (like direct from the printing press) could improve things. I am not talking about minimum wage or whatever.
For illustration purposes, join me on a brief journey of the imagination. One beautiful morning, you wake up and realize that you own twice as much cash as you had just last night. Magic money elves entered your home and bank account and simply doubled your entire cash assets. You’re now twice as wealthy (or half as poor as the case may be)...
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/fiat-money-inflation-federal-reserve-2/
Agreed. My post was getting long so it shouldn't be considered an exhaustive analysis of governmental policy. There are numerous other reasons why taxation, especially via multiple methods is preferred.
Government choose taxation over monetizing operation costs because it allows them to influence (manipulate) via tax policy. With indirect "taxation" via inflation the effect is universal (i.e. solar panels rise in price as much as crack cocaine does).
The reason they don't try to fund their spending entirely through inflation is because the population would never tolerate it. They'd dump dollars and look for alternate places to store their savings (see Argentina).The only way the government can spend 25% of GDP is to get control of as many income streams as possible at their source, and to implement capital controls.
Note the idea of a BGI isn't new and it isn't necessarily bad. I personally would be for a BGI IF it replaced various other handouts (welfare, medicaid, foodstamps, disability, HUD homes program, low income housing subsidies, etc). It would be less "corrupt" and less open to misuse and abuse.
Still pretending it is different than taxation and welfare is intellectually dishonest. It is the confiscation of wealth from one group and the transfer of that wealth to another group via the government's monopoly of violence. Don't pretend that away.
Still pretending it is different than taxation and welfare is intellectually dishonest. It is the confiscation of wealth from one group and the transfer of that wealth to another group via the government's monopoly of violence. Don't pretend that away.
OP it is still socialism and it is still paid for (mostly) by the rich.
It is a indirect form of wealth confiscation and transfer. Not materially different in the outcome of using taxes to fund welfare or other programs.
The fact that you make it universal doesn't really change anything other than how it is implemented.
Now lets compare two example persons in this economy:
Now lets look at the "post print & give" economy.
You have taken wealth from one person and given it to another.
Note that for these two people you could acheive the exact same goal (transfer of wealth from rich to poor) via a tax funded welfare program.
Say instead of operation "print & give" you had instead given $7,500 in welfare to anyone below the poverty line and paid for it with a tax increase of 13% on the income of everyone above it.
Under that scenario:
Homeless man. $5K in income + $7,500 govt handout = $12,500 in income (money supply not expanded) An increase of 150%.
Business owner. $250 income - (13% tax = $33K tax) = $216K in income (money supply not expanded) A decrease of 13%.
Exactly the same outcome (in inflation adjusted dollars = purchasing power) as the "print & give".
Money isn't wealth. Increased money doesn't result in increased wealth. Money is merely an accounting system. Increased Productivity results in increased wealth. You can't produce wealth by merely changing the accounting "rules". All you are doing is moving wealth from one person to another. The net effect is zero.
Also to expand your mind a little a similar though process ... a government with control of the printing presses doesn't even need to collect taxes (or borrow). They govt can simply print enough money to cover operations and thus "tax" people indirectly via inflation. For example the US govt spends roughly 25% of GDP. The govt could simply print 25% more money each year and collect no taxes and issue no treasury bonds. Someone making $100K would simply be "taxed" $20K because the price of all goods and services would rise 25% and thus $100K would only buy what $80K bought the year prior. Government choose taxation over monetizing operation costs because it allows them to influence (manipulate) via tax policy. With indirect "taxation" via inflation the effect is universal (i.e. solar panels rise in price as much as crack cocaine does).
The reverse is also true. In the US there has over the years been a proposal called the "fair tax" it would be a flat sales tax to replace all other forms of taxation in the country. One criticism of sales taxes is they hurt the work (especially the working poor). The "fair tax" system would use a prebate. If the sales tax is 20% and you wanted to in effect make the first $30K in income "tax free" the government would simply (in this case via collected funds not via printing) send $30,000 * 20% = $6,000 to every person. So a family making $50K would have $50K + $6K = $56K. Lets pretend they save nothing and spend it all. They would pay 20% * $56K = $11K in taxes at the cash register - $6K prebate = ~$5K in taxes for an effective tax rate of 10%. Someone making $30K would have an effective tax rate of 0%. Someone making (technically spending) $1,000,000 would have an effective tax rate of 19.4%. Someone making $200M would have an effective tax rate of 19.997%.
