Capitalism - busting a meme

There is an almost religious belief held by many about capitalism. Criticism is usually met with aggressive defense. Somehow Capitalism has become a label of freedom and the right to be free and mind one's own business. Criticism against it is interpreted as criticism against evolution, a free society, free will, market economy, liberal thought etc etc. It instantly produces a reaction of “so you want socialism, then, huh?”. But Socialism is nothing but another meme that is worth of busting, a meme that perpetuates a third meme, that there is only two possible choices - black or white. An old jewish saying goes like this: “If there are only two alternatives, choose the third one.”

There are three main perspectives in understanding this meme and the reactions toward the  criticism that I would like to address and discuss here;
- where does Capitalism come from?
- who profits from Capitalism being the backbone of western society?
- what are the consequences of the Capitalistic system?

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

This reminds me of my childhood:

I grew up in communist Poland, and my parents were still communist believers at the time - in a very idealistic sort of way (I think they'd be Zaadzters were they living now). Anyhow, at a very early age (5-6 maybe) I was told that “communists were the good guys” and “capitalists were the bad guys”.
I clearly remember lying in bed before I fell asleep (or maybe after I woke up? :-) and wondering: Do the capitalists say that they are the good guys and the communists are the bad guys? Or do they call themselves communists and say it's the other ones that are capitalists?

Now I know the answer! :-)

Warm greetings

Halina

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

“They” are always the Bad Guys. That's one of these Memes, isnt' it?

I hope to get back to my intentional scribblings soon enough, as the spouse is calling from the kitchen about food.

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

To give a crude picture of how I reason in this field, I'll start by drawing sweeping movements with a big brush.

Old time religion had some moral and ethical limits for human enterprise - the seven deadly sins. Among them are such things as avarice and greed. My short description of the problems with both Capitalism and Socialism is that they go against these deadly sins. Specifically, Capitalism is nurtured by Greed and Socialism is nurtured by Avarice, to put it very bluntly. That's the short story.  Not that I am a religious person (catholic in this case as the seven sins stem from the catholic scholasticism), but in tracking the origins of something, it's often worthwhile to go back in time.

Thesis - antithesis - synthesis. Sounds familiar? If the old thesis is religion and the constrains that moral codes like the deadly sins put on people, the antithesis is rebelling against those regulations. Capitalism came first and then Socialism as a reaction to both religion and Capitalism.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who reject the thought that Capitalism is a reaction against Religion, and the picture IS much more complicated than that, but it's a start in trying to get the hold of individual spaghettis from this rather complex plate.

The source of Capitalism:
Capitalistic reasoning and willingness to make profits are old, very old, but it wasn't until the start of the industrialisation beginning in the 18th century that individuals started to make such profits that they caused a major upheaval in society. There were fluctuations in the market before this too, like the tulip hoax in the Netherlands in the 17th century, and the Spanish goldrush in the 16th century, but industrialisation set a new agenda. The systematic endeavour to turn natural resources and cheap labour (even slave labour) into money. It was a great innovation in it's time. Today we are living with the consequenses like climate change and desertification and starvation, but few link this to our social infrastructure where Capitalism is one of the driving forces.

There were criticism toward this new behaviour early on. Adam Smith in Britain wrote about is, as did Anders Chydenius in Finland (he was called the Adam Smith of the North). Adam Smith is still remembered today for his writings about The Wealth of Nations (1776), but few have read it. I have. He is remembered for having described the free market as if guided by an “invisible hand”. That was not one of his theses though. The invisible hand is mentioned once, in a subordinate clause somewhere late in his works. What he DID put a lot of effort into, was to try to describe the idea that it is immoral to make money out of money. He reiterates this thesis so many times that he even excuses himself for being repetitive ad nauseam, but that he still have to remind the reader about this. It is immoral to make money out of money. And far-distance trade is an abomination for Adam Smith too. That is notoriously forgotten in the quotes of Adam Smith of modern time “Economics”.

The Free Market is a concept that Adam Smith took time to describe too. His description of a free market is the local market. It relies on local social bondings and information about both retailers and buyers. Who can you trust, who is to recommend to others etc. The free market cannot function without the social context in Adam Smith's world. The far-distance trade with Indonesia and such is not a part of a free market to him. Wealthy europeans who go to distant countries to buy cheap goods to sell with enormous profit at home are corrupt in the eyes of Mr. Smith.

I would assume that Mr. Smith is turning in his grave at such a spead that it would be possible to turn the momentum into electricity, did he know what is put in his mouth by “economists” today.

Regards,
Fixie

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

hi people,

we're not quite as reflexively defensive about capitalism, etc. here in Canada. i really think this mindset is an American problem, albeit far too exported to other countries along with a lot of other good and bad through the media…

love this dialogue. unfortunately too busy this weekend to participate but will join in by monday… this is fun - thanks for starting this pod and adding all the energy, all!

love

nicole

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

Fixie, thanks for starting this fascinating topic and including your great thoughts here.

I too, have more to say, but need to get some “real world” stuff done so will respond more later. :-)

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

Wow. I had no idea what Adam Smith had in mind. I need to go back to school…

Ever since my Econ 101 teacher said that capitalism is based on the fact that people always want more, never know what “enough” is, and the necessity of increasing profits and GNP, I have been noodling this problem. You should have seen his face blanche when I asked him what would happen if people learned to accept a simple life, escaped the hamster wheel, or whiplash of More! More! More!

So I began considering this problem many years ago.  I began to see capitalism, the way we do it anyway, as a herd of bison charging toward a cliff, the leaders, the top 100 richest men, all in a headlong race to grace the pages of Forbes, all the lesser bison hot on their heels…

I also saw an ocean, with big fish voraciously eating little fish until there are no more little fish, just layer upon layer of bones like sediment on the ocean floor.

Then the big fish died.

Well, I thought, this will never do. Obviously, the big fish need to apply their intelligence if they are to survive. So. Would it be possible to create little-fish farms? Where the little fish-people falling as detritus from big-fish bellies would land in entrepreneurial incubators with plenty of seed money to grow the next batch of little fish for the big fish to consume? Or if the virtues of sweat, luck and clear vision would have it, to become big fish themselves?

Obviously a horrible mishmash of metaphor. But it is early! Please excuse… If clarification is needed, please post!

So. This led me to thinking about the yinyang of socialism and capitalism. And it struck me how analogous this dynamic is to the male/female gestalt. Males are brilliant sequencers, women are brilliant emotional articulators. Intellect works best within a context, and emotional information provides context. Capitalism is gung-ho A-to-B profit-seeking, wearing the colors of intellect. Socialism emphasizes the more feminine aspects of cooperation and sharing.

So, this revolutionary idea: Maybe we need both!

Maybe we need each type of genius to recognize and appreciate each other, so that capitalism can dominate the market, and socialism can take care of the goods and services that require equitable distribution for the viability of the Whole: like education, sanitation, transportation and communication systems, health and welfare etc. These are arenas that are served poorly by the profit motive. And equally poorly by a social sector that does not know what it stands for, like a low-status domestic partner that is beaten down, then blamed for a lack of direction and efficacy…

Hmmm.

I wrote a song from a vision that smacked me once. I “saw” large trees and a forest gathering, small groups of people quietly talking, laughing, singing and working with their hands, craftspersons and artisans of long ago, involved in this beautiful act of what I can see now may be a more “true” capitalism, surprisingly true to Adam Smith's vision, per Fixie's excellent contribution.

 It hit me hard, as I saw so utterly and completely how the burgeoning of the international money-exchange has divorced us from our neighbors, from our families and from our own own hands, which now are soft and have few skills, except counting and exchanging of money. No more meeting each other with an eye for what we can do for eachother, no more knowing and trusting that the best quality, and the best intentions are utilized in the production of the goods exchanged. How the best that we have to offer is sacrificed to the demi-gods of efficiency and scale, and the thrill of victory in the money-game.

Thank you all, for such an invigorating discussion!

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

Very interesting topic and well let me try and comment / answer on some questions.  Having studied business both in college and graduate school as well as participating actively in it, the one thing that allways struck me about business and capitalism is its foundation.

The foundation is simply that there exists scarcity on the planet - that we are in fact in a world of scarce resources and so with that in mind, resources are to be fought for, sought after, purchased and sold for a profit - a profit - so that we can buy more and continue the process of acquiring… etc.  This foundation sets forth a bunch of things that within themselves have thier positive and negative attributes.  One question I would add and we could talk about is - what it we thought of the world as not a source of scarcity but more so a place of abundance and the are integrally connected to the wholeness of that manifastation and most importantly that abundance comes and is propetually given and created by the human species and its interconnectedness to the all. - now that would change the perspective!  The problem still seems to be that our arriving at that perspective is a result of having been in the capitalist structure and so now I do think the time is coming where we must move into a new place to work from a new paradigm that can effectively embrace the “next stage.”

So I do think that it comes from lower meme structures related in some way to our very own survival and the shadows that lurk within the human being.  Could be?

Who profits - well at the end of the day we all profit in someway, some profit more than others, and we also all pay the consequences. 

My god the concequences are everywhere in the US =  Mass unhapinnes - transactional relationships - i give you this, you give me love, bla bla bla - I give you that and it become an ever existing exchange of goods and services regardless of whether purchased or not purchased but exchanged yes… and not allways goods but many times just plain love.
- the banishment of soul and the basic process of just living an existence
- we do have access to mass transportation, relative “prosperity” most people live under a roof

When I think of other nations well that is a different discussion. Of course if we are discussing the planet - there does seem to be an inbalance between the northern and southern economies…

Well - some thoughts comming from a beautiful fall sunday in Miami Florida…
me
-

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

Interesting comments. However, I do not believe the foundation of capitalism is “scarcity.”

I believe the foundation of capitalism is the inherent right of each person to enter into an agreement with another person to trade goods or services for something else of value.

That's capitalism in a nutshell.

I do believe capitalism at its core is a simple concept and we should all have a right to engage in it.

Now…beyond that….when corporations are created to have rights of people, etc., there's a lot of room to look at critically.

But everyone should have the right to trade their goods or services for something else of value.

Beyond that, as an environmentalist I question the “the planet is abundant” meme. The fact is, there is only so much oil. That's a scientific fact. Now, we might find other ways to create fuel, but oil itself is a dead-end street and there's no way around it.

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

I like the conversation… I guess for me it is not that scarcity is the only foundation… however when you study business, economics it is one of the first courses you take - micro and macro economics… and my experience was that is was founed on scarcity - economic theory that is.. and so capitalism… - but many times capitalism is also fighting against it the scarcity of oil that you mention.  If you are familiar with integral theory I would say that it is true there are limited resources in the objective world and so for me there at times a sense of scarcity in the subjectivity of how human beings approach work and create groups and exchange… and that is more where I am comming from… and so I do think you are right there is only so much oil - one question that comes to me is then who ownes it?

I do agree with you about the inherent right of each person to enter into an agreement with another… that is the right to create something and then to exchange it - no disagreement there.  But I think that if you are talking about CAPITALISM in the largest sense, then it becomes an inherently much larger discussion and therefore more complex. Much larger than ones right to exchange something for something else?Who really ownes the worlds resources? And how much is a reasonable amount of profit for a good?  What is a fair amount of exchange for something?

