Okay, let me try to explain this more clearly--or to the best of my understanding anyway.
Let’s say that due to a nuclear accident there are only three people left in the world: persons A, B, and C. And let’s say that all three of these people are dedicated Republicans who believe strongly in the American way and wish to recreate the American system of government, beginning with the US financial system. If that were the case, one of those people, let’s say person A, would be designated the money maker (in the real world that role is divided between the Federal Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and commercial and state banks, only the first of which is a purely Federal institution) and the other two would be designated the money receivers, or, in the American system, the money borrowers.
Person A then decides to create one hundred dollars by telling person B that he now has one hundred dollars (today we make this transaction by typing that amount into a computer; rather than saying you have one hundred dollars, someone types it). But that one hundred dollars is not given freely or as compensation for labor. It’s created from nothing and given only as credit, which means that the money has to be paid back with interest.
Person B now takes that one hundred dollars and decides to make a purchase from person C. Person C is obligated under the rules of the system to accept person B’s imaginary one hundred dollars as payment. In other words, he agrees that person B’s imaginary one hundred dollars is real money and has real value. Consequently, person B becomes the proud owner of a slightly used but very warm winter coat, and person C is one hundred dollars richer.
But, because person B still has to pay the one hundred dollars back to person A, he will have to earn back his one hundred dollars by either selling merchandise to or by going to work for person C. Remember, there is only one hundred dollars in the system at this time, so person B is likely to turn to person C, the owner of all the money in existence, for help in repaying his debt. Person C understands this fact and agrees to pay person B five dollars a day in exchange for B’s cooking services. At this rate, the principal on the loan could be paid off in twenty months. However, since person A lent the one hundred dollars at a five percent monthly interest rate, B’s one hundred dollar debt will have doubled by the time he earns his initial one hundred dollars back. The problem, though, is that there isn’t an extra one hundred dollars in existence. Person A only created one hundred dollars, not two hundred; he created the principal but not the interest person B is expected to repay (and it should be pointed out that if person C deposits his money with person A, there will be an extra ninety dollars available for borrowing).
This means that Person B will have two options. One, he can borrow more money from person A and use the money he receives and was created from his second loan to pay back the first loan, and then later use the money from a third loan to pay back the second, and then later take out a fourth loan to pay back the third … and on and on indefinitely. Or, a more appealing option, he can convince person C to take out a loan also. If person C takes out a loan of one hundred dollars, then person B can sell his secret cooking recipes to person C for the same one hundred dollar amount and pay off his loan in full. Then person B is debt free. But person C is now in the same position that person B was before paying his debt. So person C, eventually, is left with the same two options that B had. Someone within this system has to remain in debt; someone has to be losing in order for the other to get ahead or to just stay even. Equal prosperity is impossible.
Inevitably, someone will ALWAYS be indebted to person A who has now made close to three hundred dollars simply by twice speaking the same sentence: “you have a hundred dollars".
How well do you think A, B, and C would get along being governed by this system? What would the quality of their relationships be like? Pretty shitty, I imagine.
To be fair, though, I’m not an expert in this field, and I’m sure my analogy oversimplifies a few things. I know, for example, that in the actual world, person A wouldn’t be an actual, complete person (and wouldn’t thereby be accruing wealth, just money) nor would he be the only designated wealth-maker (central banks don’t have a monopoly on wealth, just money-making) and A would also have to pay interest (in extremely small sums) to hold on to the assets of persons B and C etc.—but, for the most part, I believe, if the information in the movie is correct, my analogy creates a reasonably accurate picture of the current system. And if that’s the case, I doubt it would take long for B and C to realize that the system wasn’t working out too well. And I doubt A, B, and C would become super good friends while the system was in place. Talk of revolution wouldn’t be described as Utopian fantasy, but talk of maintaining and accepting or even merely tweaking rather than overthrowing the system, by anyone other than person A, would likely be described as pathologically passive and delusional—the type of talk that you hear from an abused wife when she’s rationalizing her husband’s abuse for the upteenth time. Moreover, person A would have a tough time convincing B and C that their inevitably cut-throat and manipulative behavior towards one another isn’t a required behavior pattern of the system. He couldn’t say, well, it’s not the system that causes you to exploit each other the way you do; it’s your animal nature. YOU’RE the problem. I doubt B and C would believe him.
