I briefly explained the concept of serialized digital dollars all with a unit value of one dollar existing on a central computer as our total base money medium of exchange.
She asked: So what difference would it mean to me? I get a payed by some kind of digital money transfer and I can spend the digital money I get with another digital transfer?
I replied that for her, as well as 90 to 99% of all Americans nothing changes. Get money in computer system, spend money in a computer system. Perhaps that is the beauty of sweeping change in the essential structure of a conceptual/physical structure. The lesser the apparent impact of substantial fundamental system changes have for the end user, except to make it cheaper/easier, the easier it is to accomplish the changes.
The ideal: Nothing changes for the end user, everything that delivers the end user experience changes.
Everybody watches TV. We changed from an analog TV to digital TV system. Nothing changed for the end user. Some had to buy a converter to keep the old analog TV. Most were happy to get a big screen digital. Most already had them with dual reception capability. There was a big change in the system that delivered the TV picture. It brought an improvement to the end user as an inducement to change.
The personal inducement for an end user of the money system to change to a digital, serialized central record dollar is and have all those single dollars processed individually at the record level to change ownership, while being all transparent to the end user is small or even non-existent. Unless, however, the end user cares beyond their own paycheck and spending whatever they get. If they care about the fraud that lives off our money system like a fungus and the power conveyed by the shift of money to the hands of the few in a ponzi scheme then they would care to change the money system.
Most Americans don't care and would not see any change in their personal money does. As long as their personal money does what money does, the essence of what money is remains secondary. What money is however is of primary importance to those who control it and have abused that control for their own financial and political self interest. The abuse will never change until we change what money is but do not change the good aspects of what money does. More are beginning to care but do not understand the money system. What money is. They see the bad things money does. When the current system collapses most people will care very much about what money is. They will not understand the system but they will want a dollar to be a real dollar and wonder how many real dollars are there in the USA who gets them, has them and spends them and who has control of the money system in which this all happens?
When the crises, the collapse of the money system comes as it is happening in Europe, those in control of the money system will only want to control what money does, not change what money is and will go to any length to control what money does and divert attention from the real solution of changing what money is which is essential to change what money does when the system does not work any longer.
An absolute answer to changing what money does is to change what money is. Changing what money is means making the dollar a real, conceptually concrete uniquely individual serialized conceptual thing existing as a permanent computer record on which the identity of the owner changes as transactions occur.
Credit and loans in such a system become an application of what a dollar is, not the reason that brings dollars into existence and extinguishes them when a loan is repaid in an endless cycle to create our current money system. A money system that is the sum total of all money we have as a medium of exchange, what we get and spend, that currently exists only because and (ONLY because) ALL OF IT exists because a banker has made a loan to someone that owes repayment plus interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment