Science a GoGo's Home Page
Posted By: Ellis Money- too much or too little - 01/19/08 04:48 AM
There was a thread on money, barter and a medium of exchange here but I can't find it.

However having just heard Mr Bush's solution to the US economic situation (cut taxes to make people spend more) on the same BBC programme as the news that Zimbabwe is issuing a $10,000,000 note I just hope Mr Bush knows what he is doing. It cost $3,000,000 for a tube of toothpaste at the start of December (in Z), but now it's $60,000,000. And, interestingly I thought as we had discussed barter on this site, a person interviewed (who owned a supermarket) remarked that at this level of hyper- inflation barter is the only meaningful economic system- but he was looking forward to going to the bank for his weekly budget of $300,000,000 as with the new notes it may fit in his pocket and he won't have to take a paper bag along with him!! Life must be very hard indeed under such conditions.
Posted By: samwik Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/20/08 08:27 PM
Originally Posted By: Ellis
There was a thread on money, barter and a medium of exchange here but I can't find it.
Yes! We must find this!

You presage the needed coming Zeitgeist. We need to get back on track.

Also currently synergizing:

Michael Shermer: Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics
(Only a few more weeks to get my Kindle!)
(I tear with frustrated anticipation)

featuring: "NEUROeconomics" and dopamine;
...and also related:
Paul Zak, the oxytocin man;
E.O. Wilson, sociobiology;
as well as...
the Political Brain, Drew Westen;
How To Think About Information, Dan Schiller;

the Third Culture, Integrative Sciences.

...and all about Complex Emergent Behaviours.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/21/08 05:12 AM
ABOUT THE LOST THREAD ON ECONOMICS
==================================
Is it the one I started in Not-Quite-Science Forum? I think I posed the question: Is "economics" a really a science? Then I wrote about what I call: A feathers--neither left wing, nor right wing--approach to the political economy.

After all, feathers cover pretty well the whole bird. And consider the humble tail feathers--situated right over the bird's anus. Without the tail feathers, flight is impossible no matter how powerful the wings.

I INVITE ALL OF YOU TO BECOME INTUITIVE ECONOMISTS
Economics, which Thomas Carlyle called "the dismal science", is too important to be left to the so-called, "experts".

Posted By: samwik Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/21/08 07:28 PM
Yes Revl., I was hoping you'd find that and start it up again.

Originally Posted By: from above
You presage the needed coming Zeitgeist. We need to get back on track.
Also currently synergizing:
Michael Shermer: Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics
(Only a few more weeks to get my Kindle!)
(I tear with frustrated anticipation)
featuring: "NEUROeconomics" and dopamine;
...and also related:
Paul Zak, the oxytocin man;
E.O. Wilson, sociobiology;
as well as...
the Political Brain, Drew Westen;
How To Think About Information, Dan Schiller;
the Third Culture, Integrative Sciences.
...and all about Complex Emergent Behaviours.
Sorry, I think I meant....
...and all about Emergent Behaviours from Complex Systems.
Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/22/08 02:08 AM
So did we decide it WAS a science? I know it was pointed out that there are formulated rules and I remember remarking that they were often ignored, usually by people wanting to make more money. Surely there are too many uncertainties to allow economics to be a science. Would there not have to be a predictable response to a particular stimulus for example?

Certainly I think that spending your way out of inflation is a very interesting approach. Which of your gurus would advocate that Sam, or are they,as many are, enthusiastic theorists?
Posted By: samwik Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/22/08 03:28 PM
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Certainly I think that spending your way out of inflation is a very interesting approach. Which of your gurus would advocate that Sam, or are they, as many are, enthusiastic theorists?
My gurus? Do you mean these references above (#24634)?
I've just run across these myself; I guess they're just "theorists." smile ?

Have I recently heard that 70% of US economy is consumer spending?
...also heard, 70% of US economy is Financial Services (paper pushers).

(I wish I knew what I was referring to or talking about)
...but that stuff sounds about as balanced as our American diet.
I can't see why there would be any problem (with our house of cards).

The last time we got stimulated by the President's package
...of economic relief (hehehe), we used the pitance to help pay for our increased health-care costs (no, now I remember, it was for our increased fuel costs); the health-care costs came out of savings.

I wonder which one of our increasing number of debts we will pay down slightly, for a few months, with this new "stimulus package."

I found some old posts from this thread; more later....
p.s. Thanks Jon Stewart for the package joke....


Posted By: Wyldfire Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/23/08 12:39 AM
Spending yourself out of inflation, is like adding more water to a flood, all it does it create a bigger flood....

For the supposedly Capatalist capital of the world I really wonder who is making these financal decision in Amercia...

Nobody ever wins from inflation in the long term, sure a couple of business might get a few extra bucks but unless they spend it straight away any increase in profit it useless because the worth of your dolar is down.

Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/23/08 05:06 AM
"I really wonder who is making these financial decisions in America..." Wyldfire comments.
If that's a question, WF, here are some basic answers.
http://www.answers.com/topic/money-creation

In my opinion, we also need to ask some very basic questions:

1. What is money?

2. Who should be in charge of money-creation?
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/23/08 05:38 AM
This is also helpful:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/061303.asp

BTW, in this article there is the admission that
Quote:
Conclusion
Remember, as long as people have faith in the currency, a central bank can issue more of it. But if the Fed issues too much money, the value will go down, as with anything that has a higher supply than demand. So even though technically it can create money "out of thin air," the central bank cannot simply print money as it wants.
I would like to ask the economist? who wrote this bumf:
Who among us, rich or poor, does not want (that is, demand) more money?
When was the last time you threw away your cash because you did not believe (have faith) it would buy you something?
There is lots of faith in cash, and there is lots of demand for it. THE BOTTOM LINE IS: WE NEED A MORAL, ETHICAL, DEMOCRATIC,AND BETTER SUPPLY SYSTEM, not one owned by one powerful monopoly. No wonder President Wilson took ill and died shortly after he made that awful deal...when was it? In 1914...

THINK ABOUT THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
===================================
Who owns the so-call Federal Reserve Bank of America? The USA?
Does the Bank of Canada REALLY belong to Canada?

KILLER AND YO-YO-LIKE INTERESTS RATES ARE PROBLEMATIC
=====================================================
How come there is no Bank of Canada, on the corner, handing out loans--at a flat and cost-related fee--to entrepreneurs--ready to hire people with job skills and in need of work?

Unless I miss my guess, it is entrepreneurs with manageable loans and workers with good pay who are the ones who make and buy the things we need.

Workers with money can also afford fee-based loans from the Bank of Canada, to buy the things--for example, houses--they need.

And wouldn't this, in turn create jobs?

Our banking system must be designed to work for all of us, not just for the economic elite.

THIS IS NOT AN ANTI-BANK RANT; IT IS ANTI ROTTEN BANKING SYSTEM
Banks designed to serve the public good are needed.
================================================================
As admitted above: Our central banks have been given the power, by we the people, simply by fiat, to create money out of thin air.

If this is true, how come we have such a rotten and un-balanced system which only rewards a few at the top?

Most of us, if we are lucky enough to have a job, have to put up with living from pay check to pay check, carrying heavy debts and always in fear of foreclosure or crippling ill health.
==================================================
MORE QUESTIONS
=============
What is the relationship between interest and inflation?
What is interest? What is inflation?
What is a dividend?
Why do we have an autocratic money system?
Could we have a democratic one?
How come all those "experts" keep making all those BIG mistakes in running the economy--and keep getting paid? Or are they really mistakes? HMMMMMM!!!!!
There is an old saying: When big corporations want to make money they simply create chaos, offer to finance it and manipulate the politicians into making the people pay with taxes. Anyone wonder how come most governments (us) are in debt.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/23/08 06:18 AM
MONEY AND FAITH
No wonder the first banks were temples.
===============
All economists agree that the first money systems were barter-based systems, using commodities--goods and services. It worked. But it was inefficient because there had to be what is called a coincidence of need. How do you trade a cow for chicken with a guy who has chicken, but too many cows, already.

Until recent times, even paper money was back by barter. I have some old bills which say: THE BANK OF CANADA WILL PAY THE BEARER....This meant that the bank was supposed to sell you metal for your paper. You know why that system failed, eh? Metals began to get more and more expensive.

And how come: When they sucked all that silver out of your coins they did so without telling you it was happening? Modern coins are tokens, like paper, without much real intrinsic value. This is why the price of metals, especially gold, are rising?

FIAT--IT IS WORTH ONE DOLLAR BECAUSE WE SAY SO
==============================================
Today, we have what is called FIAT money. Look on a bill. It simply says: THIS IS LEGAL TENDER (Because we, by fiat, say so.)
BTW, does this mean that coupons are illegal? I don't think so. Interesting. CCC is based on the common law principle that coupons are legal

Experts agree
Quote:
Money is created by a kind of a perpetual interaction between concrete things, our intangible desire for them, and our abstract faith in what has value: money is valuable because we want it, but we want it only because it can get us a desired product or service.
Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/23/08 11:36 PM
When we no longer agree that the paper money, no longer backed by equivalent precious metal (no modern currency is), has become useless, we have the situation in Zimbabwe and other African nations and until recently some Eastern European currencies. Then the population moves to a barter economy, with all its problems. Barter can really only succeed within a physically restrictive area- when local goods can be traded. The development of money responded to the need to trade away from home, and is culturally acceptable by mutual agreement anywhere. Barter isn't, but in Zimbabwe at the moment I guess the rich guy is the one with a few eggs from his hens to trade for some fresh vegetables, not a guy with heaps of money in his pocket, or the bank- with nothing to eat in his cupboard.
Posted By: Wyldfire Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/24/08 02:40 AM
One of my old Economics text books defines inflation as the following:

A persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services.

In Australia inflation is measured by the CPI, which works out how much an average house hold expenses have increased.


Interest Rates, are basically the cost to borrow money e.g. you pay 5% of the amount you borrowed each year till you have paid the amount off.

What affect interest rates, demand, the greater the demand for money the more the banks can charge. What affects this demand nearly anything that happens in a nation, mostly National Reserve Banks have a rather large influence because they inject or withdraw currency from the money market, the less money around the great its demand the higher interest rates are.

What is the relationship between interest and inflation?

The theory behind how interest rates and inflation interact is quiet complicated, and to be honest I don't the skills to explain it in its entirety properly....

The basic interaction, is lower the interest rate, the easier it is to get money, the more people spend, the more people are prepared to spend the rate of inflation increase.

The amount of money a Government is currently spending has a large effect on inflation.

In Australia our Reserve Bank is a independent entity to the government although it often makes recommendations to the Reserve bank.

I apologize that my description are quiet poor, I am a numbers person and while I feel I have a quiet a extensive grasp on these concepts I really don't have the skills to explain them to other properly.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/24/08 07:56 AM
Without going into details at this point, some of us in this area have developed a way of creating a barter currency system and we are not opposed to paying just taxes as part of the system.

We are negotiating with governments to have this system accepted by the tax man. http://www.universalbartergroup.com
After all, if the tax man says, barter is taxable, then it logically follows that barter currency--we call them tradeBUX--ought to be acceptable as payment for taxes. This could help us get rid of the so called underground economy. One can hide money, but it is not easy to hide things--expensive cars and the like?
Posted By: Mike Kremer Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/24/08 03:48 PM
That sounds a very useful idea, especially suitable for the 3rd world economy.
There is a Group in the UK which has aked the Government to ABOLISH taxes alltogether.
Its a serious concept, and works like this:-

No-one pays any more tax, ever. One keeps everything earned.
The Goverment obtains its taxes by adding a "Sales Tax" upon EVERY item sold.


Its virtually foolproof, records are automatic, saves on all present tax records , inspectors and tax offices.
But it would depend upon the UK staying out of the Common Market,
due to VAT being paid at present.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/25/08 05:15 AM
MK, you comment:"There is a Group in the UK which has asked the Government to ABOLISH taxes all together."