Well, on second thought, they probably would.
*****
We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar in circulation. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture; the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is.
Robert Hemprill
Credit Manager Federal Reserve Bank
Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.
Kenneth Boulding
Economist
Money is a new form of slavery and distinguished from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal; there is no human relationship between master and slave.
Leo Tolstoi
Wasting time..
2 months ago
10 comments:
Ok, so I don't know much about this; I did hear an interview a while back which covered some of the same grounds. Still, I'm in awe of your ability to digest all this.
I can say that the general thrust of all this rings true for me. Like you say the system does not allow for equal prosperity which means, at some level, it's fucked up. Of course proponents of the system will argue that this is human nature--some are always stronger, smarter etc. but I'm not sure this is true at all.
As you say, "it’s not the system that causes you to exploit each other the way you do; it’s your animal nature. YOU’RE the problem."
Again, I think we often chalk up our problems to supposed biology without considering the underlying system. But wow this is tricky business; how do we separate out what we know about ourselves as animals--which I think is a worthy endeavor--without conflating our biology with the system?
I guess we keep chipping away, like postmodernists (sorry HH) deconstructing language, hoping it all adds up to something, hoping at some point we reach a tipping point and start to make real changes OR we revolt, tear down the system, and start over. But I'm not confident that the new system would be much better. Seems we have seen this experiment with several communist countries which were certainly working for "equal prosperity."
Hey CI.
You wrote:
“…how do we separate out what we know about ourselves as animals--which I think is a worthy endeavor--without conflating our biology with the system?”
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point, because it seems pretty simple to me. If you create a system that requires debt and requires that you lessen your debt by increasing the debt of others—a system that requires cut-throat competition—then you can’t say that anything but the system created the obligatory cut-throat behavior. If you need food and water to survive and I require that you can’t have food and water unless you chop your fingers off in exchange, it doesn’t stand to reason that it was in your nature to chop your fingers off. Except that it doesn’t wish to die of starvation or thirst, biology had nothing to do with that decision. Why is that so difficult to understand?
You wrote:
“I guess we keep chipping away, like postmodernists (sorry HH) deconstructing language, hoping it all adds up to something, hoping at some point we reach a tipping point and start to make real changes OR we revolt, tear down the system, and start over.”
I agree that language, one of the primary tools of oppression, has to be deconstructed, but if that deconstruction-process doesn’t lead to revolt—if it doesn’t lead to the termination of the system—then what good is it? If the system—a system that REQUIRES cut-throat behavior—is still in place once language has been deconstructed, then the behavior—and the oppression—continues. We’re still fucked up. Big deal that the system has to rely on other tools and other languages to accomplish the same objectives. This “chipping away” pseudo-resistance is exactly what the system wants—a revolution applied only to the world of words and abstractions—an imaginary revolution to go with the imaginary money and the imaginary mythology and history the system creates.
You wrote:
“I'm not confident that the new system would be much better.”
Neither am I. But does that mean we should keep a system that we KNOW doesn’t work? And, while the new system may not be much better, I can’t fathom how it could be worse. I’ll take my chances on starting over.
You wrote:
“Seems we have seen this experiment with several communist countries which were certainly working for "equal prosperity."”
I strongly disagree that any communist country is working or has ever worked towards “equal prosperity”. The only reason countries (i.e. governments) exist is to protect and preserve unequal prosperity. Some communist countries (Cuba, for example) might be less effective than capitalistic countries in securing inequality and might therefore be lesser evils--but they're still evil.
