5 ms·

This requires a perfectly just world. We do not live in such a world and we probably never will.

• ZenoArrow 10y ago
  It doesn't. 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-here/ 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.
  • blahi 10y ago
    Oh but it does. Because you will essentially be destroying the wealth of the rich people. They will not agree to that.
    • ZenoArrow 10y ago
      All it requires is for people to choose democratic representatives that stick up for the interests of the masses. Even if a few rich people disagree with the policy, it doesn't matter if the masses have decided what they want to happen.
      • blahi 10y ago
        Oh, if that's all that is required then it shouldn't be such a big problem.
        • ZenoArrow 10y ago
          Glad you agree.
          • blahi 10y ago
            Have you been involved in any political decision? Even just at a company level?
            • ZenoArrow 10y ago
              Yes. Why?
              • blahi 10y ago
                You definitely don't sound like you hqve.
                • ZenoArrow 10y ago
                  Looks like you were mistaken then. 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?
                  • blahi 10y ago
                    I already addressed what needed addressing. 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?
                    • AnimalMuppet 10y ago
                      > 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. 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.