You mean that they want a new way of collecting taxes, not abolish them.

I was born in Newfoundland in 1930. Before Newfoundland became part of Canada, in 1949, this was the tax system.

Question: What about a poor family with 10 children? Would they be taxed on all that food they would need to buy? Perhaps basic foods would need to be tax free.

BTW, I do agree that tax reform is needed.





Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/25/08 08:25 PM
I ADD A FURTHER COMMENT TO MY LAST POST
=======================================
As I said: I was born in Newfoundland (NL) in 1930. I was 19--a junior at a university in New Brunswick, when Newfoundland became part of Canada, in 1949.

ABOUT THE TAX SYSTEM
====================
Personal income tax was abolished, in 1925, by the Liberal-Conservatives. But this does not mean that there were no taxes.

From then until 1934 there was a great deal of economic volatility, confusion and rumours of corruption. And looking back at the way things played out, I am sure there was some. In 1932 there were even two riots in St. John's--one was a food riot--by the needy poor. It stopped when food was handed out. The second riot was over the matter of corruption. No one was killed, but the rioter--over 10,000--did a lot of damage. This led to a radical change in government.

FROM 1934 TO 1949, NL WAS GOVERNED BY AN APPOINTED COMMISSION
=============================================================
There seven on the Commission. There was a governor plus three others, from Britain. The other three were from NL. By and large, the system worked well. When NL went into union with Canada, there was a surplus of over $40,000,000, not bad for a province with only 225,000 people.

As I recall the system: Merchants, in cahoots with the NL government, under the oversight of the Canadian banks, ran the tax system. This in effect gave the merchants in St. John's--the ones who did all the importing of consumer goods--the right to add on to their costs anything the market allowed. Most of the controlling merchants--hated by the average wage earner and price slave--made fortunes, while many went with the basic needs of life.

WW 2 WAS "GOOD" FOR BUSINESS IN NL
==================================
Beginning in 1940 a modicum of prosperity came to NL as a result of the role it played in helping the Allies win the Battle of the Atlantic in WW 2. The Americans and Canadians build several large bases there. The merchants loved selling all that stuff.

Bell Island, where I was born, was attacked twice, by enemy subs. I witnessed those attacks and saw dead bodies brought ashore from the four iron ore carriers which were sunk.

BTW, as a teenager (born and raised in poverty), because I had a well to do friend who knew people in St.John's, I was able to hobnobb with some wealthy St.John's teenagers when I visited the city. That was between 15-&-16. I found them very open people, not at all snobs. Most told me they were getting ready to take off for university. I credit this experience, among others, with inspiring me to ask myself: Wouldn't it be nice if I could do that? At 17, I made it.
Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/26/08 05:59 AM
I agree with Rev. There would still be tax Mike, just not income tax. This system you are describing is one of the most iniquitous methods of taxing, as Rev has explained. It sounds awful if effective-- but then didn't Mussolini make the trains run on time!

And anyway what is wrong with taxes? Wealthy people would have to be taxed considerably more on their massive incomes in order for it to hurt much ( I suggest as an example Madonna spending millions on a house to make it into her own gym. She seems to know about need in Africa as she recently stole a small boy to adopt from there, presumably to give him a better future). Tax 'em I say-- make them bleed!! Then spend the taxes collected on providing the services we all agree we need. Roads, schools, hospitals, housing ... and lots more- as well as foreign AID not foreign WAR. We need to ensure that those elected to government understand that it is not the taxes that are the problem but the uses to which they are put that upsets people.

Rev- That sounds like an amazing childhood- I had a childhood friend who emigrated to St John's many years ago, and her stories always verged on the exotic!!
Posted By: Mike Kremer Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/26/08 06:20 AM
Re my pevious post. Of course you are right.
"They wanted a new way to collect taxes, not abolish them."

Seems you have had a very interesting life, as have all of us who were born in the 1930's. Due to the stupendous world changes we have witnessed after WWII.
Reading thru your "Money-too much or too little" posts here I realise that you have an intimate knowledge of the worlds monetary system.
You wrote earlier "Who among us, rich or poor, does not want (that is, demand) more money?
When was the last time you threw away your cash because you did not believe (have faith) it would buy you something?"

True, I remember the time when few people owned a Bank account, often keeping their money 'under the bed' Either did'nt have any faith in Banks, or had no other option.
You forgot to mention that money buys you less and less as time passes. While the Banks charge you interest for looking after your hard earned money.

When I was working in Canada, I was amazed to find that you could hand your salary check to the cashier in Kresges, or other large supermarket, and they would pay you the full cash amount. To my mind that was trust with a capital T.

In the main, I fully agree with you. World finances do need restructuring, We could do with a common taxation systems if possible. I dont think it could ever be achieved since goverments always ensure that there is a small difference in the value of a neigboring countrys currency relative to its own allowing the Banks to rake off a profit.

Even here in Europe where 27 countries all use the Euro, (except Denmark ,Sweden ,Switzerland, the Vatican, and ourselves plus a couple of others), in all about 330 million people....the system still does not work. Since there is a very big difference in the prices of goods, services, even medical bills from country to country.

I used to believe that an individual should receive a decent living payment, for work done.
Except that idea is a no-no, these days. With so many people having been replaced by automation.
The taxes a large company pays is nowhere near what it should be were people brought into the manufacturing equation. As in the old days of 40 years ago.
Its my considered opinion that no Companies pay what they should do in taxes. They just move abroad to avoid taxes, or send their profits to overseas head offices.
No wonder goverments have to impose 'hidden' taxes upon their public just to keep their country afloat. Keep the poor off the streets, the breadline and to keep on paying the mothers with six kids, but no visible husband, their weekly goverment allowance.
Europe has no borders and hardly any Customs, (you are still required to carry your Passport, though nobody looks at it) so theoreticaly you can work and live anywhere.
Even that that dos'nt work either, since people in the poorer paid countrys, gravitate to the richer countrys for work.
Everyones first choice is to come and live and work England , The £ has always been worth more than the Euro. second choice is Germany or thirdly,any country west of their own.
West is richer, East is poorer, although Russia fast becoming the new rich capitalists oligarchy, from selling Oil and Gas to Europe, is the fly in the ointment.

Prices go up, but never go down, everyone keeps their financial eye upon everyone else. The slightest movement in the markets or interest rates, the banks then step in buying or selling to force a correction..
The truth is, the rich manufacturing countries hold all the aces, and always will.


Posted By: Mike Kremer Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/26/08 07:06 AM
Originally Posted By: Ellis
I agree with Rev. There would still be tax Mike, just not income tax. This system you are describing is one of the most iniquitous methods of taxing, as Rev has explained. It sounds awful if effective-- but then didn't Mussolini make the trains run on time!

And anyway what is wrong with taxes? Wealthy people would have to be taxed considerably more on their massive incomes in order for it to hurt much ( I suggest as an example Madonna spending millions on a house to make it into her own gym. She seems to know about need in Africa as she recently stole a small boy to adopt from there, presumably to give him a better future). Tax 'em I say-- make them bleed!! Then spend the taxes collected on providing the services we all agree we need. Roads, schools, hospitals, housing ... and lots more- as well as foreign AID not foreign WAR. We need to ensure that those elected to government understand that it is not the taxes that are the problem but the uses to which they are put that upsets people.

Rev- That sounds like an amazing childhood- I had a childhood friend who emigrated to St John's many years ago, and her stories always verged on the exotic!!


[quote=Mike Kremer] 2 Ellis

Tax the rich make 'em bleed....I used to think exactly the same.
especially when you hear of these huge salarys, plus yearly bonuses.
But I dont think like that anymore. Because as soon as you tax the very rich, they-up-stakes and leave the country.
Originally the very rich in the UK were hard working educated entrepreneurs, who paid 19/6d in £(thats 95p on every 100p) earned above a certain threshold. They soon left the UK to work in the US. Chemists Doctors Physicists Company directors all left our shores by the hundreds. Leaving us devoid of the people we needed to build up a country. It was our loss.
These days if boffins emigrate its not because of taxes, (we now have the lowest taxes in Europe). Its because the Americans are able to attract the top people by paying them top wages.
Money talks, no country can afford to lose its millionaires thru taxing them to highly.
I can understand your feelings regarding those in the entertainment industry, Madonna included, but just where would you draw the line? Her investments in property and interest earned on her money, must account for something? At least she earned it honestly.
How about lottery millionaires their winnings are totally tax free?
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/26/08 10:22 PM
A PLAN AD INFINITUM
===================
Good dialogue, everyone. Let's keep working on it until we come up with a moral and ethical economic plan, which will be a win/win one for everyone--even for the well off.

BTW, I reject a zero sum plan, or game--one where someone has to lose.
Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/27/08 10:59 PM
Mike- Here is a very nice comment on the French bank fraud from this morning's Age newspaper that seems especially suited this science-y spot:

"The laws of physics seem to be trumped by the laws of finance. The larger the sum of money defrauded, the harder it is to detect".... Writer David Davies (a welshman--Hooray!)

And ain't that the truth!

I was told once, though I will not vouch for the truth of it, that Sweden only allows its citizens to take home up to a certain amount, the rest is taxed. Others are supported by the state as necessary, and thus everyone has an income which is closer to the average than usual. Good idea?

Regarding the "Brain Drain-- it is real here in Oz, members of my own family included, but they come back. Not to as much money, certainly, but most do return. Because of the isolation and lack of opportunity to compare they are often surprised that Australia is not a bad place to live, and living elsewhere only proves it.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/28/08 03:48 PM
Ellis, speaking of the economic system in Sweden, which as I understand it, is socialist, asks:
Quote:
"Others (citizens) are supported by the state as necessary, and thus everyone has an income which is closer to the average than usual. Good idea?"


Ellis, I'm a pragmatist. But, I am also one who believes in what I call a feathers approach to the political economy. That is, I believe that when the left and right wings operate in a state of balance the whole body of the bird (society) benefits. Therefore, my question is: Do we know how well the Swedish system works? Is it pragmatic socialism?--one which makes room for creative and democratic capitalism?

BEWARE OF DISASTROUS WING ISM
=============================
DISASTER SOCIALISM
Or is it simply a form of disaster socialism? The kind--like perhaps the old Soviet Union was--that is so left-winged that it can do nothing but fly in ever-decreasing circles, down and down, to its own destruction. I am not a fan of disaster socialism.

DISASTER CAPITALISM
By the way, I have the same feeling about what the author, Naomi Klein, calls "disaster capitalism", in her book, SHOCK DOCTRINE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein

Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/28/08 05:04 PM
BEWARE OF DISASTROUS WING ISM! In my opinion it is a deadly social and pneumatological (spiritual) disease.

More about the book by Naomi Klein: THE SHOCK DOCTRINE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
Be sure and check out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kieyjfZDUIc

I feel I understand where she is coming from, but I prefer a balanced and feathers approach to solving the problems of society and the economy. I will leave the shock-and-aware approach to others.
Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/28/08 10:08 PM
Sweden seems to be doing very very well indeed, and the same could be said of the Scandinavian countries generally I believe. No signs of spiralling disaster, though I believe that Sweden has a high suicide rate, but due to lack of sun and light, not lack of money, the gloom in winter is apparently very depressing. I think that there is no way the trickle down theory was ever going to work. The 'haves' would not let there be any drip down to the 'have nots', partly because they believe they are entitled to what they have and also because they believe it is the 'have nots' own fault they are needy.

We all need to have some money, with, if possible some left over to spend on things we want- not just things we need.. What we do not have to have is vast stores of it that we then able to spend on rubbish, while others die for lack of food. That is wrong. That is happening now. It is happening in wealthy countries now. I would rather live in Sweden than the USA for instance.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/29/08 05:48 AM
I actually have inlaws in Sweden. Interestingly, their surname is Englund. I did the wedding for my daughter's step-daughter (Adams) to Mr. Englund. It took place at a floating hotel, near Tofino, BC. Quite a story. Mr. Englund is a concert violinist and music producer in a small city, north of the Arctic circle. He is paid, out of government taxes, as part of the way the government supports artists. Sounds okay to me.

Ellis, you comment
Quote:
I think that there is no way the trickle down theory was ever going to work. The 'haves' would not let there be any drip down to the 'have nots', partly because they believe they are entitled to what they have and also because they believe it is the 'have nots' own fault they are needy.
Of course, you are on target.

PUTTING THE POOR TO WORK FOR EACH OTHER USING CCC
-------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you are already aware of my interest--Using The Family Life Foundation--in promoting the use of complementary community currency (CCC). The FLF helped start the Toronto Dollar program in 1998. Take a look at
http://www.torontodollar.com
http://www.transaction.net
http://numismondo.com/pm/ssi/
http://universalbartergroup.com
--------------------------
We have even been successful in convincing Mayor David Miller, of Toronto, to back this CCC movement. Because it encourages the poor to help themselves, even the well-to-do seem to like this system. And the WTD's can actually make use of it. All foods banks could use the CCC system.I will be happy to have any comments and questions, including any constructive criticisms any of you may have.



Posted By: Mike Kremer Re: Money- too much or too little - 01/31/08 11:23 AM

I have had a think about Money, and World Monetary values.
Its quite obvious that there are rich and poor countries, in just the same way as there are rich and poor people.

But there is absolutely no democratic way you can take from the rich to help feed and clothe the poor, of the World..... I mean the whole Worlds poor.

What is really needed is- Complete World Currency Revaluations

This is my serious thought as to how this revaluation might be achieved.
In the main, individuals get rich because they work hard.
Generally hard work achieves wealth and fame.

The Country that has a hard working population. would, in the same way, become rich.
In order for any country to achieve its true monetary value, and the recognition of its currency on a par with others.
Its currency VALUE should be adjusted in relation to all the other World Currencys

Here is how I think World Currency values might be adjusted.
Every country would adjust its Currency Values according to
the value of its yearly exports.


I will determine the wealth of every Country by dividing the value of its its Exports by the number of people it has.

Every country in the world would would do the simple division sum:- Yearly Export Value/Population.

Here are a few examples, not absolutely correct....since I only have the 1991 the Gross National per capita instead of actual annual Export figures, but the Population figures, for that year are correct. Figures below show the idea.

Export/Population Figures are all in Millions, and US dollars

U. K...Exports =17.0m .Population=55.0m....True Value £= $0.30
Egypt .Exports.=0.62m..Population=53.0m .True Value dinar=$0.01
U.A.E..Exports.=20.0m..Population=1.5m. ..True Value rial=$12.5
Switzerland Exp=34.0..Population.=7.0m..True Value sfranc=$4.8
Germany .Exports 17.0m Population.=80.0m..True Value dm.= $0.21
USA. .Exports.=23.0m .Population.=250.0m.... True Value. .$0.090
Australia Exports= 17.0m. Population=17.0m True Value A$ =$1.0

Just a rough figures to show that in real time the United Arabic
Emirates rial, is worth at least 12 X Australian $, which itself is worth 5 X times the value of the German deutchsmark.

If all Rates of Exchange and money transactions, were to be based upon these Monetary RATIO'S, and updated yearly, it would to my mind, make for a much fairer distribution of the worlds wealth.



Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/01/08 09:04 PM
Quote:
"But there is absolutely no democratic way you can take from the rich to help feed and clothe the poor, of the World..... I mean the whole World's poor."Kremer.

Mike, your interesting comment raises some very interesting questions:
1. Are you in inferring that it could be done, autocratically? smile

Hitler did it. I once read a historian who said that had Hitler died before 1939 he would have gone down as one of great leaders of Europe.

Until he foolishly got the Germans into a stupid war, look what he did for for the poor and the unemployed of Germany.
Here is an irony: Beginning in 1933 (I was 3), Germany's getting ready for war was, economically speaking, good for my community http://www.bellisland.net --Conception Bay--Just north of St. John's--Newfoundland.

The fully employed Germans, and their need for iron, kept the 2100 miners, on Bell Island, employed. When WW 2 finally came, it employed the whole of North America.

2. Would it be awfully punny of me to say that many people--especially those in war-related industries, including workers in the weapons industry, doctors, nurses, hospital workers...and let us not forget the chaplains and the undertaking industry--made a killing as a result of WW 2 ?
I read somewhere that the over-all cost, in lives, was well over 20,000,000 lives. But look at the prosperity and employment it created. What more can we ask from our economic experts!

BTW, at 12, I was literally a few hundred yards from exploding torpedoes which sank four iron ore carriers, near our island, and hit one of our loading piers. War is obviously a "creative" make-work program.

3: If we can employ everybody by making war, how come we find it difficult to do so by waging war on poverty?

4. If the whole world's poor, who are the economic schlemiels (bunglers) who are running things, anyway?

Any answers, anyone?



Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/01/08 11:51 PM
Of course war is profitable--- always has been, still is. For the victors that is. There's even a profit in re-building the country that was conquered, not to mention the fact that the victor can claim the resources of the vanquished as theirs by a sort of right of conquest. Whilst Newfoundland was enjoying the spoils of war Poland was having a dreadful time, as was France, Holland, and Russia, even Britain, followed by most of the rest of the world. The generosity shown by the American people to not only their allies but also to the defeated enemy was remarkable (and possibly now forgotten) but the resulting extra production and resources gained helped enable the economy of the US to become the giant it has.
Posted By: Mike Kremer Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/02/08 05:04 AM
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Quote:
"But there is absolutely no democratic way you can take from the rich to help feed and clothe the poor, of the World..... I mean the whole World's poor."Kremer.

Mike, your interesting comment raises some very interesting questions:
1. Are you in inferring that it could be done, autocratically? smile
Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer


No, not autocratically, or any other warlike way in these modern
times. Simply because, in my opinion, the hundreds of Earth scanning Satellites are able to pinpoint any warlike movement of troops, or war factory buildings etc.- anywhere on Earth.
Worried countries pay good money for these Sat: photographs.
Satellites help prevent War.....at least the big ones.




Hitler did it. I once read a historian who said that had Hitler died before 1939 he would have gone down as one of great leaders of Europe.
Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer


If he had died before 1939, he wouldnt have been around to become a great leader. But prehaps a great German reformer? (Until he thought Aryan race)

I was sitting next to a couple of very religious Jews three years ago, traveling on a bus. They totally shocked me when they said that:-
"They venerated Hitler", because they believed that Hitler was
sent by G-d to be a rod for the Jewish backs. "That if Hitler had not been sent by G-d on this Earth, the Jews would never have been given Israel" !!!
I am still shocked by that conversation, coming from a religious Jew, even to this day.

I think it was all too easy for Hitler to come to power.
The Kaiser a member of the 'old guard' was ruling a Germany that had high unemployment and unrest. Hitler promised every one a Deutchlander-kinder-Wagon, A German small peoples car, or DKW.
That was Hitlers great start that fired up peoples imaginations.
Germany was also not allowed to build up an army or navy, after World WarI. Hitler took no notice of that old United Nations
order, he had his peoples support for both of his above ideals.



Until he foolishly got the Germans into a stupid war, look what he did for for the poor and the unemployed of Germany.
Here is an irony: Beginning in 1933 (I was 3), Germany's getting ready for war was, economically speaking, good for my community http://www.bellisland.net --Conception Bay--Just north of St. John's--Newfoundland.

The fully employed Germans, and their need for iron, kept the 2100 miners, on Bell Island, employed. When WW 2 finally came, it employed the whole of North America.

2. Would it be awfully punny of me to say that many people--especially those in war-related industries, including workers in the weapons industry, doctors, nurses, hospital workers...and let us not forget the chaplains and the undertaking industry--made a killing as a result of WW 2 ?

Originally Posted By: MikeKremer

......made a killing as a result of WW 2 ?
Yes...'aint that the truth!


I read somewhere that the over-all cost, in lives, was well over 20,000,000 lives. But look at the prosperity and employment it created. What more can we ask from our economic experts!

Originally Posted By: MikeKremer

Only 20 Million lives....you must be joking.
40 Million died under Stalin alone. Nobody is sure of the total deaths as a result of World WarII. But 55,000,000 is a better estimate.



BTW, at 12, I was literally a few hundred yards from exploding torpedoes which sank four iron ore carriers, near our island, and hit one of our loading piers. War is obviously a "creative" make-work program.

3: If we can employ everybody by making war, how come we find it difficult to do so by waging war on poverty?

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

.....You print more money, everybody get a manufacturing job, giving full employment.
After the war you help re build your enemys cities, by first stabilising their rampant inflation, by stating what their Currency value should be. Then you start making money for your own banks, using trade as a financial weapon.


4. If the whole world's poor, who are the economic schlemiels (bunglers) who are running things, anyway?

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer


Its easy for the economic sclemiels, the Zurich gnomes, and others to make money.....our World Monetary system needs to reflect every countries real values, Very much more important now, since everybody is off the Gold standard
Money manipulation has now easily become a tool of Goverments


Which is where I came in with my previous posting.



Any answers, anyone?



Posted By: Wyldfire Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/04/08 01:16 AM
If you are talking about creating a world monetray system, you may as well be discussing a world nation..... because its not going to happen till we are governed by one single body ruling the world.

A couple of years ago many western nations and others around the world met to create a standard accounting and reporting set. The idea was to create something so poeple from any nation could look at the information about a public business and understand what is happening with it easily, with out needing a masters in business...

Being an Accountant and Economist this effected my livly hood and pretty much my future existance so I watched the whole matter very carefully, it was hillarous to see how some nations attempted to twist the ideal or others (USA had the loudest voice in this group) basicly said either you do it our way or we won't be a part of it.

To be honest the wealth of a country atleast when it comes to monetry value is most effected by their Exports/Imports, how much of the currency is in circulation (Pretty much Goverment Controled), and how good investments are paying off in the nation.
Posted By: Mike Kremer Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/04/08 04:32 AM
Originally Posted By: Wyldfire
If you are talking about creating a world monetray system, you may as well be discussing a world
nation..... because its not going to happen till we are governed by one single body ruling the world.

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer 2 Wyldfire


No Im not actually advocating a World monetary system.

Im suggesting that every country should keep its own Currency,
-......but that everyones currency should be revalued according to that countrys worth, as I suggested in this thread four postings above.
I would determine the wealth of every Country by dividing the value of its its Exports by the number of people it has.

Thus giving a true indication of a Currencys worth - only the 'rates of exchange' would become the largest change...and at least be the true reflection of a countrys worth.
This would not require a world Goverment ruled by a single body.

Nor do I think a single World ruling Goverment could ever be achieved..not ever.
How could this ruling body be made up? From delegates from each country....and how many from each country?
One each from the poorest, going up to 30 or more from the richer. Big problem. Guesstimating a total body of 2000 delegates
all having to be present to vote?

Each countrys own Goverment - being local to that countrys area
- as now - should be more knowlegable as to what needs to be done than any hyperthetical World goverment.



A couple of years ago many western nations and others around the world met to create a standard accounting and reporting set. The idea was to create something so poeple from any nation could look at the information about a public business and understand what is happening with it easily, with out needing a masters in business...

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer 2 Wyldfire


...you may well be right. A standard accounting and reporting set, might well be easier to understand, especially when everyone knows what the true value of a countrys currency was worth, it should be even easier.
Nor would you or other accountants need to lose your jobs.



Being an Accountant and Economist this effected my livly hood and pretty much my future existance so I watched the whole matter very carefully, it was hillarous to see how some nations attempted to twist the ideal or others (USA had the loudest voice in this group) basicly said either you do it our way or we won't be a part of it.

