There has been talk that money and markets have been getting in the way of a good society. So people say that people may be better off without money altogether. Some of these ideas are surly based in truth, but the question is how many of these problems are caused by the current financial regulatory framework? Given that the framework should work with haman nature, rather than fight it, probably all of the fault lies with the current system.
That being said, the idea of completely eliminating money and markets seems an unachieveable extreem. The current market framework may not be balancing which may cause distortions in price signals, but the market’s price rankings of valuable services in the Main St. Market will always support educational progress and technological dispersion.
The next stage in the evolution of money is a cultural shift in it’s perceived purpose. We have thought of money as mostly economic (that we primarily use it to value material things.) We are headed towards a mostly political understanding of money. Especially as services (including the exchange of things) make up the relevant portion of all money spent in a year (GDP.)
What changes when we think of money as primarily political rather than primarily economic is striking. Mosly because we have been conditioned to make a distinction between the two. Economics is money and markets while politics is democracy and Ballots. When this barrier between the two first breaks down in the mind it can be perplexing. All of a sudden ideas from previously different subjects combine causeing initial confusion.
Typically, the idea that there must be one leader or set of leaders is the primary hinderance. When we consider the democratic political system we are keenly aware that it is loser gets nothing and winner takes all. This is based on the democratic ideal during any term of time everyone within a geographical border must be lead the same way by the one leader or set of leaders. This ideal is in fundamental contradiction to the market.
The question becomes can one leader really dictate from the top down what is right for hundreds of millions of people spread over thousands of miles? It is commonly understood that such dictitorial power is dangerous and even morally wrong. Especially, when the leader is not liked. While some haven’t yet considered it, the market allows for the choosing of political leaders and it has for thousands of years.
The primary difference in ideal is that within a Republican market there are many many leaders who are specialized and who most compeat for a limited amount of constituent support. What is striking is that a Democratic Ballot is like a Republican markets money. In a Republic everyone is a representative while in Democracy a few representatives compromise an oligarchy.
Of course, what we have today is democracy, but there is also a market. That market is sosialisticly controlled by the the democracy’s oligarchy. Saddly, many of the rules that we are accustomed to today trace back to the essential planks outlined in the Communist Manifesto that was first published in 1848. Things like the centralization of credit via the monopoly on money and the graduated income tax are Communist ideals.
While ideas like ending central banking and the income tax are commonly discussed online among peers the so-called mainstream media still promote such ideals. Such ideals are what keep the wealthiest people in the world in control of the markets and all of the organizations and individuals affected by them. While those in the so-called 1% plutocracy make the right decisions for the world there is prosperity, but the Republican ideal is certainly very different than rule-by-the-rich.
From an ideal perspective democracy and republic are nearly identical. People are generally equal via the entitement to vote by Ballot. The primary difference is what we’ve already partially introduced. In democracy there is majority rule. Since there is a limited number of Representatives those who vote in the minority always loose. Whereas in a Republic there is a market and every constituent is a potential representative who is chosen via market exchange.
The challenge is overcoming the fact that we have had drilled into ourselves the idea that an individual’s opinion doesn’t count if that person doesn’t agree with the majority of other people. The truth is that every individual in the market deserves the dignity of having their opinions matter by casting them in the market. The effort will need to be to understand Ballot provision as continous rather than periodic.
When every individual in a Republic’s market gets a Ballot every term the periodic provision of the entire ballin a democracy becomes the continous provision of the ballot during the term at a rate. Implicit in this is that fact that in a Republic a Ballot must be divisable. Just like a Dollar can be divided into cents a decimal point and six zeros can be appended to a Ballot.
This is, once again, the increadable idea that a Ballot is money that is political in nature. It is the idea that when I spend money hiring you I govern your behavior and you are under my political control while working form me. An idea anyone who’s ever had a job naturally understands, but has often hoped that the “political” oligarchy or “economic” plutocracy would somehow promote reciprocal balance or even take on their responsibilitys.
Regardless, The ironic thing is that the Republican ideal promotes balance in a reciprocateing market by via the provision of Ballots in a continuous manner. Since, every Ballot is the same for every member of the Republic and each gets it every term the incoming rate is the same for everyone. Ballot provision is a basic income that is universal to everone who agrees with the Republic’s Constitutional contract.
Ballot provision via a continuous universal basic income requiers a significant change to the financial system framework. It is obvious that the Communist plank, the graduated income tax, is the incorrect source for a basic income. Such a scheme would balance all incomes and leave the market disabled. There would be no way to keep track of an individuals debit or credit which is a vital function of money.