Some north-American economist or senator was telling a tale some time ago, that he was driving and had stopped at some place to buy some apples from a guy who was selling them on a side of the street. The economist/senator extracted the following moral from the exchange of money for apples: “there was a fundamental economic agreement between the apple-seller and me, we both agreed how much money the apples were worth”.
Now, that “agreement” is, in my view, an agreement between someone who accepts slavery and someone who pretends to be the master,
a fundamental sham: the one who grew the apples should have calculated the percentage of his wealth spent on producing them, then he should require, in exchange for his apples, the same percentage of the economist’s wealth; this is the correct agreement on exchange, I would call it “the percentage economy”. I’m pretty sure that the apple seller had a mortgage, and the mortgage payment is done in percentages. The loans are in percentages. Let then every exchange be run in percentages: when somebody goes to a store to buy milk, the milk container should have a percentage stamped on it (namely the percentage of the total wealth of the producer spent for producing it), then the buyer has to come with a card that declares his total wealth and pays the same percentage at the cashier.
I wish I could see the face of a globalization advocate after this economy model is implemented.
This exchange model might be an even better solution to “all the evils” than the one I previously proposed, that the total wealth of a person should be, at any moment, limited to a lifetime, say 120 years, of average wages.
The problem is that many of those who do real work, for example, the apple growers, are tricked into thinking that an apple costs just 0.5USD for everybody. We are not equal, right? We are individuals of different worths, right? Hold your thought.
Ok, then, somebody who can afford to buy, say, the government of a random country, should pay proportionally, according to one’s status in the society, according to his wealth rank, that one only deserves the appropriate respect, right?
If the total wealth of the apple grower is 100,000 USD, and he is glad to recover now his expenses for producing an apple with 0.5 USD, then the apple’s price would be 0.0005% out of the seller’s total wealth and out of the buyer’s total wealth.
If your total wealth is 10,000 USD, you should pay 5 cents for the apple, but if you’re such a genius to have a total wealth of 1 million USD, then you should pay proportionally, the same 0.0005% of your wealth, that is 5USD for an apple.
A commercial exchange is only fair if the exchange partners spent the same effort to bring the exchangeable goods on the table, and whatever that effort is, the ultimate fair calculation is in direct relationship to the total wealth of each of them at the moment of closing the transaction. Any other variation seems to be the equivalent of aggression or, at best, thievery.
Or, maybe we should call this the relative economy model, or, better, the humanist economy.
The fake in the current economy resides, I believe, in the concept of “utility”: if you believe this object would be very useful to you, you would pay more. But you are bombarded all the time with well-meaning advertisements ending up in hypnotizing you that this object has an utility for you. So you end up paying proportional to how deep you were brainwashed, which has no link with the producer’s expenses to create that object. You pay the sociologists and the media puppets behind it and their masters. There is an incentive for the producer to lie about the value, and for the buyer to lie about his willing to buy, we end up as liars, beside the exchange.
To eliminate the possibility of this manipulation, an economy has to establish an objective unit for exchange, and that is, obviously, not money, but the effort to produce and the effort to buy. These efforts, in a correct exchange, by definition, should be equal.