I repeat what I said in an earlier posting: "It's not money, it's us". I won't repeat the rest of what I said, but it had something to do with us using anything we can, and certainly money, to make ourselves individually or tribally wealthier and more powerful.
How might that be changed? A few evenings ago I watched part of a TV interview of a man who kept insisting that to work properly a free enterprise economy needs three things: a market, a good set of laws governing market behaviour, and morality. Being a religion guru, he kept emphasizing morality, and I can't say I disagree with him. His general point was that we can all repeat little bits of catechism like the Golden Rule or "a penny saved is a penny earned" without having them have any impact on our behaviour. In economics 101, we were taught that money is supposed to be a medium of exchange and a store of value. In its function as a medium of exchange, it was supposed to provide a sound and stable way of moving goods and services around the economy. In today's world, ever so much of it is used to make a quick buck by trading our money for another currency or by betting that securities, many of dubious value, will go up in price in a relatively short time. As a store of value, it has pretty well lost its meaning. A dollar today ain't going to be a dollar tomorrow. So, what has to change? I keep thinking about what the religion guru said about morality. We have to change our way of doing things and to do that we have to change the way we think about things. Can we? At this stage of development as Homo Sapiens Sapiens, I doubt very much that we can. We have been liberated from the trees and given new toys, but that's about it. Yet some things do seem to work when one thinks of cases like Conrad Black, Enron and WorldCom. Cheaters and chiselers have been indicted. But will that change us? Again, I seriously doubt it. For every way that's stopped, new ways of cheating and chiseling will be found. Complicating everything is the fact that we have now become thoroughly globalized. What we can't produce here, we can produce over there. What we can't get away with here, we can get away with over there, etc. When it comes to resource use, it's become pretty obvious that we are going to hit a wall -- perhaps a series of walls. I notice in today's paper that the price of food is rising rapidly, making it more difficult to provide food aid to the third world poor. A reason given is that agricultural land is moving from food to ethanol production. And if we haven't already arrived at peak oil yet, we will soon and begin the downward slide to the unaffordability of the many things we now take for granted. Which brings me back to morality. I believe we become more moral when we absolutely have to, not before. I sometimes toy with a dreamlike scenario. We hit a series of walls and then hit a big one that brings us down into a dark world like the one Cormac McCarthy depicts in his Pulitzer Prize winning novel "The Road". Those of us who are left will wend our way up to the monastery on the hill and there we will plant potatoes, carrots and onions and learn to live together cooperatively and peacefully. We will have found a livable morality. At least for a time. Ed > Natalia > > I am sorry if I seemed to hijack your vital focus on resources. There is > no > doubt that humans are using the earth's finite resources in entirely > unsustainable ways - and you have exposed our folly in a number of > contributions to this list. > > You are right when you say that to focus on alternative money systems in > the > face of such folly is probably inappropriate. And I agree that whatever > moves > might be made towards a system of community currencies will have very > little to > do with global resource issues, at least in the short term. > > It may be that we don't have enough time to even think about the stuff I > wrote > about - we may already has exceeded the carrying capacity of Mother Gaia > and > she might well just dispense with us as she continues her four billion > year > existence. > > However, I am fundamentally an optimist (or else I wouldn't do what I do) > and my > personal capacity to make much difference to overall resource use is > limited (I > hope I have done enough in that part of the world I can affect) and hence > I > have tried to think about medium to long term interventions which might > help us > avoid making mistakes of this kind in the future (assuming we are given > another > chance). > > Hence my interest in money systems - and particular in alternative money > systems. > > So, a few comments on what you have written below. You are right to > describe > money as not really existing - there is a very powerful sense in which all > money doesn't really exist - money is merely a symbolic representation of > value. And you eloquently provide examples where our current value > systems > have produced 'money' which in hindsight we rather wish hadn't been > created. > > As I see it the fundamental problem is that we have allowed money to > become a > commodity in its own right, and then given ownership of the production of > that > community to private individuals and companies (as we have done with > everything > else we consider to be a commodity - and seem hell bent on doing with > things > like water and ultimately air). The owners of the means of production of > this > commodity then try and create it in ways which permit them to make the > most > profit. Private banks create money by creating loans which then need to > be > repaid with interest and Governments (and their Reserve Banks) create > money by > manipulating exchange rates. > > As I understand the pure theory, Governments ought to create just enough > money > to reflect the demand for the goods and services which can be purchased by > that > money, and no more. Then we all get along with our daily exchange using > this > generously provided Government service (much as those who created the > standard > 'meter' generously provide this standard to all those who build houses > etc). > > Noone owns the 'meter' and certainly noone profits when it is used - but > not so > money. > > All of the 'missing money' you refer to below arises because of the way we > have > commodified money and allow people to manipulate its supply for their > personal > gain. > > Hence, my interest in creating systems which, while they may not be able > to > entirely avoid human greed, at least ensure that the greedy are much more > visible and accountable - ie community created and managed currencies. > > > So, at its core, I hope my interest does not exclude your passionate calls > for > us to be more sustainable about our use of Gaia's resources. > > > Charles Brass > > > > Quoting Darryl or Natalia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Charles was saying we should focus on an alternative to our currency >> value systems. My point to the original email on Framing Resources was >> the fact that we are using up Earth's resources at a suicidal rate, and >> the result is a system of wealth that cannot possibly last because, >> obviously, we'll run out of resources. I stressed that arriving at truth >> with respect to an urgent and critical time for humanity and the life >> which surrounds it wholly depends on our ability to acknowledge the need >> for sustainable processing of resources. But that topic became focused >> on money. Fine, whatever. But I was just thinking, even though Charles >> is intent on arriving at an alternative exchange, would anyone care to >> bring the topic back to resources, since resources are the life blood of >> our existence, and try focusing on establishing realistic, intrinsic >> value as the basis for exchange. Obviously, it doesn't immediately make >> clear how to reconcile the various markets. But neither, for that >> matter, does the current system reconcile with illegal markets, nor >> false values of currency or the banker's dollar being able to accord up >> to 95 times more than its face value for lending or investment power. >> >> But what I'm suggesting is that to have a sustainable future, false >> value cannot continue to dominate energy transfers. In fifty years time, >> basics such as clean water and good farm land will be at more than a >> premium -- but rather than preserving it now, our current approach is to >> price it out of the hands of the masses, and exploit what we can, >> whether or not it is wise to do so. So, one can redefine our currency >> system to more appropriately reflect labour or input energy transfers, >> but when the system's values are falsely based, I can't see that it >> would much change the first concern -- that being the need for a >> sustainable future >> -- such as clean water, land for habitation, land for food, land for >> leisure. >> >> Perhaps one of the biggest problems is giving such resources a value at >> all. Rather, they should be more properly restored as necessities of >> life. That would put a damper on ever increasing trends to tax and >> charge for that to which we are inherently entitled to have and enjoy as >> beings on this planet. We all know that breathable air is next on the >> list to tax. >> >> If these basic necessities are removed from the system of monetary >> value, that leaves us with everything else above the table, and all that >> which is not: the rest that disappears into the back rooms of >> government, organized crime, military and close community exchanges. >> >> It is the latter which must be addressed to arrive at alternative >> improved exchange systems. Most money, as I said earlier, is made on the >> currency exchange markets. More in one day than the GDP of the US >> annual. On this fact alone, how do we apportion value to trillions made >> gambling on different nations' currencies?. Most other money is made by >> having fair quantities to first invest by, then by reaping the benefits >> of interests and inflated stock values. Banks make it on interest and >> investments, and loan out up to 95 times actual money that they have, >> depending on what scale you look at. So, the greatest wealth is in the >> hands of those who have earned their falsely valued money through >> falsely valued backing. I'm saying that most money isn't real. >> >> How do you improve something that isn't real? Improvement is only >> possible when you have something tangible to work with. >> >> Then, we have the untaxed and illegal markets. Another 30% of wealth, >> possibly? And finally we have the working classes, who