Euro is nothing but a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick
Would recommend watching the 4 minute introduction on the Positive Money homepage for a quick overview of the current situation with money creation:
Where does the money for all those people would come from if not from borrowing (money from the future)?
Money comes from the same place.
It's not substance. It's not energy.
(Though yes, it's exchangeable for both. And time. And space.)
It's information. About obligations and demand rights.
It can be created as fractional reserve. Or simply issued into existence (thogh market ops make pricing more transparent).
While we're at it, I'm not entirely certain of that 9 billion figure either.
Yeah, that's kind of a big differentiation though. Isn't it?
If you want to look into it more, I'd suggest taking a look at debt-free money.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_reform
http://positivemoney.org/2011/10/debt-free-money/
http://positivemoney.org/2016/03/debt-free-money-brief-reply...
There's a few different ways of creating debt-free money.
Government-created debt-free money has existed in the past, and can exist again. Using the UK system as an example, the minimum that would be required would be to update the Bank Charter Act of 1844 to include bank credit, so that private banks couldn't create money:
http://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-did-we-end-up-h...
It would then be the sole responsibility of the government to create money and spend it into the economy. In order to prevent hyperinflation, you could create an independent body responsible for setting how much new money could be created, which would be separate from the those who decided what the money was spent on.
As for other forms of debt-free money, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin also qualify. You do not owe interest to Bitcoin miners, when you own a Bitcoin it is debt-free, and it cannot be destroyed by paying off a debt.
If you want to make a substantial point, you'll need to address the content of the points I raised rather than wasting our time with ad hominems. Why do you find it far fetched that people can choose to vote for those that will represent their best interests?
I told you that "people to choose democratic representatives that stick up for the interests of the masses" is an impossible task. You prefer to ignore that and/or pretend that it is not true.
So I told you that your idea cannot be put in practice because we don't live in a perfect world but you don't acknowledge that. What is left there to say?
You made a large claim that was completely unsubstantiated. ZenoArrow didn't ignore the claim; he/she didn't believe it. On HN, that's your cue to provide some evidence to back up your claim. That's what's left to say. Provide some evidence that "people to choose democratic representatives that stick up for the interests of the masses" is an impossible task.
There is no one "interest of the people". There is no "people". There are different groups with different interests. Or are you proposing dictatorship of the proletariat? Because we know how that turned out, don't we?
If you want evidence of the above you need to look no further than a couple of weeks back to the Brexit vote. You have it there all.
- There is no disproportionate political influence by the rich. The majority of the rich said "don't do it! PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T DO IT!".
- There is no rich vs. poor. One of the richest, most influential people on Earth, Rupert Murdoch, used his media influence to sway the vote in favor of leaving.
- People unable or not interested in forming a balanced opinion. The decision was made because of demagoguery and blatantly false claims.
- Power-hungry, opportunistic politicians riding the wave, no matter what the wave is and then back tracking on their promises and claims.
Same thing happened in the Greek elections. A politician came, promised all sort of things, and in the end did exactly the opposite of what he promised.
So in the end people acted against their self-interest. Because they don't know what their interest is and because politicians tricked them. Story as old as mankind itself. There should be no need to "prove it". If it wasn't self-evident, then you are just out of touch with reality. But here you go, I spent 10 minutes explaining things that should be self-evident, to people who claim that they understand the politics and science of reconciling interests and opinions.
You fix that by having a more informed population. You can do this in multiple ways, but primarily the fight is in breaking the stranglehold of the mass media by popularising news outlets with more in-depth and clear analyses of the issues we face. It's not an impossible fight, it's one we can make a difference in. If you don't believe things will change, then step back and let people who are willing to make a difference put in the work to do it for you.
"Oh hey guys, let's do this very cool thing where we will all live way better. just don't read the fine print which says that everybody needs to be very smart and educated in order for all of this to work." And when they follow you and your idea touches reality and your plan shatters? What then? Because we have it very good now and you want to improve it a bit, but if (when) you fail we will have it A LOT worse. Risk vs. reward is not there at all.
If you want to improve things, go for it. But you are proposing to cure a common cold with a surgery.
I'm all for debate, but if you were interested in debate before you wouldn't have dismissed it as 'impossible' without explanation. Just because you say something is impossible doesn't make it so, you have to elaborate on why. If you're interested in engaging in the implementation details now I'm all for a debate.
