Visit the forum instructions to learn how to post to the forum, enable email notifications, subscribe to a category to receive emails when there are new discussions (like a mailing list), bookmark discussions and to see other tips to get the most out of our forum!
Is OSE a capitalistic system?
  • 157 Comments sorted by
  • " Your anticipaty against money, capital and capitalism aren't
    shared by the overwhelming majority of peoples involved in OSE.
    Draw the consequences, Rabert: Don't invest time and effort in OSE, please look for a new playground."

    Wow, pretty close minded words in an open source forum o_0

    I too have seen a certain redundancy in many of these posts, and yet they are still important. Any discussion that leads to understanding whether small or large, is a successful one, even if it is only the understanding of differing ideologies. Remember that the movement towards open source is not only contained within your specific mindset or ideologies, it affects and involves a whole world of different people.
     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    August 2012
    @Rabert:
    Why? What prevented the crisis to occur in Germany, in your opinion?
    I, and most others, think mainly out of three reasons. Firstly, Germany always was adamant in austerity. (..)
    But then, some capitalist countries work better than other "capitalist" countries, isn't it? Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Japan, South Korea, Germany and others were had no crisis, because their capitalist systems are more realistic than others.
    Some rules were respected, and that prevented the crisis.
    It's the people who have to decide what those rules should be like and to make sure that the government is implementing them, it's the people who have to put the pressure on governments in order to keep them transparent.
    But the people in general have no idea what generated the crisis, what rules the government has to implement and they don't care if the government is transparent or not.
    I have even seen people who claim that the economic crisis was created because now we have too many computers who replaced humans. Well if we have more technology, we can just work less, isn't it? Keep speculation and corruption under control, implement some other measures (like renting land to the people), and then everyone can get a job and have a decent life.
    Anyways, no matter how much money Greece and Spain will borrow, they can simply burn those money. Or, better, they just cut some "0"s in the bank accounts - no need to waste resources for burning money.
    They (the governments) can do that because they are not transparent. And they will do that because they want to suffocate those countries in debts, to make their people to accept changes: increasing retirement age and creation of United States of Europe.

    Anyways, thanks for sharing your opinion. I think, if the people want to better understand the crisis, then they should share such opinions and knowledge, and then they can apply in one country (USA for example) the measures that prevented the crisis in another country (Denmark for example).

    And the punishment may be as simple as being ejected from the community.
    That's an extreme violation of human rights. Sometimes, unfortunately, evidence can be and it is fabricated. I don't believe you can accept to lose German nationality and to be deported to Somalia, even if you commit a crime, and especially when you know you are not guilty.
    The right to have a nationality is one of the most fundamental rights - at least as long as the world is divided into countries. And you can't make a step forward if you just wait for all the countries to be dissolved.
    So that kind of punishment, while it can be an easy solution, is quite unacceptable.

    it looks like in Germany it's the people in the government who decide what happens with such public property. ... So it's not the public who decides, but the people in the (local) government who decide.
    I was not talking about Germany, but an ideal situation. Germany is as capitalistic, as consumism addicted, as money enslaved as the rest of the "developed" world. When the public should decide, it should have the means to do so. What we call democracy is as far away from participation of the public in decision making as any dictatorship.
    In an ideal situation, the people check the government, they make sure the government is transparent, and they engage in the decision process. They can even eliminate the need of a government, but only if they engage enough. In the developed world, the people have the freedom to do all those things. But they don't bother to involve into community issues.
    Therefore, in a money free society, if the people do not involve into issues, then they will delegate someone (the government) to do it. And that will leave space for incompetence and abuses, and then the people won't be able to use and benefit from the public property as they should.
    And then, the good use of public property doesn't depend on using money or not. It only depends on the people to involve into the issue, to make sure the public property is used for the good of all.

    And that's the case exactly because the public doesn't bother to involve into the issue.
    Because it doesn't matter to them.
    Because they don't care, isn't it? They can use their brains and they can understand that one day they will be affected too.

    They cannot participate in decision making,
    You are very very wrong here, so to speak. Yes, they can't participate in the next second. But they can create the opportunity to be able to participate. They can make associations, organizations, petitions. Many times, government decisions were rejected or created to comply with the people's requirements. The people asked for a certain law and the government had to implement it. So the people can participate in decision making. Unfortunately, most of the time they don't bother do do it, and it's their fault.

    and they are rarely struck more then peripherally and insignificantly by the decisions of government. It's the piece by piece, each of it not really painful, but added over the decades, which has led to the global plutocracy we have today. There is no outcry over a tiny removal of freedom, especially in the name of safety and security or counterterrorism, but many of those tiny removals end up in the Orwellian situation we find all over the world now.
    The process can be reverted, bit by bit re-creating those freedom rights for the people. It's only the people who wil have do it. We can't assume that we have to wait for extraterrestrials to come and do it for us.

    Please explain, how the thousands of junkies in Miami, New York, Chicago or Los Angeles will get gold, silver, platinum or even artificial diamonds every day to pay their dealer? Remember, there is not more the 1/3 ounze of gold available per person on average. Silver or platinum even less. The pure existence of money allows for crime, which would just not feasible at all without it. Human trafficking, drug dealing or banking among it.
    Annual production of silver is ten times more than gold (20,000 tons vs 2,000 tons) so it's more, not less. Copper is produced in much bigger quantity: 15 million tons / year. Aluminium: 35 million tons / year.
    Not everyone needs to trade gold, only the richest will do that. And that's how it works today too.
    The junkies can trade copper, the big boys will trade the copper for gold. The junkies can give all kind of products (including food, raw materials, less valuable metals - iron, copper, aluminium, etc. or even work). The drug dealers will sell those goods for gold. The drug dealers will sell iron, copper, aluminium, silver, gold, platinum in order to get drugs. And they will maintain their profit in gold/platinum/diamonds, of course. Each person will use the currency they can afford at their social status (in organized crime there is always a social status). The people with the lowest ranking will trade aluminium. The richest will trade gold.
    And, of course, the junkies can also trade their printed "Ithaca Hours" for drugs.
    But keep in mind that my intelligence (and probably even yours too) is minuscule comparing to criminal minds when it comes to inventivity about breaking the law. If you don't believe me, check how inventive the people are in jail. They can do so many amazing things with the most basic objects. They can jam a door with a bit of paper or a rag, and so on.

    99% of all money in the world is computer data. With your reasoning, you should get rid of it as soon as possible. Look at the Ithaca Hours for instance.
    The money that I am getting are measuring only my working hours and nothing else. I don't get money from anything else. And there are many people like me. Those numbers go to my bank account, and they are named "Euros". My working hours are stored in computer memory. I can use the credit card and buy with those working hours.

    If the people are payed in working hours, then they can't buy from shops or agents that have no internet connection. For those kind of transactions, you might want to have some printed working hours (not much, just 1%), just like Ithaca hours are printed: "HOURS are printed on high-quality paper and use faint graphics that would be difficult to reproduce". If your neighbor needs your potatoes but he doesn't have the tomatoes you need in exchange, then he will try to pay you in printed working hours. Then you can get the tomatoes later from someone else in exchange for those printed working hours. When you need to exchange some goods, you can't expect the other person to have exactly what you need. That's why the printed working hours will be a universal currency in places where there is no internet connection.
    The people in power can hack the accounts and they can modify their working hours, just as they can hack bank accounts today and hack those numbers that express Euros or Dollars.
    The people can make gifts in working hours. Parents, uncles, brothers, can save working hours and then make them as a gift to you, so you will have much more working hours than someone else who works less and has alcoholic parents. Some can be much more rich than others.
    You work for a cooperative, you are payed in working hours and the cooperative will sell goods to consumers (like you) in exchange for their working hours. If the cooperative is creating a monopoly or a cartel, it can overprice the products, and the consumers have to pay a lot of working hours to buy them. Once such speculation is allowed, people will have to work 22 hours / day in order to buy only the food they need to survive. If the people do not involve in the issue, then the government can tolerate such speculation.
    If the economy will not be efficient, then the working hours will not value much. With a lot of working hours you will be able to buy very little.
    And then, what is the difference between working hours and money?

    Say car making workers are payed with 40 Euros / hours while you are payed with 10 Euros / hour for making houses. That means they buy houses cheap and you buy cars expensive. That's a form of speculation and it should be addressed. Sure, some people work more efficient than others and they deserve to be payed more. But when the final products they create are overpriced, then probably they are over-payed.

    Not exactly what I would like to have, but it points into the right direction.
    My advice is: talk with others like you about the issue and decide what you will like to have. Don't just pass the dream of RBE to your children. Your children will have to do one day the things you are not doing today, if they will want RBE. And then they will probably say that you were lazy, to let them do the things you were dreaming about, instead of actually doing it.

    No inflation, no deflation, no collapse, no speculation. So time is a perfect basis to determine the worth of a commodity, simply by adding up all human work time directly or indirectly invested in it.
    If the speculation is allowed, others can steal your working hours (time) by overpricing products. They can overcharge you, so with 10 hours of work per day, you won't even be able to get enough food.

    However, people like you, who want a better society, they should start building it, according to their vision. Even if they don't physically build it, they can start to talk about building it - that's the fist and very important step do do. Until they can start physical work, there are a lot of aspects that should be clarified. It's very important to pave the way and to establish how they will do it, in what order, what they will need, and so on. You can't build a better society by just assuming everything will work fine just by removing a few concepts (in this case: money and private property). You have to make sure that you (the group) will be competent enough to make the community functional.
    When you will start to make those communities, you will see for yourself that the main factors of success is the fact that the people are honest, competent and involve into talking and solving community issues, not the lack of money and private property.
    If they will be incompetent, then they will have not even enough resources to survive. If they won't involve into community issues, then they will delegate others do do it, and then they will depend on other people's (in)competence and will. You (the people) have to make the system work, you can't expect that the system will fix everything for you.
    But it's a very bad idea to refuse to start it, always finding an excuse for it.
    If you just dream about RBE and pass the dream to others, then your children and grandchildren will have to do all the work to implement the RBE. And they might blame you for not trying to implement the dream.

    You said that you are not a follower of TVP or Fresco. Still, your ideas are very similar with those spread by them.
    And they act very much like the "communists". The "communist" leaders also were talking about a new system where the resources will be put to good use for the people, where the system will work for the people and so on.
    But they refused to engage the people into debates, in order to involve them into building communism. They refused to talk about future issues, lying the people that the system will take care of everything. They refused to answer to the people, their supporters were supposed to just listen and follow them.
    When those leaders got enough support from a part (minority) of the population, they overthrew their governments, and they enforced a new system.
    They called their system "communists" and they terrorized the people in the name of communism.
    I would not be surprised at all, if Jacque Fresco was a supporter of criminals like Lenin, Stalin, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. In fact, I would be surprised if he was not.
    Because he acts very much the like those "communist" leaders acted before they came into power: He has an excuse for everything, he can always blame "capitalism" and governments, he avoids real debates. (Talking in a conference and accepting a few question is far from being a debate). He promises that the system will fix everything, refusing to train the people to make sure they will be capable to handle community issues.
    And then, where is the difference between Fresco and those "communist" leaders? Because I can't really see much difference.
    It really looks like a "communist" repainting his ideology as "resource-based economy".

     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    August 2012
    Not for free. The government can rent houses and land for a decent price. And that will prevent speculation of prices of land and houses.
    And what about speculation on other resources?
    First of all, speculation should not be allowed for basic necessities of life: water, food, (basic) clothes, (basic) housing, and anything else that can be considered basic necessity: electricity, internet, television, radio, computers, etc.
    And by that I do not mean that all houses have to be standard and to have the same price. It only means that everyone should afford to buy/rent a decent house at a decent price. Therefore, only a significant part of the housing market must be kept under tight control. There is no problem if some people spend $100 million for a house, as long as that can't affect your access to basic housing.
    Imagine the government has enough apartments to rent to everyone at at decent price. Then the rest of the housing market doesn't matter - the private owners can inflate prices as much as they want, it won't hurt the people.
    So the main focus is to make sure that the speculation is not affecting the people, there is no need to abolish speculation in any form. Create defense mechanisms (safety nets) that protect people from any kind of speculation - that's the main point.
    Probably there will always be some form of speculation with something, so the point is to make that speculation irrelevant.
    Speaking about other resources: it all comes down to how it affects people's life. If there is any mechanism that makes speculation of the prices of yachts to affect the people's access to food, housing and other basics, then yes, the speculation of prices of yachts must be stopped. But sincerely, I really doubt that there is such a mechanism. It's unthinkable that the speculation of prices with Leonardo da Vinci's paintings and of Rolex luxury watches can affect your life. Sure, it makes me sick to see that someone spends so much money on a painting, while those money can be used to save lifes. But once the speculation of basic necessities is not allowed and the people can have access to resources, money can't save lives anymore. News about expensive paintings will be just a display of pure cretinism.

    I don't believe that the "unemployment help" is included in the definition of capitalism. Yet, a capitalist system needs to apply such a socialist measure in order to work better!
    Right, but inconsequential, as one way or the other, this is unlikely to affect whether or not someone is going to entitle it "real" capitalism.
    Well, I have seen people who can't imagine the government renting houses, because then they think the system won't be capitalist anymore. Why "unemployment help" can't affect but "public housing" can affect whether or not someone is going to entitle the system "real" capitalism? They are both (socialist) concepts that were added later in capitalist systems. If one can't affect, then the other shouldn't affect too. The problem is that the people were indoctrinated with an idiotic fear of communism.

    Yes. It is possible to make solid steps forward in order to create the resource-based economy (RBE). You don't have to start with ending to use money and private property.
    The end of property is step one in order of importance, not of chronology.
    In a functional capitalist system, the people can save money, they can create cooperatives, they can build and grow their own communist communities. The more supporters they get, the more the communism will take over the economy. There is no need for a small community to take over the whole country and to enforce communism or "communism". On the other hand, in the "communist" countries you were not allowed to build capitalist communities.
    In a functional capitalist system, the people can build RBE communities, where only the Department of External Trade (let's call it DoET) will have to touch money and to pay taxes. But other than that, the rest of the community can be property and money free.
    I disagree that elimination of property is step one in order of importance, but anyways such functional capitalist systems exist: Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Holland, Japan, etc.
    There are places where such RBE communities can be created and where people like you can put that belief (to end of property is step no. one) to the test.

    I think OSE is in the spirit of resource-based economy. And it's not assaulted by the authorities.
    OSE is not doing anything that provides a serious threat to the establishment.  There's not even anyone really building the GVCS atm.
    Yes, because OSE doesn't ask the people to fight, to overthrow the government, and to put in power some criminals like Lenin, Stalin, Fidel Castro or Che Guevara.

