Monetary solution to a virtual currency for virtual city

[Wili Clip]

This post serves as a business plan that is created "on the go" and is at same time an invitation to a discussion about problems and solutions for wider in this topic interested public. Main idea and 1st post on topic: Virtual city built on liberal principles was 1st posted on second life forum.

For project Liberium (experimental virtual city based on liberal principles). One of my first tasks is to try to develop a structural foundation for a viral growth of real virtual cities that would benefit humankind. Everyone interested to take part at it or just tag along to see what becomes of it can join inworld Second Life group City Of Liberium:
secondlife:///app/group/7fb24f25-7281-efdd-d018-5d3f059277ea/about  (copy paste in SL local chat to get group link).

Virtual city can offer its citizen organized virtual education, virtual community support, supervision and  support for virtual business cooperation and investments, boost  virtual economy and promote virtual world solutions for a better government to a wider world public and open door of unlimited opportunities for citizens.

To achieve  viral growth and fast adoption of virtual city it needs a successful economic foundation that will give incentives to users of Second Life to partake in the city project..

A virtual city needs its own currency to enable fiscal and monetary growth stimulation. I believe that the only way for a mass adoption of virtual cities concept they will need a successful virtual currency.

There are 3 possible experimental simulations of monetary solutions for  implementing common virtual currency for virtual cities.

There are 2 views on money:
1) Mainstream Economics (Keynesian) pro-inflation monetary politics for debt based currency system.
2) Austrian School of Economic Thought (Libertarian) pro-deflationary monetary politics

Please read:

Paul Krugman's (Nobel prize in mainstream economics) article explaining why deflation is bad
and opposing view explaining that deflation might not be evil:
The economics of bitcoin why mainstream economist lie about deflation

Let me try to roughly explain the situation we currently live in:
In real world our money system (monetary system) is DEBT BASED. This means that if there is no debt there is no money. All money created and added in system is created through initial lending from central banks (money lenders to banks). Government (leading politicians) borrow money from these banks and different global lending organizations (such as World Bank or IMF) to run the country. Government uses borrowed money for public investments and to employ public workers who help in running the country and maintain order and piece. Public workers get salaries that they deposit in banks and banks have a special right to multiply money through fractional reserve banking. This right enables banks to lend more money out then they have actual deposits (banks create money for people and companies).
If you are further interested in how money is created to be able to better participate in this debate you can watch a short video hidden secrets of money
 

Our virtual currency for virtual city will in reality be a sub-currency of Linden Dollars (L$) and it will only be exchangable with L$ to avoid breaking of Linden Lab's Terms Of Service.

 

Libertarian approach to a new virtual currency:
The success of bitcoin crypto currency shows us that a deflationary virtual currency can lead to viral growth. Such viral growth is what our virtual cities concept will need.  Possible implementation of our virtual currency for city would be a close simulation of bitcoin like virtual currency for the city that each city would get for purpose to fund its city projects. Citizens that would be paid for their work (building, design, teaching, ....) in this virtual currency would be able to exchange it for L$. All other citizens who would want to use the services that city provides for them would exchange their L$ into this virtual currency so that they could use it. When cities grow big and high trafficed by new vibrant citizens community they would rent virtual stores to strong brands in city's virtual currency and virtual goods producers would have a choice to also sell their products in city's currency to supply the new fast growing market (community of virtual citizens).

If successful such cities could offer virtual jobs to millions of new users of Second Life. They would be employed as city workers and would simulate the real life public sectors that would offer services to virtual citizens like the real life public sector offers services to real life citizens. This is also the main vision that inspires and motivates me for making plan for such virtual cities. If I can drive this vision to a realization then Second Life will get its real purpose.

 

Mainstream approach to a new virtual currency:
Close simulation of real life financial systems and consequently a simulation of real life monetary system is prohibited or severely limited. Financial institutions and governments hold exclusive rights to create banks. We are living in times where rapid growth of technology and higher awareness of people impose a threat to current monetary establishment. Only real life banks can run banking services in Second Life and with permission of Linden Lab.

