The Government of Distributism

[whatistrue]

As I said before, a third party entity would keep things in check and make sure companies don’t abuse their payroll system.

And inflation is something we would have to watch for but it can be overcome if we put our heads together. I will look into it.

None of this overcomes the basic fact that material things that come too easily are not valued. Money that just appears is not worth anything. And governments today don’t just “create” money as you have stated before anyway, at least not if they want to stay in existence for long. I am not anywhere near a real economist, but even I can see that this notion is as full of holes as a screen door.

 

[tafan2]

Where does that money come from? Do you think the economy can absorb that much new money indefinitately? If the economy does not “need” that much growth in money supply, you will simply have a devaluation of the money,ie inflation. Than what?

 

[hvizsgyak]

Ridiculous, many people can’t work or work at full capacity. The govt programs work and are generally targeted at people in need of assistance.

Theo, Theo, Theo you are missing the whole point. This system allows everyone to work and still get paid enough to afford the essentials. No government programs needed. Isn’t that one of you pet peeves - less government?

There is no socialism involved here. You become what you want to become but you get paid a certain wage determined by (okay instead of third party entity lets say a large majority of people who work in that field but are not greedy and think reasonably.)

You are thinking in our society’s terms, again, think outside the box.
By the way, you have many great responses to others’ posts. I enjoy reading you comments.

 

[whatistrue]

This system allows everyone to work

There are people who are simply not capable of working at any job. There are others who simply refuse to take any responsibility for their own support. What do you do about them?

 

[hvizsgyak]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant life’s essential plus some left over so they can buy other things besides the essentials.

 

[Theo520]

Theo, Theo, Theo you are missing the whole point. This system allows everyone to work and still get paid enough to afford the essentials.

How will you convince the people presently not working to get a job?

You are missing a fact of life, that many can’t or won’t work.

 

[hvizsgyak]

I think we can get some of those who don’t want to work to work when they see they are going to be making real money and not just minimum wage. They can now afford to pay their bills and still have money left over. I do realize there will be people who still won’t work. Our society will have to figure out something for them.

As for those who can’t work, again our society will have to figure out something for them. And since our society is such a kind and giving people, I’m sure they will come up with something decent.

 

[hvizsgyak]

What if people use that money to beautify their homes inside and out. Yes, there is going to be a period where everybody is going to want to go out and buy a lot of things but it would eventually go back to normal. Remember the wage increase will be there to cover the essentials first and foremost.

 

[hvizsgyak]

No where near being communistic in nature. Think of it as a new economic system.

Where does that money come from? Do you think the economy can absorb that much new money indefinitately? If the economy does not “need” that much growth in money supply, you will simply have a devaluation of the money,ie inflation. Than what?

I remember in college when the teacher of the economics class was trying to convince the students that economics is a science. Economics is like predicting what the weather going to be like in 10 years. You can put all the scenarios you know into your model to predict the next 10 years but there are so many different things that can happen that will trash the predictions.

 

[tafan2]

No it wouldn’t. If people spend the money, it does still exists. You are proposing a means of a continual increase in the money supply far, far above any realistic rate of economic growth. Money is simply a method of exchanging goods and services. If the supply grows to fast, its value goes down.

 

[Annie]

the government wouldn’t have to create the money, they would just oversee the creation of the money

What do you mean by this? Will the money just be printed?

 

[Theo520]

No, they are still making minimum wage

How are you supporting the people currently on disability, without those govt programs?

 

[tafan2]

Yes, that is what he is proposing. To give you an idea of the scope, the average salary in the us is around 56k. There are 155m workers in the US. So that would be adding almost 8.7 trillion dollars a year to the money supply. And that would not cause inflation according to him.

 

[Annie]

remember in college when the teacher of the economics class was trying to convince the students that economics is a science. Economics is like predicting what the weather going to be like in 10 years. You can put all the scenarios you know into your model to predict the next 10 years but there are so many different things that can happen that will trash the predictions.

I totally agree with you in this; when I took econ, we had just gone through a fad called pet rocks. Who would have thought people would buy rocks with eyes glued to them?

However, economics is not entirely unpredictable. On a large level, we can see rules and how it works. It is not completely random.

Thus it is that we know certain things. One of the things we know and have seen in action is that pumping a lot of uncreated money-- printed money with nothing behind it-- leads to inflation. We have seen this in Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe, and now Venezuela. And probably other places as well.

For sure, we have seen what can cause economic disaster. And one of those things is printing a lot of money and putting it into the economy.

Why inflation? Because when people suddenly have a lot of money, they want to spend it. The existing structure has only so much to sell, so either prices go up or there are huge lines waiting to get the stuff.

Believe me, your plan sounds very nice, but would cause a catastrophe.

 

[hvizsgyak]

Then at the end of so many years we’ll do a huge tax collection and simply destroy the money. I would rather have a cash surplus at the end of so many years to worry about than a cash deficiency. Also, this is just an initial proposal, the kinks need to be worked out but I reiterate this method is better than what we have now.

If we had an economic system where pretty much all people could work and get paid enough to afford the essentials then there would be no need for improvement but we don’t. So just because maybe 60% of the people are economically sound 40% are struggling to makes ends meet. Is it too much to ask to help these 40% out where they can work (and feel good about their work) and make a living in dignity?

 

[hvizsgyak]

Since so much banking is done electronically these day, money doesn’t need to be printed. Again, this would have to be worked out for best results

 

[tafan2]

That would not work. What you are saying is that we would simply live with inflation (very high inflation) and every so often reduce the money supply drastically. Even if we could, very painfully, get through those few years of inflation, it would actually make inflation worse, as no one would have any incentive to save.

You do not understand what money is, or how it works. If economics were as simple as printing money and distributing it to anyone who worked, we would be doing it already.

Money is simply a means of exchange of goods and services. Money only works as such if it is seen as a store of value. Just as if a commodity will cheaper if it increases in supply, the same with money.
At the end of the day, we are not trying to distribute money to obtain a just society, but goods and services. We can use money to do so, only if it is stable.

 

[tafan2]

Is it too much to ask to help these 40% out where they can work (and feel good about their work) and make a living in dignity?

Do not think that I do not care about all workers receiving a just wage. Difficult to achieve. And we should strive to change our system to do so. Printing money does not work.

 

[Annie]

Whether they are peinting actual money or “printing” it electronically, the results would be the same.

And periodically destroying all the extra money would not help.

 

[Annie]

So just because maybe 60% of the people are economically sound

And while I dislike some of the details in the US welfare system which make roadblocks for people moving up, it is fairer and more economically sound to supplement the wages of those who make very little than it is to destroy the economy with your plan.