> "You did not argue for better education. You argued for a change in the financial system."
I argued for both. I argued for a change in the financial system, and as I elaborated on how I could see this come to pass, I argued for better education. To me there is no conflict, to have an effective democracy you need an informed populace, otherwise people are too easily swayed by demagoguery. If you think this represents a shift in my argument, I'd invite you to read my comment history, I have been clear with my position on how the mass media plays a big role in influencing the masses. Breaking through the misinformation spread by the mass media is an important prerequisite for societal change that benefits the many. In terms of how to break through media manipulation, I could go into implementation details if you're interested.
> "Because we have it very good now"
Maybe in your world, but economic inequality is an increasingly pressing issue, and one that needs to be addressed. Take a look at this story...
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2016/01/...
If that is accurate, 62 people have the same level of wealth as half the population of the world. Do you recognise the types of problems that concentration of power can create?
But see, the education comes first. You don't promise people sunshine and rainbows and then give them a condition. They will not hear about the condition. They heard about the prize and all they hear is the prize. And this is how so many tin-foil hatters are bread, convinced of lizard people puppeteering the whole planet in their spare time. Bullshit like Zeigeist. Concatenations with half the facts missing. Straight to the conclusions. This is the route you take when you want to trick people, not when you want to educate them!
And no, I actually don't see the problem with income inequality. People in general are living better. I don't particularly care that Mark Zuckerberg has a million times more money then me. I will be able to send to send my son to the same university as his. So who cares and why?
Even if there are problems, you are curing a cold with surgery. it's all about risk/reward. And your ratio sucks. Big time.
As for your claim that you don't see the problems that come from income inequality, the rich have two main advantages:
1. They can more easily buy influence in government to have legislation passed that favours them over others.
2. They can take greater control of material assets, and alter the power dynamic in a market.
Do you see these as problems?
All the rich people were against Brexit but it still happened, didn't it? There is no one monolithic lizard people cabal that is out there to get you. There are many, many different groups with competing interests and opinions. This is why capitalism has been so good and has brought us so much prosperity. Real power cannot be usurped. Everybody competes. And this is why I cast doubt on your political acumen. You seem to have 0 consideration for competing interests and opinions. In your head everything happens in a vacuum and all will be OK if everybody was just a little bit more like you. Well, that's not going to happen. You can pout and scream unjustice and agitate people with beautiful promises and at the end of the day you will either have accomplished nothing or you will have crashed the best period in human history.
The kind of change you want requires a gradual improvement, not a revolution. Shift in the generations to come, not asking people to make a massive jump in their reasoning RIGHT NOW. And for all we know, the generations to come have a shift in their thinking. There's evidence for that. Milenials have a very different value chain the generations before them.
In other words, inflation is required because the world's economy is based on growth, and inflation and deflation are not equal in this scenario. If the world's economy was based on a steady state economic system, then we wouldn't need to create more money.
I'm not saying it's good, but you cannot screw the rich. The current situation is a compromise and a very sensible at that I might add, despite all the noise from tin-foil hatters.
There are also other, practical consideration which will make what you are proposing impossible to put in practice for a prolong period of time.
> "growth of money has to be tied to economic growth or otherwise the rich will feel screwed."
> "I'm not saying it's good, but you cannot screw the rich."
Two points:
1. Aside from the financial services industry, the rich would be just as capable of getting rich regardless of how new money was put into the system. The pot of available money to grow their businesses would still exist.
2. What is stopping a group from "screwing the rich"? Furthermore, why are you framing addressing economic inequality as "screwing the rich"? Economic inequality will get addressed one way or another, the divide between the rich and the poor shouldn't be allowed to grow unchecked.
> "the noise from tin-foil hatters."
If you're referring to me, I was merely pointing out how the money system works and pointing out that alternatives are available. If you want to refute the accuracy of what I've stated, then please feel free to do so.
Banks actually sell most of the mortgages back to the federal government in the us. Maybe that's the reason us government isn't inflating the dollar too much. They themselves hold most of it through mortgages.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Hinricht...
That's because of the money supply measure you choose, so it's a pretty meaningless thing to complain about.
M0 for example is a measure of the money supply that is not based off debt. Most of the other measures include demand deposits in fractional reserve banks which are primarily debt.