It is a indirect form of wealth confiscation and transfer. Not materially different in the outcome of using taxes to fund welfare or other programs.
The fact that you make it universal doesn't really change anything other than how it is implemented.
Quote
Hypothetical scenario.
Population is 1 million people.
Total GDP: $50 billion.
Most modern economies have a velocity of ~1 so lets assume monetary base (pre "print & give") is ~= GDP = $50 billion
We will call this the "pre print & give economy".
Population is 1 million people.
Total GDP: $50 billion.
Most modern economies have a velocity of ~1 so lets assume monetary base (pre "print & give") is ~= GDP = $50 billion
We will call this the "pre print & give economy".
Now lets compare two example persons in this economy:
Quote
homeless man
Income of $5,000 annually (odd jobs, panhandling, crime, etc).
The $5K has $5K of purchasing power in the "pre print & give economy"
small business owner
Income of $250,000 annually.*
The $250K has $250K of purchasing power in the "pre print & give economy"
* Technically the the SB owner would pay taxes and thus his post tax income would be lower however it doesn't materially change this comparison so for simplicity it has been left off.
Income of $5,000 annually (odd jobs, panhandling, crime, etc).
The $5K has $5K of purchasing power in the "pre print & give economy"
small business owner
Income of $250,000 annually.*
The $250K has $250K of purchasing power in the "pre print & give economy"
* Technically the the SB owner would pay taxes and thus his post tax income would be lower however it doesn't materially change this comparison so for simplicity it has been left off.
Now lets look at the "post print & give" economy.
Quote
Now the govt prints an additional $10K and gives it to every person so that increases the money supply by $10B.
No additional wealth has been created. Money is merely an accounting system. You now have more slips of paper (physical or digital) which can be exchanged for the same amount of goods and services.
We would expect to see ($10B + $50B) / ($50B) = 20% price inflation.
So lets go back to our two persons.
The homeless man now has $5K + $10K = $15K in income.
However prices have increased 20% so his purchasing power (in pre "print & give" dollars) is $15K / 1.2 = $12.5K annually.
An increase of 150%. Remember nominal numbers are irrelivent. If tomorrow your central bank doubled the effective money supply you would expect prices (including your wages) to double however you wouldn't be any richer
or poorer. Adjusted for inflation (in real terms) you income and wealth would be exactly the same.
The business owner now has $250K + $10K = $260K in income.
However prices have increased 20% so his purchasing power (in pre "print & give" dollars) is $260K / 1.2 = $216K annually.
An decrease of 13%.
No additional wealth has been created. Money is merely an accounting system. You now have more slips of paper (physical or digital) which can be exchanged for the same amount of goods and services.
We would expect to see ($10B + $50B) / ($50B) = 20% price inflation.
So lets go back to our two persons.
The homeless man now has $5K + $10K = $15K in income.
However prices have increased 20% so his purchasing power (in pre "print & give" dollars) is $15K / 1.2 = $12.5K annually.
An increase of 150%. Remember nominal numbers are irrelivent. If tomorrow your central bank doubled the effective money supply you would expect prices (including your wages) to double however you wouldn't be any richer
or poorer. Adjusted for inflation (in real terms) you income and wealth would be exactly the same.
The business owner now has $250K + $10K = $260K in income.
However prices have increased 20% so his purchasing power (in pre "print & give" dollars) is $260K / 1.2 = $216K annually.
An decrease of 13%.
You have taken wealth from one person and given it to another.
Note that for these two people you could acheive the exact same goal (transfer of wealth from rich to poor) via a tax funded welfare program.
Say instead of operation "print & give" you had instead given $7,500 in welfare to anyone below the poverty line and paid for it with a tax increase of 13% on the income of everyone above it.
Under that scenario:
Homeless man. $5K in income + $7,500 govt handout = $12,500 in income (money supply not expanded) An increase of 150%.
Business owner. $250 income - (13% tax = $33K tax) = $216K in income (money supply not expanded) A decrease of 13%.
Exactly the same outcome (in inflation adjusted dollars = purchasing power) as the "print & give".