You wrote:
“Like you say, the system does not allow for equal prosperity, which means, at some level, it's fucked up.”
Yes. At a fundamental level, I’d say. Yes, Yes, Yes. But it's not just that the system requires unequal prosperity. Even more insidious is that the system doesn't allow for healthy relationships between you and your fellow humans and the rest of the natural world.
My conflating comment is more about the general difficulty of separating the two in a debate rather than my own personal beliefs. Still, I would suggest that you use extreme examples; certainly there are examples which are easier to conflate.
I agree that in general the system wants pseudo-resistance--this is the core idea to Gramsci's hegemony. I do think that deconstruction of language can poke holes in the hegemony.
You say: "I’ll take my chances on starting over."
I respect this sentiment but ultimately feel like it's irrelevant to the big picture. This brings me back to a point I tried to make when we went to bkfast and in my not so coherent email. Essentially, my point is that most people will do what's best for their immediate progeny, genes, their kids.
Maybe our biological response to protecting our kids is the kind of example I was thinking of with my conflation comment. Here I think it is hard to see the system for what it is because it does often provide the short-term protection of our offspring.
And maybe you underestimate this power because you do not have children. I do not mean that as some sort of slam, just the biological reality of parenthood.
I simply do not see how revolutionary movements, anarchist etc. take this basic biological motivation into account. What would ever compel parents, grandparents, even aunts and uncles, to allow for a melt down and new beginning?
You wrote:
"My conflating comment is more about the general difficulty of separating the two in a debate rather than my own personal beliefs."
I'm still not quite sure what you mean about "the difficulty of separating the two", but, yeah, I did think you were saying something about your personal beliefs. My bad.
You wrote:
"I would suggest that you use extreme examples; certainly there are examples which are easier to conflate."
Again, I'm confused about what you mean. If you're suggesting that I'm using extreme examples to show that our current system requires cut throat behavior, then you must have a different definition of cut-throat behavior than I do or you must have a different understanding of the US monetary system. To me, if the monetary system makes my 'staying even' dependent on someone else being indebted, then my efforts to 'stay even' can't be construed as anything else but cut-throat and my behavior can't be blamed on anything else other than the system. Right? Am I missing something here? It seems like we're each debating different points or something. It's possible that you're making a point unrelated to what I wrote and that I'm misunderstanding you by trying to relate it to my own agenda. I don't know. (Or I suppose you could be arguing that the system models our natural behavior in some way, but I don't think you are--and, if you are, that would be an easy argument for me to win).
You wrote:
"You say: "I’ll take my chances on starting over."
I respect this sentiment but ultimately feel like it's irrelevant to the big picture. This brings me back to a point I tried to make when we went to bkfast and in my not so coherent email. Essentially, my point is that most people will do what's best for their immediate progeny, genes, their kids."
Most people will do what's best for themselves (which normally includes their progeny). I agree with that. But it's my contention that we've been socially programmed to falsely believe that civilization is best for us. In fact, believing that our current system is good for our selves and our progeny is, for me, a great example of the insidious effects that civilization has had on our self-understanding and our relationships. If we were truly in touch with our whole selves, our animal selves, and with others, we couldn't see our current destructive way of life as anything but destructive to our own and other's psyches--as an assault on the health of our individual value and our relationships. If we really cared about our progeny--if we really COULD care for our progeny and our selves in an unimpeded and natural way--then we could do nothing but revolt against a system that desecrates us the way the current system does. In my view, our culture's delusions allow us to watch our progeny and ourselves get abused and not see it as abuse. One of the primary delusions we're administered is the idea that our 'selves' and our families are independent from the rest of the natural world and that we can care for our selves and our families without caring for others. The idea that being selfish is in our best self interests is a lie.
