3 ms·

Then the prices would be marked up constantly but there also would be a constant increase in the money supply This is called (hyper)inflation. They already hav

by gaius 9y ago

Then the prices would be marked up constantly but there also would be a constant increase in the money supply This is called (hyper)inflation. They already have that, no new app required.

EGreg 9y ago
You're describing the problem, not the solution. If all people have to run to the ATM faster than they take a piss so they can buy food then making payments digital is an immediate improvement. But that's just the first part. Did you read the part about issuing 2X the amount of currency to your own people for every X you issue to pay back foreign interests? I want substantive feedback on my UBI proposal!
- gaius 9y ago
  That's again inflationary - because each unit of currency is worth less. Money is not wealth, its a token of exchange for wealth. Your proposal is akin to educating a country by "issuing" degree certificates at a certain rate, completely ignoring if anyone is learning anything.
  - EGreg 9y ago
    I didn't argue that it wasn't inflationary. Right at the outset I described inflation. Did you actually read the rest of my post? I asked about something completely different. You seem to be saying people who don't have enough money at a given moment should starve. The difference with your example of degree certificates is that they are not basic necessities needed for survival.
    - mmirate 9y ago
      And you seem to be saying that any warm body deserves to survive, at any cost to anyone, a priori, regardless of any other information whatsoever.
      - EGreg 9y ago
        No, I didn't say "at any cost to anyone". I specifically outlined the system and the cost. You are again attacking straw men, this time by adding clauses. So can you stop beating around the bush and admit you don't think humans should survive if they don't have enough wealth, even if their society has more than enough wealth for them to do so? That's the fundamental point.
        mmirate 9y ago
        That is correct. It ought be no-one else's fault if someone cannot produce anything of value greater-than-or-equal-to that required to sustain their own life. Such people are as vestigial to society as an appendix is vestigial to the human body. (And yet, annoyingly, we still have appendices. sigh.) Of course, I do believe it possible that the other person who was replying to you in this thread, may have different views than mine.
        EGreg 9y ago
        It's not a question of fault. But thank you for cooperating and getting straight to the point where you disagree with many other people.
    - gaius 9y ago
      You seem to be saying people who don't have enough money at a given moment should starve No, I'm saying that if the food (wealth) doesn't exist, no amount of money (tokens) can buy it. You are postulating that the problem is lack if tokens.

by gaius 9y ago

Then the prices would be marked up constantly but there also would be a constant increase in the money supply This is called (hyper)inflation. They already have that, no new app required.

EGreg 9y ago

You're describing the problem, not the solution. If all people have to run to the ATM faster than they take a piss so they can buy food then making payments digital is an immediate improvement. But that's just the first part. Did you read the part about issuing 2X the amount of currency to your own people for every X you issue to pay back foreign interests? I want substantive feedback on my UBI proposal!

gaius 9y ago
That's again inflationary - because each unit of currency is worth less. Money is not wealth, its a token of exchange for wealth. Your proposal is akin to educating a country by "issuing" degree certificates at a certain rate, completely ignoring if anyone is learning anything.
- EGreg 9y ago
  I didn't argue that it wasn't inflationary. Right at the outset I described inflation. Did you actually read the rest of my post? I asked about something completely different. You seem to be saying people who don't have enough money at a given moment should starve. The difference with your example of degree certificates is that they are not basic necessities needed for survival.
  - mmirate 9y ago
    And you seem to be saying that any warm body deserves to survive, at any cost to anyone, a priori, regardless of any other information whatsoever.
    - EGreg 9y ago
      No, I didn't say "at any cost to anyone". I specifically outlined the system and the cost. You are again attacking straw men, this time by adding clauses. So can you stop beating around the bush and admit you don't think humans should survive if they don't have enough wealth, even if their society has more than enough wealth for them to do so? That's the fundamental point.
      - mmirate 9y ago
        That is correct. It ought be no-one else's fault if someone cannot produce anything of value greater-than-or-equal-to that required to sustain their own life. Such people are as vestigial to society as an appendix is vestigial to the human body. (And yet, annoyingly, we still have appendices. sigh.) Of course, I do believe it possible that the other person who was replying to you in this thread, may have different views than mine.
        EGreg 9y ago
        It's not a question of fault. But thank you for cooperating and getting straight to the point where you disagree with many other people.
  - gaius 9y ago
    You seem to be saying people who don't have enough money at a given moment should starve No, I'm saying that if the food (wealth) doesn't exist, no amount of money (tokens) can buy it. You are postulating that the problem is lack if tokens.