Over the years I have seen news stories and read newspaper articles about small rural communities loosing population and dying for lack of economic (employment) opportunities. I read one article recently about a Michigan community where a retired man did the snow plowing as no one else was available. These stories reflect the reverse of how the communities started and grew over decades. For example, a family might have homesteaders, another family moved nearby, eventually the families started churches and schools which in turn attracted both teachers, a doctor and retail businesses. Roads, rail and other infrastructure quickly followed. However, first a variety of reasons ranging from agribusiness to urbanization in areas not too distant, these small communities began to diminish in size and economic activity. Loss of population means loss of support for local retail business which in turn means a loss in local employment opportunities. A viscous cycle.
Now consider if a family could receive two regular payments a month from the Federal Reserve Bank under the plan to democratize money by monetizing citizens. https://www.amazon.com/Democratize-Money-Monetize-Citizens-Proposal/dp/1549614487 They could make a go of it in one of these communities undergoing, err downsizing. Indeed, housing costs would be significantly lower than in urban areas. They also have opportunities for partial self sufficiency with gardens and even raising livestock. An interesting irony as that is how these communities originally formed. Then with the potential for more families using their monetization payments from the Federal Reserve under the plan to democratize money, the consumer base in the community would eventually become large enough to attract businesses (employment opportunities) back to the area. In short, monetizing citizens could reverse the decline we see in small communities that are too far away from urban centers to be bedroom communities.
democratizemoney 