Pete Theisen wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 September 2007 07:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> If this should ever actually be tried, the rich would get the "1"s and
>>> the poor would get the "0"s, though. I know, the rich are more deserving.
> <snip>
>> where would funding for the central bank come from?  The
>> theory says there would be no expropriation (taxation). 
> <snip>
>> Secondly, if the loans are interest free, who, but the taxpayers, would pay
>> the administrative costs of the program.
> 
> The literature on the topic suggests that the money be "created", arguing 
> that 
> all modern money is fiat money anyway. Since this money creation is 
> inflationary, the created money deriving its value from the already existing 
> money, the expropriation would be from all those who had money in any amount.

That means unfair taxing. Poor people will end up paying more, as rich
people have less of their possessions in cash.

> 
>> They would, in effect be in charge of picking winners and loosers.
> 
> The ESOP model is supposedly a form of this. You get ownership credit in some 
> relation to your work. In effect, a pay increase.
> 
>> The reason Pete has a point with the 1s and 0s is that the rich understand
>> how to work the system the poor do not

Wrong. Rich can afford to wait till the system works for them, poor
people have to eat. And rich people can pay the lawyers and accountants
to milk the system, poor people can not. So it's not an inherent virtue.
> 
> So the rich *are* more deserving!




_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to