Again the process of exchange between two individuals is much different than the creation of an enterprise, an industry and a full fledged economy - so things get a bit fuzier there.

I like your comment on the Oil because I think that is true and then what comes to my mind is that potentially the real understanding that we only have so much oil should push us to conserve it and build machines that use as little of it as possible so that we can extend its usefulness?  So what's the issue now, we drive Hummers and SUV's and go through oil like there is no tomorrow? So what's missing here and why are we not fully accepting responsibility for that?

I think that capitalism as an absolute right of exchange is fine, but there is also responsibility in relationship to those we trade with.  Wouldn't you say?  With that “right” there comes responsibility? and There I think there is an inconguency - but to to over burden the discussion - I'll share that later…

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

Dear Martin,

Very good material here! A few thoughts… scarcity thinking is a big problem. However, we must allow that many resources are indeed limited and being depleted at a frightening rate. As well as looking at our actual abundance, we need to get serious about changing our energy sources to renewable non polluting ones like solar energy (see the article i just posted this morning in my Zed is Us, eh? pod about a suburb in Calgary, Canada that is really serious about solar).

There is certainly no place for scarcity mentality when it comes to things like love… if we do not have enough love, it is perhaps always the case that we are not giving enough away… love is funny that way, the more we give, the more we have…

love,

nicole

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

The following is bound to be long.

I've been thinking a lot a bout reworking economics lately. But before I comment on that, I'd like to give an angle on socialism vs capitalism:

In capitalism, each individual is supposed to be maximizing their profit by their trades with others. This is (theoretically) supposed to mean that every transaction is an overall benefit for the society, because people only trade when it's good for them. People aren't really supposed to be taking advantage of eachother, except where both parties profit. So when everyone maximizes profit for themselves, they also are supposed to be maximizing profit for everyone else.

In socialism, it's more like the state is looking out for everyone. If it's a democracy, that means everyone decides mutually what's best for everyone. Instead of every individual trying to get the resources they need in order to be productive, those basic resources are distributed by society. Therefore, everyone has what they need to benefit society; or, more realistically, they have some set minimum, which they can do something with.

The negative side of capitalism is that people do indeed take advantage of eachother, jacking prices up further than the ideal predicted by economic theory, and using various means of coercion and stealing. Also, since the consumer decides what's valuable and what's not, there is a tendancy to overvalue things such as entertainment, candy, fatty foods, et cetera.

The negative side of socialism is being overcentralized, so that things may become inflexible. Capitalism attempts to grant as muc hfreedom as possible; socialism does not. Also, there is the argument that people may be less motivated in a socialized economy. This is probably somewhat true, though it depends on how wisely the welfare system is set up.


But enough of that. On to economic theory.

First, I should mention that I find it odd that there should be a fixed amount of money. A paper money system requires this. But it fails to reflect any fact about the real world. In the real world, the amount of resources is not fixed. We may discover new raw materials and dig them out of the ground (or chop them down or whatever). But when we do so, the amount of paper money in the world doesn't change. This means, necessarily, that each piece of paper money has increased in value. Also, we may increase the value of a thing by turning it into something else; like turning silicon into computer chips. Again, the amount of value in the world increases, but the amount of money doesn't. Symmetrically, we can use up resources or lose goods as they break over time. In these cases, the value of the dollar should decrease.

Second, I think economic theory might be extended to predict people taking some advantage over eachother. In particular, I think monopoly-like situations, in which one party unfairly manipulates prices, might be predicted. Obviously, this is most likely when there is either one buyer or one seller in a market. (Either a buyer or a seller can take advantage in essentially the same way: refuse to buy/sell unless the other party agrees to a higher/lower price. When the buyers do this, people tend to think if it as a victory of poor against rich. But, really, it's still bad– lower prices makes for less sellers, so people are getting the price they want, but not everyone is being sold to. So it's more a victory of poor against poor, in a way.) The larger the inequality in numbers between buyers and sellers, the more likely the smaller group is to take advantage of the larger. (Yes, sellers are usually fewer. But buyers can be too.) In addition, we've got to take into account the amount of profit that can be made by taking advantage of the other group. This is a function of how flexible their price is; how much you can manipulate it without too many of the other group becoming unable to buy/sell. If the other group is just barely scraping by, it's not possible to extort much more money from them. Similarly, if they don't need the particular transaction badly (if a buyer doesn't need the good badly, or if a seller can make a living in many other ways) then it's hard to extort. In either case (either they are just-barely-scraping-by or they don't need the transaction badly), they will stop trading if you vary the price much, so you can't take advantage of them. This is called “elasticity” by economists; supply or demand is “inelastic” if a wide veriety of prices would draw the same number of transactions, or “elastic” if a change in the price would cause a large change in those willing/able to trade.

Anyway. So: where there is a wide ratio between numbers, the smaller group is quite likely to “capitalize” on the other. Where there is a wide ratio between elasticity, the more elastic group is likely to capitalize. This seems quite mathematical. The probablility of this sort of extortion is something like those two quotients multiplied by eachother. I don't know a lot about advanced economic theory, but I've never heard this idea mentioned before. Maybe it's in the literature somewhere. But, anyway, I think it's cool.

As for a “solution” to the “problem” of capitalism… I agree with the image of the fish. If the big fish at the top eating all the others really are trying to maximize their profits, they should start fish farms. This doesn't fit with the standard image of capitalism, but it doesn't go against the theory at all. What it means is that people should help eachother if they want to profit off of eachother. Actually, it doesn't vary too much from the idea of banks giving people loans. If the loan is used by the person to make themselves economically better off, then they will have little trouble repaying it.  Both sides profit, and in addition there's now more money (well, more value, anyway) out there in general. (On the other hand, if they buy a bigger house, or a motorcycle, or something like that, the principle doesn't apply. If a loan is spend on something that doesn't pay for itself, then there's no good justification for it. That ties back into the capitalist problem of a consumer-led economy: people buy stuff they like, not stuff that's good. For a consumer-led economy to be good, people need to be good decision-makers. We need well-informed consumers and all of that.)

Now, as for oil. Are you aware that there is now a machine that turns organic and plastic waste into oil, including gasoline? Once that technology takes off, there will be no need to suck oil out of the ground– far cheaper to convert garbage into gas. (Yes, garbage. Not the general stuff that goes into the landfill– too tough. The first oil-making factory is taking the skin and bones from a turkey-butchering place and making oil. there are plans to build sewage processing plants that make oil. www.changingworldtech.com, click on “What”.)

I am a bit frustrated with the way the market keeps looking at one alternative to oil after another, and then just when things are getting excited, turns to the next. First, electric cars. Then, hydrogen fuel cells. Now, organic fuels. It's a bit suspicious. Oh well.

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

Words.

We need to dwell on WORDS for a moment.

There is a lot of forgotten history in words. Just take the word Capitalism. An ism that has as a goal to Capitalize. On what, how, to what ends and to the cost of what? There are no inherent answers to that in Capitalism iself. The goal is to turn resources into capital. The only consequence is calculated in Money. Other values, especially those that it is impossible to calculate - the invaluable stuff - is set to “null”.

I'm amazed and glad at the interest this topic has risen here. And I'm even more amazed that it hasn't turned into a flaming war. This means that there are a bunch of interested people who are willing to turn the stones and see what's behind things here. I hope you'll find this next installment on the Crusade to find the truth behind Capitalism vs. Socialism interesting food for thought.


Words.

Capitalism is supposed to be part of what is normally called Economics. So let's look at Economics.

Oiko-nomia, from greek; “The Law about  the House”, how to take care of  a household, husbandry, managing a family's resources wisely. In the extended meaning the managing of the resources of the Earth - Stewardship of Earth. In the wake of Capitalism, it's the opposite we see, no? There are positive things with Capitalism, otherwise we wouldn't use it. There is a grain of hope in the meme of Capitalism, that maybe, just maybe, I too may become filthy rich. And when I do, I'll spit on everybody that has been spitting on me. That is not what Oikonomia is about. But Capitalism is about that among other things. We need to go further to grasp more. Someone argued that Capitalism is good because it means the freedom to trade, but that is not exclusive to Capitalism. Free trade was going on thousands of years before anybody even mentioned money.

Money. 

The first thing that was called money, “moneta”, was a ritual coin designed to be offered to the Godess in the guise of Athena Moneta. It proved valuable as a means of interchange between humans too, as a kind of IOU note. Other things has been used as money too, like the cawrie shell in Oceania. Anything may be used as money as long as some basic things are adhered to. The most important feature is, that we believe in it - that we believe that the money has a value or is backed by a value. The other important feature is, that we trust that this value will stay for a long time so we may use it for it's value.

Economy may prevail without money, but money is a part of economy. Bartering was the traditional concept, and to be blunt, it still is. Money is just a symbolic value used for more efficient barter. In the beginning money was quite a valuable symbol in itself, but now we mostly use electrons. Today, the most important barter we have is the barter with symbols. Cool, isn't it?

Paper bills and coins are the things we think of when someone mentions money, but today that is just about 1-10% of the money stock of a modern nation. Most of our money don't exist in the material world. They are numbers in accounts. If we look at international commerce, about 5% of the value is the trading in goods. The rest - 95% - is making money of money, trading with bonds, stocks, options, papers and… electrons. And about 50% of the real goods trade is oil. Only 2,5% is the things we often think of as being the goods of international trade; cars, clothes, food, music etc etc.

There are lots of things happening in the name of Economics that isn't Economical at all, in it's true sense. In the beginning there was another word. Chrematics. Chremat is “money” in greek. Chrematics - to handle and deal with money; symbolic values. It's interesting to have a name of this un-economical part of economics. Most of the people who call themselves Economists today are Chrematists. They are not working with the wise allotment of resources of the Earth. They are working with making money out of money.

What do you say? I propose that we use the word Economy henceforth to describe a sane, wise and pretty much fair distribution of resources to cover our human needs and at the same time taking care of the Earth as a whole. And that we use Chrematics to describe the fast and furious life in the fast lane where the name of the game is to gain money, to be indescribably rich and wealthy, the “he who owns the most when he dies wins” mentality and everything that has to do with money.

More words to come,
Stella

Re: Capitalism - busting the Usury and IOU meme

I am glad i landed here from another pod. Thanks for all the thoughtful posts by Stella and others.

I have been using the Power of MasterMind online with virtual strangers (who function at same vibration, because there is this instant strong connection I feel) to seed many ideas following my vision written on early  2001

Here is my powerful intention written in 2004 on creating planetary abundance for all. By clicking on it you energize it.

Also download my 17 page article on Transforming Money to Transform Capitalism and post and share it widely.

We do have the power now to collectively change the last five thousand years of memes that has been controlling humanity through divide and rule.

Thanks for your support. See my community activism story on this issue in My Blog

Peace & Joy
mita

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

I like it. More intelligent people. More intelligent and investigative minds to uncover this meme, or system of memes, possibly.

I've tried to start civil discussions about the Economic meme in other places where people seemed to be interested, but it usually boiled down to an ardent defense of the current system and attacks on my person for rocking the boat. I have learned to cover my identity that way. I realised I started signing off here with my real name, Stella. That's what happens when I start to feel comfy in a place - the long standing Fixie tag isn't needed anymore. Thanks guys!

