I might be missing the point here... How does anyone other than the government benefit from the "velocity of money"? More taxable transactions are good for the government, but a well placed a long term capital investment in productive tooling decreases the velocity of that money while increasing productivity. What am I missing in the equation?

... and if the government did not control the money
supply, the booms and busts would be brief and
responsive to the market. . no negative interest
rates on savings would occur, unless your savings
was buggy whips. . but that's just the market,
growing. . catch a ride on the wave!!! -- j
.

Value produced = velocity of money * amt of money. It takes means of production to produce value, though. If there's unused productive capacity, one simple solution is to increase the velocity of money. But what if people don't want the goods/services those means of production are geared up to produce? Then we'd be better off retooling those means of production (i.e. investing) than spending.

I'm sort of in the muddled middle in that I accept the Keynsian argument of priming the pump when there's unused productive capacity, BUT I think it's wrong and simplistic to dick with monetary and fiscal policy to respond to every little blip in the economy.

The effective value of any given amount of money is measured by its face value multiplied by its average rate of circulation.

Example - $1 million dollars flowing through 20 transactions a month is worth twice as much as $10 million dollars flowing through 1 transaction a month.

Spending is good for a failing economy founded on DEBT. Savings are what drive a healthy economy founded on investment.

"Faced with seeing their money slowly confiscated, people are more likely to spend it on goods and services"

No, people are likely to work and produce less. Great way to permanently tank the economy into oblivion.

A common denominator of bad ideas is thinking that when you change the rules that people will still play the same game.

This idea is so devoid of economic functional awareness that it could be a submission for in article in The Onion.

This will give more value to Bitcoin, gold, and silver.

The Euro-Socialist trust in government is just unfathomable to me.

How can anyone hearing this not blanch from either fear or rage!

I knew that my life feels like:
"I load 16 tons and what do I get?"
Time to GO GALT.

And the gov is controlled by Nathan's descendants.
As they say in Thailand, 'same, same'

This appears to be a step toward total govery meet control of my money.

I believe "the greater economic good" is short for "the greater economic good of the ruling class."

Just one more thing to move from the Control column from people to Gov't. I will not comply!

yes. company store concept

So basically what is being proposed is:
Your time (hence your life) is government property to be used for the purpose of "the greater economic good" (whatever that means).

Count me out.

Lately old dino has been been squirreling away more cash than ever before.
It may all burn up in a fire or get blown away by a tornado, but I've come to believe it is far more likely that Big Brother (as well as the more skilled criminal hackers) may pillage my accounts electronically.

Banning cash is a terrible idea, IMHO. It's fine to give people more choices, but it's wrong to say you cannot use some medium of exchange.

If find US paper money to be very effective in terms of how broadly it's accepted and how little it costs to hold, around 3% a year. I would be very sorry to see it go. People should be free to use whatever media of exchange they want.

"all of the propaganda suggesting that it would be patriotic to go out and spend it. "
I don't get either. You're either going to spend it, save it, or invest it. Saving and investing are similar, but investing involves greater risk and return. So there are basically two choices, spend now or invest for later. If you spend now it, some business gets money for using their productive capacity. If you save/invest it, some business gets that money to build more productive capacity. There's no reason one is better than the other.

Nathan Rothschilds, is claimed to have said:
"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply"

Governments wish to be the puppet-master. New boss, same as the old boss...

At last, an admission from a collectivist that Keynesian economics does not work.

Another thought, this article is from the UK Telegraph. The UK economy is doing relatively well.
No one has explained it. I propose this- it is the big number of migrants from India etc.
The Islamists do not help of course, many are on welfare.
But the others include many go-getters. They know how to evade and avoid the licenses, the minimum wage, the useless and myriad environmental and safety rules. This group follows the same traditions of migrant Jews and Chinese in small family run businesses, many become successful and big, They manage to maintain sensitivity to the market and strict cost control.

"Forcing everyone to spend only by electronic means from an account held at a government-run bank would give the authorities far better tools to deal with "

anyone who disagrees with them.
Complete control of everyone's liquid assets is a control level that would make Hitler and Stalin green with envy.
If the current dictator arbitrarily decides that Christians or Jews or gun owners are just too troublesome, the dictator just electronically kills their access to funds and they die of starvation, or of disease because they can't get the drug needed to save them. If they contact the authorities for help (as the propaganda advises) the fedgov just puts them in freight cars and take them to the nearest convenient furnace for disposal.
No muss, no fuss. Genocide made easy.

I still can't understand how so many people buy into the idea that spending is good for the "economy" - even if it's spending on credit. I remember getting my check from Bush via the IRS and all of the propaganda suggesting that it would be patriotic to go out and spend it. It's so offensive that governments think it is their right/responsibility to "stimulate" economies.

What a great idea! Every last cent that we earn and save must be kept in a government bank! And if by chance some corrupt, third rate ward heeled from Chicago (the world's northernmost banana republic) should get elected to high office, that couldn't be used to control or intimidate the general populace or dare I say, political opponent, could it? What could possibly go wrong?