is a field that is, for all purposes, incomplete. This is only a personal opinion, nothing more. For me, any solution that yields problems implies that the solution itself is not fully developed; for example, economics. It yields vast problems, from recession
, and, of course, poverty
The question we must ask ourselves now is how? How do we solve these problems? How do we complete economics? The answer, oddly enough, is not vastly complicated; it stems from only a moderate amount of knowledge of supply
, and requires only access to markets
. This also has the added advantage that it can also help the environment
By now, anyone who is reading this must have given up in disgust; how can the study of the flow of money, a subject so vastly different, help the environment? Indeed, how can anyone claim to have solved a major problem using only a basic knowledge of economics? To which I say: the greatest of problems possess the simplest answer. Do not take it from me; judge it for yourself. Read through the whole writeup.
Firstly, let's look at how we make money. Why, that is simple: we make money by selling things! Quite simply, the process is like this: We want to buy something, so we give the seller of, say, Item A, something equal in value to A. Now, A can be equal to 100 dollars, or even 1; it doesn't matter what. All that matters is that we are losing something (money) and gaining it back, except in a different form ( A).
This is all very well, but is there any other way? No. Pure and simple. Every way of making money involves selling. There is no way to avoid selling something if you want to make money.
Or is there?
Let us suppose, for just one moment, that there is a way...a way that doesn't involve selling... a way that is just as productive. The crux of this idea is this : It is possible to make money by buying
At this point, people can break up laughing. Making money by buying
stuff? Nonsense! Carry on, boys; let the more patient ones among us continue down.
Of course there is no way to make money by buying stuff. It's ludicrous in the extreme. But the question persists, in a mildly annoying way : Is it possible?
And who knows? It might be. Let's look at one way.
My system involves getting money when you buy environmentally-friendly stuff; say, a Toyota Prius. So, I go down to the nearest Toyota showroom and buy one. Cha-ching !: I now have money. But having money implies getting it, and getting it implies it must come from somewhere. So where does this money come from? Answer: the government.
The government gives us money in return for buying an environmentally-friendly object, on the basis that you intend to use it and so help prevent the planet die a violent death. This money comes directly out of the treasury. That's all very well, but now the next question comes along: how much money do we get? And you know, that really is hard to answer. You could set it up so you always get a fixed amount of money for each environmentally-friendly object, but you have to ask yourself: is that really going to work? After all, prices change; they rise and fall, depending on the market, and one day prices might rise so that what you're giving to the buyer turns out to be less than the cost of the object. That said, it might not even seem reasonable to some shoppers, and you would hit an insurmountable wall with that method.
No, change is the rock on which the the universe moves, and anything that tries to solve a changing problem must account for the change inherent in it. That means the money received will change too. But how much, and when?
Enter the greenpoints, with their unique world and style. Now, the greenpoint is equivalent to the concept of the quanta in physics; it signifies a 'packet' of money. i.e. if you get one greenpoint, you get a bundle of money. If a greenpoint is equal to ten dollars, and you get a greenpoint, then you have ten dollars. Just like a dollar is equal to one hundred cents, so a greenpoint is equal to a certain amount of money. There is a reason why I'm not specifying the value of the greenpoint, and that is this: the value of a greenpoint is never fixed. It falls and rises, in a very interesting way.
Now, when you buy something, you get the money associated with a greenpoint. But an object isn't always worth just one greenpoint; it could be worth 2, 3, even 100greenpoints. That is where the government comes in; it controls the supply of greenpoints, meaning it decides how many greenpoints an object is worth. This also helps control the flow of money. Take a situation, for example, where you wish to buy an environmentally-friendly object, where the cost is 100 dollars. Suppose that the value of the greenpoint is equal to 25 dollars. The government can then decide that the object you wish to buy is worth 5 greenpoints, or 5 x 25 = 125 dollars. This gives you an incentive to buy that object, because you'll have a profit of 25 dollars.
