@kennethkopelson Yeah its a shame the good things the Nazis did were overshadowed by the holocaust, but it would be foolish not to look into how they turned their economy around so fast during the height of the depression. The Folks economy is purposely left out of the history books, because the International bankers don't want people to know that there is another way of doing things, that doesn't involve being in debt to them.
This is a good article by someone who actually lived in Nazi Germany..http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/LifeIn3rdReich.pdf

I like your name for it 'Value based economy'.
'Peoples economy' makes me think of communist China, and obviously you couldn't mention Hitlers 'Folks economy' if you want New Zealanders to get behind it. I was just pointing out that a similar idea to yours has been tried before, and it created a successful debt-free economy

Thanks Ryan for that VOTE of confidence! Yes, I'm glad that you agree with my thinking on that regarding the name.

Haha no problem. I wonder if Kim Dotcom knows about the Nazi's Folks economy, being German and all?
There was an interview on 3 news recently with Dotcom, about him buying Nazi memorabilia because "it will be valuable in 100 years, its an investment", or something like that. In 100 years when hes dead? haha
Maybe he knows about it.
Maybe its part of his plan for digital currency?
I'm interested to see what he has planned..

Well, I'd really like to not even bring it up with anyone...if it's unknown, then I'd like to just keep it that way. I didn't know about it when I came up with this idea, so it really has nothing to do with it. Any similarities are strictly coincidental. Nobody owns logic and reason, so just because multiple people independently come up with similar ideas over the course of human history, does not mean they are connected...except by that thread called "logic and reason". Anyhow, as far as I'm concerned "what is 'folks economy' again"? By the way, you can't find that term on the Internet...

Fresno and Buckminster Fuller had some contact along with leaders in early technocracy around the idea of an energy credit.

https://www.loomio.org/d/m8CNKAvR/that-the-carbon-tax-does-not-address-the-real-value-we-put-on-the-environment-and-we-need-a-sustainable-energy-credit-instead

Here is my proposal (although I invite discussion on the page above also)

This a second legal tender currency for use in New Zealand only.This is made available as a forward forecast segment of our renewable energy, and must be spent in the year. It has the advantage of being readily tracked unlike a cash reward, and justifies the introduction of a smart wallet on a smartphone. Smartphones could also be used for education, cloud gaming, accessability and direct democracy ala these loomio forums. One way to spend this energy credit if it is not used, would be to mine bitcoin in a green datacentre. This has the advantage of being anonymous, and could be done by the government, and spent elsewhere. If this energy credit is widely accepted as per Star Trek it could become the default currency in a sustainable, steady state economy, incentivising real value, productivity and efficiency, and thermoeconomics as opposed to fiat currency manipulation at the expense of innovation.

I have spent the afternoon listening to lectures by economists on the subject of "Hitler's economics", and while there were only a few similarities to what I'm proposing, these are very general in nature, and what is most important is that the main features of my economic proposal are NOT included in what was done back then. This then goes to show that what the pre-WW2 Germans were capable of doing proves that it is possible to have a MUCH better economy than what we have today. What I am proposing is even better I do believe, because it super-charges all the right forces for human progress.

Let me also say, that unlike Hitler, I believe that the interests of the individual and the interests of the society MUST be considered equally important, and that the interests of the society/nation DO NOT trump the interests of the individual. In my view, after studying this long and hard from a historical perspective, as well as from a logical/philosophical perspective, if one person's rights are violated, all people's rights are violated. Some may wonder how conflicts between the two goals are to be resolved, and to that I believe that if both individual and society show mutual respect and concern for each other, there will always be a way to negotiate an agreement. Some may wonder why the society should bother doing this, when it would be more efficient to not let one individual impact the collective. To that I respond that, not unlike our own bodies, do we not focus all our body's attention on a pinky finger when it isn't working well, or when it is hurt? It is in the collective's long-term interest to seek the happiness of each and every individual, since that is the surest way to create a vibrant, loyal and powerful collective. It is then that the collective must never forget this principle, otherwise it risks following the path that so many before have gone, descending into the path of destruction.

So, I reject fully that what has been posted here is anything like "Folk's Economy", except perhaps in the very remotest of ways. Yes, Germany replaced the gold-backed economy with a work-backed economy, but in the details of how that is done, and the particulars of its implementation, there is no similarity at all.

Trust the highly efficient Germans to create an economy that actually makes sense, though right?
If it makes you feel any better, Lincoln did the same thing during the civil war. At first he went to the New York bankers and asked for a loan to fund the war. They said yes, but at 30% interest. Lincoln replied 'thanks but no thanks', and declared "I will not free the black man by enslaving the white man!".
An old friend of Lincoln's, Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago was put in charge of solving the problem of how to finance the war. His solution is recorded as this. "Just get Congress to pass a bill authorising the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also."
When Lincoln asked if the people of America would accept the notes Taylor said. "The people or anyone else will not have any choice in the matter, if you make them full legal tender. They will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money; as Congress is given that express right by the Constitution". Lincoln agreed to try this solution and printed 450 million dollars worth of the new bills using green ink on the back to distinguish them from other notes. "The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."
Unfortunately the International bankers didn't share Lincoln's vision, and had him assassinated

Who cares who's idea it is/was anyway? We need to focus on the future, and getting a Value based economy into action for the benefit of all New Zealanders!
I personally believe that the interests of individuals should never be more important than the well being of the society in general. There is no greater feeling as a human being than that feeling of being part of a group, and working together towards a common goal. Why would you want it that your actions make life harder for anyone else? Why should your corporation/business be allowed to destroy the environment and cost people their jobs, just so you can make a few extra bucks for yourself?
No..this 'every man for himself' capitalist bullshit has got to go!

@davidwong Actually David, this is not communism at all. The basic principles of it were indeed tried before, in pre-WW2 Germany, and the results were amazingly positive. They didn't even have the computers that we have to make it work even better. You say it "sounds" like communism, so it seems you really haven't understood what is proposed. I am working on a detailed document explaining this thoroughly. We MUST get off a debt-based economy...it is not an option. What I am proposing is so NOT communism it isn't even in the same ballpark. The fact is, if Germany had not taken the military direction they did, they would have continued to have the most vibrant and stunning economy the world has ever seen.

@ryansimmiss Thanks for you excellent historical references! I am fully with you man! I'm glad that there are some people here who can see the vast potential of such an economy!

@davidwong Let’s have a chat about this, and I’ll prove to you that this is the very opposite of communism, that it’s principles are completely opposite, that the motivations it creates in people are just the opposite, and that it really is the only system of economics that makes sense for a thriving world. Then, once you see all this to be true, you can change your vote :

@kennethkopelson yeah I am a little confused then. I don't quite see how paying someone directly after work as opposed to getting a pay cheque weekly?

I have seen a few topics on the forums around banks and monetary constraints, but at the end of the day it has nothing to do with money but everything to do with human nature. Before money there was bartering and trade we have the same problems we have now.

If you can solve the human nature problem we could solve ourselves from money, wars, hunger etc.

@davidwong Simply put, if you work for a government-sponsored project or service, the government pays you weekly/monthly by creating the money at that time. So, this is how new currency comes into the economy. With our present system, money enters the economy when somebody gets a loan, thereby going into debt. That's why it's called a "debt-backed" system.

