Bonzer Words!: Economic Fact And Fiction
Australian Ken Sillcock, a man in his nineties, suggests economic reform.
Ken writes for Bonzer! magazine. Please visit www.bonzer.org.au
The economic fact is that, in this country, Australia, every year we produce far more food and other materials than is needed to feed, clothe and house every one of us.
The fiction is that we have to stockpile money for as long as forty years to make all that distribution possible.
The fact is that it goes bad in storage. In my own lifetime, a five cent coin now has as little buying power as a farthing once had, a 20 fold decline in value.
The fiction is that only those who are in paid work deserve a share of our abundance, and that we must all save money to buy our needs when we cannot get work or hold a job.
The fact is that superannuation, investment, insurance, and the like are gambling games which nobody can win unless others lose, so we are also asked to donate to countless appeals to help the losers. Also, we clumsily index incomes to ensure that most will be above the poverty line.
So what should we do? In this country, instead of indexing everything else, let us index our money so that it always has the same buying power, as it almost did until we foolishly abolished the Gold Standard and put no control in its place.
We already use the so-called 'Basket' of goods and services which represents a family's weekly shopping for its ordinary needs. Let us index our money to such a standard so that a stated amount of money will always buy that ‘basket’ each week.
We would need our own national money, which could not be taken overseas, and on which interest could not be charged at varying rates. Those who handle it for us and do our book-keeping should just be paid at a fair rate for doing that work. To avoid confusion, let's move away from 'dollars' to a national decimal currency e.g. 100 rosellas = 1 koala, and 100 koalas = 1 kanga, and so on.
The 'basket', to which the currency could be indexed, would be based on the needs of each individual, of whatever age. It would have to be revised slowly at intervals as new needs arise and old needs no longer apply. This could be done by a statutory body replacing the present Reserve Bank.
Such a system, well designed, would go a long way to ensure that 'no child shall live in poverty', but the 'basket' should be kept a little on the lean side so that those desiring more than just the necessities could earn more buying power by working. In my experience, most people want something to do and would gladly contribute to the wellbeing of all of us.
Our national government could keep such a system in balance, by taking back in taxation a total amount equal to the total allowance paid out to individuals (or families) to meet their basic costs. The tax would be on unduly large 'savings'. Who needs billions in money when he and his family are assured that they will always be provided with their basic needs?
Some questions remain. What about international trade? We can well pay for those things we choose to import by exporting surplus products to a similar value and settling accounts from time to time in a currency which is generally accepted.
For those travelling abroad it would be necessary to arrive at a ‘conversion factor’ which would enable them to take currency acceptable in the countries they are to visit.
Multinationals who wish to set up agencies here could not be allowed to move large profits offshore but could spend them, subject to taxation, in this country.
We could still help those nations which have less. Our farms must always aim to produce more than our needs to cover less productive seasons, so we will usually have a surplus of food, which we could afford even to give away to those in need.
Let us not say, 'It can't be done'. Let us start working on the details which will enable it to be done!
© Ken Sillcock
