SkyscrapersUS
Member
- Sep 2, 2023
- 42
- 8
- 21
It is more logical that in countries with a larger population, currencies of the Serbian dinar type (1,000 USD = 108.1 RSD) are used, and in countries with a smaller population, currencies of the American dollar type are used.
E.g. In America, a country with a larger population, a loaf of bread costs 108 US dinars (1,000 US dollars = 108.1 US dinars), and in Canada, a country with a smaller population, a loaf of bread costs 1 US dollar.
How do we know which currency to use?
We observe the number of inhabitants of the country, the area of the country and the geographical location of the country and compare it with other countries.
E.g. Compared to America, Serbia has a smaller population, a smaller land area and no access to the sea, so it is more logical to use dollars in Serbia and dinars in America (1,000 USD = 108.1 RSD).
Right now, it's upside down, and it hurts both countries a lot.
Second thing that I would change in America is the way of billing for water, electricity, internet and telephone.
Houses that are closer to the place where water is obtained (rivers, lakes, springs) should pay less for water compared to houses that are further away from the place where water is obtained.
Houses that are closer to the place where electricity is obtained (hydroelectric power plants, solar power plants) should pay less for electricity compared to houses that are further away from the place where electricity is obtained.
Houses that are closer to the place where the cable signal for phone, internet and television comes from (main cable stations) should pay less for phone, internet and television compared to houses that are further away from the place where the cable signal comes from (main cable stations).
People who live on the first floor of a skyscraper should pay less for water, electricity, telephone, TV and Internet than people who live on the top floor of the same skyscraper.
E.g. Libya has a large land area and a smaller population compared to other countries, and Egypt compared to Libya has a smaller land area and a larger population. This would mean that in Egypt the amount of consumed water, electricity, internet, TV and telephone is valued more monetarily in relation to the distance from the source from where it is taken, and in Libya the distance to the source from which water, electricity, internet, telephone and TV is taken valued more monetarily in relation to the amount of water consumed.
WISDOM IN THE IDEA
In India, China and other countries that have a larger population, the price of charging the length to the source of water, electricity, telephone, TV and Internet is not important, it can be zero price. With a large number of residents, the price of consumed water, electricity, internet, TV and telephone is important, and the price of the length to the source should be zero or close to zero.
The wisdom of the idea is to use the correct way of charging the costs of water, electricity, telephone, TV and Internet for the future generations of those countries, because the population can change. So, if the number of inhabitants changes, they can change the method of payment.
E.g. In America, a country with a larger population, a loaf of bread costs 108 US dinars (1,000 US dollars = 108.1 US dinars), and in Canada, a country with a smaller population, a loaf of bread costs 1 US dollar.
How do we know which currency to use?
We observe the number of inhabitants of the country, the area of the country and the geographical location of the country and compare it with other countries.
E.g. Compared to America, Serbia has a smaller population, a smaller land area and no access to the sea, so it is more logical to use dollars in Serbia and dinars in America (1,000 USD = 108.1 RSD).
Right now, it's upside down, and it hurts both countries a lot.
Second thing that I would change in America is the way of billing for water, electricity, internet and telephone.
Houses that are closer to the place where water is obtained (rivers, lakes, springs) should pay less for water compared to houses that are further away from the place where water is obtained.
Houses that are closer to the place where electricity is obtained (hydroelectric power plants, solar power plants) should pay less for electricity compared to houses that are further away from the place where electricity is obtained.
Houses that are closer to the place where the cable signal for phone, internet and television comes from (main cable stations) should pay less for phone, internet and television compared to houses that are further away from the place where the cable signal comes from (main cable stations).
People who live on the first floor of a skyscraper should pay less for water, electricity, telephone, TV and Internet than people who live on the top floor of the same skyscraper.
E.g. Libya has a large land area and a smaller population compared to other countries, and Egypt compared to Libya has a smaller land area and a larger population. This would mean that in Egypt the amount of consumed water, electricity, internet, TV and telephone is valued more monetarily in relation to the distance from the source from where it is taken, and in Libya the distance to the source from which water, electricity, internet, telephone and TV is taken valued more monetarily in relation to the amount of water consumed.
WISDOM IN THE IDEA
In India, China and other countries that have a larger population, the price of charging the length to the source of water, electricity, telephone, TV and Internet is not important, it can be zero price. With a large number of residents, the price of consumed water, electricity, internet, TV and telephone is important, and the price of the length to the source should be zero or close to zero.
The wisdom of the idea is to use the correct way of charging the costs of water, electricity, telephone, TV and Internet for the future generations of those countries, because the population can change. So, if the number of inhabitants changes, they can change the method of payment.