    Well, considering the fact that the members of the OWS talk only about stealing the private property and fighting the government
    You characterize OWS like that and expect us to take you seriously?  Come on.
    Some of them admire the previously mentioned leaders, Many of them have shirts with the face of Che Guevara printed on them. Or see here, how a speaker on OWS thinks the evolution:

    http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-transition-phase-the-road-to-freedom-stage-iii/
    (Stage III starts when the majority of a nation either supports and or have actively joined the struggle for freedom.)
    Now, as I mentioned earlier violent opposition is very likely to increase more and more as the movement grows, and in stage I and II brutality and violence from state and the establishment must be fought with non-violent means in most cases (maybe some exceptions can be made at the end of phase II though). However, in stage III, the movement and its supporters can now start fighting back with violence if necessary. There’s really nothing controversial about that - It’s only self defense. It’s just defending democracy.

    Sounds to me like a softer version of Fidel Castro (who didn't care if the majority joined him or not).
    Well, once the OWS has the support of the majority in a country, they can simply build a lot of cooperatives, isn't it? The more they grow them, the more communism they will have. So there is no need to fight at all. By the contrary, the more those cooperatives will deliver, the more people will be encouraged to join them.
    So, I am not depicting them like that, they depict themselves like that.

    You said they can't build cooperatives but they also have rich supporters like Michael Moore who can afford to sponsor creation of new cooperatives.
    Yeah?  Has he offered to do that?  Why hasn't he done it?  I'm sure he can find plenty of people that will walk off and start a coop with him.
    But that was my question in the first place: why none of the communist speakers (rich or poor) are calling to build cooperatives? Why they call on strikes and fight, instead of building the communism they want?

    When they had a good life they could easily start to create cooperatives. They had plenty of time to do that.
    But the differential advantage provided to them by capitalism made them not give a shit about all the poor people around them.
    And then, they don't really deserve too much compassion, isn't it? Because it really looks like they have humanity feelings only for themselves, but not for others. There always existed entities (organizations, rich people) who cared about the poor, so it was not impossible for them to see good examples and to learn from them.
    They are not robots, the differential advantage can't program the way the people think. Nor the good examples around them. It's only their own decision to learn something and to follow good or bad examples.
    When the people are poor and they become communists and think about community issues they are good. When they are poor but they act bad, they have an excuse - it's because of the government. When they have a good life or they are rich and they are cynical, they again have an excuse - it's because of the "differential advantage". It doesn't matter if they have a good life or not, it doesn't matter if they are good or bad, they always have an excuse, according to you.

    Yeah, no one ever complains about money, or private property, or the government.  Oh, except TVP supporters.
    Then why it's so easy to recognize if someone is either a TVP supporter or inspired by TVP? :)

    By the way, you missed the point.  The point is, why are you so focused on TVP specifically, when RBE is not contingent on TVP, there are only a handful of members, most RBE advocates do not describe themselves as "TVP supporters", do not think uncritically of Fresco, and in general do not even mention TVP. In fact, you were the very first person here to mention either TVP or Fresco.
    Because Rabert started this thread, and he was talking like someone indoctrinated with Fresco's ideas. I was just going to the source of those ideas.

    I am part of the Zeitgeist Movement, not TVP. However, nothing I have said thus far depends on any single person or group or persons, and is supported by evidence, which I would provide, were I under the impression that you would actually read any of it.
    Zeitgeist used to be the activist arm of The Venus Project - that's what Wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zeitgeist_Movement
    It really looks to me like most of the people supporting RBE and the end of using money and end of private property were inspired by Fresco. That's my impression at this moment. But please provide that evidence, so I can check it.

    In the same time as all the other groups and social movements that advocate RBE are NOT DEPENDENT ON JACQUE FRESCO, you think it's an issue that JACQUE FRESCO DOES NOT ENCOURAGE [...]?
    Because at least at this moment, it looks to me that he inspired most of those groups.

    "Yes, I see that all these other movements exist and are basically completely separate from Jacque Fresco, but you know what their problem is?  Jacque Fresco doesn't do blah blah blah"
    You're being stupid.  Stop it, or shut up.
    No, really, I don't think was acting stupid. I just provided evidence why Fresco can't be trusted and why others who act like him can't be trusted. If a leader doesn't answer to questions, he doesn't encourage the people to start debates and communities, always finds excuses, etc, then it's very likely he can't be trusted. It applies to Fresco also but to others who act like him.

    Yeah, Jacque Fresco is like, the first person to ever have a problem with money and property.  Anyone who criticizes it must be his follower, and must also smoke crack, and also criticism and hatred are liek, totally the same thing.
    I do think he is the first one who had problems with money and property and also became popular on internet. Was anyone else before him (having problem with money and property) so popular?

    Sometimes the criminals do it just to make fun of others.
    Oh, do they?  I’m pretty sure that’s a load of shit, but if you believe so, feel free to support it with evidence.  You should probably also stop using the word “criminal” when we are having a discussion in a context in which there is no law.
    Wow, what you said proves we are living on the same planet but on totally distinct worlds. If I believe it? LOL !! I don't believe it, I have seen it and I know it.
    Try to see how orphan or street children are treated in places like Russia, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, and many other places in this world. It really makes me sick to even think about giving you evidence.
    Just go and live in one of those countries for one year, see their culture, check the news websites and you will see almost every day news about people killing or damaging others just for fun.

    A recent one: Wes Sims: I had a gun pointed at my head in Bulgaria... Click click. There’s a gun pointed to my head. I start freaking out asking what’s going on. He says ‘no money’. I reply to keep it and to just let me live and let me out of the car... Finally they put the gun down and he says ‘Bulgarian joke’. I was like joke, I damn near shit my pants.” - http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/news/410879/Wes-Sims-I-had-a-gun-pointed-at-my-head-in-Bulgaria/
    I had the "opportunity" to see such "people" every single day, for quite good while. But, yeah, it's all because of the money and private property. Talking about "circular reasoning", lol.
    Evidence? Just wake the fuck up ! You have no idea in what kind of world you are living!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    That's true. But that can be achieved by building a better society. Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway have much less criminality than other countries.
    Yes, they have low amounts of socioeconomic disparity.
    Therefore, a capitalist system can be much better than other. USA can learn from Finland how to solve it's issues, for example. People there can have a decent life, and they can have even more opportunities than in USA to build their own RBE communities if that's what they wish.

    Building a better society and creating a RBE society has nothing to do with eliminating money.
    Building a “better” society, maybe not.  Creating a resource-based economy has everything to do with eliminating money, actually.
    In a better society the people can start their own RBE communities. When you and your friends will create your RBE communities, you will be able to see for yourself that it doesn't have anything to do with eliminating money.

     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    August 2012
    Building a better society and creating a RBE society has nothing to do with eliminating money.
    Money is used to encode information about resources into a single value.  Resource-based economics depend on direct measurement of each parameter separately.
    I thought a resource-based economy is about creating and providing to everyone the access to the resources they need. In a functional capitalism, anyone can have access to the resources they need. Check Sweden, Finland, etc. for example. The people can further involve into community issues and make their life even better than that. So, you are wrong.

    In that case, there is still need for police and prisons
    That is some dumb shit.  Police and prisons are not only not the only way to deal with antisocial behavior, they actually encourage antisocial behavior.  Medical treatment, and orientation to prosocial behavior does work.
    Prove it. Prove that it works for everyone who commits antisocial behavior.

    This may require isolation, which is not the same as imprisonment, and should not include isolation from friends or loved ones.
    In order to check who committed a specific crime, to gather evidence, to find the perpetrator, to isolate someone, you need police.

    I guess you've never actually built any open-source hardware, because it's not actually so simple.  For one thing, each implementation of open-source hardware is slightly different, due to resource constraints.
    But slightly different hardware is much better than a huge variety of proprietary hardware, isn't it?

    Not all problems have been solved right away, or even encountered.
    Not all, but the most common yes. I wasn't talking about an immediate solution. In a few years, the most common problems will be encountered (that's why they are called common, isn't it?) and then they will be documented.

    If the community is trading, then that implies that there is some exclusivity over the products of their labor.  In other words, they have property which is owned by the community acting as a private entity.  If the community is paying taxes, then it is part of the nation to which it is paying taxes.  This subsequently means it is subject to its laws, such as those in many places that outlaw rainwater catch tanks, or permit laws which constrain possible productive activities to those allowed by the establishment.
    Sure. The establishment won't allow them to create nuclear bombs, for example. The DoET will still have to touch money but the rest of the community will not have to touch any money, because the DoET will be their interface with the exterior. The land where they live will be owned by some entity (the community or the government who will rent the land to the community), but inside the community there will not be any private property. They won't have absolute freedom, maybe they won't be allowed to install rainwater catch tanks, but they will still have enough freedom to function. The more people will join the community, the more solutions they will find to increase their freedom. A step forward is the way to start, and it's much better than doing nothing.
    So there is no real excuse for not starting such communities.

    Okay, so how do you build a solar panel?  Tell me without looking it up on the internet, in a scientific journal, or a copyrighted book.
    It's not a sin to buy a copyrighted book, which has 95 years of copyright. The knowledge contained in the book can be patented for maximum 20 years.
    So, you check internet, scientific journals, buy books, and if the technology described there has it's patents expired, then you can use it.

    Can't you see that you find excuses for not building the solutions? (..)
    And you find excuses for not building an open-source washing machine as you previously suggested.
    But I am supporting the project with money, and that will eventually lead to the development of the open-source washing machine. The more people like me, the more chances to make the open source machine faster. Are you supporting a community that started to live without money? TVP, Zeitgeist and others have much more supporters than OSE, so they could start such communities already.

    Yet nearly all mobile networks depend on the infrastructure of the big three wireless providers.  This is one case where it is nearly impossible for a small company to build an effective service, because mobile customers have an expectation to be able to use their phones outside of their local area, meaning there is a large infrastructure requirement.
    Yet the prices of the mobile phone conversations are quite cheap and getting cheaper each year. Because the government doesn't allow to the "Big Three" to create cartels.

    But there is yet to be a fix for the vendor lock-in that Microsoft creates through its cartel with GPU chipset manufacturers.  Try buying a graphics card and using it on Linux.
    I was using Linux (Ubuntu) a lot. I had various graphics cards (with 3D acceleration) and had no problems with them. The vendors have no obligation to provide Linux drivers for free. The more supporters Linux has, the more power to create drivers.

    I thought we had already established that the so-called “communist” countries were not even analogous to a communist society, due to its use of money and state property, both internally and externally.  If there were “hidden properties” and “privileges” to be exchanged, then it wasn’t classless, and it did not eliminate private property.
    It's not about the "communist" countries. I was just giving an example for you to see that the people can find ways to trade hidden property and privilege in any system. The society can't totally eliminate hidden property unless it polices everyone. And even then the police can hide evidence in exchange for hidden property and privilege. You can't eliminate illegal (hidden) property just by outlawing it - that's why it's called illegal. Once some people have more and others have less, they will start to form hierarchy - that is, social position and classes. The solution is to have an efficient police. Otherwise the people will trade those banned goods.
     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    August 2012
    @Bastelmike:
    You are wrong to dismiss someone who think different than you. I also believe that Rabert and Ackhuman are wrong in their belief that money and property are the root of the problem. But in order to prove that, you have to counter all the arguments that sustain such a wrong point of view. Even at the risk of having to repeat some things, you have to exhaust all arguments. It's not about Rabert and Ackhuman. There are many other people who share the same belief like them. Once all the arguments are explored and exposed, the debate can serve as a reference in similar conversations. Also, once those aspects are clarified, it can serve to future decisions about how to build the future Resource Based Economy.

    @Danial:
    I too have seen a certain redundancy in many of these posts, and yet they are still important. Any discussion that leads to understanding whether small or large, is a successful one, even if it is only the understanding of differing ideologies. Remember that the movement towards open source is not only contained within your specific mindset or ideologies, it affects and involves a whole world of different people.
    Well put! Thanks!

     
  • And the punishment may be as simple as being ejected from the community.
    So that kind of punishment, while it can be an easy solution, is quite unacceptable.

    Again, I'm not talking about Germany or any other nation state. I'm talking about a community which agrees on rules and which is small enough that anonymity cannot be used to hide behind. A community of let's say 10,000 people let's say in Germany or in the US. Someone violates the rules, he knows the consequence: he will not be welcomed anymore on the 10 squaremiles of this community. If he does it anyways, his decision, not that of the community. The ruleset of the community and the methods to inforce it need to be designed in a way, that it is quite robust against abuse, obviously. Probably there are other, milder consequences then expulsion. Just like any ruleset of any community should be, and the rulesets of most nation states, while much more elaborate and complex, not only claim to be, but are widely recognized as such.

    They cannot participate in decision making,

    You are very very wrong here, so to speak.


    You truly think that the public electorate decides about politics and policy? :-O Look at this, and then think again. It's not different in Germany or other countries, just not that obvious. Our planet is ruled by a global plutocracy, not by its people. Unless you think a cross every few years on a paper, where millions or billions of dollars have been spent before to convince you not only where to make this cross, but that making a cross every 4 or 5 years itself is perfect democracy, is worth to be called "participation in decision making".

    The process can be reverted, bit by bit re-creating those freedom rights
    for the people. It's only the people who wil have do it.


    It's people like you who are instrumental to avoid that. The present system is designed to favour the rich and to disadvantage the poor. Every year our plutocracy spends on average around 130 USD per person, from the starving infant in Somalia to the dement pensionist in Florida, to make people addicted to consumism and keep them addicted. It starts at the delivery room and ends on the death bed. And money is simply the stuff you need to feed that addiction. How do you want to get billions of brainwashed and addicted people to abdicate from their addictions and to start change things? Without any means or any funds to do it, and with the combined power of the whole global establishment against you? Your truly believe people will see the light and change the way they are ruled over, when they don't even understand what money is and what it does to them?

    Annual production of silver is ten times more than gold (20,000 tons vs 2,000 tons) so it's more, not less.

    In contrary to gold, that silver is not available for currency, because it is needed for industrial production. We are talking about what is available as a substitute for currency. And, btw, the amount of available silver is rapidly declining. In 20 to 30 years there is no more silver which can be mined at reasonable costs.

    I don't know what your education is, but obviously, you have no idea how money is created and how it works. If you think copper will substitute, why don't the dealers don't just accept those tiny copper coins already, which are around all over the world in abundance? Do you think they will be worth more, when the paper is gone? Or do you think the junkies just happily hand over their 25kg bar of copper for their weakly supply of drugs, giving it to the dealer with his 40-ton-truck, which is already half full with aluminium and tin?

    But keep in mind that my intelligence (and probably even yours too) is
    minuscule comparing to criminal minds when it comes to inventivity about
    breaking the law.


    Just to reiterate again, the whole reason crime is profitble is the existence of money, because money is easily transportable and hideable, and extremely versatile how it can be used afterwards. You can't hide and trade with a few tons of copper or aluminium as you can do with computer data or bills. But I get the impression, that you are not interested in that and probably claim next that the criminals will invent to shrink metals or something.

    The money that I am getting are measuring only my working hours and nothing else.

    Then you've got the short stick. I know people who have much more money then you very likely will have, and never work. There obviously is something else. Do you know that the approx. 1,100 billionaires we have on our planet own four times more then the poorer half of the planet, that's 3.5 billion people, all together? Who do you think, works more? Who do you think, creates the money? I repeat, you have no idea what money is and how it works. What is not your fault at all, because that is not taught in schools.

