I am still trlying to figure out how to write so people can understant what I am saying

A short wile ago, I put out a call for help on how to publicize my plan to Democratize Money by Monetizing Citizens. I got one response that suggested the book was too difficult to read and that it, for lack of a better way to put it, needed to be written so that it is accessible to readers who are less well educated in the fields of accounting, economics, fiance and monetary policy. While, the comment did not give me a good idea what the problem in readability is, I decided to first attack the problem of readability by imposing an overview or outline or plan of the book at the front of the book for starters. Then do the same for each chapter. Also to take some pains to keep the writing as simple as possible. This later will be a challenge for me as I think in convoluted ways.

So, I have a second draft of the overview, outline or plan of the book. It is not a final version, I should think, but, I offer it for criticism, comment, picking apart or the like. The object is to turn this in to something readily accessible to more readers:

The author proposes in this book, Democratize Money, that every US citizen should receive a basic annual, tax free income of $20,000 paid in equal monthly or biweekly payments. That the Federal Reserve Bank, the Fed, make these payments by depositing newly created money in each citizen’s draft account, electronic banking service or by mailing a check to those citizens who choose not to have a demand account in a financial institution or to utilize an electronic banking service. This newly created money will replace some of the money the Fed currently creates in another way (see the discussion of market operations later in the book). It will not be drawn from US Treasury funds. The Fed making payments to citizens of newly created money is the central feature of democratizing money. This way of putting new money is circulation which in effect monetizes citizens1 is the central feature of the plan. There are three other components of this plan. The first is that the Feds will annually deposit $2,000 in the US Treasury for each citizen in the US, Territories, and living abroad; and, the Fed will annually deposit $2,000 in each State or Territorial treasury for each US citizen resident in its jurisdiction. The second is that citizen’s income under this plan can not be garnisheed or otherwise seized or encumbered even by law. Hence, it can not be used to determine a citizen’s credit worthiness or ability to pay. The third additional component is that citizens are required to participate in elections by voting in elections and serving on juries when called to maintain their eligibility to receive new money payments from the Fed.

This book will detail how the democratizing money by monetizing citizens will work; how it monetizing citizens will impact existing policies: and the book will suggest some consequences of the Fed putting new money in circulation by making direct payments to citizens. To give the reader a context, the book will begin with a brief history of what money is and how money was and is created. The book will then follow with an argument for why the current manner in which the Fed creates money needs to be supplemented by monetizing citizens. 2 The book will then address how the Fed will avoid inflation as it puts newly created money in circulation by making direct distributions of newly created money to citizens. The book will address how the need for entitlement programs will drastically change and largely result in eliminating some entitlement programs. Monetizing citizens will have implications for immigration. Democratizing money will significantly modify the and the traditional ‘tax and spend’ political debate in America. Finally, the book will discuss income inequality and wealth distribution changes that are likely to occur as this plan is implemented, matures and becomes a part of the fabric defining political, social, and economic equality in America.
Footnotes

1. The author uses ‘monetize’ here to mean the thing that underlies the issuance of new money is a citizen—in effect, citizens are what make the currency under this proposal have value.

2. To whit, to smooth out the business cycle of busts and booms.
So, again, any help by way of addressing the clearness, accessibility or readability of what I have done in the overview, plan or outline of the book above would be more than welcome.

Warmest regards, Ed

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “I am still trlying to figure out how to write so people can understant what I am saying

  1. I like what you say . . . but I’m skeptical because it not only necessitates a rethinking of how economies work but it also ignores the components of the current system which are anchored in human nature.

    For instance, we are not “democratic” by nature.

    I know it’s frustrating to hear it, but there is a huge gulf between “is” and “ought” and even if you can see a bridge between the two, you’ll have a difficult time making others believe that’s a structurally sound bridge.

    Perhaps another approach would be to have a companion book where you tackle the flaws and pitfalls of your plan and explain how we might avert failure.

    But, if you think there are no flaws in your plan, then prepare to be frustrated; you first must address flaws others see before they accept the plan. You saying “can’t you see how great it is” is not sufficient.

    I’ve listened to a number of discussions about the pros and cons of plans similar to what you suggest. All the pros assume an idealized world that I’m not familiar with.

    If we ignore everything else, how do you plan to address the limitations of human nature when it comes to cooperating as a homogeneous unit? I ask the question without having read the book; I’m going strictly by the above statement. That statement does not address the diversity of human nature.

    For instance, the idea of one person one vote and requiring everyone to vote sounds nice but it’s also a recipe for inequality and oppression of the minority population (majority rule).

    Note, I’m not defending the status quo . . . but neither will I buy into an idealized vision not anchored in reality. In that regard, I rather start by fixing obvious flaws in the current system and then eventually getting down to fixing the smaller stuff, all of it keeping in mind that no system is perfect and devoid of flaws.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You leave much to reply to. I am looking for comments on is the writing clear? Is it understandable? Are there points of confusion? I will address all of your comments at another time. I think the biggest problem will be how to avoid the clamor for more money from the public and the innate politician respond to give them what they think they want.
      Warmest regards, Ed

      Like

      1. I thought I’d replied . . . Oh well.

        Clear and understandable are subjective terms. It is to me, but might not be too others.

        What you really want to know is whether people comprehend the proposal.

        I don’t know about others, but while I think I comprehend, I’m, as I said, skeptical. Not in the mechanics. It’s whether it would actually be an improvement it just a different set of problems. Good luck.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. This was the original comment (just repeating the same thing):

        Your summary (above) is clear to me.

        However, while clear to me, that’s subjective. What is clear to one person might not be clear to another.

        Clarity is itself nebulous. You probably mean comprehensible. In that regard, you might want to run one of the scoring algorithms that measure readability. Ideally, something at the 8th grade level (or lower) will encompass pretty much anyone who might read it.

        However, comprehension is not the same as clarity or readability.

        What you are really asking is whether people understand what you are proposing. That’s difficult to assess because if drastically different from the status quo many people will just dismiss it as too radical without even looking at the details.

        As an example, I’m an engineer. I also have what I think is a great approach to life (personal, social, economic) and believe if others were like me, they wouldn’t run into as many problems as they do. I can even describe in detail what I do, why I do what I do, and why it works.

        But, none of that takes into account different personalities, reasoning abilities, emotions, etc.

        Meaning, I can be as clear and precise as I want, but I wouldn’t be addressing what people really want . . . something that works for them.

        Good luck with your endeavor; it’s a monumental undertaking, to be sure.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Thank you again. I appreciate the feedback. I do understnad about subjective prespectives and how it plays an important role in what people read and if they read something how they process it.
    Warmest regards, Ed

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s