Continuing on with the discussion of Tereza Coraggio’s “Caret” monetary ideas:
It seems we might want to take a moment to step back and contemplate what we are trying to fix. It seems what we are actually trying to solve are the problems created by human greed. So the first thing that comes to my mind is that trying to alter human behavior means diving into the trade-off between freedom vs security.
Must we create laws to protect most people from those who would exploit them?
My answer would be yes, since human nature is to be competitive and as power accumulates in the hands of fewer and fewer people, an environment is created where freedom is lost for the majority of people.
In fact, this is the role of government! Government’s purpose is (should be) to protect the freedom of people and ensure an environment in which the citizens can thrive. Not just some powerful, wealthy citizens, but all citizens. However, we can’t take away the freedom for hardworking and clever people to advance their own situation.
Tereza references “The Two-Income Trap” to mention that we are worse off than fifty years ago: “It shows that people spend less of their income on food, clothes, and stuff than 50 years ago. We buy new cars less often. We live in fewer square feet per person but pay a far greater proportion of our income for it.”
Well, this is what happens when an empire declines and the American empire has been in decline for many decades now.
Was yesterday really better?
Let’s dig into one claim “We buy new cars less often.” Really? It’s tough to get a good source of data on this but several sources would throw this into question. Worldwide production of cars in 1999 was 40 Million, by 2016 this had climbed to 72 million. That’s a growth of 80%. We can argue that there are now more people too. But worldwide population only grew by 25% over the same time frame. Thus I could argue we buy new cars more often! Let’s be careful to not look only at USA auto production because over the past fifty years there has been a huge growth in American’s buying foreign made cars.
Tereza states: “Most of our income goes to what I call the Unaffordable 4H: Housing, Healthcare, Higher Education and Hope for Retirement. Universities have gone up 700%. Most bankruptcies are from medical expenses, not consumer purchases.”
Housing is more expensive because our population has exploded (more people are competing for the same amount of land). Healthcare (industrial medicine) has conned people into paying to be sicker and sicker. Reject the industrial medicine system and this problem dramatically improved. Higher Education has increased in cost but not in value. It’s up to the people to stop valuing worthless educations and to stop going into debt to get worthless educations. Hope for retirement is frustrated by inflation keeping the average person poor. Inflation is a problem that isn’t simple, but is critically important that we address.
A new monetary system only potentially solves the last problem (saving for retirement), if it can prevent inflation.
Tereza points out the Federal Reserve Act and how the USA money supply is in the hands of private organizations (Central Banks) and not the government. The two however collude closely together and thus confuse almost all of us.
As to the point of the constitution preventing states from issuing money, this was done so the USA would have a single currency and thus promote commerce between states. In a manner, we can see the same problem internationally as each nation has it’s own money and all trade becomes complex as the relative value of different currencies is struggled with.
Tereza’s statement “Social Security is a beautifully designed system” gives me concern. The Social Security system is designed based on the assumption of an ever growing population so that the burden of the elderly is shouldered by a large group of younger working people. But when the age balance shifts, we have more elderly and fewer productive young people the system starts breaking down.
Social Security isn’t a savings plan that we contribute to. So the money we paid in supported our parents, it isn’t there to support us.
What would I like to address in proposing a new monetary system?
Transition – how would a transition from the existing system to a new system be accomplished?
Inflation – Is it desirable? Controlled or uncontrolled?
Interest Rates – fixed reasonable maximums?
Credit – Controlled or uncontrolled?
Social Responsibility – Social Security or a different system?
Control – Who controls money? Who can make it? Who sets future policy?
Taxation – Can a good taxation system be created?
International Issues – Exchange rates?
Cash
Crime
What else should be addressed?
The crux of our disagreement, John, is that I think systems are to blame and you think people are to blame. If everyone was as good as you, as hardworking, smart, prudent, they would be successful. Unlike you, other people are greedy. You were able to succeed in this system and that proves that the system works, except where it's not fair to you like Social Security.
There are many facts I can point to but if they don't support your premise, you won't accept them no matter what references I cite. As I've said, I have only one dogma which is that I'm no better than anyone else. I think we're in basic disagreement because you do believe you're better than other people. And anything I say in defense of other people is only going to be interpreted as me trying to make myself better than you. I don't know where to go from there.