If I were to make money v.07

I like to watch CNBC, Bloomberg, RT, Yahoo, IDX for financial news and talks. Not that do that often, I should do that more often but when I wanted such information those are my go to channels. With RT in particular Keiser Report, they encourage the usage of bitcoin and they trash the fiat money (regular money). 

So I always said that money represents that the holder has helped and hasn't been helped back, or it should mean that. In this time of difficulty, some governments decided to take expansive policies, handing stimulus or giving out cash to people. From a point of view the policy is a relief for a lot of worries, however it is at the cost of the value of money. The same way if gold kept on being discovered or even created in a lab, then people would've wanted more of it in exchange for the same amounts of products/services they provide.

Bitcoin however, from what I concluded watching the Keiser Report, is not as liable to the degeneration of value as the fiat money, I don't want to give false information as to why, there are people out there who have dwelled more into this deeper than I, but bitcoin has increasingly become more interesting as an alternative currency as oppose to gold. 

Bitcoin itself is mined, why it became money is just out of thin air. Gold is like that, Fiat is like that as well. The generation of currencies has not been tied to solutions even though they ended up practically tied to solutions in day to day activities of the economy, for most people. So from there I think there's a room for improvement.

There is a room for improvement for the way we generate currency; conservatively the basic proper creation of money is when individuals issued promissory notes for their solver of problems. The notes act as guarantee to whoever later returned the note, that he/she would be provided with such and such amounts of goods and/or services. So I would start from there, that money should be able to complete a circle and be expired. 

I'm not a revolution type of guy, I'm an add-on type. I don't think replacing what is currently being (massively) used, using invasive regulatory means is good. But if before issuing money, you could specify the transaction that would expire it, that should reinforce the value of it enormously. Not mentioning the legitimization or the validation you could have in printing more and more of it, if you do it right. 
(If I were to make an example with this tiny glasses of mine, I would just going to stifle the creativity.)

Now I want to focus on the issue of deflation. Because if a currency were to experience deflation, then (if you've been in the Paul Krugman's masterclass you would know), people would be inclined to hold their spending, and as people hold off their spending, producers will think twice before producing, investors will not be investing, and the economy would stagnate. The reason, they expected that the value of their "money" would keep on increasing in the future. So they kept it as oppose to work it. 

In turn the consensus is this; a little bit of inflation is a good thing as it encourages people to go out and do stuff, it excites the economy as it incentivizes people to care about each other more.

For a long while I have been proposing this golden sticker idea, If you have the Golden Sticker system implemented, then the people would be incentivized to accumulate them, and to care for each other, and to appreciate each other. Psychologically that is a natural human being's reward mechanism, I say it is archetypal, and it is powerful. I say if you got this "Add-on" applied, you shouldn't have to worry about deflation anymore, and sometimes you could have deflation ever once in a while without worrying that people would stop contributing to the economy. Deflation itself should not be vilified especially if it comes as a result of innovation. In an innovative world, there would be strong pressure for deflation as new technologies drove prices down. I like it.  

In the end whether at macro level as a country or at cellular level as a part of a human body, the economy is not about the money, it's about solutions. It's not about the golden sticker, it's about the level of availability of mutual solutions in reality. 

What is the utility in having ever increasing value of your personal money when it actually means that the economy is in the process of undermining the efforts of the producers? What is the meaning of having a lot of non-renewables as reserves, if there were no vibrant economy to enjoy them. What is the meaning of being able to produce money in the economy, if they were not about problem solving? If they were not for the increase of the level of availability of mutual solutions in reality?

Dude, Justice is always number one