Still, I think I understand the gist of what you're saying. If we decided tomorrow to base our monetary system again on the gold standard and made bank usury illegal, I would lose all of my money, because I don't have any gold. And that would be scary, because I don't know how to survive without money. To me, that's the real issue here: we've raised generation after generation that doesn't know how to live without being abused or subservient--without indebtedness. That's the model we're used to and that we know how to cope with. When you and I watch a woman being abused repeatedly by her husband, we think the woman is crazy for staying in the relationship. We can see quite clearly that she'd be better off if she left. But SHE can't see that because maybe it's the only relationship she has ever been in; it's what she's used to and what she knows how to endure. We can see that even the worst case scenario in her leaving--that she'd end up working at McDonald's, say, and live alone for the rest of her life--is an improvement to her current situation. But the woman has learned to cope with an abusive relationship and not with being alone or working at McDonalds. And it's the unfamiliar--the potential and the unrealized--discomforts that most scare us.
You wrote:
"Maybe our biological response to protecting our kids is the kind of example I was thinking of with my conflation comment."
I would contend that your biological response to protecting your kids has been domesticated away and what's left is a socially conditioned response to protecting your kids which really isn't protecting them at all. But, for the record, I'm not directing that statement to you as an individual. I'm guessing that the biological bond you have with your kids is stronger than it is for most parents, but I don't think ANY of us who have grown up within civilization really understands our biological responses and really understands what it means to bond in a healthy non-reified way with another living thing (and even if we did we wouldn't be able to act on that understanding because the system doesn't allow the appropriate kinds of behaviors).
But yes. We may never make the changes we need to make because of our BELIEF that those changes wouldn't be in our immediate best interests and because of our fear of unknown discomforts. That's why the revolution has to be BOTH personal and social. Once we recreate ourselves (which I don't believe can be done unilaterally but only through collaboration), we'll be free to reinvent society in a way that allows our full selves and our progeny to become and remain healthy and enriched. Whether we will or won't move in that direction is a pointless debate to me. All I'm saying is that we should.
You wrote:
"Here I think it is hard to see the system for what it is because it does often provide the short-term protection of our offspring."
That's the delusion I'm talking about. The system is not protecting your offspring; it's abusing them.
You wrote:
"I simply do not see how revolutionary movements, anarchist etc. take this basic biological motivation into account."
The biological motivation isn't taken into account because it doesn't exist. There is no biological motivation to enslave our children. That's a purely social ambition.
You wrote:
"What would ever compel parents, grandparents, even aunts and uncles, to allow for a melt down and new beginning?"
Courage and awareness.
first off: where the hell is HH? This sounds like a debate he'd enjoy.
I think you got at the confusion: I'm arguing that the system does in fact provide some sorts of protection for our children and you are asserting that it only causes abuse. We have different assumptions here. Though I would agree that *some* of my/our biological impulses to protect have been socialized away as you say.
Overall I concord with much, if not all, of your critique. Just last night I heard all the economic pundits talking about the monetary stimulus bill that passed. It seemed so silly. The only way to avoid a recession is to get some more money out there so people are convinced that they can buy more stuff. This depresses me because the only way to keep our system afloat is to convince people to buy stuff they don't need which in turn uses up our resources and people hours. It's crazy ludicrous.
But I would tend to disagree with your solutions. One, I don't think there is an ideal "natural" system which we can embrace--never has been one and never will be. Maybe I'm more pessimistic than you. Two, it matters to me if it's going to work or not. That has to be part of the equation at the social level; though I agree that on a personal level it does not matter as much. An individual can still reach for the ideal, knowing it will never be achieved.
Of course you can yet again say I'm being socialized by the system but that line of argument can't get us anywhere. It's the old false consciousness of critical pedagogy: if anyone disagrees with me then they are being co-opted by the system. And this begins to seem as if individuals do not have any agency.
I would contend that I can enjoy my rain-foresting destroying hamburger (a favorite topic of critical pedagogues) and do so with open eyes. I'm not being subverted by the system, my desires have not necessarily been co-opted. Instead I've made a decision based on my world, the tough and tumble world where I want to enjoy a hamburger on occasion even though ultimately I know it's part of a failed system. And I still know that once society reaches a tipping point, I will join a critical mass and protest against that very hamburger.
