A Fediverse community to ask slrpnk.net open-ended, thought provoking questions.
We respect the basic rules of the SLRPNK server:
be constructive
there is no need of another internet space full of competition, negativity, rage etc.;
no bigotry
including racism, sexism, ableism, transphobia, homophobia or xenophobia;
be empathic
empathy is more rebellious than a middle finger;
no porn and no gore
let’s keep this place easy to manage;
no ads / spamming / flooding
we don’t want to buy/consume your commodified ideas;
occasional self-promotion
by active members is fine.
We need altcoins as long as we interact economically over the net, with people we do not know (or simply with people outside our local communities). If we try to imagine what qualities a "solarpunk coin" should have, what are your thoughts? Do we know any existing coin, checking all boxes? This question is more about political economy of Solarpunk, then its technology.
You post starts good, but then gets a few things wrong in the end 😅
For example the leverage banks are allowed to have is more like 1:10, meaning they can increase the money supply tenfold or so. It also doesn't have to be backed by other customer's money at all.
Interests on bank loans are also only a small part of why capitalism requires constant growth. In fact the recent years of near or partially even below zero interest rates proove that this basically a neglectable part.
In general, increasing money supply isn't nearly as big of a problem as some people say, as ultimately money is just a means of exchange with no inherent value of its own, so it it good to be able to adjust the supply easily to account for the real world demand. If you want to read more about that the so called Modern Monetary Theory is a good start.
Personally, I would advocate for the exact opposite: (community) banking without government involvement.
While it is true that taxation gives government issued fiat currencies its primary trust, this is ultimately a coercive methode backed by the threat of violence and imprisionment, which is not something that I can support. It is also only one of many ways to structure a currency and have it being trusted by its users, so I think we will be able to figure out something better 😊
Banks nearly never actually go for the 1:10 limit. The bank usually gives the loan, then the bank tries to find the money for the reserve requirment. However the limit is how risky the loan is and not the reserve requirement. Customer deposits are one of the ways to meet those reserve requirements.
I never claimed that increasing money supply was a problem, but that having private banks control most of the money supply is. Private banks have a tendency to be less then ethical organizations, which tends to cause massive economic crisis, once their unethical behaviour starts causing problems again. Happens way too often.
How do you fund public services, without collecting money from people?
Customer deposits are afaik partially excluded from newer reserve requirements as a result of the 2008 banking crisis. At least my coop bank had to try really hard to convert customer deposits into what are nominally member shares to fulfill these new reserve requirements. And yes, the loan risk is the primary concern, but banks very commonly leverage to the maximum they are allowed.
As for "private" banks... that is a not very precise term and includes coop and farmers' banks for example, which offer a valuable service to their members. I agree though that many commercial banks are a net negative to society.
The more common way how public works are funded is by the government taking a loan from the central bank, which is essentially printing new money. Taxes play a role in funding ongoing services like payment of state employees and social security, but that highly depends of the specific country. In general taxes are mostly collected to enforce participation in the official governmemt issued fiat currency economy (what is measured in GDP) and are not that relevant to the function of the state itself. Many governments in 3rd world countries hardly collect any taxes from regular citizes at all.
If governments were not taxing people, people would not use the currency. So the government owned central bank can print as much money as it wants, it is not going to fund public services. Which shows fairly well when you compare tax revenue with government spending. Countries usually run a deficit of 2-5%points, but it is pretty close.
However you suggest to not have a central bank at all and you are also against taxes and any other form of coersion to fund public services. So I have to ask: How? There are some charities doing good work, but in terms of money it comes not even close to what is needed to fund infrastructure, schools, public welfare and so forth. The only thing able to do it, is to have large parts of the countries economy be state controlled and the profits from that are used to fund the government. If anything that is even worse, then having just taxes.
As for 3rd world countries, they have low taxes, but they also have low government spending. Also they are 3rd world countries, which ususally refers to countries, which are not doing too well.
Yes, that is more or less how the current system works, although there are structural incentives to hide government loans in various constructs and thus the 2-5% figure is understating the real extend. But even so, government debt at 100%+ of GDP tells a story about how taxes are not very vital for funding government actions.
I think there needs to be a bank that issues a debt voucher (more or less what money is) for a specific purpose, but that doesn't have to be a monopolistic and state violence enforced single currency.
The 3rd world country example was just to point out that models of government exist that mostly source their income from resource extraction and other means that do not involve taxation.