Money is simply the traffic signals of economy

[kmarinas86]

When you go to the checkout, after collecting all the groceries, the money (and the amount of money) transfered serves as a green light. You are then allowed to leave the store legally with the groceries. If it is not enough money it's the red light. If its "I left my wallet at home" it's a yellow light. The difference is that the yellow light can become green again without turning back to red.

 

Traffic lights guide the logistics of traffic.

 

Money guides the logistics of goods transfer.

 

With money, we are using traffic signals without even noticing it.

 

I need money to feed my family is like saying "I need some green lights to beg others to fulfill the needs of my family".

 

When you pay for insurance, you are giving the green lights to a collective from which you may take more green lights than you gave when the conditions listed by the insurance itself have been satisfied.

 

The real economy consists of goods which are being transferred, not the traffic signals used. The "green lights" a "go" for an economy (and all the economic transactions which make it up). An economic depression is a sign of "not enough green lights".

 

To give to the poor more than you want to, someway they got to have the green lights you can get from them. Because money is the usual kind of "green light", such transactions are usually prevented.

 

Why should banks require people to give them back more green lights they borrowed? Couldn't they just make it equal and pay off their own by receiving green lights (or just making them up?). Nope.

 

Green lights are like the spark plug in an combustion chamber. The operate not in isolation.

 

Some people rather save money than give to the poor - is that good thing? It is not. Such people have more green lights than they need at the present. They may save it for the future, but wouldn't it be better if the transfer of money in the banking system is reversed? Of course, and then it would have to be required by law to particpate in a bank to recieve benefits from banks in general.

 

NOTE: Rich people who save a lot are usually financing the project of other rich people (such as bankers who lend money in hopes of returning a profit).

 

Please, if applicable, tell me why am I naive and why that the idea I proposed will not work anywhere in the universe.....

 

Summary of this idea:

People who have more money than they need at the present can build up savings.

People who have less money than they need at the present can build up debt.

Young people who have more money than they need at the present can build up savings.

Old people who have less money than they need at the present can build up debt.

Rich people who have more money than they need at the present can build up savings.

Poor people who have less money than they need at the present can build up debt.

 

This is injustice at work. The core reason why it takes so much effort and wasted energy just to redistribute wealth to a reasonable level (such as a 5 to 1 ratio), is because the engines of most banking systems are running the reverse of manner that would redistribute wealth.

 

Instead, to receive benefits from some insurance companies, people should be required (by law) to put a minimum of money in the bank (like a reserve requirement). If they do not, (keeping it hoarded at home instead), they will not recieve benefits from them.

 

How would banks run? It would be by utilizing some of the assets that banks recieve, but instead of it getting from people who have less money than they need, they should get it from people who have more money than they need. The people who have more money than they need save at least at the minimum so that they can get benefits.

 

Today's banking system is a regressive system and is in direct opposition to progressive tax reform.

People who join banks which accord with my proposed idea in mind should recieve tax credits equal to their money lost through these "banks which give to people who have less money than they need". At least until the whole system matures.

[moo]

Please, if applicable, tell me why am I naive and why that the idea I proposed will not work anywhere in the universe.....

Because your idea is closer to Socialism than Capitalism, and Socialism is reknown for failure.

 

Why? Well, the short version is because there's no incentive to do more than the absolute minimum required, since you know your shortfalls will be made up by someone else. :cup:

 

moo

[kmarinas86]

Because your idea is closer to Socialism than Capitalism, and Socialism is reknown for failure.

 

Why? Well, the short version is because there's no incentive to do more than the absolute minimum required, since you know your shortfalls will be made up by someone else. :cup:

 

moo

 

What minimum? The minimum wage has nothing to do with it. The minimum money to keep at the bank is a percentage of your income. For what I have done at my own job, I could handle 5 percent (I have 250+ added from when I got my banking account after making my first 6000) (the union was much worse taking 9 percent of what I earn =P - and it's $7 a week flat). Because it is a percentage, you can have a bigger house if your paycheck triples. If you earn more, you earn more. That principle is not violated. Everyone gets paid different in proportion to the type of work and the time of work. Do you think I am getting rid of filthy rich bankers? I plan to major in accounting, do you really think that giving every one the same pay check will help? No way man. That won't work.

