I'm sure I'm not as learned as most of you here. I only recently have been involved with economic ideas that began with me hearing abut an investment opportunity in currency. I have since become a moderator at a currency forum and not have this annoying desire to understand a subject that I am not fond of. Currency creation and interest yielding investments.
I just viewed a youtube video titled Central Banking, Deposit Insurance and Economic Decline | Speaker Panel and saw this institute listed as a concerned party. I had heard mention of it before.
So to the crux of my post, I've thought a great deal on how currency should be created myself. My conclusion is that money needs to be fiat and that any countries money supply needs to be based on their number of citizens. Further, the fractional citizen to currency ratio needs to be assessed (against other countries) every 2 or 4 years based on that countries production then made public for all to know but a yearly expansion or contraction based solely and respectively on current number of citizens due to births and deaths. I could go on about why i think that would be best but it fulfills all reasons of why we need currency and limits corruption greatly.
I'm sure others have thought of such things but perhaps this is a gently nudge towards it again.
Why do you think currency needs to be fiat? And why does the amount of currency need to be in proportion to the population?
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Thank you for asking.
If currency is tied to a commodity like a precious metal the people that mine and process the the metal have the ability to control booms and busts and the same corruption that happens today continues.
As far as being Fiat and tied to population numbers, in all my looking into currency cycles the main indicator of strife or productivity is how much currency is present per person. The Great Depression when followed in currency per person gives a clear signal to events in this manor.
In fact it seems that people that like to create booms and busts keep the currency per person as a linchpin in their calculations as far as I can see.
There is also a mental factor that goes into every person being aware of how much allotment there is per person.
A lion can only eat so many other animals per year and a person that has an inordinate amount of currency in this system would be a candidate for corruption buy this logic.
On the reverse of people that are smart enough to get more for themselves people that had less means would understand giving up a portion of their “allotment” to work for a better handler of business affairs.
People would have a hard time believing that anyone had the ability to be so helpful to society that they for instance should have 25,000 times an allotment and as a billionaire against someone who earns 40,000.
Fault is at the top just as it is at the bottom and this would allow things to level. IMHO
I guess the better first question would have been how do you define "money." Do you understand what money is?
I don't mean to be rude but your idea suggests so many holes in your understanding of what money is and isn't that it would be more productive for you to first study what others have had to say about money before trying to formulate your own theory.
I would never deny it being arbitrary... lol
Nor would I say that gold standerd isn't arbitrary.
I understand that as money gold has been able to fill the role well in lue of other stuff but that system is prone to human lies and greed.
All I'm suggesting is that we should try to mitigate that problem and what I have proposed does a much better job of it.
Again in my imiginations I would expect the standard response of you can't stop lies and greed and my response is that you have no chance of doing so if you don't give it a shot. In doing so you just might learn how to get it done.
This has reached a death spiral...
I want to thank you for responding to my original post. It gave me cause to continue to a point that I am happy with.
I've said what I needed to.
Have a wonderful day.
pluMmet: So to the crux of my post, I've thought a great deal on how currency should be created myself. My conclusion is that money needs to be fiat and that any countries money supply needs to be based on their number of citizens.
So to the crux of my post, I've thought a great deal on how currency should be created myself. My conclusion is that money needs to be fiat and that any countries money supply needs to be based on their number of citizens.
Whelp, long story short, you don't know what you're talking about.
pluMmet:Further, the fractional citizen to currency ratio needs to be assessed (against other countries) every 2 or 4 years based on that countries production then made public for all to know but a yearly expansion or contraction based solely and respectively on current number of citizens due to births and deaths.
All these proposals rely on government force, meaning they're unethical / immoral, w/e.
pluMmet: I could go on about why i think that would be best but it fulfills all reasons of why we need currency and limits corruption greatly.
Bitcoin elimintes corruption entirely. Besides, any fiat currency is subject to the mass evil of inflation. And it can only be limited by the threat of complete repudiation, which isn't much of a limit.
In Ron Pauls words let the market choose the currency (he doesnt want to end the fed himself he wants let the free market shuts it down by bypassing it)... lets have dual standart gold and paper I would add Bitcoin to the mix... then the markets pick the winner obviously money printers would lose... he talks about this in his book "End The Fed" & Peter Schiff in his new book
The Real Crash
https://www.facebook.com/TheRealCrash