Debt always incurs interest, and interest is the main cause for inflation. If you can introduce money into the economy without incurring debt, you can keep inflation in at bay. This means that the money make today will be worth just as much 10 years from now.

Another main aspect of this is that you no longer need taxes since the government operates by paying workers with money that is created at the time of payment. This money is not a debt which incurs interest, but rather a quid-pro-quo payment for services rendered. So, if there are people to get a job done, the government will always have the money it needs.

Yes, the human nature issue always has to be dealt with. If that is the overriding purpose of putting the world into a debt-prison and you believe that it is the best way to contain human nature, then I suggest you consider the studies that have shown that when you remove the pressures that people find themselves under because of our societal systems, people become a lot nicer and more considerate of others. What pisses people off is the sense of unfairness, and the sense that the system is stacked against them.

minting of money is one thing.
emission of credits is another, and does not have any physical money requirements. Does this proposal consider these?

@kennethkopelson I would have to see the system in practice to get how this would work, or if you have some sort of simulation / computer modelling would be even better.

@josephcook the problem here is that all the elements would take a lot of time to fully explain here. "Minting" money is an electronic process, where a computer server functioning as an e-currency "mint" will create new currency. Also, I am not talking about a small number of government projects. This model I am talking about would totally change what a nation can do. For example, if we had the people with the training and abilities, nothing would stop New Zealand from building it's own Mars exploration program...or even full on long-term space travel ships. Nothing would prevent us from putting in a national monorail system or underground high-speed tube transport system. What I'm saying is this...you REALLY REALLY need to think outside the box here, and imagine what could happen if CURRENCY is NEVER in shortage, and that the only thing that constrains us from doing great and amazing things is WILL, ABILITY and COURAGE. Money will no longer be a limiting factor. So, yes, what I have in mind for governmental projects would MORE than cover other private transactions. And when more current is needed for private enterprise, more projects are undertaken by the society at large. Buildings can more frequently be replaced with new ones. Infrastructure can be readily and frequently upgraded. Mankind would be free to pursue our imagination, instead of limited by the banker's chokeholds. Please reconsider, and try more diligently to see the merits in this proposal.

@davidwong I did build a computer simulation, and would be happy to meet with you to show you how it works.

@josephcook Money doesn't have to be backed by anything. As long as it is tied to something scarce, like gold or silver, then there is always a limit on how much money there is in the system. So everyone has to compete for money, because it is scarce.

@josephcook the reason for separating the e-mint from the e-banks is simply to make it so that the minting process is strictly controlled by the government (not the current government but one that operates more closely under the people's control), and the e-banks would be where the e-currency is exchanged between parties. People would obviously try to get projects funded by the government, which would have a strong motive to do projects of all sorts, since they no longer need taxes from the people, but instead require projects to be done in order to keep inflation at bay (new projects counteracts depreciation, which happens as things get old, and their value decreases).

Banks decide what is valuable at the moment, then they print money out of thin air and loan it to people.
We are talking about taking that power away from private banks and giving it back to the Government, to whom it rightly belongs. Then the Government gets to control the economy for the benefit of society as a whole, instead of for the benefit of a few private bankers

Well @davidjohnston why vote it down before your question is answered? Right now, money gets printed when people go into debt. The cost of things will be just like now...what the market forces dictate. So, what is the going rate for somebody to sweep the streets in Auckland? $20/hour? Great, so when the guy sweeps the streets, he gets paid $20 bucks, and the economy just got $20 injected into the economy. Guess what...that new currency has some real value behind it...clean streets for a day! Please reconsider your vote, since I'm sure ALL your questions and objections can be answered. Why not take the time to first understand it, get your questions answered, and THEN decide.

Every concern that a person would have from an sound economic perspective HAS been thought of, and HAS been addressed. One thing this economic system will NOT do is make bankers rich...sorry about that ;)

One thing I see that is happening here is people are making snap decisions about new economic principles, and given that I've worked this out over the course of many months of intense brainstorming, it's not really working to expect people to "GET IT" with a very brief description. So far, every objection mentioned here has been flat wrong, showing that people are not getting it. This area here is for discussing the issue before voting, and yet folks are asking a question, and then voting before the issue can be addressed. Please don't think this idea was just thought of recently. It's been in the works for quite some time, so please give it a chance. It has tremendous potential, and while I agree that people are probably not ready for it yet, let's not be hasty to throw something out just after a very brief discussion. Part of the problem here is also is people do not know each other. Nobody here knows me, what I've done, what I've down with systems engineering, etc. I also don't know your backgrounds, so perhaps we need to a little more.

I am working on a detailed document explaining all the various aspects of the Value-based Economy, and hopefully that will convince some of you to change your views, once you see how it truly works in detail.

@kennethkopelson it appears that you've voted before you've heard all discussion too.

@davidjohnston I'm the one who made the proposal, so I voted immediately. Seems kind of silly to make a proposal and then not vote for it...

How do you value the cost/price of cleaning the street?

@jpwillamperry Why do you think we can't? Could you please provide a little more of your thoughts on this?

@colindavies Well, here's how I see the issue of paying people to do societal projects and services...

In a city there are many tasks that have to be done. Within a given window of time (let's say a day) there are tasks that absolutely MUST be done (critical), there are tasks that SHOULD be done (standard), and there are tasks that COULD be done under various special conditions (special). The same applies at the weekly and monthly time periods. Also, there are full-day jobs (8 hours per day), and partial-day jobs (4 hours per day).

At a minimum, a full-day job should provide enough pay for the worker to pay for living expenses of one and 1/7th days. In this scheme, every week earns the person an extra days living that can be used for extras like purchases, vacations, etc. Over the course of one year, this would total 52 days extra living.

In addition to that, there would be a pay scale for all government jobs that is commensurate with the effort required to get qualified to do that job. This would provide the necessary motivation to endure the rigours of the education.

There would also be various perks and bonuses given for exceptional performance.

Lastly, there would be a risk premium added to job pay, depending on what type of job it is.

From a purely functional perspective, critical jobs typically have to do with maintaining key infrastructure and the protection of societal assets and people. These jobs, therefore, should have the highest "risk premium" added on, depending on the level of risk to the city if the job is not done, and the level of risk to the worker while doing the job.

The standard jobs SHOULD be done in order for the city to operate smoothly and with quality. These would be things like street cleaning, garden and shrub management, infrastructure appearance maintenance, etc. These jobs would have the second-to-highest risk premium added in.

Special jobs are the ones that get done for special occasions, events, and crises.

So, assuming that it costs $100 per day to live comfortably (but not lavishly), daily pay for a street sweeper would be $57 + $10 risk premium, or $67 for a 4-hour shift. This would allow the worker to have a second job to reach the full-time 8 hours, providing a total daily pay of $114 + $20, or $134 per day.

Given this, a half-day of street sweeping would introduce $67 of new currency to the economy, which would depreciate after 24 hours. The depreciation amount is tracked so that eventually, as currency came back to the government for fees or failure-tax, the depreciated currency would be destroyed, while any non-depreciated currency would be recycled back into the economy. This mechanism will keep the books in balance and inflation at zero.

@colindavies remember that when the government pays people it does so with newly created money, so there is no problem with paying government workers well enough that they are generally happy with their lives. In general I advocate a government that truly cares for the people, and that all government workers are trained to see the public as their customers. By providing excellent services to the society, the government has a reason to exist. It has no separate right to create money. It only has a right to provide valuable services and projects for the society, which will automatically create the new currency so the public can continue in private transactions.

@josephcook I answered your objections for this, and I don't see where you have responded, or reconsidered your "blockage" merely because you had a question that you didn't wait to get an answer for. Can you please provide further objections for discussion, or reconsider your vote?

@kennethkopelson ok, let's say someone needs a loan to start a business, or buy a house... how does it work?

@kennethkopelson I just don't see how it works... how do you cover the monetary needs? Minted money is only a fraction of money created, most of it is just added to a register at the time of loaning and it's created out of thin air. Minted money is only a fraction of the money circulating, maybe 10%...
http://youtu.be/HoSSL451Ecc?t=1m12s

Could you extend the time on this, I am interested in debating this further, and many have not voted yet....

@colindavies I value the cost of cleaning the street in the energy used to produce the street sweeping machine (asset value), run it (energy spent) and the energy use of sustaining the person/people operating it (or developing the autonomous control system). We would choose whatever is more efficient and productive, taking into account the costs of recycling, and moral imperative (environmental and safety concerns). Now we have a mathematical problem of optimisation of said solutions based the moral imperative (oversight). We can now chose our street sweeping technology and put it up for tender with little fiat currency interference, if we introduce a New Zealand energy credit.

@jamesabbott the street worker's time, plus the fuel used in the street sweeping machine, plus the wear-and-tear expense of running the machine, are the only things that should be used to calculate value. Value equals expense, and because of this, there will be balance on the books. In essence, the money paid to the worker, the fuel company, and the machine maintenance company is provided as a way to store the value created by the various workers in this activity. Why does fuel cost money? Well, the earth provides it for free, but it's the human beings working on the oil rigs that must be compensated for their labour time. If the oil came out of the earth on its own and people could just go to spouts and pump it straight into containers, where would be no need to charge anything for it. Energy can't be created or destroyed. It is freely available from the universe. Human work, however, is limited for each person, and each person has things they would choose to do if they didn't have to "make a living." When they work at somebody else's enterprise, they aren't able to work on their own goals, and this is why they are being paid. This is the only thing that has value...human labour. Why is gold valuable? Well, it's useful as a metal because it doesn't rust. It also works well for making jewellery, which provides adornment for people, allowing them to achieve various social goals. Above all, it is hard to come by, and requires a lot of human labour to dig from the earth. So, it has intrinsic value, it's fairly rare, and it has a high human labour cost to acquire.

Basing money on anything other than human labour, will only serve to make that thing, whatever it is, gain an arbitrary additional value. If we backed money with bananas, all of a sudden bananas would become more valuable than simply something to eat. People would plant bananas everywhere, just so they could convert them into money. The problem, of course, is that once the bananas were eaten or became rotten, there would be more currency in the economy than bananas to back them. Now, inflation would go through the roof.

This is why fundamentally it only makes sense to back money with human labour, since anything else becomes a type of "capital" oriented system, where the product itself becomes the thing of value, not because of what it does, but merely because it can be traded to realise a profit.

This is not unlike what happens when people buy and sell houses strictly to make profit. They are not interested in living in those dwellings, but only in extracting artificially induced capital value. The problem with this, however, is that a society will soon collapse under this mentality, since the emphasis is not on improving the world, or getting things done, but instead it is on making a profit...getting something for nothing...so it seems at any rate. But, there is no such thing as getting something for nothing, and economics must follow the same principles of balance that exists in all systems of this universe.

One thing to note is that as a civilization we are entering a stage where the current economic models simply do not cut it anymore, as a matter of fact our current monetary system has been on life support since the first great depression.

So whether you agree with the idea of a Value Based Economy or not , consider this:

Right now technology is racing to automate and replace many jobs which used to require humans to do, this includes both skilled and unskilled workers, think anything from a taxi-driver to a brain surgeon, while we are still at the starting stages of this shift, thanks to the exponential nature of technological acceleration it won't be too long (10-15 years) before this effect becomes very noticeable.

As a result many people will lose their jobs, now while some might be able to re-train, given the speed of technological progress it will become harder and harder to retain (because by the time you do, your knowledge would become obsolete or automation becomes cheap enough to have a machine do that job you've trained for).

So does that mean we are destined to become useless? The answer is no, as a society we can still create value, whether it is in traditional work or if it is in activities which are currently not considered important enough to warrant being paid for (e.g. volunteer work, charity work, being a parent!).

Given our current monetary system though, most people must have a paid for job in order to be able to survive, this idea is ingrained into our minds from an early age, the problem is we are entering a stage where less and less people will be able to find paid work, so if we have very few people with jobs how will the rest become able to survive?

This is why we need to seriously consider alternative economic models, most importantly we need to think of a model where we can de-couple survival from traditional work.

Technology used for the good of the masses is often an eliminator of scarcity, so it is possible to achieve the above vision while utilizing a different economical model so I think discussing what Kenneth is suggesting is worth it instead of simply dismissing it and saying "No it wont work!"

This is what we need people! It is one of the reasons I joined the Party.

Anti-TPP
Anti-GCSB

Then I saw someone was asking the question about if the IP should support positivemoney.org policies and I wanted in on this discussion.

We need to have the testicular mass to make this change. It can only be good for the country.

None of the mainstream parties will dare to do this and frankly, they don't care to do it. They are more interested in ensuring those that have keep on having and have more and that they stay in the corridors of Power.

I would also suggest we leave Hitler out of it. Doesnt matter if this is a similar proposal. The only consideration is if it is good for our Nation.

Hitler also designed the first ever motorway and the VW Beetle. Two great things. You don't hear people complaining as the drive down SH1 that they copied Hitler...

http://www.archive.org/stream/TechnocracyStudyCourseUnabridged/TechnocracyStudyCourse-NewOpened?ui=embed#page/n173/mode/2up

Although published in 1945, this guide is still very relevant, as a primer and reference for meaningful discussion.

@wadevuglar Is it just a coincidence that you look a bit like Hitler in your photo? hehe

@josephcook I have only put forth some of how this system works, as my white paper on the subject is still being written. For one, there is no reserve currency, since I do not support fractional reserve banking system. There is no bank-created currency since that would create inflation. My system is not about banks getting rich any longer. My system is about releasing humanity to move forward as fast as its capable of doing. There is only one currency in value-based economy, and NO there will not be a problem with money flow at all. For example, if a city (say Wellington) wanted to build a star ship that costed $500 billion dollars, they could. The only restriction would be "can we get the right talented people to come here and work on it"? So, the access to human talent and skill would be the main commodity in this system. Do you see what that would do for propelling humanity forward? So, assume we do get the people skills willing to come here. We start the project, and to pay the people, the mint created currency...not all at once, but only as the people produce value through their work. In the end, we will have injected $500 billion into the economy, and we would have a star-ship worth...$500 billion to balance it off. We have just injected a TON of money into the economy to fuel other private adventures, and also accomplished a great task for humanity also. The value of the currency would NOT be based on any private enterprise, but only on societal projects...like the star-ship. So, no inflation or deflation.

