If you and your friends set up a company and you became a shareholder because of you put in some foreign currency, then the CEO used all of your currencies on administrative expenses for overseas operations, meaning your currencies in the company is now 0 (zero), would you still have shares in the company?
So if a country printed money, does the money should be shared amongst the current holders of the currency, or all the citizens? Just a question, not closing any counter arguments possibility, but personally I find it to be correct that all the citizens (roughly) is the answer.
The implication is, monetary policy should not only benefit the current holders of money, but also every citizens of the said currency. Meaning if the country printed money, those money's power came from all the citizens, so if you were to use those money to increase scarcity of certain resources like land, oil, you shouldn't detriment access of some citizens from those resources using the newly issued money.
Yes, I'm talking about credit, don't use credit upon which legitimacy came from savers and all the other people of the country to compete against all the other people of the country.
Also UBI, would be an objective thing to do, as long as its not too much.
---------------------
Wait how is this logical? Well consider a good citizen vs drug abusers. If a good citizen ran out of money, the UBI would be used to produce problem solving things and elevated the economy. If all the good citizens ran out of money because of inflation caused by extra scarcity of resources that came from the credit, the UBI based on the goodness of each individuals would save the economy instead of penalizing the rich. Because without the UBI, the rich would ran out of producers in the economy that he/she's sort of anchored in, maybe partially, maybe in whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment