Money value versus distribution


I’ve seen of late many suggestions as to how we more equitably distribute money. The Basic Income debate comes immediately to mind.

But money must have some link to the value of goods and services it represents for it to retrain its usefulness.

Monetarism was first championed by economist Milton Friedman discussed in his book:

And while we can discuss the particulars about ‘velocity’ of money we must again revisit money basics especially with some economist advocating more and more debt to provide money to the market for more ‘growth’ . . . something that Kate rebuffs in her book advocating that an economy ‘thrive’ versus just grow beyond natural limits.

Technology advances is now hiding monetary and resource inflation as it increases economic efficiency helping to maintain monetary value as all forms of debt increase but this likewise ignores the doughnut.

We all desire a world where everyone has a minimum amount of resources to live a reasonable lifestyle.

Money can be used as a vehicle to provide prosperity but it must retain its value long term by addressing sustainability concerns discussed in Doughnut Economics.


I think we should all realize that government and all its laws are the elephant in the room of human life. It is to say that the first thing we must do eliminate turning to the idea of government and its realm of laws whose sole purpose is the aggregation of wealth with certain human rights issues as the side game or diversions permitting government to exists. When we are dealing with individuals then genuine discussions, absent the elephant, can begin.
My first thought is about principles. We are current operating with no identifiable principles despite some random claims of principles. There aren’t any available to modern ways of thinking. I remind readers that principles must be universal and, consequently, non-contradictory.
Then there is this little problem of reason. If we assume a material existence we must also accept that material things have no reason for doing anything. To accept a material reality is to jettison the effectiveness of reason. It is to say that, in a materially visualized reality, reason can be used for any purpose and if we examine our modern world, this is indeed what is happening. We instinctively say this cannot be, but it is. What all of this does reflect is that we a using an incorrect perspective because all results are inconsistent with our best interests including the dilemma of wealth distribution.
If there is a genuine solution to the problem it would lie with people, individual people and their collective actions, actions which materially speaking have no cohesiveness, no uniform manner of expression. Organizations find this conflict within their ranks and have to resort to voting to resolve issues. But voting does not resolve issues. It just sweeps them under the carpet. Again the thought arises where no principles which would support our existence are evident and yet, we are all the same and what would be a principle for one would be a principle for all.
It seems to me that until all these issues are resolved, that we should seek to equitably allocate money and resources is an exercise in the impossible unless we want to live in a society that is 100% regulated with wise but ignorant overseers that allocate all resources.
The next question is are we ignorant? I have no idea how one would eliminate ignorance in a material existence. It seems it would require a god to not be ignorant. Maybe, just maybe, we should examine this issue of an incorrect perspective if we want to believe we have anything to say in this existence.


The big elephant in the room here is the ‘algorithm’ of money. Since money is created from debt, with an interest (well, the vast majority of money is created this way), we have a systemic push towards growth because new money needs to constantly be created in order to pay off previous debts. And since the debt is always bigger than the created amount of money, this forces bloating of the total monetary mass. Which then leads to inflation if the economy doesn’t grow along with it.

When we look at this system like it’s software, it becomes easy to write a better algorithm that has distribution of money built into it.

At Happonomy we developed such a model.


While this might work for quite a period of time, but no matter what, it would ultimately become unsustainable and unsustainability might occur quicker than we think.
I think it would be better to say that all money is created through human effort to acquire things we want. It is kind of a ponzi scheme.
From this premise we could also say the hour is the basic monetary unit. Our currency while always reflecting costs, would be flexible yet not fiat and would require no algorithm to assure proper distribution. It would be self-regulating I think with money always returning to the producers of needs. The only risk would be the falsification of needs or taxation which seems quite likely to be a function of power mongers, banks, or governments attempting to build empires rather than normal economic activity.


Milton Friedman made his Free to Choose video after he learned John Kenneth Galbraith was making Age of Uncertainty. I watched both of them back then. Galbraith blew Friedman away.

Galbraith was informative, Friedman was a propagandist. “Look into my eyes. You will BELIEVE in Capitalism.” LOL

Of course neither of them suggested mandatory accounting in our schools. What would the economy be like today if that had been done in 1977?

Would everyone notice depreciation due to Planned Obsolescence?