You see Joseph...my monetary policy is WAY ahead of anything else out there...except other systems that do the same thing this does. So, for now, I'll stick with it, because I can truly envision how it would allow us as a people to truly become what we are capable of being. I like that idea!

@josephcook Oh, and my system also has a built-in mechanism to encourage high-quality in everything. Everything paid for with public funds has a set depreciation rate. This rate is set based on how long the society expects the value of the asset to last. Once a value has been depreciated, any fees charged for societal services will collected and destroyed electronically, so as to remove that currency from the economy. If the asset has not been depreciated, however, and the asset gets destroyed, the remaining balance will charged as a "failure tax", spread proportionally across everyone, depending on their relative income. So, this would be the ONLY tax charged to anyone. It is there as a way to control the value of money, and to encourage constant improvement, since people will want to always find ways to eliminate or minimise this tax. For riskier projects, the depreciation period would be set very low, so that a failure tax would not be charged if the project failed. Anyhow, there is a LOT more to say about this, but I have to go to work now.

Please refer to an expert on monetary policy, such as Bill Still. The idea of quality is very good, promoting it that is. But this way you propose would only affect public funded services, if it was valid. But this is not the best way to do it. We would need to have a general regulatory measure for that so that profits are dependent upon quality of services for all industry...

@josephcook I am not a member of member only groups...full stop!

I will also not be baited into an argument with you. I remember well how you attempted to divide the party before, attempting a mutinous action of trying to get me and others off in YOUR own party. Well sir, that did not work, and neither will any attempt to divide now.

Oh, and to answer your accusation about the money supply...YES, building a "star ship" or any other large project WILL BE QUITE POSSIBLE, and that is the whole point. It's called "working together" as a society. It's called building a great society together. The old reign of private "free" enterprise needs to come to an end, but there is nothing FREE about it. As I have seen with great clarity, the only truly FREE system is one where WE THE PEOPLE have full ability to JOIN TOGETHER as a society and work on big and bold projects that will benefit us all.

As others have pointed out, my economic proposals WILL WORK, as they have in the past. The general principles HAVE been tried before with great success. You are mistaken in everything you have said. I have built the computer simulation that models how the economy would work, and unlike what you say, THERE IS A TREMENDOUS amount of money available...it just isn't coming via the privately held banks...it is coming through the publicly held and publicly controlled government. IT TRULY WILL BE a government BY THE PEOPLE, and FOR THE PEOPLE Joseph. Yes, FOR THE PEOPLE, and that IS the money policy.

I'm beginning to think that you are a shill, sent into the party by others outside the party, who wish to see things collapse from within. This is how your behaviour is starting to look. Just keep your present pattern up, and it will become painfully and regrettably apparent to all.

@josephcook And just so it is SUPER clear, I had joined those other groups when they first formed, because they were completely open, or at least they appeared to be. Since then, both groups only had 3 members, and there were perhaps one proposal that went nowhere. As such, I have left those groups, since they were just inactive "extra baggage" anyhow. The only group I am a member of is this one...which by the way was OPEN from the start, and it is the group that I started. I did not want the economic policies to get buried in the huge list of policies in the main group. Loomio has a grouping feature to help organise the discussions. I chose to take advantage of it...and I also chose, rightly so, to make it a completely open group precisely for the reason you stated. If Colin, the guy who started those other groups made them CLOSED, then I did not know that, and perhaps that explains why there was only 3 members. Well, now there are only 2.

@kennethkopelson Very well, I see it was unintentional, and apologize. In that case I shall consider voting for this proposal if you can guarantee interest-free loans, for buying/building a house, education, staring a business and so on. Replacing outstanding interest baring loans with interest free ones.

starting*

Mortgages for example are simply licenses to steal by financial institutions, since they have a right to simply recover the property that has already been partly paid for, and should be illegal.

@josephcook I could not agree more that the government should and will provide interest free loans and grants for the betterment of society. As I see government, it's attitude SHOULD be (and SHOULD be made to be) "we are here to help the public become individually and collectively HAPPY and successful, where each person has reachable opportunity to realise their aspirations in life", and therefore, that is what each policy should reflect. The attitude that government has towards the public is fully settable by us, since no government can exist for long without the backing of its people. It is up to us to make government into what WE want it to be, otherwise it will simply become a place for selfish people to flourish, as they rob society dry.

@josephcook Individuals will still be free to give private loans for interest, but they will be competing against the larger government system. I should add that the amount of loan the government will give should be set to a maximum comfortable level, not excessive, but quite nice by any moderate standard. Then, if people want something bigger or more fancy, they can go to the private loan market for that. I think it is critical to keep the private system, since it will cover things that really don't benefit large segments of society.

It should also be noted that from the government's point of view, it is not really loaning anything, since the money will be created to pay for value-creating exercises. This may put a requirement that the loan would only be for the creation of a new dwelling. This would also make it much more feasible to spread out and create new cities and towns, or to replace smaller buildings with bigger ones, etc. Basically, my system makes progress and innovation MUCH MORE possible, and EASIER to attain.

@josephcook As one additional thought that occurred to me on the way to work... Government should not be in debt, nor should it put people in debt. This whole debt system was invented by bankers, since they knew that debt is the sure way to put people into financial slavery, which ends up putting them into actual slavery. Government in its present form has become "government for the bankers" and this is what I'm trying to correct by advocating systems that turn things around and upside down. Government SHOULD be "the people working together as one" not some elitist organisation, headed by a group of privately powerful people, and financed by taking people's wealth away. In places like the U.S., the government has to BORROW it's own currency from the privately held Federal Reserve! This is pure extortion and very much against the betterment of mankind in general. Because of its size, this financial cancer can't help but affect the whole world, and this is what is indeed happening.

Oh, and the financial principle of why the government, under a Value-based Economy can give grants and loans without interest is because the very principle of interest is based on the "Time Value of Money", which means that if I let you use my money for a period of time, I am not able to use it, therefore you should pay me to account for that potential gain I could have had. In my system, governments are not in that position, since whenever they give money out, it is almost always by creating it...so the TVM principle doesn't apply (the money never existed before, so no lost opportunity)...plus government can create money easily, so no lost opportunity as well.

When you build a house using a government GRANT, I would see what I call a "Stewardship Title" being given, which would be a perpetual right to have control over that property, even though the government would own the property. If you build it under a LOAN agreement, the government will pay for the house, and you will split ownership of the property proportionally as you pay back the loan. So, half-way through your payback, you would each own it 50/50. Also, at any point, you can convert a Stewardship Title into a Deed Title, and vice-versa. If you convert to Stewardship Title, the government will pay you for the portion that you own.

The difference between these two titles is really about accounting. Only the assets owned by the society at large will be used to calculate the value of money. Privately owned assets are not used for monetary valuation, as they should not be. Because the government will fund so many things, however, we need a way of determining control over those assets. So, for any societal project, paid for by public-created funds, there would be some individual or group who would have Stewardship Title over it, and who would function as the caretakers and managers. There would be strict laws governing how this is to be done, all designed to guard against corruption and mismanagement. Privately held assets, however, would be less constrained and with more rights.

