The Solution To Poverty?

Type I.O.U. into google search and you might get a clue.

Type I.O.U. into google search and you might get a clue.

yes but what are people going to do with these IOUs? trade them for real currency?

If they want to. Or for goods and services.

hows that different from currency then?

It isn't tied to, or representative of, the country's wealth.

Bucky Fuller was an uneducated kook. It is not surprising that you worship him.

Keep telling yourself lies --state of denial-- is your choice. Your very narrow-minded person who needs to expand your conscious horizons.

Read the following with best comprehension skills that you may have access to.

Repeating yourself doesn't make your gibberish better. You tell everyone the same thing. Does it not dawn on you that if everyone is saying that you are incoherent, something is wrong with you?

Read Fuller's bio genius. He was uneducated. You aren't either.

Repeating your falsehoods does not make them of any significance.

None of your post is pertinent or logical. It is the babbling of a loon. Reposting it only serves to show people you are mentally unstable.

Your manifesto is loopy, and it has nothing to do with the topic.

Bucky Fuller was an uneducated mooch. That is the truth, sorry that you admire him, but he was a loon. So you can post your stupidity again, and I'll just tell you the same thing.

Stay on topic. Resist the urge to preach your loony ideas, and use your best English. You'll do fine.

My morality is actually......moral.

Repeating nonsense does not change it into sense. I've read your stupidity. I've re-read your stupidity. It is still stupidity. Repeating it will not change my mind, or change your stupidity into a sensible argument.

If the IOU's are exchangeable for currency, then they are just a surrogate for currency. If currency is tied to a nation's wealth, then so are the IOU's.

If someone exchanges their IOU for currency, then in the end you have done nothing but give them currency..

Thanks God I didn't see comunism as a response to this subject.

Poverty exists because there are people who want to live in poverty, so the only solution I forsee for that problem is the aid given by the gorvenment or other institutions like NGOs. We cannot get rid of poverty but at least we can keep it so low that we don't have to worry about it.

OK.

someone has to pay for everyone else to have money. 

Economically, money has to be scarce for it to be valuable. If everyone has money, then technically it is not scarce and then it become less valuable. It certainly would lose purchasing power. 

In the end it will have a short term sense of everyone feeling wealthy. but within weeks, perhaps days, it will become depressing. It actually would lead to inflation which is the same things as money losing its value. 

There is also a historical precedent - at the end of world war 2 everyone in Germany was given the equivalent of $50. within one week, 90% of the money was in the hands of 10%. one week. This is pretty interesting in that money always goes to the ones who know how to use it properly. 

money or units, however you describe it, is not determined or valued by the wealth of a country. All money is at the of the day a tool that represents the lowest common denominator. whether it is in cash or electronic or is a rock or a piece of sand or gold, it is still only useful if people want it. In other words, the value of money is going to be determined by the market. 

It may well start of as equal to one unit of $ on the first day, but it will either increase or decrease by the end of the day. Especially if people are using or not using it. 

It is an artificial increase of the money supply into the market. It has to be artificial unless it is simply replacing money already in the system. And who is going to give away 350 Trillions dollars? and it is an injection into money supply - because it was not there previously and now it is going to be used for the same purposes - buying and selling goods and services. It may not be cash but it is the same thing. Hence it will lead to inflation across all forms of currency in the market. to say it is imaginary does not make sense. It has to happen because suddenly every other form of currency is less valuable. 

Reducing poverty requires a different approach. first poverty has to be defined - as a constant in every community. not just a relative concept. Secondly, we need to evaluate where the wealth in the world exists now. And it is not just in the hands of the private sector but mostly tied up in hands of the public sector which actually accounts for over 90% of all wealth. Then we need to decide what the public sector needs the wealth it has for. and whether a reduction or a re - examination of the way it uses it wealth is appropriate and or would cause it not to be effective in its role. That of course also requires a discussion of what is a government's role. I take a small government approach - so I have no particular issue if the government lost most of its wealth and instead transferred it either into the hands of the less wealthy or re-invested it into schemes which would pay for and provide for most of the larger government programs such as health, education, welfare on an ad finitum basis. poverty could be come a thing of the past but it requires thinking outside of the box - not just handing people money - but figuring out what poverty is and what the government's real role ought to be. 

unfortunately most socialists and capitalists have yet to figure out where most of the wealth in the world is. 

But Ethan does know what a dumbbell is. ; )

Believe me, I do...

The Oxford English Dictionary describes "apparatus similar to that used to ring a church bell, but without the bell, so noiseless or ‘’dumb", 

See? I do know.

Untrue. And as long as you believe this, my argument will be lost to you.

I've explained it. I won't do so again.

This is like trying to get the guy who believes he is locked in prison that the doors are unlocked if he would only try them.

Inflation is nothing but perception. There are interests that wish to keep that perception alive. Most people have been so steeped in the status-quo they have become unable to see that their culture is not a prison.

Money is representative of an asset that belongs to someone. It is not something that arises from imagination or on a computer screen. It is a tool that enables people to exchange goods and services. 

Inflation is not perception. 

you realise that there are two different definitions for inflation. the Keynesian definition - of a pervasive increase in a basket of goods over a set period of time.  and if you are talking about that definition - I agree it is a myth.  But I am talking about inflation under the classical definition which is simply an increase in the money supply. and inflation under that definition is not a myth because the money supply does increase and decrease all of the time. 

When the money supply increases, every piece of unitary measure in the system by definition loses value in accordance with the market.  This is inflation. This is not perception but explains why the price of assets and services do increase in price over time and why the value of real wages decrease. It is not the CPI that I am talking about - it is real inflation - i.e. the increase in the money supply. 

Your concept of injecting units into the system by electronic means will mean in the short term that real money in people's hands will lose value. The units being backed - not pegged - but backed by the confidence we have in the government - similar to the backing or the confidence we have in our money now. Remember that neither in USA or Australia that our dollar is backed by gold or silver anymore - but simply confidence in the government - although we have reserve bank - and it holds some gold - the fractional banking system means only a very small fraction is backed. 

I think it is fraught with problems - personally.