Susmita put in some more interesting facts, and gave input to another tangent in this entagled and complex thing we call Economics, or Chrematics.

Eco-nomics and Eco-logy uses the same root for a reason. When we see clashes between them, when Economy seems to be un-ecological, it's not economy any more. I covered this earlier in this thread, but it's both useful and fruitful to delve more deeply into this “new meme”. I think memes are useful because they work as a kind of social infrastructure, but when they start to backlash, it's time to divest them, as we are doing here. A pity that society at large cling to memes as if they were the Truth.

Another aspect of money and usury that I wanted to touch down on - and I don't know yet if Susmita writes about this too - is that usury can be used inversely, and anybody may issue money. It's all about trust, remember.

Examples:
Guernsey is one of the Channel Islands south of Britain. In 1815 it was very poor, but interest-free money was issued to rebuild and develop life in the island. From Wikipedia:

“Unlike many countries Guernsey has not delegated money-creation to the central bank and has instead issued interest-free money since 1816. As a result the government has not had to use increasing amounts of tax revenue to repay debt to the central bank, which has led to low income tax rates, no goods and services tax and no capital gains tax.”

(Hilarious digression: I was too lazy to look in my old (swedish) books and papers and translate things, so I googled “Guernsey money 1815” to get info in English for this post. The first link in the list leads to Susmita's page… LOL.)

More examples:
In a little town called Wörgl in Austria, there was a monetary experiment in 1932-33. The mayor decided to issue local currency with inversed interest. Read more at:
http://www.reinventingmoney.com/worglCurrDemurr.php

In several places all over the globe there are LETS rings. People who use a local, interest-free currency. Big ones in South-America, Ithaka in New York state and Snowy Mountains in Australia.


Wikipedia on LETS:

Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS) also known as LETSystems are local, non-profit exchange networks in which goods and services can be traded without the need for printed currency.

LETS networks use interest-free local credit so direct swaps do not need to be made. For instance, a member may earn credit by doing childcare for one person and spend it later on carpentry with another person in the same network. In LETS, unlike other local currencies, no scrip is issued, but rather transactions are recorded in a central location open to all members. As credit is issued by the network members, for the benefit of the members themselves, LETS are considered mutual credit systems.

Michael Linton originated the term “Local Exchange Trading System” in 1982 and, with his wife Shirley, for a time ran the Comox Valley LETSystems in Courtenay, British Columbia. The system he designed was intended as an adjunct to the national currency, rather than a replacement for it, although there are examples of individuals who have managed to replace their use of national currency through inventive usage of LETS.

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

Maybe the topic is expanding to rapidly in all directions? So, I'll tighten it back on track to Capitalism and the meme of that.

The roots. Industrialism and production of goods. Turning natural resources into the symbolic value of money. One of the more interesting things about the Guernsey currency, was that the first pounds issued in 1815-16 was paid to craftsmen to build roads and an indoor market place. The money could be used in the whole society, but when they got back to the authorities they were cancelled, destroyed - put out of circulation.

I often mull on etymology. Chremat, a word that means money in greek. Crematory - from Latin “burn up”. Is there a link? Mortage - mort is “death”. Is there a memory in the language that money that has been used up for it's purpose is to be “killed”? In the 90'ies the CEO for BP (formerly British Petroleum, even more formerly Best Persian), can't remember the name, said that there are about 34 billion dollars worth of money TOO MUCH int the financial system world wide. A simple IOU note is “killed” when the debt is payed, but banks seem to be free to “produce” money at will. Then they charge anybody who needs to use it for interest - money that is invented but not even produced. The money system is huge and it takes some effort to even begin to understand it.

As a method to understand complex and huge systems, one may simplify things. Let's simplify the money and banking system into one little island, three people and 100 dollars. A have all the money, B needs them to build a house from material that C owns. B takes a loan of 100 dollars to build his house. A says “OK, but I'll want interest. 10% per year.” So A borrows the money, pays C the 100 dollars. C put them to A who says “wow, 100 dollars more and gives a new loan to B, so that B may pay back the money, but there is still no money in this little system of 100 dollars to cover the interest that have made the stock of money to grow to 110 dollars the first year, 121 the second year and 133 dollars the third year. There is now a difference between the nominal value of the money and the circulated value. This is inflation, so forget the political and chrematistic BS that higher salaries to poor workers will cause inflation. It doesn't really. What does, is the system with interest.

Ok, this little example is too simple to explain everything about the financial system, but it starts a process of thought. There are other questions this example arises, like; who gave A the right to issue currency, and how on Earth can B be the owner of all building material on this little island? Isn't that unfair? What do you think?

/Fixie

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

Hi Fixie,

Did a quick google on the word Mortgage and came up with this:

Etymologically speaking, mortgage literally means, “dead pledge” or a “pledge of death.”  It comes to us from Latin:   mort (“death”) + gage (“pledge”).   Remember what a mortgage is:  It is a legal pledge that says the person will pay a specified amount of money for a piece of property, and so to guarantee that that payment is fully made within the time specified, the property is “pledged” to the creditor who so that should the person buying the property fail to make payment, the property belongs to the creditor and is hence “dead”  (no more, no longer available) to the tenant.

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

There is an almost religious belief held by many about capitalism. Criticism is usually met with aggressive defense. Somehow Capitalism has become a label of freedom and the right to be free and mind one's own business. Criticism against it is interpreted as criticism against evolution, a free society, free will, market economy, liberal thought etc etc. It instantly produces a reaction of “so you want socialism, then, huh?”. But Socialism is nothing but another meme that is worth of busting, a meme that perpetuates a third meme, that there is only two possible choices - black or white. An old jewish saying goes like this: “If there are only two alternatives, choose the third one.”

There are three main perspectives in understanding this meme and the reactions toward the  criticism that I would like to address and discuss here;
- where does Capitalism come from?
- who profits from Capitalism being the backbone of western society?
- what are the consequences of the Capitalistic system?

Ok, I was getting a little lost reading through all the replies so I had to go back and capture the original question/thought.

I'd say most of my life I've been going through an inner conflict because I did believe there was Way #1 and Way #2 and my family, being staunch Capitalists would call me a “Danged Democrat” every time I'd question, wonder or wander too far to Way #2 (Socialism or anything else).

Ayn Rand's writings and philosophies really rang true with me but always seemed to be missing something.  But then again, at the opposite end of the spectrum, social unity even in work appealed to my innate craving for Oneness.  Funny how once I did think “Why does it have to be #1 or #2, where's #3 I shortly thereafter found zaadz!  LOLOL.

I think capitalism comes from man's desire to be rewarded for uniqueness, ingenuity or hard work.  Someone wants to “capitalize” on an idea solely theirs or wants to “capitalize” on the work they do, especially when its done by giving up time, energy and “self” resources that is done in pursuit of something not “true” to ones' self (personal happiness, joy, etc.).  And because a few created this, based on “getting ahead” or “making money”, the rest HAD to follow because money became what paid the bills, took care of one's family, etc.

Who profits?  Depends on what you mean by “profits”.  Everyone who plays the game profits.  Anyone who goes to work for a paycheck would say techinically they “profit” even if they don't feel very rich.  And that would be the end of it.

What are the consequences?  Look around, its easy to see… few being satisfied, few knowing Joy, many disillusioned, many stressed and all that those things lead to such as mental problems, societal problems (crime, poverty), health problems.

What is #3?  Not some Galt's Gulch as Rand suggests that's for sure.  Why not?  Because the residents of Galt's Gulch still put the Self before Oneness.  They were still using resources with little thought to overall consequences and the system was based on “value” that was shared - a sort of money.  I think, beyond “informed consumers”, Way #3 won't really be discovered or even realized until we get past this whole “conscious consumerism” thing and see what else lies beyond, just like we wouldn't have gotten to this point without going through the ugliness of industrialization/capitalism.  Things have to follow their story line, kwim?

I'd be ecstatic, if in my lifetime, 20% of the world's population learned to love and appreciate the interconnectedness of everything and everyone on a level large enough for it to become a point of education (which it has not yet) vs. the regurgitation of “right” answers to questions of “fact”.  Environmentalism has taken how long to take hold?  My entire life span (I'm 36, almost).  Yet it is still viewed as an all or nothing proposal instead of a fluid relationship.  We can exploit resources or we can be “hands off”.  Anything “in between” is inadequate.  We HAVE to be Vegan to be “right” or we HAVE to get rid of oil useage and instead find the other ONE right way to power our dreams.  I think instead, later, probably after I die (lol) it will become apparent that for as many individuals as there are on the planet, for as many species as there are on the planet, there are that many “right ways” and that respect for how the individual fits into the One will take more love and understanding than 99% of the world is capable of right now.  I think until a basic understanding of essential truths are communicated and widely understood then any “system”, capitalism, socialism, environmentalism, greenism or any other ism will just be another experiment in the unfolding of the story of the planet, another chapter, not the happy ending.

I think you could take that and apply it to any other “system” you'd like to debate - the U.S. current political “system”, the interaction of nations hurting each other in the name of “rightness”, the U.S. education system, France's system for employment, China's system for population control…..

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

Perhaps the ferocity with which we cling to our socially-constructed ideological machine of capitalism derives in some measure from the Puritan belief that God's favor manifests in the success of entrepreneurial endeavor and accumulation of wealth. Wealth was seen as the trophy you get for your faith and spiritual compliance.  As you can see, it seems a pretty convenient self-referential definition to bolster acceptance for an otherwise pretty distasteful class system…

(Of course, this may be uniquely American and terribly ethnocentric…? I wonder, how integral are American values to the foundation of global capitalism?)

I have often wondered if it is simply a matter of development. If our human species is currently developed to, say, something analogous to an “adolescent” stage, we would expect a tight focus on material aspects of things. We would expect more arrogance and territorial posturing, not only for real estate and commodities (which could be consistent with pre-adolescent concrete-operational thinking), but also for ideas (reflecting perhaps the development of the ability to abstract).

But I am witnessing such a flowering of awareness, on Zaadz and elsewhere, that I wonder what will happen as the weight of the aggregate shifts toward a more refined perception, and more of us become adept at making subtle distinctions. Perhaps we will all just grow up! But surely, at least, awareness will broaden to perceive more than point/counterpoint, expand beyond its current dichotomies.

And wouldn't that be a global relief! She sighs as she gingerly takes the nuclear button from the toddler in the playpen…

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

With so many people around, I think we need systems. They are the social infrastructure we use to understand society and to maintain the social web. But how they look and work is a measurement of our combined level of consciousness.

Many of the systems or memes we use today are quite old and not up to date with the latest findings in philosophy, ecology, quantum physics etc. The social order always drag along long after changes in the technoshere. We tend to stick with things that are familiar and traditional. If something doesn't work very well any longer to make us fulfill the goals of society, we change, but oh so slowly. If we don't have a vision of a better future, we won't change very much at all. So, I see this meme busting pod as an interesting place to discover and compare our individual visions. There is also a saying from the Bible “A people without a vision is a dead/doomed people”.