    And then, what is the difference between working hours and money?


    You may want to look at this thread.

    My advice is: talk with others like you about the issue and decide what
    you will like to have. Don't just pass the dream of RBE to your
    children.


    Where did I talk about RBE?

    If the speculation is allowed, others can steal your working hours (time) by overpricing products.


    You still don't get the difference between measuring worth and setting worth, do you? And where do I advocate to have speculation allowed?

    However, people like you, who want a better society, they should start building it, according to their vision.

    Actually, I'm trying to do that: www.fugium.org (not very much translated from German to other languages so far, unfortunately).

    gonzo on communism

    You like to generalize, don't you? Just because I don't want money, I'm a follower of TVP and RBE. Just because I don't want property, I'm a communist. Stop thinking in drawers, when you want to understand what is discussed.

    Again, gonzo, you should start to think. Take the red pill. You are entranced by the establishment you are defending. Worse, you know there is a red pill, but you decline to swallow it, out of fear to see the harsh reality. A reality, where 0,15% of people own more then half of the planet and don't need to work at all, where just 10 companies (which are, btw and unsurprisingly, all financial industry) control more then 20% of all turnover of the nearly 50,000 companies which work transnational. Where money is instrumental to allow for all that.

    Actually, I understand that. You do belong to the rich 20% of our planet (did you know, that a welfare receiver in Germany, and that would be the same in most of Europe, has at least double the money available then the poorer 80% of the global populace?), and to acknowledge all that would make you feel bad, and to reevaluate your education, your indoctrination and your convictions. I took that pill, and I have suffered, and I have changed my mind.

     
  • I have and will continue to advocate the RBE system and Natural Economics (NE).  I don't care if you think I'm a disciple of Jacque Fresco and a blind TVP advocate.

    As I already glossed over, the most important part of an RBE/NE, and one that would greatly help the efforts of OSE, is the Global Resource Management System (GRMS).  The GRMS would ideally be a large set of servers/sensors that run a single system image with a database and standard interface for different frontends.  This could be built from a central point outward, or it could be built over time from the outside in.

    OSE could use something like this to track who has what materials/labor available to the project and what components have been built.  Detailed enough tracking would provide statistics about the penetration of its technologies, the costs (independent of money, since prices tend only to work locally, and much of the materials can be obtained from scrap for free), the time it takes to construct GVCS components, and their impact on the local economy.  If users enter the materials available to them and the amounts in which they are available, it would provide important information that can make the GVCS's designs more accessible to more people.  E.G., if more people are capable of getting aluminum profile than structural steel, designs, or at least derivatives, should be created that account for that reality.

    The first iteration could be as simple as a web server with an open-access DBMS.  Other projects, like RepRap, could be roped in and start a collaborative economy, based on the benefits of sharing that are not necessarily accounted by money.  It would be a good way for people in a local area to realize *abLabs and HackerSpaces, and subsequently, demonstrate the viability of OSE and further increase its implementation.
     
  • I came to a similar proposal like the RBE, but from a completely different point of view: scarcity. What is, if I remember it correctly, a 180 degree opposite position from TVP.

    We do not know how long the resources of our planet must hold out for the generations to follow. We need to assume, that they won't be able to be replaced, until a replacement is not only in the scetchbooks but truly tested and available. When you have a limited ressource for an unlimited time and an unknown number of users, you need to rationalize. To be able to rationalize and distribute on a fair basis, you need to know what is available and how many want to use it. Since you don't know how long your stock needs to hold for how many people, the mantra must be need. We can use what is still remaining of our planets resources only within the limits of absolute and urgent need. This just does not allow for private property and distribution of resources based on nepotism and profit.

    Consumism and profit is just the contrary of that. We burn our resources like there is no tomorrow, like there won't be any people on earth by the end of this century or in 500 years, let's not talk about 10,000 or 100,000 years. So we need to manage the global ressources, we need to know what we have and where they are, and we need to prevent depletion and unwarranted use. Et voila, you have something very similar to RBE.
     
  • I think I had a rather ignorant assumption that OSE was aiming for a RBE. I don't remember seeing it said anywhere specifically so I guess I just made the assumption as it seemed to fit. That aside I see tremendous benefit to creating a local resource map/tracking system as well as a large fully integrated RBE. A mini-rbe would be an invaluable tool for any small town that would aid it in becoming more self sufficient and resilient. It would encourage trade and commerce within the locale and help to bring well adapted industry to the area. It could not be a fully functional rbe but would be an amazing step nonetheless.

    There is also a need to find out the needs of society. I think a balanced approach would be a combination of knowing what we have vs what we need. It only makes sense. And, only after we know both of these things may we begin to plan for a future that has within it an ideal need/have ratio. The N/H ratio would basically tell us where to focus our efforts in creating greater degrees of efficiency or conservancy.

    Im not very well versed in varying kinds of economics or politics, but the rbe system and what Rabert mentioned does make sense. The question becomes how do you go about creating a something like this? It is extremely unlikely to happen at the federal government level as it would require a complete overhaul of the economic sector. Would it be feasible to attempt something like this on a town or municipal level?

    I would also like to thank everyone for this topic. While my head does spin a bit when reading it, it has become quite an interesting read that challenges the mind!
     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    August 2012
    A community of let's say 10,000 people let's say in Germany or in the US. Someone violates the rules, he knows the consequence: he will not be welcomed anymore on the 10 squaremiles of this community.
    After living 20-30 years in such community and, instead of buying your own land and contributing to a retirement fund, you invested your time/energy/life in the community. If you are forced to leave, then you practically wasted your life. You have to go to another place where you have no house, no land, no retirement. No way such a penalty can be enforced.

    You truly think that the public electorate decides about politics and policy?
    I haven't said that they decide. I said they can decide. It's their fault they don't bother to participate into the decision process. Amnesty International for example has 3 million members around the world. If it would have 300 million or 3 billion members, then the world would be much more different than what is today, isn't it?

    The process can be reverted, bit by bit re-creating those freedom rights for the people. It's only the people who will have do it.
    It's people like you who are instrumental to avoid that. The present system is designed to favour the rich and to disadvantage the poor. Every year our plutocracy spends on average around 130 USD per person, from the starving infant in Somalia to the dement pensionist in Florida, to make people addicted to consumism and keep them addicted.
    Oh really? If there would be more people like me, then Green Peace, Red Cross, Amnesty International, World Food Programme, etc. would have much more members. And not only that - they would have to implement solutions, not to waste money like they do now.

    It starts at the delivery room and ends on the death bed. And money is simply the stuff you need to feed that addiction. How do you want to get billions of brainwashed and addicted people to abdicate from their addictions and to start change things?
    I am participating and trying to do my part of the job in order to improve the things on this world: I support OSE, charitable organizations, I ask the people to put pressure on those organizations in order to make them act genuine, I am asking the people to build cooperatives, solutions.
    If I can do it, others can do it too, isn't it? I could have been an alcoholic, a junkie, I could have been pleasing myself in many other ways, but I am not! Those billions of brainwashed and addicted people can also do the things I do. That's how they can do it. Stop finding an excuse for anything, because it's ridiculous!

    Without any means or any funds to do it, and with the combined power of the whole global establishment against you?
    There are many cooperatives in this world. The establishment is not crushing them. The rest of the people can also start cooperatives. They can at least ask for help. For example the "communists" at OWS: what should I (and other people like me) do? Shall I beg them to accept my donations so they can have funds to start cooperatives?

    Your truly believe people will see the light and change the way they are ruled over, when they don't even understand what money is and what it does to them?
    Stop finding excuses for everyone and for everything they do and for everything they are not doing. They can do a lot of voluntary work to help with community issues, including editing Wikipedia, community work, even cleaning the streets together - that's still much better than doing nothing.
    If you can support an organization like OSE, if you can talk on web forums about improving things, if you are working to create a better community on fugium, the others can also do something similar.

    In contrary to gold, that silver is not available for currency, because it is needed for industrial production. We are talking about what is available as a substitute for currency. And, btw, the amount of available silver is rapidly declining. In 20 to 30 years there is no more silver which can be mined at reasonable costs.
    How much of it ( % ) is used for industrial production? And the things can change, isn't it? A part of the silver will be diverted from industrial production for using as a currency. And the currency will change hands but won't disappear, even if the mining of the silver will stop.

    Metals Annual Production
    Gold: 2,500 tons
    Tungsten: 19,000 tons
    Silver: 25,000 tons
    Cobalt: 50,000 tons
    Molybdenum: 180,000 tons - http://www.worldofwallstreet.us/metals-annual-production-.html
    Tin: 350,000 tons
    Nickel: 1,500,000 tons
    Zinc: 12,000,000 tons
    Copper: 15,000,000 tons
    Aluminium: 35,000,000 tons

    It looks like the best candidates to be used as a currency are Nickel, Tin, Molybdenum but also copper is not to be neglected, since most of it goes to industrial production, just a fraction will be used as a currency.

    I don't know what your education is, but obviously, you have no idea how money is created and how it works. If you think copper will substitute, why don't the dealers don't just accept those tiny copper coins already, which are around all over the world in abundance? Do you think they will be worth more, when the paper is gone? Or do you think the junkies just happily hand over their 25kg bar of copper for their weakly supply of drugs, giving it to the dealer with his 40-ton-truck, which is already half full with aluminium and tin?
    I am self educated and I think school is mostly rubbish at least after secondary school. I do have quite an idea about how money are created and how they work. The dealers don't accept the tiny copper coins because at the moment they have a better alternative: money. Remove money and then they will be very interested about copper, zinc, tin, cobalt, etc. The copper will definitely worth more when the paper money will be gone. The junkies will probably hand over 2.5 kg of nickel or 0.5 kg of tin, or 0.25 kg of molybdenum or 0.1 kg of cobalt for their weekly supply of drugs.

    Just to reiterate again, the whole reason crime is profitble is the existence of money, because money is easily transportable and hideable, and extremely versatile how it can be used afterwards. You can't hide and trade with a few tons of copper or aluminium as you can do with computer data or bills. But I get the impression, that you are not interested in that and probably claim next that the criminals will invent to shrink metals or something.
    The drug dealers will also use the currency of Tuvalu, if Tuvalu will be the last country to use money. The organized crime will create their own money from brass, bronze and other alloys. They will print their own money, with sophisticated printers hidden in some remote locations.
    You can reiterate it as much as you want but there is always something that can be used as a currency.

    Then you've got the short stick. I know people who have much more money then you very likely will have, and never work. There obviously is something else. Do you know that the approx. 1,100 billionaires we have on our planet own four times more then the poorer half of the planet, that's 3.5 billion people, all together? Who do you think, works more? Who do you think, creates the money? I repeat, you have no idea what money is and how it works. What is not your fault at all, because that is not taught in schools.
    Wrong. You have no idea how humans and society work. Those people have more because they are allowed to speculate. Because they are part of organized crime. Because they have connections with the people in power so they can drain the people's money.
    Eliminate money and they will have more gold/silver/cobalt/tin/nickel than others. Eliminate money and then they will ask too many working hours for basic products (speculation). They will drain the people's working hours and resources by inflating prices of the goods they sell to the governments.

    If the speculation is allowed, others can steal your working hours (time) by overpricing products.
    You still don't get the difference between measuring worth and setting worth, do you?
    Please explain how the difference between measuring worth and setting worth can prevent speculation. Your working hours worth nothing if you have to give too much working hours for a basic product (speculation).

    And where do I advocate to have speculation allowed?
    You don't have to personally allow speculation. The speculation exists because the community allows it. It's not the money who allows the speculation, but it's the people and the governments the people are electing into power who allows speculation. Speculation can exist with or without money, as long as the people allow it.

    gonzo on communism
    You like to generalize, don't you? Just because I don't want money, I'm a follower of TVP and RBE.
    Ok, maybe I am wrong, but it really looks like you were inspired and indoctrinated by TVP or one of it's (ex-)branches.

    Just because I don't want property, I'm a communist. Stop thinking in drawers, when you want to understand what is discussed.
    I haven't suggested that you are a communist. I was giving you an example with those "communists" who can't be bothered to actually build communism. They just want a communist system to fix everything for them. And you have an excuse for them or for people like them anytime.

    Again, gonzo, you should start to think. Take the red pill. You are entranced by the establishment you are defending.
    I started to think and I already got the red pill. I am not defending the establishment at all. By the contrary, I am calling the people to build a new and better world: transparency (can be improved by working on wikipedia for example), open source hardware, real charity instead of fake charity, public housing, etc.

    Worse, you know there is a red pill, but you decline to swallow it, out of fear to see the harsh reality.
    Haha, that's a good one! Yes, I have already seen the harsh reality: The people always find an excuse for anything. When they are poor, they complain about the rest of the society. But when they have a good life, they don't give a fuking shit to involve into improving things. That's how most of the people are, and that's a very harsh (and also scary) reality. It's you that have to take the red pill and to stop believing in rubbish like there is always an excuse and that there is a magical solution.

    A reality, where 0,15% of people own more then half of the planet and don't need to work at all, where just 10 companies (which are, btw and unsurprisingly, all financial industry) control more then 20% of all turnover of the nearly 50,000 companies which work transnational. Where money is instrumental to allow for all that.
    The speculation is instrumental to allow for all of that. And it's the government who is instrumental for allowing speculation. And it's the people who are instrumental to allow the governments to act like that.
    There is no magic solution. The solution is in the people. They can decide to take action and to change things.

    Remove money and then the nickel/tin/cobalt/Tuvalu dollars/illegal money will be the purpose of those who commit crime and acts of corruption. They will aim to acquire those goods just like they aim to acquire money today - because they are greedy, they want to be above others and to feel superior. That motivation has nothing to do with money. The money are just an instrument to facilitate exchange of goods but also can be used a symbol of status. Remove money and they will find other currency and another symbol of status. It's not the money what they are aiming for, but it's higher social status and supremacy. Again, you have no idea how humans work.

    Actually, I understand that. You do belong to the rich 20% of our planet (did you know, that a welfare receiver in Germany, and that would be the same in most of Europe, has at least double the money available then the poorer 80% of the global populace?), and to acknowledge all that would make you feel bad, and to reevaluate your education, your indoctrination and your convictions.
    I already know that. That's why I claim that the people in the first world have no excuses. Not even the "poor" in the first world have excuses. Most of those who complain are selfish, self-pleasing people. When they have a good life, they don't give a fuking shit about the other 80%. And when they are poor, even then they get a decent life: food, housing for free, unemployment help, training programs, etc. When they are "poor" and unemployed at least they have the time to start new communities and they can work in order to create something lucrative. But still, after taking the red pill, you can find an excuse for them anytime!
    Think again. You think took the red pill but in reality you took the white pill.

    I took that pill, and I have suffered, and I have changed my mind.
    Well if you were born in Germany, then I don't really believe you had the opportunity to see on yourself the pain of real poverty.
    Maybe you changed your mind but not enough. When you will stop believing in magic solutions and when you will stop finding excuses for everything, then you might be on the right way to understand reality.

