For the purpose of this concept:
100% of the principle at zero interest, marks the "overdebt" line.
Hence, what I'm suggesting is that the total repayment be less than the total amount borrowed (with conditions to prevent abuse/fraud).
Most people have a difficult time accepting this as possible, because they don't "think" like a bank. It (usually) never occurs to the borrower that the bank "creates" the money on the borrower's behalf.
Borrowers are also confused as to the main purpose of a home loan deposit - it's main purpose is to increase the bank's reserves and therefore increase the amount the bank can lend, as that way, the bank can always satisfy the ratio requirement as set by the Central Bank.
[Warning: Ramble ahead]
I like the system because it expands the money supply as needed. However, when others learn of how the system "actually" works, they react adversely, they go from one extreme to the other, labelling the entire system as "bad", and demanding it be replaced completely. Others have tried; Kings, Queens, Senators, Presidents... yet it never lasts (the power to issue money always returns to private bankers - its futile to oppose them).
The crux of the issue is always debt.
Money increases, and yet so does debt, but debt increases even more so than the money. While money remains easily visible, debt becomes "out of sight and out of mind". People tend to notice where money goes, while they ignore the influence of debt upon money. It lacks balance.
Too much debt has a strange social-effect on people. Their priorities can become distorted. It affects how they veiw success and how they might percieve others. They tend to treat others differently then they would if over-debt was not a common burden. "Overdebt" falls into the categories of both "nature" and "nurture".
Let's be honest; the true "art of the deal" is what I like to call the "51% factor". As long as you have controlling interest or get a bigger share of the profits, you'll always be "king". Most people see themselves as falling into the "49% or less" category. They don't see themselves or their contribution as equal. They undervalue themselves and this becomes especially true with regards to the money supply.
There is a master/servant mentality in quite a lot of people (especially amongst many wealthy) - this is at the heart of what that fellow talked about so many years ago, that went by the name starting with "J" or "S" or "P" - it'll come back to me later - who argued for everybody to "humble" themselves to an equal "servant" status.
I'd argue that the purpose of work is to secure a continuous supply of resources. I'd argue further that people aim towards an effortless as possible and a free as possible system - a "semi-retirement" phase, if you will. Anything beyond which I would deem "creative" work.
[Ramble: Clear.]
Yes, Central Banks are aware that inflation is neccessary (for growth), which is why they are dropping interest rates to record lows. However, working against this is debt. It would seem Central Banks are aware of this also, which is why the notion of "Helicopter Money" was given serious thought. Yet that would only allieviate the problem for a short time. Central Banks don't tell banks how much debt to tag onto the borrower - the bank decides that on their own.
It would take awareness on a massive scale for Banks to be convinced to accept a lower profit margin. The probability of this occuring depends on how quickly people learn how money is "created" - and while also (this is very important) understanding that <100% (under 100%) debt (with conditions to prevent abuse/fraud) is an acceptable "step 1" solution.
-
Step 2 The Unburdening of Taxes
[Thread locked]
-
Step 3 Multi-Generational Planning (Partial)
The Civic Credit System
What constitutes a living (without money)?
Access to nutritional food, clean water, energy, ammenities and information.
Securing one's safety and the safety of others.
Preventing & treating illness or injury.
Infrastructure for communication, travel and socializing.
The ability to obtain & refine resources for the purpose of "creating".
And the means to dispose of refuse responsibly. (typically the last thing people bother to consider)
"In society we trust."
So, why don't we have the option to only work for what we actually need? "Because somebody else is already doing the work" is not a justifiable answer.
If it is to be predicted that the human-workforce will begin to be made redundant by the robot-workforce, then what was the contigency plan within capitalism?
There have been lofty suggestions of "free money" and/or "a [guaranteed] basic income". Those would seem unfair to the people still working to provide non-workers what they need/want. And how would it ensure all people of what constitutes a living?
I (as always, it would seem {super smug emoji}) have a better idea.
Let's say the robots have won and "took yer j'b!". Or the economy is collapsing - take your pick. {both are likely to happen}
In the civic credit system, you (depending on eligibility) nominate yourself to be trained and allocated a "fair share" of service to various departments that are entrusted to provide what constitutes a living to all those who wish to be beneficeries of the civic credit system.
In the civic credit system, it is your contribution that "pays" for what you "need", in order to have what constitutes a living. The excuse for "a lack of funding" becomes obsolete. Jobs are created and filled as needed on a rotational basis. While temporarily "unemployed" you will still receive the benefits of the services that system provides. With continual improvements to the system, it ought to leave citizens with more leisure time, to do things like, oh, i don't know --make games :D
"Ask not, what your country can do for you. Ask, what you can do, for your [civic credit system]."
That was the simple-sales-pitch version. Care to be bored with more details?
