Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
Government control of the money looks good and plausible on the surface. But even a well meaning authority is an artificial construct of limited intelligence when compared to a market.
The competative market sets the value of a thing with perfect democracy. It is worth what people will pay or do for it.
Money should be competative, like credit cards. Competitors in the money supply would keep the value of thier money as close as possible to its maximum worth, and inflation would be reduced to perhaps a negative, or deflationary, number. From then onward, all money would grow in value as time passed.
If everything is controlled by the markets then why bother have a government at all? Is it ok to have a government that controlls only the little guy, or is it preferable to have a government that controls everything? Mind you I am not talking about having the illuminati/bilderbergers in key positions, because these people belong in jail for extortion, genocide, racketering, usury, etc.
Secondly why should the value of money fluctuate at all? Why not assign a steady value to it and let ONLY the value of goods and services fluctuate? If there is an abundance of x merchandise then the value of x merchandise drops. Conversely if there is a shortage of x merchandise then the value of x merchandise will go up.
The problem with money in this capitalist world is that its value fluctuates with complex formulas in relation to many things, primarily debt to GDP ratio and the ratio of exports to imports. First tier nations love this but ask the second and third tier nations what they think. In other words currencies should not be traded on the open markets.
As you can see I don't like capitalism because it involves scarcity of money called investment. The mega investors decide which nation should be prosperous and which nations should be poor. I believe in mixed economy socialism where banking and major industry is nationalised.