If $1 of CG currency is equal to $1 U.S., how is it protected from the devaluing of the U.S. dollar?
I'm not sure what you mean here. This question is probably based on an incorrect assumption. There are no current plans for a CG currency. But here are some related answers.
Individual Balances
One relevant question is: How will virtual account balances be protected from devaluation of the official currency? A member's virtual account balance will be the sum of the member's balances in three accounts, each held by a separate organization: bank account, mutual credit account, and stock account (that is, the value of the member's Common Good Bank stock shares). Each of these subsidiary account balances will be measured in the official currency.
Stock. Common Good Bank stock is designed to appreciate at the rate of inflation. That is, as long as the bank's assets maintain a constant value or better (on average), then the bank's stock can easily be bought and sold for a constant value.
For the most part, the bank holds its assets not as currency or bank balances, but as investments. So as long as the bank's investments maintain a constant value or better (on average), the bank's stock is protected from official currency devaluation. Every Common Good Bank member plays an important part in the soundness of its investments. We choose together our community's investment priorities. As customers we support the businesses we fund.
Bank Account.Similarly, the bank holds our deposits not as currency but as investments. If the official currency gets devalued (that is, if the outside world changes the unit of measure of value) but the bank's investments maintain a constant real-world value (regardless of what units are used to measure their value), then the bank will simply adjust its accounting accordingly. In the United States, for example, as the value of the dollar falls, the bank will measure the value of its investments in terms of the new dollar — that is, the investment will be worth a greater number of new dollars than its value measured in old dollars. Similarly, each member's balance will be a larger number. This monthly numerical increase in the member's bank balance is usually called "interest".
The necessity of maintaining constant-valued investments is a strong argument for adjustable interest rates and, better yet, for the bank accepting equity in a business or physical asset (such as real estate), instead of interest. In any event, greater community self-reliance, resilience, and sustainability will result in more stable-valued businesses and therefore more reliable jobs, income, profits, loan payments, and therefore bank balances.
Mutual Credit. The member's mutual credit account earns the same "interest" as the member's bank account, so it is protected the same way.
Corporate Credit
Overall, a thriving community will have a certain amount of credit with the outside world. Again, the bank can hold this credit as stable-valued assets rather than as bank balances or other financial instruments. Unfortunately, regulations require that the bank hold 10% of its deposits "in reserve" — that is, as cash or bank accounts. That 10% cannot be protected against devaluation of official currency.
However, to the extent that we choose to buy stock in Common Good Bank rather than make FDIC insured deposits, the bank can invest that money without being required to maintain a reserve (we maintain an adequate reserve ourselves in the mutual credit system). Consequently, we are protected from currency devaluation to the extent that we put our faith in ourselves rather than in the insurance corporation.
I can still see the need for sovereign local currencies…
Local sovereignty does not require a separate unit of account, nor does it preclude an overarching system that facilitates local economics and inter-community commerce. The Common Good Bank system can provide those benefits without damaging local sovereignty.
Does this discussion imply that the CGB framework is no longer interested in fostering exchange of dollars for complimentary currencies?
In the CGB framework a community can, at its option, integrate any local currency at a set exchange rate with the dollar. The currency's acceptance in the community establishes its value.
Thomas: Many thanks for your inspirational and informative analysis of money and it's purpose/function. I am quite interested in hearing your response to William's objections. I personally did not understand his "evil interest fallacy" article until William explained it to me over the phone. I am not trained in numbers and I very well may need to remedy that soon. I agree with John that the Sovereign power must transition out of the Fed. Do you agree?
Ultimately, what first caught my attention about local currencies is that during the great depression statistically speaking there was 1 local currency per county in America. I can still see the need for sovereign local currencies interacting with one another as we transition through the redefinition of what it means to be abundant.
John: I completely agree with your point of how determining the money system is on society. You have my complete support in engaging in a process of determining a new money system by which collectively your community may craft new possibilities. However, I would be deeply grateful if it could be agreed upon that such new wealth paradigms are theoretical in general and those specific examples we have for comparison have as of yet not been tested within the realms of total societal involvement. I do not believe in the answer, I believe in the questions.
Begin as we mean to continue. . .Yes, I suppose that fits quite well doesn't it? I propose that we begin with the understanding that the dollar only has a limited lifespan and that by all indications within 50 years (very conservative) the dollar will no longer be existent in it's present form. Yet, currently the dollar is still one of the most powerful economic instruments out there. Taking that power and transmuting it towards dynamic infrastructure that releases us from reliance on big corp/big gov to supply those things most necessary to live in the modern world seems possible only by playing the hand we have been dealt.