One may see Capitalism as being the most free system for transferring goods and services, but from the seeds of it, we also see that it isn't enough for giving us what we really need. Greeds vs Needs. I'd say Capitalism is great in fulfilling some needs and to further our greeds. What I think we are closing in on here is the part of the Capitalistic meme that says that resources are endless and if we go out of one thing, oil for instance, there is something else to exploit. To use nature or abuse her, that is the question here. Our capitalistic meme says it's ok to pick things from nature, make something of it (by one self or by help of employees) and sell it with a profit. Nothing bad in it as such, but when the taking from Nature give us problems and threatens our very existance, I believe it's time to start to value things in another way. And I believe we need a new way of looking at values and Earth as a commodity there for anyone to grab at at will.

At the time TV here are sending a serialisation of the movie The Planet. This year have seen several documentaries about the state of the Earth and the huge changes the halting value systems has led us into. In this movie someone said “We can't afford the luxury of third world poverty”. So, what is the answer to that? For many it it to “teach them capitalism” so that nobody will be poor anymore, but that can't be the answer. The one nation on this Earth that uses the most resources per capita and produces the most garbage and pollution per capita is also the “home of democracy and free trade” (blah-blah-blah), the nation that promotes Capitalism as the answer to all the problems of the world. I believe it's true that we cannot afford the luxury of third world poverty, but I'm also likewise convinced we cannot afford the luxury of an “economy” that destroys the ecology we all need to even breath.

Something is changing, and the changes are fast now. I live in the northern hemisphere at the 60th latitude. It should be cold and even quite some snow around here now - it's drawing to the end of November. Temperatures has been around plus 10 C. Today it has been raining. Big drops like it use to rain in the middle of the summer, with thunderstorms! In November. Thunderstorms we have in the summer, never in the autumn, winter or springtime. This is bad.

For me, there is no hope in “conscious capitalism” because it reeks of the cowboy mentality that there is pristine land just ahead to be exploited and (ab)used. There is no pristine land left on this globe. There is no more resources that aren't claimed as belonging to some private or national entity. Some people has even been trying to sell bits of the Moon some years ago. The capitalistic meme says you shallt maximise thine profit on behalf of lesser beings.

Someone earlier in this thread wrote about slavery and how it is abolished. Not really. According to numbers put in by unions from all over the world, there is about 100 million people working as slaves. Kids tied to a sewing machine so they can't escape etc. Around 1 billion people live on less than 2 dollars a day. And they don't think twice about deforestation of draught or whatever. They need food and will do what it takes to get it.

We can't afford poor people, but we can't afford grotesquely rich people either. We can't afford a system that systematically use the poorer masses to build wealth for a few lucky ones. So how would a system look like, that take into consideration that there is just so many “free” resources, a system that counts in the costs for invaluables, a system that distributes goods in a way that insures that there are no poor people? Capitalism with it's built in features doesn't. Socialism doesn't. What could?

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

Is there any way to confine capitalism to markets and assign the distribution of social goods to socialism? Can we change laws to divert essential commodities to a system that is an arm of social justice?

Perhaps we could grow more of the LETS networks you spoke of?

But this doesn't approach the issue you present in your last post, Fixie, which is the depletion of natural resources to begin with. This is within the purveyance of Ecology, like you said. I love the common language root. And that economy, if I am going to the grocery store, means being thrifty, conserving… Maybe as long as these two concepts are so widely separated in our minds, we will not be able to see a solution, should one present itself.

But the sense of onrushing time! That truly gets me. Chaos theory tells us that we won't know when we pass the point of no return. And as resources get scarcer, people tend to become more aggressive and less intelligent.  Are we down to planning what we can do better next time? As we pick up the pieces after the next ice age and mass extinction?

I truly don't want to be fatalistic. I want to see the situation clearly. If there is any path to sanity from this place, just show me a sign! 

And I will meet you there with everything I have to offer.

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

So why not bust the “society needs systems” meme while you're at it?  Because no “system” can ever be “complete” because when you try to please a “majority” someone gets left out, left wanting or left as “wrong”.  In “systems” there is no respectable space for individuals within the room of One.

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

I wonder if there are variations in the ability of a system to be just. I see many systems lose intelligence as they begin to focus more on the needs of the system itself rather than those of whom the system is purported to serve. This appears to correlate with a growing tendency to resist and/or distort feedback and the proliferation of a self-serving cover-your-ass and a spend-every-dime-in-the-budget-so-we-won't-lose-our-allocation mentality… pretty mindless.

So perhaps intelligent systems could be designed that adequately accept and respond to feedback. This would at least mimic an intelligent system anyway. And could address the issue of injustice, which tends to be a pernicious effect of mindlessness and fear.

Can society do without systems? I don't think so. In my thinking, society is a system. A system is created between as few as two people, according to theory. But I go even farther, because I have noticed that even my interior relationships appear to be a system. I think systems belong to the universe as a naturally emerging dynamic between interacting and balancing forces. Kind of ubiquitous, and maybe outside the applicable range defined by “meme.”

Maybe systems are like a gun, reflecting the intent of the mind behind it…

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

What about “society needs some kind of framework so the individual entities may interact and navigate efficiently”. The sense of One is something to strive for, but I think that it will take quite a few generations until we are there. In the meantime, I believe we may do better than “business as usual”, or even that “business as usual” will be the stick prodding us toward the abyss. Even our bodies are structured as systems with differentiation between cells and organs, with it's internal communication systems. We are captured in the third dimension and as inert physical beings have to deal with that. But that is just officially my personal meme about how this world works. Secretely I hold the notion that we are nothing but aggregations of energy playing out a drama to some end or other - for fun, to learn, what do I know…

I have said the word “value” once or twice already. I guess that is one of the most important aspects of this meme. How do we value things, other people, the Earth, fresh water and air, healthy food, silence and all other natural things that we need in order to function properly as humans? We don't really need plasma tv's, computers, fast cars, fast food and all that, even though we have come to depend on them and take them for granted. Don't get me wrong - I LOVE to drive my car and use my computer and see movies - but I don't NEED it to sustain a good living. Under the circumstances it would impede my usual habits if I didn't have a computer and car, but many of these habits are not sustainable in the long run, and if a new, sustainable, society would emerge, I will probably not need a car anyway, as the habits would change too.

In the 90'ies I was involved in some work evolving some ways for local communities to calculate their impact on the environment. Some of the thoughts I had then didn't fit the picture (meme) of how much was indeed needed to change into a sustainable community. Many of the features were merely cosmetic to please the local leadership and to just rock the boat very gently, not to stirr emotions too much. What I was asking for then, was to create quotas for the community. To use the Wackernagel footprint method to see how large the area of the community would have to be to sustain it's inhabitants, and thus be able to set goals on how to rebuild the community in a more sustainable direction. It didnt' sit nicely with the higher echelons of the organisation I was in. It was too revolutionary. Not to compare with the revolutionary changes that will occur if we exceed the carrying capacity of this globe, though…

Would it be possible to calculate how much food, oil, trees and meat every person on the globe would be intitled to at birth, and how much garbage, polluted air and such that every individual were entitled to produce? Yes, more or less, with enough fuzziness. That would be one thing to be conscious about in the scheme of all things. To see how my impact on Earth grows for every year. If it were feasible to actually count numbers for this, maybe we could put our rights on the market, as the emission bubbles.

One other aspect of values and the Chrematic meme (as I use to call this thing called Economics) is that everything is a question of maxima and minima. Minimum wages for maximum profits. Minimize costs to maximize owners returns. Where is optimum? There is a group of people a few miles away from where I live. They rebuilt the local water power station and are producing enough to run a small mill and a few households. “Power experts” have been there and told them that they may produce so and so much more electricity if they just take more water from the little lake. But the villagers refuse to do that. They admit to using an amplitude of 5 centimeters from the lake. It's enough. In the process some of the fish that used to live there has come back. Would they let out more water from the lake, the trout would not like it, and vanish again. The trout is more important to the villagers, than to be able to sell some electricity. That is a moral standpoint and a decision based in knowledge about the nature where they live and the consequences of doing differently.

Mainstream humans are ecological illiterates, to put it bluntly. Either we exert ourselves teaching and learning about the limits to the Earth, and maybe the capitalistic meme may persist - if we can become conscious enough about it's limits. But is it sustainable to have a tool that is so sharp and complex, so that every user have to be an expert, not only in the tool, but also in a diversity of topics to be able to yield it properly? Or is there something else that helps us better to live good lives without us being a constant threat to the extinction of our own species?

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

“Secretely I hold the notion that we are nothing but aggregations of energy playing out a drama to some end or other - for fun, to learn, what do I know…”

See!  Don't keep it a secret.  I hold the notion that we are nothing but aggregations of energy except I don't see it as we ARE or HAVE to play out a drama to some end or other.

And what is scaring me a little more is that people in the conversation above are substituting the word “Systems” for “relationships”.  Just shoot me now.

So.

Question.

How many have read “Small is Beautiful”?

And agree with it?

TBS - why aren't “relationships” more beautiful as small?

Don't ask me how this pertains to the capitalism meme because I'm not done with the book yet.  I'm at the chapter about Socialism :)

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

“Secretely I hold the notion that we are nothing but aggregations of energy playing out a drama to some end or other - for fun, to learn, what do I know…”

Secretely…. ok, not really secretely because I blab about it to everyone and don't care that people think I'm bonkers *I* hold the notion that we are nothing but aggregations of energy except leave off the rest of your sentence.  We don't HAVE to or are NOT playing out a drama to some end or other.  That would go beyond the natural laws of energy.  That would be like saying every seed that wasn't defective was going to grow into a strong perfect tree without respecting the energy of the chipmunk, my lawn mower, etc.

enough of that.

Just one other comment because I think I'm done because I'm kind of sick (danged kids).  Its scaring me that people in the conversation above are basically substituting the word “System” for “relationships”.  To me there is a huge difference.  One totally unnecessary where the other is honored.

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

hahaha, first said it lost my first post so I tried to recreate it.  not bad, sort of close.  sorry about the double post but both had a point so I'll leave them both.

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme: usury and IOU

For lack of time I am posting my abstract here. Again I am talking about going beyong micofinance, community currency and LETs which do not provide a sufficient alternative to current centralized/privatized monopoly money system where real control is in the hands of few (but not publicly known). See what's wrong with usury, why it is mathematically unsustainable, why money as it stands now is not a 'store of value' (gold standard taken off fully in early 1970's and existed only as fractional reserve system before that as only 4% of total money supply). Here is the abstract, but i tried giving specific dysfunctions inherent in the current system.

ABSTRACT: This paper examines the nature of 'capital' in Capitalism, the eye of the needle. The part of man-made economic system (a sub-system of ecological system) that has gotten most stuck, most unbalanced and blatantly top-heavy is the monetary system we inherited from colonnial-industrial times following the model of Bank of England (see history). Monetary reform, micro-finance and local currency together do not provide a sufficiently viable alternative to myriad systemic problems generated by the current debt-based usurious centralized financial system at national and global levels. Current fiat money and banking system adopted in most nations in the post colonnial period is in fact mathematically unsustainable, logically unsound and ethically indefensible. Transforming the very perception and definition of money and some flawed economic assumptions are required if mankind as a species intends to transcend all the self-destructive and suicidal dysfunctions inherent in unexamined capital economy in order to restore the health of the planet and people and secure the future of our children in the coming decades.

