Re: TRANSFINANCIAL ECONOMICS, OR NON-TAXATION MONETARY REFORM
- From: "Andy F." <never.mind@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:26:06 -0000
<dharao4@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1135680071.854640.23440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Andy F. wrote:
>> <dharao4@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1134815833.307583.55050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> >
>> > DEAR ALL,
>> >
>> > You will find the following link of great interest. Comments
>> > requested.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > http://kheper.net/essays/Transfinancial_Economics.html
>
>
> A RESPONSE TO COMMENT BY "ANDY" FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF
> TRANSFINANCIAL ECONOMICS IN R&D.
>
>
> i) There is such a thing as a free lunch. It already exists.
> Governments give non-repayable grants to various departments, and
> programmes to run the country. However, the money itself is not new
> unearned money but comes from taxation ofcourse. Yet, it is still a
> free lunch to the beneficiaries. Similiarly, non-governmental
> organizations can also receive a free lunch in the form of grants from
> private donors. They have not earned it via fundraising which is the
> usual root to getting finance. Furthermore, social security can be seen
> as a free lunch to some extent.If one has been living on benefits for
> many years, and has not paid much into the system. Thus, some,or alot
> of the resulting tax money would be received as something free.
>
In all those cases somebody - either the taxpayer or a donor -has to pay. So
it isn't really a free lunch.
>
> 2) The idea of using supercomputers to control inflation is a stroke of
> genius because it means that new unearned money can be created for
> governments,and ngos whenever there is a genuine need for it.
>
If you were to design and program a supercomputer which could manage the
economy better than it has been managed before, that might be a stroke of
genius.
Just saying you're going to do that, without explaining how it would work,
is a stroke of stupidity.You may as well be saying "I've got a brilliant
idea. Let's build a supercomputer that will cure cancer"
The idea of having the government print more money isn't a new one at all.
It's been tried many times, usually with disastrous results.
> 3) It may not be absolutely necessary to close down banks. It is
> conceivable that they could still be private commercial companies
> .Their profits notably interest would not come from customers but from
> the creation of new unearned money. This is not discussed in my article
> admitedly. However, such a proposal would be largely unacceptable to
> radical monetary reformers.
>
> 4) Cash would still be allowable in TFE, and bank accounts as we
> understand them would ofcourse exist. The former though would have
> little, or no effect on inflation as it would still make up a tiny
> almost non-existence portion of the entire money supply
It costs a bank money to operate a bank account.These costs are paid for
from the interest on loans. If you didn't allow banks to 'create money' by
making loans, bank accounts as we know them would not be viable.
>
> R.Searle
>
>
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Why does gold have value?
- Next by Date: Re: Japan's falling population - a lesson for the West
- Previous by thread: Re: TRANSFINANCIAL ECONOMICS, OR NON-TAXATION MONETARY REFORM
- Next by thread: Re: TRANSFINANCIAL ECONOMICS, OR NON-TAXATION MONETARY REFORM
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
