One More, Attempt to Illuminate the Foundational Economic Inequity

Hello,

I’m looking at papers discussing economic fairness and justice in the various Isms.

A point not investigated is the foundational inequity common to all current governmental structures: Money Creation.

Current definition of money doesn’t accurately define an ideal globally fungible trade medium. It actually includes any trade good. Valid definition is essential to determining a moral and ethical justification for the current process of money creation.

This is most likely reason no Economist will answer the question: “What is the moral and ethical justification for the current process of money creation?”

In more than a decade of inquiry, the closest to answering was Karl Widerquist, who said the question was incoherent. Clearly unconcerned, that the foundational construct of human trade may be immoral or unethical, and vehemently opposed to thinking about it.

Without the distracting complications, the current process of money creation allows 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.

Simply observable from WEF estimate of $255 trillion in existence globally, with over $200 trillion in the bond market. Theoretically, in a fiat currency system, all existing money should be backed by bonds…

Clearly though, the vast majority of money borrowed into existence is owned by Wealth, and having the payments made by humanity with our sovereign debt service taxes, regardless of political or social structure. Not just, or fair.

I don’t understand how Piketty disregarded the largest stream of income on the planet, paid by humanity to Wealth, in so many pages of detailed analysis…

If you will, consider the inevitable and most likely effects of including each human being on the planet equally in a globally standard process of money creation: 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.

That claim’s still waiting for dispute, as well as an argument against adopting the rule of inclusion for international banking regulation. The only logical argument against being a desire to exclude some, it hasn’t been voiced.

We can accurately define ideal money as an option to purchase human labor/produce. An ethical global human labor futures market will allow each sovereign human being to claim structural ownership of their future labor, as an equal share of the market, earning an equal share of the fees collected.

Money created according to the rule of inclusion acquires the 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. Fixing the cost of creation and maintenance establishes the fixed unit of cost and stable store. All money will then forever have the precise convenience value of using 1.25% options to purchase human labor instead of barter. Our local social contracts provide the voluntary global acceptance, which is now coerced, spoiling the value by asserting State ownership of access to human labor. If not State ownership of humans.

‘Money,’ and ‘options to purchase human labor,’ are interchangeable without loss of meaning.

Local social contracts enable maximum cultural diversity, innovation, resilience.

Without change to any existing government or political structure, or additional administration, bond and money markets can be eliminated, made redundant with direct borrowing of State money from humanity, collectively, through our sovereign trust accounts, with the collected fees paid equally to each of us, individually, to an associated deposit account.

Fees paid to an aggregation and distribution account, periodically divided equally, converted to appropriate currencies and distributed to each Shareholder. Principal payments returned to Shares, instead of the currently assumed nothingness.

Justice and fairness can be the structural default, and any form of government accepted by any group of human beings becomes valid with acceptance by the sovereign individuals governed.

I do hope you will consider the inevitable and most likely effects of adopting the simple rule of inclusion.

Thanks for your work, and your kind indulgence,

Stephen