This paper discusses some ideas about transforming money from its current unconscious state that produces increasing poverty, inequality, war, human rights abuses and debt-slavery of people and massive waste of natural capital and societal breakdowns to a state where money becomes a conscious publicly supported debt-free/taxfree medium of delivery and circulation that allows free flow and self-organiztion of all land, labor and human capital from community level upwards to global level. This non-dual, non-competitive, holistic and publicly adopted decentralized form of trust money (ITU), as opposed to centralized monopolized inaccessible debt-money (IOU) would foster unprecedented cooperation and true empowerment of all individual and communities, public and private initiatives irrespective of economic and cultural differences, peaceful participatory democracy and sustainable use of both the natural resources and indigenous human capital.

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

Here's an excerpt from an article at AlterNet - http://www.alternet.org/story/45221/. The first four reasons are snipped, but the fifth and sixth deals with the Economics meme and has been left intact.



Six Ways That Changing Your Life Can Prevent Global Warming


All of the reasons for our failure to address global warming are known. But they are not known widely and deeply enough to send us rushing down the street on bicycles or even in four-cylinder cars.

Still, we want something to be done. Are we waiting for Al Gore? Is it possible it all depends on our own little selves?

A very simple axiom is at play: The better we understand our own contribution to the paralysis, the freer we become to act effectively.

Six reasons or conditions that facilitate global warming are presented here, and each is related to the others.

Reason number one is the indifference that so many of us have for our own health. When we don't care about our health, we won't care about the health of the planet.

Problem number two is our fear. Irrational fears abound in the psyche and are projected into the world. We have many kinds of fear, including fear of fear itself, along with fear of change, of loss, of helplessness, of abandonment, and of death. Courage is admired because it moves us through our fear.

The male values of power and domination constitute problem number three. Supreme gratification and egotistical aggrandizement reward man for his conquest of nature. Globalization is, in part, his quest to extend his “triumph” to all peoples and cultures.

Reason number four finds us plagued with an overabundance of political leaders who won't lead. These men and women tend to be followers. They follow the polls that guide their re-election priorities as well as the economic elite's signals in favor of the status quo.

Number five on this list brings us to a serious fault line in our economic system. An underground stress is cracking the bedrock of capitalism. A leakage of fascism at the core of capitalism lies exposed by this failure to take appropriate action against global warming.

Fascism is, in part, an ill-fated approach to national governance that has obliterated all authority within its boundaries capable of stopping its destructive expansionism. In the United States, a fascist position might soon be formalized when the Supreme Court determines a case involving the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA's refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions is being challenged in the Supreme Court, and at least four conservative justices seem to believe, along with the Bush Administration, that the agency should not be regulating if it cannot show specific damages traceable to controllable emissions from cars and power plants.

If this narrow legal view prevails and the case is lost, one less impartial authority is left to make vital decisions regarding global warming. As a nation, then, we would be in a plight similar to that of a person who, because of a psychopathic or psychotic condition, can't make decisions between right and wrong.

Reason number six finds us waiting in vain for economics to lead us out of the impasse presented by global warming. Economics has failed dismally to protect us from the excesses of capitalism.

Adam Smith's old discipline, as now practiced at the highest levels, is no longer an exploratory system concerned with politics, sociology, and psychology. Computer-driven economics has lost (passively forfeited to its financial masters) the authority to speak to larger issues such as global warming and is left only to pontificate on profitability probabilities.

What now is the prognosis for action on global warming? Stubborn free-market ideologues are allowing conditions to deteriorate. As we bring our predicament into focus, we see an irrational and therefore illegitimate authority – like that of a raging, addictive, or bipolar parent – “taking care of us.”

Are we going to be children? Or will our moral and psychological ascendancy save the world?



Peter Michaelson is a psychotherapist in Pasadena, CA. He is author of Democracy's Little Self-Help Book, and he can be reached at PeterMichaelson.com.

A film about this!

http://www.indebtwetrust.com/aboutthefilm.html

Re: A film about this!

This film is about debt and consumerism, not capitalism.  In the director's words:

Over the past 25 years, America has moved from a society based on production to a nation driven by consumption; from a country that once shared its resources with the world to one deeply in debt to foreign banks and countries - to the tune of trillions of dollars.

In other words, this is a recent problem within capitalism, not a problem with capitalism itself.  There are plenty of criticisms of capitalism itself, but that is not the film's message.

Given that the debt game is destructive, there are three choices an individual can make:

1. Refuse to play the game.

2. Play the game on the losing side (go into debt to buy stuff).

3. Play the game on the winning side.

I'm taking the third path.  On paper, I have a ridiculous amount of credit card debt, but… it's all from those 0% or .99% introductory offers with the blank checks that I get in the mail.  I don't spend any of the money, I put it all in savings accounts and CDs returning over 5%.  So, while I have a lot of debt, I have no net debt, and I can unwind everything over the internet in a few days if I need to.

I have no idea why the credit card companies haven't figured out that they're losing money on me, but in the meantime, it's free money.

Re: A film about this!

Hi, I'm new to the group and found this a very interesting discussion.
I was thinking about the inner value system in Capitalism. To bust the meme of Capitalism is first done in a mind process. We see the outer consequences of a 'free' market economy, but the inside consequence is the idea of possession. Can we posses anything for ourselves? Can we posses the Earth, or do we live here?

Where does an idea come from? Is it something coming out of my mind, or is it something that comes to me in the process of learning and living? How can I own an idea if it builds upon ideas of others? What does it do for our future progress to deny people the ability to built upon my ideas? This would put the whole idea of patents into the discussion. The whole problem in Capitalism is that we claim things for ourselves. Our talents, our ideas, our work, our progress, our learning capabilities. There is no gratitude for the gifts Life gave us, and no urge to give something back (or perhaps there is, but is found unrealistic). That's perhaps that Life works unconditionally. It just gives Life and doesn't ask for something in return. It almost seems like a natural law we didn't discover yet, or that just didn't fit in our world image.

Development also seems like a natural gift. A child learns to walk, talk and think, play roles, ask questions and discover larger perspectives on reality as it goes on. Ideas come into our minds if we are ready for them. Maybe the collective mind is getting ready to shift to a new perspective on value and property and can break the illusion of possession. We must also take into account the multi-generational conditioning we received in our upbringing, marketing, schooling and culture. Marketingbudgets are growing and growing and target younger viewers. The youngsters grow up in a web of commercialised hard core Capitalism and in opposite of one message of truth, a thousand messages of bull come over them.

This money problem goes so deep into the foundations of our societies and our thinking, that it will be very hard to change this idea. But I do not think it is impossible. It starts with a seed ( een zaadje) .

Re: A film about this!

excellent! so that the meme within the meme is the idea of possession itself, which distinguishes us as units so that ownerships can be determined, which is the nuts and bolts of capitalism

This conceptual foundation impedes perception of self as beings, verbs, processes in a matrix of processes, no more nor less important, or entitled to ownership of objects or ideas than the next. A more accurate perception of our actual interdependence.

definitely food for thought! thank you.

Capitalism - busing a meme

This excellent and interesting subject is extremely timely.
The old trick-down theory has trickled all over everyonoe underneath the rich for far too long.
It needs to be readdressed for the very near future, given that there are now ten times too many of our own specie infesting the fragile planet we call home.
The wealth distribution is nil.
One percent controls 96 percent of all wealth.
The povery is excruciating for at least five of the six billions of people alive today.
Every three seconds another child dies of starvation.

Given this scenario, debating the economic systems and the mores that have led to this disastrous state of the world must be addressed.

In reading the titls, I was thinking of one thing - Long LIve the Gypsies!
Why?
Because in their culture, there is no word for ownership. No concept for individual possession, let alone for hoarding.
To a Gypsy, or rather, a Rom, a cut flower is a symbol of death, not a gift.
The world belongs to everyone, no matter of what specie, and is to be shared, like the sunshine - and I'm very sure someone has already patented that!

The very idea that someone could patent a seed gives you the insane extremes to which captialism has been allowed to stretch.
Decency, let alone sharing and caring, have been made to mean, along with Marxism and other economic systems like Socialism, and Communism, something to be wary of.
Why?
They're simply other economic systems set up initially out of the compassion of their originators.
Perhaps good old Adam Smith and the others who caused teh landslide of capitalism we live under today had initially meant well, but all forms of economic systems are prey to human error.
It is not easy to govern people, to make sure they all get taken care of, and to control the marketing set-ups of indiivdual nations, let alone of the world.

But let's at least get all the economic models out of the closet, dust them off, and look through them again to glean some fresh ideas!
The world is in dire need.
We need to dis-attach ourselves from the idea that other economic systems are dirty words, and we need to honestly, openly discuss the present and the future in terms we begin to create now.

First, though, is to decide - do the starving billions matter to the wealthy nations?
We know we can come up with answers on how to save the world.
We know we can stop breeding and can make sure all nations have contraception.
We can adopt instead of having kids.
We can go green with our food which will save the world.
We can decide to face the three biggest issues of life and to do the right thing :
Greening our food
Sharing our wealth and resources
Stopping human overopopulation

Also
Visit
    How to Save the World Grown by Kai

These are my pods: Join us!
 Child-Free Grown by Ocean 

 Veganize Grown by Ocean

And remember, we can drop the old ways and choose the new!

Re: A film about this!

It seems to me that the concept of ownership is deeply intertwined with the concept of justice and with the law. In order to decide when one person has injured another, we draw the lines of ownership. Crossing them is considered an injury. Interesting. What are the alternatives?

(1) We must react to others in a way that discourages them doing damage and encourages them doing good. When the reaction is after-the-fact it is called justice.

(2) In order to enable certain more difficult actions of justice, and in order to make justice as common as possible, we enact civil and criminal law.

(3) Civil law, and parts of criminal law, currently rely on ideas such as personal property.

This system might be modified in several ways. First, a society might try to emphasize prevention instead of justice. Second, a society might use alternative justice systems; a lot of options exist here. Third, a society could try to base it's laws on different concepts (regardless of the justice system that enforces the laws).

So recognizing that “capitalism” is really just the intuitive extension of the concept of ownership changes this from a discussion about alternative economies and greed into one about alternative law systems and a concept of justice. (Note, justice is less obviously evil.)

Good insight.

Redrawing the lines of ownership.

Great concept.

How can we avoid that if property was removed out of the law books that not a dozen strange families come live in our houses?

I don't think we should do that.

Redrawing lines of ownership of corporations would help a great deal. As a corporation is considered to have the rights of a person, while it is no person, it would be a good thing to look at other alternatives for the role of corporations in our societies. Corporations serving the public need create a fear driven image of communism. Communism as we know it is however a big central Government controlling the masses. Deregulation would be great to counter that. Keep the distance between power and people as short as possible and only manage the things that need world wide managing in a central place.

This really crunches my mind. I'm not intelligent enough to rethink the world. This world wide managing system would hardly be democratic in my mind. Topics as environment, human rights and security (as in protecting the underdog for abuse) are almost impossible to rule on a base of consensus as in a democracy. Nothing would get done. Deep inside humans is however a consensus where all know right from wrong, but only real wisdom seems to have some connection to this place. Democracy uses the power of avarage consciousness.  

