278
13 Democratic Capitalism
Everyone should have the same fair chance to benefit from the money system. In
other words, we should democratize capitalism. Then, it would probably work much
better for the world.
So, suppose:
1. all money would be gold-or asset-backed,
2. all money would be property of The People,
3. one would pay a regular basic income for everyone,
4. one would pay a regular investment premium to enable “crowd funding” for all,
5. the basic income, investment premium and fundamental public services would
be paid from a flat tax (VAT), transaction fees, a proper inheritance tax, and, if
necessary, a flat tax on company revenues. Then, we would have a circular flow
of money.
Should all of this not be enough, one could think about creating money with a
time stamp. This would allow one to introduce “artificial ageing” of money. In other
words, such money would be most valuable when handed out, but it would lose its
value exponentially over time. However, the same amount of money that would be
lost in this way would be newly generated for the payment of basic income and
investment premiums.
In a sense, such a system would infuse fresh money at the bottom of society,
on everyone’s bank account. By spending it, it would “evaporate” and rise to the
top. Today’s money system instead creates money on the top and claims to benefit
everyone through a “trickle-down effect”.
34 Unfortunately, the trickle-down effect
does not work well, as the growing inequality shows. Therefore, money concentrates
in less and less hands, which eventually makes the monetary system dysfunctional
(as one immediately understands by imagining that, one day in the future, all money
would be in the hands of one person or company—as we know it from the game of
“Monopoly”
35 ).
In principle, it should not be too difficult to create a system that works for the
environment and us. “Vested interests” seem to be the main obstacle, i.e. the people
who profit over-proportionally from today’s system and do not want to give up their
exceptional wealth, power and privileges. But are “vested interests” really legitimate
in times of “over-population”, where millions or even billions of lives are at stake?
I don’t think so.
From an ethical point of view, it is not acceptable to sacrifice one life for another
one, not even for two or more. Mathematically, this means that the value of a life is
considered to be infinite. It cannot be bought for money. That would be immoral.
From an insurance point of view, the value of a “statistical life”
36 is not infinite,
but it is officially still of the order of several million dollars, at least in various
34 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_effect and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickledown_economics.
35 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game).
36 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life; The Value of Statistical Life: A MetaAnalysis (January 30, 2012) https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?
cote=ENV/EPOC/WPNEP(2010)9/FINAL&doclanguage=en.
13 Democratic Capitalism
Everyone should have the same fair chance to benefit from the money system. In
other words, we should democratize capitalism. Then, it would probably work much
better for the world.
So, suppose:
1. all money would be gold-or asset-backed,
2. all money would be property of The People,
3. one would pay a regular basic income for everyone,
4. one would pay a regular investment premium to enable “crowd funding” for all,
5. the basic income, investment premium and fundamental public services would
be paid from a flat tax (VAT), transaction fees, a proper inheritance tax, and, if
necessary, a flat tax on company revenues. Then, we would have a circular flow
of money.
Should all of this not be enough, one could think about creating money with a
time stamp. This would allow one to introduce “artificial ageing” of money. In other
words, such money would be most valuable when handed out, but it would lose its
value exponentially over time. However, the same amount of money that would be
lost in this way would be newly generated for the payment of basic income and
investment premiums.
In a sense, such a system would infuse fresh money at the bottom of society,
on everyone’s bank account. By spending it, it would “evaporate” and rise to the
top. Today’s money system instead creates money on the top and claims to benefit
everyone through a “trickle-down effect”.
34 Unfortunately, the trickle-down effect
does not work well, as the growing inequality shows. Therefore, money concentrates
in less and less hands, which eventually makes the monetary system dysfunctional
(as one immediately understands by imagining that, one day in the future, all money
would be in the hands of one person or company—as we know it from the game of
“Monopoly”
35 ).
In principle, it should not be too difficult to create a system that works for the
environment and us. “Vested interests” seem to be the main obstacle, i.e. the people
who profit over-proportionally from today’s system and do not want to give up their
exceptional wealth, power and privileges. But are “vested interests” really legitimate
in times of “over-population”, where millions or even billions of lives are at stake?
I don’t think so.
From an ethical point of view, it is not acceptable to sacrifice one life for another
one, not even for two or more. Mathematically, this means that the value of a life is
considered to be infinite. It cannot be bought for money. That would be immoral.
From an insurance point of view, the value of a “statistical life”
36 is not infinite,
but it is officially still of the order of several million dollars, at least in various
34 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_effect and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickledown_economics.
35 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game).
36 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life; The Value of Statistical Life: A MetaAnalysis (January 30, 2012) https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?
cote=ENV/EPOC/WPNEP(2010)9/FINAL&doclanguage=en.