If you will, consider the UBI collected in our place, and kept, without our topermission, or knowledge?

In writing about economics, have you found a moral and ethical justification for the current process of money creation?

Or a specific definition of money?

If you will, consider money as an option to purchase human labour? Broadly, as anything brought to market, necessarily got there by application of human labour.

The process of creation similar to kings spending claim notes for the produce and labor he claimed ownership of. That being anything within kingdom.

With Kings deposed, title to our labour was assumed by State. Likely from inertia, disregard, laziness, and the illusion money’s value was guaranteed by gold, when it’s actually backed by our acceptance of it. Currently guaranteed by law.

As an owner of a quantum unit of human labour, one should reasonably expect an equal Share of the global human labor futures market, no?

If you will then further examine a rule of inclusion for international banking:

All sovereign debt, money creation, shall be financed with equal quantum Shares of global fiat credit, that may be claimed by each adult human being on the planet, held in trust with local deposit banks, administered by local fiduciaries and actuaries exclusively for secure sovereign investment at a fixed and sustainable rate as part of an actual local social contract.

I’ve been looking at the function with a Share valuation of £1 million, and a sovereign rate of 1.25%.

Forwarding the claim that including each human being on the planet equally in a globally standard process of money creation, according to the rule of inclusion, will establish a stable, sustainable, regenerative, inclusive, abundant, and ethical, global economic system, with mathematical certainty.

I realize it looks absurd, but I’ve been forwarding the notion over a decade, without dispute, or argument against adopting the rule.

“This is my exchange with Malcolm Torry” by stephenstillwell https://link.medium.com/9GDPYdB016

He was kind enough to scan a draft I prepared of a feasibility study based on his book. He noted the missing bits, and did not address the inequity in money creation, at all.

Karl Widerquist, the Georgetown Economics professor, and UBI advocate wrote that the question: “Can you provide a moral and ethical justification for the current process of money creation?” was incoherent.

The Economic science will not provide a moral and ethical justification for the current process of money creation, accept the functional definition of money as option to purchase human labour, or provide an alternative.

Perhaps you can understand my confusion.

I do hope you will consider this moral and ethical imperative, and thanks for your kind indulgence,

Stephen