[p2p-research] Who Issues the Money that National Governments then Borrow?

[Ryan Lanham]

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>wrote:

> Michel Bauwens wrote:
> > there is nothing wrong per se in creating money out of thin air
> > as long as it is matched by productive activities,
>
> That may be true.  But that is not what I am asking.
>
> My question is *WHO* should create the Money.
>
>
Everyone should who aims to be productive.  It is easy to do.  Simply
borrow, and money is created.  Those who fear debt are those who cannot make
sound economic decisions.




> For example, let's say we invented a new P2P Money that began to be
> popular enough that it could realistically be used as a medium of exchange.
>
>
All money is already P2P.


> Now imagine this new Money was designed to be "declared into
> existence" in limited amounts by each peer...  By the way, I think
> this is how BitCoin works.
>
>
This is simply a high tax scheme.  It is nothing new.  Tax everyone a high
rate, and it is roughly the same as issuing everyone a same amount.




> My question then becomes: Under what conditions would a peer choose to
> NOT issue his allotted amount for the year?
>
> I can see peers might borrow from each other AFTER they have already
> reached their issuance limit, but why would they choose to forgo
> issuing the initial amount they were allowed?
>
>
>
Money is a machine.  Those who chose not to use it productively...are like
any person who owns a resource (e.g. a computer or some land) who chooses to
not use it productively.  Productivity is giving people want they want.  It
doesn't have to be for the highest price...it can be set up in all sorts of
ways.




> I just noticed this sounds alot like the Basic Income idea.  Each
> citizen is *given* a certain amount of Money each year.
>
>
Basic income is fine.  I actually like the idea.  It should be an amount
that is only delivered if people don't reproduce, pollute, or extensively
use public services that are paid for by tax payers.  Money for nothing is a
pretty sure way to achieve very inefficient economies.  People consume in
perverse ways.  Rights without responsibilities are impossible.




> If this system were in place, would any of us choose to NOT accept
> that handout in favor of instead trying to get a loan from someone
> else?
>

Any person who believes part of their human dignity is to be a productive
and worthwhile person based on contribution to society by means that are
valued in economic terms.



>
> Assuming it is better to get the loan, what are the benefits to
> entering into debt as opposed to remaining solvent?
>
>
>
Debt creates incentives that push people to perform.  It is like a test in a
school.  Such incentives nearly always work well.





> Sincerely,
> Patrick Anderson
> Social Sufficiency Coalition
> http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>



-- 
Ryan Lanham
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
P.O. Box 633
Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
Cayman Islands
(345) 916-1712
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100717/e5ea9b27/attachment.html>