It also would affect education. What do we want our kids to know about the world and our place in the universe?

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

Perhaps it will happen gradually and naturally. One could argue that credit cards are today breaking down the concept of personal ownership of money– since with a credit card you don't spend your own money. I  hope that more benevolent forms of credit (credit unions perhaps?) become as fluid and commonplace as credit cards are becoming. This would cause every purchase to be seen as an investment, and the better an investment it was, the more money you'd be allowed to spend. Also, probably, the “rich” people would be the ones with the highest credit scores (having been wise investors in the past), not the ones with lots of money. It would be similar to communism (everyone gets their basic needs paid for, I imagine, because a union is investing in it's members, and a healthy member is certainly worth more) but democratic and voluntary (you can switch credit unions).

This is perhaps a bit far-fetched. But imagine how much more sucessfull a credit card company would be if it encouraged wise spending by lowering interest rates on good investments. The more money the people with credit cards make, the more money the credit card company can make (so long as they keep using the credit card on purchases proportional to their expected income).

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

But imagine how much more sucessfull a credit card company would be if it encouraged wise spending by lowering interest rates on good investments.

Do you really think this would work but somehow no one in the financial industry has ever thought of it before?  Think about it from the bank's point of view.  Do the math.  Better yet, put yourself in their shoes.  Encourage wise spending by lending your money at low interest rates to people who will make “good investments”.  Either you will become fantastically wealthy or you will find out why it isn't such a good idea.

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

Yea, it's quite possible it wouldn't work… because people with money don't necessarily use their credit cards as much. The goal of the credit card company has to be increasing amount borrowed by the user, and also ensuring that that amount gets paid back.

Obviously, though, banks already change their willingness to give loans based on what the receiver will spend it on. They won't give you two thousand dollars to throw a party, unless your credit rating is through the roof (and even then, I suspect not). A credit card, on the other hand, doesn't care. All I'm realy suggesting is that this oversight may eventually be fixed. (I suppose the variable-interest proposal is only one possibility, and not necessarily the likliest.)

But, even if that's not the case, I think the same sort of thing can happen in different ways. For example: the internet opens up the buying and selling of stocks to many people. This means more investing. If it became similarly more commonplace to incorperate as a business, and release stock for investors, then a similar phenomenom would take place (to some degree). A cool idea could gain investors overnight from all over the world, via the internet. So, again, property becomes less important, and predicted worth (be it credit rating or just investment appeal) becomes the primary determiner of who's rich and who's poor.

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

Who runs the credit companies?  What power would that give those credit companies that can determin whether or not your investment is considdered good?
Selling arms would be a better investment then supplying food for your children, or for the people who starve.

The ones that give you credit (money) are not that much interested in profit (they make the money). They are interested in the power the debt gives them over your life. This is the yellow brick road to slavery. It also leads to a forceful need to grow. You need to repay your debt to the credit companies. Natural growth knows a natural ending. You don't grow a lot further when you are grown up. Interest payments force you to grow further even when you already have all you need. Then you need to create a new demand. Sell some gadgets, raise the prices, cheaper labour, lobby for more subsidies, let people compete with each other to get the best price, destroy stuff so you can rebuild it again, use your wealth to gain power and influence legislation, do everything you need to repay the debt that is only fictional money. There can only be one winner in the game of I owe U. The one that issues the credit.

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

That can certainly be argued for credit card companies (though I still think they need to be somewhat concerned). That's why I mentioned that such a system would be more likely to come from a more benevolent institution, one that makes profit by helping you make profit, rather than one that makes profit by keeping you eternally in debt.

You argue that this would create a seperation (already existing to some extent, of course) between debtors and those loaning money. I don't think so. Like I said, the internet has somewhat opened up investment to everyone. I think this will continue to happen. Even a bank has investors– it isn't spending it's own money, either. So the power doesn't go to those with money– rather, the money flows to those worth investing in. (Of course, initially, that = the people with money. But not for too long, because they often aren't the innovators.)

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

How about those people who do not care to invest in anything and just want to live in peace and contribute to society without having to be that busy with seeking out the next great investment?
Where do we want to innovate to?
And not all people are great innovaters. What happens to them?

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

How about those people who do not care to invest in anything and just want to live in peace and contribute to society without having to be that busy with seeking out the next great investment?

Not playing the game is not a good option.  Life is uncertain, and if you don't save, sooner or later some unexpected event will force you into debt.  If you save but don't invest, inflation will erode your purchasing power, and sooner or later you will end up in debt.  Once in debt, it is difficult to get out.  I say, better to choose up front to play the game as an investor and creditor rather than a debtor.  Then you can deal with life's uncertainties from a position of strength.

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

I see it as a great investment to talk with people and share my knowledge and let them know I find it valueable what they have to say and do to make the world a better place. That's also an investment. Should I ask money for that? When do I start? When I talk to a homeless guy on the street? He has no money to pay me, so it would be a bad investment.

See how such a system fuels ignorance and inhumanity and forces it will upon people. Of course you can choose to play the game, but the game only knows so much winners. The winners want to stay on top and want to control their position.

I'm not saying there are no good people at the top that work hard to create a better place for all of us, but the debt base money system makes every effort only a drop on a hot stone that will burn whatever you try. You can only postpone the disaster of the credit bubble collapsing.

Who determines what is valueable? The market, or I?
Just because I can't sell it doesn't make it less valuable to me.

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

Take some time to look at this. It is so simple you wouldn't dare to imagine it possible.
I hope this will bust the meme.
FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution

Find out why some feel the Federal Reserve System is a “bunch of organized crooks” and others feel some of its practices “are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.” Discover why experts agree the Fed is a banking cartel that benefits mainly bankers, their clients in need of easy money and a Congress that would rather increase the Gross National Debt than seek funding from its constituents.

This important documentary is inspired by the well-known book, The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin.

<> Produced by William L. Van Alen, Jr., the 1-hour documentary is a co-production between Matrixx Productions and Cornerstone Entertainment and features interviews by not only G. Edward Griffin, but Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), MOVIEGUIDE Founder, Ted Baehr, and constitutional authority, Edwin Vieira (4 degrees from Harvard). FIAT EMPIRE was written and directed by James Jaeger and narrated by Kris Chandler. Associate producers are Ted Pollard, author and former Commissioner of Radnor Township and James E. Ewart, well-known author of MONEY.

For more information on FIAT EMPIRE, visit http://www.fiatempire.com/

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

Marc, I hear you, really I do, and I don't disagree with anything you said.

Capitalism is like a river.  Some people go into debt and struggle against the current.  It's an enormous effort and it doesn't get them anywhere.

Others stand on the banks and come up with elaborate theoretical arguments about how, in a perfect world, the water would be flowing in the opposite direction.  If that's what you want to do, go ahead.  I think it's a complete waste of time.

On the other hand, if you take the time to learn how things work, the river will give you a free ride.  That's my path.

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

The river and water is refering to something natural. The system is however man made and is beyond anything not natural. It's not in flow with nature.
I think mankind will come to a point in a not to far away future where it has to choose to go with the flow of the system, or with the flow of nature. If we do not go with the flow of nature, nature will crush us.

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

Of course you're right, capitalism is not natural and I didn't mean to suggest that it was.  I like nature and I like to use analogies from nature, that's all.

I think mankind will come to a point in a not to far away future where it has to choose to go with the flow of the system, or with the flow of nature. If we do not go with the flow of nature, nature will crush us.

This is a long-term, macro view.  I was looking at the short-term, micro picture: if we as individuals do not go with the flow of capital, capitalism will crush us.

As for “nature will crush us”, consider:  with Hurricane Katrina, the US lost an entire city and didn't even have a recession.  Capitalism is in no danger of imminent collapse.  I see no reason why we can't lose a city every year or so for the next fifty or one hundred years.  In the meantime, life goes on.

Among other things, I invest in alternative energy companies and renewable resources like timber.  Does that make me part of the problem, or part of the solution? 

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

I don't see you as a problem. I like discussing this. I learn and can put my mind into words. This is a great creational effort.
Capitalism is an idea. A very deeply conditioned idea, but it is not more then an idea. If enough determined people start swimming against the stream of global abuse for profit, the stream will shift in the direction the people want. That's because we are able to change our mindsets and choose to become clean (it's an adictive lifestyle).
You see it happening in the call for sustainability. Global warming gets a lot of people to think about the consequences of their actions. The ongoing invasion of peoples privacy and freedoms in the name of a war on terrorism makes people stand up against their Governments and against the wars that are suposedly fought in their names. Due to internet more people get informed and the media is loosing territory on the point of being the one and only to provide the people with news. People are waking up, and when they start to find out the lies and terror being pulled on them by banks, corporations, media and their own representatives, the stream will loose its power.
This struggle for power is happening as we speak. There are four kinds of power (actually five)
One physical overweight: You obey me, or I crunch your skull.
Two economic overweight: You obey me, or I let you starve to death.
Three control over the mind: Do what I tell you, because it is best for you. Informationcontrol.
Four power of personality: People that speak to the masses and the masses follow them. This can be Ghandi, or Mandela, but also Hitler.

This is visible in the world today. The credit bubble of the dollar is collapsing (the whole world is floated with dollars and the printing presses are rolling like there is no tommorow. As a worlds currency the fall of the dollar will bring down all of the worlds economies. This is the only reason why it is still standing). If people loose trust in a currency the economic power is broke (this is an interesting topic on the side as it brings the massive search from people for faith and meaning in another perspective. Do you put your trust in money, or in God, or the power/energy that people call God).
Internet and the inner drive for a deeper meaning in life is busting the control from the mind power over the people. More people become informed and speak up.
The powerfull personality we don't have right now. They are all stained (rightfully, or wrongfully).
This leaves one power left. Physical overweight. Control them by law at gunpoint.
Remember all the legislation: the patriot act, homeland security, habeas corpus, etc…
The same is happening in Europe. Millions of cameras, monitoring of every electronic or phone business you do, detecting your every move and store it in a giant databank making a secret biography of your life, face recognition, RFID chips in the passports and on every product you buy, and soon in all the animals we have. They have the right to arrest you without formal charges and put you in jail without a trial.
It is hanging on a thread (sorry, but it is not to scare anyone, just to wake them up)

The power I didn't mention yet, the fifth and strongest power, is the peoples power. Choice united is the greatest power people have. It means individuals one by one stepping up to the plate and changing the wrongs to rights.
People often made messes, but when the mess was the biggest (after a devestating war, or disaster), you see them comming together and work side by side to rebuild the mess they made, or that happened.

Now is the time to come together and work side by side to avoid the mess that is about to come and come over our arrogance that always has been our downfall. Our advanced technology requires us to. Nuclear war does not allow second chances. A worn down environment does not sustain a lot of life, and if it is able to sustian some life, it will be under harsher conditions. We need some long term oversight, because the short time perspective doesn't warn us for the crater we are running into.

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

The credit bubble of the dollar is collapsing (the whole world is floated with dollars and the printing presses are rolling like there is no tommorow. As a worlds currency the fall of the dollar will bring down all of the worlds economies.

