Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: if this don't get a response, I'm taking my ideas and going home

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 30, 2011, 1:27 p.m. EST by JesseHeffran (3903)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A Resource based economy is better than a fed governed fiat system. But the Fed is always better than gold or silver backed currencies.

Fiat money exists because it allows for easier trade with other nations. Say Japan makes Blue Ray Players, and America grows corn. The fiat money supply allows for one Blue ray to equal x bushels of corn. Or what ever Japan is willing to trade as their goods, is how many of our goods we will sell to them. This is what governs the exchange rate. But this configuration has allowed speculators to devalue and manipulate money. And special interests have been allowed to capture the Fed. I find these to be problems. Can I get a whup, whup! Therefore, if our money is tied to all of our production, not just gold or silver, and not susceptible to regulatory capturing, then speculators would be forced to create value in our economy, instead of betting high or low and fidgeting with the machinery. A Resource based economy is better than a fed governed fiat system. But the Fed is always better than a gold or silver backed currency.

I believe the dollar should be pegged to the GDP of units sold, divided by the number of the population between 16 and retirement age. If the GDP is 365,000 units sold per year, and the population has a workforce of a 100, then the value of a credit is 365. The credit is then divided by allocation to the most productive industries. Say we have fifteen industries, (or fifty states), we divide them by 365, which equal twenty one. From this point, you make a graduated line graph with fifteen points and twenty one being the median. a straight line from 1.1 to 15.15 The affluence ladder would still be intact, leaving its demise for another generation. It would also incentivize industries to out produce and sell, in order to be at the top. Therefore, the market can allocate responsibly. If we attach our currency to just precious metals, than someone, ant namin’ names, can hoard them, or corner the market. Having the money pegged to production, ensures that if someone corners a service or product, the market can invest elsewhere, without the whole system stagnating. The fiat system has reached the point of hording and has left the FED with no alternative but to devalue wealth. If wealth was a function of efficiency and not money, then the motivation in each industry becomes selling stuff more efficiently. This would also stifle management and labor disagreement, diverting shutdowns in the factories. Industries become the unions, industries become the community and they become the political arm of the people. Those that are smart and hard working get more of the credit allocation than those that enjoy life and are not so down with hard work and over thinking.

The fiat paradigm allows speculators to devalue and manipulate money, but if our money is tied to all of our production, not just gold or silver, then speculators would be forced to create value in our economy. Venture capitalists would find it in their interests to create more sustaining ventures. Instead of betting low and selling high, Wall Street would be interested in raising GDP units sold.

I just know from history that having wealth dependent on one product is a recipe for disaster. In economics it is called the resource curse.

I believe that gold as the only decider of wealth is the same as the resource curse that has plagued many nations. If you put all your eggs in one basket and the basket's bottom falls out, then you go without eggs. Also, if you allow the wolf to guard the basket, he is going to eat the eggs.

21 Comments

21 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20542) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Wall Street would be interested in raising GDP units sold.

I'm not an economist - the complexity of today's economy is a bit beyond me.

What I would point out is that any process that commits itself to increasing GDP is committed to at least one of two things - a constantly increasing population, or over production.

The planet is finite.

Our resources are finite.

This fact helps explain why Wall Street is so eager to get its hands on that pot of gold that is Social Security.

[-] 1 points by technoviking (484) 2 years ago

resources are finite, human ingenuity is limitless.

thomas malthus thought that some time in the future humans will have no choice but to eat other humans for sustenance.

then norman borlaug came along.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20542) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I'm not familiar with norman borlaug

but it has happened in the past - humans have eaten humans.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

you are right, that is why I would never vote for them to have it. the accumulation of our compassion is social security, which would be a tax that would be subtracted from the gdp.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Thought I'd give it one more try.

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 2 years ago

Dude, this is not the correct forum to spread your ideas... start your own GAs or go to an existing one.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

this forum is just my playground. i'm happy with what I have. so I come here to listen to those who are not happy and play with them, while coming up with solutions. http://www.citicommons.com/contributors/jesse-heffran

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20542) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

And that seems like a perfectly reasonable use of the forum to me.

[-] 1 points by circlingheart (25) 2 years ago

I believe that the desire to own stuff is a learned behavior that brought us here to the brink of ecological disaster.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

i do understand that, but if the states have control of the distribution of credits, or the science community, depending how this would work, they would send their experts to Washington and debate their cause. the opposite solution would be for the science community to form a army and make us all comply with their theory. we know it's getting hotter; we dont know if it means extinction. and if the laymen and the industrious believe they can innovate their way out of it, do you believe they are going to go quietly into the night? with out a consensus. the control of credits would be divided be the thinkers and the industrious. each state/industry will compete with ideas for the ascension. i don't believe the wealthy are insensitive to others, they just don't want to lose legitimacy of what they. in their heads, believe they rightfully earned. unless you know away to save the planet with out killing our competitive spirit, i'm all ears.

