I can't wait to take macroeconomics

Okay so here is my problem. One of the main problems with the economic world right now and with Capitalism is that the wealthy control everything, and can do so to their own advantage. The problem with Communism is that it banks too much on people being good. It is my firm belief that whatever system in control needs to assume that everybody is a crook, but also that the system in control should represent all people, and not just the wealthy.

It is clear that Capitalism (or neo-libralism) and Communism both fail, and also so does Anarchy. Fascism would do it, except that it depends on a great person always being in charge, which is as silly as Communism or Anarchy. This illustrates the obvious point that extremes won't work. But that doesn't really help me find a solution.

It seems to me that the optimal thing would be to figure out a way for money to only buy things, but not power. This way, everyone has an equal amount of power (Communism), but an unequal amount of money (neo-libralism). It seems like a great idea and it solves all the problems, but how the hell do I go about separating money from power? Is that even possible?

It kind of hurts my brain to think about it, to be honest. But seriously, if I could do that, it would be a huge step for civilisation as a whole. I need to bounce these ideas off of someone. Maybe Nora or Jesse or Patrick or someone. I really want to talk to Nick Davenport about this too. By the way, this is spurred from a letter I just received from Nick, who says he'll be in town really soon. Hang on I am going to call his house.

His mom says he is back late this Saturday. Excellent. I will definitely talk government with him.

Back on topic, I feel like money is irritating. Without money, 4 apples buy 3 oranges, and if you don't have something someone wants, you can't trade for something you want. This sucks because it makes transactions hella slow, and useless if they are in an area where there is a lot of one thing and little of another. Therefore money is necessary as something to tie everything together.

But now 4 dollars buy 4 apples or 3 oranges or 2 milkshakes or 1 burrito etc. and everybody wants at least something that 4 dollars can buy, so people will trade you anything for money. And so if you offer people money, you have power no matter what. Therefore, money inevitably leads to power. I can ridicule Bill Gates all I want, but if he offers me a bunch of money, I shut my mouth and become his humble servant, all without him needing to lift a finger. Wealthy people are the true royalty that move the government around like pawns. And that is pretty unstoppable.

So I can't change money. I wonder if there is a way to give everybody so much power that no amount of money will make a significant difference. Because if every person has a ridiculous amount of power, nobody has any power, and adding some amount of power that money will provide will maybe do very little.

The problem here is that I am dodging around the definition of "power." I honestly have no idea how to "give people power." It doesn't have its own currency. Although it could. Hm. Well shit. No, no, that is a dumb idea, because then you could sell say your voting power to someone for money, and bam the people with money have the most voting power.

Also I wonder if money to power is an addition problem or a multiplication problem. What I said earlier is banking on it being addition. Yet it seems more like money multiplies your power, rather than adding to it. Seriously, there must be a way to do this. God DAMN.

I am so hella frustrated right now, and my brain really hurts. I need a person. Also I need to take a few advanced courses in macroeconomics.