Is this hamburger loving person a hypocrite? Sure, in one way but no in another. Decisions are contextual, taking into consideration what's possible, short-term vs. long-term pleasure, and maintaining some sense of happiness which allows survival.
And survival does count for me. Making it despite the contradictions and chaos. Allowing oneself to be co-opted to a degree in order to make it is, for me, a viable and ethical life choice.
Thanks for the kind words!! It means a lot and it's good to hear from someone on the DJ forums outside of the forum itself.
I like your title and subtitle as well, I find it less literal than mine (which is a good thing!).
I love your blog. I found myself unable to stop reading, and when I was done I would continue to read the comments as well. The fact that you write original thoughts, for one, and as well-written essays is, nonetheless, admirable, as opposed to the copy and paste blogger (me, a lot of the time).
This post is great. I'll use the metaphor myself when trying to explain how our economic system thrives on and requires a suffering lower class and spawns unhealthy competitive cut-throat behavior... with your permission (I wouldn't take credit for it, of course).
I also read in one of your comments your contesting of the 'rebelling for the sake of rebellion' misconception towards anarchists, especially teenage anarchists. While it's impossible that you could have said this with me in mind, it spoke to and for me. I get frustrated when people make that assumption about me or people I know, and it's refreshing to see someone opposing it.
I'm amazed by your thorough grasp and conception of ideas, reality, and philosophy - and your ability to articulate that comprehension so well.
Keep in touch if you can,
-Clayne
CI,
I often assume that everyone who occasionally reads my blog remembers everything I've ever written here and thereby understands my position better than they do.
I think that's the case now. What you've written suggests that you're misinterpreting several things I've written, so I'll try to clear things up.
You wrote: I'm arguing that
"the system does in
> fact provide some sorts of protection for our
> children and you are
> asserting that it only causes abuse."
No, I'm not asserting that. To once again use the abused wife metaphor, to me there isn't a question that the wife is being abused and would be better off leaving her husband. That doesn't mean that she doesn't get a lot of protection from her husband, too, in the form of his salary, his social status maybe, his property, his familiarity, and countless other things. What I'm saying is that the woman would be better protected without him than with him--better protected, and, more importantly, more enriched and healthy. I'm saying that it would be in her best interests to leave the relationship. And I'm saying the same thing about humanity and the current system that governs us--that it's in our best interests to leave it.
You also wrote:
But I would tend to disagree with your solutions. One, I don't think
there is an ideal "natural" system which we can embrace--never has been one and never will be.
That, to me, is both a confusing and completely irrelevant statement. If you're implying that I think the natural world is ideal, then you've misunderstood me. And if you're implying that there isn't a way of life (and never has been and never will be one) that is more sustainable and more diverse than the one our present system requires, then you're factually wrong.
And you wrote:
"Two, it matters to me if it's going to work or not. That has to be part of the equation at the social level; though I agree that on a personal level it does not matter as much. An individual can still reach for the ideal, knowing it will never be achieved."
Once again, this completely mis-characterizes my viewpoint. It matters to me whether it's going to work or not, too. It matters a lot. That's why I'm not advocating for a way of life that requires humans to become sorcerers or Power Rangers. But I don't think that advocating for a way of life that has been practiced for over 99 percent of human history is unachievable. What's unachievable are the goals and sustainability of the current system. I think what you're implying is that our human nature won't allow us to make the changes we need to make. But that is neither a scientific nor a practical argument; it's a religious one. You're implying that our human history is pre-destined--that "individuals do not have any agency"?
You wrote:
"that has to be part of the
equation at the social level; though I agree that on a personal level it does not matter as much. An individual can still reach for the ideal, knowing it will never be achieved."
