Fred wrote:
> Alex Russell wrote:
>
>> Fred wrote:
>>> Alex Russell wrote:
>>>
>
>>>> So basically you loan yourself the 'money' by promising to pay it
back
>>>> later.
>>>>
>>> No, at least no more than we do now with scarce money. What
>>> you're really
>>> doing is *issuing* the money. But the money is not a representation
of
>>> goods and services but rather only a measure of goods and services,...
>>> (That "keeping track of value" function you refer to below).
>>>
>> I'm not sure I see the difference between issuing money in our current
>> system, via loans by banks mainly, issuing money by individuals, but
>> still having one big system.
>>
> The fact that you don't *have* to pay it back in any specific
time frame is
> different. The fact that whether you have lots of this new money or owe
> lots of it doesn't give you power over anyone else, they have their own
> puchasing power. That's a bigstep forward for equality.
> Money is artificial and decisions about the economy are now made
in this
> artificial economy rather than the real economy. This creates problems
> because the real economy; land food resources, homes clean water etc.,
is
> considered less when it comes to making decisions. That's why we have
> pollution, for instance. Dollars are more im****tant than people in our
> current economy. Switching to a plentiful system puts the decision
making
> back in the real economy and that changes the way we deal with it.
>
Sounds like a recipe for inflation. If lots of people just load
themselves money, and only pay back a little then lend themselves more
won't that devalue the "currency"?
>> I'm also not quite clear on the difference between "represent" and
>> "measure". And which belongs to the LETsystem?
>>
> I can't explain it much more clearly, but it falls out of
everybody having
> their own purchasing power 100% of the time. There is no need for them
to
> borrow money from somebody else, they have their own. So money cannot
be
> lent at interest. The money has no value in and of itself. It is not a
> commodity and does not "hold the value" of what it is traded for. So I
say
> it does not "represent" the goods and services. But a person's account
> balance is a record of how much value they have given or taken. So it's
a
> measure of the goods and services consumed or provided.
> Michael Linton, who copyrighted the term LETSystem, used to
compare it to
> feet & inches used to measure lumber for a house. He would say, "Think
of
> wanting to build a house and you have people ready to help you and you
have
> lumber ready and all the other materials, but someone tells you you
can't
> do it because all the feet and inches are being used to build a big high
> rise in town." That's exactly what they do with money and Mr. Linton's
> contribution was to realise that this was not right. Everybody has
their
> own rulers and measuring tapes and can get on with their jobs without
> interference from outside. If money were the same way, it clear up a
lot
> of problems.
I now see the difference, but disagree that money as we use it currently
is the same as "feet and inches". As money does actually represent some
sort of "real" value. In most cases when money becomes disconnected from
any real value, for example a government starts printing lots of it, it
loses its value.
This self issued money seems to depend on an honour system which often
fails in real life.
>
>>>> How do you prevent freeloaders and other gaming of your system?
>>>>
>>> Everybody wonders about that. Firstly the system is so robust
>>> that a few
>>> freeloaders don't bother it. [Everybody needs a vacation from time to
>>> time, (:-)) ]
>>> The other thing to remember is that freeloaders are people who
>>> take more
>>> out of the system than they put in. Fine. Look at the rich people we
>>> have
>>> now in *this* scarce money system.
>> If I wanted to start my own integrated circuit fab which takes about 4
>> billion dollars, could I just issue myself 4 billion and start
>> construction?
>>
>> Other than refusing to loan more money or otherwise shunning a
>> free-loader, what other ways does the system correct itself?
>>
>> Alex RBy definition they wouldn't have
>>> become
>>> rich if they hadn't taken more out then they put in. That's what
getting
>>> rich means.
>> I disagree. Rich means producing or investing your capital and or
labour
>> in a way that makes a profit. The rich don't just take the money - it
is
>> earned. If you are rich enough you can live off interest and other
>> investments, but the money you loan is generally put to some productive
>> use. A Capitalist, free trade economy is not a zero sum game.
>>
> The one thing that is not true is that the rich "earn" their
money. It is
> merely money making more money, and it's not just interest. If there
are a
> thousand people working in a factory owned by one person, that person
gets
> the profits and it amounts to millions of dollars while the workers who
> actually do the work and produce the wealth have barely enough to live
on
> and sup****t their families. The owner's job amounts to countingthe
money
> and seeing that he/she is not being cheated by someone not following
> the "rules." That is not value added!
> I can see someone being worth more than another in the
workplace. Someone
> can produce more than another, sometimes twice as much, but their cost
of
> living is also a factor. For someone to earn a thousand times more than
> someone else and say they earn it is ridiculous.
The owner invested their money, risked their money, to have the factory
built. Their reward is the profits of the factory. That said, I agree
that many executives salaries are way too high compared to the work they
do. There is a great deal more to building and managing large business
than "counting the money".
If it is so easy to be an owner, why don't all the workers become owners?
If this LETsystem is so great, why isn't it being used more?
>
>> You can inherit, but that still isn't simply taking.
>>
> There is also the question of owner****p and property. These are
also
> arbitrary, artificial conventions that could be re-evaluated and
> re-defined.
