And yet absolute poverty has decreased substantially across the globe in the last 100 years. How do you explain this? Or do you even acknowledge it?
There has been an increase in wealth, of course, but I believe personal and national wealth is mostly wasted. In my opinion, greed degrades human nature.
I admire contemporary hunter-gatherers cultures.
Why? Do you believe that people lead fuller, more fulfilling lives as hunter gatherers? What evidence is there for that, or is it just your idealized belief?
That’s fine, as a personal belief. Folks believe all sorts of things and generally I’m a live and let live sort of guy, so that’s fine.
This is the right of kings, to claim an income from the land and activities engaged in on the land.
Systemic poverty may be tractable by taking this right from kings, and distributing it equally among the people.
Far from being socialist, it is a universal enfranchisement in capitalism, as this distributed wealth would take the form of a capital trust account, regulated and protected by the various governments to provide a guaranteed subsistence income to each, so each may have the freedom to engage the economy by choice and not by necessity.
This personal sovereignty is essential for the proper function of a capitalist, market society.
About the funding complaints, if this planet and its resources are assumed to be the property of all its inhabitants, and we agree that the planet has value, we can use this value as basis for an international fiat currency, to be evenly distributed to each, and secured by the various states in permanent local trust accounts providing a regular dividend, without requiring taxes, or changing any governments.
This places the states in debt to the people for the use of their capital, the people invested in society and securely enfranchised in the economic system.
In this way, the people will finally wrest from kings the ownership of the earth, fulfilling the socialist objective of guaranteed support from society and access to human rights, while providing the missing organ to a functioning capitalist market system.
Claim your share, sign your social contract, and deposit your share in a local financial institution. The world economy would need to find sufficient secure investments for the newly recognized capital, but I have faith in the resourcefulness of capitalism, greed and envy, compassion and love.
Some of us simply are not as smart, or socially acceptable/adaptable as others. There is no need to call us mean names, or ascribe assumed motives to our survival adaptations. These adaptations will certainly not be as successful as yours, but are generally the best we can do with the options we have available.
We just need this, and then all your derisive comments about laziness and poor character will be fully appropriate.
Social Contract between and among People and Governments
Definitions:
People: Adult human beings.
Government: Social structure holding assumed right to control social order.
Common Resources: Those resources accepted as International, earth, air, fire, water, wood, and those resources claimed by governments for its people, monetized as shares for deposit in local banks.
Rights and Responsibilities:
Peoples Rights:
• As described by Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• An equal share of the Common Resources
• As provided for by local government
Peoples Responsibilities:
• Deposit Common Resources share in local bank
• Comply with law
Government Rights:
• To govern as directed or suffered by its citizens
Government Responsibilities:
• To act based on objective reality in the public interest
• To safeguard and secure the people, their property, and the Common Resources
• As required and/or demanded by its citizens
Two questions:
What happens to existing claims of ownership?
How, precisely, are the government-owned common resources to be monetized into deposits to a DFI?
Nothing.
The same as the Federal Reserve, write a check, digitally.
Like any fiat currency, the value is based on perception, confidence, for some just ignorance. In this case, the value is based on the perceived value of our planet, and the likelihood that human activity on the planet will produce a return on investment.
Similar, I suppose, to an IPO, in that some value is assumed for the company, divided by the number of shares to determine a share price. After that the market decides.
I contend that a planet of enfranchised humans is worth a million current U.S. dollars times the number of adult inhabitants, that enfranchised human activity on this planet will produce whatever is needed, and a tremendous crap-load of what is not, but the market will most certainly, as a result of increased spending, more efficiently provide the basic needs of all humans.
That is about 5.25 quadrillion dollars, I defy anyone to provide a replacement planet for twice the cost, so I believe this is a bargain price.
If people are granted secured loans against their share for homes, farms, secured interests in their place of employment, even if they pay twice the 1.25% they earn on 25% of their share, they will still receive half of their dividend while providing half of the target cash flow.
PS: Thanks so much for your response, and interest. I really believe this should exist, and I can’t seem to even get an argument.
Ok, I think I misunderstood what you were talking about. I hope I’m closer to the mark this time.
