What is "fair"? Let's start with no private entity should benefit from the issuance and transfer of monies beyond reasonable service charges. Do that and at least we move away from a Plantation Economy (you and I pay for the priv. of economic activity to the issuer of money in form of taxes and interest) to an egalitarian economic foundation. Given the lack of this egalitarian economic foundation, any attempts to address the systemic distortions of the current monetary regime is destined to be "unworkable".
I bet the cost of issuing money costs me less than I spend individually on Booze, cigarets, rent, food, clothing, baby toys, cable TV, internet, or diapers in the next year. Quantify it for me or it doesn't exist (ie. you watched a documentary of people that were full of gas, but have no other idea of what you are talking about). Are you talking about the FED? I really can't tell, you said some things while saying nothing, compare it to another system? Tell us how it should run. I think trying to allocate capital to endeavors where it will garner the greatest return is a pretty good way to expand the money supply, seems egalitarian to me, not that egalitarianism is the goal. I really think that we need to support people with social services in a non egalitarian way via taxes, but that is a different subject.
"13. Advances to Individuals, Partnerships, and Corporations on Obligations of United States
Subject to such limitations, restrictions and regulations as the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may prescribe, any Federal reserve bank may make advances to any individual, partnership or corporation on the promissory notes of such individual, partnership or corporation secured by direct obligations of the United States or by any obligation which is a direct obligation of, or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by, any agency of the United States. Such advances shall be made for periods not exceeding 90 days and shall bear interest at rates fixed from time to time by the Federal reserve bank, subject to the review and determination of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System." So grep for "obligation" and let's nail what precisely an "obligation of the United States" means. It seems it is something valuable and here we find out it involves a "principle and interest". Next, we will find out the ways in which these "obligations of the United States" materialize and there we encounter the word "liability" of the said lenders, the creators of money. "Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank." So how much does it cost you, if you are an American and subject to the reach of the IRS, when these "obligations" materialize at the direction of the board of Federal Reserve? "Principal and interest" obligations of the United States for which reason you are taxed on any use of the said 'notes' -- whether you earn it, spend it, invest it, ... -- so that Uncle Sam gets to pay back the "principle and interest" to the "share holders" of the Federal Reserve Bank. This is has to be the sweetest scam ever in recorded human history (unless you want to include what Joseph did to the poor Egyptians ;). Genesis 47:13 onward. It is short and to the point. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0147.htm#13 It worked then, it works now. (p.s. The "famines" were the engineered crashes of the 19th and early 20th century America.) Then Joseph said unto the people: 'Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh. Lo, here is [Federal Reserve Notes] for you, and ye shall [partake of economic activity in] the land: http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fract.htm [edit: added link]
Now that is lulz for you. (Get it, cgod?)
It's not that I don't think this type of society would be a good one to live in if it could be pulled off, but I don't see northern Europe as a realistic example. As much as I admire them, these are sparsely populated, somewhat xenophobic societies. IMO, the Selfish Gene idea was a mistake. Evolution doesn't choose to preserve any component of an organism, not the genes, not even the organism itself. Gene's evolve and are lost whereby the organism carries on, and organisms are lost whereby the gene carries on. It is an arbitrary perspective, nothing more. There is no preservation, only change. Similarly, a CEO can be seen as valuable or doing nothing useful at all, depending on different valid perspectives. There is no greater social victory in becoming a CEO. It can be a personal one, but someone will inevitably be the CEO. IMO, I think we are talking about a society that feels better to live in. To that end, I think we should start with the obvious broken parts, and work from there. We need to find where people are killing each other, and find solutions that work for them. Solutions they own. Find people that are starving, and find solutions that work for them. Solutions they own. Each solution should be implemented in the current framework, which will lead to gradual changes of the framework. Practical problem-solving. We should crowd-source this problem solving as much as possible. Make it easy for people to contribute. We need to grow a positive-acting society from a sapling. We can't determine the formula for success. It's not possible. But people rise to the occasion when they are given the means. It's like an altruistic pressure that can be released.
To be honest, with this article I felt half like he was making interesting points and half like he was saying nothing new. Providing people their basic needs is probably the only real point of contention people would have with what he says - the article doesn't really get very specific. I suppose I should read the book at some point. I just remembered hearing about bread riots in France. How shopkeepers were targeted - because they were making a profit off of people's hunger, which was morally outrageous at a fundamental level. As if it was just wrong to charge high prices for such a basic item as bread that so many depend on.