You have to pick something to have US dollar be backed by, what do you pick?
My best (stupid) guess is weapons. US gov has a ton of weapons. Already sells tons of weapons. Now the prices will always remain stable. Other countries would love to know that 30 million usd would always be able to buy an f15. Other countries declaring war will increase the value of the USD, as buying weapons from us government will decrease amount of money in circulation.
Other countries declaring war will increase the value of the USD, as buying weapons from us government will decrease amount of money in circulation.
I’m not sure if I’m misunderstanding this, but wouldn’t that decrease the value of the dollar?
If the US Gov owns less weapons (because they’ve been sold) but the populace has the same number of dollars, then the value of those dollars must be decreased because there are less weapons backing it.
Well to get the thing that is backing the dollar, they would have to turn in us dollars that would be taken out of circulation . So a bunch of countries at the same time would get a bunch of USD and turn them in.
No, the more freedom America has, the more value American currency has. Our currency would be backed by freedom and eagle sounds, not the other way around.
I mean the hack which leads to the best result would be pegging it to the Euro, Pound or Yen as a strong currency controlled by a US ally
That said, backing it with recaptured pollutants or something would be interesting as although it has no inherent value, that’s no different to how it is currently and it’d be interesting to see the mechanics of how people act
I would peg it to the number of weapons (manufactured prior to the change) that are destroyed by that country, plus the number of millionaires and billionaires taxed at more than 50%, less the number of weapons manufactured or purchased by that country in a year and the number of citizens living at or below the poverty line.
Now, if the US doesn’t want the value of the dollar to go down, it has to destroy three nuclear warheads and 10,000 assault rifles every year, and house 10,000 people and hike up taxes on Musk and Bezos. China could make the yen a very attractive investment by pledging to destroy their entire nuclear arsenal, driving the value of the yen way up. Russia would go broke even more quickly than they already are as the value of the ruble plummeted.
“What happens when the whole world is disarmed and everyone is housed?” Uh, I dunno, man. Mission accomplished? Like, we should be so lucky to be faced with such problems. And really, in a world without weapons or billionaires, in a world where no one is unhoused, do we even need money anymore?
If we find it still serves our interests to maintain a financial system, tie the value of currency to the elimination of a different societal ill (disinformation, maybe?). Or tie it to scientific discoveries made, or works of art created within each country’s borders.
You can’t back something with a lack of something, that’s just a scheme to reward actions if the actions are performed by others, or nonsensical if they’re performed by you; you know the government’s just going to produce more cheaper and low quality weapons especially for destroying if that’s how the value of the dollar works.
You also need to have two way exchange of the same material - if you give the government 1 dollar they’ll destroy weapons for you, but in that situation you should be able to exchange that one dollar for your thing back, but what do you get? Do they reproduce the weapons? Do you have to destroy your own weapons? What if you don’t have any?
I know that. But if I’m given the chance to change the way it works, why limit myself? Choosing a random commodity is boring and doesn’t solve the underlying problem.
you know the government’s just going to produce more cheaper and low quality weapons especially for destroying if that’s how the value of the dollar works.
Hence the destruction of weapons created before the edict, minus all weapons created or purchased.
what do you get? Do they reproduce the weapons? Do you have to destroy your own weapons? What if you don’t have any?
This is just shifting the problem forward to the endgame of a disarmed, de-billionaire’d world. In that world, currency would represent “some positive benefit to humanity,” so maybe you get a portion of a park named after you, or a tree planted in your name.
I know that there are many, many problems with this idea. I am under no delusions that this would work. But the idea is interesting, and thinking about ways that we could incentivize the governments of the world to act in the interest of the world’s people is probably a useful exercise.
Add comment