Philosophy of Freedom

Jack Smith5 said:I wasn't talking specifically about America, which isn't exactly a capitalist stronghold anyway; I was talking about wages within the capitalist world at large.

I definitely need a computer, internet access, and an Android phone. And, what am I supposed to do now? I probably need a laptop too.

So? Go ahead and get them. There's zero issue there, especially if they're tools for your job. But let's call it what it is: pure vanity to swap out your phone every few months just because you can, without any actual reason, especially when we aren't seeing massive technological leaps or meaningful upgrades.

Kimberly Cox59 said:I mean, in a truly socialist society, nobody would actually be threatening anyone. It’s just that the whole idea got completely trashed by Lenin and his successors with their whole Gulag and Secret Police routine. A socialist society should work pretty simply, I guess, because people would actually see the fruits of someone else's labor for their own work. They’d realize that if they don't pull their weight, nobody else is going to work for them either. It's like a pure self-regulating system—you work for others, and others work for you. Honestly, the worst thing that could happen is that things stay just about the same. Free riders... man, they're everywhere, aren't they? I guess you could say they're just part of the deal, but still. It’s funny how that works. Maybe it's just human nature or something, who knows? Anyway, just a thought.But honestly, that’s just a tiny fraction of what the economy actually has to deal with. I mean, it's really just a small weight on the scale, if you think about it. Maybe it seems big, but compared to everything else? It's peanuts. I guess it's just one little part of the bigger picture.

Take the Spanish Civil War, for instance. In a few small communities back then, they actually managed to set up this incredible food distribution system based entirely on volunteers. It only took them a couple of months to get it running. I mean, according to that text—and I’m not even exaggerating here—it was so simple that if you needed supplies, you could basically just walk into the warehouse and grab what you needed. It sounds wild, but it happened.

I guess I’m assuming that Kimberly Cox59's version of a perfect world doesn't really account for property rights, which, you know, are pretty much the bedrock of freedom. Or am I totally off base here? Maybe I'm wrong. 😉

I mean, you're mistaken there. Personally, I don't think anyone should touch private property like your house, your car, or a vacation home. I guess individualism is actually a super important part of socialism—especially anarchism, for that matter.

I can't get around to watching that Milton Friedman video right now (my speakers are acting up). 🤣Anyway, I'll just leave it at that for now and catch you guys tomorrow...

So, why do you think I put that signature there, genius? I guess it's just my way of showing how much I can't stand those Stalinists and that whole crowd. They always seemed to have this weird fetish for anything labeled "people's." 😉

I probably could have gone with, "Freedom without socialism is just a privilege and an injustice, while socialism without freedom is nothing but slavery and brutality." I guess that fits pretty well with anarchist philosophy, anyway.

Whoops, you guys might have a point there. Sure, the poverty rate in India is dropping, but I guess that’s mostly thanks to government handouts for the poor rather than capitalism doing the heavy lifting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17441347

Kimberly Cox59 said:And then there was that whole period where she was actually working alongside the capitalist West. It’s kind of like how India has been collaborating with the West for the last few centuries, but now they've decided to pivot and redirect some of that revenue toward social welfare programs. I guess things just shift like that sometimes.
The Green Revolution was this massive turning point in how we handle food, and honestly, it’s pretty wild to think about. It wasn't just some small change; it was a complete overhaul of global agriculture through high-yield crops and better tech. I guess you could say it changed everything about how we feed billions of people. It really centered on things like new varieties of wheat and rice that were basically engineered to grow faster and bigger. They also leaned heavily into synthetic fertilizers and advanced irrigation systems. I mean, before this, farming was much more traditional, and suddenly, science stepped in to supercharge the whole process. There’s definitely two sides to it, though. On one hand, it prevented massive famines and boosted productivity like crazy—which is obviously a huge win. But on the other hand, maybe there are downsides we didn't see coming? Like the environmental impact or how it changed the way small farmers operate compared to big industrial operations. It's complicated, I suppose. Just a lot to wrap your head around!

