😟 👨🏾‍💼 🧝🏽 No money. Who? 🍠 🎄 🔬

How tired of the stories about the fact that there is no money. When I hear this, I certainly want to ask, "but who do not have them?"

Imagine a fictional country. If 80% of the country's population does not have money, then where is it? That's right - the remaining 20%. With a constant volume of the country's money supply, this is exactly so. This is elementary logic.

Also embarrassed by statements about the withdrawal of money abroad. Ok, if we say 20% of the country's population will withdraw money abroad, then what will this mean? This will mean that they will exchange the currency of their country for the currency of another i.e. the money of this country will not evaporate in the air, they will simply change the owner. Well, these 20% of the population will still be with money only expressed banknotes of another country. At the same time, those other owners of the currency of your country will not be able to spend them anywhere other than your country, until they are exchanged again, etc.

Which of these can be concluded - the authorities of many countries hang noodles on the ears of the population saying that there is no money. If the population of these countries lives poorly, then money has nothing to do with it, it just means that the economy is designed so that money is accumulated by a small group of the population, and only crumbs are lowered to the “bottom”, and these crumbs are immediately returned back to the top .to. this top of the chain owns structures in which the population acquires goods, which by the way itself produces them, only they are alienated from them (Karl Marx - ay, it seems you wrote about this?).

So what should we talk about? Not that there is no money, but that the economy is inefficient does not lead to a fair redistribution of resources.

A vivid example is the current situation with the coronovirus. Only here, the brake is not a device of the economy, but a virus. But states, too, can play the role of the virus, which is where a lot happens. Those. they, like the virus, create artificial obstacles to the transfer of money from one population group to another. I will note a useful transition, such in which GOOD is produced. The opposite is the transfer of money in which they are stolen. For example, it was necessary to build a road, money came to the region, but were stolen, i.e. the transfer of money occurred, but no useful goods were produced. Corruption (in the variant mentioned above) is harmful because the transfer of money is not accompanied by the production of goods.

Let's conduct a thought experiment: imagine a country in which only two people live. The first owns the land and everything that is on it, the other does not own anything. This second one works for the first, growing food on his lands, and the first pays him. At the same time, the second one cannot use the grown food until he buys it from the first. Imagine that there is enough food to feed ten. And what happens? It turns out that the money here is FICTION. The first pays the second for labor, and the second returns them back to the first in order to buy the food that he himself has grown, while the first still has plenty of this food. Feel it? The second one thinks that he is making money, but in fact he "stupidly" injects while the first one passes through the shade. This example easily scales to reality,and allows you to take a different look at what is happening in economies and countries.

And here is another thought experiment - imagine a country not of two people, but of four, we will designate them A, B, C and D. Man A owns everything. B, C and D work by growing food. Grown food is enough to feed 20 people. Everything goes as usual, but here man B comes up with some kind of system (do not forget that this is an artificial example), thanks to which one person can produce the same amount of food + 50%. The owner, person A, begins to pay person B twice as much (for maintaining this system), person C pays the same or even more, and D becomes unnecessary! What to do to the person D? Die? This example shows a trend that is now becoming in the world, in my opinion, particularly pronounced.

You criticize, offer. What to do? In my opinion, it is necessary to introduce an unconditional basic income so that people like D, from the example above, can exist so that social tension is not created and social stability is ensured. In response, we can hear - "because there is no money!". So, this is not so - MONEY IS! What I tried to prove in this article!

Thank you for the attention!

UPD: and yet I’ll supplement it - besides D there are also other segments of the population, for example, state employees who often get unreasonably low salaries, i.e. it’s not just about giving money to marginalized people or those who are really powerless to integrate into the economy

UPD2: in general, the main message of the article was to be not an unconditional basic income, but a fair distribution of resources. Unconditional basic income is just one of the proposals for achieving this goal. It is about ensuring a minimum decent life for the general public.

No money. Who?

More articles: