LETS Abolish Money?
- This topic has 33 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Following is a discussion on the page titled: LETS Abolish Money?.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!It's an interesting article, but doesn't discuss the ability to code the exchange and legal system into the currency as involate laws at a code level that require the destruction of all the exchange currency in order to change the rules. We can create currency based on time in our new world and we can make rules about how that time is exchanged and if we build a good enough exchange system, it can have a dramatically different affect on peoples conciousness of class and produciton issues and their actions. There's nothing in theory or practice that prevents me from creating a digital currency and exchange system and saying that "exchanges which do not meet the requirements for a socialist exchange will not be honored or enforced by the exchange system." Some people might not like the time currency with that rule, but they can't change the rule or break it even in theoriy if it's coded correctly into the currency blockchain itself. The article makes the common mistake of arguing that "something similar has been tried, so variations on it and improvements on it won't work". the irony is that same argument is the one used by capitalist to argue socialism should not merit attention or bother. The argument that "it can't work" is a total rejection of marx philosophy which understood that conditions in society can preclude somethign from working for a while. The digital currency solution to exchange profiteering is something that was not possible 15 years ago or even 5 years ago. The argumen against a time value exchange currency is out of date and the criticisms have new solution not possible 15 years ago or even 5 years ago.
Perhaps you might like to read this article on Bitcoin – scroll downhttps://gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/media/furball-00.pdf
Quote:This society produces poverty not because there is credit money but because this society is based on exchange, money and economic growth. The libertarians might not mind this poverty, but those on the Left who discovered Bitcoin as a new alternative to the status quo perhaps should.alanjjohnstone wrote:Perhaps you might like to read this article on Bitcoin – scroll downhttps://gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/media/furball-00.pdfQuote:This society produces poverty not because there is credit money but because this society is based on exchange, money and economic growth. The libertarians might not mind this poverty, but those on the Left who discovered Bitcoin as a new alternative to the status quo perhaps should.@aloanJohnstone, Thank your for your time and effort finding that valueable quote for me. I did enjoy reading it and spent about an hour on reading, reasoning and writing my reply. Can I ask how much time you spent so I can estimate how much value you put into your reply in terms of time and offer a fair exchange of value with my time? I agree with the article and have made many of the same arguments myself. The quote you are refering to references bitcoin as an exchange system for capital value. It's a government free form of exchange, but not a capital and profit free form of exchange. I am proposing an exchange system that offers the individual the choice of what form of exchange they freely accept. Specefically, the time value exchange system protocols are designed and intended for working with non-capital based value measurments. It can work for capital based exchanges if that's how you want to use it, but it allows the individual to also exchange non-tangible or subjective value such as beauty, or environmental restoration. So Bitcoin is just another capital value exchange system in my opinon and it suffers the flaws you quoted because it's limited to exchange of capital value. everybody has time and that's an exchangeable value in my universal exchange value system. So time value (and other values) do not work the same as capital value. unlike capital value, people allways own the means of producing time currency by definition. Even the richest person in the world only has 24 hours in a day just like the poorest person in the world. If the article author couild step out of their capitalist based preconceptioins about the meaning of exchange and value and poverty, then I think it would be more interesting. Also, this article seems to ignore the "two is better than one" argument for running bitcoin alongside dollars. even granting all of the articles arguments and compliments about bitcoin. The question of Bitcoin + dollars vs just dollars is not investigated. we can speculate that giving individuals the power to exchange good in any currency has some value in that the individual can chooose which national currency to choose from. That's better for democracy and equality than having only one currency exchange system option. there's less of a monopoly of exchange of goods and services with two instead of one. So if you don't like the laws or quantitive easing or inflation of US dollars, then you can use another nations currency or bitcoin for your exchanges. Running an economy with multiple complimentary currencies has several benefits that are related directly to how different the currencies are. So bitcoin is a little different than US dollars which are a little different from the Euro currency, which is a little different from the chinease currency, etc. Because of the laws and they way they're used and the social norms for echange, different currencies offer different value exchange rates in their usage. What i'm proposing is a digital currency that is so dramatically different from capital dollars or chinese dollars or even bitcoin that it revolutionizes the whole concept of money and value and exchange. here's an interesting second quote I found in the article on the topic of GPL. . . "But, “you can’t hack the law”13. The legal system—guaranteed