However we could possibly still simulate fractional reserve banking with a city currency (LL TOS needs to be studied on that matter). Money would be created into exsistance by becoming debt. Lender would be Central Virtual Investment Bank.  This investment bank would lend virtual currency to virtual cities with 0 interest rates (To avoid breaking of LL TOS that prohibits collection of interest rates). A virtual city would need to introduce a solid investment plan for developing city services that would both benefit citizens and would be affordable enough for citizens to use the virtual currency to pay for newly created services and products. Cities would pay the debt back to Central Investment Bank at 0 interest rates. There would be floating exchange that would enable citizens users to buy this virtual currency from other citizens service and product providers that would be selling for L$.

 

I have presented 2 possible ways of virtual currency implementation. I believe that both have certain pros and cons. It is yet to be further studied which one would be more efficient and effective for achieving fast growth of virtual cities and adoption by their citizens.

 

Full text is copyrighted (you can't  post or article on your blog and claim it as your own. That's plagiarism and a copyright violation.) Use of full text is not allowed without permission of original author Wili Clip originally posted on goldtokens.net.

[Wili Clip]

My personal preference is doing it through libertarian way. With having a bitcoin like simulated currency that would grow in value through time and citizens would consider it as investment. If the cities grow and the currency gets widely used then citizens could at later date exchange the virtual currency for more L$ then they initially paid for -> deflation.

The 2nd mainstream monetary economics way through special Investment Virtual Central Bank would be a bit too work intensive (there would need to be a central body of few people that would evaluate each investment). As more and more cities would take debt to fund their city investments and more and more citizens would get paid in that currency, that would lead towards inflation. Inflation could be stabilized as citizens would use the currency for services city has to offer them. However there is risk that everyone would want to sell their currency for L$ which would lead towards depreciation in currency value which would then further lead to speculations as few people would buy and hoard on depreciated currency to drive the price up.

Somehow the crypto currency simulation way where people have incentive to keep the virtual currency to sell later at higher L$ price seems much more stable, reliable and attractive.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

It is more than the TOS you have to worry about, although I doubt LL will allow it as it competes with them.

US money laundering laws and regulations don't allow you to use lindens to buy another currency, even a virtual one, unless you meet the requirements and register as a currency trader in RL.  You can't trade the city currency for L's or RL money for the same reason.  Bring plenty of accountants, lawyers and money to do that lol.  You also will have to have an accurate way of keeping track of it all, which means some way to program it into SL and keep the records for a number of years.   You have to do this even if you are not a US Citizen because the servers are in the US and some of your residents will be citizens. 

These laws and regulations were what cause LL to stop allowing TP exchanges and having to set up the authorized reseller program.

Anyone contemplating this is well advised to seek expert RL legal counsel before doing anything or possibly face prosecution and fines if they don't conform to all laws and regulations

Since it is highly unlikely that you'll be able to cash out the city currency, that is going to be a big drawback for attracting creators to have shops there, unless L's can be used to pay for their products.  The only shop owners you'll get are ones that are ok with using the city currency to rent a home and participate in the RP.

[Medhue Simoni]

Well, it is definitely interesting. I would say that SL is already Libertarian in many ways. Most of the residents just don't know it or don't understand it. What I'm perplexed about is the money aspect. Money is just a means to exchange goods. Yes, a non inflationary money supply is better for the people, but I'm not sure how much this applies to virtual cities. Plus, the work that it will take to create this new money supply will be vast, and hardly profitable to any1 that takes it on, at least in the beginning. Of course, because the money would not be inflationary, it would gain value over time. The other problem is getting people to use this virtual currency. The services or products would have to be exclusive to this new money supply, or people will just use what currency they have. Even with bitcoin, it really didn't take off until it was being accepted by more businesses.

