With money, it is a good idea to regard it as computer bits that can escalate in amount or diminish in amounts with great frequency. This would mean that if the money was tied to something, say it is an asset, then it's value depends on how that asset is seen as worth - worth and value is dependent upon appraisal only, with assets, while cash money is regarded as having a more definite value. So, if you were to buy a warehouse in a run down part of town, it would be worth less because of various factors, like it being old and having poor wiring, and, maybe needing maintenance to be up and running again, but it would have some pluses in the way of it being cheap and central maybe? All in all, the less something costs the more potential it has, of course. With potential there are often things that get overlooked. Like small things - how often are these things used? Take plastics, very valuable because they get used in everything, and, it is worth as much as you say it is worth, versus what your competitors say it is worth, of course. So, once again, it is airy fairy sort of money, where value is dictated by appraisal. How do you get the best deal? This would be down to paying as little as possible versus your target market if you plan to sell it again - do you have the perfect pitch? Do these suckers have any idea what it is worth? On a macro scale, if you observe that gold is worth what you say it is worth, then you could enrich your own country no end. There is no problem except what the people say it is worth, but, seeing as how you are saying how much their money is worth, and how much there is, and they are saying how much your gold is worth, can't you see a deal being made?
As an example of a quick haul, the government could set up a company and sell it. This would be down to setting up, say, a water company, or a law firm, or something, and quickly processing licensing for it, and, then hiring staff for it, then selling it. This could be don with a simple building, some staff, some equipment, and, of course, zoning the land for such. This would procure much funding if done en mass, of course. If the state wants to up the take, they could easily sell assets to the reserve that it wants to, for a price they want to. If it is a fixed asset, they could assume that their flooring would grow, say it is property? This would result in the reserve growing in total worth each year, as the price of property goes up, but; If they were to lodge all unclaimed land as a 'fixed asset,' and, designate this, or, tie this to the reserve, they would see their gross capital grow each year. This would be because the land would become worth more each year.
Seeing as how money is such a malleable thing, we might be able to see the state sell people their own money, and, both parties get enriched? This would follow that the state could sell people dividends of the state's gold reserves, or, even more currency for less currency? It makes sense that the gold is worth something, but it is not worth anything to the government, as, what will a government do with gold. When it comes to currency, the state cannot spend money in the reserve directly, as it serves the people, but the people may be able to buy into it, yes? So, with gold, if the state was to sell people 'real gold,' the amount of gold in the reserve would go down, and, the amount of currency would diminish, leading to deflation, you could say. It could be passed into law, that, seeing as how there is less gold and money, there needs to be more easily affordable prices and lower salaries, deflating the country. This will lead to a country where everything is cheaper, and, buying power goes up. With people buying their own money, this will happen; [capital] plus [sales]. The [capital] remains because the [money] has switched from [potential] to [circulating], yes? This means there is more [taxes] being collected, and, more [capital] for the state to spend, and, more money for the people.
With currency trading, one country could buy up all the currency of another country, and, then the value of the currency they own of that country would be worth more, and, the country that had it's currency bought would find that it's currency is worth more due to 'scarcity.' This would enrich both countries, of course, and could set up good relations between the two 'business wise.' On the other hand, if the country was to buy up it's own currency, then it would create demand through strangling it's own people, leading to greater buying power. But, this will lead to diminished 'sales and productivity.' One dollar would buy one dollar today, but having one dollar buy fifty cents would be ludicrous, of course. This would be good to import though, as, then the state could tax the private sector more. If the state had a great infrastructure upgrade plan though, then it would make sense to temporarily create a cheaper rate. This would be where the dollar is worth, well, a dollar, yes? If the state was to buy a trillion dollars, and, sell them for nine hundred billion dollars, then they would create a window of opportunity, where they would save ten percent on costs of things. This means that the dollar will go down in value, and, the 'costs of building' too. This would quickly regain in value of the dollar, and, the state could also do the reverse to make the money back, of course. Where are they going to go when they need dollars but to the government?
The problem with this is that it addresses just one side of the subject, and it turns out that the other aspects have an effect on what you said about value. You only discussed exchange value. So your statement "worth and value is dependent upon appraisal only" ignores the influences of use value and intrinsic value. Commodity pricing is influenced by all three kinds of value, resulting in a market price which, in different locations with different components of value, can produce different market prices. So ultimately, "value" actually means 2 different things that capitalism likes to obscure: 1) subjective judgements and 2) exchange ratios. Logical mistakes are made when these 2 distinct meanings are confused and lumped together as "value".
Uhh....... hmmmmm...... Ok, let's say I want to buy $1,000. What would it cost me? And would my neighbor be able to buy it for the same price?
enrich both countries?? if there is an economist who believes that I will pay you $10,000. Bet? There is no free lunch!! you get enriched by inventing great new products and not by buying currency. Econ 101
totally wrong of course. if one country started buying all the currency of another for no reason the value would go up at first due to scarcity, but the selling country would then print money to stabilize its prices as per Fed mandate and the purchaser of the currency would suffer an immediate and huge loss due to over supply. NOW do you understand? There is no free lunch.
Yet another reason to support separation of money and state. Everything the state touches, it effs up.
well the state is a fact of life so then the issue is what should the policy of the state be. It should be to promote capitalism and freedom. The best way to do that In terms of monetary policyis with a monetary policy Based on no inflation or deflation.