So, that Star Ship I mentioned earlier would "belong" to a space agency through Stewardship Title. The Deed Title would belong to the government/society at large, and would therefore be counted in valuing the currency. This would also mean that any house you build through getting a grant (not having to pay it back), would mean that you would have to follow the rules of Stewardship Title (set by the elected government), which would simply prevent you from using the place illegally, from defacing it or making it unlivable, etc.

It doesn't hurt to fully investigate this in a way that is very real about our dependence on the global economy... Its value? it provides a possible goal. Should this investigation be carried out by our party? shrugs someone need to fully flesh this out... and so I'm voting yes.

I have been thinking that instead of loans, the government could also even have a scheme whereby it will cover the cost of a home, entirely, and health entirely, as well as education... since it is also creating value.

I don't think amounts should be limited much at all.

Agree with your proposal.

@kennethkopelson great stuff, my sincere apologies for mistrusting and misunderstanding.

@kennethkopelson You might find this interesting. Hitler himself explaining how the National Socialist economy works https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg-v_zMEXZo

@ryansimmiss Thanks for that Ryan. After reading those words, I'm more convinced that Value-based Economy is quite different to the National Socialism in many details. The one area of commonality is the notion that the value of money derives exclusively from the work that people provide for the benefit of the society. From my perspective, it is even more to do with the EMOTIONAL willingness to work for others, instead of one's self. This is what I now do as I work for my present employer. This is why I require to be paid, simply because if I didn't have to work, I would not be working here, but would be working in my own endeavors, for which I would not expect to be paid directly...rather, I would want to be paid by the marketplace for providing value to them.

I am quite keen to form a Value-based Economic Think-tank, where we formulate these ideas to a high degree of refinement, and develop excellent ways to communicate the ideas to others.

Yeah was gonna say, you might wanna watch it with mute on.haha
I'm totally with you man. Now we just need to get the word out there, and convince other people that its a good idea!
Maybe a Youtube video that explains the Value based economy, in a simple way that everyone can understand?

@ryansimmiss I'm on the exact same wavelength mate, with the youtube video :) I was just talking with a friend of mine last night about this, and once she understood it, she was super excited, saying that I needed to hurry up and get this going...lol When I talk about all this in person, apparently (according to her), it is so inspiring, so she said she would hold her iPad camera in front of her, and then I would just explain things to her again so she could capture it on camera. I'll give it a go and see how it turns out. I'll combine me talking with some powerpoint slides that contrast Value-based with Debt-based, which should help also. Are you in Auckland Ryan?

@aarynniuapu Thank you A. for your very interesting observation and support! I have been sharing the idea with people around here in Auckland (apart from here on the forum) and people are VERY receptive. I there is a sizeable number of people on the earth who would simply LOVE this new economic system...some would not like it because it would mean they would lose their stranglehold on humanity. If only they would see that they can still have a comfortable life, and that they don't have to deny everyone else having one also! Anyhow, thanks again, and please do share any more great gems of thought that come to you!

@kennethkopelson Yeah that sounds great, comparing the debt based economy to a value based economy. Would definitely turn people onto the idea. Yeah im up in Silverdale, how about you?

@ryansimmiss I'm in Auckland CBD, but no car. I can a bus or train though :) You should come down to CBD and we can have coffee and a great conversation I'm sure. If anyone else would like to come, that would be great as well!

Kenneth, are you an economist? What info on economics can you recommend a young unexperienced dude?

Sounds good mate. Parking is a bugger in the CBD though.hha
Ponsonby or Takapuna would be better?
My fone number is 0210770847. Give us a txt tomorrow or Sunday sometime :)

@hugheldredgrigg Why do you disagree? What part of the proposal description do you disagree with? Human progress? People being set free from financial slavery? Humanity moving forward more than would be possible in today's system? Bankers finally having to come down here with the rest of us, so we can all rise up together? Which part exactly don't you think is a noteworthy endeavour?

@aarynniuapu I have studied economics for the last 35 years, and have developed my own economics system designed to put all the right motivators in place so that humanity as a whole thrives by each individual thriving. I don’t really like labelling people as “economists” except if that is merely a description for people that like and study economics. Nearly all the people today who call themselves “economists” are the ones who have corrupted our world, and enslaved the human race to a small cabal of elite. If that is what economists do, then NO, I am not one.

On your second question, it all depends whether you want the economics blue pill or the red pill. If you want the blue pill, you can learn that from any typical economics book or university class. If you want the red pill, that is where my learnings have led me, so yes, I can tell you a few things in that regard. Which pill were you interested in?

@aarynniuapu If you did want the "red" pill, then I'd be happy to talk with you over coffee one day soon and we can go over things in more detail... I'm also wanting to get together a discussion group "think tank" where we basically get together and go over every aspect we can think of for how this system would work in all cases and under all circumstances. Basically, I'd be looking for people to try and poke holes in it, or challenge it (in a friendly way), so that together we can think the answers through. My purpose in doing this is mainly so that others begin to understand it well, and get a vision for it. I'm just one man, and if this ever had some traction, and somebody wanted to silence it, they couldn't just take one or a few people out. That's why I want to get others understanding it as quickly as possible.

@kennethkopelson To be honest when you asked loaded questions like that it doesn't really make me inclined to get into a debate about the merits of this idea with you.

This Guntram guy votes down on every idea. Must be a banker.hha

@hugheldredgrigg I asked those questions simply because you simply voted down without providing any reasons. That just comes across as “nope, not for it”, and this makes me not feel like starting off from a neutral position. If somebody votes “up” without making a comment, it feels like pat on the back. When someone votes “down” without a comment, it feels like a slap on the face.

Ryan is right, however. It seems like there are those in this forum and party who are against everything. I would ask then “why are you here”? What is the point of being against everything, except perhaps to just be a pundit, or worse, an infiltrator? I’d be happy to withdraw all my loaded questions, and hear you out regarding your concerns. I just don’t know if you are really here to find common ground, or simply to be a contrarian. Without knowing you, your background, and philosophy in life, it becomes hard to know if any debate would be valuable, or merely a waste of time.

@hugheldredgrigg Come to think of it, you are undoubtedly using a fictitious name here, and I doubt your surname is Blofeld, so how does that produce any kind of mutual trust? Nearly everyone here is using their real name, including me. This is not Facebook. Here, people are supposed to stand up and be counted. So, what's with the fake name?

@hugheldredgrigg Oh, maybe your name is Hugh Eldredgrigg...how do you say that?

"When someone votes “down” without a comment, it feels like a slap on the face."

You have to learn to take disagreements here less personally. I'm not voting against it because I personally dislike you, I'm voting against it because I don't like the idea. As for your "why are you here" thing, are you really saying that only infiltrators and trolls would disagree with your policy? There are plenty of policies being discussed in this forum that I like - just not this one.

@hugheldredgrigg Actually, it seems to me and others that you do not vote "yes" on anything. Perhaps that is just a perception. Regarding taking disagreement less personally, perhaps you should follow that also:

"To be honest when you asked loaded questions like that it doesn’t really make me inclined to get into a debate about the merits of this idea with you."