To be honest the wealth of a country atleast when it comes to monetry value is most effected by their Exports/Imports, how much of the currency is in circulation (Pretty much Goverment Controled), and how good investments are paying off in the nation.


Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer 2 Wyldfire


Yes I am sure you are right. I thought about including imports into my formulae. But it was a quick idea, I made in response to post by Revlking elswhere. I wanted to keep the idea as simple as I could.
But as you are an accountant, by all means yourself and/or your company and others are welcome to 'clean the idea up'
In fact I would be very interested to see what a Research Inst: would make of it.

Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/04/08 04:54 AM
Who has heard of the British economist Hazel Henderson?

https://fp.auburn.edu/tann/hazel/index.htm
THE POLITICS OF MONEY and other editorials
http://www.hazelhenderson.com/editorials/politics_of_money.html
=========================
Although she is best known for her work on alternative economics and sustainability, Hazel Henderson has been a visionary in the field of electronic democracy. Starting with her pioneering 1970 article "Computers: Hardware of Democracy," through her recent chapter on "Perfecting Democracy's Tools" in Building a Win-Win World. She continues to lead the way in her ideas about empowering citizens via telecommunications.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/04/08 01:11 PM
MONEY—Paul, writing to his young companion and assistant, Timothy (1 Tim. 6:10) said: "For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."

I think I understand where Paul was coming from. But keep in mind that, in his day, all economies were almost entirely barter economies. That is, they were based on the exchange of commodities--goods and services--not, as in modern times, on the exchange of pieces of paper--fiat currencies, which are backed by nothing but how much we trust one another. Who said we lack faith?

In Jesus day, it was possible for people to live at an agrarian standard of living without having to have moneta--bronze, silver and gold.

OURS IS A MONEY-BASED ECONOMY
=============================
I suspect that if Paul were alive today he would say something like as follows: "The lack of a just, moral, ethical, people-based and loving money system which I consider to be the root of much evil. Some people have too much of it, and some people have too little. This is a greed-based-imbalanced and unjust money system, which is the root cause of much of the unrest and lack of harmony and peace there is in the world. This problem must be solved.

PAUL'S CONCERN WAS ABOUT WHAT THE ABUSE OF MONEY DOES TO THE RICH AS WELL AS TO THE POOR
=======================
Read what Paul says around the key verse I quote above: With real concern in his heart, for the happiness of the well-to-do, he speaks about how the rich fall into temptation, get, "caught in the trap of many foolish and harmful desires, which pull them down to ruin and destruction." He laments that many of them have, "wandered away from the faith and have broken their hearts with many sorrows." Ask the CEO's of once great corporations (Enron, World Com, Hollinger, etc.) who are either in or headed for jail.

WHAT IS MONEY?
==============
The Latin and Italian for money is, moneta. It comes from the name of the goddess, Juno Moneta (meaning the protector). Juno Moneta was the wife of Jupiter (Zeus was the Greek equivalent), king of the Roman gods. It was in Juno Moneta's temple that Roman coins were minted.

Money has a long and fascinating history. Historians tell us that money, in one form or another,came into being long before recorded history. Long before paper and coins with numbers were used, animals--cattle, sheep, pigs, fowl, etc.,--were used. So were crops, such as grains and tobacco.

When more complex social units, such as tribes and cities, came into being--led by individuals with god-like powers--more and more use was made of metals. Gold, silver, copper, bronze, etc., which traded by weight, were the most portable and, therefore, convenient. Coins with numbers on them came much later.

But keep in mind that metals were, in effect, barter items--that is, they had intrinsic value. Paper money, with no intrinsic value, came much later.

THE POUND AND THE DOLLAR
========================
The Latin and Italian for pound is lira, the French is livre. This why we use the symbol "L".
It is said that the original pound was a pound of copper.

By the way, it was expected that a pound of any
metal--gold, silver, copper, whatever, was not some debased amalgam. More details can be found at the sites listed below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Money#The_emergence_of_money
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency

What about paper money? For an answer to this question check out:

THE SILKROAD FOUNDATION
"The Bridge between Eastern and Western Cultures"
http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/artl/papermoney.shtml

According to the silkroadfoundation.org,"Paper currency was a
by-product of Chinese block-printing. It started in the Tang dynasty, but it was not until the Song dynasty that it became institutionalized as a governmental policy ... Unfortunately no written documents exist today which enable us to know how this system of paper currency actually functioned prior to the Yuan period." Interestingly, modern China calls it money yuans.

WE ARE SLOW LEARNERS, OR WHAT?
=============================
Also interesting is that, "When Marco Polo travelled to China, in the 13th century, he was so impressed by the idea of paper money that he described how it was made, used and valued. Despite this, paper money was not commonly used in Europe until the 17th century." Four hundred years! This goes to show how so slow we human beings often really are when it comes to learning new ways of doing things.

GOVERNMENTS, AT ALL LEVELS! WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
==============================================
When you tell us that many socially useful projects have to go undone, I want to ask: Is it because of the lack of money? Or is there an actual lack of people, goods and services to get the job done?

Now, if the problem is an actual lack of capital resources--including the lack of bricks, mortars and other commodities, trades people, labourers and the like--I can accept this. However, if you tell me that the problem is the lack of money—the unit of measurement, I want to ask, how come?

This is like a contractor saying to me: "Mr. King, we cannot complete building your house, because our trades people have run out of inches.

THE RE-INVENTION OF PAPER MONEY IN EUROPE
=========================================
The story goes that—and no one knows, exactly, how it actually
happened—paper money was re-invented, in Europe, not by any
government, but by certain enterprising entrepreneurs, who made a
business of storing coins and precious metals, belonging to the
well-to-do, for a fee. Knights and others, returning from the
Crusades, had need of a place to store the precious metals which they had earned, and/or stolen, while on their crusades. On the deposit of the precious metals—much of it gold and silver—the warehouse-owners gave the depositors paper receipts. Perhaps most of them were honest; but some were less so.

Most depositors simply kept their gold in storage, and used their
receipts like we, today, use paper money to pay debts. Instead of
redeeming the notes for metal—which the note bearers presumed remained on deposit—most recipients simply used them over and over again. By the way, until the 1960's, our banknotes actually carried the words,
"The Bank of Canada will pay the bearer..." (I have a couple of such
notes). Supposedly, they were backed by metal. Today's banknotes,
which are not backed by bank-held metals, carry the simple statement:
"This is legal tender". This is called fiat currency.

It wasn't long before savvy warehouse owners noticed that a large
percentage of the deposited metals remained, un-redeemed, in their
vaults. Yielding to temptation, certain vault owners , without fully
disclosing what they were doing—that the gold in their vaults actually
belonged to others—started creating unsecured paper money loans, and
loaned it out, at interest—to the war-like nobility and adventurers
clamouring for loans. In other words, the vault owners created money,
in the form of paper, and out of thin air. Sound familiar? And some of
them made fortunes. Some lost everything. Later, with the help of the
powerful nobility and legal advisers, which created the laws of the
land, this way of doing business—And let us not be afraid to name it
for what it was, fraud—was actually made legal. It became what we now
call fractional-reserve banking.
===============================
If you think I am making this up, check out any of the basic texts on
economics. For example, see pages 278-279, Basic Economics, by Richard
Echaus, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Interestingly, Chapter 14 of Marshal McLuhan's book, Understanding
Media,
is all about that most important medium, money.
Posted By: Wyldfire Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/05/08 01:55 AM
Just a side note, to this discussion I doubt the world would have become as technolgical evolved if any form of currency had not come around.



Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/05/08 04:38 PM
You're absolutely right, Wyld. Now, what do you suggest is the next step? Have you looked at the information about Hazel Henderson and what she suggests?
Posted By: Wyldfire Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/06/08 12:29 AM
From what I understand these Barter Systems are just another form of currency... The major difference is they are not control by a goverment rather another group of poeple, and loans do not exist on them.

I totally agree that with globalization your loose out on the small community, but I would argue you are joining a much large one... I beleive that globalization of markets, business is the most likely peaceful way to bring around a true unity to the world.

There are definate issues with the value of money, around the world but most of the issues are more to do with interests rates and huge levels of credit rather than the value of a dolar. These low interest loans where never really supportable and were going to crash eventally.

I think a world wide currency would be great, and solve alot of problems in the world, I am interested to hear from europeans think of what the euro has done for their country.

Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/08/08 05:28 AM
Quote:
Wyld: "From what I understand these Barter Systems are just another form of currency... The major difference is they are not control by a government rather another group of people, and loans do not exist on them."
BTW, with the help of http://www.universalbartergroup.com The Family Life Foundation
http://www.flfcanada.com, which I helped get started in 1973, is on the verge of convincing, with the help of our tax lawyers, the The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) http://www.cra.gc.ca/charities to accept tradeBUX (our name for barter dollars) as partial payment for taxes. This April is the testing time.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/08/08 12:58 PM
BTW, Wyld, It is not, "just another form of currency". Once barter currency becomes a widely accepted system--as it will if tradeBUX are accepted as payment for taxes--can you imagine the implication that this will have for the economy, especially the local one?

GLOBALIZATION--the good and the bad effects
===========================================
Globalization has been good for some businesses and for the people who work for them. For example, it is good for those in the commodities sectors; those with minerals, timber, and produce to export. China buys a lot from resource-rich Canada.

However, Globalization is bad for the manufacturing sector. Look at the number of jobs that have been lost to the cheap labour markets like China and Mexico.

TradeBUX, as a system, is a way of putting skilled people to work for one another, and paying one another, in the local econonmy.

For example, Let us suppose that I own a car repair business and you come into my shop to get your car fixed. This involves you having to pay me for parts and labour.

To cover my costs for the parts, which I have to import, you will need to pay me in federal dollars.

However, labour is another matter. Labour is a local product. If we are part of the tradeBUX system then these could be used to pay a large part of the bill. Of course, to simplify the transaction a plastic card could be used to keep track of things just like we do with debit cards.

Meanwhile, if tradeBUX can be used to pay part of the taxes involved, this makes tradeBUX acceptable to all involved.

By the way, where did you get the tradeBux to pay part of my bill?

TradeBUX come from two basic sources. First, you get them for depositing so many hours of your skill into the system. Second, if you qualify for welfare, you get them from the government store of tradeBUX which it collects in taxes.

This system will work for anyone who wants to save federal dollars to buy things which have to be imported.

But can you imagine what a boon it is for someone who, in terms of federal money, is living at or below the poverty line? It could make the difference between having a car, or not having one, to get him and his family to where they have to go.

TradeBUX are good for everyone, including governments.
For the unemployed and the working poor they will make all the difference one can imagine.

Here is a challenge:
Imagine yourself as a member of the tradeBUX system. Come up with things and skills you have and are willing to trade.

Now, come up with things you want and willing to accept from others in the system.












Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/08/08 08:24 PM
THE FOLLOWING IS A REVISED VERSION OF THE ABOVE
===============================================
BTW, Wyld, It is not, "just another form of currency". Once barter currency becomes a widely accepted system--as it will if tradeBUX are accepted as payment for taxes--can you imagine the implication that this will have for the economy, especially the local one?

GLOBALIZATION--It is good for some; not so good for others
==========================================================
Globalization has been good for some businesses and for the people who work for them. For example, it is good for people with commodities--minerals, timber, and produce--to sell. China buys a lot of commodities from resource-rich Canada.

However, Globalization is not so good for the manufacturing sector. Look at the number of jobs that have been lost to the cheap labour markets, like China and Mexico.

WHAT TO DO:
===========
We need to understand that globalization did not begin in the 1980's. It began, for our European ancestors, the day after the first entrepreneur seafarers became convinced that the earth is a globe. The search for the north west passage was about globalization. Like it or not, world trade is a fact.

