[GJM] Is Money Obsolete

Sun Mar 11 06:11:46 MDT 2007

Steve, you might be interested in the idea of GPI, which can be
found at the following link, by clicking on the text on the left hand
side. 

I don't want to expand this discussion other than to say there is a 
lot more than just labour now involved in the creation of what most 
people would consider as wealth. 

As well, as to say I'm wrong in my assessement because *just labour* 
is necessary to make the difference is akin to saying to someone that 
their life has no value (i.e. the person spending most of their waking hours
at work now).
.  
http://www.globaljusticemovement.org/thirdway.htm

Dan Parker
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steve Consilvio 
  To: discussion at globaljusticemovement.net 
  Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 10:05 AM
  Subject: Re: [GJM] Is Money Obsolete

  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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  Discussion mailing list
  Discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
  http://globaljusticemovement.net/mailman/listinfo/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007 10:58 AM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20070311/ae2bb941/attachment-0001.html 