The answers were put forward more than a century ago. They come down of positive money or modern monetary theory, with issues anthropology and real history throw up on "economic rent" and its foul origins in slavery and blood debts, Some of the necessary ideas are religious in origin, like jubilee, and were widely practised.
Definitions of money rarely hold to scrutiny. In most economics money comes into being to replace less efficient barter systems - but this particular thought experiment has the problem that two centuries of anthropology has not produced a single case of this arising in a society, Most people think governments create money, but this is not the case - nearly all money arises as debt from private banks, and paper money has a remarkable connection with war and gambling. That money is a convention, potentially replaced tomorrow has been known at least since Aristotle. It has been widely treated as a neutral substance in economics, this being so clearly a lie the whole of the subject falls. I can define positive money for you Molly - indeed short reads of web pages on this and MMT quickly give the positive gist. This will not help that much, until you work out what you'd want money to be and lend your voice to the 'revolution'. And one reason to look at existing systems is to see how wide the network of the parasite has become. I'd start with a thousand of us and blank paper. Though there is a Tea - Ching to refer to. The future memory leads to money controlled by government of the people and issued to make projects happen. This is really simple, though like most simple ideas is actually a simplexity. This is evident on Molly's questions and Don's (or my) thoughts on what happens 'after the US military umbrella'. Jesuit priests noted they could buy a woman with a hairgrip in South America - a form of money and its use, and no doubt a question on the chastity of Jesuit priests. "Your earnings, your savings" is itself moot Molly. We've been had by loads of ideology before we can speak. Money in this becomes a repository of value and an advantage to you over those without it. And you have made money something without thinking much about who has it and does not. Does the current system work at all for most people? I'm going to have a very heathen drink to celebrate Don's Easter bunny tomorrow. My friendly barkeep, not seen for nine months, will demand cash for beer 100 times its cost at the factory gate. The detailed reality of such transactions might help us understand more on money. They are, in fact, always messing with our tangible assets. And most of the time, they are trying to seize assets in order to rent them back to us. Part of the answer is giving thanks to the ancestors who built a lot of our environment and yet thinking of private property differently. One can paint the future dream and we should. We need to remember that current words and meaning may not let us into the new vision. Out of our thousand, very few will know that governments don't produce money. I think we should be starting our arguments in 'admitted ignorance'. On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 1:01:50 PM UTC+1, Molly wrote: > > It is fascinating to watch the wheels spinning but it would be much more > inspiring to know there were alternatives, whether as individuals or > groups.Living with zero debt stabilizes you in a Ponze economy, but your > earnings and savings are still cut when things go bust after the boom. It > keeps the concept of money abstract as long as we use it to exchange. What > is the alternative to that? No tangible assets seem immune from the market > manipulations. > > On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 3:01:12 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >> >> The Chinese have already killed about one in nine Tibetans. Russia's >> capacity for secret police activity spans either side of the USSR. Islam >> is a religion of peace - ho, ho ho - various practitioners and Jews having >> shipped about 2 million white slaves in a century or two around the Black >> Sea. There are no real nice people in history as they never survive to >> write it. >> >> Some think the use of the USD is worth about $30 billion annually to the >> US. This sounds a lot, but is about 0.2% of GDP. I think money is more >> deeply criminal than is generally admitted. Given how bent the Chinese and >> Russians are I have difficulties thinking they can forge a new reserve. >> The problem is the US is no longer a democracy and neither is Europe. The >> actual reserve currencies are the USD, Euro and (marginally) the pound >> sterling. To understand what is going on we need to look at Japan and >> wider issues in Ponzi economics. >> >> The answer is about taking money and assets from the rich and freeing >> ourselves from paying for work already done. Don may be right on top dog >> being inevitable, but money, whether Chinese, US or Russian is under the >> control of an allocation class and everywhere they end up with it clinging >> to their fingers. >> >> The currency wars are fairly well described at Zerohedge and Keiser >> Report. The real problem is that we have no real USD or pound sterling - >> money is created as debt by private banks. >> >> On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 5:23:13 AM UTC+1, Don Johnson wrote: >>> >>> I thought I'd find reams of information on this new development at the >>> wsj.com. Barely a blip on the radar. I don't think it matters much. The >>> US is already marginalized politically and militarily and only time will >>> tell what effect this will have on the rest of the world. The short game is >>> ME chaos. I fear for my Zionist brothers and sisters. There will be another >>> power presiding over world hegemony in the coming years. It will be >>> interesting to see how well Russia, China and Iran treat those under their >>> thumb. I'm sure they will treat 3rd world countries with the respect they >>> deserve and never abuse them like the English, French and Americans have. >>> They're just better human beings then us I'm sure. <-----sarcasm >>> >>> Those of you who think there won't be a big cheese are kidding >>> yourselves. There's always a big cheese. Now we will see just how stinky >>> the next flavor will be. >>> >>> dj >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Chris Jenkins < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> "For years I have regarded that strange subject called "economics" as >>>> being somewhere on a par with that other strange subject known as >>>> "theology," and tend to see economists as belonging to the same general >>>> group as bishops, witch-doctors, mullahs and snake-oil salesmen" >>>> >>>> I was exceedingly disappointed when I discovered this was likely the >>>> case. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 6:51 PM, frantheman <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> For years I have regarded that strange subject called "economics" as >>>>> being somewhere on a par with that other strange subject known as >>>>> "theology," and tend to see economists as belonging to the same general >>>>> group as bishops, witch-doctors, mullahs and snake-oil salesmen. In their >>>>> areas of so-called expertise, they regularly get things wrong - and then >>>>> go >>>>> on to earn vast amounts as talking heads, retrospectively explaining what >>>>> they failed to see coming. Carnival fortune-tellers probably have a >>>>> better >>>>> record of accuracy. >>>>> >>>>> The ghastly thing is that these high priests of mumbo-jumbo have such >>>>> power and influence. >>>>> >>>>> I have some (a very small amount) of sympathy for the Chinese >>>>> leadership elite - they're riding a very powerful, unpredictable, and >>>>> very >>>>> dangerous tiger; trying to modernise and stabilize a population four >>>>> times >>>>> the size of the USA, most of whom are still leading a pre-modern peasant >>>>> existence, the rest of whom are trying to gallop into a materialistic >>>>> hyper-capitalism as fast as they can. The whole country seems to be >>>>> living >>>>> in a state of perpetual high tension. Whether they will succeed without >>>>> the >>>>> whole thing exploding around their ears remains an open question. Let's >>>>> hope they do, for the alternative - China unravelling - would lead to the >>>>> kind of geo-political instability which would make the Middle East look >>>>> like a kindergarten squabble. >>>>> >>>>> I see the latest moves as part of a long, ongoing process leading to >>>>> full convertability of the yuan/renminbi. Within the current (lunatic) >>>>> models which economists and economic commentators use, this can only be >>>>> seen globally as something positive. While it may have been very >>>>> convenient >>>>> for the US to have the dollar as *the *global reserve currency, this >>>>> has not necessarily been good for the rest of the world. China owns a >>>>> massive amount of US debt (owing the the trade imbalance between both >>>>> countries) and are thus terribly vulnerable to changes in US fiscal >>>>> policy. >>>>> For the world generally, a basket of around half a dozen reserve >>>>> currencies >>>>> (dollar, euro, yuan, Swiss franc, pound sterling, yen) is a much more >>>>> stable proposition. It would force the major powers to cooperate at a >>>>> deeper level than they currently do. It would also reduce US hegemony >>>>> globally, which might just help provide a reality check for the US >>>>> political elites (particularly those on the right) - though I'm not >>>>> holding >>>>> my breath about that. >>>>> >>>>> Am Sonntag, 29. März 2015 15:28:24 UTC+2 schrieb Molly: >>>>>> >>>>>> The new Chinese bank established with a gold standard is gaining >>>>>> momentum on the international stage. How will this effect the world >>>>>> economy? These quotes from Bloomberg: >>>>>> >>>>>> *China’s clout has been expanding for decades, as its rapid growth >>>>>> allowed it to snap up a rising share of the world’s resources, its >>>>>> exports >>>>>> penetrated global markets, and its bulging financial assets gave it >>>>>> power >>>>>> to make big individual loans and purchases. Now, the creation of >>>>>> international lending institutions is leveraging that economic influence >>>>>> closer to the political and diplomatic arenas, as U.S. allies defy >>>>>> America >>>>>> to back China’s initiative.* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *“This is the beginning of a bigger role for China in global >>>>>> affairs,” said Jim O’Neill, U.K.-based former chief economist at Goldman >>>>>> Sachs Group Inc., who coined the term BRICs in 2001 to highlight the >>>>>> rising >>>>>> economic power of Brazil, Russia, India and China…* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Chinese President Xi Jinping’s vision of achieving the same >>>>>> great-power status enjoyed by the U.S. received a major boost this month >>>>>> when the U.K., Germany, France and Italy signed on to the Asian >>>>>> Infrastructure Investment Bank. The AIIB will have authorized capital of >>>>>> $100 billion and starting funds of about $50 billion.* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Canada is considering joining, which would leave the U.S. and Japan >>>>>> as the only Group of Seven holdouts as they question the institution’s >>>>>> governance and environmental standards.* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *China, flush with the world’s biggest foreign-exchange reserves and >>>>>> anxious to convert them into “soft power”, is building an alternative >>>>>> architecture. It has proposed not just the AIIB, but a New Development >>>>>> Bank >>>>>> with its “BRICS” partners—Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa—and a >>>>>> Silk >>>>>> Road development fund to boost “connectivity” with its Central Asian >>>>>> neighbours…* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
