Re: The Citizens' Guide to Money
- From: sameer <sameerjalnapurkar@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 21:03:37 -0800 (PST)
Thanks for the reply. I have one comment:
On Jan 7, 5:11 pm, "J.H.Boersema" <jo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Should it be handed over to the
Government to use on pork-barrel projects?
Democratic Government: yes. As loans to useful enterprises, who will
pay back, at which point the money can simply be destroyed causing
the money to become more valuable again - zero sum.
Pork-barrel: of course not, why do you say that ? Why do you immediately
need to put a negative marker on "the Government" ? Because maybe you
really know that it is the Job of Government to *spend* it, and not
only regulate the total supply !
The Pork-barrel is only useful to deal with emergencies and special
circumstances like the crippled and old.
It is all so obvious, it is all so obvious ... why can't you all see it.
How do we make sure that
the new money is used in the most worthwhile way?
Democratic control over Government, the inescapable way
- binding referendums
- bottom-up state representative democracy
- state investments are public knowledge
- the Government the slave/servant of the People, tied hand and foothttp://www.jhwh.be/~joshb/constitution-short.html#3
Inescapable public power over all of Government including money
supply in total and all investments in particular, by Constitutional law.
A reasonable answer to this quandary is that the Central Bank should
not simply hand out the money, but loan it. The interest rate on the
loans should be market determined. This will ensure that the money
will go to only those who can use it most productively.
"Most productively" ? Give me 500 people, a whip an AK-47 and
ammunition: I'll starve them first, and then work them to the
breaking point at gun point. You'll see I'll make a hell of a return
on that investment. But is that useful for an economy ? Do the people
exist for their own sake, or for the games of the money markets ?
Your answer is wrong. There should not be money markets to whoever
takes the funds at highest return. Why would that bother anyone
that the return is highest, it only needs to be zero sum in the
end, thus maintaining the money supply as a stable entity.
Bzzzt, wrong, no cigar. Good writing style though. Once you
understand/agree how it should work you should write a book about
it, no doubt it would be as legible as this was.
You trust a democratic government to spend the new money well. I think
a government should indeed spend on social projects, but that should
be funded primarily by taxation (and secondarily by borrowing). Giving
bureaucrats and the excitable masses to print and spend money is
dangerous. The government should, however, be in the business of
making laws that ensure that you cannot enslave 500 people with a whip
and an AK-47. But as far as allocate resources efficiently is
concerned, it is better to use the mechanism of market-determined
interest rates.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Citizens' Guide to Money
- From: J.H.Boersema
- Re: The Citizens' Guide to Money
- References:
- The Citizens' Guide to Money
- From: monetaryscience
- Re: The Citizens' Guide to Money
- From: monetaryscience
- Re: The Citizens' Guide to Money
- From: J.H.Boersema
- The Citizens' Guide to Money
- Prev by Date: Re: The actual US defict....... (into the trillions last year, entirely fatal, US GAO)
- Next by Date: Re: The Citizens' Guide to Money
- Previous by thread: Re: The Citizens' Guide to Money
- Next by thread: Re: The Citizens' Guide to Money
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|