One, I don't believe in ideals. Two, this statement demonstrates the false dichotomy that I believe our culture is selling us. To me, you can't achieve goals that are individual and not social.
You wrote:
"Of course you can yet again say I'm being socialized by the system but that line of argument can't get us anywhere. It's the old false
consciousness of critical pedagogy: if anyone disagrees with me then
they are being co-opted by the system."
No, as a "line of argument" it can't get us anywhere. But, one, I didn't make the argument that if you, or anyone, "disagrees with me then they are being co-opted by the system". What I said is that, in my view, your "biological response" to protecting your kids isn't biological; it's social (actually it would be more accurate to say that it's less biological than social). Of course, I can't prove that. It's a belief based on my experiences and knowledge. And it's also a belief that can be argued based on the evidence. But my whole reason for bringing the socializing issue up was less to make an argument than to expose your declaration--that your behavior is biological in origin rather than social or an act of free agency--is the same as my declaration that your behavior isn't biological; they're both unproven statements. You, however, presented your statement as a hidden premise for why my solution (or your misunderstanding of my solution, in this case) won't work. What's more, your statement wouldn't negate or support my position if found out to be true. Even if your parental protective behavior is biological, that doesn't mean that it can't be changed or that it SHOULDN'T be changed (unless you're arguing that behavior is entirely biologically determined and not at all influenced by environment, in which case you'd be supporting a far more radical position than I am). It sounds to me as if you're trying to make an argument based on fortune-telling. You're saying that you don't think change will happen, so you don't want to support change. But, as I said before, that isn't an argument that interests me. If I thought you could read the future, then it might. But, while I think you're a pretty clever guy, I don't think you're clairvoyant. Convince me that the system SHOULDN'T change (or that it doesn't HAVE TO change to protect our species) and I'll start paying attention.
You wrote:
"I would contend that I can enjoy my rain-foresting destroying hamburger (a favorite topic of critical pedagogues) and do so with open eyes. I'm not being subverted by the system, my desires have
not necessarily been co-opted. Instead I've made a decision based on my world, the tough and
tumble world where I want to enjoy a hamburger on occasion even though
ultimately I know it's part of a failed system."
Okay, I think once again you're misinterpreting my position--this time as being an indictment of the individual's participation in the system rather than an indictment of the system itself. I don't disagree with a single word that you said. Absolutely you can participate in the system without being further subverted by it. And that participation does not make you a hypocrite, especially when the participation is often coerced. I would even go a step further and say that you can participate withing the system and still work against it.
You wrote:
"And I still know that once society reaches a tipping point, I will join a critical mass and protest against that very hamburger."
Now here is where we might have a genuine disagreement and not a misunderstanding. It's my contention that if we wait for a critical mass, especially if we don't do anything to bring about the critical mass, then there won't be anything left to save. The situation is that urgent. Now that's something we can argue about.
You wrote:
"Overall I concord with much, if not all, of your critique. Just last night I heard all the economic pundits talking about the monetary stimulus bill that passed. It seemed so silly. The only way to avoid a recession is to get some more money out there so people are convinced that they can buy more stuff. This depresses me because the only way to keep our system afloat is to convince people to buy stuff they don't need which in turn uses up our resources and people hours. It's crazy ludicrous."
Amen. So we agree on the problem. What's YOUR solution?
You wrote:
"where the hell is HH? This sounds like a debate he'd enjoy."
HH is in Las Vegas, but I'm sure he'll have something to say when he gets back--and he'll probably disagree with both of us (and probably for no other reason than to be disagreeable ;))I'm planning a post soon about the postmodernism issue, too.
In summary, I still don't understand what our major points of disagreement are, except maybe that I'm arguing for more direct and immediate action to bring about change. My position is simply that there is only one workable system possible and that's to create a way of life in which the landbase and nothing else dictates our use of resources. I hope that's clear now.
