This story is unavailable.

Here’s an example of thinking too much…

Having a trust fund worth $1,000,000 doesn’t mean you have $1,000,000 you can spend, because it’s in trust so you can’t spend any of it, it is simply a source of income, and the secure capital each must have to be enfranchised in the global economy, and a representation of the value of ones word, being, potential contribution to society…

The problem is the lack of enfranchisement, the examples and effects of this are ubiquitous and lengthy enumeration of them is done by thousands of observers

While the possibility of a more direct or effective method of enfranchisement may exist, that is hardly a valid reason to not simply enfranchise each in this way, while we wait for someone to illuminate the improvement (I clearly don’t see it, or how any structure could be more simple or effective, and allow the creation of sufficient money)

Considering that each will be provided access to sustainably priced credit to purchase various forms of capital, if approved by their banker, each will be enabled to build on their basic capital, their Share, that can not be acquired by anyone

In any case, this will establish about $7 quadrillion of capital that can not be acquired by anyone, even as governments and other sovereigns borrow the credit into existence to produce more capital, so what happens to the money circulated by this capital has little importance, and the fact that the wealthy will hold it through any given part of it’s cycle is only an incentive for their acceptance of a structure that will clearly benefit them as well, in spite of their preconceived notions

Always interesting, thanks for your continued input

Howard’s
One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.