It seems to me, if you are going to vote something "down" you really should give a reason, since the purpose of this forum is to work ideas out, and if you have a sound argument against, I for one would like to hear them.

@michaelmarsom Why did you vote no? What are your reasons please? It would be helpful if you discussed your reasons.

@hugheldredgrigg Also, I have no problem with people who actually do disagree. A simple voting down with no reason given is not a disagreement that is useful. In a parliamentary setting, where voting is actually preceded by lots of discussion in person, debates, and back-room deals, voting down on an actual issue is done without comment, and that is fine there. Here, people vote down who may have just popped in, took a quick look at the title, and made a snap decision to vote no. I think it's unfair to all those who actually took time to discuss, and to gain a proper understanding of the issue.

I'm thinking that a person should not be allowed to vote on an issue unless they have read through all the comments up to that point. Not sure how the software would enforce that...though I could think of a few ways.

@michaelmarsom for example...voted down with no comment. Who is he? Did he actually read what is here? What did he find to be wrong or unlikeable? It would really be helpful to know. There was one guy who voted early on, saying "so you just print money and give it to people?" and before his erroneous and incorrect snap-analysis could be corrected, he voted "blocked". I find that kind of sloppy and inconsiderate behaviour quite distasteful. With that kind of thing, a really good idea could just fall off the table, not because the idea is bad, but because the one's voting are not taking the process very seriously.

@kennethkopelson Well, you've got your own ideas about what should or shouldn't be allowed on this forum, but at present those aren't the rules here, so excuse me if I don't follow them.

@dennisdorney Excellent question, and thanks for asking. If that's your only question, I'm curious why not just "abstain" until you got the answer? Well, no matter, here is how it would work:

There are actually two economic systems in one...societism (very different from socialism) is used by the government to introduce new currency, and to give loans and grants when new value is added to the society. Once the currency is in circulation, it then moves between people using capitalism principles, excluding the things like fractional reserve banking.

For used homes and rentals, these would generally operate under the private capitalism economy, where market forces help set prices through supply and demand. The thing that makes it work is that runaway capitalism is kept in check because of the way the societism economy competes with it. So, the price on used homes will be kept down because plenty of new homes would be built for less, and with either no-interest loans or grants. Also, older homes can either be knocked down and replaced, or upgraded, as they reach their depreciation period, both of which will qualify as new societal value, which can be paid for with newly created money.

You can't get a new influx of currency unless some new value is created in the society. This is far better than the current system, where new currency comes in by expanding the money supply through expanding debt in the system. This has a definite inflationary effect, reducing purchasing power.

The capitalism component allows for private competition. Also, some projects would be paid for by newly created money but would not continue to operate with new money. Instead, they will operate using the currency already in circulation. Because this currency will retain it's value, there will not be this constant demand for more currency. More currency will only be needed as new things are built, new services are provided, population increases, or if there is an increasing number of appreciating assets being sold in the market. Fortunately, the value of the money will only be calculated using the Gross Societal Asset Value, which is carefully controlled and monitored by the governmental Department of Societal Development, or whatever it ends up being called.

One last thing about personal living expenses. If the society decides that it doesn't want people in poverty or living on the streets, it can simply attach an Asset Value to having everyone live at a minimum standard, and then provide that minimal standard amount to people who would otherwise live in poverty. In this way, the presence of poor people actually becomes a trigger for additional money flowing into the economy. Initially, that currency will pay for the poor society members, and once it circulates between subsequent members through the capitalism route, it will continue to enable benefit each time it changes hands. Also, unlike the current system, the government does not need to charge any sales tax because it pays for ALL of its operations through the new creation of money, which is then injected into the economy.

@KennethKopelson I thought I avoid getting comments on a comment... in a quick summary I don't think we need a monetary revolution at the moment. My opinion is we need to accept the current cash and the free market system for now. I do read all discussions in the Incubator and thank you for the insights you have written on the subject.

@dennisdorney One more thing about basic living standards that I wanted to mention. I have seen what it's like in a city such as San Diego, California (where I used to live), where there were street people everywhere, sleeping all over the sidewalks, and really adding a negative element to the city. In my way of thinking, it is actually to the society's joint benefit to not have that kind of thing. For one, it's undignified for the people who are living like that, and it's unsightly for the city itself, not to mention disruptive in quite a few ways. Even people who have no means to support themselves, or who may have some kind of psychological problem, deserve a certain level of decency and dignity. They are not just animals, and it really is quite unfortunate when human beings are forced to live without a decent home, proper food, and clean clothing. So rather than seeing their assistance only as the society doing something for them, it is also the society doing something for itself. If we use our own human body as an example, imagine that you get a bad infection on your leg. You take care of it. You put medicine on it and keep it clean. Why? Well, it's part of your body, and it's not in good health, so you give the hurting area the care that it needs. I see homeless and poor people just like that, where the entire society is only as healthy as its sickest members, and when one is not well, the rest should help restore that one to health. This should work across the board fairly for everyone. Likewise, if any member experiences injustice, everyone experiences it, if not directly, then indirectly. This is the basic tenet of societism:

"A social philosophy that promotes the well being of the group without sacrificing the significance of the individual."

Where libertarianism/capitalism puts primary value on the individual, and socialism/communism puts primary value on the collective, societism puts equal value and weight on both the individual and the collective.

By the way, for every proposed project or service, there will be a detailed value study to determine both EVS (estimated value to society), and EVM (estimated value to the market). The EVS analysis will determine what percentage of the entire society (within the economic zone) will benefit from the project or service. If the percentage is 75% (for example), the the government will pay 75% of the cost, which means the other 25% will require private investment.

It should also be noted that any services or projects that the government owns and runs, will be run at a break-even price. So, the government does not charge interest, it does not make a profit on anything, and any fees it charges are only so it can collect any owed failure tax. So, if provided a service where it had to pay workers and buy goods that totalled $50 per customer, it would create that money to cover it, and the service would be free to the customer. This would be the case when there was no more failure tax owed. If on the other hand, because of some big project failures in the last quarter, there was $15 million in lost value, and through the EVM it was determined that the same service should have a $20 charge per customer per visit, this money would be charged and that currency would be destroyed, removing it from circulation. Once the $15 million was recovered, the fees would be dropped, and the services would be free again.

One crucial part of my overall system/plan is to provide full transparency for all government expenditure, completely accessible through a web portal by all valid members of the societal region (economic zone). This won't just be general numbers, but will be all transactions, fully anonymised for members of the public, but fully open for all government workers and elected officials. This means that the public is protected in their privacy (except through proper e-warrants), but the government workers are not, nor should they be. This, I do believe, will be a strong deterrent against all forms of corruption by government. As long as a government workers and elected officials spend money according to their lawful purpose and amount, they will have nothing to fear.

So, really this form of economy and government structure turns things upside down, making it so that the government is really an instrument of the collective society, and by using technology, this servant relationship is powerfully maintained.

@hugheldredgrigg Well Hugh, I was not saying anyone HAD to follow my suggestion. It was merely a suggestion. So, are you not interested in my suggestions to have some forum ground rules because you really disagree and think it’s just fine for negative votes to be for “no disclosed reason”?

