Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Free Money ( Well Some ) and thriving Free Enterprise ( Abundance of Jobs, Creativity and Security )

Posted 8 years ago on May 24, 2012, 12:28 a.m. EST by know1 (210)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This is an attempt to further understand economics. Im hoping to attract answers from thinking people who really understand money and economics. I'm asking if something like this would work and why or why not.
Key points.
1) world currency ( to lessen competition and iniquitys between nations, but mainly because you wouldn't be able to do whatever you want with the currency (inflate, ect.) if you had to worry about how it would change in relation to other currencies) Lesson the need for artificially maintaining scarcity. Scarce money, sound familiar

2) Stipends to everyone. Money created out of thin air, as it already is now, and stipends passed out, every month, in equal amounts, to every person on the planet, regardless of economic status. ( It's my belief, the world is kept poor through lack of currency. If you didn't pass out the money when playing monopoly, you wouldn't have much of a game.)

3) The money passed out every month would be roughly enough to just survive on, so most people would still work to improve their lot. People who pick the crops would be able to afford a little more, and people who own businesses may be able to afford a lot more. Free enterprize would still be in full swing. Plenty of money for businesses and workers to acquire.

4) All this new money being created could cause inflation, so we would render inflation a non-issue by automaticly raising everybodys bank accounts with inflation, also the amount owed in loans would riase with the inflation, (and probably some other measures as well ). For example, Who cares if a loaf of bread costs $ 100.00 if every body could afford that just as they could when it cost $ 1.00. If peoples savings rose with inflation then inflation wouldn't matter..? The point is, we need enough currency so we can freely trade with each other. A depression is simply a lack of enough currency, a boom is enough or to much ! Too much means inflation, but if we can remedy that then a little too much could be good.

5) But not good in that since most peoples buying power would be greatly increased, finite resoures could be quickly used up, so, for some commoditys there would be a different currency or script (like food stamps can only be used for food) . For finite resoures like gas, wood, ect. only so much script would be created to insur only a responsible use of, but for things we want to encourage like (food), renewable resources, and so on, there would be ample currency.

ps. the money made out of thin air would, of coarse, be interest free (no interest paid to private bankers for all their troble to create it on their computer screen)

pss. we do not need everybody working full time. This should be a great thing, more time to play. The idea that the poorest have to work so hard or go without is ludicrous

p.s.s . Also a cap on how much someone can own

p. s.s. don't focus on the inflation part, thats beside the point. The main point is everbody has enough to live on and there's enough money in existance, and entering the system from the bottom



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by know1 (210) 8 years ago

It's readily agreed that world war 2 ended the great depression. Well, all that was ,was a massive stimulus package, the proceeds of which were thrown away. We live in a world of abundance, and we live in terror of economic insecurity. 65 million soldiers fought in world war 1, imagine paying all those salerys, we have plenty of money when we want it

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3360) from New York, NY 8 years ago

We can certainly have a program where everyone is paid a basic income. However, you cannot pay for it by printing new money. That would quickly cause hyperinflation.

The only way to do it is with a tax.

Here is a page that details one basic income plan:


It is a plan that is just used in the US, but the same concept can be used in any country.

You would have a flat 50% income tax. That would generate enough revenue to pay every adult a dividend of $15,000 per year plus an additional dividend of $25,000 per year to every worker, student or unemployed person who is willing to volunteer while they look for a job.

So if you worked, you would get paid $15k plus $25k plus whatever income your job paid you.

You would still need to tax that income to pay for government. But most of what government does would no longer be necessary. So you would be able to pay for the government with just a 5% tax.

If you just wanted to pay every adult an equal dividend, you would be able to pay each of the 225 million adults $33,000 per year.

[-] 1 points by gsw (3349) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 8 years ago

I think the idea is sound.

Not every culture valued individuals who accumulated vast sums of wealth.

Rome did. Western Europe did.

Native American, aborigines, Polynesians, did not.

