Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
These are related proposals, but unlike the negative income tax concept, basic income is a universal and unconditional payment. Basic Income pilot project has just begun in India: http://binews.org/2011/08/opinion-two-pilot-schemes-in-india/ A Basic Income project in Nambia: http://www.bignam.org/ A small Basic Income project in Brasil: https://www.facebook.com/BIGQUATINGAVELHO?v=info Harry From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 8:36:43 AM Subject: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax Global negative income tax There would be radical sounding, but very plausible solution for all war and absolute poverty related social problems. That is ca. $1000 annual negative income tax for each adult citizens of Earth indifferently on their past history or current wealth. This may sound radical idea, but actually it is not. If it's pros and cons are carefully weighted it really has no meaningful counter arguments. As total global GDP is around 76 teradollars, it would require only 9% total tax rate for each countries. This is not too much, if it is considered that typical Western European Citizen would pay $4000 annual tax, but would also receive back one quarter of that, i.e. $3000 net payment or 6% of her income. To understand that there is no counter arguments, but only prejudices might be hard, but it should not be that. One thing is that these cost figures would not last very long, because third world countries would receive huge relative boost for their national economy and that would eventually lead to more even income distribution and thus less unjust economic burden for rich countries. In order to participate to this program there should be strict zero tolerance for war in any form, because there is no such thing as justified war. There should be also required at least nominal democratic elections and somewhat bureaucracy free markets. Also there should be possibility to collect efficiently at least 9% of national GDP taxes in order to pay each country's share of common cake. Right now even Greece has difficulties with this due to its intensive and inefficient bureaucracy and thus extensive black economy. With these requirements all willing countries or economic zones would rise very fast from the economic black hole what is caused by intensive absolute poverty, continuous civil wars, inhumane dictators and lastly but certainly not for least intensive government bureaucracy for any means for people to employ themself as entrepreneurs. This is by no means trivial notion but poverty and wars cost absolutely gargantuan amount of money for the global economy, because warring and poor people are deprived almost totally from the effective labor opportunities. This is why poverty is itself just a huge cost with zero benefit, but it is better to ensure basic needs for all people, so that they can have their time left for doing something productive (like doing IT-work and buying iPads) and not using their time for trying to survive as farmer-gatherers in the slum. Also this is why total cost of negative income tax is always greatly positive, because it increases effective purchasing power due to more even distribution of wealth. And jobs and especially rich people's pay rolls are strictly depended on total effective purchasing power of the poorest majority of people. It is somewhat surprising to see how simple is this solution to solve all global social problems that were thought to be insoluble, because old people thinks that social welfare and development aid for third world countries should be strictly need based. Also this would greatly increase globalization and after all, we do have only one planet. And is this solution socialistic? Not at all, because this would practically force global economy to be vastly more capital driven than current state, where huge amounts of tax moneys are collected and they are spent to the socialistic megaprojects such as antigravity driven b2 bombers. Negative income tax will always return every collected tax dollar back to market and it increases effective purchasing power. Therefore the cost for global economy is essentially zero, if not positive as it increases total effective purchasing power by distributing resources more evenly. For these reasons and many more arguments global negative income tax should be perfect companion for E-Cat that they both have possibility end all basic need related social problems once and for all! —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
Harry, thanks for the correction. I have discussed this subject previously only in Finnish, so I was unsure if the basic income is widely used term. In finnish language, we do not use the term negative income tax, but indeed we use basic income. (Economic impact is the same for both but administration is different) Basic income is absolutely fabulous concept, because it could remove all poverty and suffering from Earth with little monetary efforts. It is sad that people experience so much difficulties of understanding the concept. Somehow it reminds me cold fusion debate, that people attack it fiercely although they really do not have real arguments. I am glad to hear pilot project in India. It won't take many years before we see that it does much more with much much less money. Because the benefit is the most stricking where the need for basic necessities is the most urgent, i.e. in poor countries. Most sad thing is, that any wealthy individual could change the world by sponsoring basic income for some African village. —Jouni On Aug 9, 2011 3:43 AM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: These are related proposals, but unlike the negative income tax concept, basic income is a universal and unconditional payment. Basic Income pilot project has just begun in India: http://binews.org/2011/08/opinion-two-pilot-schemes-in-india/ A Basic Income project in Nambia: http://www.bignam.org/ A small Basic Income project in Brasil: https://www.facebook.com/BIGQUATINGAVELHO?v=info Harry From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 