Hey Clayne,
Thanks for stopping by and fo rthe good words. I'll definitely stay in touch. As you can see from the comments I get, I could use some anarchist back up.
And feel free to use anything I've written here for whatever purposes. Thanks for asking, though.
You wrote:
"I also read in one of your comments your contesting of the 'rebelling for the sake of rebellion' misconception towards anarchists, especially teenage anarchists. While it's impossible that you could have said this with me in mind, it spoke to and for me. I get frustrated when people make that assumption about me or people I know, and it's refreshing to see someone opposing it."
I didn't have you specifically in mind, but, based on what I've read on your blog and on the DJ forum, the comment certainly fits. And I know what you mean about the frustration!!!
Later man.
Sorry so late to the party..
"But that one hundred dollars is not given freely or as compensation for labor. It’s created from nothing and given only as credit, which means that the money has to be paid back with interest." On this we agree. The government simply prints money (with no intrinsic value) and then puts it into cirulation (as you say via borrowing by banks and others). I am with you so far.
"Person C is obligated under the rules of the system to accept person B’s imaginary one hundred dollars as payment. In other words, he agrees that person B’s imaginary one hundred dollars is real money and has real value." Here we disagree. Person C only accepts said money with the understanding that it can be, further, traded for other goods or services.
The rest of your example is spot on. However, it seems that you are making Ron Paul's argument that the "gold standard" matters. In other words... Person A should only print the money that Persona A has assets to back up. I would agree. Then there are always 100.00 dollars "worth of goods to back up the beginning value." Then there is no debt from person A to pass around the horn again and again.
"How well do you think A, B, and C would get along being governed by this system? What would the quality of their relationships be like? Pretty shitty, I imagine." And that is just what seems to be happening with the world monetary markets world-wide. And, it seems to all lead back to the shitty American monetary system.
Yet, (being my non-argumentative self) would a system in which only goods and services were traded be any better? Didn't Hobbs "Tragedy of the Commons" demonstrate that there are times when collective consequation leads to the greatest common good? In other words taking an economy from the "group" level to the "individual" level has its own problems.?
And who said that "equal" prosperity is the way things "ought" to be?
I don't think that it is choosing between the biolgical drive (selfishness) or cooperation (working for equality {whatever the hell that means}) that one must choose between. I think it is finding a balance between the individuals freedoms and the obligation to the "others" that is at issue.
In my perfect system, we would tweak capitalism such that all "work" was rewarded with the same monetary value. That all goods would continue to be priced based on demand and supply (without selfish manipulation of supply). And that the needs of the biologically unlucky (young and disabled) would be take care of by the collective.
It is hard to argue that "money" or any "good" or "service" isn't valued by psychological factors in the first place. Therefore, get the groups to agree that one "good" has an agreed upon value, and then use that "good" as the starting point to value all trade. I know I sound Kinsian, but I really mean to sound more Libertarian-capitalistic (even though it has no real economic theory tied to it).
In the meantime, I am making a killing by buying solar-energy concern stocks! My portfolio is up 100% in the last month (while the majority of the market is in the crapper). Good for me.
HH =)
Welcome to the party, HH. And speaking of parties, you missed a good one last night! In fact, I should probably wait until I'm fully recovered and better rested before I respond, but I won't.
You wrote:
"Person C is obligated under the rules of the system to accept person B’s imaginary one hundred dollars as payment. In other words, he agrees that person B’s imaginary one hundred dollars is real money and has real value." Here we disagree. Person C only accepts said money with the understanding that it can be, further, traded for other goods or services.
I'm not disagreeing with that. Of course person C accepts the money with the understanding that it can be used as money. And in my analogy his choice of currency wasn't imposed on him, because A,B, and C all willingly chose to recreate the American system. In the real world, however, the choice of currency is at least somewhat obligatory in the sense that a person can't unilaterally opt for using the Greenback, for example, in making all of her purchases.