Just cause one system was overpowered another, does not make it morally superior. USSR or nazis were good with taking over places.

Problem would be everyone else might be envious, so we would need to export lots of good will projects and medicines, help world poor get food water. Teach them medicine too. I guess this is not a problem but a benefit.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 8 years ago

thats why wealth inequality is a problem all the money is just sitting in a bank somewhere and not circulating through the system. this is what makes the system die. but tell that to a 1% . they think you want to steal thier money.. no.. just spend it stupid.

[-] 1 points by know1 (210) 8 years ago

Yes !! It's very simple. money in curculation. Not rocket science

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

1) World trade needs a level playing field - whether that is established in a standard coin or not really does not matter.

What matters is not being able to enter someones - anyone's economy and undercut it.

Fair trade not free trade.


a) Money must be backed by substance - real not imagined.

IE - resources and products.

b) Only those who can not work for whatever reason - age - disability - no work. Should receive a stipend of any kind. For those who will not be entering the work force - ever - the stipend should provide enough to live on at a level above the poverty line. For those who will return to the work force a stipend should be an amount that keeps them from sinking further into debt while they look for employment. Perhaps a debt suspension while they are out of work - debt could reapply after securing full time employment again. ( you can not get blood from a rock )

3) - [ see 2 ] and wages for any job needs to be enough at any entry level to support the needs of living - shelter - food - clothing - utilities - transportation - health care - insurance - savings. This would see money constantly circulating through the whole economy and so less need for any sort of public money for support issues.

4) prevent inflation by placing profits caps. Money then needs to be reinvested. Prices are held in place as costs are held in place.

5) Continuous Process Improvement - reinvest in technology to continuously improve it. Remove the need for limited resources as much as possible. Take fossil fuel as an instance. Petroleum byproducts have more uses in industry then as a fuel. Replace the use of petroleum/fossil fuels as an energy source using green technology but leave it available as need for ingredients of manufacturing and work on making the manufacturing cleaner all of the time. Again continuous process improvement.

That is my opinion and likely is incomplete but I think it is a reasonable approach to look at. To Improve upon.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 8 years ago

a) Money must be backed by substance - real not imagined

an hour coin for an hours work, this gives the hour coin the substance value of an hours work .. globally uniform.. everyone on the planet knows an hour of time measurement.

4) prevent inflation by placing profits caps

:-) this has a nice ring to it!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

So many - EASY Fixes - If we could only get the People to open their eyes and then open the eyes of Government.

Hell the greedy could still make a boatload of cash.

It just don't need to be toxic cash - made off of the sweat of wage slaves.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 8 years ago

The good news .. it's hard to let go of a good idea .. !

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

True - that is why I try to repeat it in as many ways as possible.

One expression of information may not catch someones attention where another expression of the same information will.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 8 years ago

keep on keepin on ..as the saying goes..

(We even need to get some of the anarchists to open their eyes) this is going to tak an all out full frontal effort with all departments firing on all cylinders ..

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Any anarchist with an open mind will be able to see the truth - it is the ones who do not understand anarchy that will need to be educated.

Anarchy is not anti-society. Anarchy is for a peaceful and fair society.

Society needs organization and constant guidance.

What is anarchism?

Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.

Anarchism promotes mutual aid, harmony and human solidarity, to achieve a free, classless society - a cooperative commonwealth. Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for perfect accord between the individual, society and nature. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.

Anarchists, are not simply dreamers obsessed with abstract principles. We know that events are ruled by chance, and that people’s actions depend much on long-held habits and on psychological and emotional factors that are often anti-social and usually unpredictable. We are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle could last forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be.

Whatever the immediate prospects of achieving a free society, and however remote the ideal, if we value our common humanity then we must never cease to strive to realise our vision. If we settle for anything less, then we are little more than beasts of burden at the service of the privileged few, without much to gain from life other than a lighter load, better feed and a cosier berth.

Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice.

In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith then it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.

