change all the currency into electricity and store it on plastic cards. waddaya think?

How old are you?

Do you dream a lot?

Do you know anything about reality?

Baron Max

The charge card is not a new idea. ;)

yes, charge cards are on the right track, thats where i got the idea :P. hard currency is just too slow and cumbersome. it hinders the whole idea of economy. it we could trust in our computers and allow the value to move more freely we could put funding in the places it was required much faster. it will also help us to know what people are consuming and give companies more accurate information about each person. of course alot of lucrative industries would suffer, such as prostitution and the drug trade but i'm sure they would find ways around this (ie. local trade would improve). hard currency is important to privacy and in as with many democracy's people still fear that what they do on their own time will hurt them socially but if we could properly study these fears instead of invoking them and hiding with or minds and curtains closed maybe some people woud be happier (just not those who know how other people should act). baby boomers would probably fear that we are getting lazy too so this idea kinda requires them to die. laziness is key as is efficiency.

Huuuuummm... clever.... :cool:

But wouldn't that put too much power on the hands of the oil industry...?

why would it

change all the currency into electricity and store it on plastic cards. waddaya think?

Most of the money in the US is electronic. Cash is printed based on ATM withdrawals.

In fact, I think that there has always been less cash "on hand" than the amount of money in banks.

why would it
They produce electricity? :eek:

Most of the money in the US is electronic. Cash is printed based on ATM withdrawals.

In fact, I think that there has always been less cash "on hand" than the amount of money in banks.

the us government should not be in control of the cash "on hand". that should nilled in lew of electricity.

They produce electricity? :eek:
you produce electricity

How old are you?

Do you dream a lot?

Do you know anything about reality?

Baron Max

How lame are you?

Do you think at all?

Do you spend time outside of the library?

I imagine your older than 40

correct me if i'm wrong

you produce electricity
Oh really? How?

Oh really? How?

When you turn off an electric motor.

kingcarrot, I would like to dedicate this image to you:

http://www.theolanders.net/johnr/724you_win_the_prize.jpg

When you turn off an electric motor.
:bugeye:

kingcarrot, I would like to dedicate this image to you:

http://www.theolanders.net/johnr/724you_win_the_prize.jpg

i love it
heres another
http://www.p2ppower.org/clara/Cover2006.JPG
hopefully you got your self esteem back now :eek:

:bugeye: yea, makes about as much sense as you saying the oil industry controls electricity. :bugeye:
so do you have a real refute. or do you keep your savings in a jar.
If money changed hands faster it would grow at a faster rate.
i guess you misinterpreted electricity for 6.5cents/kWh and not as an economic tool.

If money changed hands faster it would grow at a faster rate.
That I can agree with...

If money changed hands faster it would grow at a faster rate. It could also depreciate faster. Growth is not a given.

Besides, most financial transactions take place electronically already.

And if you think it's slow, watch the Forex in real-time. :eek:

~Raithere

Does economic growth always translate into prosperity?

Does economic growth always translate into prosperity? That's a bit trickier. The short answer is that it typically does but not always.
There's no guarantee that the increase won't just go to waste and some portion of it usually does.

It's definitely better than economic recession or depression.
But rapid growth can cause many problems too.

The general consensus seems to be slow, sustainable, growth is best.

~Raithere

What is prosperous about landfills filling up with unnecessary crap we produce? Or wildlife being killed? Or the ozone layer disappearing? I fail to see prosperity.....

What is prosperous about landfills filling up with unnecessary crap we produce? Or wildlife being killed? Or the ozone layer disappearing? I fail to see prosperity..... Human civilization is young TS, give it a chance. It's barely been 2 centuries since the advent of the industrial revolution. For the first 150, give or take, we rolled forward blindly just as we had for the last 10,000 years before realizing that the Earth was not capable of sustaining our blatant disregard.

But we've begun to learn our lessons (if not completely) had have done very well IMO. Things are not nearly in such a bad state as the alarmists would have you believe. We are, in fact, the only species capable of such a realization, the only species in 3 billion years even capable of comprehending this and moderating its behavior. It is this that sets us apart from the rest of nature, not our overuse of resources, but our ability not to do so.

But we were talking about the poor, the hungry, the sick. At no point in the history of man has the average person been healthier, lived longer, been better educated, or more free. Surely that says something about our progress.

~Raithere

and at no time... have so few had so much... and so many, so little, in comparision.

the decadence of the wealthy today... far exceeds the decadence of the past.

unfortunately... our compassion for our fellow humans has not grown as quickly as our lust for material goods and personal pleasures.


we can solve this.... with faith.

-MT

In terms of a good money system, currency is vital. Electronic money does not cut it. The question is, what should we in a free market base our currency on?

