Relative to UBI, BI, etc…
The thing disregarded in all this, is the moral and ethical justification for money creation. There isn’t any.
How does one justify allowing Wealth to borrow money into existence from Central Bank, buy sovereign debt for a profit, and have State force humanity to make the payments on that money for Wealth with our taxes, in debt service?
How does Piketty ignore the largest stream of income on the planet, sovereign debt service, paid by humanity directly to Wealth?
Complications and distractions aside, WEF estimated $255 trillion in existence globally, and over $200 trillion was in the bond market. So the vast majority of existing money is having the payments made on it with sovereign debt service payments from taxing humanity.
Why doesn’t State just borrow the money directly, at a fixed and sustainable rate?
What moral and ethical right does Central Bank have to loan money into existence?
Why not: All sovereign debt, money creation, shall be financed with equal quantum Shares of global fiat credit, that may be claimed by each adult human being on the planet, held in trust with local deposit banks, administered by local fiduciaries and actuaries exclusively for secure sovereign investment at a fixed and sustainable rate, as part of an actual local social contract?
Fixing the value of a Share at a million, and the sovereign rate at 1.25% will establish a stable, sustainable, regenerative, inclusive, abundant, and ethical, global economic system, with mathematical certainty.
Money created according to the rule acquires ideal characteristics of a globally fungible trade medium; a fixed unit of cost for planning, stable store of value for saving, with global acceptance for maximum utility, and nothing else. Money will forever have the precise convenience value of using 1.25% options to purchase human labor instead of barter.
As for the environmental impact, when each level of each government has ubiquitous access to 1.25% money for secure sovereign investment, including each sovereign adult human being for home, farm, or secure interest in employment, each human being equally shares the 1.25% fees, and the vast majority of human beings demand climate action, what’s the most likely result?
I do hope you will consider the foundational inequity.
Thanks for your work. and kind indulgence,