[damond]

To the fellow who asked "does your magical world have money", I would say yes.

Currently even stable currencies inflate. That means that the energy you put into making that 20 bucks is slowly and steadily being sucked out. The only way to prevent that is to give your money back to the bank (invest). Pretty neat trick they played on all of us. Take the land. Indebted for life. And now, everything we make will be worth nothing, eventually, unless we give it back to them to play with. We are just pawns, the majority, and most people know that instinctively; which is really my point. It's time we stopped listening to capitalist dogma and come up with a plan that suits all of us, soon.

We could have an economy that looks pretty much the same as it does now. People could start and run small businesses and employ themselves as the the chief at whatever would be a reasonable salary for that position. Same for their employees, market rate. A CEO could make say, $300,000 a year for running a large company. It's a lot of responsibility, really. The only real difference would be the complete erasure of any job involving the shuffling of funds, owning of land or skimming profits. In basic terms, if you aren't doing anything, you get no extra money. Jobs are where money comes from. Holding hoards of money or land and lending it to people is not a job, it's a racket; perhaps a necessary evil at times, but if so, let the public profit, not the fraction of one percent that learned exploitation and control centuries ago.

You have to lop the top off the economy, and let everything below the finance level function as normal. People doing things and getting paid. All financial concerns would be public and transparent, overseen not by a small group, but by hundreds of rotating public auditors constantly checking for corruption.

Remember that in my "magic world" all necessities (which were here on the earth before they were privatized, lest i remind you) are granted for free, so wages would be only for extra things that you wanted, like cell phones, computers, etc.

You wouldn't need to work. Money would be less important, but not unattainable. You could still have the same life you have today, but without the worry and fear that is induced by our current system. Public mental health is an important component of a healthy society that seems to be overlooked. In fact, that state of fear and anxiety is promoted and exploited to keep us all compliant. My advice to anyone would be to shake it off, use some courage and stand up to the minority that pours billions into maintaining our common neurosis. We have not lived yet.

[Dr House]

By the way, I didn't ask how to make the World economy better. If we wanted to make the World economy better (on average at least) the easiest way by far would be to carpet-bomb Africa and rural India.

[Michaeluj]

Currently even stable currencies inflate.

I'm suprised that this sentence did not create a vortex to destroy the paradox, lol.

But yes, fractal reserve banking does do this naturally, but it should be a simple matter to decrease its power and impact.

Holding hoards of money and lending it to people is not a job, it's a racket; perhaps a necessary evil at times, but if so, let the public profit, not the fraction of one percent that learned exploitation and control centuries ago.

And how else will funds be collected for distribution? Oh right, most money will be useless in your world. I hope you at least have a strong hope in computer beings having to do ALL the economic thinking, because that's the only argument that would work, since there's no evidence at all for both sides.

You have to lop the top off the economy, and let everything below the finance level function as normal. All financial concerns would be public and transparent, overseen not by a small group, but by hundreds of rotating auditors constantly checking for corruption.

People are lazy, will gladly work for more productive reasons, and generally trust someone with good history. Plus, the amount usually 'stolen' from the workers is just a minor amount, and the rest is more than enough for everyone but the very low classes to live happily.

Remember that in my "magic world" all necessities (which were here on the earth before they were privatized, lest i remind you) are provided for free, so wages would be only for extra things that you wanted, like cell phones, computers etc.
You wouldn't need to work. Money would be less important, but not unattainable.

So basically, the cheapest things are free? Oh blah.

[damond]

The cheapest things are free? puhlease!

The biggest expense in the average persons life is, by far, the land that they live on. One third of income is considered average I think.
Just think about that: One third of everything that people do in this world goes to the "land maintenance" ie: some rich guys pocket.

