Sounds good, Eric. I still recognize that the distribution of Money 2.0 is the essence. This tells me that the political reality is the essence, no matter what we do financially.

If we have a system that is based on divide-and-conquer, such as our democracy in the USA and UK, then the haves and have-nots will be farther apart than when we have a system that is based on equality.

Thomas Jefferson was the first person to devise a voting system based on equality, and while I can see how the Framers desired equality in their systems (among the few voters they considered important enough), they did not want (or did not get) it for the Federal level. They picked a divide-and-conquer system for the Federal level.

If we end up getting a mixed system of Federal divide-and-conquer democracy, plus a system of Full Representation for all other levels of government (State and local level), then our poor will double their share of income and wealth (this is based on data among nations with different voting systems).

Simply by changing our voting system at State and local levels can we increase the wealth and income of the bottom ten percent in society. We can double their income through redistributing political power.

The happiest nations in the world have full representation as their basic system. It is time we should demand the same for ourselves and make the world a better place.

--

Thank you for your reply. I studied economics. Can you provide more info on Money 2.0? I want to see the mechanisms proposed and review them next to the influence of political mechanisms I just described.