[-] 1 points by circlingheart (25) 2 years ago

I guess I don't understand why saving the planet is less important than "competitive spirit." I guess I also don't understand why attempting to save the plant is contingent upon whether we think "the industrious" for profit destroyers of the planet will, or will not go quietly. I believe the planet (i.e. healthy air, water, soil, food, Creations) is worth saving, no matter the cost to the state/industry, or civilized humans for that matter.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

unless you have an army, the resolve to protest for years, or the intelligence to compromise you'll spend your whole life saving the world. and for what? would you have enjoyed that which you have spent all your faculty to save? what's the point of saving the roses if you never have time to smell them?

[-] 1 points by circlingheart (25) 2 years ago

my way of life is a protest against industrial society. It includes "smelling the roses" as I watch them grow. In fact, most of what I do includes enjoying the Creations for what they are. Learning to Appreciate the Creations is the first step in saving them. The US way of life is insane. It is a synthetic mix of destruction, machine noise, and virtual escapes, and I find nothing there worth smelling. Think I'll go feed the chickens, so they can feed me.

[-] 2 points by Coriolanus (272) 2 years ago

One doesn't really have to participate in the "destruction, machine noise, and virtual escapes": there are people living happily off the grid. I know some folks who live on their sailboat, and who can literally go on a whim where the wind takes them. But most people seem to prefer the more conventional life.

[-] 1 points by circlingheart (25) 2 years ago

But there is no way to escape the "destruction." It closes in no matter where we go. Did you know that every stream in the US now contains carcinogens? Climate Change is happening, will happen everywhere. Species are becoming extinct at the rate of 200/day.

I could live completely "off-the-grid," but I feel this nagging sense of responsibility to the Generations yet to come. At the very least, I will teach my grandchildren to see through the lies that the institutions teach them to believe. I will show them things that the institutions know nothing about. I will do my part to grow a Culture of Resistance to Industrial Destruction.

For me, it's not about trying to obtain a care-free life, where i don't have to answer to anyone. It's about living a life that is Good. We must each decide for ourselves what is good and what is not, but current US society is fraught with examples of things that are Bad being advertised as things that are Good. So perceptions are contaminated at an early age. Some of us were gifted (cursed?) with the ability to question what others accept as gospel truth. Gifts are meant to be shared.

[-] 2 points by Coriolanus (272) 2 years ago

"Did you know that every stream in the US now contains carcinogens?"

Sure, but it is all relative. In fact, the most common carcinogen that we are all exposed to is sunlight. And there are numerous other "natural" carcinogens. Of course humans do contribute to the list as well. I suppose one could say that cancer is the price we pay for evolution (e.g. the instability of the DNA molecule). But I digress. You can still find some pretty clean places.

"At the very least, I will teach my grandchildren to see through the lies that the institutions teach them to believe. I will show them things that the institutions know nothing about. I will do my part to grow a Culture of Resistance to Industrial Destruction."

If you can teach them to do without the car, iPad, MTV, dishwasher, Xbox, cell phone, etc. then I sincerely tip my hat to you. From what I see the current "younger generation" is totally brainwashed into the consumer culture (and seem to be fixated on particular brand names pushed by rap stars, movie stars, etc.). Since it is youth's job to rebel against its elders, maybe the next generation will be the ones to reject the material culture.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

wow, to be so lucky.

[-] 2 points by Coriolanus (272) 2 years ago

It really isn't a question of luck, it is a question of choices. If you want a house in the suburbs with a white picket fence, a car, a regular job with a steady income, a 401K, etc., that is the choice you make. If you don't need those things, you have lots of other choices. (By the way, living on a boat isn't just sitting on the deck drinking margaritas; it is pretty much constant work. But the tradeoff is a different kind of freedom.)

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

i guess being a working class slob has been enough to make me happy. never understood why the jonses had it better than me and my ilk. i just wish it wasn't so hard to find a 7.50$ job.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

i like that; can I help you feed the chickens after I help my mom water the tomatoes. you are right, our system is bankrupt when it comes to original thought. but, i don't believe you can go from insanity to rationality in one step. I am stuck with the nation I was born into, not the nation I wish I inherited. now, I'm going to do a little mind numbing advertising and peddle some of my other Ideas: http://www.citicommons.com/contributors/jesse-heffran cheers!

[-] 1 points by circlingheart (25) 2 years ago

You're welcome to help.

I didn't use the word "bankrupt." I believe "Insane" is the right word.

I look at it a little differently. The nation is stuck with (to) me. The nation is of no beneficial use to me, and most definitely of no use to my non-civilized Brothers and Sisters, human and nonhuman. I will attempt to make something useful of it, but it appears to be completely parasitic, so I will do what I must to keep it from sucking the life from me.

Yes, your link hurt my head. :-) I think you mean well, and appreciate this discussion you've had with me. Thanks Jesse!

[Removed]