How should we determine the value of our currency?
At what reat should we create money, and how should we disperse it to the public?

and at no time... have so few had so much... and so many, so little, in comparision. Yes and no.

Disparity between the highest and the lowest levels has increased. This is because the lowest level has remained effectively the same while the highest levels have increased dramatically.

However, there are a greater percentage of people in the upper and middle levels than ever before. Used to be that a hand-full of nobles owned everything and other people only held property and possessions at the sufferance of the nobles. Now many people own title to property and their ownership is protected by law. Not to mention many more people than ever before have access to clean water, food, medical care, and education than ever before in history.

~Raithere

Disparity between the highest and the lowest levels has increased. This is because the lowest level has remained effectively the same while the highest levels have increased dramatically.

You wouldn't happen to have data for this, would you?

You wouldn't happen to have data for this, would you? No, I'm shooting from the hip on this one. I don't think enough data exists to give a certain answer, although history and archeology do seem to support this. Most of human history was subsistence level living well into the agrarian age. Aside from trade skills, education seems to have been primarily the privilege of the elite and even then it took the form of special instruction. Whole economies were built upon slavery (literal ownership and physical bondage, not figurative reference to coercion and power). Certainly there were cultures that more egalitarian than others, it's not a constant through history.

~Raithere

I don't think enough data exists to give a certain answer

It'd be a fairly easy piece of accounting to do. Take real GDP/capita, look at its distribution for ten years ago, then look again now.

For instance, let's say real GDP/capita was, say, 25 grand for the lower income brackets in the US, and 200 grand for the upper brackets, or 28 grand/capita for everyone. (Just making up numbers).

10 years later, real GDP has risen to 30 grand/capita, but the lower brackets are still making 25 grand while the upper income brackets are making 250 grand.

We could say that the rich have gotten richer while the poor have staid poor, correct?

Because of the Solow growth model, we can assume that the 2 grand rise in per capita gdp was due to an increase in total factor productivity (TFP), which includes increases in technology, as well as social/governmental institutions that help growth, such as education.

Since the rich are the only one's who saw an increase in wealth, we can conclude that the lower classes have hit equilibrium, while the wealthy are the only ones benefiting from growth of TFP. So in a sense, the poor have become poorer, as TFP is increasing without their benefit. One could say it's even increasing at their cost, as they're the ones who are factors of TFP growth, yet they don't gain wealth from it.

For instance, a worker today must attend 4 years of post-secondary school, which is 4 years of costly education that he doesn't spend working, to attain the same level of wealth as a worker would 40 years prior. So the worker must work harder and sacrifice more to maintain that 25 grand/year, while the wealthy benefit by having a more educated work force, making 50 grand more/year.

It'd be a fairly easy piece of accounting to do. Take real GDP/capita, look at its distribution for ten years ago, then look again now. Mosheh's comment was, "at no time", which I took to mean "at no time in history". I was thinking more like 10,000 years not 10.

We could say that the rich have gotten richer while the poor have staid poor, correct? That is what I said, disparity has increased.

One could say it's even increasing at their cost, as they're the ones who are factors of TFP growth, yet they don't gain wealth from it. Have to disagree here. TFP specifically measures growth not caused by inputs (including labor). This suggests that TFP growth is generated specifically by those in control of organization and resource allocation as well as other factors. Additionally, the poverty level as measured by the US govt takes into account cost of living increases (it's based upon a measure of goods, not income). It therefore adjusts for growth and inflation.

For instance, a worker today must attend 4 years of post-secondary school, which is 4 years of costly education that he doesn't spend working, to attain the same level of wealth as a worker would 40 years prior. So the worker must work harder and sacrifice more to maintain that 25 grand/year, while the wealthy benefit by having a more educated work force, making 50 grand more/year. Invalid comparison. The average income for someone with a BS is around $52k not $25k. We're also looking at a major economic shift from highly industrial 40 years ago to service and technological. If you compare 4 additional years of academic instruction to the typical amount of time someone in the trades spends in low-pay, on the job training or in apprenticeship you'll narrow the margin considerably. Of course, none of these are typically poverty level jobs. You can make an excellent living as an electrician or a construction worker. In fact most journeymen earn more than I do with a 4 year degree and a considerable amount of CE.

~Raithere

Does economic growth always translate into prosperity?

Definitely...for people who are involved in the growth. For example, in USA, these days, economic growth is coming from the healthcare industry, Repair work in New Orleans, War in Iraq and Afghanistan and Banks who charge 50% interest rate. That provides prosperity for people who are involved in these industries at the expense of the rest of the people.

at the expense of the rest of the people... being the key words.

-MT