It's All About The Money

[labelwench]

"It's All About The Money", or currency equivelants when it comes time to negotiate a new union contract.

A recent survey at the work place listed the following as the top three items of interest:

a) Wages
b) Health Benefits
c) Vacation Time

In essence, people want to work less, but receive more.

So, by what means are we to come up with a formula which balances same?

Money is a mental construct. It has no value but that which we assign to it. Our current financial model was designed to address the needs of it's time.

It is becoming evident that it is time for a new model. My purpose in posting this thread is to generate some discussion on what those new models might look like.

Criticism is incredibly easy. I task the reader with doing some actual work in suggesting alternatives that might provide a solution.

What models do you see as being viable for leading us into the future?

Regards,

Labelwench

John Law's method of money creation is still the dynamo that powers our present world. By replacing specie with a simple national accounting system of credit and debit, he made money infinitely more flexible, able to be contracted or expanded to meet any situation.

However, using the Fractional Reserve System has not been a universally happy experience. It has a built in mechanical flaw that always keeps total national and private debt ahead of the money available to repay it. In fact the more a nation expands, the more it automatically goes into debt to the system over and above the money that it borrows.

To explain, imagine the first bank which prints and lends out $100. For its efforts it asks for the borrower to return $110 in one year; that is it asks for 10% interest. Unwittingly, or maybe wittingly, the bank has created a mathematically impossible situation. The only way in which the borrower can return 110 of the bank's notes is if the bank prints, and lends, $10 more...at 10% interest.

When presented with this scenario, there is often a tendency to think :"Ah, but the borrower can always make the extra $10 somewhere else, through hard work or a deal overseas." However, although we frequently inter change the two sayings, earning money is not the same as making it. Earnings are simply a transfer of money from on ownership to another and neither increase nor decrease the total money in existence. Making money actually does increase the nation's money supply but no-one can do that but the banking industry itself as laid down in its charter from the federal government.

The result of creating 100 and demanding 110 in return, is that the collective borrowers of a nation are forever chasing a phantom which can never be caught; the mythical $10 that were never created. The debt in fact is unrepayable. Each time $100 is created for the nation, the nation's overall indebtedness to the system is increased by $110.

The only solution at present is increased borrowing to cover the principle plus the interest of what has been borrowed. The business or government that cannot expand its borrowing every year is seized by its increasing debt load and dragged under.

Many economists are not unmindful of the problem but pass it off as irrelevant. They say that if the marketplace economy keeps expanding, thereby fuelling an increase in the total money supply, there is no problem with meeting interest payments on an increasing debt load. But under such circumstances, economic expansion is not a luxury but an imperative to stay ahead.

In John Law's day, the need to continuously expand to meet growing debt repayments was seen as a minor problem of no consequence. Today however we all know the planet cannot sustain unlimited growth. Even so, we are stuck with a monetary system that demands continuous expansion or face the chaos of total economic collapse.

[SB_UK]

:: Solution ::

1. One fixed wage to all in a one~world currency
2. Ban debt (enforcing - living within our means)
3. All banking transactions are open
   - with only one~world electronic currency transactions being permitted
4. One~world ownership of all physical property (houses,raw materials ~etc~)

'easy tsumami peasy'

~*~

Why'd we care about house prices going up ?
- if we've a guarantee that we'll always (from birth to grave)
have
as much money as the next person
irregardless.

Nobody'd particularly want more money than another -
because excess money could not be spent -
- eliminating inequality in wages (and preventing debt) would mean that people could (actually) not afford to buy any overly expensive product -
- would mean that any such products could not be produced cost-effectively
- too few customers to mobilize economies of scale.

[SB_UK]

a) Wages
b) Health Benefits
c) Vacation Time

~ie~
a) Wages -> fixed

b) Health Benefits -> from a change in behaviour (notably diet)
- we'll find that dentists, doctors and all the rest are no longer required
- they're an unwelcome artefact of living lives which do not align with (our) optimal nature.

c) Vacation Time -> Work becomes a labour of love -
we won't want to leave our chosen task -
- won't want to retire

because we'll love it so.