Personally, I think you are focusing too much on what money to use. If SL was more open to a bitcoin model, or allowing residents to use it, then I would agree with you that the money is important. Being that LL is completely ignorant of currencies and how they work, I would not be putting much focus on the currency aspect. Lindens are convertable, and widely used in SL. It's as good a currency as any, if you can't use gold, silver, or bitcoins.

[Dillon Levenque]

A virtual city generating income for virtual citizens who build, design, or do other jobs for the city. Those virtual citizens will want someplace to spend their wages and the lure of that unspent money will draw outsiders to the city to open stores and provide goods and services. Those new private sector citizens will spend Lindens for your virtual currency, thus generating more money for the public sector.

In essence, your private sector payroll will be derived from your public sector payroll. That's pretty interesting. In my part of the real world, public sector payroll is approximately 1/5th the size of the private sector payroll. Not only that, it's financed by taxes on the public sector payroll. I wonder how the method you describe will work.

The most interesting part of all is the virtual currency. You'll need a pile of it to start your experiment because that's what your virtual city will be paying all those virtual citizens you'll be hiring. It's going to be assigned a value based on the Linden. That way your virtual citizens can exchange their virtual dollars for Lindens. That pile of virtual dollars will need a pile of Lindens on hand to back it up.

I'm curious to know where that pile of Lindens is going to come from.

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

 

I'm curious to know where that pile of Lindens is going to come from.

 

---

I was wondering that also.

I was also wondering how the ToS would apply to this statement:

"Following text is copyrighted and further distribution is not allowed without permission "

The OP posted it publically in a LL owned and run Forum.  Can I repost it any where I want in a LL run Service?  Does this statement disallow me from using the quote function in the Forum to repost it?  That would be further distribution.  Hmmmmmmmmmm.

[Wili Clip]

This isn't going to be just 1 city. I am using the 1st city to make a proof of concept. This framework that I am trying to create will be for unlimited number of virtual cities that will want to take part in the system.

There will be a floating exchange between city currency and L$. Supply of this new currency will be very limited (with similar end limit as bitcoins have).

Initial idea is to give the city currency to the new citiy managers or city founding community that will present a sensible and efficient development plan for the city and city services. New cities will use the city funds to develop services and products that citizens will be able to pay for city currency.

If I use your terminology... public sector citizens will be able to ether pay for different virtual services or products created by different cities for them or offer their earned city currency on L$<->City Currency  Exchange. Outside people who will become city citizens will buy City Currency on that same Exchange to use it for city services and products (they will be buying from those that will be selling).

The new city currency initially doesn't need to be backed by L$. City currency will have deflationary properties. Just like with bitcoins the value of city currency will grow with the demand for city currency. Some people who will earn city currency will not sell on exchange right away but wait a week, month or 2 to sell when they can get more L$ per unit of city currency.

Supply of city currency will be very limited and cities who will want to join the virtual cities schema will need to agree to sell their services and products in city currency or sell them for L$ and city currency at same time (while offering 5 - 10% or more discount). If people can buy same product at discount they will have an incentive to buy city currency with their L$ and use the city currency to get product cheaper then if they directly paid with L$. This creates a sufficient demand for city currency for it to grow in price. Number of services and products for citizens to buy with city currency would grow as more and more cities adopt schema of "virtual city" management system.

Supply of city currency would be lesser then demand for it and everyone doing business in city currency would see their city currency value grow in L$.

I really belive that such virtual city monetary system would bring much needed growth in numbers of new residents and player retention rate in Second Life and open many doors of different opportunities for everyone.

It would certainly also help the company Linden Lab make more profit and dedicate more money towards Second Life updates and upgrades.

[Perrie Juran]

You still haven't said where that initial stockpile of currency was going to come from.

[Wili Clip]

There are few ways of possible creations of the city currency.

Each new or existing city will present a plan to develop services and products on the sim or land.
City currency amount is then created and given according to business plan. City needs to use it according to business plan.

1) Now the city currency created could be logged as (0 interest rates) debt to the Central City Currency Management System (CCCMS) that city would eventually pay back fully.

or

2) Currency wouldn't be created out of debt and city wouldn't have to repay centreal currency issuer.

or)

3) Special algorithm that would create city currency and add it on city account for every avatar that spent 5 minutes in within the city border.

