Lots to unpack here and I’m not looking to tackle all of it, but going back to any metal standard is a terrible idea. The value of a Fiat currency is based on the shared belief in it’s value, whereas a metal standard currency has its value in the shared belief in the value of the metal. No gain, but pushing the problem one step down the chain.
The substantial downside of metal standard currency is that it causes a scarcity in the metal compared to the amount needed for currency, leading to deflation. Suddenly you have a currency which encourages people not to spend as the currency is expected to be worth more in the future; the currency fails at it’s only job: facilitating trade.
The value of metal isn’t arbitrary,bits valuable because the metal is actually valuable. You can use copper for electronics, silver for medical instruments, gold for all kinds of things from semiconductors to low impedance buses.
There is no deflation of metal currencies or inflation. This is a common lie of corporate sellsmen trying to sell everyone into their pyramid scheme. The value slowly drifts over time and it is possible for the value to change more significantly with the discovery of new sources or technology which makes extracting easier. The point is though that compared to fiat currencies, it’s extremely stable and over generations. This makes the currency truly valuable, something people can save and give to their grandkids and it will be roughly the same value. People can retire for example without ever needing to put their money at mercy to the rich in speculation markets.
What is actually happening is the economy is growing but it’s being spread across all the currency holders, not just sucked up by the state and the corporate class. The is what you call deflation, but it’s what I would call economic appreciation. Simply put prices have to meet workers halfway.
The only real downside compared to fiat currency, and this is really the only one in actuality, is that money is harder to obtain without producing something of real value. This means that governments can not spend money to stimulate the economy, and the economy cannot carry massive amounts of debts which cannot be realized effectively. Interest rates would be high because interests would have to cover the people who default.
This is not a bad thing, this is an honest economy. It would be hard to imagine a modern economy operating like this, because it’s so fueled by cheap debt and wasteful spending, and huge bureaucracies, but those things come at the expense of the worker, who has the least bargaining power of all. With a hard currency, whatever a worker wants is honest. It can’t be stolen from them. It can’t be taxed outside of income effectively without near extortion/Mafia level tax schemes.
The middle class would absolutely thrive under this system, because they would possess one of the most valuable things under a hard currency system, labor. Since a worker is paid wages, they cannot really be duped by people. Once that money is in their hands that value has passed to them.
This also fixes so many other issues, like economic bubbles, economic instabilities and recessions and depressions. It fixes the value of hard assets like land since people have to pay taxes on land if they own a lot, where workers should have property taxes, only businesses that deal in commercial selling of land, people can actually afford land.
It would cause all kinds of issues with the way the economy is currently set up. Massive mega corporations would be bankrupt nearly overnight. Since they aren’t actually producing much real value for their costs. The stock market would tank, requiring the state step in and subsidize basic necessities for a few years, maybe even a generation. People would make a run on the stock market to withdraw their retirements they foolishly gambled with, trying to beat inflation.
Yet at the end of it, you would be left with a healthy and functioning economy. A small upper class, a large middle class, and a mild class of poverty striken people.
This could be handled pretty well by giving back half of all tax revenues in the form of UBI equally to everyone and setting up public clinics instead of having the extremely expensive Medicare system. You could offer doctors an abolition of their taxes and UBI to work there for the more meager wages, to encourage lots of high quality and older doctors to work there after they have acquired some private wealth that they would like to protect more from taxation. The federal bank instead of giving loans to banks, could give loans to people to build small affordable house. People can get one per lifetime and have the payment garnished from their wages or UBI. That way you could stimulate the economy more in times and also help to keep house prices low, so that the average worker can actually aquire wealth and raise up in class over generations.
This is how an economy should be designed. Freemarket socialism, fair and level taxes, hard currencies, UBI instead of welfare, public funding of private education that is the students choice, publicly owned infrastructure, utilities, and a cost effective public healthcare system that provides basic care, access to cheap medicine, and pain management for end of life care if people are poor.
With UBI and the state helping everyone get an apartment without high taxation, the economy would both thrive and everyone would have some basic social security. People would not have to work if they lived a meager lifestyle and could eat and acquire basic necessities. This would also make the labor market honest. Nobody would choose to work unless the wages were mutually beneficial. Most people would be happy. Women could stay home and raise children without being stuck in poverty and an argument away from homelessness or virtual prostitution with people having free time to pursue other things besides work, culture would thrive, technology would thrive and people would be happy, and also the economy would thrive because we would produce the best works on the planet.
This starts with cutting the rich off the tit of the tax payer. Cutting the materialistic geriatrics off the tit of the working person. This starts with people rejecting Reganomics and embracing free market private socialism instead of stupid communism or stupid capitalism fueled by fiat and authoritarianism.
