The Dollar vs the Share

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Quantum Quack, Nov 8, 2018.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,530
    Imagine two similar scenarios from two different economies.

    A man walks into a store and purchases a liter of milk and pays 2 US Dollars cash.
    A man walks into a store and purchases a liter of milk and pays 2 US Shares cash.

    Imagine the two different economies involved especially the one that supports the US shares. ( a share being legal tender - essentially no different in use as a dollar)
    How could that economy work?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Example: Would it work in away that generates savings ( say for retirement) and community participation (patriotism)?

    What if the Government issued dividends annually based on how many Shares you held at the end of a financial cycle?
    Call it a cash share or a money share or a government bond share if you like.

    The idea is to imagine all dollar words on current currency be changed to Shares and that those shares have added value simply because they are actually shares in a nations prosperity. Making profound changes to the nature of money in the mean time.

    Psychologically this would have profound impact over time. IMO. Sure it may take a generation or two but would it not be a step towards offering part of a solution to the "unemployed due to technology" (UDTT) issue facing us now and more so in the future?

    Any thoughts welcome!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,518
    Well, if it was no different than a dollar, then it would work no differently than a dollar. So the economy would work the same.

    No more or less so than dollars work.
    Then the rich would prosper and the poor would sink deeper into poverty.

    (Not much different than compound interest in a bank account, but presumably a higher return.)
    I am unclear as to how this is any different than a dollar. A share of what? If the GDP changed, would the number of shares you held change as well? (i.e. if GDP dropped 10% would the government take away 10% of your shares?)
    How would this have any different psychological effect than money?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,530
    I guess it could if all you did was just change the label from dollar to share, however I don't think so as words can be extremely influential, especially in the long term. Imagine a child getting a share a week put in his piggy bank for doing a house chore. How would he view his acquired shares?
    Would he view them as just money or would he view them as something more than just money?
    My guess is that he would view them as much more than just money.
    Depends on how the economy was structured to incorporate public shareholdings I guess...
    Not necessarily...means testing dividend payouts to favor savings ( especially those that would be deemed retraining, unemployment, superannuation, retirement or philanthropic savings)
    or a whole host of other measures to encourage and enable the poor to improve their circumstances would no doubt evolve.
    perhaps...but the banking system would still be independent of the Government share dividend process and would evolve as well...
    Empowering the holder of the share with not only a dividend but also the capacity to trade/lend it to banks in return for interest payments or other.
    The number would stay the same but the value thus dividend would be floating ( as it is now with the dollar)
    By labeling it a share rather than dollar you encourage the share holder to be more enthusiastic about national interests as his dividend would be directly related to national prosperity. This I would speculate would generate a more productive and efficient workforce, improve the problems of gambling, drug use and fraud and ultimately provide a dividend based income that could conceivably support or at least supplement someones income who has been retrenched due to technological advances.

    "Some how the redundancies forced on a population due to technological advances have to assist in supporting those made redundant in the event of unemployment."
    see above...

    Words can have enormous power and the definition of dollar vs the definition of share could provide enormous change in national attitudes towards money in general if the notion is taken up.

    Politicians for example would be seeking the vote of share holders and not just citizens.

    ...just thoughts ... you know... just thoughts

    I am sure it is not a brand new idea and has been thought of before...
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2018 at 1:32 AM
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,482
    This concept is so stupid that I hope you are merely repeating something that you've heard.
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,530
    Ahh! Now ..I know that it has some merit....(chuckle)
    Do some research into "Corporatocracy" in the USA especially how it effected the crash of 2008.
    Now extend the concept of Corporatocracy to include government (as Incorporated) with all citizens as share holders.
    ( some science fiction has been produced along these lines.)
    Issue shares instead of dollars for common exchange and you may actually have a workable and productive economic system.

    A form of socialist free market capitalism perhaps....

    Got to have a good imagination I must admit... but maybe worth the effort...
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,530
    An adapted example ( thought experiment):
    British South Africa Company under charter to the British Government took control and ruled Rhodesia between 1890's to 1920.