Fear not though! We will get our chance to announce our sovereignty as the current system hyper inflates or deflates itself into extinction. You and I both know that it is destruction by design. ORDO AB CHAO
What we need ASAP is a framework by which we can apply power (money) through a method where everyone gets a say. This is ultimately the driving force behind CGB in my mind. We can apply it immediately in conjunction with existing paradigms and begin NOW to teach others to embrace their will to power through having a voice in decisions about their money. We must have our own mechanism by which we may create order out of chaos more EFFECTIVE than the option we will be guided to by the mega capital pools.
In summary, one can't get another to see a thing that does not exist in their paradigm. No matter how well read or well put together one's argument may be. What we do know is that folks need to be awakened to their power in the world and that dollars are on every one's mind. New ways of accounting for wealth in the world have, as of yet, not reached a level where it can be immediately instituted universally. This does not mean that I advocate abandoning any sort of effort at discovering new ways of measuring wealth and facilitating mutual exchange, but that our efforts on that front will not reach fruition until we have responsibly reclaimed that which already is.
William: Does this discussion imply that the CGB framework is no longer interested in fostering exchange of dollars for complimentary currencies?
There are 2 kinds of credit, exchange credit and finance credit.
They serve different purposes. Money is supposed to serve as a medium of exchange. It should be based on (short-term) exchange credit…
Thanks, Thomas. Paraphrasing your post (based on clarifications in your book):
Yes, money should be created as debt
But only for (short-term) exchange credit.
(Long-term) finance credit, such as a ten-year loan to expand a small business, should also be a debt — that is, the borrower should be obligated to repay.
However, no money should be created for that loan. Instead, it should be financed with credit that other people have already earned.
I agree with (1) and (3), but not (2) and (4).
Your book is brilliant and, as you point out, the distinction between (short-term) exchange credit and (long-term) finance credit is important to consider. However, in your argument, the need to maintain a difference in how those two types of credit are managed hinges on the need to avoid interest. The need to avoid interest, in turn, hinges on the view that interest inevitably forces continual economic growth.
That view is fallacious because it ignores the recylcling of credit. There is in reality no need for a sustainable economic system to avoid interest. See this article for a simple example that proves the point: "The Evil Interest Fallacy".
Still, it is not clear on a first look that (long-term) finance credit can be loaned into existence without causing inflation. It actually will NOT cause inflation, but that is a separate subject and will be addressed elsewhere.
There are 2 kinds of credit, exchange credit and finance credit.
They serve different purposes. Money is supposed to serve as a medium of exchange. It should be based on (short-term) exchange credit.
The well established principle is that new money should be created on the basis of goods and services already in the market or soon to arrive in the market. Discounting of "real bills" is the traditional way of monetizing the value of such goods and services. Money is extinguished when the bills are paid (with money obtained from the sale of those goods).
I explain all this in my book, The End of Money and the Future of Civilization.
Mostly just us organizers, advisers, and board members. This type of theoretical discussion should not be publicized (way too confusing), but the public is welcome to participate in the discussion as interested.
Creating money as debt seems to make sense to me, and the descsription of why seems OK — what I find myslef really wondering is — who does any of this need to be said TO? In so far as it is a built in part of the structure of CGB (as it seems to be of other banks, so no surprise to depositors) does any depositor/lender/investor need to hear it? If it is a vehicle for the kind of discussion amongst "us" that's going on here, OK, have at it as you are. If it is suppose to be something else — well — what?? Or — what am I missing here??
Trying to figure out what the hell they meant, I have been studying “money as debt” for years. Most, I think all I came across, that used this term were so sloppy in their word-phrase usage that they did not really know what they said. Descriptions within this article are better but, on a first read, I still think there are shortcomings. As I do my thinking as I write, I will copy and paste this to MS Word and make comments in red. It is always possible that I will find it right and my education expanded. Please keep me in the loop.
Hmm. Maybe I have a different view of this specifically BECAUSE I grew up in the middle class. I have always had everything I need, even when I had no money at all. I have always been able to borrow enough to get through. I have a gut faith that the universe will provide. I think this faith must come from my experience that the universe always has provided (for me).
I also take the words of Erica Jong to heart — "Always do the things you fear the most. Courage is an acquired taste, like caviar." — and have lived by that adage for thirty years.
