THE NATIONAL DEBT (our debt to ourselves) is not something we can pay-off: We have it because we bought the goods and services: And if we refuse these, we put our neighbors out of work, and pay their welfare: We don't get a product from that, and they can't help pay-off the debt: And when they find new work, we have to find new money to pay for their new goods and services, and the debt is restored; If we pay-off the creditors, they re-invest it, and the debt comes right back: Except then we're asset-poor, and out of the interest-earning loop - in this the IRS' Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt, Fund, is a public swindle raking $1.5 million per year [ca. 1992] - the investors may reinvest right where we pulled our (savings and stocks), and worse, investors may charge higher interest rates because we're no longer competing: And worse yet, investors may charge higher interest rates on riskier ventures because we're no longer watching-over either, the investor, or, the investments.
THE DEFICIT likewise, is the yearly addition to the total debt.
BUT ECONOMICALLY, what we can do, is, demand and decide on better productivity in return for our national investment-debt-structure. We must curtail the patent-right duration from 17 years (recently re-legislated 20 years) to, 6 years - extensible to 7 years for individuals having not more than two patents in their name - we should no longer give up patent-rights to our children's generation, but as soon as after establishing our profit: Anciently it is Scriptural that a viable slave goes free in the seventh year, and patented products are as slaves earning us a profit, not as children sharing our money. Patents should never be in the name of more than one individual person; and if the individual sells the patent-right for a price, it should be available to everyone at that price: As we have an open market on hardware, as fast as it can be produced, software, as fast as it can be reproduced, so it should be on patent-franchise-ware: An individual can never give up all rights to a patent, any more than become, not, the inventor of the invention, save for fraud. Our nation no longer hands-out square half-miles for homesteading, because we're too tightly populated: Likewise we should curtail patent-right durations: We're simply no longer a wide-open land, horse-and-buggy populace of three and a half million: We're a burgeoning land of instantaneous electronic marketing transactions, mechanized mass production, freeway, railway, and skyway freight distribution and delivery, very-well educated populace of two hundred and fifty million - a hundred times greater, a hundred times faster, a hundred times smarter - and it is not unlikely that there are now companies whose sole purpose is generating patents, seeking not to stifle our economy, but to find some grand object, yet lacking the impetus to produce all they invent - let us be not dreaming, but doing.
THE INTERNATIONAL DEBT: We should apply a tariff on all money going out to countries that do not have an equivalent investment-debt-structure, or do not engage largely in international open trade, or do not have adequate tariffs likewise. And this tariff is only to admit our public responsibility for maintaining this, our investment-debt-structure; and this tariff shall always be less than an equalizer, because we want business and commerce to be the effectual equalizers: the tariff is only to forestall drastic leaks and run-off.
INVESTMENT can't be halted, in any case (if investors don't invest, they just buy more goods, and sell the goods back to us at a higher price) whether it results in interest for payment, (or worse) welfare and higher employment insurance premiums, or rental excesses, our investment-debt-structure is how our money works: it's how it has always worked. But we should legally curtail interest charges greater than treble what the individual investor/saver can get for short-term interest, as, greater than treble (triply large) has the legal precedence of a cruel and excessive punishment. (Currently ca. 1992, savings is at 4% (3% ca. 1993), charge cards should be limited to 12% (9% ca. 1993) plus a card handling charge of 1.5%).
COST OF MONEY INCREASE: (COMI) is not a delayed-action COLA, cost-of-living-adjustment. Basically, money goes into our economy at interest; it is loaned at interest, it's spent, sub-divided into wages, saved, and invested again: this cycles around until everyone is employed (to the best we can find fit); and at some depth of recycling the investment chain slows: the economy labor-saturates or precipitates risk, investment stagnates, and everyone is or would like to be happy right there. But, the money is still in excess of what is needed to fill all pockets with spending cash or checking capital - if it were less, our government would be in arrears for withholding adequate support for a free economy, a free market, a free people. So the excess money sits somewhere, in drawers, in safes: government regulations require banks to have a certain minimum balance of cash-on-hand for daily transactions: this helps stabilize the money system once investment saturates - but government should also require a maximum to prevent local surpluses while elsewhere deficits (short-falls of cash) before full employment is reached: demand-cross-investment by (government regulation of) banks with surplus, into banks in need of cash, amounts to nationalizing the banking system, though it does save us from higher inflation from new, direct government infusions of capital. (We have some notion of the depth of investment by comparing M4 to M1: about 5 deep currently ca. 1992).
