4 ms·

States being the source of money and not a neutral arbiter of it’s value is the major problem in my opinion, not the solution. With a set amount of money (or a

by poof131 10y ago

States being the source of money and not a neutral arbiter of it’s value is the major problem in my opinion, not the solution. With a set amount of money (or a slow fixed increase) markets are stable and operate efficiently (assuming minimal other burdens) in the allocation of resources and goods. But when governments ‘make’ money, the markets don’t allocate it, a small set of people do. This micromanagement of the economy leads to declining productivity and stagnation as money flows to the politically connected. The former USSR being a good example in the extreme. So money becomes politics. We’ve seen that those with money have used this to make even more: regressive taxes, bailouts, corporate inversions, etc. But the spread between rich and poor is becoming worse, so now the talk about UBI. The affect of this money distributed by bureaucratic fiat is that the middle class dies. The rich get richer with access to the new money, the poor get poorer and live off handouts, and those surviving in the middle get pushed to the poor side or figure out how to get to the rich side. A fairly standard state of affairs throughout history (lords and serfs), but not the future I’d like to see.

RobertoG 10y ago
Money is always politic. It seems to me that it's the people that more benefit of the current politics who more insist that this is not the case. "With a set amount of money (or a slow fixed increase) markets are stable and operate efficiently " A set amount of money was the gold standard or the Bretton Woods agreement later. The reason those disappeared is not because some governmental conspiracy, but because those kind of systems generate very fast unbalanced situations. A modern example of that, with small differences, is the Euro. A big economy where states have almost nothing to say in the quantity or the use of money.

by poof131 10y ago

RobertoG 10y ago

Money is always politic. It seems to me that it's the people that more benefit of the current politics who more insist that this is not the case. "With a set amount of money (or a slow fixed increase) markets are stable and operate efficiently " A set amount of money was the gold standard or the Bretton Woods agreement later. The reason those disappeared is not because some governmental conspiracy, but because those kind of systems generate very fast unbalanced situations. A modern example of that, with small differences, is the Euro. A big economy where states have almost nothing to say in the quantity or the use of money.