So I am not afraid. However I AM selfish and greedy. I have plenty of food, a wonderful home, reliable transportation, strong connection (wired and otherwise) with community, and I feel secure about all that. But I want more. I want for myself and my family all sorts of optional things: books, air travel, a GPS gadget for the car, a better bicycle, dinner at restaurants, dance classes, etc. etc. etc. etc. I already consume WAY more than I produce and I want to consume much much more. It is tempting to consume those things even if I can't afford them.
The question here is not "are we motivated by money". The question is "without the motivation of money will we consume more than we produce". The answer is clearly yes. We must track production and consumption — encouraging the one and limiting the other. That is the function of money in society. We humans need money to keep ourselves from abusing each other.
Ironically, of course, money itself has enabled a small number of people — whether consciously or not — to abuse the rest of humanity on a heart-boggling scale.
Nonetheless, when we give someone credit for something they have not yet done, there will be a temptation — sometimes irresistable — to take the money and run. It has happened and will happen. That is not okay with me. If somebody in my community agrees to do something, consumes our goods and services, then blows us off, that is not okay with me. I expect them to follow through on what they agreed to do. They have an OBLIGATION to follow through. Obligation is another word for debt.
This does not mean that they have to be fearful about it. They just have to do it. I think you are confusing obligation with fear. We can relieve people of existential fear by guaranteeing subsistence. But that guarantee does not relieve them of their obligations.
Are you suggesting that we might give a grant to someone and they would take the money and run? I have been very clear that we give the grant to someone or a group who want to do, are inspired to do, what they are getting the grant for. Are you suggesting that if someone gave you $1.5 million they run the risk that you would take the money and run? I do not believe the popular culture estimation of human nature, it does not correspond with who we are, it denigrates who we are. And if you had enough money for restaurants and books, GPS and vacations, a custom fitted bike and dance classes that you would be over consuming? "You shouldn't want those things, you materialist you!" No, there can't be over consumption, there can only be legally sanctioned, and required by the debt based monetary system, disregard for the commons and the environment and common sense. I can't imagine the Community Division deciding to grant for something that would damage the environment, it just wouldn't happen. And, I can't imagine we would tolerate stupid crappy over packaged hyped products. In fact, since I believe a lot of grants will go to people who want to make quality products with renewable resources and we have a say in what we do, then all this over consumption garbage goes away. Money is a right and a common good. Everyone has a right to the capital their capacities warrant. The way we do it is incredibly determining, begin as we mean to conitnue, shift the paradigm, issue the money debt and interest free for what we want, remove it by issuing less or reducing everyone's bank account by a certain amount according to a democratically agreed upon formula. The point is, the CGB does conventional banking, and the community division is not so constrained. In my paper on understanding money is Abraham Lincoln's description of issueing the money for public purposes as Government's greatest opportunity and responsibility and Henry Ford and Thomas Edison's point about not borrowing the money for public projects because the banker's, who do nothing productive, get more than the people who do the work, which wouldn't happen if the money were just issued. We would never issue money without assesssing the viability, public purpose, sustainability and competency of the management.
By the way, there is very little agreement among the various researchers and activists in the reform the monetary system movement. Social Credit, whose website is the michaeljournal.org has a very detailed description of how, why and when to issue a dividend. Stephen Zarlenga's American Monetary Act has the Gov issue the money debt and interest free for infrastructure, health care, etc. – public puposes. Ellen Brown wants State Banks so at least the interest benefits the people not the bankers as in the Bank of North Dakota, Greco wants credit clearing networks and Lietaer wants local currencies. And I want the money to reflect reality, always, (it is accounting of what is including the potential capitalizing gives voice to). We have the beginnings of the adventure. Let us not preclude the wisdom that may (and I expect, will) develop in the depositors association.
One last thought: Education and culture give rise to the spirit inspiring a person or group with an idea about transforming nature that results in a product that, because it adresses a real need, circulates in the economy giving rise to increasing abundance and is consumed. Money regulates this process. Create money for public purposes, let everyone enjoy the results of its circulation and extinguish it by supporting education and culture. Or grant money for Education and Culture and let the money circulating be used for whatever, including new enterprise, loans, etc. pay the 'dividend', or not, from the 'due to human nature' surplus to regulate the money supply and everything is hunky dory! Perfect mesh with the existing system and the way to transform society built in. Lots of money for what we want none for what we don't want.
Post edited 4:13 pm – October 22, 2010 by John G. Root, Jr.