I mean, things work so much better in places like Scandinavia, and honestly, they seem to be doing alright for themselves. I’m just saying, maybe a welfare state is a bit better than pure laissez-faire capitalism. Just my two cents, I guess! 🤷

I mean, look, where does actual technological progress really come from? Is it from some planned economy, or is it coming from capitalist ones? Like, what are we talking about here—Cuba? I guess you have to wonder.

There used to be the Soviet Union back in the day, too. Now, almost every single country has gone capitalist, so it feels like there isn't even an alternative left. But honestly, I guess that argument doesn't really hold much water just because of that.

I guess you could say those folks from the Kuban region have a pretty stellar pharmaceutical industry going on. It really seems like they're doing their part to push things forward.

lonetrucker4 said:You even reading your own crap? 😁 You wrote:

Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Is it really that hard to just say, "My bad, I screwed up the first time"? 🤷 So now you're gonna claim you don't know enough about that era to even weigh in? Please.

Look, you're clearly younger than me. You’re just reciting snippets you heard from someone else, mixing up years like the timing doesn't even matter. I get it—to you, this is just "history." Most people couldn't care less if something happened in the 1000s or the 1300s. But for me? This was life. I lived it. I landed my first job in '81, then a year later, we had Margaret Thatcher stepping in with those early moderate reforms and that whole Marshall Plan setup. I wasn't just reading about it; I was right there in the thick of it, starting out as a journalist.

Back then, nobody was looking at the big picture, and there wasn't much data on how things actually worked. Digging up info from that era is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. So, basically... Don't go throwing around theories about stuff you don't even understand; especially since none of it actually matters for your "general truth" anyway.

All this talk about how we "only need to print more dollars" is pure idiocy. Just look at what happened twenty years ago if you want the truth.

I haven't really weighed in on that big-picture topic yet. Honestly? I don't know the first thing about monetary policy.

Look, I don't buy into any of those "you only need x" kind of quick fixes. Total garbage. XSo, where is it? X "Print too much cash," "go full command economy," or just "let the free market run wild." Whatever. Real life is always messier than that—and that's not even talking about economics.

Look, if I get this right, sometimes there’s just not enough cash floating around—basically, the gears stop turning because nobody's spending. In those cases, printing money actually kicks the economy back into gear. But obviously, that's not some magic wand you wave to fix everything. I call those kinds of lazy, one-size-fits-all answers... JUOSP = Simple Universal Answers to Everything. 🙂

Look, I get it—money isn't even real. It’s just a collective hallucination, but hey, it runs the show. Maybe this whole charade will eventually just implode. 😢 Then maybe by the 23rd century, we’ll actually have a moneyless economy, just like in "Star Trek".

Anyway, back to the point. Is it a core part of your "philosophy of freedom" to demand non-expansionary monetary policy? Why the hard line? Does "avoiding inflation" absolutely have to be the holy grail? Sure, hitting 50% or 500% annual inflation is a total disaster, but a little nudge, say 5-6%, isn't necessarily a death sentence. You really think that would inevitably kill our freedom?

On the flip side, wasn't the massive explosion of money supply the actual poison in the global economy ever since the US decoupled the dollar from gold back in '71? Ever since those policies let the money supply balloon through all these "monetary derivatives," making paper "wealth" look way bigger than what's actually happening in the real economy. I remember reading about this in some textbook back in the Clinton era—some guy argued this was the way to go. Then the world started shaking, like during the collapse of the "Asian Tigers" in '97, and we saw it was a huge mistake. Trying to put the genie back in the bottle now—like using a Financial Transaction Tax or slowing down speculative cash flow—is actually the exact opposite of "printing money."

If we're arguing against government involvement in the economy, then why even have a national currency? Why not just let every bank print its own cash and let them compete? Kind of like how Walmart issues gift cards that you could potentially trade around?

