Re: AMI Free Monetary Seminars in Seceral Cities

"Mark M." <markm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
J.H.Boersema wrote:
"Mark M." <markm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Guess what? Someone finally mentioned on National Television the key
overlooked element in resolving the crisis:
Floyd Norris economics writer of the New York Times to Charlie Rose:
"We need a restructuring of the financial system"
Charlie Rose replies:
"Does anybody know whats going on?"

Well folks the American Monetary Act is just such a restructuring.

[...]

Then don't be afraid but include the basic theory in your post
(rather then lots of expert/think-tank invites ?). Grace Usenet with
your content !
Not the AMI plan, but my monetary reform plan:
The need for investment return is eliminated by state provided health care,
education, and full pensions. These provisions accompany state decreed
sweeping debt cancellation. FDIC funds up to 100k per entity are
transferred to Treasury, with an account set up for each citizen. From
here, a greenback monetary system takes over with increases in money supply
distributed to Personal Treasury Accounts on a per capita basis. PTA's
also function as free, non interest bearing checking accounts, thereby
keeping great aggregations of normal exchange money out of banker's mitts.
Nationalized Fed absorbed by Treasury continues to function as check
clearing service. Concurrent tax reform of location rent taxation, mineral
extraction fees, and electromagnetic spectrum rents, are supplemented as
needed by per capita tax. Other taxes are eliminated. Land rent taxation
destroys selling price of land, the financial cornerstone of the Debt Web.
Banks service PTA's for a fee paid by government, and aggregate risk
capital for investment. No more interest bearing bank accounts without
risk. No more consumer lending at interest (usury). Capital investment
goes to fund real goods ie tools, machinery, buildings used to produce.

Thanks. It seems your ideas are somewhat of a subsection of my own ideas.
It looks like you want to eliminate the bank's power to use deposited
money to make loans. I want to do that so we agree on that. You say the
Govnmt should pay the banks for this service, I say the costumer pays
the bank, and the Govnmnt audits the banks for 100% reserve compliance.
We agree on this goal, but not on the method of how to set it up. Each
person having a central bank bank-account is one of the possible options
that could work, but I'd think that bank-account services could probably
be a competitive service industry once audited sufficiently (a matter of
taste to some degree I guess).

I disagree with your land idea because land should be distributed, not
sold freely in a market in such a way that one person may end up with
nothing and another with a lot. Natural resources are a unique issue
in the economy, they are not themselves the product of effort. An economy
should work by selling the products of effort, natural resource control
should not factor into that as it becomes a power position that will be
exploited so that the owner will do less effort but be able to sell high.
Example: I pick apples, you refine water. I need 5 apples for myself,
but pick 5.000, you need 50 liter of water, but refine 1.000.000 liter.
What we did more we well, you get 5 apples and give me 50 liter of water.
Market mechanisms will work out eventually a price, which would typically
hover around equal effort for us both provided adequate diversity of
sellers and buyers in the markets. But say that I work harder and produce
10.000 apples, use the 5.000 excess to buy gold, and keep that up for
30 years. Then I use the gold and buy the lands from which you extract
the water. Henceforth you will not get payed in apples which cost me
effort to pick and grow all the time, just as it takes you effort to
maintain your water purification plant. I will threaten to throw you off
of the land, unless you pay me 100 liter a day for using "my" land, which
I "fairly bought." The excess 50 liter I'll sell for 5 apples from another
producer and henceforth I'll do nothing ever again, except maintain my
position of power. Perhaps I'll try to raise funds to buy up media so
that I can control what people think, thus protecting my privilege. Note
that even if you don't want to sell, I can still try to buy your entire
business plus land, you get away with a profit, and then I'll rent the
land to someone else and recoup all my losses and then start racking up
profits without (comparable/productive) effort.

This is how natural resource markets get out of hand. It is a market
in things that are not effort. It is a principled problem, every
economy (in this Universe at least) has the issue of how to handle
the given resources. We do this wrong.

I propose to combat this problem by distributing to each an equal natural
resources ownership right that is inalienable. Equal means about equal
economic value, which will need some real time adjustments through time.
The only right you have is to swap it with other people, and to rent it
out.