Anarchism encompasses such a broad view of the world that it cannot easily be distilled into a formal definition. Michael Bakunin, the man whose writings and example over a century ago did most to transform anarchism from an abstract critique of political power into a theory of practical social action, defined its fundamental tenet thus: In a word, we reject all privileged, licensed, official, and legal legislation and authority, even though it arise from universal suffrage, convinced that it could only turn to the benefit of a dominant and exploiting minority, and against the interests of the vast enslaved majority.

Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute to it practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels both of individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places.

Elsewhere, the less formal practices and struggles of the more indomitable among the propertyless and disadvantaged victims of the authority system have found articulation in the writings of those who on brief acquaintance would appear to be mere millenarian dreamers. Far from being abstract speculations conjured out of thin air, such works have, like all social theories, been derived from sensitive observation. They reflect the fundamental and uncontainable conviction nourished by a conscious minority throughout history that social power held over people is a usurpation of natural rights: power originates in the people, and they alone have, together, the right to wield it.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 8 years ago

I always felt Anarchist and Hierarchists were cut from the same cloth .. just one has the authority , and the other wants the authority !

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

An anarchist does not want power - just a fair organization for all.

An anarchist is against hierarchy - and is for public involvement.

Anarchy has been given bad press/propaganda as it is against the few concentrating the power and wealth.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 8 years ago


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Don't take my word for it look into it.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 8 years ago

DKAtoday,your word has always been good for me ..

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Well thank you for that - but please look into it and realize the truth through personal discovery.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 8 years ago

Yes - a system - however it is called - that includes all of the people and that works for the good - health - prosperity of all of the people and the world in which they live.

Profits are fine - but not at the cost of Humanity or of the environment.

Profits are very fine as long as they are evenly shared amongst everyone in society .. and not selfishly kept by the ruling elite.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago


[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 8 years ago

I believe in democratic socialism, where we elect the people to have authority, but not absolute.. where we are free to express ideas and concerns, and where these ideas and concerns are addressed in a proper manner. To move positively forward as a civilization of people.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Yes - a system - however it is called - that includes all of the people and that works for the good - health - prosperity of all of the people and the world in which they live.

Profits are fine - but not at the cost of Humanity or of the environment.

[-] 1 points by JoeW (109) 8 years ago

Some more Bernard Lietaer would help (New Money for a New World is available on Scribd). Mostly we just need to implement many of the currencies that have already been designed, and run them through to see what works in wider practice. Make new ones as we need them.

Commercial Credit System (C3) The Terra (Global Currency with value based on stored goods) Conocer (educational currency)

Your ideas are definitely on the right track though.

[-] 1 points by know1 (210) 8 years ago

do u have thoughts about inflation being made a mute problem (thats why the world currency would be nessesary)

[-] 1 points by JoeW (109) 8 years ago

This is a global currency that already exist (obviously it has not been adopted, but it is being, may be, could be, adopted. Chew on this while I look around and see how it was designed to deal with inflationary problems in the global economy. It isn't designed however to supplant national currencies, but offer a store of value that would promote sustainable values in multi-national corporations. Wheres national currencies encourage their greed and shortsightedness.


[-] 1 points by JoeW (109) 8 years ago

“The Terra mechanism would provide an automatic counter-cyclical stimulus to the world economy, thereby dampening the depth of recessions as well as reduce the risk of inflationary booms. Such a tool could be particularly useful in a period of a simultaneous recession of the three major world economies as we are currently engaged in.”

"The Terra initiative will introduce a reference currency that is fully backed by a dozen or so of the most important commodities and services in the global market, thereby providing, for the first time since the gold-standard days, an international standard of value that is inflation-resistant"


[-] 0 points by Barack (-379) 8 years ago
  1. History has shown that competition is beneficial to any subject or product or idea. If one country runs it's currency in an unproductive fashion, we should have the opportunity to choose a currency that is being run in a more responsible fashion. Perhaps instead of one currency, we should open up the free market to produce any number of competing currencies that don't necessarily have to be the sanctioned currency of a government.

