QE does not give money to people to spend. My understanding is that this money is used to buy financial assets from banks. This in turn allows the banks more leeway to loan out money.
To a large extent the winners and losers that are chosen by the "market" have been largely determined over the last two hundred years.
What I am suggesting is this. That money be given to states to spend on infrastructure projects. To protect that investment and because the government has a priori on an individual's behaviour implement a accounting system to monitor the awarding of contracts. This monitoring keeps corruption at bay. Use the military, if necessary, to protect the people doing the monitoring. The important thing to remember is that this is the governments and our money.
Now, the states place the money in the banks. The banks pay interest and or charges fees. Most likely it's a saw. No fees. No interest.
The work is paid for value received and the companies that have done the work put the money in the bank. This is where the "market" takes over.Â
One of the important things to remember is that in order to succeed infrastructure must be in place.Â
Another thing to consider is that when a technology becomes common place it should be declared a utility and removed from private enterprise. Buy at market value, give the owners their money and encourage them to build something new.
Now as to money being tied to labour. It is people who get things done. No work done. No value.
The problem to-day is that money is tied to capital instead of labour.
Not officially, no, but i'm not really thinking of foragers. I'm thinking about groups that were fairly geographically stable, like early farming communities.
The insiders-outsiders metaphor is grasped, somewhat intuitively, by almost everyone (just ask). This suggests an extra dimension of social competition and status exists in human communities - group status. Pretty much all mammals have individuals-based status heirarchies - alpha males, etc, but only humans seem to have distinct group-based heirarchies.
This means that rather than social dominance simply falling to the physically strongest and best fighting males, other traits become necessary. Brain capacity and intelligence start to increase rapidly. Homo-politicus is born. The social role and behavior of females changes, and becomes much more interesting than in other primates. This affects the social status of women in a positive manner, leading to even greater social competition. Further brain growth is the result.
All the while physical strength is becoming less important. Muscular ability atrophies. Compare human strength to chimp strength - no contest.
All this change originally results from unequal access to high quality land, where high quality means safe and fertile. Examples: Close to water sources like rivers or lakes, or at the foot of hills. Herds of lions share the same land, but humans compete for prime real estate. That is the key difference.
 QE does not give money to people to spend. My understanding is that this money is used to buy financial assets from banks. This in turn allows the banks more leeway to loan out money.
To a large extent the winners and losers that are chosen by the "market" have been largely determined over the last two hundred years.
What I am suggesting is this. That money be given to states to spend on infrastructure projects. To protect that investment and because the government has a priori on an individual's behaviour implement a accounting system to monitor the awarding of contracts. This monitoring keeps corruption at bay. Use the military, if necessary, to protect the people doing the monitoring. The important thing to remember is that this is the governments and our money.
Now, the states place the money in the banks. The banks pay interest and or charges fees. Most likely it's a saw. No fees. No interest.
The work is paid for value received and the companies that have done the work put the money in the bank. This is where the "market" takes over.Â
One of the important things to remember is that in order to succeed infrastructure must be in place.Â
Another thing to consider is that when a technology becomes common place it should be declared a utility and removed from private enterprise. Buy at market value, give the owners their money and encourage them to build something new.
Now as to money being tied to labour. It is people who get things done. No work done. No value.
The problem to-day is that money is tied to capital instead of labour.
"Do these exist among foragers?"
Not officially, no, but i'm not really thinking of foragers. I'm thinking about groups that were fairly geographically stable, like early farming communities.
The insiders-outsiders metaphor is grasped, somewhat intuitively, by almost everyone (just ask). This suggests an extra dimension of social competition and status exists in human communities - group status. Pretty much all mammals have individuals-based status heirarchies - alpha males, etc, but only humans seem to have distinct group-based heirarchies.
This means that rather than social dominance simply falling to the physically strongest and best fighting males, other traits become necessary. Brain capacity and intelligence start to increase rapidly. Homo-politicus is born. The social role and behavior of females changes, and becomes much more interesting than in other primates. This affects the social status of women in a positive manner, leading to even greater social competition. Further brain growth is the result.
All the while physical strength is becoming less important. Muscular ability atrophies. Compare human strength to chimp strength - no contest.
All this change originally results from unequal access to high quality land, where high quality means safe and fertile. Examples: Close to water sources like rivers or lakes, or at the foot of hills. Herds of lions share the same land, but humans compete for prime real estate. That is the key difference.