I am sorry to include past postings below, but Thomas comments come some time after my original posting, and without what's below my reply makes no sense
Thomas speaks of living in a small community with little national currency - something many people experience, and if we replace "little national currency" with "too little national currency to do what they might like to do" something we all probably experience. I would make two comments. First, in the Western world at least there is inevitably more national currency around than people innediately recognise. It's just that it comes and goes so fast we tend not to notice it. One thing communities can do is notice where their existing national currency goes and try and change its transfer rate - perhaps by doing for themselves something they currently pay for, perhaps simply by extending the terms on which they pay for things, or one of a number of other strategies. Many communities within which I have worked have solved a lot of their apparent problems in this way. My second comment is about the creation of a community currency. Many close knit communities already have non-monetary ways of getting things done for each other in equitable ways. Some make these concrete through systems such as LETS schemes, and they are very useful. But it is very difficult to make these schemes actually create something, they are just good at facilitating personal transfers without using national currency. A true community currency actually facilitates the creation of new wealth - ie makes it possible to do things which simply cannot be done now (which is actually what national currencies do, but as I began they are in short supply). So, I don't advocate an attempt to create a new currency as a first step. This is too difficult a task for many people. But as part of an arsenal of weapons designed to make a community work for all those who are part of the community they have their place. Thanks Thomas for continuing this thread. Thomas Lunde wrote: > > Hi Charles: > > I like your problem - what you have chosen to focus your attention on > - something you have thought deeply about - in that sense perhaps can > be considered knowlegable - or even more, expert. > > I have read your preferred solution and I have read about some of the > local currencies as theories or those that also have some factual > basis. I live in a small community - 300 people. There is very > little money in the community. It is composed of three populations, > roughly equal. > > 1. Retirement people - specifically those that had very few resources > and this place is cheap enough for them to exist. > > 2. A counter culture group that exist through Welfare, UIC and causal > employment, usually in tree planting, road work, etc. They have no > disposable income but many of them supplement their income through > growing and selling drugs - though not on any large scale. > > 3. Those who have 'regular' employment, teacher's, equipment > operators, logging workers, etc. > > Your analysis is right - the National Currency is in short supply - > and usurous in terms of taxes and prices of natural resources that are > sold at world prices rather than what could be produced and sold at a > tenth of the cost for local consumption like electricity, propane, gas > and oil. So, we are uneconomical because we are forced to compete > against world prices that are often based on economies of scale or > urbanization. > > Respectfully, > > Thomas Lunde > > on 2/5/02 12:43 AM, Charles Brass at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Gail and Keith have both made thoughtful contributions to > this particular thread, and I am stimulated to continue. > > I suspect that many of those who have not entered the > conversation have stayed silent because they believe this is > just a rather meaningless word game. > > Gail to some extent perpetuates this view by talking about > voluntary work as different from employment, and Keith talks > about working for himself as different from employment. I > guess these are differences, but they are not what I am > getting at (at least not necessarily). > > Work as a societal activity is now what one days to 'earn' > the money which is indispensable in acquiring the real > necessities of life. (for those reading this particularly > carefully, I would have preferred to use the word employment > at the beginning of this sentence, but it would just > increase confusion. > > One of the five economic solutions (to which Keith agreed > with at least three) is to increase the scope of the market > economy, which will mean that even more of what one does and > needs will need to be acquired through money - and hence > more work will be needed. > > Even volunteers need money to acquire what they need, so if > they don't get paid for their volunteer activity they need > to have money guaranteed from some other source (work done > earlier from which savings have accrued, a partner who > supports them or (increasingly in the western world) from a > government handout). > > So what? All this is obvious. > > Well, some people critique all this by wishing to reduce our > need for money to acquire what we need - perhaps we could > all become self sufficient again, perhaps the state might > take control and dish out to us all according to some > formula, perhaps nano robots will be able to make anything > we want out of virtually nothing at virtually no cost - and > there seems to be some merit in the objective (even if I > don't support some of the examples I have given - my > preferred option, as I have explained In other posts is the > creation of local currencies which are another way of > decreasing dependence on an increasingly scarce (and > usurious) national currency.) > > However, this is not my main argument. > > Human beings have to do something with their time. We all > have exactly 168 hours a week to fill in, each and every > week - and this has not changed in four billion years. > > In the last couple of hundred years we have divided these > hours into two irreconciliable categories - work and > non-work - and for much of the past two centuries a good > life was defined as one with as little as manageable of the > former (providing the money was there) and as much of the > latter. > > This might have been the definition, but the reality was > more complicated - men worked a lot then engaged in various > activities which helped them recover to work a lot again the > next day - and what women did was defined as neither work > nor non-work, but since they didn't really count no-one > noticed this anomaly. > > For the last thirty years there has been an inadequate > amount of this kind of work to go around, and (the five > economic solutions not withstanding) there seems little > likelihood that sufficient will ever exist again (and a > bloody good thing I say). Which raises the question, how > will a good life be defined in the future. > > Whatever the answer to that question, and I propose one at > the end of this, I venture that people will in the future > want to feel that a significant proportion of their 168 > hours is devoted to something they feel to be useful, > productive or helpful - or to use one word - sustainable. > > If "work" (now in talking marks because I really mean > employment) can't fill the time (however much time we think > it should fill) what will. > > Well, I have my answers to that question - but I don't > believe them to be prescriptive. I would enjoy an > interchange with others who have come to the same conclusion > - ie that employment cannot provide a solution to our > present problems with work - and are interested in exploring > alternatives. > > For me, the alternatives will involve a much more vibrant > local community (by which I mean the network of people and > resources close to us) than currently exists - mostly > because nationals systems simply can't measure let alone > control needs and wants at the local level. > > In my future for work, everybody has at least one community > with which they can identify and within which they can > sustain themselves. There will still be plenty of people > who interact within many communities and many of the current > economic systems will continue to very very useful in > facilitating this interaction. But they will be meaningless > at the local community level which is where sustainable > strength will be based. > > Charles Brass > Chairman > Future of Work Foundation > phone:61 3 9459 0244 > fax: 61 3 9459 0344 > PO Box 122 > Fairfield 3078 > www.fowf.com.au <http://www.fowf.com.au> > > the mission of the Future of Work Foundation is: > "to engage all Australians in creating a better future for > work" -- Charles Brass Chairman Future of Work Foundation PO Box 122 Fairfield 3078 Australia Phone 61 3 94590244 Fax 613 94590344 Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] The mission of the Future of Work Foundation is: "to engage all Australians in creating a better future for work"