However, suppose that the greenpoint rose to 50 dollars (I will explain how this works very soon). The government can then reduce the supply of greenpoints to 3 greenpoints, or 3x 50 = 150 dollars. Likewise, a fall in the value means an increase in the number of greenpoints. This allows us to gain a degree of control over this money.
Uptil now, this is the situation: when you buy something, the government gives you cash in the form of greenpoints, where greenpoints can be thought of as 'packets'of money, whose value is not fixed. The government can decide how many greenpoints an object is worth. However, I have not explained how the value of the greenpoint rises and falls. This is explained by another odd concept called "compound demand". Basically, the rise of the greenpoint is linked to demand. If the demand, and consequently prices, of objects associated with greenpoints rise, then the average rise in prices is the amount by which the greenpoint rises. Likewise, the fall is the average fall in prices of objects associated with the greenpoint.
And that is the entierety of my idea. Anyone can see that, for some items, the greenpoint system will give you a profit for some items. For example, if the greenpoint is worth 100 dollars and you have an object you wish to buy hose price is 1000 dollars and the number of greenpoints is 12, on buying, you automatically make a 200 dollar profit. This incentive is one of the major forces behind the greenpoints system.
Some questions remain, mainly:
1) If the government gives us money, then won't the government eventually go bankrupt?
This was once the biggest problem of my greenpoints idea, but that is easily solved - through taxes. After all, the government always takes back something to keep itself afloat. Whatever money you take from the government is later taken back by the government, in the form of taxes. So, basically, whatever money you make from the greenpoints system is taken back by the government, so, unless the government is already on deficit, there is only a low danger of bankruptcy. Also, the best way to recover money is to raise taxes on companies and not individual taxpayers.
2) What about inflation? After all, if everybody is getting money, won't it lead to economic inflation and hence ruin the entire system anyway?
This, the most glaring problem, was finally resolved only a few weeks ago, so I'm proud to finally present its final incarnation. The solution goes back to the greenpoint system, where the government controls the supply. This control is crucial; in times of inflation, the government can simply lower the supply. Things worth 12 greenpoints can suddenly be reduced to 1 greenpoint. This will first serve to slow the flow of money into society. The second thing to do is to set a limit to the value of the greenpopit e.g. the value may not go above 10,000 dollars. This serves to control the prices of environmentally-friendly objects, as companies that go above this risk losing the extra demand motivated by the prospect of making a profit. The first method also solves the problem for those industries not connected to the greenpoint, as it affects the demand for other objects, say books. After all, if your supply of money has just been cut off, you are not likely to go out and spend everything at once. This will mean demand will fall, meaning, naturally, that prices will also fall. Therefore, inflation caused by the greenpoints sytem is effectively controlled.
3) I've understood everything you said, but I can't see how this solves poverty.
I said above that the incentive of making a profit is a driving force behind the greenpoints idea. The prospect of making money invigorates demand, causing it to rise. This is helpful for both the consumer and the company, as it helps both to make a profit. Hence, demand is certain to rise, forevermore, limited only by the two ways described in Question 2, while keeping prices cheap. It also helps the government, as citizens at least have a chance of going green. Depressions will be made extinct and inflation controlled.
Making a profit is central to solving poverty; the poor simply need access to markets where environmentally-friendly objects covered by greenpoints are sold. They will make profits, and so begins the transformation, from poor, to rich.
This is a brief summary:
When you buy an environmentally-friendly object, you get money, which the government gives you. The money you get is controlled by a hybrid system of supply, which is controlled by the government and is merely the number of greenpoints received, and demand, which affects the value of the greenpoint (the rise in greenpoints is the average increase in prices caused by increased demand). There is a limit to the value of the greenpoint.i.e. it may not go above a ceertain value. It is possible to make a profit using this system. The government gets back all its money through taxes
And so I end my hypothetical solution to poverty and an aid to environmental efforts. Thanks to everybody who read this far. Now, goodnight!