Difference between revisions of "Talk:Financial Permaculture Worksheet"

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(A way to discuss points on the talk page?)
 
Line 3: Line 3:
 
Excellent diagrams, Stephen! --[[User:GoodRollin|Alex Rollin]] 17:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)  
 
Excellent diagrams, Stephen! --[[User:GoodRollin|Alex Rollin]] 17:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)  
  
== Differences  ==
+
== Differences from other types of modeling ==
  
 
Thanks Alex! Have added a list of differences as I see them to "normal" economic views. Would appreciate a discussion -  I feel there may be more here to dig out!
 
Thanks Alex! Have added a list of differences as I see them to "normal" economic views. Would appreciate a discussion -  I feel there may be more here to dig out!
 +
 +
===Slow Money===
 +
#One of the aims of FP is to retain money as long as possible in the local community (See all written on "slow money")
 +
:I love slow money.  I think that this applies to all the commons in financial permaculture.  Water, air...well, maybe not.  Those are nature, though.  So, what makes this finance?  Abstract money?  Anyways, the point is, that if there is a "value chit" like cash, it ought be designed to keep that sucker in the community. That goes for futures on milk and housing, too, to a certain extent.--[[User:GoodRollin|Alex Rollin]] 18:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
===Money's Worth===
 +
#The aim of financial permaculture is to obtain a yeild of "money's worth" rather than money itself
 +
 +
===No Interest===
 +
#The idea of interest does not fit FP in fact, one of the aims of finacial permaculture is to find alternative sources of capital to bank loans.
 +
 +
===Nature and Long Horizons===
 +
#FP seeks to get nature to do as much of the work as possible. Traditional financial approaches do not encompass this, in fact they try to get fossil fuels to do as much of the work as possible.
 +
===Every Output is an Input===
 +
#FP puts a value on waste and pollution. Traditional finance sees the cost of getting rid of them. That gasoline was early on conceived as a fuel in automobiles was something Rockefeller was interested in as gasoline was a messy by-product of his cooking and lighting oil business.
 +
 +
===The end of commodities===
 +
#FP is more about asset based investment, valuing labour and nature whereas most traditional accounting models treat these as commodities
 +
 +
===There's always another connection===
 +
#FP looks at an ecology of functions. This would be more like looking at how a supply chain worked rather than focussing on a specific business.
 +
 +
===Permanent Culture===
 +
#Financial permaculture (permanent culture) seeks to create infrastructure that will produce a standard of living over time with minimum impact on nature. Again similar to business modelling but within another context.

Latest revision as of 18:38, 12 August 2010

Diagrams

Excellent diagrams, Stephen! --Alex Rollin 17:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Differences from other types of modeling

Thanks Alex! Have added a list of differences as I see them to "normal" economic views. Would appreciate a discussion -  I feel there may be more here to dig out!

Slow Money

  1. One of the aims of FP is to retain money as long as possible in the local community (See all written on "slow money")
I love slow money. I think that this applies to all the commons in financial permaculture. Water, air...well, maybe not. Those are nature, though. So, what makes this finance? Abstract money? Anyways, the point is, that if there is a "value chit" like cash, it ought be designed to keep that sucker in the community. That goes for futures on milk and housing, too, to a certain extent.--Alex Rollin 18:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Money's Worth

  1. The aim of financial permaculture is to obtain a yeild of "money's worth" rather than money itself

No Interest

  1. The idea of interest does not fit FP in fact, one of the aims of finacial permaculture is to find alternative sources of capital to bank loans.

Nature and Long Horizons

  1. FP seeks to get nature to do as much of the work as possible. Traditional financial approaches do not encompass this, in fact they try to get fossil fuels to do as much of the work as possible.

Every Output is an Input

  1. FP puts a value on waste and pollution. Traditional finance sees the cost of getting rid of them. That gasoline was early on conceived as a fuel in automobiles was something Rockefeller was interested in as gasoline was a messy by-product of his cooking and lighting oil business.

The end of commodities

  1. FP is more about asset based investment, valuing labour and nature whereas most traditional accounting models treat these as commodities

There's always another connection

  1. FP looks at an ecology of functions. This would be more like looking at how a supply chain worked rather than focussing on a specific business.

Permanent Culture

  1. Financial permaculture (permanent culture) seeks to create infrastructure that will produce a standard of living over time with minimum impact on nature. Again similar to business modelling but within another context.