     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    August 2012
    Im not very well versed in varying kinds of economics or politics, but the RBE system and what Rabert mentioned does make sense. The question becomes how do you go about creating a something like this? It is extremely unlikely to happen at the federal government level as it would require a complete overhaul of the economic sector. Would it be feasible to attempt something like this on a town or municipal level?

    Rabert claims he doesn't talk about RBE. But yes, RBE communities can start from the smallest levels. In a family people don't trade things for money. They simply share what they have. It is possible to start RBE communities even with 5 or 10 members. It doesn't mean the community has to separate totally from the society from the first moment. By the contrary, they will have to depend less and less on the rest of the society by creating the way to achieve more independence. If some members work for a private company outside the community, that can't be a problem if they save money in order to build more independence for the community.

    The community can start with buying some land so they can make their own food. Then they can make their own houses. They can use GVCS machines. Some of the members will work outside the community to make money so the community can pay taxes for property and service like internet, electricity, gas, etc. Then the community has to find solutions to supply as many things as possible on their own. If possible, they should install wind power generators so they can make their own electricity. A part of the community can make a cooperative that sells goods to create jobs for it's members so they won't have to work for companies outside of the community to produce the money the community needs.
    Inside the community there should be good rules, to keep the system functional: No speculation or price fixing, rent land and houses to the community members, etc.
    The people must be engaged into the decision making, so the need of a special group to take decisions (government) will be reduced.
    But not only that. The community should also give some positive output to the rest of the society. Either sponsoring a charity, or editing Wikipedia, or work for the rest of the community in the country or all of those things. Again, it's not a good idea to isolate the RBE community from the rest of the society. By the contrary, it should not be selfish, and it should help the society, giving an example to follow.

    The more successful the community will be, the more chances it has to attract more supporters. Then it can expand to an entire village, town, city or even more.

    But it's extremely unrealistic to try to create a community where to separate from the rest of the society from the very beginning. The society has many issues but also provides a lot of good or necessary things: retirement, insurance, police, utilities, and so on. If the community has problems with some criminals, it won't have to bother how to handle them, it can simply ask help from the police. Sure, if the community will grow large enough (growing to a county or a state) then it can create it's own police. But it's strange to refuse from the beginning the things that the society already has.

    This is just another idea about how to start. There many ways such RBE communities can start. Pour in your ideas. Doesn't have to be about how to start. Say anything that crosses your mind and you think it can be useful for such a community. One day such idea might be valuable. There must be debates about all the issues and possible issues in such a community. Like for example: what we do if someone needs to buy an airplane ticket and to visit his family for an emergency in another remote city? What if someone decides to leave the community after investing his work and 10 years of time for building the community? There should be some compensation. An so and so on. Every possible issue has to be clarified, so the community will be prepared in front of all kind of situations. The elimination of money won't magically prepare the community for everything. The people must learn how handle situations.

    However, in order to start a RBE community, the people have to at least start to talk about it. If they just complain and find excuses for not starting them, then they will never do it.


     
  • @gonzo

    If you are forced to leave, then you practically wasted your life.

    It's your decision. You do not have to steal lifetime from others. You know beforehand what the consequence is. If you do it anyways, your problem, not the problem of the community. I have no sympathy for criminals, for people who steal lifetime from others.

    And it is done in tens of thousands cases daily around the globe: People are fired because they violated a central rule of their company. They probably loose a lifetime of work, friends and a pension worth far more then their house. So, nothing new here.

    I haven't said that they decide. I said they can decide.

    How? Waiting the next couple of years and make no cross or a cross at a different name, electing the twin brother of the former person in charge? You cannot decide on politics or policy against the will of the powerful in your city, your county, your state, your country. Except for the Switzerland and some remote indigenious people there is no system which allows you to participate which would be feasible.

    Those billions of brainwashed and addicted people can also do the things I do.

    I was under this delusion for a long time myself. They can't. That's the nature of addiction.

    There are many cooperatives in this world. The establishment is not crushing them.

    Of course not. The cooperatives are all capitalistic. I personally don't know one cooperative which does not work with money and which aims not for profit for its members. And I live in the country with one of the largest and most powerful cooperative systems in the world, and have worked for some of them. Unless you are talking about cooperation in the sense of Bob Blain. Those are a rarity and few people are able to leave their old way of life for such, because of their addiction to consumism and resulting dependency on money. Yes, people can do a lot of things, but the fact is, they simply choose to do not. We cannot counter-brainwash them, when the world spents a trillion Dollars each year to keep them docile.

    It looks like the best candidates to be used as a currency are Nickel,
    Tin, Molybdenum but also copper is not to be neglected, since most of it
    goes to industrial production, just a fraction will be used as a
    currency.


    Do you know why paper money was invented? Do you know why more than 90% of all of today's money isn't even paper anymore? Do you know why in all the history of man only gold and silver was used as coinage, and even when copper and iron were used, they were backed with gold and silver? Just forget about pimps, thugs or thieves carrying around gold and silver or any other metal in big pouches. Just forget all the money artists sending around shiploads of coinage to create profits and receive bonuses. You have a very romantic idealization of money which has nothing to do with reality. And for the own the own money of the crime syndicates: You know that the worth of money is fully dependent on trust? Who would trust a drug baron or a slaver ring? And how would the Johns get the money to be able to pay with it?

    I do have quite an idea about how money are created and how they work.

    Now I'm really curious. Could you please explain to me how money is created and how it works? At least roughly?

    Those people have more because they are allowed to speculate.

    Since you are already dealing with it, please explain to me how speculation could work without money, especially with a timebased system based on measurement of a physical constant instead of arbitrarily fixed rates based on a volatile traded commodity. Just create an example, that I understand what you mean.

    Please explain how the difference between measuring worth and setting worth can prevent speculation.


    You can only measure what exists. Speculation is future, which does not exist yet, thus you cannot measure it.

    The speculation exists because the community allows it.

    Besides the fact, that speculation within a timebased system does not work (see above), why should a community allow for such a stupid, dangerous and useless thing, if it has the choice?

    ... but it really looks like you were inspired and indoctrinated by TVP or one of it's (ex-)branches.

    Please, say it again. Indoctrination? What is indoctrination, a trillion dollars annually to keep people wanting capitalism and consumism, or (set any amount of money here) TVP and friends are spending annually to spread their message? Get real ...

    I haven't suggested that you are a communist.

    Believe it or not, but communists hate my proposals just like you are offended by them. Why? Because I don't allow for accumulation of power. What money is for capitalism, is accumulation of power for communists.

    ... and to stop believing in rubbish like there is always an excuse and that there is a magical solution.

    Please explain, what do I excuse and where do I hope for magic? I think you mix me up again with the TVP and RBE people ...

    Remove money and then the nickel/tin/cobalt/Tuvalu dollars/illegal money
    will be the purpose of those who commit crime and acts of corruption.


    Removing money means removing money, not substituting it with metals or other countries money. Criminals want to get money, not to hand out money. But wait, I forgot, you like the criminals that much, that you want to keep them in your community. Probably you will give them a hand in finding a way how the community, who has no use of money to feed their daily needs, suddenly starts to use money to pay pimps and drug dealers within their confines?

    Again, you have no idea how humans work.

    No, I have only quite a bit more then 5 decades on my back and studied it. I bet, you have far more experience, education and insight then I.

    Well if you were born in Germany, then I don't really believe you had
    the opportunity to see on yourself the pain of real poverty.


    Well, I was born in the 50s, not too long after WWII in Germany. Look at the pictures how Germany looked like a that time. I have seen a little of it life, and my parents were not part of the privileged. Then talk again about not knowing what poverty is.

    However, in order to start a RBE community, the people have to at least
    start to talk about it. If they just complain and find excuses for not
    starting them, then they will never do it.


    And there I was starting to believe you were against RBE? I'm confused now ...
     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    August 2012
    It's your decision. You do not have to steal lifetime from others. You know beforehand what the consequence is. If you do it anyways, your problem, not the problem of the community. I have no sympathy for criminals, for people who steal lifetime from others.
    That's quite a taliban mentality isn't it? You know beforehand that if you steal they can cut your hand. I have no simpathy for criminals either, but such a punishmnent can't be accepted. Sometimes people change. You can't punish forever someone for a limited error. Sometimes people steal because they have to feed their children. And sometimes justice makes errors and punish innocent people - that happens everywhere. You can't give a death sentence to someone for a small guilt.

    And it is done in tens of thousands cases daily around the globe: People are fired because they violated a central rule of their company. They probably loose a lifetime of work, friends and a pension worth far more then their house. So, nothing new here.
    No, they can't lose the property they already acquired when they are fired (only if they made a loan but that's not their property yet). They can't lose what they already contributed to the retirement fund when they are fired. They just go to unemployment, then they find another job and they continue to pay it so they don't lose it.
    But excluding someone from a RBE (or money free) community without compensation is like a death sentence. They worked years to build the community property instead of building their own property, so they have to start again from zero.
    If the RBE community is paying retirement funds to it's members, if it's compensating those who leave (or excluded) then it's something else.
    But that's why such RBE communities were not even started yet. Because nobody even bothered to think it through. There are many aspects in a community that have to be clarified very well even before starting.
    RBE fans expect that things will work very well without thinking to much and they believe everything will be fixed on it's own. And that's not exactly how a system works.
    If a system is really functional then it has to supply everything their members need: retirement, insurance, police, justice, etc.

    I haven't said that they decide. I said they can decide.
    How? Waiting the next couple of years and make no cross or a cross at a different name, electing the twin brother of the former person in charge? You cannot decide on politics or policy against the will of the powerful in your city, your county, your state, your country. Except for the Switzerland and some remote indigenious people there is no system which allows you to participate which would be feasible.
    I already gave you the example with Amnesty International. The more the people join organizations that fight for human rights and for a better economic system, the more they will be succesful. They won't have to vote the twin brother. They will put enough pressure on the politicians to make them implement changes. And they will help  each other, protecting themselves in front of the bad decisions of the politicians. And of course, they can elect some of their members to be politicians. And by helping each other and solving community issues, they can render politics almost irrelevant.

    Those billions of brainwashed and addicted people can also do the things I do.
    I was under this delusion for a long time myself. They can't. That's the nature of addiction.
    I was brainwashed and "addicted" too. And I could escape from it. You also came in a world where the system brainwashed you and encouraged you to be addicted to please yourself. It only depends on you to open your eyes and learn something good from the positive examples around you. There are tens of millions of members of charity and activist organizations in this world. They are trying to do something useful. If they can do it, the rest of the people can also do it. You are just trying to always find an excuse for those who do not involve into re-creating the freedom rights to the people.

    There are many cooperatives in this world. The establishment is not crushing them.
    Of course not. The cooperatives are all capitalistic. I personally don't know one cooperative which does not work with money and which aims not for profit for its members. And I live in the country with one of the largest and most powerful cooperative systems in the world, and have worked for some of them. Unless you are talking about cooperation in the sense of Bob Blain. Those are a rarity and few people are able to leave their old way of life for such, because of their addiction to consumism and resulting dependency on money. Yes, people can do a lot of things, but the fact is, they simply choose to do not. We cannot counter-brainwash them, when the world spents a trillion Dollars each year to keep them docile.
    Real communism is a system where people work in cooperatives - they share the property equally. It's also a system based on private property, just that the property is shared decently. Therefore, in my view, communism is just a better form of capitalism, and from what you said, it looks like we agree on that, somehow.
    Cooperatives are better than private companies because they share the profit to its members, instead of concentrating profits into the hands of the few. The more cooperatives, the more decent profit for everyone. Once everybody works in a cooperative, everyone can have a decent life, provided the cooperatives respect some basic rules (cooperatives can also create monopolies so that has to be prevented).
    But wait, you are not interested in a good and decent life for everyone. Your point is to eliminate money, private property and profit. It doesn't matter if the people have to return to a primitive life and to poverty and if they will suffer. The point is to get rid of the three evils! Deep, very deep, indeed.

    How do you want to get billions of brainwashed and addicted people to abdicate from their addictions and to start change things?
    ..
    Yes, people can do a lot of things, but the fact is, they simply choose to do not.
    You just answered the question, isn't it?
    While you admit that the people can change things, you still claim that the people can't change things. The politicians and leaders (almost all of them are charlatans by the way) always talk like that: they find an excuse to the people, because they promise that they (the politicians) will implement a new system that will fix everything for them. And it really looks like you are used to talk like a politician. It's not your fault, it's just because that's how the people are used to think solutions: they try to find a new system to fix everything for the people. But ironically, you are talking about indoctrination and brainwashing..

    Yes, people can do a lot of things, but the fact is, they simply choose to do not. We cannot counter-brainwash them, when the world spents a trillion Dollars each year to keep them docile.
    No, we can't counter-brainwash them, but they can counter-brainwash themselves like you suggest you did with yourself. But they simply choose not to do it. However, you claim they suffer just because of the money and they can't do anything to change their situation. Yet, in the same time you claim that the people can do a lot of things, but they simply choose to do not. Therefore, in your view, before eliminating money, every bad things is because money, but after eliminating money, you will probably claim that everything it's because of the people because they can change things. That's exactly the kind of duplicity (double standard) speech you can expect from a politician, isn't it?

    Do you know why paper money was invented? Do you know why more than 90% of all of today's money isn't even paper anymore?
    Paper money were invented because they are easier to transport. They could be implemented as soon as they could print enough security features on the paper so it's hard to fake them.
    Of course the majority of today's money are not paper anymore. It's natural evolution: from metal coins to paper and then to bank accounts. It's easier to transport paper than metal and then it's easier to transport numbers than paper.

    Do you know why in all the history of man only gold and silver was used as coinage, and even when copper and iron were used, they were backed with gold and silver?
    Of course I know. It's because they choose something rare enough to be relevant, and desired enough to make sure it can be traded. People always liked gold and silver for making jewelry, craftsman's objects, pots, etc. Iron it's simply too abundant and it was too easy to make fake iron coins. But if you make fake gold coins, they still have value, because gold is desired. If the people would use iron as currency, then they would have to carry around tens of tons of iron to buy basic things.

    Just forget about pimps, thugs or thieves carrying around gold and silver or any other metal in big pouches.
    Gold is quite valuable, a small pouch can carry quite a lot of value. The criminals do not respect the law (that's why they are called criminals, isn't it?). If the trade of gold is illegal, they will still do it, because that's what criminals do: illegal things. Just because a community stops using money won't make the criminals vanish.

    Just forget all the money artists sending around shiploads of coinage to create profits and receive bonuses.
    Sure, but just because a community doesn't use money, that won't make all the problems go away. That is not enough to make people better or to transform them into angels.

    You have a very romantic idealization of money which has nothing to do with reality.
    I have no idealization of money. I just understand why money were used along the history: because the people needed a currency to trade. I do not suggest that we need to use money. By the contrary, I am for elimination the need to use money. But since I do not agree with you, you think I am brainwashed or even evil, simply because I don't hate money with the same force you do. I do hate the need to use money by the way, but I can't hate money in itself because that would be naive.