Source of city revenue could be small tax imposed on all services and products sold in within the city. My current idea is that each city could set their own desired TAX rate. For further city expansion city wouldn't need any more new city currency issued for it as it would fund future projects out of its revenue.

[Dillon Levenque]

"The new city currency initially doesn't need to be backed by L$."

Of course it does! If it isn't backed by the Linden then it is NOT currency at all. It's just play money. You, personally, decide what it's worth. You say,

"I'll pay you 20 Wilis for that couch. By the way, the Wili is worth 10 Lindens right now." I say,

"Cool! I'll run over to your Currency Exchange and bag my 200 Lindens!"

When I get to the Currency Exchange I find....you behind the little metal grill thing. Attempting to mask my surprise I say,

Here are 20 Wilis. I'd like my 200 Lindens now." You say,

"Well, they aren't worth 200 Lindens right now. You see, Wilis aren't backed by anything at the moment. But in the sweet by and by, man will they be something. They're deflationary, you see. Ain't life grand?

 

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Wili Clip wrote:

There are few ways of possible creations of the city currency.

 

Each new or existing city will present a plan to develop services and products on the sim or land.

City currency amount is then created and given according to business plan. City needs to use it according to business plan.

1) Now the city currency created could be logged as (0 interest rates) debt to the Central City Currency Management System (CCCMS) that city would eventually pay back fully.

or

2) Currency wouldn't be created out of debt and city wouldn't have to repay centreal currency issuer.

or)

3) Special algorithm that would create city currency and add it on city account for every avatar that spent 5 minutes in within the city border.

Source of city revenue could be small tax imposed on all services and products sold in within the city. My current idea is that each city could set their own desired TAX rate. For further city expansion city wouldn't need any more new city currency issued for it as it would fund future projects out of its revenue.

---

Unfortunately, because "land" costs real money in SL, someone is going to have to bank roll this.  Someone could 'donate' the funds.  The only way really to 'homestead' in SL is for someone to go to a Sandbox, start building and then sell what they have built.  Otherwise, someone is going to have to put up some cash.

[Wili Clip]

The value of city curnecy will always be determined by supply and demand.  Value of unit of city currency is as much as someone wanting to buy it on exchange to use it is prepared to pay for in L$.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Wili Clip wrote:

The value of city curnecy will always be determined by supply and demand.  Value of unit of city currency is as much as someone wanting to buy it on exchange to use it is prepared to pay for in L$.

---

Then what makes your economic model different from the ones I thought you were trying to avoid or replace?

 

[Wili Clip]

Public service to citizens and virtual governance, big evolving community and tighter cooperation. Citizens would see their city currency grow in value...

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Wili Clip wrote:

 

If successful such cities could offer virtual jobs to millions of new users of Second Life. They would be employed as city workers and would simulate the real life public sectors that would offer services to virtual citizens like the real life public sector offers services to real life citizens. This is also the main vision that inspires and motivates me for making plan for such virtual cities. If I can drive this vision to a realization then Second Life will get its real purpose.

 

---

There's a very basic problem to this plan - nobody in Second Life actually NEEDS a service while inworld. Your avatar is immortal and needs no food, drink or shelter. What would the "millions of workers" DO? One of the most common questions from new SL users is how they can make money, but many of them come in literally unable to put on a pair of shoes. If they're given a paid "job" it means what they're doing should have value - if they're being paid for doing something of no value, how much more will those capable of actually doing something valuable demand, and what will that do to the money supply?

[Wili Clip]

Very good questions. I am thankfull for comments that are putting forward problems like that.
This is a really persisting problem and specific to Second Life environment.

Question is what kind of jobs could people do for virtual cities.

There have been a lot of attemps of different compenies for starting services in Second Life. I've seen many businesses attempting to run different services from language classes, scripting, job employment agencies and others...

