Fred wrote:
> 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.
>
Charging a waitress for broken dishes is unconscionable. It would be
illegal where I live.
If you know the sales job is by commission up front I don't see a
problem with that. Yes, the risk is shared, but the sales person can
also make much more than a wage earner. Cuts both ways.
>
>> 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.
>
Good luck, sincerely.
>
>> 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.
>
Can you give examples of what you think is an abuse compared to an
honest investment - both being large scale?
>
>> 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.
>
I agree that money has too much influence of politics. Unprofitable
factories should be closed. Frees up capital and resources for things
that actually are productive.
>
>> 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.
>
Sounds reasonable. Does everyone kick in to run the computers etc... for
the system?
>
>> 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.
>
>
Thanks for the civil discourse Fred.
Alex R
|