    And for the own the own money of the crime syndicates: You know that the worth of money is fully dependent on trust? Who would trust a drug baron or a slaver ring? And how would the Johns get the money to be able to pay with it?
    Sure, money is dependent on trust. Even in the trade between Russia and China, they use $US, because they don't trust each other's currency. Because they don't really trust each other. It is true that USA does a lot of bad things, yet you can trust that tomorrow, with US Dollars you can buy the same amount of goods like yesterday, which is not the case with the Ruble. The trust on a country depends not only on what it is today, but it depends on it's all history. Like or not, along the history the USA was much more stable than China or Russia or India. That's why you can trust much more the currency of USA than the currency of those other countries.
    People would not trust a drug baron, like they don't trust them today. But they will trade metals (nickel, cobalt, tin, silver) illegally if they want to get some drugs. Because they can trust those metals have some value. And even if those metals won't have value (which won't be the case by the way), even then they will be able to use them as an (illegal) currency since it can't be faked.
    If the last country in the world to use money will be Tuvalu, the criminals will use the Tuvalu dollar as a currency. Again, I have to repeat it..

    Now I'm really curious. Could you please explain to me how money is created and how it works? At least roughly?
    Money are created in money-making facilities. The more goods the community creates, the more value the money have. For example if the country increases it's production of chairs in time, the chairs will become cheaper, therefore the same amount of money can buy more chairs. In that case, if the government decides, it can print more money and then the chairs will maintain their value. And that's quite a good thing to do, when the country increase it's overall production.
    Therefore, money only have value as long as they can buy something, so their support is in the goods the community has and produces. The more the people can make things on their own, the less they depend on money. The more the government applies some basic rules, the less the people will depend on using money and the less the people can be hurt by those who do illegal things.

    Since you are already dealing with it, please explain to me how speculation could work without money, especially with a timebased system based on measurement of a physical constant instead of arbitrarily fixed rates based on a volatile traded commodity. Just create an example, that I understand what you mean.
    I already gave you the example with the mill. That's how corruption and speculation works in poor countries and their rural areas, by the way: creating monopolies and price fixing by those connected with the people in power.
    The elimination of money won't simply eliminate speculation. It's the elimination of the corruption that will eliminate speculation. As long as there is corruption, there will be speculation, with or without money. Our capitalism doesn't work simply because the speculation is allowed (the prices are not based on measurement of a physical constant but instead they are based on arbitrarily fixed rates).
    The elimination of money can't guarantee that there will not be corruption, and it can't even reduce the corruption. It's only about the government doing it's job that can reduce the corruption.
    They don't need to use money in order to use arbitrary fixed rates. They simply charge you 9 tons of wheat for milling 10 tons, instead of charging you 1 ton for milling 10 tons. That's an arbitrary fixed rate.
    Only the elimination of corruption will eliminate the arbitrary fixed rates. A system that uses money which doesn't allow the use of arbitrary fixed rates (speculation) works just as well.
    You are also against speculation, yet you think that because you give it another name (arbitrary fixed rates) then you disagree with me.

     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    August 2012
    Besides the fact, that speculation within a timebased system does not work (see above)
    Wow, so you claim that the mill owner can't overcharge it's clients? If the workers are payed in timebased system that means that the costs of milling will be determined (the cost for the mill owner). But that doesn't automagically force him to charge a correct price for milling!

    why should a community allow for such a stupid, dangerous and useless thing, if it has the choice?
    Yes, people can do a lot of things, but the fact is, they simply choose to do not.
    Again, you answered your question yourself.
    The community already allow a lot of dangerous and useless things, like removal of their freedom, bit by bit, just because they chose that.
    The elimination of money won't reprogram the people, and it won't make them to care more about community issues.

    Please, say it again. Indoctrination? What is indoctrination, a trillion dollars annually to keep people wanting capitalism and consumism, or (set any amount of money here) TVP and friends are spending annually to spread their message? Get real ...
    The Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious sects (which are based on believing in miracles, by the way) are not indoctrinated based on the money spent on them by the capitalists. Indoctrination works with or without money. TVP and friends just found another religion, based on believing in another miracle: "the elimination of money will automatically fix everything!". Yeah, spread the religion..

    Please explain, what do I excuse and where do I hope for magic? I think you mix me up again with the TVP and RBE people ...
    "They cannot participate in decision making" - in statements like that (and you made many) you find excuses for the people. While in the same time you contradict yourself and you say they can change things, but they just choose to do not.
    You believe in magic because you think the elimination of money will automatically fix everything.

    Removing money means removing money, not substituting it with metals or other countries money. Criminals want to get money, not to hand out money.
    Criminals don't care about what is legal, they will find (illegal) substitutes because that's what they do. They don't want to hand out money but they will look for something they can use as a currency. And they will find something, for example rare metals. Or even some other materials that are just rare enough.

    But wait, I forgot, you like the criminals that much, that you want to keep them in your community.
    Pathetic joke. I don't like the criminals, of course. I just pointed out that the criminals will find another currency if the system would eliminate money. It's sad that you have to resort to such ridiculous jokes just because you have no arguments. You try to suggest that once the money will be eliminated, the criminals will just vanish, and criminality will not be any an issue anymore. Just like Ackuman doesn't want to talk about rights to use because, in his view, "that's not an issue". And then, what's the difference between such a point of view and the promises of Lenin? Lenin also claimed that in communism everything will be fixed automatically, the criminality will simply disappear, the issues won't exist and so on. And now you try to suggest that it's only "evil" people like me that will make the criminals exist. For you, the issues doesn't exist. Very similar with Lenin, isn't it?

    Probably you will give them a hand in finding a way how the community, who has no use of money to feed their daily needs, suddenly starts to use money to pay pimps and drug dealers within their confines?
    Very disgusting, to suggest that my intention is to help criminals. Anyways, they don't need my help to find how to do their business.

    No, I have only quite a bit more then 5 decades on my back and studied it. I bet, you have far more experience, education and insight then I.
    No intention to be rude here, but having a certain age doesn't guarantee a certain amount of insight. The insight depends mostly on the effort spent to understand things, not on amount of time spent hating money.

    Well, I was born in the 50s, not too long after WWII in Germany. Look at the pictures how Germany looked like a that time. I have seen a little of it life, and my parents were not part of the privileged. Then talk again about not knowing what poverty is.
    Germany were always rich, because the biggest value is in unity. Even when they are poor, the Germans are very rich. Because they are united and they help each other. That's why USA needed the help from Stalin and sold half of Europe for that - because it was impossible for the Allies to defeat Germany on themselves. And Germany was so strong because their people were so united and disciplined. After war, in about 10 years they got out of the poverty. Try to see how people live in places like Ukraine, Belarus, etc, and how they keep being poor for decades and centuries, with almost no hope to get a better life, and then we'll talk about real poverty.

    And there I was starting to believe you were against RBE? I'm confused now ...
    You are so blinded in your hate towards capitalism and money, that you can't conceive that someone can support RBE if they don't hate capitalism. Even more so, you assume that someone must be evil or at least somehow bad if that person doesn't hate money/capitalism.
    Quite a fanatic point of view, isn't it?
    If you would indeed try to understand that I support RBE, then you would read what I already written above:
    "In a functional capitalist system, the people can save money, they can create cooperatives, they can build and grow their own communist communities.."
    "In a functional capitalist system, the people can build RBE communities.."

    But because you are so blinded by your hate for capitalism/money/property and you believe so strong into magic solutions, you don't really try to understand what people are telling you and you resort to circular reasoning. That's what makes this thread to have quite some redundancy.

    Anyways, can I ask you a few things:
    Do you agree that the people in Finland, Sweden, Denmark (capitalist countries) enjoy a better life than the people in USA, Italy, France, Portugal, Greece?
    If yes, then why do you think that's the case? What exactly Sweden has and it's missing in USA?
    Is it possible for USA to implement those missing things that Sweden has?
    If a community is going to start an RBE system or a money free system, where do you think there are more chances to start: In places like Sweden/Finland/Denmark of in places like Somalia/Mali/Ivory Coast/North Koreea/Burma/Laos?
    Do you think you were never brainwashed and addicted on consumism?
    If not, then, what did you do to get rid of the addiction and of the brainwashing?
    How do you call the system you are advocating? I understand it's not RBE, but it's a system anti (or at least not) capitalistic, without money, without property, without profit and without speculation.

    Thanks

     
  • @ gonzo

    Germany were always rich, because the biggest value is in unity. Even
    when they are poor, the Germans are very rich. Because they are united
    and they help each other.


    You can't be more wrong. You have absolutely no idea what I'm speaking about, and obviously no idea what you are speaking about. I don't wast anymore time on you, you are a lost case. Live happily and in bliss ignorance with your capitalism and money, till everything around you breaks apart.

    "Money are created in money-making facilities." At least you made me laugh today ... :)) That was shortest and most featureless explanation how money is created I have ever had the privilege to read.
     
  • The elimination of money won't simply eliminate speculation. It's the
    elimination of the corruption that will eliminate speculation. As long
    as there is corruption, there will be speculation, with or without
    money. Our capitalism doesn't work simply because the speculation is
    allowed (the prices are not based on measurement of a physical constant
    but instead they are based on arbitrarily fixed rates).


    I guess you don't even realize that speculation does have a use besides just making money for private parties.  It is a stochastic form of protection against shortages.  It does work in some cases, but it usually doesn't, because it's stochastic, and humans are bad at predicting things.

    Now, as for corruption being the basis for speculation, this is facile nonsense.  First of all, you've yet to adequately define corruption, and without doing so, using it as a basis for action or logical conclusion is pointless.  What is your definition of corruption, and what separates it from regular economic activity, other than it being offensive to you?

    The
    elimination of money can't guarantee that there will not be corruption,
    and it can't even reduce the corruption. It's only about the government
    doing it's job that can reduce the corruption.

    Actually, the elimination of money can absolutely reduce corruption.  Corruption, as defined as "aberrant or antisocial economic activity", which covers quite a lot, is related to both max-flow and covert channel problems.  Both of these relate to throughput and bandwidth; reducing the throughput or the bandwidth of the economic medium towards corrupt activities will reduce corruption.
    They don't need to use
    money in order to use arbitrary fixed rates. They simply charge you 9
    tons of wheat for milling 10 tons, instead of charging you 1 ton for
    milling 10 tons. That's an arbitrary fixed rate.

    All prices are arbitrary, so what's the difference?


    I don't know why there is such intense focus here on money.  Money is not the problem, private property is.  Without private property, there is no trade, and without trade, there is no use for money.  It is simply a form of encoding information about an economy in order to facilitate trade.

    I'll add to this later, right now I have to go to my job.
     
  • Money is not the problem, private property is.

    I wouldn't say that money is not the problem, it's as much part of the problem as property is. Trade without property is very well possible, since trade does not only pay for material, but also for work. Labour is always the property of the person doing it, which he can sell (e.g. for wages or fees, or food and shelter, or other goods) or give away for free (e.g. raising children, or helping friends, or contributing to the community). Artificially created property based on legal constructions or the right of the mighty, the latter basically being the origin of all such property around the world, is what needs to be given up.

    It is simply a form of encoding information about an economy in order to facilitate trade.

    I thought this for a long time myself, but I had to accept, that this seems to be not correct. Money is mainly documented debt, and this document can be traded. It comes into existence when a bank grants credit to someone, and is then used as a vehicle to securitize liabilities between any two or more parties, like satisfying the debt of the employer against the worker for work being done, or the debt of the shopper against the merchant for goods being given. Money does not facilitate trade, it is facilitated trade. A recent, very interesting and enlightening study on that is David Graeber's "Debt: The first 5000 years".
     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    August 2012
    Germany were always rich, because the biggest value is in unity. Even when they are poor, the Germans are very rich. Because they are united and they help each other.
    You can't be more wrong. You have absolutely no idea what I'm speaking about, and obviously no idea what you are speaking about.
    You have no idea what real poverty is then. Check how people lived for decades in Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Belarus, Ukraine, and then you will see what real poverty is.

    I don't waste anymore time on you, you are a lost case. Live happily and in bliss ignorance with your capitalism and money, till everything around you breaks apart.
    Look who's talking.. You hate capitalism so much that you don't even bother to understand why some capitalist systems work better than others. If you would try to understand that, you will see that a system needs certain rules to be respected, doesn't matter if they are communist, capitalist, anarchist, RBE-ist or w/e else "ist".
    You want to create a community where from your point of view issues do not exist simply because you choose to ignore them. If criminality will exist, it will be because of evil people like me, who "think negative".
    "Making yourself fly is hard because everybody has to believe.. but there is always a scumbag who doesn't believe" haha
    Mad tv- steven seagal parody , min 1:32


    "Money are created in money-making facilities." At least you made me laugh today ... That was shortest and most featureless explanation how money is created I have ever had the privilege to read.
    That's is irrelevant where and how money are created. No need to waste time on explaining that.

     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    August 2012
    I guess you don't even realize that speculation does have a use besides just making money for private parties.  It is a stochastic form of protection against shortages.  It does work in some cases, but it usually doesn't, because it's stochastic, and humans are bad at predicting things.
    Speculation is used in order to steal wealth. Wealth is not only measured in money. Wealth is measured in anything that can be used to trade (currency) and in anything else that people see as a symbol of "social status".
    Money are not only used for protection against shortages. Money are an instrument of trade but they also measure wealth. Remove money and the people will find something else to use for measuring wealth and for showing their social status: gold, silver, cobalt, tin, nickel, diamonds, jade, marble etc.

    If the speculation is used only for making money, then why those mill owners overcharge their clients, charging 9 tons of wheat instead of 1 ton, for milling 10 tons of wheat?
    You deny the most basic facts of reality.

    Now, as for corruption being the basis for speculation, this is facile nonsense.  First of all, you've yet to adequately define corruption, and without doing so, using it as a basis for action or logical conclusion is pointless.
    Corruption is payment for services or material which the recipient is not due, under law. The mill owner will get an exclusive license in his area, in exchange for goods. He pays (bribes) the politicians in goods which those politicians do not deserve (not due, under law).
    It's only the corrupt governance/justice that allow exclusive licenses and price fixing to exist. A regime that is not corrupt will not tolerate speculation (the government will measure the price and it will check if the agents respect that measurement. If they don't, they are punished).

    What is your definition of corruption, and what separates it from regular economic activity, other than it being offensive to you?
    The definition is above. Regular legal economic activity implies that the agents are delivering goods at a correct price (measured price) otherwise they are punished by the governments. Once the prices are correct, the people can afford to buy the things they themselves produce. Therefore they will have a decent life and the economic activity will not be offensive to them.

