quoted from Earthcitizen7
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.
The government derives from the need of an army to protect from outside threats, all else was tacked on opportunistically over the centuries. Do we
still need a government? Maybe not. At least, the government should be considered as the last resort and kept as smalll as possible.
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.
I agree with your idea. Prices of all present goods and services should go down over time as productivity increases. Cutting edge technology starts
as expensive and over time becomes cheaper.
Setting the value of money could be attempted in three ways.
1) Freezing the amount of money--no new money printed except for replacement of damaged specimens.
This would increase the value of money over time as more stuff exsisted for the same amount of money. Over time the mundane things would be purchased
with smaller and smaller denominations of currency as prices decreased.
2) Designating the value of money as equivalent to some good or service forever.
a)Like the gold standard. The money supply would probably grow as more of the good was produced or discovered. This is essentially freezing the
amount of money to the total amount of the good in question.
b)Designate a dollar as a fixed ratio of GNP like 1 ten trillionth of the Gross National Product or 1 50 trillionth of the entire value of everything
in the United States. This would be subject to the body that determines the value of the total wealth.
3) Treat money as a commodity and let the market determine its amount and buying power. Money would be from your bank or banks. The banks would keep
the value of their money as high as they could so that any consumer would prefer to use their money rather than a different bank.
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.
Fluctuation has more to do with central banking and government regulation than capitalism. All of the exploitative powers in our system use the
system. If the system had less power they would not be so big or have the abilities that they now have.
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.
In my opion, the big investors will always do that in a centrally controlled system. Your villains are real, however they are using goverment
regulation to facilitate cartel mechanisms. If there were no big goverment or governance the mega investors would have to finance thier own private
armies of occupation everytime.
Nationalisation moves the power to choose father and farther away from the individual. Without the big mega investors determining the price of
everything artificially from their present unnatural position, the market assigns real and normal prices to everything by the democratic means of
voluntary buying and selling
edit on 11-10-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)