Money and Power

Disdain for Economics

Money is a tool used by people to represent a set value of wealth. Money serves the same role in general society as chips do at a casino. As a tool, money is meant to supplement life, not be central to it. Things like food, water, and family are all core necessities. Money makes getting these things easier but in and of itself provides no real enduring sustenance. It's important to keep in mind that the economy must exist as a tool to serve the nation, not as the central pursuit of the nation.

The average person can be made to work for free in a variety of ways, or give up resources as necessary. We are familiar with many ubiquitous forms of this idea. Taxes and charity are both examples of people giving up resources for the greater good. Volunteering and community service are more ways that a common person can contribute to the whole outside of money itself. What it common among these things is that they represent a person forgoing the acquisition or hoarding of wealth to the benefit of others. Wealth is simply a collection of resources or assets that an individual owns.

Adolf Hitler once said, "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all." I find this line of thinking to be particularly well suited to the process of serving a nation and its people as a whole. It's the role of the state to safeguard the general wellbeing and communal wealth of the citizenry. This job requires flexibility and adaptability by its very nature. The most successful economic qualities of an authoritarian state excelling in its role are the capacity to provide a safety harness for the middle class as well as the willingness to cut loose those who would drag the system down. The difference between a safety harness and a safety net is that the harness provides protection to contributing individuals or families, while the net simply catches everything.

Since economics are a tool meant to support the livelihood of the nation no true design can be gained by observing economics alone. Economics alone are meaningless unless compared to the social programs and movements that are also present in the society. Capitalism for example is a rather meaningless designation until you consider the laws ( or lack thereof ) surrounding it.

So the answer is "I don't know." ?

The answer is to take a step back and look at the important question, which is, what purpose will our economy serve? Firstly, any economical considerations taken by the state must ensure that the basic requirements of the citizenry are met. Any economical structure that does not provide food, water, and shelter to every contributing member of society does not meet the standard. Nor do structures that enable or encourage dead weight, rampant corruption, and waste. By showing a bravery and willingness to set aside common conventions we become free to pursue alternative ideas.

Central banking for example, doesn't need to based around concepts of constant inflation like our current method. Excessive interest rates on loans don't need to exist. Just as a minimum wage can exist, so can a salary cap or maximum wage. By introducing a finite unit to represent our wealth we can ensure a limited amount of money to go around, encouraging lean government and national spending. The redistribution of wealth and power is necessary in ways that will unify the nation toward a common goal.