Ryan Nelson5 said:There isn't enough cash circulating because people in the US spend it all on imports (largely due to how wasteful consumer habits have become here). If you print more money, you just erode the savings of everyone who was responsible enough to set money aside, essentially handing their value over to those spending the newly printed cash. Sure, the economy might see a temporary spark from the influx, but that money will quickly leak right back out through imports, leaving us exactly where we started. Only now, we’ll have one extra problem: depleted bank reserves. Less savings in the banks means higher interest rates, and higher interest rates mean an economic downturn.

In a real socialist society, nobody would be threatening you. The whole idea was trashed by Lenin and his successors with their Gulags and the FBI. A true socialist society would just work because people would get the fruits of everyone's labor. They'd realize if they don't work, nobody else is working for them either. It’s a self-regulating system—you work for others, they work for you. The worst that happens is a few free riders, but that's a tiny burden on the economy.

Take the Spanish Civil War, for example. In some small communities, they managed to set up food supply programs based entirely on volunteers within just a few months. You could basically walk into a warehouse and grab what you needed. That's what the text says, I'm not exaggerating.

You're mistaken. Personal property like houses, cars, or vacation homes wouldn't be touched. Individualism is actually a huge part of socialism (especially anarchism).

I can't watch Friedman right now (my speakers are 🤣), but I will by tomorrow...

Whoa, you're right, the poverty rate in India is dropping, but that's thanks to government welfare, not capitalism.

urbanotter said:Yet, nobody seems to be discussing the idea of injecting money directly into consumer spending via targeted investment.

I often wonder what might happen if the government used controlled money printing to fund high-yield infrastructure projects or manufacturing facilities.

With infrastructure, the state could retain ownership, only needing to borrow or print specifically to cover the cost of imported components if domestic funds fall short.
As for manufacturing, the government could partner with private entrepreneurs who have brilliant, viable projects but lack the capital, especially when commercial bank loans are far too expensive to make the venture profitable.

This type of strategic "printing" could revitalize domestic production, create jobs, boost tax revenue, and force banks to offer more competitive, lower interest rates.
The Dollar would likely need to adjust its exchange rate, which would actually help by making our domestic goods more competitive and reducing our reliance on imports.
The resulting increase in tax revenue, combined with a restructuring of our bloated federal bureaucracy and other overhead, could allow us to scale back government size and make our local industries even more formidable on the global stage.

Everyone claims that the only way forward is to ramp up domestic production and competitiveness, yet most suggestions on how to actually achieve that remain purely theoretical.

Personally, I think this approach could be a much better alternative to our current model of relying on expensive bank loans and massive debt, both of which currently stifle our ability to compete.
I completely agree that printing money just to fuel mindless consumption is a mistake; it would likely cause a temporary spike in demand followed immediately by inflation, without providing any lasting impact on employment or industrial growth.
We have seen similar failed attempts in the past, and it feels like we are stuck in a loop. It is high time we look for different solutions instead of spinning our wheels in this endless cycle.
All we’ve seen so far is a continued decline in purchasing power, a drop in the standard of living, heavier tax burdens, mounting debt, and the increasing difficulty of servicing those loans, all while social safety nets, healthcare, and retirement systems face mounting pressure.

Ryan Nelson5 said:I have two questions here... I already asked a few of these earlier...

1.) Why would the government be responsible for newly printed money if they aren't held accountable for borrowed money? We know that, so far, the state has passed the burden of borrowed debt onto the people for consumption... what mechanism prevents them from doing the same with printed money instead of investing it to lift the economy?

2.) Even if we assume the government acts responsibly and invests in the economy as you suggested, I have this follow-up...
...since printing money devalues savings, it essentially shifts the burden of economic financing onto those who were responsible and saved, while rewarding those who spent everything... basically, the more you sacrificed and saved, the more you lose... but if you blew through everything you had, you end up better off in this system... is that a fair system?

Ryan Nelson5 said:I have two questions here... I already asked a few of these earlier...