LET US ENJOY WORLD TRADING
==========================
In my opinion we can enjoy the good which globalization has to offer. However, if we are to do so, at the same time, we need to encourage the development of local barter systems, which have so much to offer to local trading communities.
==========================================

TradeBUX, as a system, is a way of putting skilled people to work for one another, and paying one another, in the local economy using what I call a complimentary and community-based currency (CCC).

Here is an example of how any CCC works. I own a car repair business. You come to my shop to get your car fixed. This involves you having to pay me for parts and labour.

I expect you to cover my costs, with federal dollars, for the parts for which I have pay my supplier federal dollars.

However, my profit and labour costs are another matter. Labour is a local product. If you and I are part of a CCC system using, and I want your business, I could agree to let you pay a goodly portion of your bill using a CCC such as tradeBUX. Of course, to simplify the transaction a plastic card could be used to keep track of things just like we do with debit cards.

Meanwhile, if tradeBUX can be used to pay part of the taxes involved, this makes tradeBUX acceptable to all involved.

By the way, where did you get the tradeBux to pay part of my bill?

TradeBUX come from two basic sources. First, you get them for depositing so many hours of your skill into the system. Second, if you qualify for welfare, you get them from the government store of tradeBUX which it collects in taxes.

This system will work for anyone who wants to save federal dollars to buy things which have to be imported.

But can you imagine what a boon it is for someone who, in terms of federal money, is living at or below the poverty line? It could make the difference between having a car, or not having one, to get him and his family to where they have to go.

TradeBUX are good for everyone involved in the CCC system, including the haves, the have-nots and our the three levels of government. For the very unhappy unemployed and the working poor they could make all the difference in the world.

Here is a challenge:
Imagine yourself as a trading member of the tradeBUX CCC system. Name the goods and services you have to offer to the system.

Now, name the goods and services you need, or want, from the system.


Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/09/08 02:19 AM
Wyld wrote:
I totally agree that with globalization your loose out on the small community, but I would argue you are joining a much large one... I beleive that globalization of markets, business is the most likely peaceful way to bring around a true unity to the world.

I think that money, and/or the lack of it, has been the source of revolution on many occasions. I dread to think of it on a global scale!

Posted By: Wyldfire Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/11/08 12:22 AM
Can I confirm with you exacly what this system does....

Lets say for this example I am a Farmer.

I give 20 cows to person 2 and on the electronic system I get some Barter Units put against my name.

I can then use these barter credits to buy Hay from person 3, so my number of barter units on the electronic system is reduce and I never get some Hay.

Now because technically not dollars have passed back and forth, under the legislation of most countries I wouldn't have to pay tax on this barter.



Posted By: Wyldfire Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/11/08 12:49 AM
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Wyld wrote:

I think that money, and/or the lack of it, has been the source of revolution on many occasions. I dread to think of it on a global scale!



One thousand Microfractures through a peice of concret will do the same amount of damage as one major fracture, if not worse.
Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/11/08 05:20 AM
Wyld wrote---


Lets say for this example I am a Farmer

I give 20 cows to person 2 and on the electronic system I get some Barter Units put against my name.

I can then use these barter credits to buy Hay from person 3, so my number of barter units on the electronic system is reduce and I never get some Hay.

Now because technically not dollars have passed back and forth, under the legislation of most countries I wouldn't have to pay tax on this barter.



This system is not barter, as barter is the act of exchanging goods without the use of money. Money is a medium of exchange. In this system barter credits are de facto money as they can be exchanged for goods. Dollars are not the only form of money on the planet. Of course you would have to pay tax on the barter credits in the same way that tax is paid on non-monetary components of salary such as cars, holidays and lunches etc. Actually I would bet that any taxing institution would jumping on the fact that barter credits are really monetary units straight away.

Bartering is the direct swapping of the cows for the hay.

Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/11/08 01:27 PM
Ellis comments
Quote:
Actually I would bet that any taxing institution would be jumping on the fact that barter credits are really monetary units straight away.
Ellis, you're right. Canadian tax law does precisely what you write.

WE WANT TRADEBUX TO BE RECOGNIZED AS LEGAL TENDER
=================================================
Our tax lawyers working for our universalbartergroup.com make the following argument: OK then, if tradeBUX are monetary units subject to taxation by the three levels of government, then we expect that the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) should recognize tradeBUX as legal tender for the payment of taxes. Simple.

If come April 30, this happens we predict that charities, and churches will become recognized for what they have always been and, collectively, are: the third sector of the economy. The other two sectors being: The Government, and the business sectors. We also predict that this will encourage all kinds of opportunities for socially-useful and meaningful employment and production of goods and services.

For the record: I have been thinking about this idea since I was ordained in 1953. I began to write about it, seriously in the 1960's. In the 1970's, on the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation--public radio), I spent a whole week broadcasting the idea. In the 1980's, with the help of the same CBC, I became aware of the work of Michael Linton. At long last, I no longer felt alone. A small group of us formed the first Toronto LET system in 1985. Later came the Toronto Dollar system--approved by three mayors.

In order to make the idea more of a public issue, I ran for government in the 1990's--more than once. I felt like I was a mountain climber trying to find the best way to get up a steep slope. Also, in the 1990's, I went on line.

On line I soon discovered that there are many others climbers on the same mountain. Some fell away because of difficulties. However, with the help of the WWW, momentum began to build. More and more eventually joined the climb, from all sides.

Things finally came together about four years ago. Now, more and more of us can finally see that the winds of change have blown away the mist, the fog and clouds. The beautiful peak is just ahead, framed by a clear cerulean-blue sky. WOW!!!What a sight!!!!


Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/12/08 06:07 AM
Surely though the monetary system requires a mutually agreed upon standard for the medium of exchange. Thus it does not matter what the item used as currency is- historically in the Pacific cowrie shells were used as money as all agreed on their value and their value was the same for everyone. This consistency is very important. What is the value of a load of hay to me? Nothing at all - but to a drought ridden farmer its worth is priceless. The barter bux would become just another currency model as people would try to trade in them and not the goods. This would not be possible large-scale, though small scale, as in Club Med money it may work, but as we globalise strong currencies will become more highly portable not less and there will be no room for minor ones.

However it is a nice idea. I find it very attractive and I hope you prove me wrong!
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/12/08 09:01 PM
"This would not be possible large-scale, though small scale, as in Club Med money it may work, but as we globalise strong currencies will become more highly portable not less and there will be no room for minor ones." Ellis

Ellis, keep in mind: Here we are talking about monetizing goods and services that are NOW just lying there, unused.

BTW, have you taken the time to read some of...? http://www.transaction.net

This is the Page of Dr. Bernard Litaer--a graduate of MIT, Boston. I have been in touch with him since 1997. He used to work with the World Bank, Brussels, Belgium. He helped design the Euro system. He got fed up with the way the banking system is ripping off the little guy.

I am glad you have a positive appreciation for what we are doing.
The mutually agreed on standard is this: One tradBUX = one dollar.

I am sure you must be aware--Are you?--that the gold, silver and bronze coins, which were minted at the Jerusalem Temple and widely used in Jesus' time, were part of the CCC system.

Also, are you aware of the way in which the Temple coins differed from the Roman and other foreign coins? I have made a study of this. VERY interesting.
Posted By: Wyldfire Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/12/08 11:17 PM
Originally Posted By: Ellis

This system is not barter, as barter is the act of exchanging goods without the use of money. Money is a medium of exchange. In this system barter credits are de facto money as they can be exchanged for goods. Dollars are not the only form of money on the planet. Of course you would have to pay tax on the barter credits in the same way that tax is paid on non-monetary components of salary such as cars, holidays and lunches etc. Actually I would bet that any taxing institution would jumping on the fact that barter credits are really monetary units straight away.

Bartering is the direct swapping of the cows for the hay.



I totally agree with you Ellis, I just wanted to confirm with Revlgking that was how the system works... before I put forward it was just another currency.



Originally Posted By: Revlgking


Ellis, keep in mind: Here we are talking about monetizing goods and services that are NOW just lying there, unused.



Can you please explain this comment, what do you mean goods and services that are now just lying there, and monetizing ???
Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/13/08 02:06 AM
Rev wrote:
This is the Page of Dr. Bernard Litaer--a graduate of MIT, Boston. I have been in touch with him since 1997. He used to work with the World Bank, Brussels, Belgium. He helped design the Euro system. He got fed up with the way the banking system is ripping off the little guy.


As I said:
"as we globalise strong currencies will become more highly portable not less and there will be no room for minor ones."

In much of Europe now there is only the euro (old coins are still legal tender but with a euro value ). The euro is becoming a viable substitute for the American dollar in international trade.

Personally I think it will still be possible to feel ripped off by the banks--even if they are using euros!

Posted By: Wyldfire Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/13/08 05:55 AM
I don't think there would have been much of a change to how banks treat the average person before or after the Euro, they still exist to make a profit(unless you are talking about reserve banks).

In Australia more than a few small banking groups have grown in power as the years have passed, growing because of lower charges, better services. Now I will admit it would be very difficult to start your own bank, but it is possible.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/13/08 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Ellis, keep in mind: Here, we are talking about monetizing goods and services that are NOW just lying there, unused.


WF asks me: "Can you please explain this comment, what do you mean goods and services that are now just lying there, and monetizing ???"

Let us suppose that you are a retired teacher, willing to tutor school children in need of help. Meanwhile, you have a roof that needs to be fixed. Because you have had some high expenses, recently, you have put things off.

Let us suppose that I am a roofer, with economic difficulties similiar to yours. Meanwhile, I have a child who needs help in school. If we were both members of www.universalbartergroup.com the system could be used to bring us together and thus put the capital (your skill and my skill) we both have to work.

Have you read www.transaction.net yet? If not, may I ask: How serious are you about all this?
Posted By: Wyldfire Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/13/08 11:38 PM
I disagree with alot of what is spoken about on this website, when arguing something I like to have a clear understanding of what exacly a person is saying, so I can reply clearly and their is no confusion.

Originally Posted By: transaction.net
[quote]Just imagine if each transaction in these struggling communities conserved local resources instead of leaking interest--people in a community would be encouraged not to hoard currency (hoarding chills employment and corrodes the social bonds that develop in gift- or wealth-based economies) for the sake of the interest, but instead to trade their time, expertise, and extra property freely with other people.


This is the comment that I disagree with more than anything else.

In most western countries currently poeple are living well beyond their means living on credit cards and other large amounts of debt. This is a seroius issue because poeple are not saving and spending far to much, this a great cause inflation, and debt above the amount poeple can pay is going to cause a market to crash, we had seen this over the last year in Amercia.

Money is hardly ever lazy in banks, they are constantly trying to make as much money of it as possible, by lending it out to poeple or investing it.

Now I said above to my money lent out is bad that is correct, but lending out money also allows poeple to start new business, and expand. This increase the amount of employment.

Posted By: Wyldfire Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/13/08 11:59 PM
Quote:
Many communities are suffering from unemployment, social isolation, and the degradation of living creatures and their natural habitat. These communities have plenty of human resources--talented people with the energy to make a difference--but because they have to rely on loan-based currency from the federal government when they use those resources, each exchange spirals them further into debt.


I love this comment, I wish I knew where these uptaped resources and talented poeple where being unused because this is where growth in a country should be. This is where captialism should be flourishing and globalisation will help it.

These poeple don't need a new system but help getting themselves focused and utilising these resources.

Now a smart bank and honest goverment should help provide these, its in both their interests to be havesting these resources, more industry, more money going into the bank they make a profit, the stronger the industry in a country the stronger the economy and the population are better off.

I really don't understand the spiralling into debt comment, is he talking about unemployeed poeple borrowing money to eat, or poeple borrowing money to try and start business or expand, it isn't really clear to me.

People borrowing money to eat is an issue definately, but increase in industry will mean more jobs therefore poeple won't have to borrow for food.

