Re: Universal Basic Income
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:13 pm
Old Europe, thanks for a very detailed response.
Your points (1) and (2) are contradicted by the monetary systems within the USA from 1790-1913. There was a lot of non-debt money and there was no income tax. There were of course a lot of problems that the Federal Reserve Act was supposed to prevent, but it hasn't done so.
Point (3) is a faulty deconstruction of an irrelevant use of the word labor. You made a series of incorrect comparisons based on an incorrect interpreation of labor as some commodity with relative value. I am using the word labor in its most simple and obvious form and acknowledging that it is the basis for creating value. I don't know how to make it more simple: nothing happens without labor, without productive human effort. It is real. Value is an abstraction upon labor and money is an abstraction upon value. Whether money is based on a physical item like gold or just a symbol backed by credit and faith doesn't really change anything, although I would argue the limitation on money creation by the gold standard in the USA from 1944-1971 coincided with the greatest period of economic and industrial growth in the history of mankind, and that real wages and purchasing power have remained stagnant or decreased since then.
Point (4) There are three things you said that are relevant. If you understand the current monetary system it has two features at the inception of money: (a) intangibility: money created from nothing, it is an idea; and (b) it is created as debt.
Why does it have to be created as debt? This was not the case for almost all the money created in the USA from 1790-1913, so that proves it is optional.
I don't agree that civilization depends on a debt cycle because money does not have to be created as debt. However, I'm not totally questioning that. What I'm saying is that if you understand the monetary system in the USA today, there is a multiplicity of debt. Money is created when private individuals borrow it and money is created when the US govt. borrows it. For a fact, based on the history I've mentioned a few times, there is not any requirement for the US govt. to borrow money from a private banking cartel in order to create it. They could create the money without the debt part and spend it or distribute it into society and prevent citizens from also obtaining most of their own money from debt.
Point (5) It's a little off-topic, but China developed rapidly because Western govts. and Western multi-national corporations gave them cash, built them factories, trained their engineers and technicians, gave them intellectual property and technology, and allowed them to steal other intellectual property and technology. The US still gives foreign aid $cash$ to China today.
Private property and debt expansion is the Chinese mechanism for growth, but it is predicated on international support. Without it, China would have collapsed in the early 80's or before. China spends money into the economy as infrastructure through its state-owned enterprises, which do incur debt, as do private citizens who purchase the products, mainly real-estate, but the central government controls the debt and the books, and their currency is not fully convertible. They manipulate it a lot.
Point (6) I agree that the banking system allows for war to be one of the chief mechanisms to create debt. This is another reason why it's immoral.
I simply don't accept your premise. Money is a tool, so we and our govts should strive to use it morally for everyone's benefit, and perhaps save the souls of a few Shylock bankers along the way.
Your points (1) and (2) are contradicted by the monetary systems within the USA from 1790-1913. There was a lot of non-debt money and there was no income tax. There were of course a lot of problems that the Federal Reserve Act was supposed to prevent, but it hasn't done so.
Point (3) is a faulty deconstruction of an irrelevant use of the word labor. You made a series of incorrect comparisons based on an incorrect interpreation of labor as some commodity with relative value. I am using the word labor in its most simple and obvious form and acknowledging that it is the basis for creating value. I don't know how to make it more simple: nothing happens without labor, without productive human effort. It is real. Value is an abstraction upon labor and money is an abstraction upon value. Whether money is based on a physical item like gold or just a symbol backed by credit and faith doesn't really change anything, although I would argue the limitation on money creation by the gold standard in the USA from 1944-1971 coincided with the greatest period of economic and industrial growth in the history of mankind, and that real wages and purchasing power have remained stagnant or decreased since then.
Point (4) There are three things you said that are relevant. If you understand the current monetary system it has two features at the inception of money: (a) intangibility: money created from nothing, it is an idea; and (b) it is created as debt.
Why does it have to be created as debt? This was not the case for almost all the money created in the USA from 1790-1913, so that proves it is optional.
I don't agree that civilization depends on a debt cycle because money does not have to be created as debt. However, I'm not totally questioning that. What I'm saying is that if you understand the monetary system in the USA today, there is a multiplicity of debt. Money is created when private individuals borrow it and money is created when the US govt. borrows it. For a fact, based on the history I've mentioned a few times, there is not any requirement for the US govt. to borrow money from a private banking cartel in order to create it. They could create the money without the debt part and spend it or distribute it into society and prevent citizens from also obtaining most of their own money from debt.
Point (5) It's a little off-topic, but China developed rapidly because Western govts. and Western multi-national corporations gave them cash, built them factories, trained their engineers and technicians, gave them intellectual property and technology, and allowed them to steal other intellectual property and technology. The US still gives foreign aid $cash$ to China today.
Private property and debt expansion is the Chinese mechanism for growth, but it is predicated on international support. Without it, China would have collapsed in the early 80's or before. China spends money into the economy as infrastructure through its state-owned enterprises, which do incur debt, as do private citizens who purchase the products, mainly real-estate, but the central government controls the debt and the books, and their currency is not fully convertible. They manipulate it a lot.
Point (6) I agree that the banking system allows for war to be one of the chief mechanisms to create debt. This is another reason why it's immoral.
Which means there is no moral way to run a society or economy...
I simply don't accept your premise. Money is a tool, so we and our govts should strive to use it morally for everyone's benefit, and perhaps save the souls of a few Shylock bankers along the way.