There is nothing new in creating "money to distribute wealth. It's a story that is 3,000 years old story, but it helps one to understand what money is and what it can do.
In B.C. 1766, the Emperor, Tching Tang, opened a copper mine and issued round coins with square holes and gave them to the poor, and this money enabled them to buy grain from the rich.
Most men have been so intent on the single "piece of money", as a measure, that they have forgotten its purpose...
Money, that is to attain abundance, it's NOT in itself abundance, but may well be an incentive to grow, or fabricate more grain, goods and even services.
A nation that cannot obtain enough food for its people, that nation is poor...
But when enough food exists and people cannot get it by honest labor, that nation is rotten.
The aim of a sane and decent economic system is to fix things;
There're people who want to work, there're things that need to be done!
-- Gold?
--- A single commodity base for money is not satisfactory.
A few eggs are worth a great deal to a hungry man on a raft...
Big Private interests HIDE the most vital task of your constituency:
--- a sovereign, legitimate government (by definition!) defines the value of its money.
Having determined the size of your "dollar", your government's next job is to see that "MONEY" is properly printed and that it gets to the people.
Money is a broad sort of "ticket" -- which is its only difference from a theater ticket.
When your government tells you that the country cannot do this, that or the other because it lacks "money", that's a lie.
It (the government) disguises, dodges the problem of having enough "tickets" to serve the people, and of keeping those "tickets" moving.
It's like saying we cannot build roads because we have no miles.
Would you call it inflation if the theater prints a ticket for every single seat in the house?
Content of this post assembled by a brilliant guy named Alberto Veronese. Follow him on youtube at fistfullproduction