wish to believe >> in the value of their hard earned wages or salaries, yet somehow only >> account for about 10% of the wealth of the globe, while providing almost >> every speck of real labour. >> >> Now, here's another item for consideration. When huge corporations scam, >> and insurance companies cannot possibly replace individual losses, how >> do we account for loss of moneys which aren't really lost, they are >> simply in the hands of other parties, and then recirculated or used to >> build more false money? >> >> When the Pentagon announced a missing 3.3 trillion, ( First, one >> trillion, shortly after Dov Zakheim took over finances for the Pentagon >> budget in March, 2001, then another 2 trillion announced missing by >> Rumsfeld Sept. 10, 01, as I read today), and, as we all know, the tax >> payers will never be compensated for this loss of their tax dollars, >> real or invested, and the money goes underground -- not towards above >> board traceable taxable pursuits, how do we reconcile its loss and >> subsequent redistribution? 3.3 trillion, in a monetary system, puts a >> huge dent into the U.S. pot. Yet the U.S. government has not bothered to >> investigate such a scandalous loss which should really upset the apple >> cart, as if there was little actual value going for it in the first >> place. Enron evil do-ers had to be stopped, but the biggest scam ever, >> within an arm of the government itself, meant nothing. Please note that >> I am speaking only in terms of value, not even accountability nor trust >> issues intrinsic to monetary systems. >> >> There are already distinctly different ways of acquiring/valuing money. >> The first is the original -- energy transfers related to labour, goods >> and resources. The other is fantasy, for the most part, and should not >> be allowed to dominate the original, but does. It is the latter which is >> the bulk of what supposedly exists. But changing the system of something >> that depends on the energies provided by working people within the >> original system will affect the fantasy system, eventually. >> >> Change won't be simply legislated. It will be accomplished by a shift in >> resources and/or labour availability, a revolution or coupe, or by a >> powerful peaceful global organization. We may not depend on any but >> vanishing resources, I think, to force that necessary shift soon enough >> to avert global bankruptcy, though I look forward to surprises. >> >> Natalia Kuzmyn >> >> >> >From Sam Smith, Progressive Review, >> >> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >> POCKET PARADIGMS >> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >> >> Global dumbing involves the virtually imperceptible but steady >> deterioration of the aggregate human mind -- as well as of its >> institutions -- much as the temperature of the earth is apparently >> rising at a rate so minuscule that scientists will be still be debating >> its escalation even as the waters of the Atlantic Ocean lap at the >> potted plants in the lobby of the Trump Plaza. In fact, global warming >> and global dumbing are intimately connected. Without the latter, >> something actually might be done before that portion of Washington below >> the fall line of the Potomac is totally submerged. And like global >> warming, global dumbing concerns itself with losses incurred by energy >> transfers and nature's ceaseless quest for the random equilibrium of >> chaos. It is, in short, the entropy of the human spirit and of the >> systems it has created. >> >> In earlier times, it was possible to avoid cultural entropy by stealing >> energy from somewhere else. This, of course, was the foundation of slave >> trade, the British Empire and various new world orders of the first half >> of 20th century. While it still goes on, energy theft has become more >> difficult as the world has steadily lost its cultural, political, >> environmental and economic differentiation. >> >> A cursory examination of American business suggests that its major >> product is wasted energy. Compute all the energy loss created by >> corporate lawyers, Washington lobbyists, marketing consultants, CEO >> benefits, advertising agencies, leadership seminars, human resource >> supervisors, strategic planners and industry conventions and it is >> amazing that this country has any manufacturing base at all. We have >> created an economy based not on actually doing anything, but on >> facilitating, supervising, planning, managing, analyzing, tax advising, >> marketing, consulting or defending in court what might be done if we had >> time to do it. The few remaining truly productive companies become >> immediate targets for another entropic activity, the leveraged buyout. >> >> If global dumbing is not halted, we may wake up one morning and find >> that no one in this country knows how to make anything anymore. We may >> discover our dearest friends and relatives in a catatonic state before >> the TV and the device won't even be on. When we call for help we may >> find that 911 has become an endless loop voice mail system from which >> one can never disconnect. We may even, some day, elect a hologram as >> president -- and be too dumb to realize it. - Sam Smith >> >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
