Re: Socialism and Capitalism

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.

> 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.

>>> 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.

> 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.

> 
> 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.  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.


>>         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.

>>   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.

-- 
Peace,
Fred
(Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).