In my view the main hypothesis is half-right, as far as keeping the ever-poorer proletariat happy with the crumbs could be a tactic by the very rich to have them stay on top.
However, 'free money' has many issues in this day and age, and that is (in my view) mostly due to the fact that money doesn't mean anything (or, conversely, means too much) these days. (Small essay incoming)
What I mean is this: money started out as a way to barter goods, and denoted X sheafs of grain, X heads of cattle, etc. Because dragging cows along with you everywhere would be quite the bother, they used smaller objects. These objects, which were for example beads in ancient Middle-Eastern cultures, had no intrinsic value. At all. They signified something of real value you had: your crops or cattle etc. Money that people had signified their real economy, and a bead in itself was worthless.
How times have changed: today, the euro/dollar/yen is worth something because of its intrinsic value, guaranteed by X government (or supranational government in the case of the EU). However, due to massive printing of money without any basis in reality, the money in circulation has an ever reducing relevance with the actual, real economy.
This means that at its foundation, guaranteeing the (albeit lower) prosperity of the working and middle classes is to make sure that the salaried money they earn is of an actual value. This means, in my view, that before any socialist/capitalist question of where money should go/be, the money issue ITSELF should be tackled first. This starts at the central banks: in your American viewpoint, the Federal Reserve has done far more harm than a Zuckerberg or Gates ever will.
To be clear, I'm not an American, not that it matters one way or another, and I do write about America a lot as it still is the predominant force in modern history and economics, but I'm Dutch, as I suspect you are with that extremely Dutch-sounding name ;-)
Thanks for the essay on money; read my post No Reserve Banking for more on that.
What it comes down to is this: our behavior as individuals as well as societies is determined for the most part in how we relate to the material world, which is in turn shaped by the economy. It determines how we acquire food, housing and all the other necessities for what we agree is a "normal life". Money is the oil for those relationships, it's merely a means of exchange and doesn't need to have intrinsic value, as long as we all agree on what counts as the means of exchange. It represents value, it doesn't have to be valuable by itself. This is of course only my opinion in a debate that's lasted for as long as civilization exists...
Nowadays money is based on debt, and is used to exert power, but in my opinion that's because of the overarching power relationship that's built in in the economy, and has been for centuries; the basic class-division between capital owners and the rest is still the same as it has been during feudalism. So that's what has to change; money will become "honest" as soon as we finally break the old power hierarchies...
Congratulations @zyx066! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You distributed more than 24000 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 25000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the wordSTOP
In my view the main hypothesis is half-right, as far as keeping the ever-poorer proletariat happy with the crumbs could be a tactic by the very rich to have them stay on top.
However, 'free money' has many issues in this day and age, and that is (in my view) mostly due to the fact that money doesn't mean anything (or, conversely, means too much) these days. (Small essay incoming)
What I mean is this: money started out as a way to barter goods, and denoted X sheafs of grain, X heads of cattle, etc. Because dragging cows along with you everywhere would be quite the bother, they used smaller objects. These objects, which were for example beads in ancient Middle-Eastern cultures, had no intrinsic value. At all. They signified something of real value you had: your crops or cattle etc. Money that people had signified their real economy, and a bead in itself was worthless.
How times have changed: today, the euro/dollar/yen is worth something because of its intrinsic value, guaranteed by X government (or supranational government in the case of the EU). However, due to massive printing of money without any basis in reality, the money in circulation has an ever reducing relevance with the actual, real economy.
This means that at its foundation, guaranteeing the (albeit lower) prosperity of the working and middle classes is to make sure that the salaried money they earn is of an actual value. This means, in my view, that before any socialist/capitalist question of where money should go/be, the money issue ITSELF should be tackled first. This starts at the central banks: in your American viewpoint, the Federal Reserve has done far more harm than a Zuckerberg or Gates ever will.
To be clear, I'm not an American, not that it matters one way or another, and I do write about America a lot as it still is the predominant force in modern history and economics, but I'm Dutch, as I suspect you are with that extremely Dutch-sounding name ;-)
Thanks for the essay on money; read my post No Reserve Banking for more on that.
What it comes down to is this: our behavior as individuals as well as societies is determined for the most part in how we relate to the material world, which is in turn shaped by the economy. It determines how we acquire food, housing and all the other necessities for what we agree is a "normal life". Money is the oil for those relationships, it's merely a means of exchange and doesn't need to have intrinsic value, as long as we all agree on what counts as the means of exchange. It represents value, it doesn't have to be valuable by itself. This is of course only my opinion in a debate that's lasted for as long as civilization exists...
Nowadays money is based on debt, and is used to exert power, but in my opinion that's because of the overarching power relationship that's built in in the economy, and has been for centuries; the basic class-division between capital owners and the rest is still the same as it has been during feudalism. So that's what has to change; money will become "honest" as soon as we finally break the old power hierarchies...
Ah, kijk aan. Goed om te zien dat er meer NLers rondhangen hier
Congratulations @zyx066! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Your next target is to reach 25000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out the last post from @hivebuzz:
Free money is what will save capitalism
lolol
read more, type less...