I can see that improvements could be made in this area. Governments
should not be able to so easily expropriate property (this is terribly
abused in the USA), and there should be some mechanism for abandoned
property to be claimed by someone (or group) wanting to make use of it.
On the whole, I sup****t strong property rights as it protects the fruits
of your labour and investment.
>
>> If you're going to criticise the new system for letting that
>>> happen, you have to realise that our current system also allows it and
we
>>> practically wor****p these people and envy them. It's the basic
objective
>>> of the system, to get rich.
>> Yes, but you don't get rich by defaulting on loans. I'm asking about
>> what to do about people who keep a negative balance forever, not people
>> who have huge positive balances. I would see a huge positive balance as
>> being rich.
>>
> There is the question of whether or not this hurts the system.
If you are
> another member of the system, does this activity take food off your
table
> or the roof from over your head? Actually it doesn't. It doesn't take
> away your purchasing power as it would in the current system.
The existence of rich people in the current system does not take
anything from me.
>So a person
> who goes negative and increases their "spending" forever may be a
problem
> for those who feel the need to watch what others do in society and
resent
> it... for those who feel the need to control other people's behaviour.
If
> a lot of people do it, it can hurt productivity and affect everybody's
> quality of life.
> But there's no incentive after a while. Doing nothing isn't as
enjoyable
> as some make it out to be. Eventually your own pride and love for your
> neighbours means that you will do something for someone sooner or later
and
> feel good about it. Today a lot of work is non-paying work. We may
call
> it charity or it may be work that simply cannot turn a profit, like
> cleaning up pollution. Under plentiful money, this could earn a
payment.
> Huge positive balances can arise from providing a lot for the
community and
> taking little out of it. Yes, that is a "wealth" of a sort in terms of
> public gratitude and admiration, and rightly so. Others may have
> disabilities or mental health problems and build up large negative
> balances. Some people may simply need an extended vacation to regain
> perspective or centre their spirit. It's going to happen when someone
> sells a house, or a large value item. It doesn't always mean a lack of
> morality. It's up to the people who know that person to evaluate the
> situation or maybe a committee can be appointed and they would earn
money
> for that as well.
>
Speaking of committees, who keeps track of all these balances, does
audits, etc...
>
>>> True, people can abuse the system for a while, but it's up to
the
>>> general
>>> public to look at what they're doing.
>> So people with large negative balances should not be loaned more, just
>> like the current system?
>>
> Depending on the reason for the balance and the values of the
community. I
> do not presume to set values and rules for everybody. I think as people
> get used to the system they will realise that since they always have
> purchasing power, personal economic crises are small in nature and that
> added security for the individual generates a feeling of peace. Finding
> ways to mess with the system is less of a priority because there is no
fear
> of poverty to drive it. Hoarding great amounts of wealth is also less
of
> an attraction for the same reason, and since money cannot make more
money
> in the new system there is no reason to hoard that. Decisions are moved
> from the artificial economy to the real economy and that's an
improvement.
> It doesn't mean that there will be no crime, but those economic
incentives
> for crime will be eliminated.
Similar things have been tried and often led to "we pretend to work and
they pretend to pay us".
Maybe I'm just being a bit cynical.
>
>>> The dynamics of the system are totally
>>> different and the strategies are different also.
>> Strategies do do what?
>>
> To make the system work for you. Plentiful money systems are
much more
> user friendly.
>
>
>> I agree there are issues with abuse of the power that comes with
wealth,
>> but most of this abuse is due to government interference in the form of
>> laws that are biased towards cor****ations over citizens.
>>
> Exactly because the rich have taken over "influence" of the
governments.
> They say "Pass this law or we'll close down the factory and there goes
your
> tax base." or maybe it's just a bribe. Over time as the rich get
richer
> these things are bound to happen. It's the unstable nature of the
scarce
> money systems. Eventually the abuse gets so bad that you have a
> revolution, like in George Orwell's Animal Farm, or you see the economy
> simply collapse like in Argentine a few years ago,... or the U.S. in a
few
> months or years from now.
>
>>> The system is unstable and eventually destroys itself. That
is
>>> why empires
>>> fall! The new system of plentiful money is not only much more
>>> democratic,
>>> but it is also stable and not self destructive. It does require
constant
>>> care-taking to prevent large scale abuse, but at least it doesn't
reward
>>> the abuse with even greater power over other people. It's a major
step
>>> forward.
>>>
>> I'm not sure it would be stable in the long run, on a large scale.
>>
> If the rich can't get richer by using money as a weapon, we've
removed a
> major force for instability. I don't claim that plentiful money will
solve
> all the problems. It's not perfect. But given how terribly horrific
the
> current system is, it's a step in the right direction in my opinion. I
> think of it as the next step in our economic evolution as a
civilisation.
> Centuries from now people could look back and marvel at how barbaric the
> old system was.
> This is getting too long, so I'll close here.
>
It is certainly an idealistic system, but I'm not convinced it would
work on a large scale. On a small scale where everyone knows everyone it
might work. Maybe it would work if there were lots of small systems that
only interacted when working on a big project.
Alex R
|