So, correct me if I’m wrong. You propose that:
All the nations of the world collaborate to create a new currency, calculate the value of the planet in that currency, and then grant equal shares of that value in said currency to each person.
Assuming I have all that correct, I have a few critiques:
-
The currency doesn’t represent any new wealth, it’s just numbers on the spreadsheet. It has no value.
-
Why would wealthy countries participate in such a scheme?
I like very much the image you provide.
Hayek refers to this as removing coercion.
Would the system suggested in post #204 fulfill the need you describe, and could you suggest refinements?
I don’t understand. Are you only divvying up the un-owned assets of a country? Because if you are including everything, my claim of ownership of my house (for instance) goes to one-six-billionth of its value. What if I don’t keep up the mortgage payments - does the rest of the world have to cover it?
Regards,
Shodan
Most of U.S. wealth, wealth in general now, is just numbers on a spread sheet.
When a bank makes a loan, that money generally does not exist, the Fed transfers imaginary money to the bank, which in turn writes a check to the borrower. The wealth, it is assumed, is created by repayment of the loan.
Most currency has no real value, it is just paper. U.S. currency is only backed by a promise, and belief in that promise. While the Commons is not new wealth, this wealth does exist.
Rational people in the countries might be interested in a population times $12,000 a year increase in GDP, plus the multiplying effect.
It has occurred to me that a system like this could be created by humans independent of governments, like bitcoin. Then the people could demand the acceptance of their currency by the various states. The acceptance of even imaginary currency for bond purchases may, particularly at this time, be very tempting to many countries, and the increased cash flow would certainly justify larger debt.
Right…which is why dumping more currency out there doesn’t make people wealthier. Wealth comes from productivity, not currency.
What would you think of a scheme to make Americans wealthier by having the Treasury issue every citizen $100,000 of new money? Good idea, or bad? And why?
Not really. What you’re offering is just currency, not the wealth, if I understand you correctly. Everyone still owns whatever they owned before, no more or less, they just get a direct deposit of a new fiat currency.
It’s only an increase in nominal GDP, though, which has no value. We could acheive that tomorrow by adding a zero to all bank notes and account balances. An increase in purchasing power is what’s desireable, and this doesn’t acheive that.
I can’t speak for others, but I wouldn’t accept such a currency, at least not at anything near face value. It’s too risky.
I suggest only a recognition of the Commons as property of the entire population, and a method for accounting that wealth.
Your mortgage has nothing to do with that. Your income, your business, your stuff, is yours to the extent that your government provides.
A universal basic income is the simplest and most efficient method of eliminating absolute poverty. http://www.basicincome.org/bien/
Funding a basic income in this way provides all the benefits without taking anything from anyone.
I’m pretty sure wealth is created by capital and the flow of currency. Perhaps you would provide your definition.
strawman
As you noted, wealth must be created, from productivity. A basic income though, enables people to be more productive. The mass of capital created, and securely invested, would most certainly facilitate the creation of wealth.
Another consideration here is at the heart of the employment problem, the productivity of humans is reducing the need for workers. A basic income provides the stability for humans to engage in speculative work, subsistence farming, the arts, without requiring public or private assistance, all of which will will increase the intrinsic as well as extrinsic value of our world. I contend that this is creating wealth, and well being.
And how is it that a regular dividend spent by each individual would not increase purchasing power? Some inflation is expected, but there is no reason to believe that would exceed the increase in income, and the basic cost of survival would decrease as more is spent on those needs.
Dividends would be paid in the “coin of the realm” where invested. What risk? If your dividend converts to $50/mo or $1,000/mo what are you out?
Participation would not be mandatory anyway, you only get access to this wealth (and I see the planet as a very tangible form of wealth, just try to live without it) by accepting and signing a social contract.
This enfranchisement would also create a competition for inhabitants, the better return, the provided services, the more attractive a place would be to live, as leaving a place entails moving ones capital share.
OK. Then can you provide some examples of things that are in the commons that would be divvied up? You are excluding private property, IIUC, so most of the real estate in the US, businesses and companies, investments, private wealth, etc. are going to stay in the owners’ hands. So what is going to be divided? What is held in common, and how are we going to derive income from it?
Regards,
Shodan
On reflection, the discussion of wealth is rather a red herring to the concern of poverty.