My opinion is that starting public services that virtual cities should have is education on all the different levels from helping new SL residents putting up shoes or finding affordable stores for them, greeting people, advising to more advanced moderation in sl groups, hosting, scripting, designing.

Virtual City needs to be based on education. People that are to be employed for different virtual services and jobs need a proper virtual education. People that are proficient in important jobs that are needed in SL could take place of teachers and would earn money for teaching.

 

I can make the system and start 1st experimental city and we will see if there is interest for virtual public services. And we will see where we can take it.

 

[Medhue Simoni]

This is why I question your focus on a different currency. Besides the complexity of a working virtual currency, you add complexity to the whole situation with a different currency. It is hard enough just to be able to have a profitable sim to run all this on, but you want to add even more complexity. If the reason for the currency is to create value to run the cities, than I see this failing from the start. Why? Well, any new currency takes time to implement. Bitcoin took a few years to even catch on. Now, bitcoin could do this, as we all had other currencies to use. So, in the case of your project, you would have to start off using Lindens, than slowly implement the new currency over time. Or, you could just allow people to pay with either currency. If your currency really does produce it's own value, people will gravitate to using it over Lindens.

The other problem that I see with virtual cities, is that, just like the net, there is no need for any central location, or it is just less important. In the real world, that is what cities are, and the prime reason for moving to a city. Everything is centralized, so your transportation costs are lower. In virtual communities, you can't group too many things in 1 area, as the hardware can't handle all those people. Some of the most successful virtual cities in SL, are all most based on real life landmarks, which is the whole appeal of going there. I'm not saying that what you describe can't be done, only that the nuances are quite different than real life.

[Coby Foden]

---

Wili Clip wrote:

My opinion is that starting public services that virtual cities should have is education on all the different levels from helping new SL residents putting up shoes or finding affordable stores for them, greeting people, advising to more advanced moderation in sl groups, hosting, scripting, designing.

Virtual City needs to be based on education. People that are to be employed for different virtual services and jobs need a proper virtual education. People that are proficient in important jobs that are needed in SL could take place of teachers and would earn money for teaching. 

---

Is the idea that those who have skills to work in virtual cities offering services will be paid by the cities? Or how it goes? Where do the cities get the money to pay to the workers? I guess it is the recipients of the services (customers) who will pay for the service. The big question is are enough people willing to pay for the virtual city services?

In the net there are already vast amounts of various services available. For example for learning something - skills once learned one could use in SL. Such as: designing, scripting, animation, texturing, languages, even guidance how to use SL, what to do there, etc. Hundreds and hundreds of those services are even totally free. What more could virtual cities paid services offer so that people would get interested in the services?

I must say that I don't get the idea of virtual cities own currency at all. What benefits would it offer instead of using L$?

 

PS.

Learning languages, taught by native speakers is one thing I can imagine would work very well in SL.

It's also good environment for practising the acquired language skills, if one finds the right people inworld.

Learning spoken language in SL has one problem though; it appears that there are lots of people who don't want to use voice in SL.

 

[Wili Clip]

"Bitcoin took a few years to even catch on. Now, bitcoin could do this, as we all had other currencies to use. So, in the case of your project, you would have to start off using Lindens, than slowly implement the new currency over time. Or, you could just allow people to pay with either currency. If your currency really does produce it's own value, people will gravitate to using it over Lindens."

Yes you're correct. The transitional phase can be done with concept of parallel currencies.

"In virtual communities, you can't group too many things in 1 area, as the hardware can't handle all those people."

Yes you are right about that too. That is why there will be several virtual cities ran by different city managers. There will be just 1 city at the start that will serve as proof of concept.

I've been thinking yesterday... I've came to a conclusion and I have found possible solutions. After few calculations... I will start creating a system for 1st city that will serve as proof of concept.

 

 

[Freya Mokusei]

Gonna bounce off of your post, Perrie, 'cause you make a lot of good points. Theresa, too!