In the water/apples example: I can hoard mountains of gold if I want,
but I can never buy your land. Even if I buy your business, I can never
become the passive owner of more then my own equal plot. What I want
more I'll have to rent continuously, which means that it draws down
my gold until I have to work again. The system self-corrects. I hoarded
by working hard, then I'll have time to relax by paying rent from previous
income, but eventually that ends. With land-selling where you become
the owner in perpetuity, the system never corrects but only gets out of
hand more and more and more and more, and then there will probably be
corruption, uprisings and/or war.

I agree with your head-tax, I think nationalized health care is a political
issue but it is probably best that government at least pays for all normal
health care (nationalized health insurance: cheaper/simpler). How exactly
hospitals should be run I don't dare to say, seems can be run in all kind
of ways. Nationalized normal pension is also a good idea: nationalized
old age pension. That is pumping money from the current generation
directly to the older generation which is how the products/services
are moving anyway, it prevents people who are 20 to have to start planning
their retirement which is still 40-50 years away. With a good national
pension some people can still augment that if they want to. This would
simplify things.

I disagree with your consumer lending that it should be eliminated:
consumer lending is useful, even if you have to pay for it. Sometimes
you need something now but you can only pay for it later. Going through
an acquisition/loan/repay cycle should not yield problems IMHO. Homes
are a good example: you need it now but can only pay it off after
decades, the builder needs the money now to pay off everything. Adequate
competition in a finance market between private creditors could work.

The problem with rent is IMHO: investment in businesses going to the
abusive boss type. That sector of investment should be handled with
extreme care, so that we no longer end up financing more/only abusive
bosses.

Your sweeping debt cancellation scheme might produce problems, consider
a person who has bought a lot, maybe he/she is even a rich person buying
even more on credit, and then the debt is cancelled: get to keep it all.
Others who have been more responsible are put down again. In a heavily
degraded/disparity economic (like the USA) I think you could augment
sweeping debt cancellation with a temporary Government acquisition of
all a person has significantly above average. Then a Government person
will come by the richest people first, ask what the people want to keep
under the average-ownership-privilege rule, and offer them to buy back
their own things from the Government. The reverse be done with the poor,
starting with the poorest: ask them what they want to keep under the
average-ownership-privilege rule (which would include everything as
they have less then average), and then offer them to acquire wealth
up to average. Once you've gone through this process you end up with
a low disparity situation in the Nation. If it has gone far enough
according to the taste of the People you can stop with this wealth
redistribution and set the economy free again.

If at that point you'll be using the same bad rules of today, you'll
end up in the same bad situation of today.

Maybe you should look into my by now detailed ideas, because you may
find that we essentially agree. We could combine forces to make it happen.
--
_ _ /_\ _ _ http://www.jhwh.be sign petition for Democratic
\ /v`vvv\ / Authorities Ventures Investments Demarcations
/_\_#_#_/_\ constitution today: http://www.jhwh.be/petition
\ / #150 http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/no-id-theft.html
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AMI Free Monetary Seminars in Seceral Cities
    ... Concurrent tax reform of location rent taxation, ... destroys selling price of land, the financial cornerstone of the Debt Web. ... Govnmt should pay the banks for this service, ... redistribution and set the economy free again. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Venture Communism Draft IV -- Request for Comments.
    ... When you rent an apartment from a private landlord you are not ... the community can offer land for rent and accept the offer of ... Ridiculous, wealth accumulation is the standard measure of wealth, not ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Smith and Mill: Georgists?
    ... "A tax on rent falls wholly on the landlord. ... -- Professor James Errol Thorold Rogers, Political Economy ... productive land ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Is there an (objective) definition of wealth?
    ... I tried charging 650 to people only willing to pay 450 for rent, ... support - imagine if you will a SPIDER in a WEB and you the FOOLISH LAND ... market decide who wins and who loses - get out of the GOD business - he ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... It is just land. ... in our current economy. ... are continually depressed by the privatization of natural resources. ... but that's only because they keep the rent rather than ...
    (sci.econ)