Maybe the best way to create money for a country, quickly, as in as fast as they can process the transactions and write them into law, would be to count all the money trading each day or month? This would not be like taxes, but rather like wealth of the country... Let me explain? If the country has one million credits in it, and they tax ten percent, then the country has one hundred thousand credits in state money to spend. This would lead to the country being that rich. But, as with tourism, the taxes taken from the people will be the property of the state, yes? This means that the money inside the country equals the taxes and and the liquid capital, of course. But what about that other money - does the circulation of taxes get counted? What about that other money being the base for a loan - if the loan was based on what you could pay back, you could double your countries wealth and see it all paid back if it fails, which it cannot do, so, all money should be doubled. If the working capital of the country is equal to one million credits, then the worth of the money of the state is two million, as, if it annihilates, it will be left with zero. This follows that if you have one million credits, you may loan another one million credits at zero percent interest, and then you have two million credits, yes? This follows that if you have one, you actually have two or zero, of course. So, the wealth of every country should be doubled.
Mr James, the state keeps all the money to spend, like capital. This gets used in the private sector, where it starts to circulate. They do not need not spend all the money, at all. It does not just go to the people, it gets spent slowly, or quickly, and, becomes working capital of the country. It is not 'just printing money.'
With the working capital of the country, the more the country has, the less worth it's currency, except if can 'justify that stuff.' This is why the state should go crazy producing things, so they can justify al the money through assets they can sell, storing all the production, hiring and securing jobs, through production, and just keep producing and storing things. Of course, the goods should be non perishable, or, have a semi long shelf life. If they were to spend money producing microwaves, then they would have microwaves in 'working capital' to sell, but they store them - like gold, sort of - and melt them down every ten years to produce new models. This will keep everyone hired, money working and circulating, taxes coming in and so forth, while building up a lot of capital for the state and enriching everybody.
for 3rd time: so you would want govt to send each person a check large enough to double his wealth?? PS: when someone asks you a question you are supposed to answer it. Do you understand?
Money itself is not the working capital, the goods and services you can exchange it for are. Money is a trade commodity. It is quite useless outside of this purpose. Doubling the money, doesn't double the available resources. It just half's their $ price. I prefer to keep my own resources and decide for myself where and when to distribute them. The state is not the country and the country is not the state.
So you want the state to print a lot of money and use it to pay state expenses??? And you don’t want the state to tax a lot of money and use it to pay state expenses??
I want them to do the first thing you quoted me on, that the collect a lot of money for state expenses, and, that they collect money from taxes too, to pay state expenses, thereby allowing for greater service delivery.
Nice suggestion, but a bit trite. Only a fool would think everybody else is one but them. The number of variables in any given investment are multiple - some evident, some not so evident. Recourse to somebody who is responsible for a large finance entity helps but is rarely sufficient. But, in this day and age, who can you trust for valid information? (Why is Fake News so repetitively an appellation for what we see/hear on TV?) Which is why an old adage regarding "how to invest" comes to mind. There are numerous variations on the theme, and this one seems best to me: 10 Timeless Rules For Investors - excerpt:
Spot on. But dangerous to say to an American readership. We think "government should be small", so we all can be Big (financially). So, "taxation must be small so we can all have more". (Or some such mind-boggling nonsense.) In Europe, the reverse tends to be true*, which is why taxation per capita is much higher than in the US. But, there are take-aways that need consideration. And a Free (or nearly free) National Health Care system as well as Tertiary Education are two indisputably lower-cost take-aways than in the US. I maintain that Europe has proven that point ... *Probably due to the fact that monarchies ran countries for such a long, long time in Europe?
Yes, while we do not have accounts records from the European monarchies, we do see trickle down knock on effects in the state of their economies and currency worth's. Unfortunately, due to world war two, there is still a relay effect from that time to today. Germany and Britain, two of the countries that should have been conversely affected, have surged to the top, of course.
That "relay effect", I suggest, is due to the fact that the EU-countries had far too much faith in the Euro. Moreover, when the Great Recession was imported from the US, with the rise in unemployment in Europe, politicos responded traditionally. That is, with more government financing of projects to keep people at work. StimulusSpending, per se, is not a bad thing if it can get a country past a recession. But, Europe's problem was that the Euro interest-rates had skyrocketed, and the more money they borrowed (to spend on maintaining Demand) the further in debt they got. Which means they passed decisively the Maastricht Treaty limit of "no-debt beyond 3% of GDP". And they did it willingly expecting the EU to maintain Euro Hi-debt. Which means "somebody has got to pay the interest" on Euro-notes that the Central Bank issues to countries in order to balance its books. (And the ECB loans to countries the money necessary to meet budgets.) So, when this went on and on and on too far, the Germans simply blue the whistle. Because it was THEIR National Budget that was loaning money to the ECB (that was loaning funds to the countries). It couldn't go on forever, and it didn't. France, a country that has a sound economy, is still having a problem finding the funding to both maintain government spending AND keep debt below the 3% of GDP limit. As for Greece, forget it. But even if Italy has problems constraining its budget. And if Berlusconi wins the upcoming election all bets are off. That joker will break the bank with ginormous spending just to keep himself running the country. (He's whacko ...)