If its borrowing to start business or expand, and the local banks are dodgy then this is where globalisation helps, access to wider markets means more compeitive prices.
Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/14/08 04:21 AM
Rev wrote:
Let us suppose that I am a roofer, with economic difficulties similiar to yours. Meanwhile, I have a child who needs help in school. If we were both members of http://www.universalbartergroup.com the system could be used to bring us together and thus put the capital (your skill and my skill) we both have to work.


That's fine, and it would be barter. This transaction does not need the Barter bux you were talking about before. Between two individuals I would think it would also be legal and I doubt if it would draw attention from the Tax Office, but Wyld would know more about that. However it is not a new system.

I too question the existence of large pots of money under the bed. Certainly in most western countries a lot of the money that people spend is notional, and exists only in the debit column of some plastic card.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/14/08 06:11 AM
Monetizing means giving a dollar value to commodities, goods and services--things with intrinsic value.

Keep in mind that Fiat money, the kind created by the central banks, has no intrinsic value. It can be created virtually out of thin air--a kind of legalized fraud. BTW, except for actual gold and silver coins, how much value does our regular coinage actually have? I suspect it is very little.

The purpose of the electronic tradeBUX is just to keep track of the trades.

This debt-based system, invariably, is the basic cause of our economic-bubbles which go BANG!!!! leaving all of us with inflation and many people with soul-destroying debts. I believe it is also the cause of unnecessary wars, causing huge national debts which benefits only the money lenders.

Let us not forget Eisenhower's warning:
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
"Beware of the power of the military-industrial complex..."

The UniversalBarterGroup (UBG) is about democratic capitalism. It seeks to work with all moral and ethical forms of business, including banks and the national currency system. It is complementary to, not contrary. We want the poor to have meaningful employment and the opportunity to create wealth, not take it away from others who have created it. It is not about how we divide the pie; it is about making more pies. Read Matt. 25--the parable of the talents.

Ellis, you say that barter, "is not a new system." Of course it isn't. But the PC has added a new dimension as to what can be done. Using it we could set up what I call THE 4U UNION.

This union could include every class: the unemployed, the under employed, the under paid, and the unhappy (this could include the rich). Our motto could we: JOIN 4U--WE ARE FOR YOU. The goal would be to create meaningful employment for all who need it.
Posted By: Wyldfire Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/14/08 10:33 PM


Every trade you make you put a value on a resource or item, even if you are bartering tutoring for roof fixing, the value just isn't in an easy to understand amount.

These barter bux have no intrinsic value either, from what I understand they are a merely a couple of bites on a server somewhere.

Is the idea of this system to

a) remove credit from the world, e.g. no loans, no credit cards

b) create a system where there is unlimited amount of currency rather than the current finite amount that is currently in circulation.

c) a monetary system that is not run by a government

I will admit perhaps I am a little biased in this comparison, because in Australia our Economic setup is very good and proves that the Money system works, when connected to a good government and independent bodies.

The cause of large amount of debt of the population in western countries is because of a social source (the need to keep up with next door, we are a consumer world these days) and not economically related (other than the fact that credit is available to use)

I have no issue with bartering at all, and while I am sure the Tax department would like to know about it, there is no real way for them to trace it.

Revlgking, I would be interested to know what you opinion of communism is ??
Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/15/08 03:15 AM
The value of money is arbitrary. Currency is no longer backed by gold, but instead its value is mutually agreed upon by the international financial institutions using it. Currencies are ranked against each other and some are much more desirable than others. It is not possible to go happily minting your own money as inflation against other currencies will make it worthless--this is what happened in Zimbabwe as I mentioned it at the start of this topic. This inflation is far more likely to go BANG than the resulting depression as a result of debt. It is possible, though hard work, to trade out of debt, but trading out of inflation will simply inflame the situation.

OK that's a bit over-simplified Wyld, but near enough!!
Posted By: Wyldfire Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/15/08 05:11 AM
Ellis, I totally understand and agree with that...

One of the issues brought up on http://www.transaction.net is that a currency with a finiate amount is bad.... which I laugh at because the reason to mentioned above

I was hoping from my question to get Rev to tell me what he felt the major goal of the system was...
Posted By: Wyldfire Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/15/08 05:15 AM
On a side note, demand for a currency is a big effect on its value, while banks decide how much they are willing to exchange it for, there is an entire market just based on the value of dollars and where currencies are traded.

This Demand is normally affected by exports and imports of a nation and the average interest rate and investing opportunities in the nation. Of course reserve banks can with draw currency from circulation which obviously has an effect.
Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/15/08 06:22 AM
Talking of value--You may not remember the first 50 cent Aussie coin Wyld, but I do. It had to be replaced after a few years because its silver content was greater than its monetary value!! What would that be called---DEflation?
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/16/08 07:44 AM
If no one was told what was happening...this sounds like fraud to me. smile

BTW, in ancient and Roman times, before the invention of another kind of fraud--fiat, or paper money--this is how money was inflated, by debasement. Keep in mind that coins were valued according to their by weight, not by a number on the coin,

Historians tell us that, by the time the Roman Empire fell, gold coins were mostly lead coins dipped in gold. This created inflation and that such inflation was one of the reason for the fall of Rome as a super power. Does it remind you of another super power, today?
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/17/08 08:19 PM
Quote:
WF asks:Revlgking, I would be interested to know what you opinion of communism is ??
WF, if you mean autocratic communism; I have the same opinion of it as I have of autocratic capitalism. I am not a fan of left wing ism any more than I am of right wing ism.

Think of a bird with only one strong wing. It doesn't matter whether the wing is left, or right; you end up with a very unhappy bird. Maybe this is how birds, such as the ostrich, evolved.
Posted By: samwik Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/18/08 08:25 AM
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Monetizing means giving a dollar value to commodities, goods and services--things with intrinsic value.

Keep in mind that Fiat money, the kind created by the central banks, has no intrinsic value. It can be created virtually out of thin air--a kind of legalized fraud. BTW, except for actual gold and silver coins, how much value does our regular coinage actually have? I suspect it is very little.

The purpose of the electronic tradeBUX is just to keep track of the trades.

This debt-based system, invariably, is the basic cause of our economic-bubbles which go BANG!!!! leaving all of us with inflation and many people with soul-destroying debts. I believe it is also the cause of unnecessary wars, causing huge national debts which benefits only the money lenders.

Let us not forget Eisenhower's warning:
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
"Beware of the power of the military-industrial complex..."

The UniversalBarterGroup (UBG) is about democratic capitalism. It seeks to work with all moral and ethical forms of business, including banks and the national currency system. It is complementary to, not contrary. We want the poor to have meaningful employment and the opportunity to create wealth, not take it away from others who have created it. It is not about how we divide the pie; it is about making more pies. Read Matt. 25--the parable of the talents.

Ellis, you say that barter, "is not a new system." Of course it isn't. But the PC has added a new dimension as to what can be done. Using it we could set up what I call THE 4U UNION.

This union could include every class: the unemployed, the under employed, the under paid, and the unhappy (this could include the rich). Our motto could we: JOIN 4U--WE ARE FOR YOU. The goal would be to create meaningful employment for all who need it.


smile

On my new Kindle, I've uploaded Mind of the Market by Michael Shermer.
I saw him on BookTV at a CATO Inst. talk (wow, was that fun to watch -the lamb in the lion's den, so to speak), and couldn't resist.
Also look up (google) Michael H. Shuman (Smallmart) & (Local Stock Exchanges!).
He says all those local currency conferences are stocked with poor, 70 year olds. Is this true?

Currently I'm still working on my first purchase, an E. O. Wilson book, along the lines of his The Creation.

Kindle allows me to browse ScienceAGoGo also!

I even logged in twice; and seemed to reply, but couldn't post (?).
But I can browse the fora! Anytime, anywhere; and surf, read more, highlight, and browse for more books.

Wisdom of Crowds, anyone?

But BOT
Check out those 2 Michaels, above, via google.

An economic "solution" must be part of an overall solution to biological and social equity (climate change and poverty/war).

smile

Posted By: samwik Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/21/08 03:44 PM
...and of the two Michaels....

Michael Shuman talked about avoiding the "attraction & retention" programs in favor of fostering local development. Avoiding a sales tax "arms race" with neighboring communities, changing tax policies to be more "green," and keeping tax credits local were favored strategies (I think). He also mentioned examining money flow for various RFP's -proposals, and other development strategies (w/ goal of keeping money local and recirculating), in what he referred to as a "leakage analysis." Local business alliances and incubators were also mentioned as a positive step towards sustainable development.

Interestingly, with many areas (fisheries, forestry, farming) of sustainable development, it is local control that leads to the best outcomes.
What a surprise, eh?

I liked his point about how in the long run, what is best for the planet is the cheapest.
...um....
It's not sagacious to be rapacious.

That reminded me of Michael Shermer's observation that throughout much of the Paleolithic worldtime, economics was a zero-sum game.

I liked his favorable comparisons between Evolution and "Free-Enterprise."

I wonder if now, in this Consumpti-synthic age, with our niche filled, economics needs to be again considered as a zero-sum game (globally).

Someday it won't be the Gold Standard, but the Carbon Standard (oil, soil, biomass), or even maybe a Water Standard, that will determine value. That'd sure redistribute wealth and opportunity around the globe.
[now on Sam's Kindle: Storing Carbon in Agricultural Soils: A Multi-Purpose Environmental Strategy]
...I knew I was right about this...(and this is 10 years old!).
Posted By: donkeyhunter Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/21/08 05:06 PM
Personally, I don't see the problem with a fiat currency. Granted the potential for abuse is there, but hard currency can be just as easily manipulated. Seeing that we lost control of most of our gold reserve, if we did go back to a gold-backed dollar the value of that dollar would be vulnerable to manipulation by foreign powers. I'd rather take my chances getting swindled by a country I can 'reach out and touch' if I have to.

But I do agree that the entire debt based system of issuing currency via fractional reserve lending is folly, and is, in my opinion, the biggest problem we face in the US right now, bar none.
Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 02/22/08 06:36 AM
Nothing has changed. Inflation is now, at this moment, running at 100,000 % in Zimbabwe. I started wondering what it would be like to have inflation so high that every dollar I own would be worth 100,000 more than that of the unfortunate citizens of Zimbabwe. Would money cease to have meaning then? It would have to I think.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 03/22/08 06:52 PM
In the long-running thread--well over 100,000 clicks--about the philosophy of all religions, Amaranth asked me about the latest news from the Family Life Foundation--flfcanada.com--regarding BarterWold.com
========================
I sent her the following links http://www.barterworld.com
and http://www.universalbartergroup.com

==========================
She responded: "Interesting to see how bartering is becoming the upscale thing."

Amaranth asked me: "Have you ever heard of time-dollars?

http://www.timebanks.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_currency

http://www.transaction.net/money/timedollars/

"This last one links to Toronto dollars. I have not followed that link, but I know a little about Toronto Dollars, and it sounds like an interesting proposition."
===========================

I responded: "Yes. Since the late 1960's I have been writing about and promoting what I now call CCC--complementary and community currency."

It was after that that I became aware of the Guernsey Island experiment in 1816. Does anyone know how many other such experiments there have been? Until the British conquest in 1769, the French in Canada used playing cards and the New England colonies used colonial script. Check out: http://www.micheloud.com/FXM/MH/canada.htm
http://www.kamron.com/Liberty/colonial_script.htm

By the way, long before the invention of paper money ( Perhaps the Chinese were the first to invent the idea.), all forms of currency were initially local, and in kind. Here are just a few examples of the kind of things used: animals, animal skins, grains, metals (especially iron, bronze, silver and gold), tobacco, oils, alcohol, shells, salt, spices, whatever--things that were accepted, locally, as having a common value. What we call fiat money is a relatively modern invention. The latest invention is the use of computer blips. Does anyone know who were the first to come up with the idea of a currency based on monitized barter.