Hmm. Maybe I have a different view of this specifically BECAUSE I grew up in the middle class. I have always had everything I need, even when I had no money at all. I have always been able to borrow enough to get through. I have a gut faith that the universe will provide. I think this faith must come from my experience that the universe always has provided (for me).
So I am not afraid. However I AM selfish and greedy. I have plenty of food, a wonderful home, reliable transportation, strong connection (wired and otherwise) with community, and I feel secure about all that. But I want more. I want for myself and my family all sorts of optional things: books, air travel, a GPS gadget for the car, a better bicycle, dinner at restaurants, dance classes, etc. etc. etc. etc. I already consume WAY more than I produce and I want to consume much much more. It is tempting to consume those things even if I can't afford them.
The question here is not "are we motivated by money". The question is "without the motivation of money will we consume more than we produce". The answer is clearly yes. We must track production and consumption — encouraging the one and limiting the other. That is the function of money in society. We humans need money to keep ourselves from abusing each other.
Ironically, of course, money itself has enabled a small number of people — whether consciously or not — to abuse the rest of humanity on a heart-boggling scale.
Nonetheless, when we give someone credit for something they have not yet done, there will be a temptation — sometimes irresistable — to take the money and run. It has happened and will happen. That is not okay with me. If somebody in my community agrees to do something, consumes our goods and services, then blows us off, that is not okay with me. I expect them to follow through on what they agreed to do. They have an OBLIGATION to follow through. Obligation is another word for debt.
This does not mean that they have to be fearful about it. They just have to do it. I think you are confusing obligation with fear. We can relieve people of existential fear by guaranteeing subsistence. But that guarantee does not relieve them of their obligations.
I agree with the principle completely. However, if people are not
motivated by money at all, then we don't need money at all. That is
where I want society to go. Meanwhile, people ARE fearful, selfish and
greedy, so we need money to limit consumption and encourage desirable
behavior, while we train people to be more secure, community-minded, and
generous. I believe that the proposed Common Good Bank system will help
us get there.
There go those assumptions again. People are not motivated by money, they are motivated by the fear of not having enough money. If money is plentiful, – you get a check every month that is large enough to take care of all your material needs and wants – then no more fear and no more reptilian survival brain calling the shots. As your material needs are secured you turn your attention to the family and community, as those needs are satisfied you move on to education and we all end up at self acualization! Maslov By the way, this is all not as clear as I make it seem because you can overcome the consequences of any social form (money as debt) with consciousness – I assume I will always have enough and I won't ever do anything "for the money", but – guess what – consciousness is painful and I relax and make decisions based on fear of not having enough. However, once I know for sure that I am going to get that check every month the reptillian brain doesn't have anything to do any more and I get to play with my right hemisphere and organize it all with my left hemisphere and I want to know that what I am doing to serve the community that sends me that check is wanted and the recognition of my contribution is all the motivation that I need. But the feedback of money as accounting is objective and absolutely needed. No interest, no discounted cash flow, no debt no fear. Just purely human considerations. No job (I don't need one, I get a check whether I work or not so I can effortlessly take care of my material needs and concentrate on my spiritual mission), no coercion, etc. How good am I really? The accounting will let me know, and everyone else who cares to look. Of course, you have to know that given the intelligence incorporated in the economy less than 3% or so of the people can produce everything needed (housing, food, etc.) the rest of us can provide whatever we are inspired to! If we get to vote for what we want what are the odds that there will be someone inspired to provide it? I had a great time once upon a time making utensiles out of scrap cherry wood, and cantelas (simple stringed instruments) out of maple. I was asked if I could make the first one and then I sold enough of them by word of mouth to support my family for many months, and I stopped because I wasn't all that good at it.
My point, of course, is that the popular culture is all wrong about human nature. I am either the exception or every one is also more or less like me. Since everyone I know is like me and can describe why they are doing what they are doing – out of altruism – even the really poor people I know, it can't be that they are as the popular culture describes them. I just don't know any selfish and greedy people, but I sure know the fear of destitution lurking just below the veneer of middle classdom. I am one heartbeat away from destitution and don't I know it. I am tired of maintaining myself against that fear. I want the check every month!
“[money] should be extinguished when the goods and services it represents are consumed”
Not all goods are worthless once consumed. For example if I buy
(consume) a bowl, I may use it for a day or a lifetime, then pass it on
to someone else. Or its shards may be useful as scrapers. Money should
be extinguished not when goods and services are consumed, but rather
when goods and services are no longer valuable — that is, when no one
values them, which is to say when no one wants them.
