I have been thinking about the relationship between politics and banking a bit lately. One of the ideas is essentially a political interest rate.



Firstly, how do I see a financial interest rate?



A bank agrees to lend someone money, and says to them, "In exchange for paying me this money back over an extended period of time, I also want you to pay a certain percentage of the total amount every year." In a sense, it is how the bank makes a profit - the more that they are able to collect in interest payments, the more money, power, influence, etc, they will have when it comes to understanding relationships of control. Even more broadly, it collects the general wealth of a people, and the more people need to borrow money, the more payments the bank will collect, the more power they will have, etc.



Where is the innovation of the bank, however? Meaning, what is their benefit to society? Well, firstly, they are secure - secondly, they are there - thirdly, they always at least have the potential to have a sizable portion of money if you need it (well of course except when they don't).



In a sense, banks are very good and provide a body for the gathering of resources of a community into a specific place, and then using those resources in a specific way (investment, trading, etc).



But what about political interest rate?



There are political institutions throughout the country that serve many roles. What is their benefit to society? Well, the govt. provides stability, its always there; they have great visibility, because people listen when their local politco's come to speak (especially if they are talking about giving money!); and they are somewhat able to organize people in a way that can get things done. (I know I am vastly oversimplifying both the proper role of banks and government)



In a sense, the banks are able to gather 'resources' through those that are willing to give the banks their money, time, or obligations; and the government is able to gather 'support' through those that are willing to give the government their money, time, or support.



(And yes, you don't have to pay taxes)



This leads me to my point - the two things are very similar. Where one gathers 'resources', the other gathers 'support', or if you like (I don't) the term, political capital.



Now there is significant overlap, but that's irrelevant right now, because I am talking source.



What would the political interest rate be?



It can't be strictly about the future, because not everyone is motivated by building a better future; sometimes people are motivated by the past. By extent, it can't be about the past, because some people are motivated about the future. It can't be about anything specific, because it can just as easily be NOT about it.



It really can only be about happiness - by happiness I mean the state where there is no lack.



So there is an institution which someone comes to with a desire for something, and they turn around in exchange for it and say "In exchange for filling this desire of yours, you agree to give me support over an extended period of time." And, for the institution to survive, it must grow, and it must be able to 'gather' this support over a specific time.



How would it be measured? I don't know. How about the people or institutions that are best able to fill the desires; who people think is their 'leader', meaning the person who is best able to fill their desires in a proper way.