by the state’s authority—cannot be tricked: licences (no matter what kind) are legally binding contracts following the logic of the law that, if in doubt, always can be enforced in case one of the contracting parties claims its right.14 The result of this is that, e.g., scientists who make their research-software available to others have to deal with a maze of different incompatible licence versions. "In fact with Universal Values Exchange System Protocols. You can hack the law. As long as none of your exchange agreements specify property or capital value, then most all of the laws about what you can exchange do not apply. So if you trade time hours for upvotes, there's no monetary value and the capital laws about property are not applicable. That allows you to write terms and conditions for your exchange in non-captial based langauge taht enforces your agreements. So it's legal to have a time value exchange system that has it's own rules for garnishing a persons hours of effort if they break an agreement for trading hours of time. The breaking of an agreement of no capital value is of no concern to capital and private property regulation laws. The enforcement of that agreement with penalties, credits etc to their time value accunt ballance which is also of no capital value is likewise free from interference by laws regulating private property and capital value ownership. So with time value exchange protocols that prohibit in the exchange terms and conditions any discussion or reference to private property, we can have an exchange system that's substantially independent of capital laws as they currently exist. Extending capital laws into a non-capital exchange system would be difficult and innefficient and is the subject of further analysis at a later date if needed. How do you fine someone for not paying taxes on an exchange of love hours for upvotes? You really can't do that very well in the capital based legal system we have today. Capitalism law is famous for their catch 22 trick of making exchange agreements that include a token of capital value such as $1 in order to make sure the agreement is enforceable under law. I have created an exchange system that lets you run an entire economy without ever exchanging $1.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:I did enjoy reading it and spent about an hour on reading, reasoning and writing my reply. Can I ask how much time you spent so I can estimate how much value you put into your reply in terms of time and offer a fair exchange of value with my time?What he proposes is worse than capitalism since he wants to reduce all human interactions to an exchange of equal values. Not even capitalism has achieved that.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:I have created an exchange system that lets you run an entire economy without ever exchanging $1.Here's the classic definition of a money crank:
Quote:a person who believe that all, or the vast majority of, social ills are caused by the current money system and thus can be solved by implementing an imaginary money system that they have designed can be safely considered a money crank.Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
He is always citing quotation of things that Marx has never said., or twisting them, Marxism is not a philosophy either. Marx was always a critiquer of the capitalist society, and exchange and money is something peculiar of the capitalist society.He is always trying to make us digest his distortions, and he is always trying to pushes his nonsense through our throats, as well, he always add his ideas to our articles, and then he is raising the flag of the so called copyright in a socialist society,
mcolome1 wrote:He is always citing quotation of things that Marx has never said., or twisting them, Marxism is not a philosophy either. Marx was always a critiquer of the capitalist society, and exchange and money is something peculiar of the capitalist society.He is always trying to make us digest his distortions, and he is always trying to pushes his nonsense through our throats, as well, he always add his ideas to our articles, and then he is raising the flag of the so called copyright in a socialist society,@mcolome1,I don't think I've mentioned copyright and flags to you at all. You must be confusing me with someone else or read my comments outside the ones intended for you. I do talk about copyright at times when it comes up. You brought it up this time so do you want to discuss copyright, or are you just one of those know it all's who only know a false story about nobody else knowing anything at all? Marx was thinking more like me than like you and you should know that too. You complain In never sticking to one subject? Check the criticizms levelled against marx in your dusty books and history. They're the ones you're using. I'm as much of a money crank as marx was, which is not at all. I talk a lot more about other things than money and why can't you drop your capitalist preconceptions that money = gold or capital goods. Money is a counting system for facilitating exchange and nothing more. You would probably have rejected marx too for the same reasons you reject me. You have an anti-marx spirit about you. You're right that I don't bother looking up dusty quotes of long discredited philosophers for their exhaultation as you seem to focus on as valuable. But I understand Marx in way that you clearly don't. You know the words but not their meaning. You don't practice communism you preach about it and then act like a capitalist in your preaching approach. the biggest trick capitalist ever pulled on you, Mcolmee1, was getting you to agree to their values. They've tricked you good and they created the term money crank to discredit economic theories like those of marx. You've taking up the job of capitalist in defending capitalism and call it socialism. Well, you're wrong and a traitor to the poeple and you don't even know it because you've been bought and paid for by the capitalist disinformation system.
