. . Subject: Re: devalueing currency: why ? . . . . . . > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... agree > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... One of the things that I've found out, frankly through sheer obsession with the question of social justice: - The basic economic theory that competition makes a rare good/service that is therefore highly payed *per hour of effort* cheaper, so that the market creates a volatile & dynamic equilibrium around equal effort for all goods, is true. - That function is depending on an absence of power trading: what if a market-player has the /power/ to prevent competition (for example by having exclusive control over a resource, such as land or fish waters). All market actors need continuing equal access to all resources, it is *not enough* to start with equal positions, because the markets are in a continual state of volatile flux around said equilibrium (forever). - Investment capital does not conform to the *effort per hour* rule, it is not a product of effort (except perhaps for a startup period, quickly dissipating). Therefore it does not properly belong in an economy (soil has the same problem: it isn't produced in the continual way as 'regular' goods/services, who dissipate and can be created at an effectively infinite number (extreme overproduction)). It is very different. Secondly, investment capital has the potential to rule the entire economy. - Power over what you make so you can sell it, is an essential economic rule. Because markets are continually volatile forever, selling yourselve as a slave once interferes with this operation of volatility. The lack of control of labor over their corporations and what happens with the profit represent both a power concentration abuse interferring with the needed volatility, and a fixing in place for very long times of the labor force which also interferes with the needed volatility. The most important volatility of the markets operates in the timespan from month to years, sometimes decades. The tell tale clues of markets not performing their volatile equilibrium function is what is properly perceived as unjust wealth gathering. Whever you see extreme wealth gathering, the chance is very high you will find a lack of the volatility function allowing a passive power to be abused. This power, per the above (inspired by historical experience of course), is probably: the abuse of the soil ownership (think: landed gentry, the feudal system, the rich baron doing nothing but 'own'), the abuse of the money power (think: the banks, Goldman Sachs moronic tools getting billions for nothing less then economic destruction, banker wealth in general) the abuse of the decision power (think: the industrial owners of old and today, it is an ongoing story; this abuse is a form of slave-labor abuse, but can be lesser or more subtly implemented, the wealth of state dictatorship is another example.) This leads me to the following minimum requirenments for any trade system, centered on the idea of power-distribution and free volatile trade (per the above logic): + Sovereign is absolutely Democratic + Most businesses are democratic (for whatever reason, naturally or forced by law). + Investment capital is not for-profit (it is possible to conduct investment as a service payed for results in the market.) + Resources need to be distributed / access to them must be continually open for all for zero cost. I'd dare claim that this is objective economic science which can be proven both by argument, by historical precedent, and it should prove itself in a sufficiently fair experiment on a national scale as being superior to trade systems that do allow for power-concentrations. A trouble with this argument is that it is apparently a little subtle ? > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Aristotle said that ? He rises one more notch in my hall of fame. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... agree Commodity money is probably great for very primitive conditions, but experience proves fiat works great, as long as it isn't abused by the issuer. Shells and rare feathers are other forms of pre-historic fiat money. These had no significant value, they where simply rare things that where impossible to forge, quite like our banknotes try to be. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... :) I like Germany, Die Heimat. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... agree We agree on a lot. I'd like you to think a little about my economic theory above (equalizing power). I want it to be the ruling system in the world that is now crashed, I firmly believe it should work, at least better. It can be implemented in a zillion ways. That is not the issue. The more diversity the better, but all boats at least float. What we got now is all boats sink, not merely from their state debt games. They generate a hostile ruling class, I say because the system allows too easy concentration of power causing undeserved wealth, instead of the hoped for meritocracy that a trade system ought to produce. Those 4 points ought to fix the trade system per nation, the nations are then ruled by a self-protective political thingy. Come to think of it: that meritocracy coming into being would want to protect their industries. We'd be back to national sovereingty, tarrifs, free floating fiat currencies, but internally done a little differently. -- http://www.socialism.nl (free markets & democracy)