That land belongs to us..the people. Do you like paying for your rent/mortgate. No. Nobody does. I agree that it costs something in terms of effort to improve the land to make it suitable for habitation, you know, building a house, buying a tent, whatever. But last I checked, your property assessment will reveal to you the true cost of your house relative to the land. Peanuts, really. You're paying for the land. The land should exist for our non-exclusive use, in fact it already does, but you somehow trusted someone to tell you that it doesn't. Stop paying for something you already own.

Our current model rewards the greedy, who then tell us repeatedly that that's ok. Stop listening to them. You are getting ripped off.

Hitler was quoted as saying "people will believe anything you tell them if you repeat it sufficiently"

We are bombarded constantly with the perceived message that there are two sides to the story. There isn't really. There is a small group controlling the message. And then there is the large group struggling to be heard. The small group needs the big group. The big group does not need the small group.
If you are one of the ones trying to side with the "winning team", this amounts to your ego costing you a lifetime of hard labour. Wake up.


ps. And to buddy that mentioned "carpet bombing india"...
A good demonstration of how the perception of scarcity can make one think.
You would slaughter millions rather than lose your $12/hour job at the call center.
That shows some real noble and sustainable vision, my friend. Why don't we just make a car that runs on dead babies.
Typical though.

[Michaeluj]

Just think about that: One third of everything that people do in this world goes to the "land maintenance" ie: some rich guys pocket.

That's not land: that's resources used to maintain it and improve it. We need for it to be paid because we cannot have resources wasted for making lawns green if doing that is free. Capital(ie, savings) accumulation makes growth, and if many things are free, then resources would be spent much higher on those areas, reducing things to improve growth and efficiency.

Do you like paying for your rent/mortgate.

Do you like investing hundreds of thousands to build a hotel? Don't you think that the people who risk their funds to build habitation deserve compensation?

[damond]

First off, I think there should be no investment property whatsoever ie:hotels.
An organized use of land could permit some empty dwellings in each area that people could stay in for free when they go on vacation or visit relatives.

You could hire someone to build your house and pay them for it, but you would never own the land, just the house, which, as long as it was sitting on the land, would only be yours to will, not sell, to a family member. If you die and have no family, it returns to the public.

People would inevitably build houses and keep their lawns green simply because they want to live in comforting surroundings.
Your house would be a lifetime investment in lifestyle which you could pass on, just never sell.

The point is: Most of what we need to survive was free to begin with, and greed has pushed the majority of us to a place near slavery.
We need to go back. Now that we have it all, and we know it all, we need to go back.
So that all the excessive glory of our excellent and wonderful civilization is not wasted on the meaningless accumulation of wealth, but used and spent, like a circle, on all the people who created that wealth in the first place.

There is enough for everyone, believe me, we just have to take it back.

[Michaeluj]

First off, I think there should be no investment property whatsoever ie:hotels.
An organized use of land could permit some empty dwellings in each area that people could stay in for free when they go on vacation or visit relatives.

You can take the entire production empire and give a lot of it's products for free, but you will not be able to increase its productive capacity in the future because of that: you can put resources either into building or consumption, and if a lot of things are free, then there will be lots of consumption, reducing the amount that can be made in the future.
You think it's dandy for someone whose ancestors built hotels to relenquish all ownership of them, but you fail to understand 2 things: profits and quality:
The purpose of profits is to dictate how useful an enterprise is: if people are willing to buy a lot of something, then it would be safer to invest in similar areas and to maintain those profitable buisnesses. If something becomes unprofitable, then it's efficient to downgrade spending or change it to something else. If there's no monetary incentive, then people will have no idea how much should spend on expensive projects or how much effort should be added into furnishing them. And consumption of those enterprises is based on how much people are willing to spend-ie, effectively the amount of that they produced which they and only they are willing to spend. The Hilton Hotels are among the most extravegant in the world simply because the productive people, after furnishing what others want most succesfully and largely, chose to satisfy their needs in extra-comfy surroundings. Without the profits, spending on the building of fancy hotels would become a pointless venture, and the odds of crappy hotels appearing will increase. After all, it's no-one's responsibility to manage a nice hotel even though people demand it, so there would only be a bearaucratic system installed that functions as the slow moving democracy establishes improvements which they themselves do not know if it's worthwhile or not.

Now, if you say that there'll still be profits, but they will be taken after most of them are spent on improving the profitable buisness and cause no harm, then think about this: only the profitable buisness would have improvements. There would be nothing but Hilton hotels because the owners have so little to spend on new productive enterprizes because they're all either going to the old productive ones or to the consuming people. This is very likely to happen because most profits are slow to generate the amounts needed to casually make big enough investments.

You could hire someone to build your house and pay them for it, but you would never own the land, just the house, which, as long as it was sitting on the land, would only be yours to will, not sell, to a family member. If you die and have no family, it returns to the public.

Uh...yes, you do own and pay for the house and have the permission to manipulate the land underneath it...so why are you complaining? Are you bitching about land taxes or something?

Also, even if you don't have a family, you should at least state who the house goes to in a will.

People would inevitably build houses and keep their lawns green simply because they want to live in comforting surroundings.
Your house would be a lifetime investment in lifestyle which you could pass on, just never sell.

Not the point. I was talking about increased consumption leading to less for everyone in the future.

The point is: Most of what we need to survive was free to begin with, and greed has pushed the majority of us to a place near slavery.

It's only free if it takes no labor to create it.

So that all the excessive glory of our excellent and wonderful civilization is not wasted on the meaningless accumulation of wealth, but used and spent, like a circle, on all the people who created that wealth in the first place.

Capitalists don't have wealth: they have money and the means of making wealth. Sure, they have lots of nice things, like mansions and butlers, but they are piecemeal compared to the rest of the wealth that is almost entirely aquired by the workers. And those bills, once highly accumulated, are much more likely to be spent on production, because production is risky.

[Figlio di Moros]

- Nationalize the monetary system, putting the Federal Reserve under the control of the Treasury, and issuing new money debt-free on infrastructure, including education and healthcare.

- Tax and redistribute rent from land values.

- Eliminate income tax(conditional on the previous point).

- Replace CAFE standards for cars with a system of feebates to accelerate fuel standards while also making fuel-efficient cars more affordable to the average American.

- Reform capital gains taxes so that they start out high(around 50%) and drop down to zero over a period of about 5 years, so as to encourage long-term investment over short-term speculation.

- Regulate Wall Street and make any form of "funny money" like derivatives illegal. Increase the funding and support for the SEC.

Very good ideas, but I'd rather nationalize the financial sector and not have to worry about indivuals finding ways to stick money in derivatives and what-else have you. Ban consumption loans, forced saving accounts, supplement the LVT with Consumption taxes for any extra spending we might require, privatize as many services as possible, and implement a sound industrial policy. However, don't want to have to much discussion about America in this thread.

[damond]

Without the profits, spending on the building of fancy hotels would become a pointless venture, and the odds of crappy hotels appearing will increase.

Look, there's no reason why a publicly owned company can't build a nice hotel to stay in for free or cheap. Right now we have in the world co-op housing as well as many other government subsidized housing schemes where the land belonged to the government in the first place and they were gracious enough to provide it essentially for free to those in need. Those places don't languish in a shabby state. People take care of them, because it's their home, that's what people do. People are motivated to activity by things other than money. However, money currently is the primary thing that will motivate people to exploit one another. Housing is essential, and as long as there are people without homes, we shouldn't spend a dime on fancy hotels, which, yes, would become pointless. Essentially, excessively luxurious items like 3000 square foot hotel suites furbished in marble and gold would become a thing of the past. Maybe those places could exist in theory for those that had worked very hard at saving their extra money, but they would be so expensive and meaningless that nobody would use them. Those items purely represent status and careless expenditure, which would have no context anymore. Nobody would care, including whatever girl your trying to impress by bringing her there. Everyone would have an equal chance at survival, so status symbols would lose their implied meaning, ie: I'm better at surviving than the others.