[Zythryn]

I think the original analogy of money being equivalent to green lights is non-sensical. It just doesn't hold up.

A motorist has no control over traffic lights and the traffic lights work the same for every motorist. Money is earned and people have some control over how much money they have.

 

The rest of your post is a bit unclear. Can you reword it or clarify what your idea is for how banks would work? Would you take the interest on deposits and donate it to the poor?

[kmarinas86]

The rest of your post is a bit unclear. Can you reword it or clarify what your idea is for how banks would work? Would you take the interest on deposits and donate it to the poor?

 

I have modified the idea a little:

 

User:Kmarinas86/NewBanking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[InfiniteNow]

Do you see any degree of overlap in your idea with that of 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Muhammad Yunus, and, if so, how?

 

Peace 2006

"... poverty in the world is an artificial creation."

[Zythryn]

I have modified the idea a little:

 

User:Kmarinas86/NewBanking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Thank you for the details.

I am still a little unclear as to where the money comes from to supply these services (medical, food, etc).

For example, I am a customer of one of your neobanks. Let's say I have $1000 in a savings account. 3 years later, the neobank has been providing services for the good of the community. I withdraw my funds. Do I get less than $1000? I.E. does the money to provide these services come from me?

 

As I read the information, these services would only be available to members of the neobank? If so, and if this costs money, why not simply call it insurance. Why the neobank term? Especially if the neobank doesn't do business in terms of loans.

[kmarinas86]

Do you see any degree of overlap in your idea with that of 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Muhammad Yunus, and, if so, how?

 

Peace 2006

"... poverty in the world is an artificial creation."

 

yes

[InfiniteNow]

Perhaps I can rephrase. How?

 

Also, Zyth asks a very intelligent question to which I'm curious to explore your response.

[moo]

Some people rather save money than give to the poor - is that good thing? It is not.

It is still their right to do with their property as they see fit, and "good" is often a relative opinion of the parties involved, as also are the terms "rich" and "poor".

 

How would banks run? It would be by utilizing some of the assets that banks recieve, but instead of it getting from people who have less money than they need, they should get it from people who have more money than they need. The people who have more money than they need save at least at the minimum so that they can get benefits.

But who determines which people have "more money than they need"? I'm not saying your intentions are not good, but IMO the method is not.

 

A bank stays in business because it makes enough money (primarily via interest received from loans) to pay its investors and employees. To do this, it needs liquid capital (i.e. customer deposits).

 

What makes me put my money in XYZ bank? They pay interest for the use of it. If they didn't, I'd put it in another bank or invest it elsewhere because I want it to create the most income possible with the least amount (or at least an acceptable amount) of risk.

 

From your Wiki page

Because a NeoBank does not provide loans or bonds, it will not have the costs associated with them.

Nor will it have the revenues generated by them, which by far exceed the associated costs.

 

From your Wiki page

Revenue of these banks comes from savers and is used for the operating, investment, etc. of a bank as well as one-way transfer payments to companies and institutions who provide emergency relief to NeoBank customers.

But "savers" expect to gain their own revenue from deposits (see my XYZ bank statement above).

 

This seems a wee bit like a "Robinhood" approach to me (or at least Socialism on a smaller scale). Perhaps you would be interested in a similar scheme with our wages, and just cut out the bank deposits altogether. We could call it "income tax" and use some of it to provide welfare and other support to the poor (along with many freeloaders, unfortunately)... :ebomb:

 

moo

[kmarinas86]

Perhaps I can rephrase. How?

 

Also, Zyth asks a very intelligent question to which I'm curious to explore your response.

 

Not by much.

 

Just that there is this, as someone else said a "robin hooding" approach. I don't think this idea of mine is very good.

[Michaelangelica]

;)

 

What happens when you 'mass print/produce' traffic signals?