"What I am advocating can also be called creative community capitalism (CCC). It is meant to work in cooperation with governments and our chartered banking system and paying all legal taxes. It is not in any way an underground economy.

IMO, this is the best way to solve the problems caused by our current and debt-based and inefficient disaster-capitalism system which has destroyed the happiness of so many people who dreamed of owning their homes. It could also be a way of helping those who lose their homes in natural disasters not covered by insurance.

"In addition to the above, check our the work of Toronto author, Naomi Klein.
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

"THIS IS POWERFUL STUFF:
========================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka3Pb_StJn4
Check out her dialogue with Milton Friedman.
_________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka3Pb_StJn4
=============================================
"At the above I found quite a numbers of audio and visual quotes on economics. For example, Milton Friedman presents his case for what he calls the "free" market. He also uses the term, "competitive capitalism".

"BTW, in his comments he admitted that capitalism is not a "sufficient" cause of democracy. "But" he says, "capitalism is a necessary part of any democracy." Friedman, a strong advocate of monetarism admitted that both communism and national socialism used a form of capitalism.

"MONETARISM--A definition
========================
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client...nition&ct=title
Monetarism, a right wing approach, tends to say: Leave the economy to the market place and things will right themselves.

"KEYNESIANISM--offers a left wing approach.
============
http://www.history-ontheweb.co.uk/concepts/keynesianism51.htm
The key propositions of Keynesianism?--named after John Maynard Keynes: Here is an example:

1 of 6: There is no natural tendency for capitalist market economies, which now dominate world economies, to correct economic shocks and maintain an equilibrium at full employment. Before Keynes it was well known that there was a regular pattern of boom and slump but it was assumed that economies quickly righted themselves without government intervention. Keynes denied this.

"MY PERSONAL APPROACH?: As I have indicated elsewhere, as an intuitive economist, I take what I call "a feathers approach" to the political economy, not just a left wing or right wing one. After all, feathers are essential to the welfare of the whole bird.

"And don't forget the essential tail feathers. Without them, wings--indeed the whole bird--could not function. Without tail feathers flight is impossible no matter how strong the wings happen to be. They balance the wings and enable birds keep on course in those long migratory flight in search of food.

"Take note that tail feathers are, humbly, located right over the anus--another essential part of the bird.

"COOPERATIVE AND COMMUNITY CAPITALISM
====================================
"Perhaps this is the essential function of democratic forms of government: Be humble tail feathers and promote a democratic form of capitalism, what I call cooperative and community capitalism (CCC).

"This helps keep the wings in a state of balance and thus help the head (made up of all social leaders, including educators, spiritual leaders, business leaders, whoever) do that which is needed by the body of the whole bird, including the smallest feathers (our precious youth)."
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/16/08 05:10 PM
FAMILY LIFE FOUNDATION HAS A CONCRETE PLAN
==========================================
Yesterday, Tuesday, April 15, I attended a breakfast meeting, sponsored by http://www.BarterWorld.com
They have some very posh space at 19 Allstate Parkway--the corner of 404 and 7, Markham, Ontario.

After the breakfast, Michael--the accounts manager--spent an hour with us explaining how the system works.

By the way, the newest member of the FLF board is Gary Costelec. He is an employee with BW.

Now part of BarterWorld.com
The FLF is now one of the registered charities
with www.universalbartergroup.com

Recently, in our account, we received $48,000 worth of tradeBux--a kind of usury-free currency. We a plan to spend some of this getting a sound system for www.pathwayschurch.ca

BARTER is trading what you HAVE for what you NEED. Helping Charities acquire goods and services to accomplish their goals and help those in need both at home and abroad.
Posted By: odin1 Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/19/08 11:32 PM
Here in the US there are several reasons why we are in a recession. One of them is the NAFTA treaty signed into law by Bill Clinton and I may add approved by both houses before he signed it. In the county where I live we lost 5 sewing plants. The larger one at is's apex employed about 650 people. These people were given prolonged unemployment benefits and money for re-education at the local community college.

Now, before I go further let me give another dimension to NAFTA and relocation of industry before I go to their throat. We have been plagued here in the US by unions since early in the 20 century. In the beginning unions were a noble cause(although the heirarchy were questionable figures) but they were formed because of a need. Working conditions were bad, wages were terrible, children were worked like slaves, there were no benefits-all the makings to encourage change. The unions grew stronger and stronger and in time outgrew their purpose. Higher wages pushed up the prices of things such as automobiles and other necessities. For example, in about 1970 the auto workers were making about $16.00 per hour give or take a few bucks with some benefits, while in the South where I live about $4.00 per hour was the norm for manual labor. Textile plants moved to the South because the labor was cheaper with no unions. You might say in the 60's and 70's the Southern US was the "Mexico" of the day. So, to make it short you have the first ingredient "unions".

Then, came government regulations, further making it hard for idustry and corportations to do business. Hold on I am no advocate of large business hear me out. You have OSHA, and the EPA knocking on your door making life and doing business miserable, not to mention taxation. What would you do if you owned a factory and it cost you $8.00 to make a t-shirt when you can move to Mexico or China and make it for $2.00 and sell it for the same price? And these figures aren't exact I'm saying it cost much less off shore than here. How do you compete with an economy that the per capita income is $12000.00 per year when it is around 4 times that here and in other Western countries?

Then, to make things worse, the local banks tighen up on the money supply in these areas that were hit hard by plant closings.In the US small business is the largest employer. It is about 75% of the emloyers. So the banks quit lending money locally, because as one banker at a large East Coast Bank told me, why should we make 4000 loans here in this county when we can make 1 10,000,000 loan in a larger metropolitan area to say a developer and eliminate people and work? The answer is simple,
if you had 10,000,000 to invest would you put it all in one stock? Of course you wouldn't if that one investment went bad you have had a bad day. And the other side of the coin is this, people in these areas that put money on deposit are getting a mere 2.5 or 2.8 % return on their money with the bankers making loans in other areas and letting the rural areas dry up. In the mean time small business is having it rear rough, laying people off or closing completely, the credit ratings of the people in those areas gets real low thus making things worse for doing business in the area because of low beacon scores (which is another story)and creates a vicious cycle of despair. Meantime, all the high rollers and big spenders are having a party paying theirself too much money and creating a "service economy" and folks a service economy never served anyone but the folks at the top. Real
estate went crazy here especially at the beachs and the bankers greedily finaced the developers thus pushing up the prices and the bubble has burst. Now, they wish they had mad more loans to more people and diversified the investments.

I could write you a book. This is just part of it. Rome tried a service economy, it didn't work for them either, the same principles apply today that applied then. Also, too many entitlements-too many people are eating out of the Federal trough. In the county I live in $6,000,000 per year is budged for a county of 52000 people for medicade. If you could sum it up nice and tidy here it is:
Greedy people
Too Much Government
Hope this has enlightend someone.
odin1

Too Much Government
Greedy People
Posted By: RicS Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/20/08 03:04 PM
G'day,

Rome when? They had a perfectly workable service economy for hundreds of years. It was bult on the back of slavery so it wasn't equitable or fair but it certainly worked. A prostitute cost around $0.50. $2.00 if he or she was actually pretty good. Food and cloth was cheap enough that as long as you held some form of employment you had food and clothing. Accommodation was another thing altogether. They had shortages but you coped.

Medical Services. Pretty much all of Europe and a great deal of other companies have universal "fully paid" medical systems. This includes New Zealand, Australia. With some exceptions it actually works.

These so called welfare states manage to look after the poor and sick and unfortunate a hell of a lot better than the US and without it destroying their economies to do it. Indeed, many countries actually have surpluses in their economies.

Manufacturing is not the reason that countries go broke. China is currently the manufucterer for everyone. I can buy products in that country, ship them to mine, unload them etc, at ONE TENTH of what they would cost for me to make here. Funny thing is that the factories I deal with have had to increase wages over and over in the last five years from 200 yuan, to 400 yuan, to 600 yuan and now all the way up to 1200 yuan a month. Now this isn't much money but the jump is. But funnily enough I knew our prices would not go up for a very long time because of the slack in the Chinese economy. They did things inefficiently when it was so cheap, hiring an efficiency expert was more expense than just being ineficient. Then machines started to come in. That also improved quality control, as did the insistance of importers such as me for quality control inspectors, refunds on defective goods below very low levels and refusing to buy further products from those factories that failed to provide adequate quality.

This type of movement of manufacturing has been occuring for a couple of centuries now.

The US is in a recession and is a ticking time bomb financially because of factors you didn't mention at all but are extremely important. Your Government never met a pork barrel it could not stuff fuller than it was previously. Your Government runs on money, rivers of it, to elect even lowly Judges. A contested campaign for a Judge, who will earn maybe $120,000 per year is more than $1 million. What moron every thought electing a judge, a DA, a Sheriff, a coroner, dog catcher, etc, etc, was a good idea just took the idea of democracy and thought they would see if they could destroy it completely.

Now look at the money old Obama and Hillary and chewing up. All for a job that pays $500,000. Oh I realise that is what Bill now gets just to make a speach but there is always the chance after all that effort you die or get killed in office. Not a good investment if you ask me.

So every State and Federal elected representative needs to due a great deal of really really stupid things with the people's money to get re-elected.

Could you imagine a method where electoral donations are banned and the candidates are given funds in which to campaign with? This actually happens in many countries. Sounds a bit fairer than Enron donating millions to several politicians doesn't it?

Then you have a military that costs such an enormous amount yet it gives a terrible return for its investment. Instead of making planes that cost $3 billion each, just do what they have done with the B52s and keep fixing them. And even then look at what you want your military for and then pay them enough to actually be proud to be serving for their country. A country that pays their soldiers so poorly that they are eligible for State Welfare automatically, and who comes home from Iraq to find their car repossessed because their loved one had a choice between being late with the payments or feeding the kids because the food got more expensive real quick.

But the biggest doozy of them all! A lot of people don't know this but the US was a terrible investment for most of its existence and is now even worse. It had to borrow a great deal to fight the British and owed debts traditionally in very large amounts until the blessing of WWI came along. Now they wouldn't fight in it because that would mean were really a part of the world but they certainly took all sides' money. It is said that Mr Maxim, the US inventor of self reloading machine gun, was paid around $9 for every single soldier killed in the First World War because the guns were built under licence in Germany, Austria, Britain, France etc.

So for a while the US was out of debt and they even actually entered the war eventually when it was nearly over anyway. The Germans managed to lose because eating frozen turnips just does not keep one healthy and if you do that three years in a row and the supplies of food for the front just dry up then soldiers start to starve and, no more war. The US helped, a little bit, but it was the effectiveness of the British in blockading the Germans more than anything that lost Germany that war.

Because WWI didn't settle anything there was further unrest but the US was a powerhouse of business. Certainly they were huge manufacturers but it wasn't just that that made the US rich. It was the fact that even if something was manufactured in Japan or Mexico the investments was US and the profits flowed by to the US. The US didn't owe the world money. The world owed the US so much, had WWII not come along the US probably would have ended up technically owning almost the whole planet.

The US again didn't actually want to fight, despite the appalling harm the Japanese were doing in China and had been doing for years. It took years before they even decided that they would restrict oil to Japan for such little things as the rape of Nanking where hundreds of thousands of civilians were raped and about two million were murdered. And of course they didn't have to fit in Europe because they didn't have any treaties forcing them to do so, regardless of the devistation the Nazis caused to Poland, as did the USSR to the other half of the country. But once again they were happy to make money out of it. In this case very very large amounts of money.

After the ware there was an economic boom that looked like it would go for ever. The painful adjustment from agrarian enterprises to city enterprises were almost completely missed by the US (the Depression being but a small fraction of what could have actually gone wrong before it had sorted itself out properly).