Yeah, right, the world economy is on the verge of collapse.  Always has been, always will be. 

Here is a reading list for you.  Maybe you can find some of these at a public library.

Crisis Investing: Opportunities and Profits in the Coming Great Depression by Douglas Casey (Hardcover - Jul 1980)

Crisis Investing for the Rest of the 90's by Douglas Casey (Hardcover - Oct 1993)

The Coming Currency Collapse and What You Can Do About It by Jerome F. Smith (Hardcover - Sep 1980)

How you can profit from the coming devaluation by Harry Browne (Unknown Binding - 1970)

You can profit from a monetary crisis by Harry Browne (Unknown Binding - Jan 1, 1975)

How to Prosper During the Coming Bad Years - A Crash Course on Personal and Financial Survival by Howard J. Ruff (Mass Market Paperback - 1979)


My point is that even if you are right about the collapse, your timing could be off by 30 years.

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

“My point is that even if you are right about the collapse, your timing could be off by 30 years.”
That's right. Some experts say within 5 years, others say within 25 years, but they all agree that it will collapse. That should wake you up and start asking the question:'Why are they so sure that it is going to collapse?'
It's not only about the collapse we are going to get, it is also about the injustness of the system. It only benifits the richest people. If I have 10.000 $ on the bank, or in shares, I will make some interest on it that seems like a benifit for me, but what is not accounted in this benifit is that the Govenment needs to pay of the ever raising debt (every year with a certain percentage), the entrepreneurs who lend money to make a business need to pay the ever growing debt, and they do that by calculating it in to the prices and the taxes. Even if you do not have a debt, you pay of the debt. In Germany 30% of the Beer price is to pay of the debts of the entrepreneurs, then there are the taxes comming above that.
Steady interest rates make debt raise exponentaly. With 5% steady interest rates the money is going to double itself in 14 years. 14 years later it is four times the original amount, and so on. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 - the jumps always get bigger. If you have a national debt like the US like 8,5 trillion how long can it go on. What do you produce if you have everything you can imagine you could need? It forces a never ending quest for making more, better, cheaper, and they already have globalised everything, we are burning 80.000 barrels of oil a day and it needs to keep growing because the interest needs to get payed. Africa payed of its original debt many times over and is still not able to survive or come out of debt.
The collapse is already busy for 30 years, we only didn't notice it yet, because we are the most wealthiest nations in the world who stand on the top of the food chain. As long as it is not you who is standing on the street corner, it is very convenient to look away and give a donation to make you feel better.
I'm sorry if I come over as a radical, but I'm not. I do have a sense of justice and look reality in the eyes even if it is painful. People are not that bad to want this happening. I don't belief that for a second. 95% of this suffering is happening because people do not know how to change this and look away because they do not want to feel powerless.

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

In reply to Booner's:
Yeah, right, the world economy is on the verge of collapse.  Always has been, always will be.

and

My point is that even if you are right about the collapse, your timing could be off by 30 years.


Personally I don't give a **** if the system collapses tomorrow or in a hundred years. What bugs me is that it builds on a few individuals having control over the people who are not as rich (counted in a symbolic value called money) as they are.

The current system needs it's serfs - us - to function. The quota is approximately 20 to 80, where the most whealthy decile gains from the system, the second whealthiest decile don't lose on it, and the rest - the poorest 80 % of humanity - is constantly deprived of whealth, and this is in a modern country. In the world at large the quota is believed to be 2 to 98 or something like that.

We are taught to believe that if we gain more from stocks and bonds than we pay for any loans, we are among the winners of the system, but that is not true. Interest is infiltrating every goods or service that you buy. Marc took beer as an example. I will make another one. Somebody calculated a few years back, that of the cost for renting a home in Sweden, 80% constituted interest and interest upon interest.

And this is what happens in a system driven by debt and interest. The only means by which any money gets into circulation, is that somebody is granted a loan from a bank. The banks don't have the money to lend. What they have is a bunch of money to start with. I don't know about the US, but AFAIK the rate is 6% in Sweden. The bank has to have at least 6 % of it's loans in capital at home.

The financial system is a very complex and complicated thing. One way of understanding something, is to take away the “noise”, minimizing the situation. Let's say there is a bank and a person, Abbey, who wants to buy a house. Abbey asks the bank for a loan. The bank calculates and as they have 10 000 at home, they gladly say “yes, you may borrow 100 000”. (That is; 10 000 is 10 % of 100 000, so they are within their limits.) Abbey gets her money, but wait… no, she doesn't. What Abbey gets is a paper saying that there is so and so much of value in an account. With that in hand she goes to the seller of the house, Barney, who says “ok, you may buy my house”. They go to the bank, and the numbers in Abbeys account are transferred to Barney's account. As he himself had a loan from before, the bank takes back what is “theirs”, let say 80 000. Barney sits content with 20 000 in his account.

Next day, Cecile wants to borrow a sum to buy another house. The bank checks it's stock and says “oh, my, we had 10 000 yesterday, and then we lost capacity when Abbey got 100 000, to 4 000, but now we have Barneys fresh 20 000 to play with, so we now have 4 000 + 1 200”. “Yes, Cecile, how much do you need?”

It's a flawed story, I know, but it gives the core truth to the fractional reserve system. You may wonder why the bank only have Barney's 20 000? Where did the 80 000 that the bank got back go? Money doesn't really exist, especially not when they are behind the tellers table. It's complicated and complex, and the story is flawed, yes, you don't have to remind me, but it explains very shortly how it works. The rules are more complicated and there are lots of parties doing stuff like this every day, so it's a bitch to get all the unnecessary info out of the way to see what actually happens. The thing is that the money that Abbey “got” was never in physical form - it just existed as a mathematical result on a paper. As it didn't exist in the first place, it doesn't exist when it gets back to the bank. What does still “exist” is the 20 000 that Barney still believes is “his” money in his account. I guess things like this is why economics almost never touch the issue of money, it's too complicated, and the surface to get to the rotten core is pretty shallow.

Another example. I had the joy of presenting this a few years ago in a gathering of about 100 people who were going to be part of a “development project” in an “under-developed” part of Sweden. The thing goes like this; we are members of the European Union. This means we pay a membership fee to Brussels every year. Sweden pays the equivalent of app. 1.5 billion dollars. This is an exclusive club, and you know what - there is no paragraph in the statutes that deals with any member wanting to exit this club - you're in for life. Some of the money are delivered back as “support” for different causes. Around 25-30 % of the yearly fee is coming back to support projects to create jobs etc. Around the country there are several projects to “empower” people, to enhance the will to start firms etc.  The projects build on people working for no wages, and it needs the input of at least 50-70% from other financiers to be “approved” by the EU. This is called “to charge the money”, but frankly, I think we would be better off keeping the 1.5 billion from the start…

Anyway. I was sitting at this gathering where some regional political leaders were describing the fantastic opportunity we had to work for free (but they never said that, did they) and how this project would create economic growth in our region. I had the audacity to ask them what the value of this money was and how that would ever give growth to us. They didn't understand the question. I asked them what money is, but they still didn't understand what I was trying to ask. So I told them to imagine that all the bank notes, all the coins, all the stocks and bonds, options, derivatives etc, were collected in one huge heap in the middle of a field, and that we burnt it all up. “What would we have lost”, I asked again. They went on a lengthy debate of what a tremendous loss it would be to our country and how that would affect everybody and how poor we would be, and how much money we would have to borrow from abroad to reconstruct our society again and a lot of that content. I was sitting and watching the other participants and I could see the light in their eyes - they were laughing.

When the leaders had emptied their brains on this holocaustic scenario, I asked them. “So, how much would that money be worth if we gathered it and brought it onto the top of our highest mountain when the whole country is flooded, and only this mountain-top remains?” People started laughing out-right, nearby persons encouragingly slapped my shoulder, but the leaders got entangled in a discussion about that this was a question that they couldn't answer and that I ought to take it to the department of finance or the central bank.

The meme of the value of money, a symbol, is so great that we have trouble thinking about it in a neutral way. And the system that drives us into this meme is called capitalism.

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

I'm not sure that the current world order is about to collapse. I recognize that some order is always being overturned by the new, but I'm not sure that that will soon include govornment (or the dollar). It may, I admit. But I don't know.

But, back to my hypothesized future of investment. You posed several questions:

1. What about those who don't want to invest or be invested in?
2. What about things that are a good investment in the future, but don't make money? Talking to people about what's good and true, for example?
3. Who decides what a good investment is? Wouldn't this scheme force people to accept someone els's evaluation?

I think those were the main ones.

1: That's essentially like asking of today's system, “What about those who don't want to work or pay anyone?”. A person, in general, can create more then they need themselves. So, as a communist would argue at length, it payes to provide everyone's basic needs. Even if a person didn't want to partake too much in the rat race, they should be able to provide some profit to their investors by taking on a modest job, gaining money to live in return. If not, the system has failed in a more basic way, seperate of this investment-economy stuff. (There is always some unemployment rate, yes, but again, we can't attribute that to an investment economy, because it's always been the case.)

2: Again, I can simply say that there's not too much difference from today's economy: no, people are not generally payed to do good things of their own free will. Thankfully, many people do them anyway. But I could also argue somewhat that, while still somewhat unlikely, payment for good deeds may become more likely in such a system: rather then handing you a 20 in payment for the conversation we just had, I would be investing in you, which means I get returns. In other words, I'm not just doing you a favor, but myself as well; I'm investing in someone who I think is worthy off investment, which is good for both parties involved.

3: Maybe somewhat, but not entirely. Each individual chooses personally how to invest their money, so each has their own ideas. And in one's personal actions, one does have to worry about what investors will think, but your investors aren't the whole world; nor are they big banks. The idea is for investment to be spread to the people; therefore, many of your investors are your neigbors and friends. So there's a greater responsibility to the community, yes. The community decides what a good investment is.

Re: Redrawing the lines of ownership.

“1. What about those who don't want to invest or be invested in?

That's essentially like asking of today's system, “What about those who don't want to work or pay anyone?”. '
It has nothing to do with not wanting to work, but it has something to do with not wanting to join the money game, because some people control the bank and determin the rules in their benifit.

I'm not trying to say that our system didn't had benifits. If it wasn't for the pressure for constant growth, I do not think we would have made this great technological progress why we now can live easily (if we were to use it properly). We would possibly still be growing our own food on the farm (I guess not everyone wants to be a farmer).
So we made incredible progress due to the Capitalist system, but now we came to the point where it became so succesful it will throw us back in our development even further then it brought us. As in the lives of individuals you can do things as a kid because it is your best way to deal with the situation. After some time it turns into a pattern of behaviour. As a grown up this pattern could show you in certain life events that it doesn't work anymore and it would be better to learn a different way to deal with the situation. The pattern is not the ultimate evil, it just doesn't work anymore, and the longer you continue to stay using it, the more pain and frustration it will bring you.
We see the same thing in the world. A lot of things have changed in the last century and nature, economy and the global stress level is showing us we need to find a new way of dealing with things. Transcend the problems our old ways of thinking have laid on us.
People know intuitively that something needs to change, and change is happening, but the faster we can make the transition, the less painful it is going to be.

Gee, guys! This is heavy duty industrial stuff!