Money isn't wealth. Increased money doesn't result in increased wealth. Money is merely an accounting system. Increased Productivity results in increased wealth. You can't produce wealth by merely changing the accounting "rules". All you are doing is moving wealth from one person to another. The net effect is zero.
Also to expand your mind a little a similar though process ... a government with control of the printing presses doesn't even need to collect taxes (or borrow). They govt can simply print enough money to cover operations and thus "tax" people indirectly via inflation. For example the US govt spends roughly 25% of GDP. The govt could simply print 25% more money each year and collect no taxes and issue no treasury bonds. Someone making $100K would simply be "taxed" $20K because the price of all goods and services would rise 25% and thus $100K would only buy what $80K bought the year prior. Government choose taxation over monetizing operation costs because it allows them to influence (manipulate) via tax policy. With indirect "taxation" via inflation the effect is universal (i.e. solar panels rise in price as much as crack cocaine does).
The reverse is also true. In the US there has over the years been a proposal called the "fair tax" it would be a flat sales tax to replace all other forms of taxation in the country. One criticism of sales taxes is they hurt the work (especially the working poor). The "fair tax" system would use a prebate. If the sales tax is 20% and you wanted to in effect make the first $30K in income "tax free" the government would simply (in this case via collected funds not via printing) send $30,000 * 20% = $6,000 to every person. So a family making $50K would have $50K + $6K = $56K. Lets pretend they save nothing and spend it all. They would pay 20% * $56K = $11K in taxes at the cash register - $6K prebate = ~$5K in taxes for an effective tax rate of 10%. Someone making $30K would have an effective tax rate of 0%. Someone making (technically spending) $1,000,000 would have an effective tax rate of 19.4%. Someone making $200M would have an effective tax rate of 19.997%.
The idea is called Basic Income Guarantee and is apparently more popular in Europe and especially Germany than in the rest of the world.
Even hardcore liberal Milton Friedman proposed a proportional/progressive income tax that could be negative for those with too low or no income, essentially resulting in the same.
An argument often made for this idea is especially the increased rise of automation and computers, making more and more jobs superfluous, while the standards of living remain at least the same.
In my view, if (and only if) we want to continue with a similar system to today's with a central state, it is an idea which implementation is long overdue. After all, what we have today with big banks and corporations is that profits are privatized, and losses are socialized ("too big to fail", bailouts etc). Thus, to be fair, also profits must be socialized, resulting in some kind of social dividend of the economic growth.
Now on the other hand, from the perspective of the market libertarians which most are here, in a properly functioning free and fair market, more automation would simply mean falling prices. And without all the bureaucracy we have to today, people could simply choose to work less, say two days a week, while still covering all their basic needs and more. Maybe this approach is really better than to trust a potentially corruptible central authority redistributing wealth.
Even hardcore liberal Milton Friedman proposed a proportional/progressive income tax that could be negative for those with too low or no income, essentially resulting in the same.
An argument often made for this idea is especially the increased rise of automation and computers, making more and more jobs superfluous, while the standards of living remain at least the same.
In my view, if (and only if) we want to continue with a similar system to today's with a central state, it is an idea which implementation is long overdue. After all, what we have today with big banks and corporations is that profits are privatized, and losses are socialized ("too big to fail", bailouts etc). Thus, to be fair, also profits must be socialized, resulting in some kind of social dividend of the economic growth.
Now on the other hand, from the perspective of the market libertarians which most are here, in a properly functioning free and fair market, more automation would simply mean falling prices. And without all the bureaucracy we have to today, people could simply choose to work less, say two days a week, while still covering all their basic needs and more. Maybe this approach is really better than to trust a potentially corruptible central authority redistributing wealth.
Money doesn't come from taxes that only rich people have to pay and so the system doesn't rest on their shoulders.
Instead, everyone has to pay, although the rich still pay more, for reasons I will explain below.The money will in the end go to working people
No it won't. There is no end. No matter how much money the working people make, the non-working people still keep getting their free money.You won't be able to afford any kind of luxury, if 1000 USD are worth even less
True. And that is a bad thing. Why would anyone think that's a good thing?Cause it requires people to work, in place of how it is now, where you can lie back and still have what you want.
