[p2p-research] Remote Assembly, Economy, & Work For Its Own Sake
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 31 20:55:20 CEST 2009
The obvious model of transition is a hyper-inflation. Take Zimbabwe or even
the possibility as it currently exists in the US. If you created massive
amounts of government spending...more and more...at some point, in theory,
the perceived value of the currency unit would fall. If it falls to
nothing, you have an abundance of money.
My point is that money is not the issue. Never has been. The science of
money is economics. There is no reinventing the sound core work that makes
up that field. The question is value. The people who wave their hands and
say we can just throw away carefully worked out ideas are amusing but not
Value as marginal utility will always reign supreme unless a moral system
becomes a political system whereby certain identified aims are held as
self-evidently valuable...e.g. a sustainable planet.
The problem is moral/political. It isn't technological or procedural. The
reason micro-currencies work is a volunteerism toward a different way of
being and seeing. Until that occurs in large, sensible ways...or is forced
to occur in large sensible ways, there is no feasible transformation of the
sort Sam is describing. Whether there is a tipping point in the moral
development of more social life approaches globally is an open question. I
suspect the odds of not achieving a global commitment to reasonable life
approaches outweighs moving toward Paul's technical nirvana are about 9 to
5. Still hopeful, but in serious doubt.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Central banks and governments artificially control money
> >> flows via fixing compound interest rates. So, when financial systems
> >> take a dive (usually after a false expansion that people start to
> >> realize cannot be sustained, which leads to the collapse), lending
> >> institutions dam up the flow of money, blocking people from accessing
> >> it, which has a domino effect, and those with the least amount of
> >> money are forced to struggle even harder to procure the basic amount
> >> of money for survival. I propose that we both give people the means of
> >> production, to eliminate the need for money, plus we all start using
> >> new money systems that are tied to natural forces. People have been
> >> calling for this for years. This makes money *self-regulating*. We
> >> could prove it with experiments with digital money online. (see this
> >> article http://www.energybulletin.net/49740 ).
> >> Time banks are an example. I don't think that currency should *only*
> >> be based on petro, but any solar-derived energy, or even other energy.
> >> /::Drift::
> > Wrong. If we back money with anything, that will only work against us, as
> > interests will only work to secure that backing whether is it (energy,
> > natural forces, ect) is scare or not. Therefore, money must be based on
> > subjectivity of scarcity itself. In other words: only backed by trust
> > an item is scarce and must have something of relative scarce value in
> > exchange. That's 'old world' and will soon be difficult to secure such
> > horrors, however.
> I am sure you are right in theory. But, in practice to get to the
> transformative outcome of: no one using money/money is worthless,
> there is no plausible path except for transitioning towards it.
> So, the question in my mind is "how do we transition from a world
> dominated by money, to a world where humans operate with no money?"
> What is a "plausible" way to do this, that most of the people in the
> world can actually start adopting right now, today?
> >> Plus, as Nathan continually advocates, it is extremely important in my
> >> opinion to diminish the need for money at all.
> > ;)
> >> Especially for basic
> >> survival needs. We already have enough space, and stored/potentially
> >> energy to meet basic survival needs for every person on this planet in
> >> totally self-sustaining ways. We're just currently misusing the
> >> resources, and I think that is obvious to many people.
> > So if a currency were backed by something abundant as you're describing,
> > money would then be worthless...
> There are many different types of "worth" assigned to money by human
> beings. Some of these types of "worth" are more related to econmic
> theory such as what we have been discussing, and some are local to an
> individual's mind. So, even if we create mechanisms for valuing money,
> we must also create or at least work to increase the likelihood of
> conditions that will make it more likely that people will accept the
> type of change that we are trying to initiate. So, while it is
> interesting for us to discuss which economic theories make the most
> sense, in reality we are also dealing with the worldviews of billions
> of people, who may or may not readily accept and operate with the type
> of change that others propose for them. Clare W. Graves recognized the
> conditions that can make it more likely for people to willingly accept
> a change that you are attempting to initiate, and to work with the
> world view that is inherent in that change. See "The Never Ending
> Quest" for a detailed description of that
> >> Paul just stated to me that Complex Adaptive systems optimize the flow
> >> of energy in emergent ways, they usually do not block, or hoard energy
> >> flows in systems when left to evolve and emerge on their own.
> >> So, if we take energy that is in the form of matter, shape it into a
> >> fast food container, use it once, and then throw it into a hole in the
> >> ground, we are blocking the potential for optimized dissipation of
> >> that energy. Complex systems theory contains many of the simple
> >> rules-based models that we need to start optimizing our energy flows
> >> in useful ways.
> > Have reading suggestions in this area?
> > I've kept notes on all the ones you've previously mentioned on
> > collaboration.
> I would recommend looking at models from Elinor Ostrum ("Governing the
> commons"), Peter Kollock http://www.cooperationcommons.com/node/390
> I'd also recommend looking at Six Degrees by Duncan Watts
> Emergence by John Holland (all work by John Holland is useful for
> learning about the basics of complex systems theory),
> Triple Helix by Richard Lewontin
> http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/lewontin/tripleh.htm while not
> "complex systems theory" explains that the *system* is the mechanism,
> not it's components.
> All of the work of Robert Axelrod
> Strogatz http://www.cooperationcommons.com/node/394
> Hope that helps!
> Sam Rose
> Social Synergy
> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
> skype: samuelrose
> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
> ambition." - Carl Sagan
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the p2presearch