1.) Why would the government be responsible for newly printed money if they aren't held accountable for borrowed money? We know that, so far, the state has passed the burden of borrowed debt onto the people for consumption... what mechanism prevents them from doing the same with printed money instead of investing it to lift the economy?

2.) Even if we assume the government acts responsibly and invests in the economy as you suggested, I have this follow-up...
...since printing money devalues savings, it essentially shifts the burden of economic financing onto those who were responsible and saved, while rewarding those who spent everything... basically, the more you sacrificed and saved, the more you lose... but if you blew through everything you had, you end up better off in this system... is that a fair system?

If we follow that logic, even the best initiatives will fall apart.
It’s possible to regulate this through legislation that specifies exactly how and under what specific conditions newly printed money can be spent.

Printing money isn't some taboo act that doesn't happen; many nations and central banks do it quite frequently as a way to support their own domestic economies.

MESSAGE FROM DAVOS
Central banks need to step up their game regarding money printing

http://m.nytimes.com/ArticleView....date=20130126

The Executive Director of the Bank for International Settlements has warned that one shouldn't overdo this practice, lest they negate the positive effects of such monetary policy.
Of course, monetary policy isn't some magic wand that's going to fix all our problems—including global ones—rather, it needs to be paired with the other measures we've already discussed.
It won't help us much (unlike in other countries) because we haven't even implemented it yet; instead, we're sticking strictly to injecting cash into the system via high-interest borrowing.

2.) Even if we assume the government would act responsibly and invest in the economy as you suggested, I'm curious about this...
...since printing money tends to erode the value of people's savings, doesn't that mean the whole system effectively penalizes those who were responsible and saved, while rewarding those who spent everything? In other words, the more you sacrificed and saved, the more you lose... whereas if you blew through everything you had, you'd end up much better off in this system... is that really a fair way to run things?

In what way does printing money decrease the value of savings if that money is used to create new economic value?🤷, personally, I don't think there would even be an increase in inflation, which is still present at 4% despite today's restrictive monetary policies.
It wouldn't impact savings either, especially since most savings are held in foreign currency (like the Euro), so savers would actually benefit because the value of that currency would rise, increasing their purchasing power for domestic goods.

There are just so many dogmas being stubbornly chanted and enforced, while other countries try to help their economies through various other means. Meanwhile, we just blindly cling to these old doctrines.

One of those dogmas is the idea that there is no corruption within the private sector, which has proven false in numerous instances; in fact, corruption is most rampant at the intersection of the public and private sectors.
But look, corruption is a reality in every nation (even in highly organized places like Finland, looking at cases like Patria), with the only difference being that in some places, it stays controlled and at an acceptable level that doesn't significantly disrupt major economic flows.

Harold Martin10 said:That’s exactly what Rohatinski was getting at when he talked about letting the genie out of the bottle. It wouldn't take much—just let the dollar slip a little, and most savers would panic, dump their dollars, and scramble for foreign currency, which would crash the value instantly.

But yeah—even looking at point 1), the whole argument falls apart. That is precisely why fiscal policy has to be strictly separated from monetary policy.

The real issue is that even with the best intentions (and by that, I mean assuming they maximize corruption prevention), a government simply can't be a high-quality investor the way a private investor can, especially one with a proven track record and business experience. Not to mention, that kind of corruption is basically impossible for a private investor—they're going to put their own money into whatever they truly believe will yield the best results, no matter what.

Ryan Nelson5 said:People will never protect someone else's property with the same fervor they use for their own—not unless corruption is completely eradicated. Unfortunately, everyone treats state assets as if they belong to no one. 🤷

William Anderson5 said:But what if people just... want to? Are you going to step in and ban them from doing that?

Harold Martin10 said:That’s exactly what Rohatinski was getting at when he talked about letting the genie out of the bottle. It wouldn't take much—just let the dollar slip a little, and most savers would panic, dump their dollars, and scramble for foreign currency, which would crash the value instantly.

But yeah—even looking at point 1), the whole argument falls apart. That is precisely why fiscal policy has to be strictly separated from monetary policy.