[Profpat]

I'm not sure that our present day system is that bad. Granted there are ups and downs to the economy, but that is exactly what you want. It's dynamic and course correcting.

We need to expand the economy because the population is expanding and people who went without before now can be people with.

The monetary supply is no longer backed by gold or silver and it is a function of faith that it works, but as long as I am able to get goods and services with those dollars, they have value.

It works because the accounting system enables it to happen. We can keep track of who owes us money and who we owe money to.

The article is correct about not only interest but also profits are inflationary, because they are not real, but does require the printing of dollars to back it. More dollars same amount of goods and services equals inflation.

So overall I believe our present capitalistic economic system is doing a pretty good job of distributing ( redistributing ) goods and services ( wealth ) to individuals.

With our economic system we attempt to truly feed the world.

[Unreal Zelta]

If technology advances to the state where our lives become completely facile, money will no longer be a concern. This is assuming that humans desires are limited and that people do not obtain pleasure by 'solely' achieving more wealth (which seems unlikely).

regards

Zelta

[SteveA]

If technology advances to the state where our lives become completely facile, money will no longer be a concern. This is assuming that humans desires are limited and that people do not obtain pleasure by 'solely' achieving more wealth (which seems unlikely).

regards

Zelta

Nice points and I agree.

I'll paraphrase something I believe was a Chinese expression I'd heard saying "A man is as rich as how little he needs."

I don't think the intent is to truly live in as sparsely "furnished" environment as possible, but it would appear that as long as people continue to look at what a few of their neighbors have and decide they're worse off in some way because someone else has more, then people have doomed themselves to dissatisfaction no matter what the conditions are that they experience.

Probably one of the major economic problems we have today is the social mindset that we must somehow make/force people to be economically equal (which is vague already).

People generally work rather hard to sustain a lifestyle that they hopefully at least feel comfortable with and they're already using a large part of their capabilities, mental and physical to sustain this against the general decay that nature appears to impose.

If someone wants to help the situation they can obviously offer assistance (to whomever they deem worthy of such), but "assistance" in the form of additional police power impediments against various avenues of pursuits is (at least generally) only impeding and destructive and it appears to me that usually such enforced mandates (serving no real purpose to stop direct harm) generally result in results diametrically opposed to those that were intended to be encouraged.

(BTW, I'm just talking in general and not specifically to you, Unreal Zelta)

As just a hypothetical example of the general problem with "enforced benevolence", let's assume that for the sake of the lives of future children we desire to maximize population growth (there are natural economic factors that discourage reproduction above the rate of economic capabilities that need not be altered) we require that people reproduce and have children and possibly make homosexual relationships illegal or at least strongly discourage people from not becoming parents.

All is fine and well initially and the population grows - it appears a legislative miracle has happened and certainly we can submit nature to enforced decrees (and this is ignoring the general contentment and happiness of those living under such a system, which should ideally be paramount in a desirable form of government, IMO).

Ah, but there's a sinister catch in this plan - yes, people are reproducing and many new lives are created but this is at the expense of the natural instincts and desires of the populace to reproduce. Those who desire to, would obviously still do so, but those who would otherwise not desire to do so still would.

So what happens in the long run? Well, the populace is effectively bred into a dependence upon an outside external coercive influence into its breeding patterns - there is no benefit to desiring to be a parent or finding the experience rewarding or experiencing pleasure in certain forms of (otherwise natural) social relationships, but instead procreation is duty enforced by a minimum of threats of harm and those most subservient are willing to "follow the law" and have children.

If we're solely concerned about reproduction and not the general satisfaction of the state of the general populace, then yes, this is a temporary win but it's ultimately destructive to this aim because newer generations will be bred to have little of any natural desire or instinct to become parents and if the topside of this controlling pyramid slips ... well we now have the natural backlash as such natural desires and the ability to enjoy such pursuits are bred out of society (it would likely take many generations to begin to return to "normalcy").

I can give a ton of other examples of similar nature until the common core begins to shine through - until the day when we can sidestep nature and not have 'natural consequence' to actions, there is nothing that a man with a gun or billy club can do to improve upon the situation (unless potentially he's providing assistance to someone requesting such) - you can't change the fundamental nature of yourself or someone else and the ultimate challenges come from nature and not from other people, though in many ways the two can be seen similarly and ideally society should not become another natural obstacle to fulfilling ones desires, though I admit to some extent this may be unavoidable, it's simply not a state that should generally be seen as desirable and pursued.