Kenneth,

        The reason that I voted "Yes" as stated, is to get an open debate on changing the monetary system, which I definitely support. I am not supporting your proposed system without a great deal of thought. Thanks for your explanation of how it works, but it left me no wiser about how the process works. I dont need the philosophy or the benefits. I want to understand the actual nuts and bolts about how the money comes into circulation. Is it visible? Or electronic only? Do you have Bank Accounts? If so what is new? If not , what do you have or see?

        Although I appreciate your time spent, what I have read is incomprehensible. I have been involved in politics for a long time. The attention span of the average voter is less than a minute. It you cant make it clear in a 30 second sound bite, you have lost them. At election times I have watched Social Credit candidates trying to explain their ideas, which are relatively simple (and which I largely agree with) and you can watch the audience' eyes glaze over. You have no hope of getting this idea of yours accepted. Politics is the art of the possible. The possible choice is between Social Credit or Positive Money, which are very similar. The Social Credit idea was used in 1935 by the Labour Party and it worked so it cant be ridiculed. National will have a field day if IMP adopts it. You need more  time.

        Regarding fractional reserve banking: you have obviously not read the Bank of England's Spring Bulletin 2014 about how money is created and about fractional reserve lending. What it is saying is that the explanation given by the private banks, the economic text books, neo-liberal economists etc is wrong!  I suggest that your ABS colleagues are simply quoting from their text books. Well, they are wrong. Yes the banks keep a certain amount in reserve as protection against a run on the bank or bad debts but there is no formal amount. It is up to the discretion of the banks. During the USA sub prime debacle some banks were lending 50 times their reserves.

        But the real distinction between a formal reserve and a de facto reserve is philosophical. The assumption of fractional reserve banking is that deposits must be made before money can be loaned out. This theory allows banks to claim that lending is controlled by deposits; ie placing a deposit generates a loan. This is called an exogenous system, if I remember right.
        It is now accepted that loans generate deposits. In other words there is no restraint on lending. Private banks lend a mortgage , creating new money on the spot, The mortgage holder buys a house. The seller deposits the loan cheque in his bank. A loan creates a deposit. There is no check in this system because the loans are generated entirely internally. This is called an endogenous system, I think.

Please read the B of E Bulletin.

In the above where I wrote "National will have a field day if IMP adopts it", I meant your proposal, not the Social Credit idea.

@dennisdorney I stated clearly in my explanation under the "banking" proposal within this group that fractional reserve is no longer a fixed reserve amount, but rather any reserve at all is determined by a risk profile of the loan. I also stated that reserve amounts are primarily used to attain the desired interest rate from the reserve bank, and that lending is no longer constrained by reserve amounts. I also stated that money is lent out first, and then an appropriate reserve amount is obtained from the central bank.

Regarding the nuts bolts of the system, I have written extensively on this in my other joint-proposals. The section on "stateful money" gets in a lot of detail of the nuts and bolts. To that point, I will add that I am putting together a white paper and book, along with videos in order to easily explain how this will all work. Contrary to what you have said, changing to a new system that actually WORKS for the general public is not something that is going to be done quickly or easily. It has taken quite a bit of time just to determine all the details of this new system would work. Now, it will take time to prepare that 30 second message you are referring to, and I do disagree that all the details have to be explained in that amount of time. There are many ways to entice people to want to know more, and then you provide easy to follow information so they can get the concepts. Have you not watched the Zeitgeist films? Very long and involved...but interesting. Believe me, this topic can be made VERY interesting for people, painting a picture for them of what life would be like under such a system. I totally disagree with you that people have a 30 second attention span. The reason they do with most things is because MOST THINGS ARE BORING AS when it comes to politics. The subject of how life could be so much better is not only fascinating, but extremely relevant. So, excuse me please if I haven't made all the various materials yet to get this idea out there in people's minds. I'm working on it :) I simply wanted to find some people here in the IP who had forward thinking and who would help me to get these ideas launched. Fortunately, I've found some...meeting with one of them in 15 minutes in fact! So, thanks again for your feedback Dennis :)

@kennethkopelson I don't think anybody owes you an explanation for why they don't like your idea, no.

Kenneth, thanks for the comment. I still dont think you have enough time to acheive what you hope for but keep me posted and informed. When I understand it I may think differently

@hugheldredgrigg "Well, you’ve got your own ideas about what should or shouldn’t be allowed on this forum, but at present those aren’t the rules here, so excuse me if I don’t follow them."

I didn't see him say anything of the kind. But it'd be nice if you could follow basic etiquette.

If you aren't here for a discussion, why do you keep showing up and spreading negativity and abuse? Seems like you'd be happier elsewhere. Unless you derive pleasure from hurting others. In which case, I'd recommend therapy.

I'd recommend mine, but she's by referral only and you must have medically confirmed traumatic physical brain damage. I'm down to half a brain (the left half works fine), what's your excuse?

@marcwhinery How is voting against this proposal "negativity and abuse"? Or, for that matter, "hurting others"?

@michaelmarsom Thank you so much Michael for your kind words, and for giving some feedback on your thoughts. I find your objection to be rational and valid, since you are not misunderstanding what I've been presenting, but merely disagreeing on whether anything needs to be done. That is a much more subjective idea, and therefore, not something that can be countered with facts. Thanks again for being kind, and showing Mr. Shatterhand Incognito how it's done ;)

@hugheldredgrigg Voting isn't negativity and abuse. Your comments that followed it were.

@hugheldredgrigg please stop playing dumb. You know it's not the voting down that caused my comments to you. Plenty of people voted down, and if they gave a reason that was not based on misunderstanding, I made no comments to them, since they made a valid vote based on a proper determination by being well informed.

All of my suggestions to you had to do with you not providing your reasons for down voting, and that was not just for by benefit, but it was also for the benefit of the entire group who will be reading these transcripts. When you simply vote down, you do hurt others...you hurt this whole process. Once again, we are here to DISCUSS...to have CONVERSATION...to ENGAGE with each other on the topic at hand. By you simply voting something down, you could indeed be trying to skew the voting result, merely for invalid reasons. Maybe you are here with an agenda to interfere with the process. Who knows? You don't even provide your name (unlike most others here), so nobody can look you up on LinkedIn to see who you are, what your background is, etc.

Let me give you an analogy to illustrate my point: suppose there is a birthday party thrown for somebody we all know, and you are invited. Now, we all show up, full of good intentions to fulfil the purpose of the party...having fun and celebrating our common friend. So, what if nearly everyone brings a nice little gift and participates in the games that are planned...everyone that is, except you. When it comes time to open the presents, our friend opens yours to only find an empty box. You state flatly "nobody owes you any presents mate!" Then, when it comes time to play the games, you say "Nah, not interested in playing. I don't have to if I don't want to, and there is no rule saying I must." How do you think the others will feel with your presence? Regardless of everyone else's good desire to have fun at the party, you and your negative attitude will dampen the whole affair. THAT is how you hurt people Mr. Incognito...

I don't think that metaphor works. This isn't like a birthday party at all.

I think we should re-create banking. Task the RBNZ with being a bond-trading entity (that also issues its own bonds and lends money to mimic current monetary policy).