    Some questions that come to mind are:
    What if all citizens of Rhodesia used shares instead of Pound sterling as cash?
    How would owning cash shares effect those ruled and other wise employed by this company or other businesses in Rhodesia? ( given that they would have a vested interest in the company's success.)
    How would this impact on the subsequent history of Rhodesia as it moved towards independence as Zimbabwe/Zambia?

    ====
    Also given that artificial intelligence is definitely on the horizon considerable redundancies are likely. How is society going to deal with such large numbers of under employed or unemployed people?
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2018 at 6:43 AM
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,482
    How did society deal with large numbers of blacksmiths or unemployed farmers?

    Regarding your idea of "shares". It's such an undefined concept that it's virtually impossible to discuss.

    If China takes over Australia but prints the work "shares" on your paper money, will you be more content with the situation?
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,530
    Probably moved on to other labor intensive vocations, like road construction or rail laying for trains...
    How will stock brokers, bankers, financiers, accountants be employed once AI takes over their role?
    do you have any ideas that might clarify it?
    A share is well.... uhm a share in an organizations prosperity, why not make the dollar a share in the nations prosperity?
    So that all those financial geeks I mentioned as an example,can get an income while they reskill or other wise remain unemployed due to technological advances.

    If China did indeed take over I would certainly want to be a share holder and by virtue of such given a stake in my nations future...
     
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,482
    Just writing "share" on a dollar bill doesn't give you anything. You are already a citizen so you share in the outcome anyway. A country isn't a business. It doesn't make a profit so there is no dividend or profit sharing.

    Everything has to be taken care of with tax dollars just as it is done now. "Financial geeks" probably would have an easier time being retrained than farmers, wouldn't you think?

    There is currently unemployment benefits. Nothing changes in your "system" and no I don't have any ideas. This is your idea. You are supposed to be the one to flesh it out your own idea.

    Ultimately, in the far future, if it turns out that all jobs are taken over by AI then everyone will just get a check to stay at home and do whatever makes one fulfilled. Should we have stayed with horses as the primary means of transportation just so that some people wouldn't be temporarily out of work?

    While they were out of work, would they have felt better if we told them they were a share holder in their country?
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,530
    Think on it a bit... of course they would...
    They wouldn't need to be told either....
    If the money in your wallet right now were shares in the nations prosperity and paid a dividend if retained at the end of a financial cycle how would your attitude to your own money change?
    Would you spend it more on things that added value to the community or would you spend it on things that didn't.
    The idea of a share based economy is more than just about money. It would be mostly about attitude. IMO
    The problem of providing "social welfare" is growing every day. If it is not solved dysfunctional nations like Honduras become common. Massive social unrest, revolution, organized crime, gangs, endemic poverty, systemic corruption, mass migration etc...the USA is not immune to the social chaos that would be inevitable when paid work is replaced by technology. We are already seeing it and will go on seeing more of it...

    Any suggestions about how to solve the "social welfare" problem for the near future are welcome.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2018 at 10:24 AM
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,530
    hee hee even flipping burgers is becoming automated... imagines a high powered broker not even getting a job flipping burgers...( yeah yeah I know... bad example

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )

    Maybe they can ask Alexa ( M/Soft's rapidly evolving AI) for a job interview?
     
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,482
    As long as there are jobs intelligent educated people can get them. At the point where there aren't any/many jobs, presumably there is still an economy (otherwise there is nothing to automate) and the proceeds of that economy will still (though the government) have to flow down to its citizens.

    If you just want to look for doomsday scenarios then when food is scare, jobs are scare, people quit breeding or die off and then even a small economy will support a small population. It has to work out one way or another. You may not personally like the way it works out if you are living at the wrong time with the wrong skills but things will balance out at some point.

    There will always be some jobs. Not everything can be automated. Most automation just eliminates monotonous routine jobs. People who train for higher order jobs generally have more satisfaction as well. Times change. Most people wouldn't like to go back and live as they did 1,000 years ago. 1,000 years from now, if people are still around, they probably wouldn't like to be living now either.
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,530
    How will it flow down to the under or un -employed citizen?
    What method would you suggest that allows underemployed persons to benefit from technological advances that forced their redundancy?

