3 ms·

yes, the ingenuity of capitalism is redirecting selfishness and greed toward societally productive uses, rather than attempting to eliminate them. but that mech

yes, the ingenuity of capitalism is redirecting selfishness and greed toward societally productive uses, rather than attempting to eliminate them. but that mechanism has largely been subverted from a relentless onslaught over the last many decades (cartels, regulatory capture, etc.). but i'm not sure why currency needs reworking? unless you mean the central banking system and where and how money gets injected into the economy? (having just watched hamilton, the interesting bit to me how instrumental he was in the creation of our financial system as much as anything else--something that didn't stick from high school history apparently)

dougmwne 6y ago
I mean money is a synthetic concept and can function however we define and people will continue to chase large amounts of it. Bitcoin was an interesting thought experiment but seemed on a trajectory to convert the planet's crust into mining hardware. Money should probably have some kind of variable decay factor similar to inflation or maybe some kind of antipolarity to prevent it from clumping into large, passive collections. Maybe it should decay faster in large accounts than small accounts or decay faster if it hasn't passed through a tax system recently. Maybe small amounts should automatically earn interest to encourage individuals to save emergency funds and very small amounts could grow rapidly to provide basic income. I see no reason that the rich should be able have generational wealth without much incentive to take risks.
- clairity 6y ago
  ah, interesting to ponder. but why not also question the role of inflation as (economic) motivator? this tenet forces us to consider monetary factors more than we might otherwise, given the limitations of money to represent everything we value (an idealized premise of economic system as efficient allocator). the regulatory route is certainly fraught, but a steeply progressive tax on wealth (along with eliminating all the loopholes, like the lower capital gains tax) could drastically reduce money clumping. done well, it could encourage wealth building to a comfortable threshold, say $1MM, and then start to discourage greater wealth hoarding (without discouraging it completely or setting a max).

dougmwne 6y ago

I mean money is a synthetic concept and can function however we define and people will continue to chase large amounts of it. Bitcoin was an interesting thought experiment but seemed on a trajectory to convert the planet's crust into mining hardware. Money should probably have some kind of variable decay factor similar to inflation or maybe some kind of antipolarity to prevent it from clumping into large, passive collections. Maybe it should decay faster in large accounts than small accounts or decay faster if it hasn't passed through a tax system recently. Maybe small amounts should automatically earn interest to encourage individuals to save emergency funds and very small amounts could grow rapidly to provide basic income. I see no reason that the rich should be able have generational wealth without much incentive to take risks.

clairity 6y ago
ah, interesting to ponder. but why not also question the role of inflation as (economic) motivator? this tenet forces us to consider monetary factors more than we might otherwise, given the limitations of money to represent everything we value (an idealized premise of economic system as efficient allocator). the regulatory route is certainly fraught, but a steeply progressive tax on wealth (along with eliminating all the loopholes, like the lower capital gains tax) could drastically reduce money clumping. done well, it could encourage wealth building to a comfortable threshold, say $1MM, and then start to discourage greater wealth hoarding (without discouraging it completely or setting a max).