[Michaeluj]

And yet you continue to avoid the basic issue: you will dramatically increase production in goods, which will lead to less on production machines, and lead to a world where everyone is begging for something that is no longer available.

government subsidized housing schemes where the land belonged to the government in the first place and they were gracious enough to provide it essentially for free to those in need.

First of all, the government did not provide it for free: it just absorbs the costs of building things on it from the entire population, instead of whoever individual is interested in buying the same thing.
Second, government is nothing but an attempt at being a crowd pleaser, so whoever is in charge of building houses will go to very large lengths to make the biggest impact with them, no matter the costs. After a beaurcratic system of decision, it is way more likely that more resources will go to housing than necessary. Frankly, this method of subsidization pretty much caused the Housing Bubble, although easy money did contribute a lot.

Those places don't languish in a shabby state. People take care of them, because it's their home, that's what people do.

What about poor people who couldn't afford the house? Or will those people get decorations for free? If it's the latter, you must actually focus on my arguments for economic calculation.

Essentially, excessively luxurious items like 3000 square foot hotel suites furbished in marble and gold would become a thing of the past. Maybe those places could exist in theory for those that had worked very hard at saving their extra money, but they would be so expensive and meaningless that nobody would use them. Those items purely represent status and careless expenditure, which would have no context anymore. Nobody would care, including whatever girl your trying to impress by bringing her there.

And yet you did nothing to explain why buisnessness will not improve their own profitable enterprizes into obscene lengths because of future stolen profits. And plus, if everyone gets all the profits and become 'amazingly rich'(paraphrase), then what's stopping them from enjoying the pleasures of a gorgeous living quarters, fine food, very good service, etc? If anything, they will increase in popularity, wasting resources.

[damond]

And yet you did nothing to explain why buisnessness will not improve their own profitable enterprizes into obscene lengths because of future stolen profits. And plus, if everyone gets all the profits and become 'amazingly rich'(paraphrase), then what's stopping them from enjoying the pleasures of a gorgeous living quarters, fine food, very good service, etc? If anything, they will increase in popularity, wasting resources.

I see what you're getting at: Your presumption is that human nature is predisposed to want as much as possible, and if you put the people in charge, they will just take all this free stuff until their lives are excessive and there is nothing left to consume. Living in our society, I can see why you would think that.

You discredit the rule of law, however. Common interest plans could be put in place to keep everything sustainable. Why not have luxury for all, though. As long as we can do it in a way that doesn't screw us in the future. Sustainability is key. Current model: unsustainable. We will all be living in a toxic smoke filled, bombed out shell of a world if we just let capitalism run its course.

Frankly, this method of subsidization pretty much caused the Housing Bubble, although easy money did contribute a lot.

And what the f*** is this? How did government subsidies cause the housing bubble?
Everyone knows that Bush orchestrated that to garner financial and ideological support for his war. He just needed everyone to be high on credit, spending like crazy, giving him all that tax money, so he could pass those billions on to his friends with defense contracts and otherwise squander it on his personal conquests. Meanwhile, people kind of liked the illusion and thought, yes, we should go around bullying other nations because, yes, we are the richest and obviously that means we are the best. Why wouldn't they want to be like us, I mean heck, I just made $400,000 in 2 years on my house, I rule. Funny, though, because now everyone is bankrupt and hates Bush. Now you have many people under mountains of negative equity that will be paying forever to bail out the very people that orchestrated the collapse in the first place. How can you not think you are getting screwed by all of this? Bush and the Fed got together and just f***ed everyone royaly for generations to come, and now you sit in their defence. Somebody has really done a good job of pulling the wool over your eyes.

[Michaeluj]

Allow me to explain more clearly: if something costs 50 bucks, will you buy it? Let's say 50-50.
If it's free, would you?: YES. Why not?

This drastically increases the odds of wasted resources.

