On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, 11:13am PDT
Should felons be able to create money?,
Create Credit by fiat, and then tax it back if the system gets overheated and destroy it.
All rental income should go to the state to serve the public. This includes interest on money created out of thin air. In effect, even without changing the current banking system at all, you'd see all support for currency debase extinguished if some people couldn't profit from it.
Or, switch to labor-based currency,
Another alternative is to simply fix the money supply to one credit. Divide that credit into small parts, say 1 trillionth of a credit or one femto-credit. If the economy needs more liquidity, simply allow for smaller units like 1 quadrillion of a credit or one atto-credit. Doing this would literally increase the money supply by a factor of one thousand without transferring diminishing people's savings or transferring wealth from one person to another. In fact, the prices on the menus at your local restaurants would not even have to change.
People who advocate increasing the money supply do so solely because they are interested in using a particular method of increasing the money supply for the purpose of transferring wealth from you to them. It is possible to increase the money supply without transferring wealth, but the advocates would strongly oppose this. Put simply, debasing the currency (inflation, quantitative easement, or whatever you call it) does not, in itself, do anything except move the decimal point in transactions.
In addition to preventing theft, the above method also allows currency to be a constant metric. This makes long-term economic analysis possible. Using CPI to adjust values is not an accurate method for comparing the values and costs of goods and services over the long run. Doing so causes some adjustments to be overdone and others underdone. And which happens for a particular good or service is driven largely by politics.
Personally, I like the idea of exchanging femtos and altos, knowing that their true value will always be a constant. I can now save and my savings can be lent out to safe, short-term loans that promote the economy. Even at 0% interest, I'm not losing purchasing power, so I'm OK if the state takes the interests from the loans for itself in exchange for guaranteeing my bank deposits. I'm OK because I know that these short-term loans are good for the economy and ultimately benefit everyone.
Even under this system, an automated and politically independent system could create temporary money, to cover withdraws in the case of over-lending. The temporary money would be automatically destroyed whenever an interest payment comes in from a loan. Furthermore, interest rates would gradually rise whenever over-lending takes place. Using this mechanism, the long-term amount of currency is a constant.
Advancements in technology and increases in production including that due to rising population, simply causes the prices of goods to asymptotically approach a minimal level, which is a good thing. Prices of new goods and services should fall rapidly as production of them ramps up and becomes more efficient. Old goods and services like milk will have steady prices, barely moving with time. Every person will be able to track prices over centuries in an accurate and precise way without any effort. Having this constant measurement of value will make financial planning simpler and easier for both individuals and nations.
Of course the banks will oppose it because it eliminates their rental income on money. But eliminating that rental income, or "tax" as a more honest term, would improve the entire economy because that tax is a drag on everyone who isn't a bank executive. Similarly, the state could eliminate the tax on electronic money imposed by the banks as flat and percentage fees on credit and debit card transactions. That would do more to improve liquidity than anything done in the current system.