  2. If we all were given an equal amount as a stipend, couldn't we give every person the equal stipend of nothing to equalize every person?

  3. Charity could be provided by people who actually cared about those in trouble and could separate those who were out to game the system rather than taking money from people at the point of a gun to run through a system where nobody gave a shit about where the money came from or where the money was going... as long as they got their paycheck funded by the same point of a gun that took the money that they were able to dish out to others.

  4. Inflation does not raise the value of money. It makes the money you have in your bank account worth less every day it is acted upon by inflation. Think about the cost of an I-Phone. If an I-Phone asteroid landed (delicately) that had 10 billion I-Phones on it, what would happen to the cost of, and the worth of, i-Phones. Similarly, what happens when you take a static (I know the amount of dollars is not perfectly static) amount of dollars and you push a button on a computer and double or triple the amount of dollars available. The value of your dollar is cut in half or by two thirds. It will be just as hard (if not harder) to come by the money needed to buy that $100.00 loaf of bread and even more difficult to come by the $125.00 needed to buy it the next day (or the next hour in the case of Wiemar Germany).

  5. If you gave everyone a dump truck full of $100 dollar bills, would you take a wheelbarrow full of $100 dollar bills to buy your last can of soup to feed your child?

Money is nothing. The only thing that is worth anything is your (and my) ability to create something that is worth something to someone else. You do not have to work full time even today, you can do absolutely nothing, and your compensation will be commensurate with your effort. That is the problem with socialism, the government is not redistributing "wealth", the government is redistributing "work", and if I have no reason to work for something I want to be able to keep and use, I will not work... Nor will you or anyone else.

No one who disagrees with me will read and think about what I have written, they will just call me names and tell me how I am a person who hates.

[-] 1 points by know1 (210) 8 years ago
  1. One type of competition I was thinking of avoiding was war. Another was each country enslaving its own people in order to compete with other contries

  2. Nothing is not the same as something ! The idea isn't to keep people equal, it's to keep people from starving and being in need !

  3. Supplying enough currency so that people can utilize their assets, trade, and become economicly engaged, would not be charity, it would be fair.

  4. I don't know about the inflation thing. I'm just curious if it could be as simple as I said

P.S. I didnt call U any names YET ! Thanks for reading the post and responding

[-] -1 points by Barack (-379) 8 years ago

If supplying currency is the answer, why not just pay every person one million dollars per hour, twenty four hours a day, every day of the year?

Actually, I was not talking about you in particular about calling me names. I am sorry for implying you would treat me unfairly


[-] 1 points by know1 (210) 8 years ago

having said that; The answer to your Q is. Causing inflation is not the objective and may not even be an outcome. The only reason I brought up inflation is; I'm thinking a little to much $$ in curculation may be a good thing, especialy if inflation could be remedied easily


[-] 1 points by know1 (210) 8 years ago

busts certenly benifits those who still have money

most of these forclosed houses are being bought up by investers

LANDLORD, that says it all

could it be by design ( booms and busts can be very benificial )

hard times you know, sorry we have to take your property, but I happen to own about 30 houses, I could rent you one

Its called feudalism

Its about the volume of money in curculation, ( stop giving loans, money supply shrinks, economy tanks, buy up stuff for nothing, creates a class of rich nobleman willing to defend the system ) controlled directly by the banks ( the invisible dictator )

this happens to not be the first wave of reposessions in history, this has been the gig for centurys

a pretty good gig: economic dictatorship blamed on the "business cycle"


[-] 1 points by know1 (210) 8 years ago

I bet you're happy now

[-] 0 points by CarlosFenito (36) 8 years ago

It is your belief that people are kept poor from lack of currency?

Why, pennies are currency. You can get them most anywhere for practically nothing. Even find them on the street, no big deal.

Why is this significant? Imagine a world where dollars are discarded like pennies. You'll be able to get them just as easily.