    Actually, the elimination of money can absolutely reduce corruption.  Corruption, as defined as "aberrant or antisocial economic activity", which covers quite a lot, is related to both max-flow and covert channel problems.  Both of these relate to throughput and bandwidth; reducing the throughput or the bandwidth of the economic medium towards corrupt activities will reduce corruption.
    Not using money will have indeed as an effect the reducing the throughput or the bandwidth of the economic medium, because money are the most efficient tool for trade. In simpler words, eliminating money will make the trade slower and more difficult. And that will make even the communication slower and less efficient, since communication services are payed (traded).
    But that has nothing to do with reducing poverty and corruption. Less communication also means less transparency and more undetected and unreported abuses.
    Reducing the effectiveness of trade will only make the economy slower, and therefore people will be poorer. It will be harder for people to sell their products to a remote community.
    The mill owner will overcharge it's clients in wheat. He will trade his wheat for construction materials, he will pay workers in wheat and he will make a bigger house (so he can show his social status).
    He will use extra wheat to buy precious metals (gold, silver, cobalt, tin, nickel) since the miners also need food to eat. When friends will visit his house, he will show he has things plated in gold/silver in order to show that he is potent and powerful.
    When he will have enough gold, he will trade it with the Germans at BMW for a luxury car.
    And so on. Eliminating money has no effect on corruption since corruption is about stealing wealth, and wealth can be measured in any kind of goods.

    I don't know why there is such intense focus here on money.  Money is not the problem, private property is.  Without private property, there is no trade, and without trade, there is no use for money.  It is simply a form of encoding information about an economy in order to facilitate trade.
    If the government will rent the house to you, then the house is not your private property. You can pay your rent in money or if you don't have money, the government should ask you to pay with your work (work to make more houses, painting / maintaining buildings etc).
    Therefore the focus should not be on eliminating money, but in eliminating the need to use money.
    Then you trade with the government the rent for work. So there is no need to eliminate the trade.
    Public property (in real estate) is a much better solution than private property since it can be used to provide housing to everyone and also can be recycled, instead of inherited.
    Having enough public property will make sure that the rest of the property (and the speculation with it) can't hurt anyone. Therefore, there is no need to eliminate all the private property, but just to create enough public property.
    Therefore the key is not in eliminating money or property, but the key is in implementing certain rules: no speculation, public housing, renting land to the people, etc.

    Anyways, I have the same questions for you - those that I was asking Rabert and he refused to answer. If you enjoy answering to those questions of course.
    And another question: Are there in this world rural communities where the people live without money or using very little money (like for example only for paying mobile phone)?
     
  • Are there in this world rural communities where the people live without
    money or using very little money (like for example only for paying
    mobile phone)?


    There is a whole book on this topic: Tony Waters, The
    Persistence of Subsistence Agriculture: Life Beneath the Level of the
    Marketplace.
    You can read a small bit of the present results of his research online here. Tony Waters
    is Department Chair and Professor of Sociology at California State University,
    Chico.

    There is another paper which is focused on some of those communities, which can be downloaded here.
    The editors, Steffen
    Abele is a socioeconomist and Director of Research  of the International Institute of Tropical
    Agriculture, based in Tanzania; Klaus Frohberg is Managing Director of Institute of Agricultural
    Development in Central and Eastern Europe in Halle/Germany, and Head of its Department of
    Agriculture Policy.








     
  • Hello, I created an account a few days ago to participate in this discussion and it was just now activated. Now I can finally dive in!

    It sounds like none of you think you are being heard. I would like to try to facilitate some understanding here so that we may all learn and grow and come up with new ideas together.

    Gonzo: You have been advocating a form of capitalism more pure than what is practiced today. You have proposed that this could be accomplished by regulating speculation and prosecuting corruption. You have advocated a punitive justice system to enforce this system. You have expressed doubt that a moneyless system will work because you think that people will create alternate currencies. Is this correct?

    Ackhuman: You have been advocating an anarchy with a resource based economy. Without coded law you take the semantic stance that there cannot be crime. You have proposed medical and psychological help for people who persist in behavior that is harmful / antisocial as opposed to a punitive justice system. You have suggested ideas based on the concept of abundance as opposed to scarcity to support the idea that there is no need for trade and thus no need for money. Am I correct?

    Rabert: You seem to be advocating a point somewhere between the other two. You have indicated a need for coded law in large communities. You have advocated for horizontal governance via consensus. The economy you purpose seems to assume there is enough to go around but only through coordinated effort and dedication by the community to ensuring equitable distribution. Trade may not be necessary in the system you purpose if the distribution system is efficient enough. Am I correct?

    I want to be certain I understand everyone before I give my own views. :-)
     
  • Ackhuman: You have been advocating an anarchy with a resource based
    economy. Without coded law you take the semantic stance that there
    cannot be crime. You have proposed medical and psychological help for
    people who persist in behavior that is harmful / antisocial as opposed
    to a punitive justice system. You have suggested ideas based on the
    concept of abundance as opposed to scarcity to support the idea that
    there is no need for trade and thus no need for money. Am I correct?
    For the most part.  It's not just that there will be no crime because of the lack of codified law, there will be a serious reduction in antisocial behavior because of the nonbenefit of theft, hoarding, and the reduction in violence that comes from having a high degree of social equality.  Thanks for reading/joining the discussion.
     
  • You have indicated a need for coded law in large communities. You have advocated for horizontal governance via consensus.

    Correct in both cases. I just would like to repeat the one principle, because it is of utmost importance: Each law reduces freedom, therefore law should be something like the last resort, when there is a need for regulation which can't be satisfied otherwise.

    The economy you purpose seems to assume there is enough to go around but
    only through coordinated effort and dedication by the community to
    ensuring equitable distribution.


    Generally yes. However I would like to relativize the expression "there is enough to go around". This only applies to resources we can grow, resources harvested from plants and animals, and for the one community which has access to it. All other resources are defined by the principle of scarcity and the resulting obligation to rationalize it as much as possible, that future generations will still have some of it. This is valid until we find something which can replace such a resource and is available in such abundance, that intensive use of it for 100,000 years or more would not create a problem for people living by then.

    Trade may not be necessary in the system you purpose if the distribution system is efficient enough.


    Correct. Within such a community trade in the sense of merchant/customer relationships and payments is in fact not necessary, thus no need for money or any other currency. However, there will be trade between such communities, and I propose to use time as the measure to define the worth of goods and services and allow for a fair trade.
     
  • I think the idea that "non-growable" resources are necessarily scarce is a faulty assumption, Rabert.

    If we have abundant energy (which is possible with solar-based [solar, wind, geothermal] energy), and we can use that energy to recycle materials, then as long as the consumption rate (different from the rate of use, mind) is lower than the replenishment rate, the resource should not be considered scarce.

    That said, we have a very abundant structural material called basalt fiber, which takes care of most of the need for structural steel.
     
  • Ackhuman, that those "non-growable" resources are necessarily scarce is not an assumption, that's a fact. It is just a matter of time and how many people want to use them, till they are depleted. Of course, human ingeniousness and technology might make it possible to find substitutes just in time, or to allow for infinite energy, but we don't have that yet. And unless we don't have it, we can't bet the future of our grandchildren on the hope that we will have it just in time.

    It's like the workers buried in the mine. They don't know if the outside world knows about their fate, and if yes, if it will be possible to get them out, or how long that will last. They have only a limited resource of water, food and oxygen down there, and although they can hope that they will be rescued in time, and get back to a world of abundance, they don't know when that will be. Therefore they must rationalize what they have, planning for the worst.

    We are in the same shoes. We know that the sun provides more energy than we will ever need for another billion of years. We know that the moons and the asteroids in our solar system do have unimaginable amounts of resources we could extract from them. We know that with a little technology and effort we could colonize Mars. We know that all, just like the buried mine workers know that above them is everything they need. Unfortunately, just out of reach.

    So, when we have all that, what you mentioned, then we can forget about scarcity, alright. But until then, we need to husband with what we have.

    I would like to point out another bit of the ugly truth. We want our species to survive not only for the next few hundred years, but for the next few million years, don't we? Have you ever thought what consequences on humanity and the resources available to them it has, when we look a million years into future? Most people I ask this question fall back on the believe on miracles: "That will be solved somehow, for sure, it always has!" Yes, it might be. And when it is, I will not object any longer. But until then, I can't base the future of my species, and of my grandchildren, on the hope on miracles or technologies yet to be invented. By the way, even more people I ask this question look at me totally flabbergasted and simply state, that they (fatalisticly) accept the demise of our species in future, that it is inevitable. They are not interested in the fate of the grandchildren of their grandchildren. I find that very disturbing, especially because we have all the means needed to allow for the survival of our species as long as our universe exists. On the one hand they base their hope on the ingeniosness of our species, but in the long run, they don't believe in it.
     
  • Thank you, both of you, for clarifying your points of view for me. I was going to wait for Gonzo to reply also before I continue but it seems the conversation is continuing without me so I'll jump back in and continue with the two of you while waiting for him.

    I think we need some clarification of terms.

    Crime: Ackhuman has been advocating an explicit definition of crime, that it is only the violation of coded law. Gonzo has been advocating an implicit definition of crime, that it is the violation of the rights of others (correct me if I'm wrong here). I think both are valid definitions but they mean very different things. For the sake of this conversation, until the rights of others can be defined within the scope of this conversation, let's use the explicit definition for now. 

    Scarcity: In economic terms scarcity means that there is a limited quantity of a thing. It does NOT mean that it is running out, or that there is not enough of it that everyone couldn't have some right now. It means that if we keep using it, it will eventually run out. Gonzo's capitalism operates on the assumption that all resources have limited quantities, which is true in the sense that if you count up everything on the planet you'll get a number, and even renewable resources can be calculated at the rate they will renew. Abundance on the other hand assumes that there will be enough of everything to use it indefinitely, meaning that by the time we run out we will have either figured out how to achieve 100% recycling, have discovered a new source, or have discovered a way to create it from scratch. Rabert's model seems to take a middle path, though siding with scarcity overall, in that renewable resources can be considered abundant as long as the rate of consumption is lower than the rate of production. For the sake of this conversation, can we agree that abundance and scarcity are alternate paradigms and that having different opinions does not necessarily invalidate the opinions of others?

    Another middle road might be to say, if you have to make more of it for everyone to have some, it is scarce. If there is enough for everyone right now, and distribution systems exist to get it to everyone without a net loss of resources, it is abundant.
     
  • For the sake of this conversation, can we agree that abundance and
    scarcity are alternate paradigms and that having different opinions does
    not necessarily invalidate the opinions of others?


    I must admit, I would have a problem with that, because I miss three essential parameters to classify something as scarce or abundant: accessibiity, time, and number of users. Just the available amount is not enough to value something as scarce or abundant. When you look at our solar system, we have lots of things, which I would regard as scarce on our planet, being available in huge masses in the solar system. However, that is not relevant for our discussion as long we can't reach all this mountains of resources. Even if we assume that we could access it, it could still be scarce when we have to provide hundreds of billions of people thousands of years with it, until we are able to leave our solar system to mine at other solar systems.

    Even if something is objectivly abundant on our planet or in the solar system from today's point of view, it can be scarce in all practical reality, when we take into account our possibilities to reach it, or the number of people and years it has to suffice. The pure amount of something existing is not enough to denominate it into one of the two categories scarcity or abundance.

    This, by the way, is no insignificant part of the discussion. Capitalism together with money as its tool works on the basis of growth and demands abundance, since without abundance growth would be deadly very soon. If we accept, that scarcity is the rule and not the excemption, or that parts of the resources our society and economy depends on are scarce and in danger to end, than we cannot accept capitalism as a valid system to organize the economy of our society any longer. Unless we like to play russian roulette.
     
  • @Rabert, I think you've nailed it right there. That is what all this discussion is about.

    True capitalism operates on scarcity. Because things are scarce, they have value. Supply and demand dictate price. Our current free market economy is not true capitalism because our society lies to us and says that there is abundance. Keep buying things and there will always be more. This means that what consumers practice, and what the overall economy practices are two very different things.

    If the people dictating economic policy believed in abundance, there would be no prices for anything, or at least they would be much lower. This is not the case. The people dictating economic policy are well aware there is not enough of everything, that supplies are less than demand, and where they are not they can pretend they are less and artificially raise the price (a.k.a. speculation). If consumers knew exactly how much of everything there was at all times, speculation would become plain to all and the game would be up. In the united states for example, banks own many times the number of houses than are on the market. They keep these empty houses off the market (not for sale, just empty, sitting there) because if they were on the market (for sale) the supply would be closer to demand and the price would fall, meaning less profits for the banks. Oil producing nations do the same thing with oil reserves. They have more oil than they are willing to sell, so they let it out a little at a time in order to keep prices high.

    Of course if they (the oil producing countries and the banks) put everything on the market at once, our consumer culture would happily gobble it up until there is none left, prices would rise again, and soon no one would be able to buy anything because there'd be nothing left.

    Time to wake the kids up and get started on the day, I'll write more later. :) 
     
  • We don't need perfect recycling, nor infinite energy.  We just need enough recycling to keep the replenishment rate of a given material above the consumption/conversion rate of that material.  If we're converting/consuming 200 tons of metal per day, but we recycle 205 tons per day, we have a 5t/d surplus.

    This is an important concept to understand, as it's what is referred to when people say we are using '1.5 Earths' worth of resources.  Capitalism does not aim to achieve abundance, quite the opposite.  It aims to achieve a high rate of exploitation; Its goal is to turn as much of our resource supply into profit as possible, and it can do it most effectively by increasing demand for resources as much as possible.  Regardless of whether or not it is intentional, this results in supplies being (often irreversibly) converted into products and profits.  Growth, therefore, comes from an increase in the rate of exploitation.

    I think we should stay away from economics as a source, since it's mostly pseudoscience.  The definition for "scarcity" in economics makes "scarce resources" tautological and "abundant resources" nonexistant. 
     
  • We just need enough recycling to keep the replenishment rate of a given
    material above the consumption/conversion rate of that material.


    That's correct. When we can recycle more then we use, we don't have a problem with scarcity with this particular resource. However, we need to decide if we look at this globaly or localy. When I have recycling facility in my community which can recycle more copper from scrap metal then I need in my community, I have no problem. However, when our earth's industries uses 10 times as much copper as all of recycling facilities can recycle, than we need to dig and mine and to use up a limited resource. So in the big picture, and at the end of the day that is the only relevant picture, we can only throw a resource from the list of scarcity when we globaly recycle more then we globaly use up, since we all live on the same planet.

    Growth, therefore, comes from an increase in the rate of exploitation.

    Interesting perception, and true, from this particular point of view.

    The definition for "scarcity" in economics makes "scarce resources" tautological and "abundant resources" nonexistant. 


    Well put, and mostly correct. However, there are resources which could be abundant. Space in the universe, for instance. Or the energy our sun can provide. From our point of view both are resources, and both are abundant, even when we take into account hundreds of billions of people and millions of years. Well, theoretically, since both are not accessible to us right now, thus "could be".
     