I can appreciate the idea of this as a roleplay idea, perhaps even with a play currency - educate a class of 15 for an hour, gain 15 EnlightenmentDollars or... something. Exchange those for goods, prizes, advertising, etc around the rest of the city.

Doing anything more serious than this, will open you up to some serious issues:-

The political problem: Pretty much any attempt to stock Linden Dollars to provide a cash-out source for PlayMoney will attract negative traction from LL - especially if you attempt to 'replace' Linden Dollars outright. There's not many ways to get around this, because you're going to need to hold 100% of the value of your economy in Linden Dollars in order to exchange currencies at all (if you have less reserve than you have potential debt, you're going to end up screwing someone). Using this money will be difficult, and using it for tier will be impossible.

The financial problem: It's going to be difficult to make sure that someone isn't left holding the bag. Tier is paid regardless of any PlayMoney, and it seems unlikely to me that any city operating under liberal conditions will be able to afford tier in addition to supporting its own economic base (esp. keeping a reserve, point #1, and especially within the first 1-3 years of operation). In the event that you can't cover tier, someone is going to foot this bill in a very non-democratic manner. Unless someone is offering free use of a full sim, funding it personally without any expectation of return, I would imagine that this alone would make your city too risky to be worth investing in - it could simply disappear next tier date.

That you suggest a 'tax' is worrying - not only because it seems to contradict your OP (I can't find it now, I assume you re-wrote the post - I'll leave this point in because you still maintain a libertarian intention) where you stated that use of force to aquire anothers property should be condemned - in general agreement with the concept of Libertarianism. The tax issue creates another trust issue (will tax rise or fall? Will you add new taxes?) and also presents a massive barrier to anyone considering any kind of commercial work with your PlayMoney. Why would anyone use a currency with additional taxes and risks (vs. L$) when they could set up without both of these things and gain exactly the same bonuses as working with your city, except elsewhere?

The trust problem: You're going to have quite a barrier convincing anyone to invest in a 'virtual-virtual' currency (one that's a step further removed from being real than Linden Dollars), a token system that has no value at all without the legitimacy of both your 'Central Exchange' and a Linden Dollar exchange. You will also need to convince people to hand over their L$ to turn it into PlayMoney. There are large trust issues already with Linden Dollars and they're being offered by a US registered company - a single resident (or even an in-world company) is never going to be as trustworthy as LL is (especially with the trustworthiness of L$ stacked on top). In order for other users to trust in an economy based around the ideas presented, they need to believe that the project will exist for long enough to return their investment (remember, you can't give investors more money than they give you without operating as a bank) - longevity is always a problem in SL, and as mentioned above this project is considerably more wobbly than most.

Bear in mind also, that there is no research or even common understanding to suggest that you can 'build it and they will come' in Second Life. I would find it hard to believe that any single concept in Second Life is capable of predictable linear growth, let alone the exponential growth that you will probably require. Most sims, most of the time, are empty.

That's everything that I can think of at the moment, but I'm sure there are many more. I would definitely skip trying to implement your own currency, if only because there's no way it will ever be less hassle (or more profitable) than it's worth.

[Perrie Juran]

Utopian Societies, Utopian Dreams and Ideals.  I do love love them.  Are they worthy endeavors?  Possibly.  The problem I sometimes see with these is that they ignore the nature of man. Is "Man" or "Mankind" evolving?  Are we becoming as a whole more ethical or moral?  That is a subject of debate all in its own.  And of course we could get into a whole discussion over "what is the nature of man."

In the early days of the United States they had a lot of economic problems also.  There were people who wanted the Government to step in and do many things.  It's driving me a little batty right now cause I can't source it and am having to paraphrase a little, but in response to some of the things people were proposing one of the Founding Fathers stated, "There is nothing wrong with the Federation or the Constitution, the problem is that people do not understand the nature of money......"

To be honest, I don't know that I really understand it either.  What I do know is this, there were very good reasons why the Founding Fathers set something called "The Gold Standard."

