Home Care Assistance of Minneapolis

This conversation is closed.

Fixing the economy with Deliquifaction of Assets. Or rather, turning cash sitting in banks into buildings, roads, schools and jobs.

Banks supply loans of rich people's money. Why not create an economy where instead of having a few thousand people sitting on most of the money and having banks charge interest to loan it out, we have a system that mandates spending that money? Whether it is spent on investments in technology or infrastructure, insurance, stocks, or a series of very expensive custom guitars, the effect would be beneficial for the parties spending the money, the parties receiving the money, and the economy in general.

Rough draft proposal:
Any individual (or corporation) with over (ballpark) 25k in liquid assets (i.e. cash money) is required to invest the balance in some way. They either buy stocks, invest in new technology and research, pay better wages to get higher value employees, buy a boat or do other things to prevent the money from stagnating in a fat cat bank account.
Cutting out banks as a middle man between the money men and the idea men will only help to rehumanize the business world. Investors will be more like a silent partner. Instead of interest investees simply share a percentage of profits.
Even if people just buy six cars, a new house, and an ostrich ranch, it would still be stimulating the economy and fairly redistributing wealth, allowing for a higher standard of living.
I feel like this makes sense, but I also just really want to believe there can be some way to make things better that might be acceptable in the context of a capitalist system.

  • thumb
    Nov 26 2011: Hi Lucas, that's an interesting proposal. I must say first of all that economics is probably my worst subject. I couldn't run a candy store in a kids' playground. But I'm trying to learn more due to the dire situation we're all in. I searched TED for discussions tagged with "economy", and was surprised how little there is about it. I haven't tried other methods, or "economics", etc.

    It's clear even to me that the fat cats have had a field day, and I also believe that people on middle incomes have had a share of the spoils (I'm thinking sort of globally and nationally here, regarding most nations involved in global capital systems), while the poorest people in the world have been mugged. I've been reading about the creation of money by private banks as the central problem (particularly in relation to my own country, England), and that seems to make sense to me. http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/

    I'm pretty clueless about how to move forward, other than believing that we have to change this inflationary, fantastical manipulation of money, having no relation to actual resources. The Positive Money proposal hinges on removing the private banks' remit to "print" money and reserve that for an independent body at the national level, so that money creation is regulated by government and the profits from that are national assets (I think I've probably put that awkwardly).

    But I've also been reading stuff about a much higher taxation of the rich, which also seems a sensible way forward. A solution can cause problems at a different level. For instance, we are mostly limited to what changes we can make at national levels, but these measures also have to be considered in a global market. We all need the global economy to slow down, I believe, for the sake of the environment, but each country wants growth to compete. Your view seems useful to cut out the wasteful financial sector making profit out of moving numbers around in computers. I'd like to hear more, for dummies!