[GJM] Is Money Obsolete

[Steve Consilvio]

On Mar 10, 2007, at 9:26 AM, discussion- 
request at globaljusticemovement.net wrote:
Dan Parker wrote:

>
> Money can be made obsolete by
>
> a) a society so technologically advanced, that materialistic goods
> can be created out of thin air, via nanotechnology or some such

Actually, all "materialistic goods" are already created out of "thin  
air." Although it is usually called The Earth. Man just adds his  
labor in a SYSTEM of cooperation, or non-cooperation, as the case may  
be.

>
> or
>
> b) through a return to the 90% self-produced consumption
> and double coincidence barter system of the middle ages;
> which would entail an early death for billions.

I disagree. Trade has always been valued because the bounty of the  
Earth is spread far and wide. Chocolate, pineapples and apples all  
grow in different climates. Trade is simply moving everything around  
that we all enjoy. Money is an attempt to given everything a par  
value so that we can trade MORE EASILY. However, if money becomes THE  
problem, then obviously something went wrong in the transition  
between theory and practice.
>
> As it is, money eliminates the double coincidence needed
> for a barter economy and makes possible wonderous
> technology through the specialization that is only possible
> where double coincidence is not a concern.

Specialization has always existed, Cain was the farmer and Abel was  
the rancher. (or vice-versa.) This is more a result of human talents  
and interest than the economy. Although a poorly structured economy  
can limit people's ability to follow their passions. Most people  
today go to work because they need the money, not because of a  
burning passion for the work.
>
> Money is strictly symbolic in nature, and can symbolize
> whatever the system is designed for. If the poison
> of compound interest math is put into the money system,
> (or other injustices involving money's creation), then the
> symbol will become a drag on what is really possible.
> That is not the fault of money, or the symbol itself.

Yes, I agree. The problem has always been man's imagination. It is a  
double-edged sword, capable of believing a delusion as well as the  
truth. "The Marketplace" is an invented idea and it is worshipped as  
"truth."
>
> Imagine a tribe subsists on water from condensation and
> struggles to survive ( as did *all* humans before the age
> of specialization that money made possible).

There you go, demonstrating my point. You think the past was one of a  
"struggle to survive," but the same thing occurs today WITH money,  
and the issue of specialization is moot. Nothing has really changed,  
it is your reading of history that is incorrect. Man will forever  
labor to enjoy the fruits of the Earth, and we will forever need to  
cooperate to share those fruits. Unlike birds, we do not simply fly  
to where the food is and graze upon it. We need to plan a little bit.  
Saying The Marketplace and "the invisible hand" will substitute for  
critical analysis is to abdicate all reason to chance. Man has  
created new machines, but we are more a slave to them than they are  
to us. (a la The Matrix.)

> Now imagine
> this tribe digs a well and can quench its thirst fairly easy.
> Except that someone starts poisoning the well, causing
> illness.

Stupid is as stupid does. Isn't that what we are doing today to the  
planet? Why does "stupid" think poisoning the well is a good idea?  
Every crime has a motive, or at least an explanation.
>
> A wiseman of the village will look at the entire
> history, at examples of unpoisoned wells (i.e. the Guesney
> Island experiment for money, New Zealand's success in
> climbing out of the depression before WWII ) and so on.
> Shutting down the well and killing most of the populace
> (i.e. eliminating the money system) would not enter into
> the thought stream of anyone that understood the concept.

I think the wiseman would tell everyone not to drink from the  
poisoned well, and then try to find out why the well was poisoned and  
who poisoned it.

I have done both. The Well is the taking of Interest. We need to stop  
drinking from it; it will make you sick! Why the well was attacked  
(9/11) is a more complex question, but the well was not poisoned in  
the attack. THE WELL HAD ALREADY BEEN POISONED, but it was only  
discovered after the attack. The presumed cause and effect is faulty.  
The well has poison and there was an attack (separate incidents,) but  
the attack was a result of drinking the poison, not the act of  
poisoning the well. A subtle and huge difference.

Bankers have always been hated. (See the celebration when Scrooge  
died.) Why then should we all be bankers profiting on the misery of  
others? That will not reduce the misery in the world, it will  
compound it. The poison in the environment (Al Gore's truth) is a  
reflection of how we treat each other.

There is an efficiency difference, but not a practical difference,  
between the production of weapons of mass destruction and the mass  
production of weapons of destruction. The habits of the wealthy are  
no different than the habits of the middle-class and the habits of  
the poor. The guy who got a Nobel Prize for creating a micro-credit  
bank in the third world was rewarded by interest-bearing wealth from  
a hundred years ago. It is the Nobel's holding that is creating the  
poverty, and the winner was creating business-owners (like myself) in  
Africa to engage in the same intellectual farce. His pumping of money  
into their economy is an illusion.

Like the game of Monopoly, everybody appears to be getting richer  
when new money is pumped into the economy (passing GO and collecting  
$200,) but eventually everybody goes bankrupt. Your thirst is  
quenched, but you drank the poison. And now you have an even bigger  
problem.

peace,
Steve Consilvio
www.behappyandfree.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20070310/af293f81/attachment-0001.html