Babies are going to be the new "gold standard" to get rid of inflation!

[Nevaeh420]

Its very simple, just let the babies be the new "gold standard" to get rid of inflation!

This is how it would work; every time a baby is born then maybe $100 million dollars could be added to circulation. But it wouldn't have to be $100 million dollars, that amount could be dictated by what the online government decides.

This is the best way that I can think of to get rid of inflation. There would never be an inflation problem ever again if this was implemented.

Also, there should be a cap on how much money rich people can own. I don't believe there should be any billionaires so maybe there should be a $900 million dollar cap on wealth per person. This would level the playing field.

How much money would you add to circulation every time a baby is born?

What would be the pros and cons of this new banking system?

~PEACE~

 

[SlaveNoMore]

Maybe everytime a baby is born we cut $100 million in spending instead of printing more worthless money which causes inflation?

 

[beardo]

Its very simple, just let the babies be the new "gold standard" to get rid of inflation!

This is how it would work; every time a baby is born than maybe $100 million dollars could be added to circulation. But it wouldn't have to be $100 million dollars, that amount could be dictated by what the online government decides.

This is the best way that I can think of to get rid of inflation. There would never be an inflation problem ever again if this was implemented.

Also, there should be a cap on how much money rich people can own. I don't believe there should be any billionaires so maybe there should be a $900 million dollar cap on wealth per person. This would level the playing field.

How much money would you add to circulation every time a baby is born?

What would be the pros and cons of this new banking system?

~PEACE~

They already do this
they take out a bond on you when you get a SSN and you are traded on the stock exchange.
You are property/an asset that they use to secure debt, they trade you as collateral

 

[Nevaeh420]

Maybe everytime a baby is born we cut $100 million in spending instead of printing more worthless money which causes inflation?

You don't get the principle.

This new way would get rid of inflation. New money could be printed but the same amount of dollars per person would remain the same. So even if an extra 10 billion people were born in one year, than there still would be the same amount of money in circulation per person and thusly getting rid of inflation!

Think about it!

~PEACE~

 

[racerboy71]

And why can't someone whose worked hard and made all of all the right decisions in life not be allowed to keep all of their monies? Them, and of course people who simply won the sperm lottery and did nothing for their money of course ..
But shit! Why cap it at a billion.. let's just say we should have no thousand'aires in this world.. gotta keep our bank accounts to $999.99 and lower.. again, i don't understand how you or anyone can tell me how much money I can earn or amass if I'm good at it.. granted, I suck at it, but still..

 

[Nevaeh420]

They already do this
they take out a bond on you when you get a SSN and you are traded on the stock exchange.
You are property/an asset that they use to secure debt, they trade you as collateral

Hey beardo,

Yeah, but what I'm talking about is different. You wouldn't be able to add any more money into circulation like they do today. The only money available would be dependent on the amount of people alive. And there would be a cap on wealth, maybe $900 million dollars per person.

~PEACE~

 

[Rob Roy]

Its very simple, just let the babies be the new "gold standard" to get rid of inflation!

This is how it would work; every time a baby is born then maybe $100 million dollars could be added to circulation. But it wouldn't have to be $100 million dollars, that amount could be dictated by what the online government decides.

This is the best way that I can think of to get rid of inflation. There would never be an inflation problem ever again if this was implemented.

Also, there should be a cap on how much money rich people can own. I don't believe there should be any billionaires so maybe there should be a $900 million dollar cap on wealth per person. This would level the playing field.

How much money would you add to circulation every time a baby is born?

What would be the pros and cons of this new banking system?

~PEACE~

Why would you put a cap on what a person can own? What business is it of yours or mine what another has or how much they have?

 

[UncleBuck]

 

[Nevaeh420]

And why can't someone whose worked hard and made all of all the right decisions in life not be allowed to keep all of their monies? Them, and of course people who simply won the sperm lottery and did nothing for their money of course ..
But shit! Why cap it at a billion.. let's just say we should have no thousand'aires in this world.. gotta keep our bank accounts to $999.99 and lower.. again, i don't understand how you or anyone can tell me how much money I can earn or amass if I'm good at it.. granted, I suck at it, but still..

The cap on the amount of money one could have would be dictated by the online government. So you and everyone else would come up with that figure. I wouldn't dictate the amount of money a person should have but the rest of the world would be able to if there was an online government to keep things fair. I'm sure even the richest people would agree that you shouldn't be able to own half of the worlds wealth like the Rothschilds do. It would be a good way to keep it fair and a way to make everyone richer, even the poor people!

~PEACE~

 

[beardo]

Hey beardo,

Yeah, but what I'm talking about is different. You wouldn't be able to add any more money into circulation like they do today. The only money available would be dependent on the amount of people alive. And there would be a cap on wealth, maybe $900 million dollars per person.

~PEACE~

they don't now. "they" can't and don't "add money into circulation" now

 

[racerboy71]

If you took the rothchilds money, do you honestly think someone say who's on welfare would get any of it! Or do you think that someone who already has 50 million would simply now have say $75 mill and four of his millionaire friends would also benefit?
My guess is on the second option..

