Money stuff.

[BrettNortje]

What is it about bank deposits you believe to be "basically imaginary?" I would push back on that to say that all forms of payment are basically imaginary. Money is not more "real?" than is the money in a checking account, or the tooth fairy, or gold for that matter. My point is that the role of money as it has been stated is that it is basically claims on future goods which people are willing to give you for it. none of it actually adds up to much outside of the seller of the goods willingness to accept the specified payment as good.

Another question that comes to my mind after starting your post is; is it actually the role of the state to balance the supply and demand of "all things." This model seems to be one of more socialistic mindset. But, if it were to be a competitive market, the supply and demand of "all things" would be determined by a different entity would it not? An entity made up of all the buyers and sellers available?...

So there has to be some sort of process by which an entity organizes and uses a skill to give something to people they wouldn't otherwise have, and that they receive a benefit from in excess of the cost the entity incurs to make it, and the price it charges for doing so? creating a surplus for the buyer and a profit for the seller? collectively creating a social benefit?

If all the factory labor supply now floods the market for office jobs, do salaries (income) rise? or does the increased labor supply put downward pressure on wages for office jobs?

It sounds like your model where you want the educations system, the state, and the fed to be seperate entities, wherein the education pays the state, and is governed by their rules but somehow turns a profit teaching low income office job workers children, by charging them a price for eduction of their children in excess of what the teachers require for a modest standard of living? then the office job workers who pay are distributed an income from the state department where they work to produce goods for their co-workers, the teachers, and the federal government? So just for clarification, in this model you basically want a socialist government with an exclusively private school system, the private school system then trains children in the best way they can work for the public government? why doesn't the state or fed retain the cost of education as well? since they are in effect the alpha and the omega in this model, with all jobs except that of an educator being public

I suppose in the model there is the prospect of the especially quant-types working for the bank, but my suspicion is the bank is unlikely to last long as no one will ever need to borrow money, and there is only one employer, which they will finance their car, their land and their credit cards through. So the bank would seem uneccessary, I suppose there is the prospect of it being the Central Bank and holds all the government finances.

Yes when you about it it does reek of socialism, but what is wrong with that if you think about it i seem to have it working, in a way. the banks will still be necessary as a means to regulate payments and services, and, you got to stick your money somewhere. without borrowing, there will be little expansion of businesses, and, that would mean the banks are still necessary, yes?

I see you have read a lot of my posts? well, when you put it all together the way you have, it does seem to raise a lot of questions - like yours - and honestly it is more like a 'mix and match' with nothing being compulsory and nothing being out of the question. that is the way prefer to do things, of course. if the state was to pay for education, then it would cost tax dollars, and, that would mean less service delivery, but, with all the services satisfying themselves, there will be little need for taxes being spent on services and that means they can afford to pay off their debts, yes? this would mean that the state could spend more on welfare, or, state owned businesses to supply jobs for people.

If everybody was to have office jobs, they would be paid higher, of course. having an economy like that wold mean that robots are doing the 'donkey work' and the decisions are made by the people that can make them, of course. this will mean more robots as a once off payment and lots of people making more money, leading to more taxes and, if they earn more they send more on each other's services and goods, from company to company.

 

[iEconomist]

Yes when you about it it does reek of socialism, but what is wrong with that if you think about it i seem to have it working, in a way. the banks will still be necessary as a means to regulate payments and services, and, you got to stick your money somewhere. without borrowing, there will be little expansion of businesses, and, that would mean the banks are still necessary, yes?

I see you have read a lot of my posts? well, when you put it all together the way you have, it does seem to raise a lot of questions - like yours - and honestly it is more like a 'mix and match' with nothing being compulsory and nothing being out of the question. that is the way prefer to do things, of course. if the state was to pay for education, then it would cost tax dollars, and, that would mean less service delivery, but, with all the services satisfying themselves, there will be little need for taxes being spent on services and that means they can afford to pay off their debts, yes? this would mean that the state could spend more on welfare, or, state owned businesses to supply jobs for people.

If everybody was to have office jobs, they would be paid higher, of course. having an economy like that wold mean that robots are doing the 'donkey work' and the decisions are made by the people that can make them, of course. this will mean more robots as a once off payment and lots of people making more money, leading to more taxes and, if they earn more they send more on each other's services and goods, from company to company.

On the issue of "everybody having office jobs": The flood of people now moving in to office jobs represents, in effect, an increase of the supply of labor for office jobs. The increased supply of labor, not being met with offsetting demand, will cause the wage of those workers to fall. Would it not? so it will meet equilibrium at the point where supply and demand intersect, netting no change apart from the loss of jobs due to stagnant demand for office labor. So, the point about more money is false, as is the point of increased tax revenue.

 

[BrettNortje]

I have a new idea about trading - if you buy cheaper stocks in more quantity than less more expensive stocks, you stand to make more money. if you had [a million], you could buy [300a] or [50b] each equaling the same costs. so, [300a] = [50b]. if stock a gains [by a cent], and stock b gains by [3 cents], which is practical i think you will agree, 3.00 on [a] and 1.50 on side , of course. this is because stocks can only go up by a cent by dividing and merging them, of course. i mean, if you invest [one thousand] into each company, they will appreciate by an equal amount, but the more expensive stock is easier to sell as it has [brand power], and could be countered by a [one thousand promotion].

If you bought one thousand worth of more stock, or, spent the promotion of a thousand, you will see each share increase in worth for company [a], - maybe going up by three cents a share - while you will merely see a flat increase in your investment, maybe doubling or so.

If you have even a meager amount of time to invest in promotion, buy the cheaper stocks. if you watch the markets, these blue chip stocks are very slow to grow, and, it is like buying in a fixed deposit or a tiny amount.