“so that there is always enough money to buy all the available goods and services”
We want there to be enough money to buy all the goods and services
that are WANTED, not all the goods and services that are AVAILABLE.
Therefore, money should be issued as it is wanted, not in proportion to
production.
Once I, as the end user or consumer, have bought something it has passed out of the economy. If I hold a tag sale and sell things I have no more use for they enter the economy again. If I give them away I don't need money. This is why money is extinguished at the point of consumption, the good or service is no longer in the economy and money to represent it is no longer needed. In practice, we only have to have enough money in circulation to facilitate the exchange of what is. Money is not valuable in itself, which is why when it is accounting, it will be self regulating. And since it is absurd that money should be able to increase apart from the increase in the real goods and services it represents, money cannot "earn" interest. Usury is banned because it is a fiction!
The only reason there are unwanted goods and services in the economy is that they were introduced speculatively and the demand for them is created through advertising and marketting. When we determine democratically what we want and when we are not money motivated because money is plentiful, we will only produce things that are wanted. Rather than money being scarce, stupid, useless, over packaged crappy products will be scarce. If I am not money motivated (gotta pay that mortgage, buy a new car, etc.) I will only want to produce something that I believe in and is representative of my values. If we ask our community division what it doesn't want and what it does want and to vote for those things, then our humanity will be increasingly expressed in our economy. No money for what we don't want and lots of money for what we do want, and it all passed through human judgement in a town meeting and was objectified by ranked choice or penny voting that can't be gamed. By the way, if my Community Division is not doing what I want, I'll join one that is, or I will create one with other like minded people so I can create the community that reflects my values! The monetary system is determining!
Anyway, what I think we need to agree on is how determining the privately owned debt based monetary system is. What we need to stay awake to is whether the problem is that the Fed is privately owned, or is it that money is issued as debt bearing interest, or is it that money is issued as debt? The following is my bottom line: We could imagine together how we would like our community to be, but we don't because it is a useless utopian exercise. HOWEVER, I know that we can implement the community of our imagining by designing a currency to give it to us!
Once you appreciate how determining the current system is then you can appreciate why changing the monetary system will be equally determining. The assumptions about human nature are all in the monetary system. Other assumptions (e.g. altruism is more powerful than, and trumps, egoism) will give rise to a monetary system based on that assumption!
"In a body politic the welfare of the community will be the greater the less the individual claims for himself the proceeds of the work he has done and the more the individual relies on the work done by others to satisfy his needs" Rudolf Steiner, Fundamental Social Law
Our affairs can be arranged so that every member of the community will say the Community is as it should be and I will that it be so!
This understanding of human nature cannot be realized or implemented in the context of a debt based monetary system, because debt engenders existential fear. If the community is to be as it should be and if I place my capacities in the service of the community with a clear head and pure heart, then I must have absolute confidence that the community will always be there for me! That is the premise of altruism. I trust that "God" or my community, will provide.
You and I live our lives courageously, unafraid of dedicating ourselves to the common good. Is that because we have full faith that God will provide! In fact, since we want to make sure that everyone has what they need, a wonderful place to live, plenty of healthy food to eat and meaningful, spiritually satisfying work, in a caring sustainable community, we must know that we are God and that we, the community, will provide.
That is not based on debt! In German the word for guilt and debt are the same! Original sin (guilt – debt) is the underlying idea that creates the rationale for the protestant work ethic that accepts debt guilt!
Of course, my problem with debt is that I know that humans were genetically engineered to serve evil aliens and that the good powers have had to allow fear to activate the egoism in order to preserve our freedom and the control is all based on existential fear continually reinforced by the debt based monetary system.
What I said though is important, the only thing that is really important is that we agree that the monetary system is determining and that it could be debt that is at the bottom of it.
Maybe if we stay awake to our experience we will see that spending money into circulation is way more effective than lending it!
This is where epistemology is so important. What I was getting at is the importance of challenging basic assumptions. The assumption that money is what you want is based on the money being valuable in itself (money earning money). Money may not be necessary in a small community in the future, but it will be necessary for a really long time in the future in managing the economy. If I am going to place my capacities in the service of the community I want to know how effective I am and only good money as accounting will be able to give me the feedback I need. I will still need to be profitable and I will still need to be able to measure my success objectively (accounting doesn't lie). The motivation is serving the community and I still want to know how I am doing! Money will remain the main way in which communities relate to each other. It is essential to creating the holarchical feedback loops we will need in order to assess the viability of our efforts. The fact that the money is easy to come by does not make it worthless, unless you don't understand money as accounting. How much stuff do you think we will want when the advertising and mind control is lifted. I imagine that the tendency will be for everything to become less utilitarian and more artistic and craft. Custom made, custom tailored, custom designed and implemented, but made by intelligent robots in zero waste factories, or by local craftsmen in the local town, depending. I want a custom car made of titanium and aluminum, with a free energy engine in a zero waste factory! I am going to save up to buy it and I am going spend considerable time designing it (with the help of engineers who can assess the consequences of what I want) and it will serve a variety of uses equally well. It seats eight, but it can fold up its seats and roof and be a pick up truck too!
