Money, Money, Money

 

    As we head into another cycle of inflation, one must question the worthiness and foolhardiness of the institution of currency. Since government cannot go broke due to the fact any resultant inflation can be fixed with taxes and printing "more money" One has to wonder if these newly accredited funds would render most of money's inherent value less than desirable if so much of it is available at hand. Since we've "evolved" into an essential "credit system" One might think that the worthiness of currency is an issue of the past. But if everything is reduced to numbers, then what makes money valuable? If it can be acquired by anyone, with little effort, say, in a capitalist society, wouldn't then, if there's enough to go around, wouldn't it just be nothing to write home about if someone struck it rich? Well, there's also the provision of services and goods. While living in a consumer-based economy as (most of us) do, how can one balance the price of goods between the consumer and the laborer? Most consumer based economies ensure that the buyer of goods determines the value of its price in the open market, I would assume that some must be reinbursed into the worker so he or she doesn't get cheated out of their profits (though in all seriousness I don't think women should hold positions other than a consumer in a free market). Since we're not going down the rabbit-hole of communism, I would wager that for everything bought by consumers, a tax revenue (and this is just a proposal) should be taken out (at least yearly) from every individual citizen, since we're operating on a "consumer-based" economy to funnel back into the pockets of workers since, say someone buys something that's extremely valuable, say demand is high, so the price is 10 dollars for the service or product sold, 5 dollars of that, precisely half or approximately half is funneled back into the pockets of the institution that produced the product that was sold. This does not mean that we (essentially) escape a "consumer-based approach, since supply and demand still shape the forces of the economy, but its quite a bit better than not letting the workers recoup their losses or time and labor used to make the product, I'd even go as far as striking an even keel between the product's price at its highest demand (annually) and match it with the labor used to produce it, so if someone buys something at 10 dollars (at its highest demand), and it took an hour to produce the product, say minimum wage is 9 dollars, he got nine dollars from his wages for one hour of work, to match that, he should get 4 or 5 dollars reimbursed to him annually since half of ten is five, and since his wages are 9 dollars and there is no way to divide that evenly, so the resultant redistribution should be 4.50 at the very least, so in between 4 and 5 dollars. I'm not sure what that mixture of economic methods is (would like some input) but that sounds close to georgist or market socialist theories. However you make put it, its a good compromise between market fundamentalism and letting the worker own the means of his production. But its a start, and maybe that might be a way to solve labor issues in a market-based economy.

                                                                                                                J./Adolf Stalin