ALB wrote:Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:I did enjoy reading it and spent about an hour on reading, reasoning and writing my reply. Can I ask how much time you spent so I can estimate how much value you put into your reply in terms of time and offer a fair exchange of value with my time?What he proposes is worse than capitalism since he wants to reduce all human interactions to an exchange of equal values. Not even capitalism has achieved that.
You seems very apposed to trading and sharing time, attention or favors between two people in any way that they freely agree upon and write down. You have a problem with receipts and accountability. Capitalism is just one of many ways to exchange value but you hate them all because you're living in a land of denail. You live in denial and hammer down any one who sticks their head up with a new idea. You think you have a magic wand to coordinate building a road or do you believe socialist don't need roads and don't need to exchange information and resources to build roads? Count how many written exchanges you've had in the last month that support the capitalist economy by participation. Now count the number of written exchanges you've had in the last month that support a non-capitalist economy by participation. Looking at the evidence of your actions, I suspect you support capitalism by preferential paticipation and you like it that way. Until you practice acting like a socialist and learn how to make exchange agreements for non-capital based value you can't truly understand socialism. I'm giving you a chance to practice socialism here and now and you just want to rely on capitalist cliche philosophy to discredit me. I'm sure marx would sigh sadly after reading your comments.
This seems a better way of arranging this sort of thing within capitalism than LETS schemes and their accounting, not that it's a challenge to capitalism of course:https://www.gofundme.com/el-cambalacheBut I'm sure people will see the irony of the opening lines of "the story".
Hello everyone. for those who hate me don't worry, I won't be here long this time. for those who liked reading me, this is the time where I share with everyone the fruits of my labor and research into solving our socio-political problems. Anyway, I know you women and men hate when I go on and on, so here's a direct link to the first step in a 100 year plan I've outlined and mapped. I'll include a brief teaser here because it's relevant to the discussion of abolishing money and then link to the full document and documents if you want to read further. . .
Quote:How EpiPen could save the world with individual income based pricing.Income Based Savings Card Here’s how. They own the monopoly so they can set pricing however they want. They should price the epipen in units of a percent of a person’s income. They target right now a single customer who can afford to pay $500/Epipen. But there are plenty of wealthy customers who would pay even more for an Epipen. They’re losing out on profit they could earn by charging more to the most wealthy, and not just a little profit either. Some of the most affluent of the 1% would pay upwards of $50,000 for a single Epipen rather than do without. Others customers with high incomes, such as Epipen’s own CEO and Sales manager, would be willing to pay as much as $5000/Epipen if the alternative was doing without. Also, some people can’t even afford the regular $500/Epipen and have to do without, which is another lost sale. The company would have made more money if they had offered a $300 Epipen for sale to this person because $300 is more than $0 from a lost sale. For a person who can only afford $100 or even $25 their may be no hope of benefitting from Epipen or buying their product, even though the Epipen company could still make a profit. Because Epipen doesn’t want to lower the price for everyone else from $500 they lose sales on the low income market for their product. Most of the money for Epipen was in R&D and now production of additional Epipens are not a large part of the production cost for additional units of Epipen Who’s cost of production is only $5.I propose a new digital currency that is based on a percent of a person's yearly income. The epipen can be sold to everyone at the same low price of 0.35% of their yearly income. The Epipen company makes more money by selling in a digital blockchain currency, that is similar to BitCoin, called “IncomeBasedCoin”. “IncomeBasedCoins” are bought with cash or converted to cash using a online exchange system like bitcoins, but require verification of your income for conversion or transactions. At time of the IncomeBasedCoin use, your bank or government or other verification partner as designated will provide electronically a calculated yearly income value for converting dollars to IncomeBasedCoin as part of the purchase transaction. Social benefits to using the “IncomeBasedCoin” are similar to the economic theory of what’s known as an individually priced Market exchange. This allows convenient charging in units that are socially and ethically fair regardless of wealth. It’s a truly affluence neutral pricing system and some things in society are better sold and distributed using a market economy based on a unit of a person's time and effort. What if other drug companies adopted this practice as an ethical pricing system and they would also make a tidy profit from their decision to embrace sales using IncomeBasedCoin? Does it make sense to price other items that bring equal value to people rich or poor alike and have low production costs using IncomeBasedCoin? I think the answer is that the more we use an IncomeBasedCoin, the less income inequality will be a social problem for the rich and the poor alike. Imagine in some future utopian america all products were prices as a mix of US dollars and IncomeBasedCoin. The economic benefits of a dual currency economy would be great for social justice and productivity. So with one great sales ideas as I