    An Example:
    Globally Banking institutions have essentially converted to ATM, digital banking etc that has allowed them to reduce their payroll significantly, close branches and other wise rationalize their operations with far fewer staff. Transferring staff to other roles etc. But there is a limit to this employment offset process, age limitations prevent retraining, people retire earlier, local employment opportunities may not be present and relocation may be necessary and so on.
    With facial recognition software, voice recognition etc the need for face to face contact to verify Identity becomes less of an employer of people.
    It is not hard to imagine that the entire banking sector will become fully automated requiring only trained technicians to maintain it.
    Cash handling is taking a big hit as we move to a cashless society. Security personal, armed guards and other cash processing facilities become redundant and so on.
    Western societies are aging as well with more and more persons spending nearly half of their lives retired or underemployed. ( my rough estimation)

    A way of solving this problem must be found and soon IMO.
    The idea of share money is only one idea that has potential to "balance the redundant labor books" so to speak. ( longer term solution)
    Granting people corporate shares as part of a redundancy package to offset the loss of employment due to technology is another more transitional one.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,518
    Same as he would view a dollar. I mean, if you call it a Euro or a peso or a Dead President it doesn't matter all that much to people, so I don't see why calling it a "share" would.
    Just money. Changing the word that means something doesn't, historically, change anyone's behavior. (I mean, you can call them "freedom fries" all you like, but people will still buy and eat them at the same rate.)
    But again - that's exactly what we have now.

    I have a lot of shares in companies. They are like money except they change value as the perceived value of the company (and thus its market capitalization) changes. But they change relative to an agreed-upon reference, which is a dollar. You could call it a share; nothing would change.

    OK so again, same as a dollar.

    But it's that way RIGHT NOW. You are thinking that US people are so stupid that they don't realize that the US economy has something to do with their prosperity? And that by changing a word they will become more enligthened? Sorry, that's too much of a stretch to take seriously.
    OK. So you are now talking about "adjusting interest based on need" or some such. Which is the first difference between shares and dollars that I have seen.

    The big problem with that is that poor people don't have any money. That's why they are poor. So interest improvements on money they don't have don't help them.


     
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,482
    Banking isn't largely about tellers. Retail banking doesn't make up the majority of banking.

    Trained technicians make more than tellers so they are benefiting as well. There isn't a society/economy based on retaining the least skilled people. The key is to adapt and retrain. As far as making some allowance for those who fall into the cracks, that's what government is for. There are retraining programs, severance packages, saving, etc.

    Or we can just call a dollar a share.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,518
    Mandatory shorter work weeks.
    Lower minimum wage.
    Makework jobs.

    All of those have their downsides, of course.
     
  20. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,482
    I say abolish the cotton gin and bring back horses to pull our city buses (and referring to employees as share holders of course).

    Let's start a list of all the great ideas that have come from Australia.

    1. money with share holder printed on it.
    2. (I'm having trouble with number 2...anyone?)
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,518
    Marsupial birth
    Paul Hogan
    INXS
    Divinyls
    Midnight Oil
    Men at Work
    Hugh Jackman
     
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,482
    So what you are saying is that Australia is kind of short on ideas (other than the share holder idea) but does produce some entertaining personalities.
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,530
    you is funny Seattle, as funny as a pace maker invented in 1928 to ultra sound in 1961.
    perhaps you find the invention of the refrigerator in 1856 or the solar hot water in 1956 trivial enough to claim some sort of creative superiority.
    try this wiki link and perhaps do some research into the words false pride, arrogance and envy, before you post more to demonstrate your own defining characteristics.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Australian_inventions
    For a nation of less than 25 million I think we have more than enough ideas to go round....

    the ones I like most are:
    Black box flight recorder 1958
    Wi Fi 1992
    Jindalee radar system - stealth detection : 1995
    Scram Jet : 2002

    Quite a list for a nation of so few people...

    Your apologies is (are) accepted... ( chuckle)

    oh ... oh ... and this one
    Military Tank: 1912

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    and where oh where would you be with out the electric drill 1889 or the first ever feature film in 1906
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2018 at 10:17 PM

Share This Page