11–20 of 191 posts
It's the only reasonable way to implement something like UBI: give everyone X "food credits" and Y "housing credits" each week. There would still be fraud and "credit laundering" to get around the expirations, but the overall waste would be tiny compared to the legacy finance system.
An interesting look at theories around "perishable" money. A very interesting concept. Most resources in the world have a lifespan - even an iron bar will eventually rust. However, a dollar is as perpetual as the system itself. On top of that, the entire economic system is designed to reward those who take more and give less - that is how you become rich, and being rich is the highest ideal. However, if money had a l…
It wouldn’t surprise me if the origin of currency began with grain.
Uh, our money does already expire. It's called inflation.
There is a difference between inflation, which affects the entire monetary system, and money expiration which affects individual units of currency. In the first case, there is no incentive to use the money any faster, and as long as inflation isn't too high, there could be incentives to hoard/save it. In the second case, each unit has an expiration, and like the game of hot potato, you want it out of your hands quick…
That's happening even now with inflation, even if the mechanism is less obvious.
It's called the Cantillon Effect.
I would like similar system for land ownership and buildings. Property taxes at level of 5%. In China land can not be owned, but only leased for 70 years.
An interesting look at theories around "perishable" money. A very interesting concept. Most resources in the world have a lifespan - even an iron bar will eventually rust. However, a dollar is as perpetual as the system itself. On top of that, the entire economic system is designed to reward those who take more and give less - that is how you become rich, and being rich is the highest ideal. However, if money had a l…
If you want to get money moving in the economy again, we already know how to do that. Tax the shit out of the wealthy in such a way that they can't weasel out of it, and turn that money over to the people, be it through hiring them for public works projects, more and wider spread research grants, Universal Basic Income, or economic stimulus. We have tons of mechanisms to move money "down the hierarchy" as Dr. Peterson would say, but the problem is all of our politicians and media are owned by the very rich, and so taking money from the very rich is not on the table, which is how you do that. So we're left with this entire group of two professionals scratching their heads as to how we solve the problem of "the rich have too much money and the poor don't have enough" without having the rich give the poor money, which rather predictably lands at "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."
I'm not even necessarily arguing pro or con here (though if you're curious, I'm extremely pro) I'm just saying that the rich accumulating too much is doing exactly what economists have always said it will do: it stalls the economy, and it will continue to do that. No amount of thumb on the scale by the rich will change this fundamental fact, and even some of them are saying this. If you totally strip mine the consumer base in the never ending pursuit of number-go-up, eventually you have no one left to sell your products to and then the entire game is over.
let me go prompt DeathByAi.gg with this scenario.
An interesting look at theories around "perishable" money. A very interesting concept. Most resources in the world have a lifespan - even an iron bar will eventually rust. However, a dollar is as perpetual as the system itself. On top of that, the entire economic system is designed to reward those who take more and give less - that is how you become rich, and being rich is the highest ideal. However, if money had a l…