You wrote:
it seems that you are making Ron Paul's argument that the "gold standard" matters. In other words... Person A should only print the money that Persona A has assets to back up. I would agree.
Actually, I'm not saying that. In this and my previous post I merely wanted to expose the problem; I wasn't giving a solution. And, while I think a gold-standard system would be a vast improvement on the system we have, it's not the solution I would propose. A better solution, in my view, would be a Greenback-like system (the one Lincoln initiated during the Civil War) in which money is made by the government to be used by the public free of charge. But that isn't my solution, either. My solution would be to make trade more or less obsolete by creating communities that rely solely on their own immediate landbases for securing resources--communities that honor carrying capacity, in other words, and which wouldn't need to trade at all (they still could trade; they just wouldn't be dependent on it).
You wrote:
Yet, (being my non-argumentative self) would a system in which only goods and services were traded be any better?
Yes, it would positively be better than a system based on debt. But would it be better than the Tally or the Greenback or the Gold-Standard system? Probably not much better. But what matters to me isn't whether we use paper money or goods and services, it's whether the system requires the importation of resources from outside an immediate landbase. If you require importation--if you're dependent on it--then you are likely to develop a conquest-driven lifestyle. You're likely to exploit the commons. Change your relationship to the landbase, so that it isn't one based on domination, and you're likely to take care of rather than exploit what takes care of you--and everyone benefits.
You wrote:
Didn't Hobbs "Tragedy of the Commons" demonstrate that there are times when collective consequation leads to the greatest common good?
I've never heard Hobb's name associated with "Tragedy of the Commons". Are you sure you don't mean Garrett Hardin? Also, it's my understanding that "The Tragedy of the Commons" demonstrates how the collective DOESN'T lead to the greatest common good. Is that what you meant? Or are we just using our words differently?
As many biologists now point out, though, "The Tragedy of the Commons" occurs very rarely in the non-human world; and it doesn't occur in human societies, even those societies that practice trade-dependent lifestyles, when the community populations are kept below a certain number (the so-called "Dunbar number"). Libertarians, as they're apt to do, seem to ignore this evidence and continue to use outdated science and outdated philosophy to bolster their outdated economics. In my view, privatization is what causes "The Tragedy of the Commons" (ownership of the goats, for example, leads to the selfish exploitation of the un-owned property)--it isn't the solution. There will always be some things that can't be privatized (sunlight, air, the ozone layer....), and, even if privatization could solve "The Tragedy of the Commons", I'm not sure the living thing or object being privatized would appreciate being part of the solution. The only realistic solution is a lifestyle based on relationship rather than ownership--a lifestyle that forges relationships in which you are expected to both give and receive.
You wrote:
And who said that "equal" prosperity is the way things "ought" to be?
You tell me. That isn't what I said. But a system that REQUIRES unequal prosperity certainly isn't the way things "ought" to be. I am saying that.
You wrote:
I don't think that it is choosing between the biolgical drive (selfishness) or cooperation (working for equality {whatever the hell that means}) that one must choose between.
First, you need to explain this biological drive to act selfishly to worker insects who don't undermine the common good of their society by laying their own eggs or to bats who regurgitate blood and donate it to other group members who didn't feed during the night etc. etc. etc. Maybe if the non-human world understood this concept better they wouldn't so consistently disprove it.
Second, I don't think choosing between selfishness and cooperation is at issue, either. It's a choice between nourishing ourselves by nourishing the natural environment that creates and sustains us or destroying ourselves by doing anything else. Simple.
You wrote:
In my perfect system, we would tweak capitalism such that all "work" was rewarded with the same monetary value.
No system is perfect, or even salvageable, that doesn't understand "carrying capacity".
You wrote:
I am making a killing by buying solar-energy concern stocks! My portfolio is up 100% in the last month (while the majority of the market is in the crapper). Good for me.
Awesome! That means you've got more than enough money to take family ski or hiking vacations to Colorado, right? Let me know when you're coming!
Post a Comment