It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


An addition to the backing of money

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 03:31 PM
They don't pump money into the economy by uncovering rare metals to turn into legal tender currency by far any more. What they need to do is print up, so to speak, legal tender money currency based on persons' certain labor. At least as well.

What I'm saying is instead of every employer having to gain enough money from customers in order to pay his or her employees based on their labor (if it pay by the hour), the government should cut the middle man's (consumer's) money out from how employees gain money for their hourly labor. The only one that should strickly gain from consumer's money spent is an employer only. And I'm not saying employees that receive pay outside of hourly pay this should apply to.

It should be like that nationwide. Hell, what I'm actually saying is back money by labor instead for all who earn by hourly pay. Our system of money (like in what money is printed in turn for) needs to be put superb like so by including this.

Monetary system's Era A) Whose idea was it that a legal tender money currency should be backed by rare metals?

Monetary system's Era B) Whose idea was it that a legal tender money currency should be backed by an increased interest?

Monetary system's Era C) Why not have a legal tender money currency backed by labor?

Add the monetary systems altogether and we'll have a strong job market along with a strong economy. Who can think not? No one in their bright mind! Sure this would mean even those certain employers not getting many consumers' money will still get to keep and see their employees prosper by a successful monetary system addition by the government, so that maybe those certain employers can adjust to earn a lot of customers' money, and grow prosperously instead of having to shut down shop and lay off employees.

To a money currency being backed by labor... Worth of the labor that pays by the hour, determined by the government, should be based on its rareness or plentifulness and easiness or hardness (be that based on physically and/or mentally) and non-dangerousness or dangerousness.

^^Better that than hourly pay determined by how much gained in consumers' money and how much taken in owners' and C.E.O.s' cut.

You do realize that outside of this new monetary system I'm pitching who in all determines how much you make hourly is ultimately based on the consumers, dont you? What gets those consumers to spend toward what becomes your earning is what's being offered by the company you work for, plus, whether or not the economy is messed up by other things being raised or lowered.

Once this idea of a monetary system is added, on dollars it should read somewhere: "In Labor We're Backed" or even "In Blood, Sweat, and Time We're Backed"

The government with such an addition I'm pitching to what backs a currency will also mean many will be on the government's payroll, technically, even though the government would be handing out legal tender money currency in exchange for your labor outside yet inside the government for a superb job market and economy for the ppl. Now that then would confirm honorablely a government being for the ppl when it comes to them wanting to make it in life in this then country of certified, plentiful oppurtunity.

But what do you all think if you care for ppl to make it in life?

[edit on 7-4-2008 by Mabus]

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 04:16 PM
Think about it:

With a lot of hourly paying jobs based on such an addition, more ppl by far would surely find work that at least would pay currency backed by their labor by way of the government. With that monetary system added those ppl can then fuel the economy.

And the government wouldnt have to tax another set of ppl to pay off a different set of ppl, pertaining to a rare labor, when they can just have that different set of ppl work for money backed by their rare labor that pays by the hour. This even would reduce debt causing lendings.

This addition should reduce a nation's deficit.

Why relie on the affixing of an amount to a rare metal that just been there somewhere?

Labor should back a certain sector of money. At least pertaining to jobs that pay by the hour. Then there will be no excuse that hourly workers arent being paid to substain a decent living since the gov with economist can oversee things. That worth part I mentioned determined by the government should also base pay on what it takes for a decent living by true economist.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by Mabus]

posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 07:39 PM
Imagine earnings your employer cant take a cut from. I mean, now what wage laborers also dont get is a cut of what feeds the hand that keeps them hired. That would change so your pay wouldnt depend on whether or not the company is doing well. This is how it should be. The only ones responsible for a company doing good or not is the owner and C.E.O. So they should be the only ones to feel it in their pockets. If they aint doing good because of certain employees, then it's up to them to terminate those employees jobs. If it's a bullcrap service or good being offered, then it's up to the owner and C.E.O. to change things.

There wouldnt be a need for a union either any more I wouldnt think. Unions usually act when ppl arent being paid more for as long as those ppl been working.

Imagine no pay cuts, no lay offs. Government wouldnt lower your pay. The government could even determine who should get a raise based on how long a person worked for a particular company. Gov shouldnt base raises on some report on how much of a good worker the person is to the company. For that though the company should give out of it's own pocket from money gained from its consumers if it wants to look like "the company to work for".

Anyhow, I dont think a company wouldnt be willing to give out of its pocket a raise of those likes since it would gain all that possible money (from consumers) that doesn't no longer have to be cut to be spread out to employees laboring by hourly wage.

Anyhow, this ideal addition should be shown and told to the ppl that can make it happen and the ppl who would prolly have to vote for it. I cant figure one person, rich or poor, in government or outside government, that wouldnt be for it. Everybody would be a winner in this. For this would make for a growing rate in new jobs that hire. What is education and having to pay back loans without jobs guarenteed? Hell, more ppl going to college would be able to find a hourly wage paying job(s) during college by this additional monetary system.


log in