As accumulated excess is not particularly relevant to a basic standard of living, agreeing on a definition of wealth is obviously needed for meaningful exchange.
If secure capital is not wealth, and bank assets are largely not wealth, then I am at a complete loss.
My strawman note at the suggestion of just giving large sums is specifically because of the secured nature of the proposed shares. Capital that is secured produces income, while, as you no doubt would observe, distributing arbitrary sums may or may not, and in the case of the poor, likely less astute population, would simply be lost to the wealthy and unscrupulous. (This is the basic income vs basic grant debate, I agree w/ Carol Pateman Redesigning Distribution – Verso)
But the creation of fiat capital that can not be squandered produces a flow of income, that produces demand, where previously there was only need or want and losses are restricted to cash on hand. I think a very large number of humans would believe this to be wealth, obviously not great wealth, but what value would be placed on personal sovereignty?
My perception, and every definition I found, seems to be at odds with yours, but I can’t be certain and would be happy to direct a response toward what ever definition you prefer.
I read thru your post three times, and I have no idea what you are saying.
Regards,
Shodan
- a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches: the wealth of a city.
- an abundance or profusion of anything; plentiful amount: a wealth of imagery.
- Economics .
a. all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
b. anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged. - rich or valuable contents or produce: the wealth of the soil.
- the state of being rich; prosperity; affluence: persons of wealth and standing.
Currency is a scoreboard, nothing more.
[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
strawman
[/quote]
No, it’s not, because it wasn’t a position I attributed to you. It was an analogy, so as so increase our mutual understanding. Your response precludes that.
[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
As you noted, wealth must be created, from productivity. A basic income though, enables people to be more productive. The mass of capital created, and securely invested, would most certainly facilitate the creation of wealth.
Another consideration here is at the heart of the employment problem, the productivity of humans is reducing the need for workers. A basic income provides the stability for humans to engage in speculative work, subsistence farming, the arts, without requiring public or private assistance, all of which will will increase the intrinsic as well as extrinsic value of our world. I contend that this is creating wealth, and well being.
And how is it that a regular dividend spent by each individual would not increase purchasing power? Some inflation is expected, but there is no reason to believe that would exceed the increase in income, and the basic cost of survival would decrease as more is spent on those needs.
[/quote]
A basic income scheme is a fine idea, see my own proposal from this same thread.
Basic income, like all welfare, requires taking wealth (through taxation) and redistributing it. Creating it ex nihilo, as you propose, is simply impossible. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
Dividends would be paid in the “coin of the realm” where invested. What risk? If your dividend converts to $50/mo or $1,000/mo what are you out?
[/quote]
How about the risk that the currency stops being accepted, or loses most of its value? An exchange of currency requires two willing parties.
[QUOTE=tralfamadoran777]
Participation would not be mandatory anyway, you only get access to this wealth (and I see the planet as a very tangible form of wealth, just try to live without it) by accepting and signing a social contract.
[/quote]
The wealth produced from the planet is split millions or billions of ways already, among factories, farms, all human endeavors. Monetizing it in the way you suggest makes no sense to me.
The Commons includes the air and the ocean, all state owned property (which ultimately includes your house, since if you don’t pay your taxes the state takes possession of it,) the whole of the earth really, but divvying is done by shares and has no effect on actual physical possession of any given thing, which has already been decided by agreement, or force, whatever.
By monetizing our collective ownership of the planet this newly created capital would be deposited to trust accounts, invested in secure financial instruments.
Y’know like money. Only in this case the money is backed by the earth, air, water, and humanity of the planet, as opposed to the promise of a government that just might default. And when I say humanity, I mean people who have accepted and signed an agreement to obey laws and try to get along with each other in exchange for this capital and basic rights. (In this respect, law is tyranny, as it was largely decided and imposed on people who were not in existence, had no influence, and never accepted an authority greater than themselves.)
In further support of the economic system in whole will be the demand for basic needs resulting from the poor and marginal people spending on these things. This persistent demand, as history suggests, will continually improve the efficiency of delivery and lower the cost of basic needs.
Shodan, Sorry, that post got out of order. #218 is a reply to you.
?Currency has a monetary and exchange value.
The planet and it’s natural wealth have utility and are capable of being appropriated or exchanged.