8:36:43 AM Subject: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax Global negative income tax There would be radical sounding, but very plausible solution for all war and absolute poverty related social problems. That is ca. $1000 annual negative income tax for each adult citizens of Earth indifferently on their past history or current wealth. This may sound radical idea, but actually it is not. If it's pros and cons are carefully weighted it really has no meaningful counter arguments. As total global GDP is around 76 teradollars, it would require only 9% total tax rate for each countries. This is not too much, if it is considered that typical Western European Citizen would pay $4000 annual tax, but would also receive back one quarter of that, i.e. $3000 net payment or 6% of her income. To understand that there is no counter arguments, but only prejudices might be hard, but it should not be that. One thing is that these cost figures would not last very long, because third world countries would receive huge relative boost for their national economy and that would eventually lead to more even income distribution and thus less unjust economic burden for rich countries. In order to participate to this program there should be strict zero tolerance for war in any form, because there is no such thing as justified war. There should be also required at least nominal democratic elections and somewhat bureaucracy free markets. Also there should be possibility to collect efficiently at least 9% of national GDP taxes in order to pay each country's share of common cake. Right now even Greece has difficulties with this due to its intensive and inefficient bureaucracy and thus extensive black economy. With these requirements all willing countries or economic zones would rise very fast from the economic black hole what is caused by intensive absolute poverty, continuous civil wars, inhumane dictators and lastly but certainly not for least intensive government bureaucracy for any means for people to employ themself as entrepreneurs. This is by no means trivial notion but poverty and wars cost absolutely gargantuan amount of money for the global economy, because warring and poor people are deprived almost totally from the effective labor opportunities. This is why poverty is itself just a huge cost with zero benefit, but it is better to ensure basic needs for all people, so that they can have their time left for doing something productive (like doing IT-work and buying iPads) and not using their time for trying to survive as farmer-gatherers in the slum. Also this is why total cost of negative income tax is always greatly positive, because it increases effective purchasing power due to more even distribution of wealth. And jobs and especially rich people's pay rolls are strictly depended on total effective purchasing power of the poorest majority of people. It is somewhat surprising to see how simple is this solution to solve all global social problems that were thought to be insoluble, because old people thinks that social welfare and development aid for third world countries should be strictly need based. Also this would greatly increase globalization and after all, we do have only one planet. And is this solution socialistic? Not at all, because this would practically force global economy to be vastly more capital driven
Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
Global negative income tax It's not just a coincidence that the world's largest democracies have the most catastrophic wars, the most debt, the most regulations, and the highest taxes. The power seekers of the world seek power, and the most power is at the top. The freest countries offer the most to take by the power seekers at the expense of us all. You propose to end war with a global democracy, but wars will never end as long as we give the power seekers the ability to wage war. You propose to end poverty with a global government, but poverty will never end as long as we give the power seekers our money. What you propose is a contradiction. Math doesn't exist in the real world. It is an abstract logical science developed to help us quantify the world around us. The scientific method doesn't exist in the real world. It is a science developed to help us understand the world around us. But where people do not question the validity of math and science to solve real-world problems, they do question the validity of morality when working with other people, declare it worthless, and then put together elaborate schemes, like a global democracy, to try to solve complex moral problems. Your system is a contradiction and cannot solve the problems you identify because you separate value from the valuer. Something can only have value to someone specific. Your solutions to poverty are someone else's prescriptions for tyranny. The value you place on ending poverty, comes at the expense that someone else places on the value of their money -- for if they agreed with you, then they would donate their money to your cause. For those who don't agree with you, you take their money with the threat of violence. This is the nature of taxation, and the nature of those who do not try to work with others using a moral code. Almost everyone here is a visionary. We believe in the future with the knowledge that all of our theories will someday give way to better theories which will lead us to a life with infinite energy where fantastic devices await us. We are able to see the possibilities where few look, and are willing to look where few believe possibilities lie. This is why we're all on this list; looking for the next great future discovery. So open your eyes and realize that if you want to live in a world without war, without poverty, without constant political strife, then stop giving power to those who seek power. Stop building complex political systems where the few achieve their goals at the expense of everyone else who is not in power. Democracy does not give you equality; it gives you a methodological system of self-immolation, like in the episode of Star Trek where