Jere asks if the money issuance in the NP would be public or private. It is questions like these that we need to begin constructively hammering details into the basic construct of the idea.

One set of money would be issued into the NP itself, and another into the commercial sector via banks. Because the NP is designed to uphold basic human rights and essential services, the issuance and distribution of this money would have to be overseen by a body capable of interpreting a Charter of Human Rights, as well as making decisions as to what specifically details essential services. This is currently carried out by departments of government, and so NP monetary issuance would fall into their domain.

The commercial sector could operate in a similar fashion (minus interest) as today, with banks defining who is credit-worthy. However, some organization is required to oversee the total monetary policy, to see that excess of money is not created, and that money can be withdrawn from circulation (through transaction tax, or as Matabele suggests, land tax, or other means) to prevent inflation. There may be advantages to having this be a private institution or public institution. Any suggestions?

There is no reason why a business could not be in part funded by the NP and also have a commercial loan if it operates in both areas. NP products can still compete, with superior products gaining profit from 'sales' as incentive, and inferior products not being rewarding by further funding. (This is, NP businesses would be 'paid' by the NP for their 'sales', with businesses able to receive the profit--any amount that would fall in excess of their initial grant. If a business consistently did not achieve the original grant amount, it could be reviewed).

On another note, I am encouraged by the promise of further defining the aims, goals and processes of the forum, and hope that I can continue to participate. My strongest belief is that money should not negate human rights.

As I see it, currency can be issued by any taxing authority. If the tax system were re-aligned such that most tax was collected by local government in the form of land taxes (from within that authority) - then the issuance of currency for the purpose of NP would occur at local authority level.

The total quantity of currency issued would be dependent upon the amount of land tax raised in that authority, and the size of the apportionment of the provision would depend upon the number of residents of that local authority.

I have been trying to work out a clear, straightforward and informative presentation, such as I did not manage to create last time. So far the wording is eluding me, because I would like it to be simple but get across the array of ideas required and to show that these are fundamental and important. Another area is obviously some visuals to make the presentation easier.

To this end I have made a prototype, to which I have added a small amount of text, and which I plan to update if necessary. I have made it into three .jpg files (to preserve the formatting which I so depserately failed at last time). I hope that these have some coherency and any feedback would be appreciated. These are not supposed to be exhaustive, but supportive, so general contextual ideas as well as specific ideas are encouraged.

Evan

Here is the third attachment, which was too big with the others to fit into the previous post.

I think those graphics help to clarify the concepts in the National Provision. I suggest some proof-reading of the text - the first graphic looks like the word "bank" in the top "Government Bank" portion should have been "back".

I notice the cash flows in the graphics are incomplete. Where do the profits from the commercial banks and businesses end up? How do we prevent this "leakage" of money from excessively enriching a few at everyone else's expense?

Could this system work in a multi-tiered fashion? Basically, could this be implemented at the federal level simultaneously with state level implementation? (and maybe even at the level of large cities/metropolitan areas)

As for the question of who issues the money, in my opinion, the community (ie: democratically elected government) should directly issue any and all money in the system. I prefer that each level of community have the power to issue its own currency, but even if we have just a single, central authority issueing it, it should be publically owned and operated. Private issue is in direct conflict with the good of society.

I agree that the text will need an edit (or, as I was planning, to get the basic flow right and then completely reboot the text).

As to the multi-tiered system, this is quite possible, though I have not imagined the way it would work, and have not educated myself about its possible advantages.

The profits for businesses would either end in savings (where they are inert) or spendings--which move them to other businesses (to cover their loans, end up as their profits, or go towards their worker's wages and other costs), or investments, which is a tangle of the two.

The profits of commercial banks would work in the same fashion as any NP business, because that's what commercial banks would be, and this is the reason they can run without requiring interest. Money is an essential service in this model, so while the commercial flow of money to and from businesses goes through commercial banks, running costs and profits flow on the NP side.

The real questions are: is any profit ethical at all? (i.e. does this cause money to concentrate around a few at the expense of others?) and If so, what other function is required to off-set the imbalances inherent in profit?

In the NP the balance sheet is never striving to return to 0, so non-inflationary profit is not necessarily at someone else's expense.

If you've not yet read Henry George's book "Progress and Poverty", it discusses wealth and indirectly, profit: http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm.

Basically, individual profit should reflect the value of one's labor. If your labor is picking fruit, your individual profit should reflect all the fruit you picked. If your labor is to turn wood into furniture, your profits should reflect the value of the furniture minus the cost of acquiring the wood. If your labor is cleaning buildings, your profits should reflect the value of a clean building versus a dirty building, minus the cost of cleaning supplies.

When a team of people (like a small company or even a large corporation) produce a product the team's profit should reflect the value of the product they produced, minus the cost of all the inputs. A team member's individual profits should reflect the value of their individual labor contribution to the final output.

In my opinion, profit (and wages) have a valid place. However, when the senior executives receive hundreds of times more for their labor than the lowest paid, but still dedicated and producing employee, there is a problem. When the "owners" (stockholders) reveice even more than the senior executives, but did not perform any labor at all - there is definitely a problem!

Having thought critically about profit for a moment, it makes me try and think of the fundamental things that an economy would try and achieve. Whenever I talk to people I know, I find that they are involved in a bit of 'ancestor worship', where people think things should stay the same 'because that's how they always have been'. I find it most invigorating to hear on this forum when people definitively state that 'we need a system reboot' as opposed to a software patch.

So what are the fundamental things to keep in mind? It seems to me that they would be:

- people's survival and well-being
- that those who work harder are rewarded more
- that people are encouraged to do (and rewarded for) the work that is necessary

Pointedly, to state the same points differently,

- people should not suffer, starve, live in difficult situations, etc. where this can be helped
- that wealth is not arbitrary and disassociated from practical value (smart investment does not seem to serve a good a purpose as a functional job)
- that realistically relevant jobs are not devalued at the expense of other jobs

Are there any more fundamental points that need to be included, and what important information needs reviewing in the points raised? The National Provision is designed to be a 'ground up' exercise, starting from basic premises and building a working model from there. For the first page of the presentation I would like to have the basic points that we are aiming for, and especially those that we consider a sort of ethical duty. I welcome all suggestions, and I assume we can probably come to some sort of agreement as well.

Evan