 

[Nevaeh420]

Why would you put a cap on what a person can own? What business is it of yours or mine what another has or how much they have?

The logic behind putting a cap on how much a person can own is to get rid of monopolies. To make it fair for the small businesses and the small guys.

I don't care how much people own, I think everyone should be rich though. Or at least everyone should be middle class. We all know the richest people in the world have a terrible monopoly on the resources so this doesn't apply to you. It only applies to the top 1% of the elites.

BTW, I believe businesses should own more money than individuals. For example, a cap on a business could be 100 billion dollars, but most companies will not make it that big.

It would be a way to make the poor people richer and the rich people rich enough! Spread some of that money around, you know?

Hey UncleBuck!

What do you think about My notion?

~PEACE~

 

[Rob Roy]

The cap on the amount of money one could have would be dictated by the online government. So you and everyone else would come up with that figure. I wouldn't dictate the amount of money a person should have but the rest of the world would be able to if there was an online government to keep things fair. I'm sure even the richest people would agree that you shouldn't be able to own half of the worlds wealth like the Rothschilds do. It would be a good way to keep it fair and a way to make everyone richer, even the poor people!

~PEACE~

I'm afraid I don't understand. You think it's okay for an "online government" to dictate to people what they shall do with the threat of force, yet you sign off with ~PEACE~ . That seems like you don't really believe in peace. What gives?

 

[beardo]

who do you think "they" are and do you really believe "they" are putting Money into circulation?
Don't believe they hype

 

[racerboy71]

If everyone were middle class, you do realize it would no longer be middle class right?

 

[Rob Roy]

The logic behind putting a cap on how much a person can own is to get rid of monopolies. To make it fair for the small businesses and the small guys.

I don't care how much people own, I think everyone should be rich though. Or at least everyone should be middle class. We all know the richest people in the world have a terrible monopoly on the resources so this doesn't apply to you. It only applies to the top 1% of the elites.

BTW, I believe businesses should own more money than individuals. For example, a cap on a business could be 100 billion dollars, but most companies will not make it that big.

It would be a way to make the poor people richer and the rich people rich enough! Spread some of that money around, you know?



Hey UncleBuck!

What do you think about My notion?

~PEACE~

The biggest most violent monopoly seems to to be the USA. They have a monopoly on the use of force. Also the entire construct of a corporation is backed by the government. So if you don't like monopolies, maybe you should get rid of the institution that allows and protects them. Also wouldn't your "currency plan" be a kind of monopoly if it prevented other forms of exchange?

 

[Nevaeh420]

they don't now. "they" can't and don't "add money into circulation" now

Whats the Federal Reserve doing then? Aren't they just printing money out of thin air?

If you took the rothchilds money, do you honestly think someone say who's on welfare would get any of it! Or do you think that someone who already has 50 million would simply now have say $75 mill and four of his millionaire friends would also benefit?
My guess is on the second option..

I believe the Rothchilds money should be used as trust fund money for the whole world for the next 100-200 years or so. So every baby born on this earth should be a trust fund baby and get their portion of the 500 trillion dollars that the Rothschilds own. The Rothschilds should be put in prison and their money should be divided equally to the people of the earth for the next 100-200 years or whatever the online government dictates.

~PEACE~

 

[UncleBuck]

Hey UncleBuck!

What do you think about My notion?

~PEACE~

 

[beardo]

Whats the Federal Reserve doing then? Aren't they just printing money out of thin air?

~PEACE~

Issuing credit and
Creating debt notes
Convincing people to accept them in exchange for their goods and services and money.

 

[Nevaeh420]

I'm afraid I don't understand. You think it's okay for an "online government" to dictate to people what they shall do with the threat of force, yet you sign off with ~PEACE~ . That seems like you don't really believe in peace. What gives?

You would be a part of the online government. With that being said, you would help dictate to the people what they shall do. But whos talking about threats of force? I'm not threatening anyone, I'm simply trying to come up with reasonable solutions to some very real problems.

But your right, the online government would pass laws that should be followed but most of the laws would be the same except they would be made by people like you and everyone else.

I'm just saying that I believe it would be a better government than letting the politicians and the elites rule. If you believe in "power to the people" than this would give all the power to the people. If you believe the politicians and elites have our best interests at heart and they could do a better job than the people than this form of government would not be for you.

who do you think "they" are and do you really believe "they" are putting Money into circulation?
Don't believe they hype

I guess I'm misinformed. I thought the Federal Reserve was just printing as much money as the government wants to get loaned.

If everyone were middle class, you do realize it would no longer be middle class right?

Maybe your right, everyone would be upper class then. There will always be poorer people and middle class and richer people, even in the best societies. But My plans would get rid of the poorest people and turn them into richer people.

The biggest most violent monopoly seems to to be the USA. They have a monopoly on the use of force. Also the entire construct of a corporation is backed by the government. So if you don't like monopolies, maybe you should get rid of the institution that allows and protects them. Also wouldn't your "currency plan" be a kind of monopoly if it prevented other forms of exchange?

Do you have a better idea to get rid of monopolies and get rid of inflation?

~PEACE~