Marma
Marma
Aug 24, 2017 · 3 min read

Thanks David, very interesting concept!

Your system, as I understand it, is simply a much more efficient and automated transfer payment system. So in essence, it’s like a Tobin Tax which is systematically/programmatically applied to all transactions, and redistributed via an algorithm to the accounts which “need it the most” (ie the poor).

I like the idea very much, but my solution is geared towards fixing certain other issues:

  • The macro-economic problems created by flight of capital (if you create a universal currency that stores its value, then you can easily use it, not for domestic consumption, thereby propping up the local economy, but having it move abroad), unpredictable expenditure patterns (in the event of an economic crisis, people have a tendency to compress their expenditures which exacerbates the crisis). With a self-replenishing cryptocurrency which decays over time, people would, each month, have enough to pay for life’s necessities without worrying that they may not have enough the month after (since the replenishing of accounts doesn’t depend on a tax on transactions, which requires transactions to occur) This provides much greater predictability of economic behaviour and macro-economic stability (a stable and predictable base of consumption patterns)
  • This solution is not geared towards a “global” currency which can be universally used but is specifically designed to work only in a given area depending on government’s intentions. It is a currency which aims at ensuring that the goods of absolute necessity are produced, in every way possible, inside that given area (and thus put an end to countries which have economies built solely on export of monocultures which is detrimental not only to the economy but also to biodiversity etc)
  • I think the reason you don’t understand why people would accept this system is a matter of perspective: Imagine instead of issuing a self replenishing crypto currency, the government issued a loan to each and every person in regular fiat currency that has to be repaid each month. Each person would have an equivalent money to spend but would equally have to sell something during that month to “regain” an equivalent amount of money in order to reimburse the government. The solution proposed above is exactly the same! Except it takes the bet that each and every human being will, overall, in the long term, pull his or her weight and does not require a lender to run behind him/her to make sure he/she does something productive. Also, it allows for people like researchers that have nothing short term they can sell, to get such a “credit” without having the pressure of repaying it each month. But I agree that to many people, this system might seem “unfair”, and it would require a mentality shift; the idea that each human being will end up pulling his/her own weight in the long run, therefore making the fruits of your work available to them for seemingly “nothing”, in exchange for their service, one day or another. It’s almost like “friendship”… When you ask your friends to help you move, you don’t pay them, but your friends expect you to return the favor when they are in need.
  • Finally, I would point out that this system is by no means incompatible with your proposition. On the contrary, I find that they complement each other very well. My proposition is designed to work at a local level, making it easier to initiate. And the more this solution gains traction, the more likely it is that people are open to a “higher level” mutualization/socialization of the economy, which is where your proposal comes in: fix the wealth inequalities existing in traditional “fiat” currencies.

In any case, thanks a lot for your comment and input! I will keep it in mind!

Sincerely,

Martin

)

    Marma

    Written by

    Marma

    Political thinker, amateur philosopher, crypto-enthusiast and recently awakened to a spiritual transcendental reality.. https://marmadeveloper.wixsite.com/home