The real issue is that even with the best intentions (and by that, I mean assuming they maximize corruption prevention), a government simply can't be a high-quality investor the way a private investor can, especially one with a proven track record and business experience. Not to mention, that kind of corruption is basically impossible for a private investor—they're going to put their own money into whatever they truly believe will yield the best results, no matter what.

urbanotter said:If we follow that logic, even the best initiatives will fall apart.
It’s possible to regulate this through legislation that specifies exactly how and under what specific conditions newly printed money can be spent.

Printing money isn't some taboo act that doesn't happen; many nations and central banks do it quite frequently as a way to support their own domestic economies.

MESSAGE FROM DAVOS
Central banks need to step up their game regarding money printing

http://m.nytimes.com/ArticleView....date=20130126

The Executive Director of the Bank for International Settlements has warned that one shouldn't overdo this practice, lest they negate the positive effects of such monetary policy.
Of course, monetary policy isn't some magic wand that's going to fix all our problems—including global ones—rather, it needs to be paired with the other measures we've already discussed.
It won't help us much (unlike in other countries) because we haven't even implemented it yet; instead, we're sticking strictly to injecting cash into the system via high-interest borrowing.

2.) Even if we assume the government would act responsibly and invest in the economy as you suggested, I'm curious about this...
...since printing money tends to erode the value of people's savings, doesn't that mean the whole system effectively penalizes those who were responsible and saved, while rewarding those who spent everything? In other words, the more you sacrificed and saved, the more you lose... whereas if you blew through everything you had, you'd end up much better off in this system... is that really a fair way to run things?

In what way does printing money decrease the value of savings if that money is used to create new economic value?🤷, personally, I don't think there would even be an increase in inflation, which is still present at 4% despite today's restrictive monetary policies.
It wouldn't impact savings either, especially since most savings are held in foreign currency (like the Euro), so savers would actually benefit because the value of that currency would rise, increasing their purchasing power for domestic goods.

There are just so many dogmas being stubbornly chanted and enforced, while other countries try to help their economies through various other means. Meanwhile, we just blindly cling to these old doctrines.

One of those dogmas is the idea that there is no corruption within the private sector, which has proven false in numerous instances; in fact, corruption is most rampant at the intersection of the public and private sectors.
But look, corruption is a reality in every nation (even in highly organized places like Finland, looking at cases like Patria), with the only difference being that in some places, it stays controlled and at an acceptable level that doesn't significantly disrupt major economic flows.

urbanotter said:If we follow that logic, even the best initiatives will fall apart.
It’s possible to regulate this through legislation that specifies exactly how and under what specific conditions newly printed money can be spent.

Printing money isn't some taboo act that doesn't happen; many nations and central banks do it quite frequently as a way to support their own domestic economies.

MESSAGE FROM DAVOS
Central banks need to step up their game regarding money printing

http://m.nytimes.com/ArticleView....date=20130126

The Executive Director of the Bank for International Settlements has warned that one shouldn't overdo this practice, lest they negate the positive effects of such monetary policy.
Of course, monetary policy isn't some magic wand that's going to fix all our problems—including global ones—rather, it needs to be paired with the other measures we've already discussed.
It won't help us much (unlike in other countries) because we haven't even implemented it yet; instead, we're sticking strictly to injecting cash into the system via high-interest borrowing.

2.) Even if we assume the government would act responsibly and invest in the economy as you suggested, I'm curious about this...
...since printing money tends to erode the value of people's savings, doesn't that mean the whole system effectively penalizes those who were responsible and saved, while rewarding those who spent everything? In other words, the more you sacrificed and saved, the more you lose... whereas if you blew through everything you had, you'd end up much better off in this system... is that really a fair way to run things?

In what way does printing money decrease the value of savings if that money is used to create new economic value?🤷, personally, I don't think there would even be an increase in inflation, which is still present at 4% despite today's restrictive monetary policies.
It wouldn't impact savings either, especially since most savings are held in foreign currency (like the Euro), so savers would actually benefit because the value of that currency would rise, increasing their purchasing power for domestic goods.