It is a fact that richer people have a greater propensity to save and invest, which means more large-scale projects designed to fufill the desires of people and cheaper money for borrowing and investment. You are basically saying, "kill off the rich", which definietly leads to less stuff available. Are you saying that you want to live in a world with people not operating to their full abilities, satisfying the most people? We won't end up with nothing: just a disapointing amount of remains.

Common interest plans could be put in place to keep everything sustainable. Why not have luxury for all, though. As long as we can do it in a way that doesn't screw us in the future. Sustainability is key. Current model: unsustainable. We will all be living in a toxic smoke filled, bombed out shell of a world if we just let capitalism run its course.

And thus your arguments go from wealth distribution to outright government socialism. There are arguments for me to use on this, but you can just wave them aside by saying, "teh com-pu-tors will do all hour thinKing and make calkuulations." But frankly, it would be frightening to live in a world dominated by souless computers, especially since they can always be at risk to assaults. But then again, government agents would want to make themselves look good, so they would want to disobey the computers and spends lots on consumption during the few measly years that they work in.

And please, explain, in plenty of detail, about how capitalism is destroying the earth. Give me a point by point presentation.

How did government subsidies cause the housing bubble?
Everyone knows that Bush orchestrated that to garner financial and ideological support for his war. He just needed everyone to be high on credit, spending like crazy, giving him all that tax money

Yes, the Federal Reserve is mostly responsible, I admit, but it was the housing subsidies which made houses, the most expensive things for the public to buy, an uncommon and attractive investment. With so many people, who were not eligeble before the subsidies, getting houses, which were not prepared to accept their market, housing prices instantly jumped, leading to a bubble which continued to expand when people caught site of it. If it wasn't housing, it probably would've been something else or a little bit of everything.

[Rappel]

Repeal our current labor market laws and adopt a Danish [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexicurity"]flexicurity[/url] system.

+1

That would be the first thing to do.

[Dr House]

I would say Flexicurity is a step up from Swedish labor laws, but it's too much of a burden to the taxpayer for my liking, and causes dissavings like any other form of social security. I'd prefer a mandatory unemployment savings account.

[Spike Spiegel]

Here is my idea how to improve Croatian economy.

First I would introduce a flat tax but I would keep it at a low rate while I would increase VAT,
which is already quite high at 22%. This would be done as a measure against high trade deficit.
Flat tax wouldn't be applied on the first 50% of an average pay (or something like that)
so that the burden wouldn't fall on the poorest.
It would reduce the cost of labor making our products cheaper while it would tax both home
and imported products taxes at the same rate + budget would get more money from tourism.

Next I would introduce second VAT that would be applied on only most necessary products instead of main VAT. It would be around 2-3% and it
would be applied on products like bread, milk, water etc.
I would remove VAT from all forms of education. All educational institution that are not schools or colleges are still inside VAT system.
This would make various driving schools, language academies, computer academies cheaper and more affordable.
I would even subsides part of school fees for unemployed and try to create more versatile work force.

Create job oriented school system instead of this general Yugoslavian market oriented system we have now.

Cut down corporate tax and introduce economic free zones in war torn areas.

Make firing and hiring employees much easier then it is now. Cut down government administration and paperwork necessary for starting a new business.

Stop subsidizing shipyards and railway systems within 2-3 years. There are 4 major shipyards in Croatia and I suppose at least two would
be closed and thus create more unemployment.
As a result part of our steel industry would probably also close but I feel this is something we will have to do sooner or later.

Privatize as much of health care as possible. Keep only the most serious, fatal and chronic diseases inside national health system and
subside health care for those under poverty line.

I would privatize all companies that are still under government control. Those that have monopolies I wound first split apart and then sell them.
From the money I would gain by selling these companies I would start a fund for new entrepreneurs and
try to create as much good new businesses as possible, especially export oriented businesses.

I would stop most of major infrastructural projects cause I feel they are being build just to gain popular support for ruling parties and they don't have any real use.
I would also cut all financial support for national television, sport teams and all religious organizations.

