last update: 2019 02 22
index
contact

Why money

Good money has 3 useful functions:

Good money as basic income

The money described on this page should be a new digital currency and not an existing currency.
This avoids many problems.

Availability and distribution of the money is determined like so:

Why is this good money

The proposed money is good because:
A basic income of good money with a levy is better than the debt-and-tax system.

Video: Theresa May: "There is no magic money tree" (2017-06-03).
Magic Money Tree.
How Banks Create Money.

The Web Of Debt.

Universal Basic Income Is Easier Than It Looks (2018-12-28).
Coping with crisis. Yanis Varoufakis. Plenary 11 at PLSA Investment Conference 2016 (2016-03-11), time 13.

GAIM interview Yanis Varoufakis about democracy and investing (2016-08-12), time 39.

The last time when banks invested in poor people by using the debt-and-tax system, the debt crisis of 2008 happened.
Ten Years After the Crash, We’ve Learned Nothing (2018-09-13).

Are humans too lazy for a basic income ?

No.

Money and the money system is both a good and service.
But money is only useful as part of a trade system where other goods and services are traded for money.
Not enough other goods and services means poverty despite the money system.
Work because of distress and misery remains the worst case.
Of course the worst case should never be the first choice.

Work is and should be done because:
Why is some activity pleasant and interesting ?
The personality of a person determines what is pleasant and interesting.

Good schools are most important.

A basic income of good money is necessary but not sufficient.
Opportunities to do beneficial work in a beneficial social environment must be offered too.
Depression and anxiety: Have we gotten it wrong? | UpFront (2018-04-02). Johann Hari.

Bill Mitchell – Modern Monetary Theory: Job Guarantee.

The lustysociety promotes a good Job Guarantee because:
Automation and evolution of persons change what activities are useful and beneficial.

How much money as basic income

Regarding the European Union:
The basic income could be the equivalent of € 20 000 and probably more per year per capita in order to provide the economy with the appropriate amount of money.

Money for beneficial learning of skills and personality training and medical care and child care should be given for free in addition.
Poverty and inability and distress and misery harm everyone and everything and must be removed NOW.
Every second matters.

The levy determines how much good money is removed.

Banks should work as private investors but not as creators and managers of public money.

Price control

Inflation. wikipedia.org.

Prices of goods and services are determined on markets:
Inflation happens if the offer of money for goods and services grows faster than the satisfied demand of goods and services in general.

A basic income does not lead to inflation if the money flows only to the rich who do not affect the satisfied demand of goods and services of the rest of the society in noticeable way.

There might be introduced a maximum of how much money can be owned by a single person or company.
But there is probably no need for this maximum.
The money manager (e.g. the government) can intervene in case of harmful activities.

The availability of money for offered goods and services is controlled by:
Yanis Varoufakis with Ruth Wishart at the Edinburgh Book Festival, August 18, 2018 | DiEM25 (2018-09-24).
Time 1117: Space for democracy. Control and freedom.

Trade levy

The purpose of the levy is to control prices by removing money from the economy that was introduced as basic income.

The levy enforces a loss of money in the transfer of money for goods or services.

The levy is expressed as percentage of the transferred money.

The levy must not favor cooperation of persons in one company compared to cooperation of persons in different companies.

The levy must work even when persons are replaced by machines.

Therefore only a company can sell goods or services for money.
The concepts of and relationships between employees and employers by jobs will be removed.

The levy is enforced and applied automatically because the good money is digital money and all transactions are known.

The levy percentage depends on the desired evolution of prices and the desired distribution of money between persons and companies.

No levy on saving

Because saving does not increase the availability of money to buy real wealth (goods and services).
Everyone should be able to save money without loss by a levy.

No levy on investment

Because the transaction does not increase the availability of money to buy real wealth (goods and services).
But the trade levy is applied on the monetary reward for the bank for investing the money.

No levy on inheritance or gifts

Because the transaction does not increase the availability of money to buy real wealth (goods and services).

Perfect knowledge

No secrets related to commerce and trade and (money) ownership.
All transactions with money are registered by computers and accessible to all for free.

There must be no bad privacy.

There must be no intellectual property.

Therefore a digital currency.

Perfect markets require perfect knowledge.

It must be obvious to all:
Good money is implemented in a useful efficient open way.

Unlike harmful secretive wasteful inefficient currencies like cash money.

Unlike harmful secretive wasteful inefficient currencies like Bitcoin.
Bitcoin can be profitable for early adopters because the amount of Bitcoins is almost limited by design.
Bitcoin is not fair.
Bitcoin is not useful for an economy because Bitcoin is a limited deflationary currency that is not under benevolent control. It is technically not possible to create arbitrary Bitcoins for good purposes.
Bitcoin is technically slow and wasteful.
Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index.

HN: EU charges eight banks over alleged government bond cartel (2019-02-01).
Article: EU charges eight banks over alleged government bond cartel (2019-01-31).
The main problem is not the cartel of unnamed banks but the bad money system based on the debt-and-tax system and cutthroat competition and bad privacy that makes knowledge and cooperation harmful.

How to introduce good money

Modern poverty harms everyone and everything for no good reason.
Modern poverty must be removed NOW.
Every second matters.

There are 2 ways to introduce the good money as basic income.

As legal tender.

The government enforces the new currency as legal tender.
Playlist: BANKING 101.