There are just so many dogmas being stubbornly chanted and enforced, while other countries try to help their economies through various other means. Meanwhile, we just blindly cling to these old doctrines.

One of those dogmas is the idea that there is no corruption within the private sector, which has proven false in numerous instances; in fact, corruption is most rampant at the intersection of the public and private sectors.
But look, corruption is a reality in every nation (even in highly organized places like Finland, looking at cases like Patria), with the only difference being that in some places, it stays controlled and at an acceptable level that doesn't significantly disrupt major economic flows.

Julius Caesar said:Technological progress, as such, is usually just a byproduct of capitalist entrepreneurship.
I mean, go look at Russia—are they pulling oil out of the ground using tech from the USSR or Western tech? And are they making phones in China with Chinese-Russian tech or Western tech?

Capitalism drove technical progress. The USSR could launch a rocket into space, but they couldn't figure out how to make a decent car.

Even in the Middle Ages, right where the foundations of what would become capitalism were being laid, you saw the Renaissance and humanism blossom, unlike in somewhere like Russia or the backward Ottoman Empire...

splićo said:capitalism has undoubtedly provided more progress for the human race than socialism ever did.

Scandinavia... yeah, their model is good. But that's mostly due to having access to oil, hydropower, and iron ore rather than just some pure desire for that kind of system.

ancap said:What is there to think about? You don't know if you believe in property rights or not? What are we even talking about then? 🙂

mirko77 said:Do you even consider logic or reality when you write stuff like this?

Charles Campbell7 said:Aha. So, someone else is being greedy, and that’s what creates the crisis. You just want a higher paycheck so you can help everyone else through your consumption. And apparently, a malicious government is standing in your way.

And if you take 4.4 million people just like you and bundle them together, you get the American state. Everyone is perfectly honest. Hmm... I wonder where the person robbing us all has disappeared to then... clearly they're hiding somewhere very well. 🤣

Great. Why don't you just go start a company, become an employer, and enjoy life? $3.25☕

I have to wonder if you exercise any sense of logic or reality while you write...

Inflation is essentially a redistribution of wealth within the country. In this scenario, every single individual would have 6% of their assets stripped away annually. In a truly free society, inflation should be zero at most. And probably the best way to achieve that would be a gold standard.

I guess I'm just feeling a little bit of that back pain today. It’s kind of nagging at me, you know? Maybe I sat weirdly in my chair or something. Just one of those days, I suppose. Kimberly Cox59 says:
So, I was just sitting here wondering... where does the Indian budget actually get its cash from? Like, who are they even taxing? I guess it’s a bit of a massive puzzle, right? Maybe it's mostly just standard stuff, but it makes you think about how all that money actually moves around.

I mean, why does it feel like there’s only suddenly enough stuff to tax once all those big Western capitalists showed up? I guess it just seems that way, maybe. It's kind of funny how that works, right?

Regarding that first section, I mean, nobody is actually stopping you from starting your own commune or co-op. You could just go out there and show the rest of us that it’s the right way to live. Maybe it really is? Who knows! But hey, the door is open if you want to prove it.

Zagorec88 Kimberly Cox59 said:I mean, why couldn't that just work in an anarcho-capitalist society? I guess people could just get together and decide they don't want to trade anymore. They could just choose to abstain on their own, you know? And honestly, that’s totally fine. It's doable, maybe.

On the other hand, I wonder... could I actually go out and freelance for cash in "your" world? Like, what if I’m just not interested in working for someone else's bottom line? I mean, if I’ve got specific skills and know-how to offer, I’d probably only want to put them on the table if there's something in it for me, you know? Maybe a fair trade or something.