Insure better financial support for USKOK (Biro for suppression of corruption and organized crime) and insure tougher punishment for all criminals in attempt to reduce corruption and crime in general.

Remove smoking bans in public areas and bars and remove Sunday shopping ban that our idiotic government decided to enforce in the middle of recession.

Those are just some of the things I would do.
They would probably cause high unemployment at first, but in the long run I feel it would benefit the economy in the long run.

[damond]

Allow me to explain more clearly: if something costs 50 bucks, will you buy it? Let's say 50-50.
If it's free, would you?: YES. Why not?

This drastically increases the odds of wasted resources.

If Something is essential to life, would you buy it?
I would say the odds are %100.

If you owned something that was essential to life and were allowed to charge whatever you wanted for it, would you get as much as you could for it?
Probably. That's the problem we have right now.
And by the way, how did that land leave the public trust in the first place? think about it.

"teh com-pu-tors will do all hour thinKing and make calkuulations."

Saying this is like saying that you and I are robots.

And please, explain, in plenty of detail, about how capitalism is destroying the earth. Give me a point by point presentation.

Corporations that have shareholders respond ONLY to shareholder demands (ie:make as much money as possible)
They don't care if part of the business model involves ten billion gallons of goop going into the drinking water. In fact, they don't even know.

Yes, the Federal Reserve is mostly responsible, I admit, but it was the housing subsidies which made houses, the most expensive things for the public to buy, an uncommon and attractive investment.

The govt. and fed knowingly lent money to people that would default. They knew that all that "equity" would be thrown back their way, and that the poor first-time homeowners would be left holding the empty bag. Scammers, but hey, people can be greedy, that's the basic assumption.

[Michaeluj]

Sorry for my tardiness.

Because of the OP, I feel like I have to stop discussing this.

[hannigaholic]

1) Replace all taxes with an extensive Land Value Tax.

2) Remove the control of interest rates from the central bank.

3) Privatise both the funding and control of education.

4) Privatise the control of healthcare, but not necessarily the funding.

5) Privatise the BBC

6) Eliminate current welfare and pensions and introduce a work- and training-based citizen's dividend for those of working age (16+) who can work (IE if you can work or train and you choose not to, you get nothing), and simple qualifications procedure for those who cannot, possibly with a sliding scale for those who can only work for limited periods due to injury or illness. There would be no mandatory retirement age.

7) Any extra spending necessary (not that there should be any) would come from a flat sales tax with necessities excluded (food & drink, energy, housing & rent, and clothing).

[Dr House]

^For the UK I'd also suggest an industrial policy aimed at restoring competitiveness in the heavy industries lost during the Thatcher government, particularly shipbuilding.

[Dr House]

Well, since I posted I might as well post my own plan. Unlike most of those outlined so far, mine is not universalist, but based on the situation of my country at this time. Of course, since my country (Puerto Rico) is in the lower-high income range some policies I would most likely not advocate for a fully industrialized nation (such as a certain degree of economic planning) may be appropriate.

First, a little background:

Puerto Rico, despite having the most sophisticated manufacturing base in Latin America (We are a world leader in pharmaceutical manufacturing, and Pfizer among other companies pays American-level salaries), is under-industrialized like every country in Latin America. A major reason for this this is because of the abandonment of the industrial policy in place, known as Operation Bootstrap, but another very important development is the introduction of the American federal welfare system into the island in order to quell mass migration into the mainland. It has had the effect of completely and effectively killing domestic savings, as well as providing a strong disincentive to work for anyone without a higher education.

Nowadays, we face a host of economic problems which have for the most part been with us since the Reagan era. The island suffers chronic stagflation, with growth rates below 2% and an inflation rate that stubbornly refuses to come down from 6%. With 46% of the adult population in the labor force and only 39% actually employed, we have one of the world's lowest labor participation rates. Even with such a low labor participation, we have a chronically high unemployment rate, which currently stands at 11%. This worries me because it's my belief that if we were to be cut off from federal welfare several thousand of my countrymen would starve, given we don't produce most of our own food. Additionally we have several structural deficiencies in common with the US, including a poorly maintained infrastructure and a failing educational system pumping out morons with useless college degrees.