a society had abolished war only to replace it with a computerized system of war, where people affected in a simulated attack had to REALLY go and allow themselves to be killed as if the attack had actually occurred. They replaced war with a game of war, and you have replaced morality with a game of morality called democracy. The solution is simple: we need to start treating other people as equals. So build a moral code with equality as an axiom; and apply whatever theory you develop, equally to everyone. Make no exceptions for race, gender, class, nor any other type of aggregation. Make no exception for any group of people, and you will find that the moral theory you develop will not give power seekers the power they desire over others. Make no exception for government. So if it's wrong to steal, then it's wrong to tax. If it's wrong to kill, then it's wrong to wage war. If it's wrong to commit aggression, then force will only be used in defense from aggression. If you do this; if you build a society which respects the values of others and does not take from some people to help some other people, then you will find people banding together to solve problems like poverty, all working together in the mutual spirit of assistance, and not as slaves forced to give up the money they value, for someone else's good idea. In the 1800s, the abolitionists showed us that we must have political equality between the races. In the 1900s, the suffragettes showed us that we must have political equality between the genders. Realize now, that if we are to move forward from a world based on violence, then we must stop institutionalizing violence, and build a world with political equality for everyone. Craig Haynie
Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
2011/8/6 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com: You propose to end war with a global democracy, but wars will never end as long as we give the power seekers the ability to wage war. I have not seen a war in 66 years, because I live in civilized and rich country. Believe me, war is something that is only reserved for poor people. If we end poverty, we will end all wars. Rich people do not war with each other, because every rich nation has resources to throw hundreds of H-bombs over the border. You propose to end poverty with a global government, but poverty will never end as long as we give the power seekers our money. That is untrue. Most of the Western European country have laid poverty long time ago into past. E.g. in Denmark has minimum negative income like social welfare $1,850 in month and in addition to that income depended unemployment compensation is up to 70-90% of the income when you were employed. I doubt that typical American McJob laborer does have net income much more than $1,850 per month. Of course if you have such a high social welfare, there is no need for anyone to benefit from it, because there is zero unemployment in Denmark and lowest public dept among western countries. Negative income tax is just simplified social welfare that is completely free from bureaucracy and free from those people who posses political power. Negative income tax is so simple to do in practice that we need to just write a computer program that automatically transfers fixed amount of money to each citizens bank account. There is absolutely no need for power hungry individuals, who spent you tax dollars as they wish. On the contrary negative income tax will nullify governments, because we do not need them anymore to ensure public medicare and welfare. I think that this is why you have hard time to understand what negative income tax is, because you are so used to that how American government spent their money. But this is only American problem. We have excellently working systems here in Europe with zero poverty. And negative income tax is just final step towards nullifying all governments altogether as an obsolete relic of the past. The value you place on ending poverty, comes at the expense that someone else places on the value of their money -- for if they agreed with you, then they would donate their money to your cause. That is not true, because negative income tax returns everything back to Steve Jobs. No matter how rich you are, you only need one iPad. But If we tax 50% of Steve's income and distribute all money to the poor, that means that Steve can sell one million iPads more annually. This will increase greatly Steve's net income. Probably even more than he is paying taxes. This logic is applied in all levels of income classes, namely negative income tax increases amount of jobs and salaries, and thus everybody will benefit from it. Rich people will, as always, benefit the most, but also poor people income will quadruple. And from poor end of spectrum it does not cost even a dime to quadruple once income, although social benefit is huge. The solution is simple: we need to start treating other people as equals. So build a moral code with equality as an axiom; and apply whatever theory you develop, equally to everyone. In order to treat people equally, we need to ensure that everyone has basic needs fulfilled. You cannot be equal and hungry at the same time. Hunger is the most oppressive and tyrannical dictator! It does not give any merci. - Jouni
Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
It's not reserved for poor countries, but weak countries. Thus, poor Libya, having given up its nuclear ambitions, gets smacked around with a large trout, whereas poor DPRK is allowed to fire missiles randomly around its region, and it receives a finger wag. Craig, truly brilliant post. Sent from my iPhone. On Aug 6, 2011, at 11:04, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/8/6 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com: You propose to end war with a global democracy, but wars will never end as long as we give the power seekers the ability to wage war. I have not seen a war in 66 years, because I live in civilized and rich country. Believe me, war is something that is only reserved for poor people. If we end poverty, we will end all wars.
Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
I think we will need to do something like this when robots and computers eliminate most human labor. We need a gradual transition so a system along these lines. See: http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
On 11-08-06 11:04 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/8/6 Craig Hayniecchayniepub...@gmail.com: You propose to end war with a global democracy, but wars will never end as long as we give the power seekers the ability to wage war. I have not seen a war in 66 years, because I live in civilized and rich country. Believe me, war is something that is only reserved for poor people. Like the French and the Germans in WWI, WWII, and the Franco-Prussian wars? They were poor people? The folks in Berlin during the bombing raids of WWII were all poor people? The people of Japan during WWII were all poor (and democratic)? I think you are mistaking the Pax Atomica for a reluctance of rich folks to inconvenience each other. Since WWII ended, the only wars I can think of in which at least one party was *not* nuclear armed were between India and Pakistan -- and they were serious nail-biters, which scared just about all rational folk on the planet.
Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
2011/8/6 Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com: On 11-08-06 11:04 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/8/6 Craig Hayniecchayniepub...@gmail.com: You propose to end war with a global democracy, but wars will never end as long as we give the power seekers the ability to wage war. I have not seen a war in 66 years, because I live in civilized and rich country. Believe me, war is something that is only reserved for poor people. Like the French and the Germans in WWI, WWII, and the Franco-Prussian wars? They were poor people? Yes, they did not have even iPad! Extremely poor folks. Wealth is never relative measure for standard of living but it is always absolute measure of living, and more accurately, the wealth is how many cores there are in your cell phone CPU. Technology is the real measure of wealth, money is just mediator what can be utilized into exchanging and distributing technology. - Jouni
Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
- Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 1:44:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax Since WWII ended, the only wars I can think of in which at least one party was *not* nuclear armed were between India and Pakistan -- and they were serious nail-biters, which scared just about all rational folk on the planet. what about the Iran/Irag war and the numerous wars in Africa? harry
Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
2011/8/6 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: I think we will need to do something like this when robots and computers eliminate most human labor. We need a gradual transition so a system along these lines. See: http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ - Jed I think that according synopsis, author is too pessimistic about the future technology. However, it is for sure that there is huge demand for reducing the work hours to something like 20-30 hours per week. Around $1000-2000 negative income tax per month would make it very much easier encouraging to shorten the workday. This applies only of course for low paid work. Those entrepreneurs who have high income level will do now and in the future 60+ hour work week! But I am sure that no matter how much there will be robotic technology to do simple works, there is always enough demand for full employment. Unemployment is typically just an artifact of uneven wealth distribution and poor welfare design, where poor people need to make choice that either they live fully with social welfare or they do low paid part time works and does not earn much more net incomes than they get from welfare by doing nothing. With negative income tax poor people will get not just $2000 cash, but they can also earn extra income by doing part time work, what is always available. That would ensure that poorest people in the society would have net income of something between $3000-4000 per month. I think that this is the level of income that is quite well above the poverty line! - Jouni Ps. I am unsure about the level of typical income in USA. In Finland I have calculated that we would afford to some €1000-1500 negative income tax per month in current taxation level that is something like 45%. Therefore in USA, with their current taxation level, that is presumably something in order of 30%, $2000 per month should be realistic.
Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
WHOOPS -- I just re-read my original note. Mea culpa; Harry, you parsed it right, I said it wrong. I said it backwards: I meant to say: Since WWII ended, in every war I can think of, at least one party was *not* nuclear armed, except the conflict between India and Pakistan... I should avoid negatives, they're too easy to mess up. On 11-08-06 03:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-08-06 02:56 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 1:44:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax Since WWII ended, the only wars I can think of in which at least one party was *not* nuclear armed were between India and Pakistan -- and they were serious nail-biters, which scared just about all rational folk on the planet. what about the Iran/Irag war and the numerous wars in Africa? Did you mis-parse my negative construct? Iraq, Iran, and nearly all parties in Africa are *not* nuclear armed. All the conflicts to which you refer had at least one party which was *not* nuclear armed. It's just too dangerous to go to war if both parties have the bomb. Hence, the Pax Atomica, which kept the peace between Russia and the United States for decades, during which they shoved each other around in other ways, vying for the title of Globally Dominant Power. In the pre-atomic age, there would have been a WWIII coming hard on the heels of WWII, as the US and USSR slugged it out for the championship.
Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
- Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 3:36:36 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax On 11-08-06 02:56 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 1:44:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax Since WWII ended, the only wars I can think of in which at least one party was *not* nuclear armed were between India and Pakistan -- and they were serious nail-biters, which scared just about all rational folk on the planet. what about the Iran/Irag war and the numerous wars in Africa? Did you mis-parse my negative construct? Iraq, Iran, and nearly all parties in Africa are *not* nuclear armed. All the conflicts to which you refer had at least one party which was *not* nuclear armed. It's just too dangerous to go to war if both parties have the bomb. Hence, the Pax Atomica, which kept the peace between Russia and the United States for decades, during which they shoved each other around in other ways, vying for the title of Globally Dominant Power. In the pre-atomic age, there would have been a WWIII coming hard on the heels of WWII, as the US and USSR slugged it out for the championship. You said AT LEAST one party which was not nuclear armed, which I took to mean one or both parties which were not nuclear armed. Harry
RE: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
An excerpt from Jouni: ... Technology is the real measure of wealth, money is just mediator what can be utilized into exchanging and distributing technology. Generally speaking, I tend to agree with this assessment. I suspect books like The Lights in the Tunnel which Mr. Rothwell brought to our attention will indeed point society towards more sane ways in which manage the economy. What is insane is having the economy dictated (hijacked) by political ideologies that show little comprehension of the bitter pills they want everyone to swallow. The same ideologies show little comprehension as to the ramifications of how advancing technology automation will transform our economy, nor how society will need to adjust accordingly. Dreamers of a future economic utopia, like me, have a very hard sell ahead of them. From my perspective the USA is currently strangled by certain Neanderthal-like political organizations that subscribe to ideologies so incredibly wrapped up in their own sense of righteousness that they don't perceive the fact that they are currently eating their own young. When they finish eating their own kin, they will go after everyone else's. My own predilections concerning economic theory have led me to conclude that our current concept of what money, what CURRENCY represents has gotten completely out of hand. IMO, currency should be treated as nothing more sacred than as a mundane contractual document, a transaction representing the exchange of goods and services between participating entities. Money, the concept of what currency represents, should no longer be treated like fixed units of physical objects. Money, currency should no longer be treated as if they are physical pieces of gold and silver coins. Maintaining stashes of gold and silver in the King's vault was how economic theory worked in the past. However, trying to maintain the same kinds of stashes in twenty-first century and beyond will, IMO, lead to economic ruin. The sooner everyone gets over how freaked out they are over the fact that currency possesses no intrinsic value of its own, the sooner everyone realizes the fact that the only value that should be measured should be the value of actual goods and services being exchanged between participating entities, the better off we will all be. Where it all went terribly wrong was when money itself became the Holy Grail, the ultimate goal that must be acquired and subsequently squandered in mattresses, within heavily guarded vaults surrounded by motes filled with hungry alligators. The tragedy of this folly is that the intrinsic value of GOODS and SERVICES, for which money was supposed to represent, is in danger of being perceived as less valuable than the currency itself. In other words, the maniacal need to protect the perceived value of CURRENCY itself is beginning to supersede the need to protect and maintain the overall health and value of generating goods and services. We have essentially put the cart before the horse. To prevent valuable goods and services from being produced because there is insufficient currency is absolutely insane! If the goods and raw materials are there... if there is available labor willing to generate those goods and services, the lack of available currency should never EVER be the reason why such goods and services were never generated. In the United States there currently exist certain political agendas attempting to tell everyone that we must cut taxes because in their view taxation prevents the creation of jobs which in turns destroys the economy. They seem oblivious to the fact that those very taxes they want to cut directly pay the salaries for hundreds and thousands of government employees who, in turn, spend their income out in the market. They don't want to hear about the fact that when government employees spend their money it boosts the economy in exactly the same manner as what would be spent from individuals who work and earn income out in the free market. Money is money. It makes no difference where the currency comes from nor how the currency is eventually spent. Granted we obviously need to maintain a stable currency distribution system. To be effective however we must also devise systems that distribute money equitably amongst as many individuals as possible. Said differently, systems that help generate equitable distributions of currency is what ultimately helps keep economies running healthy. Some may perceive this as nothing more than a veiled threat to generate a welfare state. Some might even complain that welfare states harm the economy by taking advantage of labor generated by those who perform honest work presumably performed out in the free market. But what if more and more of that honest work ends up being performed by robotics, “slaves” that never complain about their salaries and don't want to unionize. The point is that
Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
On 11-08-06 04:09 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: You said AT LEAST one party which was not nuclear armed, which I took to mean one or both parties which were not nuclear armed. Right you were. My comment was scrambled; mine was the error. Sorry!
Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
Sent from my iPhone. On Aug 6, 2011, at 18:54, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: ... They don't want to hear about the fact that when government employees spend their money it boosts the economy in exactly the same manner as what would be spent from individuals who work and earn income out in the free market. Money is money. It makes no difference where the currency comes from nor how the currency is eventually spent. No. Creating products according to market demand is different than creating them without any market demand. Otherwise the unemployed could all get rich hiring each other to create and sell snotty tissues and books filled with with random words. Has it been that long since the USSR crumbled that we have forgotten this? Leftists in power all over the world have to come face the superiority of markets to determine what should be produced, except for the west, where they are mercifully protected from the consequences of their ideas.
RE: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
From Charles Hope OrionWorks sez: ... They don't want to hear about the fact that when government employees spend their money it boosts the economy in exactly the same manner as what would be spent from individuals who work and earn income out in the free market. Money is money. It makes no difference where the currency comes from nor how the currency is eventually spent. No. Creating products according to market demand is different than creating them without any market demand. Otherwise the unemployed could all get rich hiring each other to create and sell snotty tissues and books filled with with random words. Has it been that long since the USSR crumbled that we have forgotten this? Leftists in power all over the world have to come face the superiority of markets to determine what should be produced, except for the west, where they are mercifully protected from the consequences of their ideas. If you look carefully at your reply you may notice that it did not actually address what you had specifically highlighted from my previous response. You did reply about the need for a free market system in order to produce competitive products and services that potential customers can choose from to either buy or not as the case may be. I certainly agree with your concerns on such matters. None of my perceptions concerning the reevaluation of what currency represents was meant to do away with the superiority of a free market system. I'd like to in fact give free markets an additional shot in the arm, such as by making sure basic services like health insurance, transportation services, maintaining standards that keep raw materials and produce safe a basic right that everyone is entitled to receive. Those rights should not have to be paid for in the sense of being taxed. As we all know, many of our citizens literally can't afford many of these basic services, and there's the rub that needs to be addressed - and CAN be addressed. Governments should be able to employ individuals that have been appropriately educated to maintain such services, and they should be paid accordingly. Governments have the monetary resources to employ such individuals whereas private enterprises don't. A virtual currency system which is what I'm really talking about implies that it's the value of goods and services themselves that ultimately generates the value of money, not the other way around. Unfortunately, this is a subtle point that many do not comprehend very well. Too many of us simply believe we can't afford this or that service while simultaneously oblivious to the fact that there exist plenty of raw materials, resources, and idle human labor that is more than capable of generating these very necessities. The only thing stopping their production is the perceived belief that we don't have enough money in the piggy bank to pay for them. Not true. So, how do we pay for them? A big difference that separates governments from business, is the fact that no business is allowed to generate money, out of thin air. Governments, however, can generate money, and do so all the time. It's the careful management of how much currency government allows to be distributed throughout the free market system that helps sustain a healthy stable economy. Granted, many governments have seriously abused such monetary powers causing massive hyperinflation to ensure. OTOH, Free markets, if left completely on their own resources, unchecked and unregulated, are completely incapable of keeping the economy healthy. Sooner or later many of such enterprises tend to run the economy into the ground. They will end up eating their own young. You mentioned the failure of the USSR. What about the failure of Enron? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