If you need $400,000 for a house, you issue bonds, $400,000 of them which "activate" upon purchase of the house. They are for a term of 30 years, and are tradeable. You would then pay interest on them to the bondholder, and payments on the principle to the RBNZ as escrow for the bond itself for maturity (in practice, you'd pay the entire amount to the RBNZ, and the RBNZ would divide the payments appropriately). If you miss a payment, RBNZ would make the interest payment on your behalf out of the principle, causing penalties of actual damage, since the payment dates are well known and calculated. Upon default (no money left in the principle account to pay interest, but interest due) the RBNZ would take ownership of the collateral. And the "bank" that issued the bond would have demerits noted.

There are more details to work out for that, but that's the general idea of how a person in a "bankless" society could buy a house.

Now, the other side. You have $1000 in cash. You can't put it in the "bank" because there are none, so then you deposit it with the RBNZ as a trading account. You skim the available bonds, and pick one that looks good (no idea how to measure risk with this, but we'll assume that's a solved problem at the moment), and put $800 into those bonds. The RBNZ facilitates the trade, and you now own a tiny portion of someone else's house. You get monthly interest payments. And roll that money over into some other bonds. There are short term, long term bonds. They can even be different rates, chosen by the bond issuer. Maybe even some "junk" bonds. Non-insured (by RBNZ) high risk ones with greater payouts.

Think of it as tech-enabled P2P banking.

@marcwhinery Why are you so intent on keeping the same old system? All of those mechanisms you mention are inventions of the bankers, designed to make them rich. Free your mind, and consider something completely new...designed to empower the people, instead the rich elite. We DO NOT need to keep perpetuating the same old system. I don't see the principles of your suggestions. System need to be based on solid philosophical foundations, and what you are suggesting seems to be on the same foundation as today. Why do we need banks again? Bank in the early days, they were simply places to store gold. Then it was bankers who designed a system to get rich off the backs of people. I say, let's get rid of all that. We don't need it. It weighs us down, and slows us down. Why do I need to have $400,000 ahead of time for a new house? If a new asset is being created, you have the labor of the workers, and you have the asset that is created. All you need is the currency to store the labor value, and everything balances.

Now, I will agree that when a house changes hands, there may be a need for lending, and in this situation perhaps a bond-lending system would be fine. I think it's critical though that for existing houses no new money be created, but that the currency in existence merely change hands.

@kennethkopelson
This format doesn't work well for threaded replies. But I'll try anyway. All quotes are from Ken, unless specified otherwise.

"Why are you so intent on keeping the same old system?"

Because the old system works. Commerce is well understood. Universally, the same system is used everywhere, with minor tweaks. Nobody has ever abandoned the system (except a few isolate cases, no larger than town size). Well, a few "communist" countries tried to change the system. China is communist and more capitalist than most countries. Russia was communist for a while, lasting longer by leveraging greater natural resources, but ended up collapsing into modern capitalism.

The current system looks stable and ubiquitous. Why would there be any need to change it? Especially when there are so many ways of manipulating it? Don't like something? There's something invented to address it.

" All of those mechanisms you mention are inventions of the bankers, designed to make them rich."

And I've proposed eliminating the bankers. So yes, the bankers will still get rich, but the bankers will be the people.

"Free your mind, and consider something completely new…designed to empower the people, instead the rich elite."

Funny, turning even the poorest person in the country into a banker isn't a system I'd have expected someone to complain about not empowering the people about. I expected the opposite complaint.

"We DO NOT need to keep perpetuating the same old system. I don’t see the principles of your suggestions."

The principle is "minimum inconvenience for daily use, maximum impact to costs for the same old system."

I'd rather have a bad system working optimally, than an idealistic system working worse. From your comments, I take it that you place ideology over results. I'd rather have good results than a "justifiable ideology".

"System need to be based on solid philosophical foundations, and what you are suggesting seems to be on the same foundation as today."

Yes, it's the same as today. That's its strength. We could build a framework that would be
1) indistinguishable to the common man from today's system, and
2) eliminates banks and the $10,000,000,000 drain on our economy they cause.

"Why do we need banks again? Bank in the early days, they were simply places to store gold. Then it was bankers who designed a system to get rich off the backs of people."

People have always wanted to buy more than they could afford. The cave man with one deer to eat wanted two. The King with one Kingdom wanted two.

Yes, it was "bad form" to profit off other's aspirations. But then, it wasn't until recently (well few hundred years) when banks became common. Banks don't work well in a barter system. So not until we had some more modern systems did people need to do more than barter. Churches were the first banks. And they were often banks in the manner I'm proposing, where they didn't loan and store value, but facilitated the trade in it. One reason markets are less important now is that you sell your wares for money, and but things with money. You don't sell your item for a goat, then go trade that goat for a cell phone. You sell your goat for cash, and go to any store.

"Why do I need to have $400,000 ahead of time for a new house? If a new asset is being created, you have the labor of the workers, and you have the asset that is created. All you need is the currency to store the labor value, and everything balances."

Our current system doesn't work anywhere near that. There is not nearly enough money to cover the existing assets. Never has an economy considered economics a zero-sum game. Your system makes it one. When no new house is built, no new money/value is created.

But when an immigrant moves in, with money and wants to buy a house (presuming your system allows international trade), he increases the "value" of every house in the country. If money is fixed, when demand increases in Auckland, the value will go up with nothing created, so the value must go down elsewhere. That doesn't seem sustainable. The deflating houses will loose value more rapidly in a deflationary spiral, pushing up hosing costs elsewhere in the zero-sum fixed economy.

" I think it’s critical though that for existing houses no new money be created, but that the currency in existence merely change hands."

And every example I try to run through that, fails with any semblance of today's economy. Even if your idea were perfect, I think it would fail for NZ just because it's the opposite of everywhere else, and international trade would collapse.

How would you see trade with foreign nations with monetary policy so divergent? Complications like that is why I'm trying to fix our system, rather than replace it.

Besides, my "fix" makes your "replace" easier, and your replace would mostly crash all the banks, so they would be converging ideas, one could be done first, then the other later.

When you wait until value is created to print the money associated, how do you fund innovation? You can't borrow non-existent money to fund (currently valueless) research. So innovation would suffer, right?

Run me through an average day for a tradesman, how money is created as he "makes" things, traded as he buys things, and would it have to be destroyed when things are destroyed (as I "destroy" an orange when I eat it).

Where would he store his money to save up for a house? Would he be able to borrow for a house? How?

@marcwhinery Thank you Marc for your excellent dialogue! I will take time to respond to all your comments, and will answer your excellent questions! You are the first to ask me to "run through a scenario", and that is precisely what I've wanted someone to ask, so I'll be very happy to do that. You will see that I've considered all the things you brought up, and more. I'm at work now, however, so I'll work on a response over the next day or so. Cheers!

@kennethkopelson Or point me to a blog post, I haven't had time to read through all the way. There's so much activity on here.

A lot of interested and intelligent people looking for someone to support. I hope the Internet Party can keep up the momentum.

Fascinating discussion above. It highlights the real issues we are facing - which is not good ideas and innovation, but the oppressive threat of those who are already in control, taxing us at 50% net tax, while stealing everything on top of that, and have already shown they will basically carpet bomb whole Countries if they feel their status quo is under threat (ref pre wwii Germany and more recently, Libya)