« on: March 06, 2014, 09:52:08 am »
QuoteUnfortunately I seem to be the only human being on planet earth that thinks inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and pumping it into the third world makes more sense than inventing trillions of shiny new dollars and giving it to a bunch of gold plated scam artists.
I can agree with large chunks of that, but I have to counter this with "Zimbabwe". Not alone in creating cash to try and raise living standards but the end result was less than pleasant. Brazil managed to deal with the same kind of problem with the introduction of the Real(?) and had a good degree of success.
There's another potential issue with where exactly the neediest people are located. A line of thinking could end up with "So if they lived over there, shit will be better for them". Which again, in Africa has had unfortunate consequences.
While the above may sound a little shitty, I'd rather cover as many of the potential pitfalls as possible. Last thing that anyone really wants is a system that fucks up in the exact same ways.
Economics 1.0 is fucking over Zimbabwe. A result of Artificial Scarcity is not an argument against Post-Scarcity Economics.
Many other problems can be prevented by not singling out the poor. I think this can only work if everyone social stratum gets it.
It needs to become as much a Right as breathing.
My thinking, right now is that cash doesn't trickle down, it flows up. Pump it in at the bottom and everyone will end up better off. The priority is humanitarian - elevate the lowest out of poverty but, in doing so should elevate everyone's standard of living. So we will still be better off than the third world by roughly the same factor. The only difference is now the third world have food, water, housing and maybe one or two luxury items.
Next we decide do we want to stop there or do we want to see it through to it's logical conclusion and keep making the ones at the bottom better off, given that we are all made better off as a direct result? I'm assuming the bottom tier of humanity will end up developing their own socio-economic thing, once all their time isn't taken up with the business of starving to death. I could be wrong but, if I'm not, then some sort of equilibrium may be achievable where the whole world is split into comfortably well off and filthy rich.
It occurs to me that maybe we've been looking at the economy backwards all along, if we're to use the flowing of water as a model for the movement of money. It isn't a pyramid, with the wealthy elite at the top and the workers at the bottom, and the money running downhill. It's a funnel. The narrow point may be the top of the social hierarchy, but I find the model is far more intuitive the other way around.
I mean, maybe that's what we should call this. Funnel economics. It still trickles down, but from the wide end.