Alex Russell wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>> Alex Russell wrote:
>>
>>> 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"?
>
Under plentiful money systems, the "market" doesn't even set the
value of
things in dollars, (or whatever currency you have). So "inflation" is
*undefined* like the temperature of a vacuum.
>>> 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.
>
The money we have now is *not* the same as feet and inches. The
value of
it is only in our minds, yes, but conventional money does represent that
value. The new concept of "plentiful money" is more like the feet and
inches, *measuring* the agreed on value of the purchase without
representing it. That was what I was trying to say.
> This self issued money seems to depend on an honour system which often
> fails in real life.
>
Not totally the honour system. Each deal involves a seller and a
buyer and
they have to look after their own interest and consider the interests of
the community as a whole. In turn people *could* decide to have a review
process of some sort to "roll back" unconscionable purchases or sales.
How
or whether it is done is up to people to decide amongst themselves.
Our current system also fails, and rather miserably.
> The owner invested their money, risked their money, to have the factory
> built. Their reward is the profits of the factory.
`When they put sales people on commission, they are spreading that
risk to
the employees. When they charge a waitress for dishes broken, they are
offloading that risk onto the employees as well, or a bank teller who has
to make up their shortages. There's not that much risk when you have
money, except that there is the fact that the whole economic system will
eventually fail.
> If it is so easy to be an owner, why don't all the workers become
owners?
>
People without money have a hard time getting any. That's the
problem with
scarce money systems. Under plentiful money systems things are much more
egalitarian.
> If this LETsystem is so great, why isn't it being used more?
>
It's expanding, but there is a lot of propaganda as the rich and
powerful
would not be able to control others under such a system. The LETSystem is
only one example of plentiful money and it's limited to local communities
and as well by being only a supplement to the scarce money system. This
is
by convention and there is no reason, as I see it, for such limitations.
In fact it might be more reliable if it were more universal.
> 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.
>
Like the worker coops in Argentina and Venezuela, where workers
have taken
over the abandoned factories and started them up again. That's a good
example of a cooperative economy, yes.
As far as property goes, I think the concept, (and just like
"money,"
property is only a concept, can be revised and re-defined. I think things
like DNA sequences cannot be "owned."
> On the whole, I sup****t strong property rights as it protects the fruits
> of your labour and investment.
>
I think personal property of some sort is im****tant up to a point.
For
instance things that belonged to your family or gifts from loved ones, can
be respected for their emotional value, but when a person uses their
wealth
to control or force the actions of other people, then the wealth gets to
be
a problem. That sort of owner****p should be re-examined, carefully.
> The existence of rich people in the current system does not take
> anything from me.
>
Over 50% of the entire wealth of the planet is owned and
controlled by
fewer than 250 people, according to the U.N. That is obscenely wrong. It
does take away from you, and all the rest of us.
When one person has the power to shut down a factory and
impoverish
thousands of people and their families, that threatens all of us. When
they take over a third world country and run it like a slave camp even
controlling the politicians, that is a crime against humanity.
> Speaking of committees, who keeps track of all these balances, does
> audits, etc...
>
Everyone has to share in those duties. Under the LETSystem, they
have a
board of directors who have the authority to go in and examine the books,
but as Mr. Linton explained to people, *anybody* can declare themselves to
be a director and go in and inspect things until they're satisfied. The
recording of transactions may be done by computer, but it's also possible
for people to do it if they want.
> 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.
>
Nothing like plentiful money has been tried on a large scale, and
there are
always powerful people who see it as an end to their power over other
people. They will try to lie and sabotage against such changes and their
influence is considerable. Nevertheless there appear to be some real
advantages to getting rid of scarce money. It will require a lot of
education and thought, but we should really give it a try.
>> 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.
>
Well, "idealistic" is a term that can be applied to anything new
and
improved. Like I said, it's probably not perfect so I think "idealistic"
is maybe a little over critical.
I can't say for sure that it would work on a large scale until it
is tried,
certainly. You bring forth some interesting ideas. Lots of small systems
that interact on large projects is a possibility and may have advantages.
Worth thinking about, definitely.
--
Peace,
Fred
(Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).
|