Is LIBOR, Benchmark for Trillions of Dollars in Transactions, a Lie? (2017-08-11).
A change of money is only as difficult as (conservative) persons allow.

As personal requirement.

Money of the new currency is used as additional payment requirement.

The problem of new good money:
Therefore introduction of good money for the lustysociety over time.

Every monetary trade involves old money (valuable money) and new money (new good money).

When a certain money is required for a trade then the money becomes valuable.

Not everyone receives good money for free.
Only companies aligned with the morality of the lustysociety receive good money for free.
Other companies must sell goods and services to earn good money.

No bad currency union

A good currency union can be very useful to introduce and enforce good money.

IMO the eurozone is bad because:
Bad currency unions can be harmful because of 2 important related problems that might be the 2 important reasons why some experts promote currency unions:
A competing organization (state, society):
The Global Minotaur: The Crash of 2008 and the Euro-Zone Crisis in Historical Perspective, 2011-11-12, time 587.

Debt is particularly bad if the currency of the debt is not under control of the debitor.

A stable healthy wealthy self-determined autarkic industry is necessary as protection against economic war including sanctions by competing organizations (states, societies).
Examples:

Other opinions about money

Winds of Change: The Case for New Digital Currency

Winds of Change: The Case for New Digital Currency (2018-11-14).
By Christine Lagarde, IMF Managing Director, Singapore Fintech Festival.

Quotes:
  1. Christine Lagarde:
    A state-backed token, or perhaps an account held directly at the central bank, available to people and firms for retail payments? True, your deposits in commercial banks are already digital. But a digital currency would be a liability of the state, like cash today, not of a private firm.

    IMO:
    Debt is bad. Good money is wealth and not a liability.
    But debt and money owned by a benevolent good organization is still better than:
    • Debt and money owned by harmful organizations like e.g. the ECB of the Eurozone or certain member states of the Eurozone.
      The destruction of Greece – the slow-burn decline of a nation (2018-10-09).
      • Quote:
        In the case of Greece, the Troika inflicted such harsh policies that, not only has the material prosperity of the nation been trashed, but now, evidence is emerging that the underlying physical and mental health of the people has been significantly damaged. One step short of genocide. The slow-burn destruction of Greece and its people continues.
    • Debt and money owned by a merciless purely profit oriented bank that is in competition with other banks and thus without full market control and thus without motivation to increase the wealth and prosperity of everyone.
  2. Christine Lagarde:
    Let me start with financial inclusion, where digital currency offers great promise, through its ability to reach people and businesses in remote and marginalized regions. We know that banks are not exactly rushing to serve poor and rural populations.

    IMO:
    I agree. No initial distribution of public money as debt owned by private banks.
  3. Christine Lagarde:
    Without cash, too much power could fall into the hands of a small number of outsized private payment providers. Payments, after all, naturally lean toward monopolies—the more people you serve, the cheaper and more useful the service.

    IMO:
    This is silly and false and misleading.
    Cash money can be abused more easily by harmful governments and companies.
    Example: Greek debt crisis: the key points of Athens bank controls (2015-06-29).
    Online payment providers and users want trades but are limited by harmful governments.
    Examples:
  4. Christine Lagarde:
    Consider a simple example. Imagine that people purchasing beer and frozen pizza have higher mortgage defaults than citizens purchasing organic broccoli and spring water. What can you do if you have a craving for beer and pizza but do not want your credit score to drop? Today, you pull out cash. And tomorrow? Would a privately-owned payment system push you to the broccoli aisle?

    IMO:
    No initial distribution of public money as debt owned by private banks.
    Instead money should flow to producers of healthy wanted products by markets regulated by beneficial entities.
    Talk - Howard Lyman - Plain Truth from the Cattle Rancher Who Won't Eat Meat (2010-03-12), time 432.
  5. Christine Lagarde:
    Would central banks jump to the rescue and offer a fully anonymous digital currency? Certainly not. Doing so would be a bonanza for criminals.

    IMO:
    I agree.
    Good money allows perfect knowledge for all for free.
    No bad privacy.
    Of course this "extreme stand" is not what Christine Lagarde had in mind.
  6. Christine Lagarde:
    This brings me to my third area—the potential downsides of digital currency. The obvious ones are risks to financial integrity and financial stability. But I would also like to highlight risks of stifling innovation—the last thing you want.

    IMO:
    I want removal of modern poverty.
    Of course Christine Lagarde addressed the financial industry present at the Singapore Fintech Festival.
  7. Christine Lagarde:
    Let’s return to the tradeoff between privacy and financial integrity. Could we find a middle ground?

    IMO:
    There is no good middle ground.
    Good money allows perfect knowledge for all for free.
    No bad privacy.
  8. Christine Lagarde:
    The second risk relates to financial stability. Digital currencies could exacerbate the pressure on bank deposits we discussed earlier.

    IMO:
    Good money should be accepted by persons because the money and the money provider serves them well.
  9. Christine Lagarde:
    If digital currency became too popular, it might ironically stifle innovation. Where is your role if the central bank offers a full-service solution, from digital wallet, to token, to back-end settlement services?
    What if, instead, central banks entered a partnership with the private sector—banks and other financial institutions—and said: you interface with the customer, you store their wealth, you offer interest, advice, loans. But when it comes time to transact, we take over.

    IMO:
    The role and profit of the financial industry present at the Singapore Fintech Festival should have no importance at all.
    Only the benefit of money for the society should matter.