  • That's correct. When we can recycle more then we use, we don't have a
    problem with scarcity with this particular resource. However, we need to
    decide if we look at this globaly or localy. When I have recycling
    facility in my community which can recycle more copper from scrap metal
    then I need in my community, I have no problem. However, when our
    earth's industries uses 10 times as much copper as all of recycling
    facilities can recycle, than we need to dig and mine and to use up a
    limited resource. So in the big picture, and at the end of the day that
    is the only relevant picture, we can only throw a resource from the list
    of scarcity when we globaly recycle more then we globaly use up, since
    we all live on the same planet.

    Things will change quickly with a departure from capitalist practices; Ownership necessarily creates redundancy and production inefficiency, and cost efficiency and the need to be competitive reduces the quality and lifespan of products, often intentionally.

    Further, the way we recycle a lot of things is highly inefficient.  I noticed this when I was in a liquor store.  It's full of bottles, and you buy one, drink it all, and then you put the bottle in the recycling, where it's taken to a recycling center, and made into something else.  It would be a much better idea to have large drums or bottles, from which you fill a personal bottle or growler.  The recycling takes place by reusing the same container for the same purpose, rather than taking it away to repurpose it.  The bottle can actually be melted down and reused when it cracks or breaks.  Something like 80% of products are designed to be disposed of after one use.
     
  • It would be a much better idea to have large drums or bottles, from which you fill a personal bottle or growler.

    Actually we have chain of shops in Germany selling wines and spirits, oils and vinegars exactly like that. It's quite a rare exception though, probably its much more expensive then the discounter at the other corner.

    But that we could and should recycle much more and much more efficient definitly is true. Africa has created a whole industry aroung this, though. They import lots of our waste and recycle it till the last bit. Not very efficient, but very thorough.

    Ownership necessarily creates redundancy and production inefficiency

    Could you explain that?
     
  • Ackhuman: The economic definition of scarcity is valid in this conversation because people have been using it, regardless of whether anyone agrees with it or not. The definition you have been using is more in direction of the dictionary definition of the word. The reason I'm making an issue of this is that as long as you and Gonzo are using two different definitions of the word, neither of you will ever truly hear what the other person is saying, and thus neither of you will be heard by the other.

    I personally like Rabert's approach of adding time into the equation. In that sense all resources are inherently scarce. No matter how efficient our recycling, nor how slow our consumption, eventually every last bit will be used up. It may be millions or billions of years for an extremely efficient system (which our current one is not), but even far off there is a finite end to it.

    Every time you recycle a material, a small portion of it is lost as contaminated waste. Some materials are more efficient to recycle than others. Steel has a recovery ratio around 80% according to some quick googling. Aluminum is around 85% (I've seen some sources say 95%). That's a pretty good chunk lost with every round of recycling. Yes, reuse is considerably more efficient than recycling, and with open source technology reuse becomes even more efficient because as a machine breaks down you only have to replace the broken part, also less planned obsolescence, but even then, eventually things break. Eventually they cannot be recycled anymore. Eventually you'll have to dig more out of the ground. 

    The question is, can we make the resources last beyond the survival of our own species, without taking the planet down with us?
     
  • Ownership necessarily creates redundancy and production inefficiency

    Could you explain that?

    Sure, if you don't mind paying a visit to my blog, so I don't have to screw around with formatting the post:
    Ownership and its effect on redundancy
    Ownership and its limiting effect on production

    Here's another important topic on economic efficiency, the fulfilled demand per unit of a resource:
    Access and demand fulfillment

    Let me know if you need me to explain anything.
     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    August 2012
    @kriswood
    Gonzo: You have been advocating a form of capitalism more pure than what is practiced today. You have proposed that this could be accomplished by regulating speculation and prosecuting corruption. You have advocated a punitive justice system to enforce this system. You have expressed doubt that a moneyless system will work because you think that people will create alternate currencies. Is this correct?

    Sorry for the late answer, I was too busy this days.

    Yes. First, of all, I consider that before we can have opinions, we have to learn why a system works better than other, why capitalism in Sweden works better than capitalism in USA and why capitalism in USA works better than in Ukraine for example. I noticed that USA works better than Ukraine because it has some tough regulations about speculation (price fixing), except real estate. And Sweden's system works better than USA because it includes more socialist measures (like public housing). And then I got to the conclusion that any system (capitalist or not) has to make sure those rules are respected. Rabert also understood that we need control of speculation (he calls it "arbitrary fixed rates").
    Pure capitalism means something different to other people. You got it right, but many people think that "pure capitalism" means a capitalism without regulations, a capitalist system that has no social measures (like unemployment help, public housing), therefore a capitalist system that applies only the initial definition of capitalism. The initial definition of capitalism was incomplete, and therefore such a system can't be functional. But sadly, there are many people who prefer to sacrifice people for keeping the "purity" of capitalism (apply only the initial definition), instead of adapting capitalism (and it's definition) to make it functional and therefore to make it really pure (functional and adapted to reality).
    We don't only need a punitive justice system in order to make the capitalism functional. Housing price speculation has to be prevented by other means too: big enough taxes (so that the people owning many houses will have to rent them => that will create better competition, keeping the prices decent), and public housing - to create a healthy alternative and competition to private housing.
    In a system without money, the people will use anything that can be traded as a currency. In a short time, some things will become preferred as a currency than others (for example gold). Not only that, but we have to also learn from the lessons of the "communist" countries, where the people didn't really care about things, because "it's not mine, it's not yours - so who cares?". The incompetence problem has nothing to do with money.

    A little bit about abundance: From what I can remember, the world's mines will supply gold and silver for maximum 50 years more until they will be depleted. Even the lithium that we use in mobile phone batteries will be depleted in about 300 years, which, to be honest is a very short term on the human history scale. So there is a serious issue with the future availability of resources. It's quite strange that there is almost no public debate about it. However, I think that our leaders have a far bigger concern: overpopulation. And I suspect they will try to "fix" it. I have seen quite a lot of opinions that AIDS was created to reduce the population in Africa, for example. Also, the bird/swine flu were possibly just a test for something else that has to come.

    The film-maker Sir David Attenborough becomes a patron of a group seeking to cut the growth in human population - link
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones - "maintain humanity under 500 millions in perpetual balance with nature." Hmm.. Photo 1 - Photo 2

    It would be a much better idea to have large drums or bottles, from which you fill a personal bottle or growler
    Or the people can eat raw food, and then they don't buy packed and prepared food. No soft drinks, no alcohol, etc. But that comes down to everyone's decision.

    What bothers me is the aluminium bottles for drinks (beer, soft drinks). Many times I was thinking that it consumes a lot of energy to produce and to recycle them. I am really not so sure that it's worth to waste so much energy for that. I wish I could see some numbers about the issue, but I'm not sure such data is available though.

    And a final thought for this post: While I claim that Rabert and Ackuman are wrong in their view that elimination of money and property are the solutions, I do not think for a second that I am "superior". It's just that no one is perfect, and at this moment they are wrong in that respect. But there is a lot of knowledge and useful data we can exchange and we can learn from that. It only depends on yourself to sincerely analyze information and to draw the right conclusions.
     
  • @Ackhuman, Nice blog! All those numbers show you've put a lot of time and thought into this. Unfortunately I'm horrible with math. I'm much more of a hands-on sort of engineer. Do you have a plain English source you can share with similar info? Something in layman's terms would go a long way toward helping me (and maybe others) understand where you're coming from.

    @Gonzo, Thanks for the reply! Even late I'm glad to see it so that I can understand your point of view better. Before I reply directly to your words there is something else I need to address though. When you reply to people's questions with a wall of text that includes judgement and opinions, I feel flustered and have a hard time absorbing your words before making my own judgments and opinions, because I need our communication to be open and to flow both ways so that we may all grow in understanding together. When I see judgments I put my defenses up and tend to judge back, which gets in the way of the communication I desire. Please reduce the judging language.

    Now to reply directly to your text.

    Thank you for all the clarification of your points. It has become apparent to me that by "pure capitalism" you mean something different than the dictionary or economic definition. This "pure capitalism" is your own term that you invented to describe how you would do it differently. Is this correct?

    While I think it is fine and good to have our own definitions of things, when we communicate with others it is important to use the same sets of terms so that we all understand each other. I have seen a lot of confusion arise in this thread because we attribute different semantic meanings to the same words and end up talking about completely different things. This is similar to Ackhuman's definition of "crime" being different than yours. When you talk about animals committing crimes in nature, he does not process that because in his mind crime has a much narrower definition including only violation of codified laws. Because of these differences in terms we have a lot of miscommunication going on which increases argument and decreases understanding.

    From what most people have been saying, it sounds like the general view in this thread is that when we say "capitalism" we really mean neoliberal economics.


    When you say "pure capitalism" you seem to be suggesting something more similar to "Social Capitalism":


    Perhaps you already made clear that "pure capitalism" is your own term and provided a definition somewhere along here, but I did not see an explicit definition. Sorry if I missed it.

    Sorry if I'm coming across a little harsh. I want everyone to be heard and understood and it seems like everyone is making statements that get the hackles of others up which gets in the way of listening.

     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    August 2012
    Thanks, you have quite a polished and polite language. Sorry for not being capable to be on the same level. If I am making judgement language, please consider the fact that we have to be capable to show each other where we are wrong, that is essential for growing in understanding together. I will try to use a language like "you are in ("big" - where it's the case) error", instead of "that's (absolute) nonsense" from now on. Any suggestions (quick concrete alternative examples, not entire books) about language are welcomed for any statement I make.
    But please, before all, point me where I am wrong, without bothering too much about the language. Even if I won't like your language and even if I will disagree, sooner or later I will convince myself if you were right or wrong. (Valid) criticism is infinitely more valuable than non-criticism.

    Yes, you are right. I think I haven't even used the term "pure capitalism" before you did. Simply because, in general,
    the people see in "pure capitalism" a system that applies only the incomplete initial definition of capitalism - a capitalist system which excludes social benefits. The capitalism I was talking about - I was calling it "real capitalism", which is functional capitalism. We can notice very easy that the people in countries like Sweden enjoy a better life. And that's because Sweden has a capitalism that is reinforced by socialist measures: "Sweden has achieved a high standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits" - Wikipedia. And then, capitalism was not perfect in it's initial definition. It had to evolve. The process of that evolution we can call it "real capitalism" - or give it another name if you like. I'm not sure if "social market" is the same with "real capitalism" - it might be very close to it. But the point is, the concept of "real capitalism" must evolve in order to adapt to reality - that's why I even call it "real". And then, we must ask every day the questions like: "how to make capitalism work better?", "what is at the root of a functional capitalism?" and even more important "what is at the root of a functional system?". Those are continuous questions - the answer that is good enough today might not be a complete answer tomorrow, because everything has to evolve.

    Speaking about crimes: A crime is a crime. We don't have to go back so far into the animal world, even though you can see crimes, cheating, assassinations etc in animal world just as well. There are and there were enough primitive communities that had no encoded laws, but a crime was a crime. Killing, stealing, lying were considered crimes by those people and the members of those communities doing them were punished. Therefore, crimes exist with or without encoded law. And it's naive (sorry for judgement) to assume that crimes do not exist once there are no laws. And it's also naive to believe that criminality will decrease just because they will not be encoded in the law. By the contrary, in the beginning, there were few encoded laws. The more the people committed crimes, the more laws were created, in order to know to handle future similar crimes.

    Sorry if I'm coming across a little harsh. I want everyone to be heard and understood and it seems like everyone is making statements that get the hackles of others up which gets in the way of listening.
    No worries, you are not harsh at all, by the contrary, you are too polite. Please feel free to bash me whenever you feel like I deserve a good bashing :)


    Later edit:
    Speaking about "pure capitalism". If you check the "communist" countries like Cuba, North Korea and many other former "communist" countries, I think you will discover that they had nothing to do with communism. It was simply a state tyranny where the people are slaves of the government. They just followed the soviet system, without bothering to even understand what the communism means.
    Communism means the people own (or have the right to use) the land and the production facilities and they run them democratically. Of course, a functional communist systems needs some security measures just as capitalism. In the end "real communism" is also a concept that has to evolve every day.

    Later edit 2:
    About overpopulation:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones - "maintain humanity under 500 millions in perpetual balance with nature." Hmm.. Photo 1 - Photo 2
     
  • Now that everyone's had a say I'll give my take on the situation. I'm an engineer, not an economist. I tend to approach things as problems that need to be fixed. When you want to fix a problem the tool to use is problem solving, so here we go (with an oversimplified approach that can fit in a forum post).

    1: Identify the problem
    Before I can identify the problem I need to identify the scope. We've been talking both on a global and a local scale here. I cannot affect the global economy in any meaningful way, and there are so very many cultures that have different values, so I'm mostly going to address local economy. I am unable to spend as much time as I'd like with my family because I'm too busy working to provide for their monetary needs all the time. I live at the upper end of the poverty level so I can't actually meet all their needs even when I'm working. This is unacceptable. If I work more to make more money I get less time with my family and my emotional needs don't get met. If I work less to get time with my family, their physical needs don't get met. I'm stuck with this paradox as long as I'm living in this current neoliberal economy. It's a treadmill that only ends when I die. Unless I step off of it voluntarily.

    Problem: It is impossible to meet my needs or those of my family in the current system.

    My goal is to find or create an alternative system in which our needs CAN be met.

    2: Brainstorm alternatives

    Do any existing alternate economic systems work for me? I could move to another country, let's see. Communist countries have considerably lower human rights available, and I'd still have to work just as much for a lower quality of living. No, that won't do. I could join a commune, but that would require isolating my family from society, and we'd still be required to generate SOME sort of income at least for the community if not for ourselves. No, we need a larger solution. Chances are other people are also struggling like me. Most of the poor people I know are worse off than I am except that they get more government assistance so there's some relief there, I suppose I could work less and lean more heavily on the system, but then I'd have to find a smaller home and that's not an option with four kids. Most of the middle class people I know are struggling even more. They make too much money to qualify for government assistance, but not enough to pay for services on their own. I know a lot of people who can't afford health insurance but can't get state insurance (myself included). We need at least a community wide solution that will cover the needs of at least the working class. It's possible that once implemented on a community level it might even work on a larger scale, we'll see.

    Now that I've defined a scope, community level, I can look at alternatives.

    Develop an alternate currency.
    A community currency system would allow people to exchange goods and services without going into debt, and without necessarily having to work any harder than they would outside the community. Also there's no reason people couldn't use both the community currency and the outside currency. The problem with this is that it'll be difficult to convince my landlord to accept community currency so that he can pay the mortgage on the house I live in. No, as long as there's property debt, an alternate currency will not be sufficient.

    Create a debt-free enclave.
    Presuming land could be obtained without debt, a local currency or other system could be used without relying as heavily on the outside system. Everyone could have a place to live, which would reduce cost of living and require less outside work. Yes, I think being debt-free is the first step. Otherwise you're constantly paying the banks just to have a place to live. You'd still need some income to cover goods and services that cannot be produced on the land, and would still have to pay property taxes on the land itself, but that's considerably less expensive than a mortgage and there's little fear of a bank taking it away if you can't make a payment (just have to worry about being able to pay the taxes so the government doesn't take it away). This brings up a whole new list of problems but I'll tackle that next.