First,

I see a gap here. Booner and Abram is arguing from within capitalism, while Marc has taken a step outside of the system. You are not reaching each other, merely engaging in a tennis match.

I'd say all sides are correct within their own limits. If you are inside the system and don't see anything else, or even don't want to see anything else, the standpoint of Booner is correct. Abram is touching on the limits and have a few insight that might, or might not, lead to a new level of insigt. Marc is adding lots of interesting views from outside the system.

As the founder of the thread, I feel I have the right to trim the discussion at the edges. Is this because the thread is mine, my creation, my baby, my idea? In part, yes, because it's part of the Possessive Meme. “I started it, I'd better finish it.” “He who takes the devil into the boat, will have to row him to the shore.” Or, God forbid, “It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to.” All tenets of the individuality game, the capitalistic core of 20/80, that someone has to lose if someone else is going to win. And everybody wants to win, right. The “everybody ought to be better off than the average” meme of communism and socialism. I don't believe in either one of the current systems.

Back to the heart of the discussion; busting capitalism. I mostly see a fight between pro's and con's here, not a deeper yearning for understanding what capitalism does to us, and a will to think new thoughts. Abram was on the verge of something really interesting with the justice and law meme, but I'd say we make a new thread for that, eventually.

What is capitalism? It is turning things into capital = money. The goal is not to accrue as much of the money as possible, the goal is to control as much of the money as possible. In the discussion above we see the strains of the meme in statements as “the banks lend their money to us”. No, they do not lend their money. The system we have nowadays is called a Fractional Reserve System. It means that there is no real value backing to the money. The problem that caused the crises in the US in the beginning of the 20th century (1907-08, 1920, 1929 and the 30's - leading up to the Bretton Woods treaty) was that the bank notes stated that it was possible to go to the bank and “get the value of the note in return for the note”. It was a system of money as IOU notes. That changed from the coup in 1913 when the Federal Reserve System was put in place. This system is neither a System, nor Federal or a Reserve. It is no longer possible to “get the value of the note in return for the note” as the measure for the value has turned into the value itself. It's deceptive, it's brilliant and it works because the masses are gullible, tired after a hard days work, and are taught by church and school that they have to be obedient citizens.

So, should be take a step back, as the laissez-faire liberals want? Should we link our money to real value again, getting rid of fractional banking as some other liberals want, like the Mises Institute? Or is it time for a real transformation of money as such.

You need to remember that the way money works today is not the only way money may work.

Good books to start with:
Richard Douthwaite - The Ecology of Money
Margrit Kennedy - Interest and Inflation Free Money

Re: Gee, guys! This is heavy duty industrial stuff!

If you are inside the system and don't see anything else, or even don't want to see anything else, the standpoint of Booner is correct.

For the record, I really do want to see something else.

If you guys set up a perfect world, I definitely want to visit, and I might join you.  In the meantime, I am struggling with fundamental existential questions like “What should I do today?”

Well, let's see, should I sit around reading books about how corrupt the system is, or should I earn some money to buy food?  Gee, tough choice, but Mr. Stomach votes for food.   Should I work just enough to get by, or should I do a little extra?  I may not be able to work tomorrow, but I will definitely get hungry again, so I think I'll work extra today.  What should I do with my surplus?  Should I store food, or should I invest the money and earn some interest?  I do the math and conclude that investing will get me more food in the long run.  The stored food will eventually run out, but the income stream from the investments will buy food forever.  And so on and so forth, one practical decision at a time.

Re: Gee, guys! This is heavy duty industrial stuff!

Just for the record - we are here to bust memes, not defend them.

What Booner brings up though, is a very serious thing. We are struggling to make ends meet, and he says:

I do the math and conclude that investing will get me more food in the long run.

I too do the math, and I end up seeing that when 350 people in the world control 50% of the whealth, and 7 000 000 000 people get to share the other half, something is off course. (Figures from Margrit Kennedy.) I figure, that if this wealth were shared, there'd be no poverty in the world.

Some may argue that there need to be some differences in salary, otherwise there is no reason to work. But I think that is only one of the memes of Capitalistic thinking. When money is the most valuable commodity, that is true. But in a non-capitalistic system with a more distributed wealth, other things would be the most valuable thing in the world. Knowledge, maybe, or mastership of something.

In political science there is a thing called the Gini coefficient

Wikipedia: The Gini coefficient is often used to measure income inequality. Here, 0 corresponds to perfect income equality (i.e. everyone has the same income) and 1 corresponds to perfect income inequality (i.e. one person has all the income, while everyone else has zero income).

Re: Gee, guys! This is heavy duty industrial stuff!

“All tenets of the individuality game, the capitalistic core of 20/80, that someone has to lose if someone else is going to win. And everybody wants to win, right.”

Re: Gee, guys! This is heavy duty industrial stuff!

“Competition is fundamental to the meme of capitalism. But is it fundamental to capitalism itself? That is, does competition naturally spring from economics? Why?”

You have really interesting thoughts Abram.
I think Spiral Dynamics goes into that. Competition comes out of our quest for survival. To evolve in a way we can survive in the best possible way.
The first six memes are aimed for survival.

What people in each world seek out in life… 
(Goals of “Successful” Living)
1 BEIGE  survival; biogenic needs satisfaction; reproduction
2 PURPLE  safety/security; protection from harm; family bonds
3 RED  power/action; asserting self to dominate others; control
4 BLUE  stability/order; obedience to earn later reward; meaning
5 ORANGE  opportunity/success; competing to achieve results; influence
6 GREEN  harmony/love; joining together for mutual growth; awareness

7 YELLOW  independence/self-worth; fitting a living system; knowing
8 TURQUOISE  global community/life force; survival of Earth; consciousness

The evolving happens from autonomy to social behaviour. The one meme is pretty autonomous and the next is more social. First comes the individual survival and then you discover that a small community makes the survival easier, but also brings (after a while) along the wish for more autonomy of a higher level then the previous.

How “rational” people might deal with such a world … 
(Coping Systems)
1 BEIGE  as natural instincts and reflexes direct; automatic existence
2 PURPLE  according to tradition and ritual ways of group; tribal; animistic
3 RED  asserting self for dominance, conquest, and power; exploitive; egocentric
4 BLUE  obediently as higher authority and rules direct; absolutist; conforming
5 ORANGE  pragmatically to achieve results and get ahead; multiplistic; achievist
6 GREEN  responds to human needs; affiliative; relativistic; situational

7 YELLOW  build functional niche to do what one chooses; existential; systemic
8 TURQUOISE  experiential to join with other like thinkers; holistic; transpersonal

I think more and more people (especially in the Western/rich world) realise that we have all security of survival we can wish for (if we used it for the benifit of all) and people are transcending to the second tier, where fear of survival doesn't rule their lives anymore, but the quest to live at the fullest. We are transcending to the noetic sphere where new ideas and wisdom are more important then the fear of survival. Bring humanity to a next level of thinking. A New World Order.
The reigning powers do not like this idea, because this would diminish their power over others. The war on terror is a construct to bring us back to the basic survival memes, where we need leadership that tells us what to do.
This is in my mind the reason why our times are so turbulent and frightening.
The New World Order will come, but will it come out of the people conquering their fears, or will it come out of a system of global control where peace is maintained by the abolishment of freedom.

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

More on the fractional bankning effects:

The researchers are not entirely agreeing on the minute figures. But on the other hand, the markets are not static entities, they are dynamic and ever-changing. Research shows that only around 2-5 % of all financial transactions every day is related to trades of goods or services. Of these few percents app. 50 % is oil. The rest 95-98 % is speculation in stocks, bonds, options, derivatives, arbitrage etc. But this trade affects the “real” trade.

There are loads of economists, forecasters, analysts and the lot who sit and speculate about prices and trends. If these guys start to fear a recession, there will probably be a recession, because they are in their own feedback loop. The value of papers and money change when these guys forsee a change.

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

interesting that this morning exxon sets a record for profiteering…

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

That is indeed interesting. It would be nice to know the distribution of who's investing– is it closer to an average percent of income invested that holds across the board, or more like only the top 5% are doing that 95% of the trading? (To give the lower classes a shot at looking like they invest the same percentage, one would have to count in bank accounts as investment. It would be a difficult measurement to make, because one would need to distinguish between many types of “investment”.)

Also, it's very important to consider who exactly is being invested in. Is the largest part of the 95% invested in goods-and-service providers? In this case, the market is somewhat grounded, so the situation (I'd say) isn't so bad. On the other hand, of most of the investors are investing in eachother, then the market would be extremely convoluted and have little grounding in reality.

Also, this could obviously be seen as evidence for my theory about investment becoming the major form of transaction. But it's not too strong of evidence unless one can show that anybody can get into the investment market (either as investor or investee).

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

That is indeed interesting. It would be nice to know the distribution of who's investing– is it closer to an average percent of income invested that holds across the board, or more like only the top 5% are doing that 95% of the trading?

The wealth distribution statistics are appalling.  The bottom 50% of people in the US own 3% of the wealth.  Of course, that bottom 50% includes people with negative net worth because of debt, as well as people with zero net worth living from paycheck to paycheck.

 Don't be one of them!

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

too late: born there, life of scrambling into debt…

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

Dear Fixie,

What a marvellous topic to choose and some interesting comments. If i may just add a few of my own before i head home to take my son to soccer :-)

I was a currency trader for major US investment banks back in the mid 90s. I had been a member of Amnesty International also and through that attended a series of lectures put on the London Human Rights Forum (this was 1998/9). There were 5 speakers: Susan George (The Lugano Report), David Korten (When corporations rule the world), Sara Parkin (Forum for the Future), Vandan Shiva (GM activist) and Michael Rowbotham (the Grip of Death!!).

As an aside mortgage means “death grip”.

Within 2 years i had left my job! the Grip of Death is an amazing book and i would add it alongside Richard and Margrits books.

I used to sit next to the bank economists and i would subject them to daily tirades about the money system but they thought i was mad and to be honest they were too busy writing reports about the latest cpi number to pay much attention.

Attention! Nobody is paying much of that. I havent met a banker who understands how money is created. Imagine trying to change a system no one understands.

But to stay on track here, capitalism is about externalising costs wherever possible. This is also its achilles heel. Those external costs are about to be charged back to society and society doesnt want to pay.

Change is coming.

I will try and expand further later.

In the meantime try Robert Barnes's book “Capitalism 3.0”..much food for thought there but also a good explanation of capitalism itself. Think the Enclosures, John Locke, US Constitution, Thneeds and Illith.

Wonderful exchange of thoughts.

We are all interconnected. The system is interconnected. Every corporation is owned by the people….every politician is elected by the people.

blessings

raf

Re: Capitalism - busting a meme

Raf,

Given your background,  I wondered if you knew about former City of London regulator Chris Cook and Open Capital  it seems that you may find some congruence:

http://www.opencapital.net

I'm aware from ongoing discussion with Chris that he's involved in  many projects which touch on the areas you've mentioned, such as the global land tools project currently under way in Kenya attempting to apply a Henry George based approach to land value.

I've probably mentioned this to you in another thread, but for the benefit of this thread my own efforts are directed toward people-centered economics.

http://www.p-ced.com

Regards,

Jeff