Having said that, moving in a different vein, I'd like to postulate something.  Any where that Free Enterprise has been allowed to operate unbridled, the economy has flourished.  Any where that it has been stifled, the economy sufferred.  It is interesting to note how many Communist or Socialist Nations have wound up needing to embrace it.

So what then is the role of government, or what should it be?

About a year ago I got interested in Teddy Roosevelt.  If you have never read them I highly recommend his 1902 and 1904 "State of the Union" messages to Congress.  I think in his 1902 message he nails it very well.  As a preface I want to say that when he uses the word "evil," the basic meaning he is implying is "fraud or deception."  I think that is obvious in the context.

"In my Message to the present Congress at its first session I discussed at length the question of the regulation of those big corporations commonly doing an interstate business, often with some tendency to monopoly, which are popularly known as trusts. The experience of the past year has emphasized, in my opinion, the desirability of the steps I then proposed. A fundamental requisite of social efficiency is a high standard of individual energy and excellence; but this is in no wise inconsistent with power to act in combination for aims which can not so well be achieved by the individual acting alone. A fundamental base of civilization is the inviolability of property; but this is in no wise inconsistent with the right of society to regulate the exercise of the artificial powers which it confers upon the owners of property, under the name of corporate franchises, in such a way as to prevent the misuse of these powers. Corporations, and especially combinations of corporations, should be managed under public regulation. Experience has shown that under our system of government the necessary supervision can not be obtained by State action. It must therefore be achieved by national action. Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth. The capitalist who, alone or in conjunction with his fellows, performs some great industrial feat by which he wins money is a welldoer, not a wrongdoer, provided only he works in proper and legitimate lines. We wish to favor such a man when he does well. We wish to supervise and control his actions only to prevent him from doing ill. Publicity can do no harm to the honest corporation; and we need not be over tender about sparing the dishonest corporation."

[Freya Mokusei]

For a martian you sure know your [Earth] political history.

That's cool stuff, I'll take a look at those links. Gold would definitely improve the trust issues when introducing a new currency - I imagine this was the Founding Dudes' intention - since they were competing against the British Pound.

Unfortunately as with every attempt to play Civilisation (I imagine, much like the OP's intentions), such lofty ideals get distorted by its leaders wishes for power. Since Roosevelt (and those before him) the US has:-

 

1. Invented the Federal Reserve, returning themselves to the Hell they intended to escape.
2. Added 'In God We Trust' to their currency, blurring the constitutional line between church and state.
3. Removed the 'Gold Standard', and repeatedly reduced the amount of gold available to the public.

Nobody's perfect. Few remain reputable when they have the financial trust of the market, especially if they have a licence to write their own rulebook and print their own money.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

For a martian you sure know your [Earth] political history.

That's cool stuff, I'll take a look at those links. Gold would definitely improve the trust issues when introducing a new currency - I imagine this was the Founding Dudes' intention - since they were competing against the British Pound.

Unfortunately as with every attempt to play Civilisation (I imagine, much like the OP's intentions), such lofty ideals get distorted by its leaders wishes for power. Since Roosevelt (and those before him) the US has:-

 

1. Invented the Federal Reserve, returning themselves to the Hell they intended to escape.
2. Added 'In God We Trust' to their currency, blurring the constitutional line between church and state.
3. Removed the 'Gold Standard', and repeatedly reduced the amount of gold available to the public.

Nobody's perfect. Few remain reputable when they have the financial trust of the market, especially if they have a licence to write their own rulebook

and

print their own money.

---

I really love that quote from Teddy.  Because it highlights something that I believe our Courts and Legislators and other elected officials have lost sight of.  Corporations only exist because the good will of the people by way of our elected representatives allow them to exist.  Their existence is not a Right but a Privilege and all privileges carry corresponding responsibilities, in this case, "To subserve the public good."

For all the Founding Fathers short comings, the longer I live, the more convinced I become that there has never been as a whole a group of people who gathered together, as smart or as intelligent as they were in the aggregate, in order to make something happen.

As individuals you can find a lot of things to criticise about them, but as a group they were pretty durn smart.