There is no absolute reason to prefer stable inflation rate for money creation better than allowing credit to new ones taking from old ones, mathematically, but there are lot of psychological reasons :
I'm learning that what you think are "psychological benefits" I see daily evidence of being "psychological drawbacks".
- Everyone should be incited to invest and succeend earning more money, it's possible to have 100% winners in Universal Dividende and only 50% maximum in stable money...
Stipulated: that ONLY investing currency should cause an INCREASE in net value to you. You're hoard of currency shouldn't work when you are not working.
However, your 100% winner statement is either absolutely wrong or absolutely unsupported.
If you increase currency levels 5% and prices increase 5%, then each equivalent share has exactly the same commodity value. If 1.00 original coin bought a loaf of bread before. 1.05 in inflated coin will buy a loaf of bread.
Because you gave "something" to everybody doesn't make the process a "win" for everybody.
The rich lost in their personal value as measured in loaves of bread.
The poor won in their personal value as measured in loaves of bread.
You know this, so I presume the deception was on purpose for persuasive effect. FAIL
- Taking money to people is not welcome... People always do all possible to avoid it...
I think you mean "taking money from
people. I do welcome others taking money to me! :-)
But stipulated. People don't like taxes.
- Creating money for all is better welcome. All the peole is ok to receive more money,
Again this is a deliberate deception. It still fails on me.
Creating money is welcome to those without money. Not to those who value money as a commodity. It doesn't matter to me if I receive more money, but still lose value. That concept only effects the naive or stupid. That is often why they don't have money to begin with.
but the reachest will probably buy something instead of keeping too much money would COULD lose "value" (relative thing, because of investment could generate new value unexpected next day...).
This is an argument in favor of "price inflation". Since it makes rich people's currency worth less, they will spend it on things that either 1) generate additional currency to make up for the loss or 2) commodities that increase in value as measured by the currency.
Stipulated: This makes it EASIER and CHEAPER for smart people with productive ideas to borrow money and create additional commodity wealth.
Woot! A point of personal agreement! Don't make it unnecessarily hard for smart people to move quickly.
- Economy generally growth. I we compare times, for sure I prefer to live in 2010 than in 1850, even if in 1850 I could be relativly reachest compared to the other peole, I see myself richest of 99% of all people of 1850, I live longer, I can use internet, medical technology, travel by train, and can also dream of a fly in Space... So money grow with economy because next human generation will be proprietary of better goods than ours, and so will need more money to exchange it, time after time, and progressivly, as innovation replaces old goods.
NOTE: I just notice I made an error in my previous post. I'll fix it momentarily.
Stipulated: Everyone is richer on a per-capita basis when using a ratio that compares (total commodity value in existance)/(number of people currently alive)
This ratio increases not with mere production increases, but instead with productivity increases. (i.e. each person produces more value now than they did then)
In my proposed system you still continue to get richer in total commodity value. However, prices drop so it takes less currency
to buy a loaf of bread. (This was a mis-statement on my part previously).
- Growing (but slow growing) dividend is the only fixed common value we could all be sure, anything else depending of the sum of global work each one will done. It's difficult to generate confidence in a system where ALL the things can change at any moment because of births and deads etc... At least, a little amount of money is sure.
I don't understand this. Can you restate it?
We also have to think about people who don't think about money system. Could be genious people generating great value for all, and we need, I think, giving them some stability at minima, representing by our common money : a fixed rate dividend of global growth, whatever growth will be.
This is confusingly stated, but it seems like a purely standard liberal political platitude.
I couldn't disagree more strongly, but I am quite certain even your average "right winger" in France would seem a "leftist" when measured relative to where I live.
So my general response is, if I am "one of those people generating great value for all" then no. Hell no, does it make any sense at all for me to create great value for you, then to have you take my share of the value I created also.
This requires an example.
Say, I create a process for baking bread that uses less than half of the energy, time and man-power than the existing process. Using my new process I bake bread faster than most others. Now there has been BOTH an increase in *production* and an increase in *productivity*.
Because of the increase in productions, YOU and everyone else "receives great value" because the price of bread fell by half. So the money you already own buys twice as much bread. That is huge value for YOU.
But the productivity increase is the root of MY value. I baked more bread than others, I sold it at a lower price than they did, and still took some profit for myself. That value is MINE. I deserve every bit of it. If I want to give it away, that is MY business not yours.
I assert with all possible strength the following statement:
IF I increase my own personal productivity and/or the productivity at of others, while at the same time bringing society as a whole additional aggregate and individual value as a direct result of my increased production,...
THEN, there exists NO MORAL REASON for you to take ANY of the value I gained as a result of my productivity invention. In European terms, I would say I have "moral rights" to my creations and to profit from them. Exactly the same moral rights as if I had written a book, or made a sculpture.