[labelwench]

It has been remarked by others of my aquaintance, that our economy chiefly benefits from marketing fear and greed. Others might call it the economics of scarcity, and a great deal of influence is wielded in this manner, as witness global oil prices and Sony's Play Station 3, two very different commodities on the scale of human needs, versus desires.

That some 25% of the global population enjoys disproportionate amount of this planet's bounty and resources does not go unremarked by the rest of the world.

I must count myself among those who are part of the problem, for although my income is not great, I live in a climate that requires considerably higher per capita resources to survive in. The lower population density that is ascribed by the climate also means that we enjoy considerably less population stress. The cost of living in the Yukon is quite high, most noticeably during the winter months and especially in the more remote communities.

In his book, The Botany of Desire, Michael Pollan examines the manner in which plants have evolved to satisfy the human desires for sweetness, beauty, intoxication and control.

What does that have to do with money, you ask? Consider the economy as a whole, and where marketing attempts to lure us.Oh yes......Control.

Each of you brings an interesting perspective to this thread, gentlemen, and I expect our individual points of view reflect where we live and the status we enjoy within each of our communities.

.....which, compared to a significant percent of the world, I'm hazarding the guess that we are all among the more priveleged, if we have access to running water and a relatively secure food supply. None of you are sleeping in the streets, I'm guessing?

- Flemming
And now, if we look around us, most people seem to have a perpetual scarcity of money. There somehow doesn't really seem to be enough to go around. However, our ongoing need to provide a livelyhood for ourselves and our families drive us to pursue more money anyway, and one way or another we get by. And we are too busy to notice that there is something fishy about this lack of money. There will always be somebody around who has a lot of it, so that we are reminded that this would be possible for us too. But we might not see that it wouldn't be possible for everybody in the current system.
The current system is built on scarcity. The system is driven by the idea that there isn't enough, and we have to compete for what is there.

Regards,

Labelwench

[SB_UK]

Stream of consciousness from the mind of a Master (actually) cannot tell a lie

... it would mean so much to me,
Baby, I know our troubles will be gone.
Oh, I know our troubles will be gone, goin' gone
If we dream, dream, dream for free.
And when we dream it, when we dream it, when we dream it,
Let's dream it, we'll dream it for free, free money,

Free money, free money, free money,
Free money, free money, free money,
Free money, free money, free money,
Free money, free money, free money,
Free money, free money, free money,
Free money, free money, free money,
Free money, free money, free money,
Free money, free money, free money, free.

~wikiP/Patti Smith~

We're striving towards grasping an

innate

understanding
- where -
this has been described as

'hearing the whispers'

~*~

Evolution of our species towards

'enforced moral consistency'

dictates that whatever we replace money with -
- is going to need to be a fair system;
quality obscured by dollar score no more.

And that fair system is ... ... ...

hugs

International transactions requiring a peculiarly mutated top notch mental sculptor -



watch 'em though -
- they'll have 'ur mind inna paradox 'therwise -
- two shakes of a lamb's patooty is all they need.

Yeah - so trust me on this like errr... man, yeah

[SB_UK]

boo!

... ... that old story of mutants with pHDs striving to awaken the snoring hoards of bananas in pyjamas.



'yeah - so and like Soopy was like a Science Correspondent specializing in Astrostuff and I tell ya' he's good
but when he's wrong
- I tell ya' oh mamma' high chihuahua.'

[labelwench]

We can keep track of who owes us money and who we owe money to.

Originally posted by Profpat.

Indebtedness.

Which came first? Money or indebtedness? Does one neccessitate the other? Is either neccessary?

Having been raised with the principle of sweat equity and personal saving before major purchase, one area of reform should be an end to unsecured credit. Spending today and re-paying with interest tomorrow, steals the joy of potential from the future, unless you are fond of an albatross around your neck.

Easy credit has been too great a temptation for many people (and Nations) to maintain a balanced ledger.

Regards,

Labelwench