My point is that appreciating the extent to which the current debt based monetary system is determining is necessary in order to appreciate how powerful designing a new currency can be in giving us the world we imagine, collectively. In the existing system in which we issue the money as the principle of a loan but do not create the interest we are guaranteed two things: Everyone must go deeper in debt to get the interest and the interest will transfer the "due to human nature' surplus to those who receive more interest than they pay. Right now, after 100 years of a debt based currency 1/10 of 1% own 34% of the entire wealth of the country, and we don't know it!
It does seem important to me to understand money if we are planning to use the Common Good Bank to create the society we know in our bone is possible! The lie is that we are money motivated. that is an artifact of the debt based monetary system.
I am not suggesting that the CGB shouldn't continue to issue money as debt, I am suggesting that we understand that it is a transition and that right from day one we have alternatives in place that we can utilize as money as accounting is increasingly understood.
I agree with the principle completely. However, if people are not
motivated by money at all, then we don't need money at all. That is
where I want society to go. Meanwhile, people ARE fearful, selfish and
greedy, so we need money to limit consumption and encourage desirable
behavior, while we train people to be more secure, community-minded, and
generous. I believe that the proposed Common Good Bank system will help
us get there.
There are way too many assumptions in this that arise out of the way things are which are a result of the debt based monetary system. Having to earn ones living, for example. If you look at it accurately it is not possible to work for oneself. You can organize the monetary system so that you have to earn a living, or work for yourself, but it never corresponds to the reality, which is that we all work for each other. Your work only has value in as much as it satisfies the needs of other people. So, if you remember that you are unique because you figured out that you don't want to work for a living and that everyone else would rather not work for their living also, what is the point of using such arguments when we are redesigning society? Take the idea that no one really wants a job and that they only take the job out of duress, because the monetary system (money as debt) requires it, or they will be homeless. Things would be very different if we acted out of different ideas and the monetary system could be designed to support those ideas. Say that, because you are a member of society and everyone depends on everyone else, society gives everyone the money they need to buy all the goods and services available. Society puts enough money into circulation so that people can buy everything that is available. As what is available decreases, you receive less money every month, as things increase you receive more every month. What is the incentive then to produce the things for people to buy? Would you rather be egotistically motivated as required by the debt based monetary system or would you rather be altruistically motivated as in satisfying the needs of your fellow citizens? Hold the ideas of the popular culture (created by the debt based monetary system) at bay and ask yourself if, in your direct experience, altruism or egoism is the stronger motivator. It is only the debt based monetary system that fosters egoism. It is the debt based monetary system that requires that you live in existential fear of losing everything if you don't pay your loans, or forego doing the things that require borrowing money. So, let us regulate the money supply by giving people more or less money every month according to how much goods and services are available. And let us rely on people being altruistically motivated to provide those goods and services, and during the transition let us capitalize them way beyond the existing standard of living so that they are able to concentrate on providing what we want!
If you can't compel people to work because you eliminated existential fear who will be the garbage collectors? Well, I for one, would want to organize things so that there is no garbage and no need for garbage collectors. My mother was not motivated to keep the house clean by fear or greed. Imagine a familial sense of obligation developing towards our community with the means to do for the community!
No money for what we don't want and lots of money for what we do want. We just have to keep the money supply equal to the material values available.
Very happy to see the dialog gentlemen. The concept of money as an accounting system has become more apparent for it.
Coming from a predominant Austrian school background I had come to
think of “debt” as “scarcity”. I now see how I had made a mistake in
logic and also why the Austrian school is an outdated model. But all in
a general sense mind you. I look forward to learning more through
these discussions.
As for the sovereignty issue I am all for anyone who chooses to claim
the responsibility. However, in my estimation, at this point in time
it is better for us to build infrastructure through the existing system.
I do not see how it is possible to responsibly claim sovereignty without an infrastructure to support it.
print page
Login 
Register 
Search 
Home
Add a New Topic
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