So, what do you think? Do you actually agree with this idea, or am I just out here on my own with it? I guess it's hard to say without knowing where everyone else stands. Maybe? So, I was just falling down this massive rabbit hole reading about voluntaryism on Wikipedia, and honestly? It’s kind of wild to think about. It's basically this idea that everything in society should be totally voluntary—no coercion, no force, just people choosing how to interact. No government telling you what to do, no mandatory taxes, just pure individual consent. It sounds almost too simple, right? Like, maybe it’s a bit idealistic, I guess. I mean, how would we handle things like roads or public safety without any sort of central authority stepping in? It feels like one of those things that sounds perfect on paper but gets incredibly messy once you actually try to map it out in the real world. Still, there's something really peaceful about the concept of a world where nobody is forced into anything. Just a thought!

So, if there’s no money involved—which I guess means you live in some sort of utopia where cash doesn't exist—how on earth would you deal with free riders? You seem to view them as this tiny, insignificant little issue, but honestly, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to work if everything was just handed to me on a silver platter. I mean, maybe I can see how a Stalinist-style system might actually function, though. It’s pretty straightforward, right? You have a job, and you either do it or... well, you face the consequences. You know what I mean? Like, what exactly is going to motivate a person to actually get up and do anything?

So, what do you think about that point I made earlier? You know, that Friedman quote about how capitalism and human freedom are basically two sides of the same coin. I mean, if you look at it from the angle that capitalism is really just the freedom to trade, the freedom to work, and the freedom to team up with whoever you want... it kind of makes sense, right? I guess it's all connected. Maybe. What's your take?

splićo;43370210 said:Which law specifically? Explain yourself... I’m trying to base my perspective on the actual state of affairs... you seem to be basing yours on the fiction that people here actually understand how the economy works, that they know what their long-term interests are, and that they prioritize those over short-term gains... none of that is true, and the proof is the massive debt crisis we're currently drowning in... 🤷

I see you’ve taken a real interest in this proposal since you’re starting to dig into the specifics; at this rate, you'll soon be asking me to list the exact printing presses where the bills would be made.😍

It would be written in by a law passed by Congress, following a comprehensive development strategy that outlines the strategic interests of the United States and identifies where capital should be deployed. We’re talking about building hospitals, schools, power plants, rail infrastructure, flood protection systems, water and utility networks, and other essential public interest projects.
I don't see why the public needs to be involved in the technicalities, other than electing the best possible administration that includes such an approach in its platform and guarantees it is carried out honestly and professionally.
When it comes to the actual implementation, there’s rarely an opportunity to consult them on the fine details—which isn't really necessary if the government sticks to its program, barring certain issues where they are supposed to seek input but stubbornly avoid holding any kind of referendum or public consultation.

Another big "if"...
And what happens if more money is put into circulation than actual value is created? Given what we know about the American public, that seems a 99% certainty.
What will you say to the savers who watch their life savings evaporate?
What will you tell the debtors when their debts skyrocket because the dollar loses value?
"Dammit people... it sounded great in theory."

There is no "if," and I could just as easily have said "when," though it wouldn't change anything because you aren't grasping the core of my suggestion; you're just repeating a question I’ve already answered.😉

If inflation doesn't spike significantly, I don't see how savers would lose their value or struggle with loans, especially if this move leads to a boost in domestic manufacturing and the creation of new jobs.
The biggest problem for a debtor is losing their job, and right now, people are losing roughly $700 a day in purchasing power. Doesn't it concern you how their "debts are increasing" and how they'll manage their payments? We're seeing inflation around 4%, and you have to ask yourself how citizens saving in dollars will maintain their value, or how debtors will handle rising obligations when there's no upward movement at all—only negative trends in the economy, a 5.6% drop in industrial production, further job losses, and a shrinking GDP.

Your opinion is built on assumptions (fiction) and repeating mistakes, whereas a wise person should learn from them rather than cycle through them again.

I provided a link showing that other countries do exactly this; it's just that we are so "smart" that we refuse to act, choosing instead to blindly follow the recommendations of the very people who do this while forbidding us from doing it ourselves.

We've made good progress in our discussions, so it would be helpful if you just addressed the unclear or incorrect points instead of circling back to the same question over and over.