Here's how I would fix it:

1. I would declare a national currency and give the state-owned Government Development Bank permission to issue it. The next part of my plan requires the government to have the ability to issue or borrow money interest-free.

2. I would declare all domestically owed debt null and void. This should free up several billion dollars of consumer debt (mostly mortgages and car payments), and depress real estate values, which would free up people's incomes and provide relief for the next part of my plan. To prevent cascading bank failures, around 75% of the lost credit will be replaced as hard money. This should not cause a currency crisis, as there is no inflation (and in fact there is slight deflation as quantitative easing is lower than the amount of credit being removed from the stock). Credit is simply being replaced with hard money.

3. I would reduce the minimum wage to $1 an hour, and cut all wages in half. I would also obligate companies to maintain their payroll costs constant or near-constant, effectively forcing them to hire everyone who doesn't have a job. As this would completely squeeze out unemployment and eliminate the need for welfare, I would eliminate all welfare benefits save for disability benefits and benefits for students.

4. I would fire a third of the civil service and cut the salaries of the rest of them in half. The savings would be invested in infrastructure repairs and modernization.

5. I would reform the tax system, first making all investment deductible from income and corporate taxes and then steadily phasing down (and eventually out) all revenue-oriented taxes in favor of a 99% land value tax. I would keep Pigovian taxes, penalty surtaxes and user fees on infrastructure for purposes of allocative efficiency. Sufficiency of revenue should not be a problem given the island's population density.

6. I would implement a mandatory social security savings account which would be divided into different accounts for retirement savings, unemployment savings, healthcare savings and insurance. I could also put in a home purchase savings account, but I'm a little leery about that since a) It's well documented that forcing the homeownership rate up doesn't end well, and b) rentiers add value to the economy. A person who lives off charging someone else rent is a person removed from the workforce who can free up their spot for someone else to get a job.

7. I would implement a comprehensive industrialization policy, including among other things subsidies, protection of strategic industries and possibly the erection of state-owned enterprises for the purpose of developing competitive industries, to be at least partially privatized later. I would grant tax free status to any re-exported goods and rebate tariffs for capital goods.

8. I would reform the education system by introducing tracking methods, and dividing high school into vocational/technical and pre-college tracks, the latter lasting two years and including intensive math and science training in preparation to math, science and technical/professional degrees. I would also seek to "decredentialize" the economy by introducing objective employment tests and encouraging employers to use them (for autodidacts who did not pursue a formal education). This could apply to even professions such as engineering.

Post-secondary education would be fully subsidized by the state for people pursuing math, science and educational degrees, with room & board provided free of charge. It would be 50% subsidized for students pursuing non-economic degrees.

9. I would phase out fractional reserve banking by monetizing all presently owned bank debt, then close down the Government Development Bank and abolish monetary policy. Subsequently, monetary expansion would occur on this formula: Trade data from the census is inputted on a computer, and that computer would subtract the sum of cash and capital flows into the economy from 4% of the money supply. It would then print out the difference in Puerto Rican dollars and deliver it to the treasury coffers. No additional money or credit would be allowed to be added to the economy either by the government or private bankers. If the government requires more money (which it shouldn't except for infrastructure or capital investments), it can issue bonds.

10. I would reform financial policy as follows:

-Consumer credit is outlawed, with the exception of zero-interest charge cards (amortization limited to 30 days), and zero-interest store credit and tabs with an amortization limit of one year. No fees allowed except for charge cards.
-Mortgages will require a minimum 20% down payment, and would undergo a phased scaling back in amortization as LVT is phased in and upfront costs of home ownership decline. Ultimately mortgages will become banned as well.
-Leveraged investment limited to a 5:1 debt/cash ratio.