    Alternatives
    Move to another country: No suitable country exists, the same problems exist in every modern economy. Countries that don't have modern economies have other difficulties I'm sure.
    Move to a commune: Requires isolation from society and may still require an income, if perhaps a lower one.
    Set up an alternate economy: Allows continuing to live in the existing community. Still requires the same amount of work just to pay rent.
    Buy land free of debt and set up an alternate economy: Requires sufficient people to make the alternate economy viable, which requires sufficient land to house those people. Large initial investment, Huge amount of work to create something from scratch. Does not necessarily stop interaction with the outside society and economy.

    The first two don't work for me at all. The third works a little. Perhaps if I could get enough people onto my alternate currency it would make a significant difference. Unfortunately when I've tried similar things in the past they didn't catch on because not enough people were involved to make it worth anything. That leaves the last one. It's a bit daunting but it'll have to do.

    3: Implement a solution
    In order to implement this I'll need to:

    Gather enough people to make the community viable
    Select an alternate economy
    Select land that can meet the needs of the people involved
    Build the homes and other infrastructure the community needs

    After that's done the next step is to evaluate the situation and see what new problems have come up and address them. As I see it, it's always a work in progress. I've got to feed kids breakfast now, but when I come back I'll go into alternate economies that might work for such a project.
     
  • @Gonzo, I try (not always successfully) to use the communication techniques described in Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg. I highly recommend it for anyone who actually wants people to listen to them. :) You are capable. Everyone is that is capable of speech. It just takes time and practice.

    Judgments are not limited to "that's nonsense" type statements. "You are in error" is also a judgement. 

    Any statement that includes a state of being verb after a pronoun is a judgement.
    Any statement attributing value is a judgement, including better, worse, good, bad, etc.

    More info later, crying babies are summoning me.
     
  • Nice blog! All those
    numbers show you've put a lot of time and thought into this.
    Unfortunately I'm horrible with math. I'm much more of a hands-on sort
    of engineer. Do you have a plain English source you can share with
    similar info? Something in layman's terms would go a long way toward
    helping me (and maybe others) understand where you're coming from.
    I'll try and write "translations", though I already tried to do that as I was writing the articles.  I'm not that good at math, so I have a hard time explaining it.  Graph theory is pretty easy, though, or you can just learn what a pointer is in computer science, they work essentially the same way.
     
  • @Ackhuman,

    Nice blog! All those numbers show you've put a lot of time and thought
    into this. Unfortunately I'm horrible with math. I'm much more of a
    hands-on sort of engineer. Do you have a plain English source you can
    share with similar info? Something in layman's terms would go a long way
    toward helping me (and maybe others) understand where you're coming
    from.


    Ah, yes, same with me! I'm not even an engineer, I have mainly studied philosophy, history and political science, and what I did in economics was done before this subject became mathematized.
     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    August 2012
    3: Implement a solution
    In order to implement this I'll need to:

    Gather enough people to make the community viable
    Select an alternate economy
    Select land that can meet the needs of the people involved
    Build the homes and other infrastructure the community needs

    The community must generate revenue in order to pay taxes, services like water, internet etc, to pay insurances and retirement for it's members.
    The revenue can be generated by selling the extra food produced and also by creating some construction materials (like for example Compressed Earth Blocks).

    I think there are two main and big questions:
    1. How to start the community in the easiest way possible?
    2. How to grow the community organically? (how to make it easy for the people to join, but also to leave when they feel like leaving)

    1. Probably you need at least 4 or 5 people in order to start it. They can buy land and start producing food. The activity must produce revenue but also profit. The profit must be invested into preparing the community to accommodate more members when needed but also in order to buy machines for starting other productive activities. The profit can be invested also in technology that can help the community to be more independent.

    2. In order to grow the community, it has to do some things like:
    - Accept donations. For example I would be interested to support such a community with $10 / month, and probably there are many others like me.
    - Accept voluntary work. Maybe some people won't be able to join it permanently, but they might have the time to join for a few weeks or months per year. Such a resource should not be underestimated.
    - Simplify jobs and diversify the ways to create revenue. The community should not rely on just one kind of activity. A larger spectrum of activities can attract more people

    Other thoughts:
    - Implement good communication (forum, wiki) and debate and explain the decisions that are important for the community
    - open source design for houses

     
  • My idea is as follows:

    We do not create a community, but - yes - a corporation. We start something capitalistic within a defined code set, which is created to allow as much freedom for this type of organization as possible. I don't know how this is with other countries, but in Germany you can create a corporation where its members are not listed, so you even have anonymity.

    It is important to realize, that I don't talk about a cooperative, which is a kind of corporation as well. I'm talking about a neo-capitalist, totally system aligned organization of a large group of entrepreneurs, which will create this corporation together. It's not socialist, not communist, not alternative. And this is its biggest strength, since its a wolf in a sheepskin.

    When you are a corporation, you are protected by law. You have a lot of privileges a normal group of people, a community, would never have. For instance the privilege to define your own ruleset within the confines of your own company. Or the privilege to deduct expenses from your income before declaring tax. Or the privilege (at least in many European countries) to be freed from obligation to pay into the social security systems, because you are a business person, not a lowly labourer.

    And of course, you have the right do define how people are paid. You can pay them with services instead of money. Housing for instance, three meals a day, or clothing. You can even commit your corporation to provide health care and an old-age plan for all the people working for it. When all the people working for the company accept this, they don't need money at all, because they get everything they need, and the company does not need any money to pay them, because they are paid by barter: work for things and services.

    Finally, since the corporation is not devided between owners and employees, all decisions are made among equal share owners. Even that is supported by law: In this situation everyone has the same vote. So, there will be no ruler in this sense, all decisions are made by majority. What creates one of the few problems with this approach I've seen so far: the protection of minorities.

    The business model of this corporation would be quite simple and completely acceptable: producing food and clothing and operation of all the initial production necessary to provide the resources for that (not the other way around, at least in Germany, because then you would become a farming corporation and suddenly be forced to pay into the social security system of farmers, regardless how much money you make). As an aside the corporation would provide and operate all the infrastructure to train, educate and house its workers and their families (which happen to be its owners), which will serve as major part of its payment scheme. What, btw, from the German point of view is not new: Some of the big industrial corporations in Germany at the end of the 19th century offered exactly such services for their workers and their families.

    In the end, this corporation would just produce a bit more then to provide its owners with everything they need. All land, all infrastructure and all profits would be owned and shared equally, we only need to insure, that we will not make to much profit, but still a little bit, that we are not in danger to loose the qualification to act as a corporation. There is no rule set how much profit a corporation shall generate, only that it must be profitable over time. Even 1 USD profit per year would be enough.

    That's my idea in a nutshell. I like it, because it cannot be attacked by the system without attacking the core ruleset of the system itself.

    So, what's needed to have it? 10,000 people joining and creating this company. This people "only" need to fulfill two requirements: they need to bring 10 oz of gold for the initial investment requirements to buy the land and to create all the infrastructure, from wind energy plants over books for the company's university library to a smartphone for everybody. The latter being quite important, since all decisions in this company would be made by voting. The second would be: No debt or similar obligations. The partners of this company will not earn any money, and won't be able to pay principles, interests, taxes or fees. Since many people will not be able to comply with those two requirements right away, I think that we will need to give an announcement period of something like 10 years, that people can prepare over time.

    Why not just 200, 1,000 or 3,000? Because they will not be able to generate enough funds to buy the land and pay for the infrastructure they cannot make themselves, because there will be not enough redundancy and security in the availability of qualifications, and because there will not be enough social diversity to provide for the necessary minimum of variety.

    This corporation, of course, will be just one corporation together with other corporations in its region. It will be no secluded enclave. People will come and go, see and talk. It will be the first of its kind and show that this actually does work. People living without social security and any income to speak of, well fed and in health and security. And just 10 hours work per week. I hope, that this will open some eyes. Most people will complain that they don't have cars and no vacations in Florida, because they don't have money for airfare or hotels. Or that no one has more than half a douzen t-shirts and such. They will just deny to see what they trade of for that: Freedom.

    What I have been doing for the past years was to think about this approach, how it could be made work, what could be the ruleset within, and how it can be set up in compliance with existing law.
     
  • @Rabert, Good ideas. In the USA there is a special type of corporation called a 501c3 corporation, more commonly referred to as a nonprofit. It is organized like any other corporation and governed by similar laws, but is exempt from some kinds of taxes. It is also able to take donations and volunteers, which I think a for-profit corporation is not.

    There is also a type of nonprofit that already fills this role called a housing cooperative, in which a group of people buys land together (usually it's an apartment building or condominium complex) and pays only for the mortgage plus operating costs of the building. Under USA law, cooperatives are just another type of corporation and can be for profit or nonprofit. Cooperatives are usually customer-owned, worker-owned, or producer owned. I would suggest a worker-owned cooperative structure for any such community or group of communities in the USA, because anyone living in the community would be by definition also a volunteer for the nonprofit organization.

    A 501c3 can still make a small amount of net profit, and many expenses can be used to reduce the amount of net profit in the first place. For example your nonprofit is growing food and sells the surplus, the money it brings in is only considered profit after all operating expenses have been covered (I think). The surplus money beyond the net can be re-invested into infrastructure, supplies, etc for the community and written down as business expenses and thus does not exceed the amount of net profit you're allowed to have. I could be wrong on any of this, it's been a while since I've looked it up.

    I think if there were more than one town being started you could do it with less than 10,000 people per town. The Hutterer you have mentioned earlier have up 250 people in a colony and have 42,000 people worldwide, so says Wikipedia.

     
  • @Gonzo, That you would donate $10 a month to such an organization is encouraging. I agree that others probably would too. I've been thinking of making a kickstarter but want to have a business plan in place first and a small group of people gathered with a community charter (even without the land) before trying to gather funds. If I'm going to advertise my community, I want it to have an identity to present instead of just me and my ideas.

    The purpose of the community I want to start, is to develop open source sustainable technologies and practices and publish them online. I think this is something that a lot of people would donate to if it can get going.
     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    August 2012
    @Ackhuman:
    Ownership and its effect on redundancy

    In plain English, because not everyone can access all resources, much more of them must be produced to fulfill the same demand. A good example of this redundancy is the use of cars over trains.  Train systems replace millions of cars and use fractions of the materials and energy, while being faster and more convenient (when civil structure allows, anyway)

    Sorry but I think you are wrong in that example. Trains are also a property of someone (you claimed that any kind of property is bad). Governments own those rail companies. But some of the rails are even owned by private companies, or by companies owned by it's very customers (public limited company). So it has nothing to do with being a private or public property.
    And the car problem is generated by something else: lifestyle. in USA, UK, Australia, the people enjoy living in houses while in continental Europe many people live in apartment buildings. Living in houses spread on a large area makes an efficient public transportation hard and expensive to implement. Then you need cars. But if you live in an apartment, in the city, it's more convenient to use rails and subways than having your own car. Houses and apartments can both be owned by the people. So it's not about private property, but it's about lifestyle. The (anglo-saxon) lifestyle will generate the need of more private property (cars).

     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    August 2012
    The purpose of the community I want to start, is to develop open source sustainable technologies and practices and publish them online. I think this is something that a lot of people would donate to if it can get going.

    That's  a very good idea. The community should generate enough profit to be capable to fit more people when they want to join. But it's very good to also invest profit and effort into delivering some open source
    sustainable technologies, therefore having a very good reason to ask for donations and voluntary work.
    I think that waiting for 10,000 people to join is quite unrealistic. Even 5 or 10 people should be enough. And indeed it can even start without land. You only have to find an activity profitable enough to gather the people together in a cooperative/company.
     
  • That's  a very good idea. The community should generate enough profit to
    be capable to fit more people when they want to join. But it's very
    good to also invest profit and effort into delivering some open source
    sustainable technologies, therefore having a very good reason to ask for donations and voluntary work.
    I
    think that waiting for 10,000 people to join is quite unrealistic. Even
    5 or 10 people should be enough. And indeed it can even start without
    land. You only have to find an activity profitable enough to gather the
    people together in a cooperative/company.

    I Agree with this. 5-10 people is a realistic number to come together and create something meaningful. Usually you don't see many more than this at the start of a new project anyways. People always wait by the water to see if those brave enough get in are going to run out screaming or not. In this way with 5-10 people working on something others may simply sit and watch for awhile and then later on decide the water is warm enough for them. It should also be easy enough for a small group to afford to buy land should they wish. It would be extremely easy with 10,000, but a number that high would take vastly longer to assemble, and in that time a group of 5 could have easily created something.
     
  • Vote Up0Vote Down
    gonzo
     
    August 2012
    Another thought: if it's difficult to accept donation as a for-profit agent, then maybe issuing shares as a public limited company can do.

    In this way with 5-10 people working on something others may simply sit and watch for awhile and then later on decide the water is warm enough for them. It should also be easy enough for a small group to afford to buy land should they wish.
    Yes, and while they wait, they can support the community with donations/voluntary work, increasing the chances for the community to be successful. To join the community is quite a big decision for some - might even be the biggest decision if their life - therefore it's very important to proceed slowly and carefully. While it's quite unrealistic to find 10,000 people to join the community when it starts, it's not unrealistic at all to find 10,000 people to support the community with a monthly donation.
     
  • Sorry guys, but 5 top 10 people will not work even remotely close to be independent or autarcic. This is demonstrated numerous times across the globe with thousands of such communities trying to meet the ends and pay the bills based on trying to homestead self-supply.

    I have done a lot of thinking and calculations to come up with a figure which allows for an independent and autarcic community. The following requirements need to be met as a minimum as my conclusion:

    1. It must be big enough to accumulate the funds needed to buy the land needed to provide all the resources needed for food, clothing and energy.
    2. It must be big enough to allow for getting rid of insurances, because it is powerful enough in itself to cover for contingencies out of own resources.
    3. It must be big enough to allow for care and provision for the elderly and handicapped.
    4. It must be big enough to provide all qualifications needed to serve a community.
    5. It must be big enough to allow for enough redundancy in all necessary qualifications to run that community independently from outside help.
    6. It must be big enough to find diversity when socializing over a long term.
    7. It must be big enough to be able to fight off legal or physical attacks.
    8. It cannot be that big, that the individual person can hide behind anonymity of masses.

    If you suggest a size for such a community, check against this list. If you don't meet one of its points with your suggested size, please explain how you intend to maintain independence and autarcy over a timeframe of lets say 100 years.

    It is unrealistic to find 10,000 people when you want to find them tomorrow. But it could become realistic when you try to find them over a time period of, say, 10 years, and can promote your project to a community of, say, 1 billion people. It might work with 8,000 as well, probably even with 5,000, when you find a cheap patch of land big enough to provide all the resources 5,000 need, but less, and you will run into difficulties with some of the above mentioned points. And, take into account, I'm talking about people, not households. 10,000 means approx 3,000 families or less, including their children and probably other relatives being part of that household, like grandparents for instance.


     

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion

Tagged

Loading