Lots to unpack here and I’m not looking to tackle all of it, but going back to any metal standard is a terrible idea. The value of a Fiat currency is based on the shared belief in it’s value, whereas a metal standard currency has its value in the shared belief in the value of the metal. No gain, but pushing the problem one step down the chain.
The substantial downside of metal standard currency is that it causes a scarcity in the metal compared to the amount needed for currency, leading to deflation. Suddenly you have a currency which encourages people not to spend as the currency is expected to be worth more in the future; the currency fails at it’s only job: facilitating trade.
The value of metal isn’t arbitrary,bits valuable because the metal is actually valuable. You can use copper for electronics, silver for medical instruments, gold for all kinds of things from semiconductors to low impedance buses.
There is no deflation of metal currencies or inflation. This is a common lie of corporate sellsmen trying to sell everyone into their pyramid scheme. The value slowly drifts over time and it is possible for the value to change more significantly with the discovery of new sources or technology which makes extracting easier. The point is though that compared to fiat currencies, it’s extremely stable and over generations. This makes the currency truly valuable, something people can save and give to their grandkids and it will be roughly the same value. People can retire for example without ever needing to put their money at mercy to the rich in speculation markets.
What is actually happening is the economy is growing but it’s being spread across all the currency holders, not just sucked up by the state and the corporate class. The is what you call deflation, but it’s what I would call economic appreciation. Simply put prices have to meet workers halfway.
The only real downside compared to fiat currency, and this is really the only one in actuality, is that money is harder to obtain without producing something of real value. This means that governments can not spend money to stimulate the economy, and the economy cannot carry massive amounts of debts which cannot be realized effectively. Interest rates would be high because interests would have to cover the people who default.
This is not a bad thing, this is an honest economy. It would be hard to imagine a modern economy operating like this, because it’s so fueled by cheap debt and wasteful spending, and huge bureaucracies, but those things come at the expense of the worker, who has the least bargaining power of all. With a hard currency, whatever a worker wants is honest. It can’t be stolen from them. It can’t be taxed outside of income effectively without near extortion/Mafia level tax schemes.
The middle class would absolutely thrive under this system, because they would possess one of the most valuable things under a hard currency system, labor. Since a worker is paid wages, they cannot really be duped by people. Once that money is in their hands that value has passed to them.
This also fixes so many other issues, like economic bubbles, economic instabilities and recessions and depressions. It fixes the value of hard assets like land since people have to pay taxes on land if they own a lot, where workers should have property taxes, only businesses that deal in commercial selling of land, people can actually afford land.
It would cause all kinds of issues with the way the economy is currently set up. Massive mega corporations would be bankrupt nearly overnight. Since they aren’t actually producing much real value for their costs. The stock market would tank, requiring the state step in and subsidize basic necessities for a few years, maybe even a generation. People would make a run on the stock market to withdraw their retirements they foolishly gambled with, trying to beat inflation.
Yet at the end of it, you would be left with a healthy and functioning economy. A small upper class, a large middle class, and a mild class of poverty striken people.
This could be handled pretty well by giving back half of all tax revenues in the form of UBI equally to everyone and setting up public clinics instead of having the extremely expensive Medicare system. You could offer doctors an abolition of their taxes and UBI to work there for the more meager wages, to encourage lots of high quality and older doctors to work there after they have acquired some private wealth that they would like to protect more from taxation. The federal bank instead of giving loans to banks, could give loans to people to build small affordable house. People can get one per lifetime and have the payment garnished from their wages or UBI. That way you could stimulate the economy more in times and also help to keep house prices low, so that the average worker can actually aquire wealth and raise up in class over generations.
This is how an economy should be designed. Freemarket socialism, fair and level taxes, hard currencies, UBI instead of welfare, public funding of private education that is the students choice, publicly owned infrastructure, utilities, and a cost effective public healthcare system that provides basic care, access to cheap medicine, and pain management for end of life care if people are poor.
With UBI and the state helping everyone get an apartment without high taxation, the economy would both thrive and everyone would have some basic social security. People would not have to work if they lived a meager lifestyle and could eat and acquire basic necessities. This would also make the labor market honest. Nobody would choose to work unless the wages were mutually beneficial. Most people would be happy. Women could stay home and raise children without being stuck in poverty and an argument away from homelessness or virtual prostitution with people having free time to pursue other things besides work, culture would thrive, technology would thrive and people would be happy, and also the economy would thrive because we would produce the best works on the planet.
This starts with cutting the rich off the tit of the tax payer. Cutting the materialistic geriatrics off the tit of the working person. This starts with people rejecting Reganomics and embracing free market private socialism instead of stupid communism or stupid capitalism fueled by fiat and authoritarianism.