described, Epipen could launch a revolution in health by innovating this new currency. They’d make a ton of money and they’d make the world a better place. Epipen could use their profits to “innovate” the creation of a new digital currency as described and they would also profit while helping the poor and while helping to decrease wealth inequality. Since it makes a profit for the business, other business will follow suit and begin pricing their items in “yearly income coin” so they can make more money. This is legal and technically achievable today using blockchain digital currency already in existence or easily created. the more people use the “Yearly Income Coin” for pricing, the more fair our economy comes to treating the rich people equally to the poor.Framing of the proposal:For poor people this is framed as lower cost medical and a fair pricing system. (appeal to direct needs and benefits) For business this is framed as an innovative pricing structure that increases profits. (appeal to bottom line thinkers who know the value of putting themselves first. Appeal to greed.) For rich people this is framed as business innovation and it’s up to the marketplace and business to decide how to use it and if they want to use it like it should always be up to the marketplace and the business to decide these things (appeal to neo-liberalism principles and point out how this drastically decreases regulation and puts the free market in charge instead of the bad government and so saves taxpayers money and helps shrinks government to the libertarian ideals.). For media this is framed as the miraculous fruits of financial innovation combined with necessity the mother of invention and validated by the free market profits and stock market approval. For Trump, he can claim it on his watch and say it was his idea all along or take credit for it and we don’t care because it’s a good idea no matter who does it. For Law and Order Government power and police state interests it is framed as a chance to get an automatic copy of every receipt and sale for government data mining and makes the government the data owner and guarantor of personal pricing related data. In effect the government gets an electronic veto option on every transaction by the nature of the transaction information processing. This gives government policy makers and economist a degree of information awareness needed to really understand the economics of the price solution in real time with analytics to monitor performance. This also gives the the power to change the prices globally at any time in response to macro-economic needs such as creating a stimulus without preferring any particular business institution unfairly over others for monetary policy. The digital currency can be used as a 100% government trackable currency by nature since each transaction must query government records for income verification this is built into the system. Later regulations and revisions for privacy or as legislation requires later can be built into the digital currency system with less effort and possibly even retroactively to cover past data if desired. This is not an anonymous form of payment and is the opposite of that. All exchanges in this system are strongly tied in government databases to real identities. So this money’s no good for buying anything illegal or anonymously which should make the law and order worldview holders happy. For freedom advocates, frame this as a free program that business can choose to participate in or not and customers can choose to participate or not individually too. We keep the existing dollar pricing systems in place and just ad this as another option if people prefer to use it for payments. The government does not set any prices and only verifies income and other information for the purchase exchange currency conversions. Market forces and business profit seeking work to ensure the pricing is fairly based on individual product supply and individual consumer demand economics.If you want to read the rest and be a part of making this reality, or find out how it leads to an environment conducive to the development of communism, read more at https://goo.gl/gE8qwKp.s. You have, obviously my permission to share and discuss this on your forum. Do not share this with the opposition or anyone you think might appose this plan or our efforts and act accordingly.
This forum is becoming a cranks' convention. I suppose nobody else would be so tolerant of them but they just take advantage.
ALB wrote:This forum is becoming a cranks' convention. I suppose nobody else would be so tolerant of them but they just take advantage.They're often aided and abetted by those who should know better. The best course of action is to ignore these loons otherwise the forum will be continually dragged down into the mire with genuine enquirers about socialism most likely being deterred.
ALB, i think you answered your own question elsewhere.
Quote:I think you've misunderstood the reason for continuing to argue with critics like Pig. It's not to convince them (some of them are pretty pig-headed) but to deal with the arguments and prejudices they put forward as these are held by others who might be more amenable, as well of course to inform ourselves and hone our arguments.Gnome, i understand the frustration, especially after the time i spent sincerely addressing CP's position. Now i will merely fact-check him and perhaps use some of his statements to post some historical details. We no longer require to engage in direct conversation but simply use as a spring-board for other ideas and our own interpretations.
There is a difference, Alan, between expressing commonly held views and prejudices (as our porcine friend is doing) and promulgating pet schemes thought up and held only by those promoting them (as three others currently here are doing). We don't really need to discuss with these crackpots as everybody else can see straightaway what they are.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.