GIVEN, if we can achieve it, a stable (or stably growing) money, the net effect of investment interest (or dividend) compounding is, beyond simple income (as investors are people who buy goods for themselves, too), the cumulative increase of our total money supply: but remember that money is flow - not the equal of the goods themselves - the sales, rentals, etc., hence the increase of money supply means some areas of our economy, or our lands, have excess money, with which they will proceed to buy goods into their domains. Since we're normalizing our view to a stable (or stably growing) economy, we see this buying spree send massive quantities of goods across and away from needs, but to no end-use: it upsets productivity as well as consumption (the end-use of goods). Now, to some extent our nation is yet growing - the last figures ca. 1992, show 9% population increase per decade, which requires about 0.9% more money per year, just so these new people can be part of our rapid-paced national world market - but the interest-after-cost-and-wages is still greater, and significantly so. This excess really belongs to the people - it's our nation: it's our economy - and there's really one right way to access it, to lay hold of it: raise wages (and prices subsequently): government contracts should require it: it is, in its simplicity, the increase in the cost of money, COMI: it's not living-increase, although COLA is a secondary effect when COMI (money) is ignored. For example, ca. 1971-74, there was by Presidential decree a wage and price freeze: this only ignored COMI, stifling the economy and letting the national debt compound (interest) free from the normal counter advantage of the citizenry to repay against the effect of compounding (interest) by back-compounding wages and prices: by not also freezing debts and finance charges, he put the "cart" of debt ahead of the "horse" of payment, and it has since 1974, ballooned by a factor of 8; and it predicated a savings-and-loan scandal burning to a rage a decade later. The reason back two decades ago was presumably not a desire to destroy the economy operating against money-illiteracy, but to save the savers back-then: mostly elderly resting on savings as their only income, when welfare was despised by the pious, the wealthy, and the elite (none of whom seem to understand in measure save in rage the ramifications of their self-righteousnesses). But alas, even then there was an evil lurking to destroy the elderly savers, for even in a frozen economy (wages and prices frozen), interests and dividends compound freely - even more-so because they are not working against increasing prices - and quickly leads to money surplus imbalances of two kinds: the goods-buy-up (in hopes of later, better times and prices: citizens beware), which we've already discussed, and the less famous, vapor-money-lock, wherein money, comprised of both cash and checking, only gains interest in the checking - nobody mints or prints the money increase due to investment interest: it's just on the books (like the smell of money) - but our government must (and does) balance the two, cash and checking monies, so that local areas do not become cash-poor while they may be checking-balance-rich: again, M4 to M1 (or M0 if it exists) indicates how much vapor-money exists, relative to actual cash. (Also, in hard times cash is sometimes demanded when checks are distrusted - believe it or not, some real business people call checks, rubber). Whence the government infuses additional real cash, and thence the savers slip behind: As the total money supply increases, by both (vapor) checking and real cash (infusion), the average saver (not the super investors, but the elderly) gain only by the checking side: no cash infusions (until welfare becomes acceptable), and so on the average, the saver loses: either the goods disappear from the market - remember those silly toilet-paper shortages - or eventually the freeze thaws, prices hike, and the elderly totter at the brink of their economic pit. Meanwhile with or without the freeze, the debt grows unconstrained by a proper government regulated COMI tabulation (and balanced computation): the government, ours, is responsible, not for decreeing freezes, but for declaring COMI, for this month or this year, every year; and for requiring it on every government contract. And the elderly savers are responsible if not entirely for wise investments (as only wisdom properly rates an investment-income), then in humility for accepting welfare, general welfare: it may be tax-breaks on interest income for some, rather than cash infusions or foodstamps for others, but it's there for all.
LET's suggest that, today, this month, this year, this free people undo the effect of freezes and sluggish years, and raise all wages 1% per month for the next six months - by then the Treasury will be able to estimate for us the useful COMI per month every year, and take up the slack against the growing deficit. Let's break-through our self-imposed iron-Presidency-curtain and grapple with this 'beast' of inflation: this time by its 'serpentine-tail' of interest. And we shall be an example not only to ourselves, but to all nations who have yet further to go to bring themselves up to a free economy and a proper investment-debt-structure. And grandmothers and grandfathers, please, accept welfare upon your savings! If the elderly refuse welfare, then welfare shall subsidize those already working diligently in their prospering businesses, to prevent them from failing - this should not be so, dear people: be humble yourselves.
THE SIMPLEST WELFARE is to use the money we all share, to spend it for ourselves, and to accept it in kind in return: Specific welfare is a portion of its kind, its cost-of-money-increase, of which every individual of the people, is deserving, in all cases.
Until the time comes in the not too future, when our money goes nationally electronic on computer-net, and interest altogether disappears in favor of preference-deference-quotient P'D'Q' banking, and technology rises to space crusades, ..., thank you.