Pays would therefor (I guess) be higher, so you won't have this "I'd earn as much, if I didn't work" thing
Guess again.It isn't like a tax, because it's not bound to some specific thing (doesn't matter how rich you are)
It is bound to specific thing (your money), and therefore it does matter how rich you are. If your money is being devalued by (say) 10% every year, and you have (say) $100,000, then that's exactly the same as paying $10,000 tax per year. If you have $1,000,000, you're paying the equivalent of $100,000 tax per year.It is no traditional minimal income, because it is added and doesn't depend on anything and isn't just for poor people/people who don't work
It is not being added, for there is nothing to add. As I said, the demand for money is fixed, so every dollar that you print is a dollar deducted from the collective purchasing power of everyone who owns dollars. By distributed those dollars to everyone whether they're working or not, you are stealing from everyone who has money (and presumably worked for it), and giving to everyone who doesn't (ie, those who aren't working).First off working power is not money. I know that, because I don't work a lot, yet receive way more money than people who do, just for sitting on my ass. I usually donate a lot of it, because I feel uncomfortable (seen that donate to EFF/get a humble bundle cheaper thread of mine? I basically donate to all the projects that are about putting power into people's hands (know something?)).
Second, it depends on your view of money. The US and China kinda had a competition (and that was in both Bush's and Obama's time) of printing more and more money to basically devalue their debts. So that already happens only that who receive it isn't evened out.
What I meant with being added is:
Non working guy: 0 + 1000
Working guy: 2000 + 1000
while minimal income, like a lot of countries have it (even if it's a more complex system) is like:
Non working guy: 0 + 1000
Part time worker: 800 + 200
Hard working guy: 2000 + 0
I think from this system you could better work away from stuff like health care, scholarships, family stuff, etc. into the direction where people can choose what's important to them. It also would make administration way easier and therefor make a lot of taxes unnecessary. That's what I am heading for and what I meant with the difference compared to socialism.
I know, it has an effect and if you really read what I wrote you think that it will act like a tax, because the devaluation is bigger for working people, right? Do you really think the effect would be the same even though the gap between working and none working people is probably even higher than now?
The gap between the working and non-working people will decrease, not increase, and that's bad. It punishes people who work and rewards people who don't.Compared to the current system, even with money devaluation, really?
Also do you think it would maybe still be a better solution to have it like that rather to have this complex welfare system every country has now?
Better than what we have now isn't really saying much.If you still think it's exactly the same would you mind telling me why you think it is?
It's not exactly the same. I neglected to mention that inflation, unlike taxation, is an invisible sack of shit. But it stills stinks, and everyone knows it stinks, though the uneducated can't tell where the stink is coming from.Uh, yep a Bitcoin based economy would be better. I think so too or a society where people are educated. Basically, because I don't think we would have a huge problem with non-workers anymore, but yeah that's why I made that thread. Want to know alternatives and steps to get there. I don't really care, if I am completely wrong with that. I didn't study economy and writing under a pseudonym, so I will at least know I am wrong.
I just consider inflation more fair than taxes, because it evens things out more than all the tax systems. I mean either it's unfair for people who simply were like born into a poor family or something and even if they had potential and will to become workers will end up not getting education and stuff and for society that means that they'd lack a Stephen Hawking, because he had the bad luck of being disabled.
I also think that it would make a difference to the current system, because I think what really makes people work is society. I mean, no matter who you are you are still a human and extremely influenced by the society you are in. Be in Germany in the wrong time and wrong family and you will very, very likely be a Nazi. I mean same thing basically happened in Rwanda only that nobody intervened, because they were no real threat like Germany. Anyway, just making a point on how big the influence of society. You could say the same about the kind of music you listen too, football team you support or the words you use. And if you want to be different you do the opposite. Still influenced by it.
So basically you wanna be rich for society. Be it for your family, for being able to wear nice clothes or to follow your hobbies (if you really hate society).
I don't think strong socialism really was killed because of that. I mean, see Cuba (my standard example on this forum). They support US students and African countries, doing much better than other countries in that area, while having the strongest super power as enemy and being financially sanctioned by it. I think that would kill every EU country. Also from documentaries it's kinda weird. Poor people work and are super happy and rich people are like sitting in their villas living there for free and off the state. Seems to work and from people I know from there the poor ones don't just pretend to be happy. Don't saying Cuba is a good country. It actually sucks in most ways, but given these facts I don't think that the criticism from earlier is like completely true and I think the reason actually is society.