But somewhere the US forgot that you cannot simply print money if you run out nor can you borrow money from others if you have no means to pay it back. But since the whole world was stuck with the US as its engine, a legacy of WWI and WWII, it didn't matter. The common currency of the world was the US dollar and it didn't matter how astronomical the amounts became or who ridiculous the deficits they just piled up.

It might have been worth going into debt temporarily to crush communism but then the payoff should have been a massive reduction in defence costs but this never happened.

Defence spending is part of a "service" economy as far as I am concerned. It does not produce consumer products or industrial products and its only use, if you do not use Armies like Rome of old to conquer and then collect taxes, is to throw your weight around or to create military equipment that, aside from exercises actually never gets used.

Service economies can and do exist where the country remains economically healthy. Service economies can be based on Tourism or banking or computer services or all manner of things that are not directly goods. You are still producing something. It just isn't something that fits in a box.

Land prices are a big problem in any modern economy and no one has yet to come up with a reasonable solution. You want your citizens to be secure in their old age so they won't spunge on the welfare system so you want them to have a house but if you encourage them to by one when they are young the prices go up and ironically they become too expensive to afford by all but the affluent. It is clear that all over the world residential property prices are too high. In some cases the amounts are around 50% or 70% over what they should be worth as shelter for people with the amenities supplied near them.

I'm not sure anyone has a solution to this one. Hong Kong certainly does not show a good example. Singapore's model isn't all that terrific and Russia's just plain sucks.

But housing busts are cyclical. It is the problem when there are many other fundamentals of an economy that are not very good that you end up with terrible consequencies. Problems such as national debt that just cannot be paid and if even 10% of those owing the debt decided to put the money somewhere else the US would have to declare bankruptcy are the sort of things that, if I was a part of the system that created, the current woes, would keep me awake every night.

This is all just my two cents worth written late at night because I cannot sleep at all.

I do not hate the US in any way and have a great deal of time for its citizens and great respect for its Armed Forces, so please no one think this was just someone bashing the US. But its amazing how clearly others can see what's wrong with the US when the US has no idea. It would also amaze most citizens of the US how much the average person in other countries knows about the US compared to the almost total vacuum of knowledge the other way.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that banning ALL guns except those absolutely necessary and them making them be in a gun safe and the owner licenced would stop 12,000 deaths a year fairly quickly. Would take a while to eventually get the guns out of the country but slowly it would happen.

It also doesn't take a genius to work out that wearing a seat belt keeps you alive yet the US does not seem to think its worth doing or that they have the right to kill themselves. I usually counter that argument with what about the rights of the poor person that might also be involved in what should have been a minor accident or the first responders who have to scrape the bloodied bodies out of the car? Don't they have rights?

It also doesn't take a genius to work out that you must have something really wrong with your system if you claim to be extremely religious and "Just Say No" to drugs and sex is all you need to practice if you happen to have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the world.

If you live in a country like Britain where the gun deaths, I Believe, are below 100 a year or Australia where compulsory seat belts came in in 1973 and the death toll from car accidents is now lower than it was at the time of WWII, per capita, several times lower than the US, the "rights to bear arms" or to be really lazy so you kill yourself starts to be something out of the files: "Only in America ...".



Regards

Ric
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/20/08 10:25 PM
RicS and Odin1, thanks for your lively interest in economics--currently, a passion of mine.

Odin1 you write
Quote:
Here, in the US, there are several reasons why we are in a recession.
I am curious: How about you and your family? Are you in recession?

Ric (from Australia), you write
Quote:
It also doesn't take a genius to work out that you (In the USA?) must have something really wrong with your system if you claim to be extremely religious and "Just Say No" to drugs and sex is all you need to practice if you happen to have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the world.


Ric, how about your personal economic situation? And, what is going on in your community?

Please, permit me to brag:

I consider myself to be prosperous. Compared to my parents: I am wealthy. In addition to this, I happen to live in a VERY prosperous community--Markham, Ontario, Canada.

Will it last?

Who knows! Be this as it may, with the help of GØD, I am doing all that I can to make sure that it does,

Furthermore, I choose to dedicate what is left of my re-directment (retirement) years to doing the following:

I want to spend them helping anyone, interested, to have lives that are prosperous--physically, mentally and spiritually.

BTW, for this community, I will do what I can here. But to those who call on me for personal help: I will accept barter and/or cash. smile
Posted By: odin1 Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/20/08 11:59 PM
Hello Revlgking,

Yes, we are in a recession. It is terrible. It was reported last week that loan payments were at the highest recorded for non payment. No jobs, no money available. I am a small business owner and what I am telling you is not repeated gossip, I know first hand and have studied economics. My previous business partner has a Phd in economics. Like I said, the county I live in with 52000 people has a medicade budget of $6,000,000.00. For the past 3 years our property taxes have increase and this budget cycle in June they will go up again. NAFTA is the main culprit. A lot of people blame the price of fuel-it is just an aggrevation to the problem.
Higher taxes, no jobs, lack of economic developement because of poor leadership and crooked politicians. A reciept for disaster.

It doesen't do much good to make electronics and t-shirts in Mexico and China even if the price drops some if the people don't have the money to buy them. Then increasing property taxes are another deterrent for industry to locate. It is a little more complex that this however, I mentioned some of it in the previous post that you read.
Best Regards,
odin1
Posted By: odin1 Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/21/08 01:38 AM
Hello Ric,

You know, you are absolutely right about some of what you have just said. An item of interest I would like to share with you is this. Politicians do spend a lot of money to get elected to political office, in fact many spend much more than the office pays. For example, our state Senator for this district spent over $170,000.00 to get elected to a $18,000.00 per year seat. It is all public record you can get it on the internet with the state board of elections. This was in the final quarter of the 2006 election. Many of us here in the US have raised hell about this and also term limits. This particular man has served 33 two year terms in the NC Senate. This you are right on.

As for teenage pregnancy rates and just say no to drugs. The US didn't have this problem until it start paying children to have babies by welfare. Lydon Johnson started the "great society" in 1965 and this was the beginning of our problems. There has been a major break down in the US of the family and whamo-what do you have - teenagers having babies with no father, and father then becomes the "state". The state can't even do what it was mandated to do much less get in the family business. I know Ric your beliefs are different than mine, but I think we can agree, a child needs two parents if possible to raise it and show it the right way. The state and religion are at odds with this very topic and I will take the side of religion on this one. I was raised by my mother my father was killed when I was young. She did a good job, and had help from other family members, so I'm not saying a child with one parent is a lost cause. So, I think you might be missing some facts concerning this one. It is the state and Federal government encouraging children out of wedlock by encouraging the breakdown of the family unit. Will be glad to discuss this more with you but I am trying not to write a book.

As for WWI, the US didn't want to get in the war at the time we had a separatist stance. I think roughly 17% of our population then was German, and I will check this figure and get back with you. Many people here in the US didn't want to get involved in Europes troubles. And let me say, my family came from England, my great grandfather was from Liverpool and my other great grandfather was from around Yorkshire, we are as saxon as I guess you can get now. My heart goes out to old England. It wasn't because they didn't like the British or French, they just didn't want to get involved.

As for WWII, Mr. Roosevelt's record has recently came out concerning the embargo of oil to Japan, and I will be the first to say he ain't the hero he is portrayed to be. We are in agreement. Also, he did not pull the US out of the depression, the war did. The Federal Reserve caused the depression by tightening up on the money supply, but Herbert Hoover got the blame, just thought I would mention that, it wasn't mentioned but it is a common misconception here in the US. I had an uncle killed at the Rhine River under Patton, my father fought under McArthur in the Philiphines and my uncle has a piece of Japanese Zero in his foot. He just had a hip replacement and I was called last night because he fell in the shower. I had a cousin that dropped bombs over Japan. The US has had it's share of misery and paid it's debt with blood like everyone else.

Our economy has been proped up by credit for years now. That's our fault. I disagree however, with you on a service economy, like I said the only people that do well are the ones at the top. You have a lot of greedy people Ric that don't give a damn about the common folks. And I differ with you on the Roman economy. In the latter days of the empire they imported about everything they needed, paid out state funded welfare and taxed the people to fund new military excursions. It broke their back, they got broke and got lazy and would rather gamble at the coleseum than work.

"Those who forget the past are condemed to repeat it"

As for guns, Ric I love my right to bear arms and I have never shot anyone. We have too many attorneys in the US and they are getting elected to office and making the laws. And you know, Hannible killed 14,000 Romans in 1 day with swords and spears. The English killed several thousand French in the 100 years war in 1 day, with long bows. Man has always found a way to kill himself. I know it is easier to step off 50 yards and pull the trigger than to slash someone with a sword, but our ancestors did it before guns and we will do it again if all the guns would vanish. Enforcing the laws and encouraging a family oriented society would be a good start to cure this problem.

Don't take anything I say to you as being sarcastic or mean spirited, I encourage the truth from people, you can trust them then. I respect you opinion, it is good to hear from someone across the world, there is always another side. You are on target about the politicians and I was glad to hear someone else besides me say it.

Take care and stay in touch,

odin1



Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/21/08 02:51 AM
Well said Ric. I have never understood how anyone could argue against a Welfare System that supports unemployed or disabled people and also provides a completely free Health care which are some of the things we have here in Australia. It is paid for out of taxes, if you do not earn much you pay no tax but you still have medicine, operations and so on. I think this is a good use of taxes and there is nothing to stop me using the free system- it isn't a second rate thing, however There is a private system too if you want to subscribe. We do not have to pay for healthcare in hospitals at all, and we have subsidised doctor's visits and medicines from home too. We also have govt pensions or the elderly and disabled.

We have an Unemployment support system which, when the Textile Footwear and Clothing industries died in my town in the 80s and 90s due to Chinese imports, was able to support the people without jobs. It did not cut out after a few weeks, and there was training and support provided for those workers. This seems so much better than making them homeless and adding to the vagrants living on the street.

Odin -one reason why the US is in trouble is that the value of the American dollar is falling rapidly in world markets. This fall is out of the control of thre US govt. Because the US dollar does not buy so much the price of goods and imports in the marketplace rise (this includes oil). The indebtedness of the Americans to China has taken a huge blow since the Chinese no longer prefer to trade in US Dollars. The Euro, Canadian dollars and even our Aussie dollar are all favoured currencies now. When I went to the US in the 90s the Aussie dollar bought me 57c. Now I would get about 94-5!!! It is now difficult for the US to trade out of this mess because they have not got the items, such as large cars, that people want any more, also now, when the US should be trading out of the crisis, money is poured into the war in Iraq, the election and propping up the status quo.

Ric is right too about the insular feeling in the US. Aussies, Canadians and Europeans are travellers and find out a lot about other places. I loved a lot about the US (though I never got used to idea that a person next to me could have a gun in their bag). Two of my children lived there for 3 years each so I used to visit, and I am sad to see what is happening. I hope we do not see a return to isolationist policies in the future, but I think that is the way things will go.
Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/21/08 03:04 AM
Re: Teenage pregnancies. The best way to deal with this is Education, and more education. From the start of Primary School. With easy access to contaception from the age at which a person starts having sex. It is possible to have safe sex- that is safe from disease and safe from pregnancy - at any age after the start of puberty. US schools act as though this is impossible, and in some schools no sex ed. of any sort takes place.

Drug ed is considered important but many will never use the illegal stuff. However everyone on the planet has a sexual experience at some stage-- that should be acknowledged in all schools' curriculum.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/21/08 04:51 PM
Odin1:
I am sorry to read that in your area--what area is it?--you are in recession.

BTW, I have the strong feeling that the main cause of destructive booms and busts in any area is what I call

THE DIVISIVE GAME OF WINGISM
=============================
What possible benefit does society stand to gain from the divisive game of wingism--"My wing is better than your wing"? May I remind readers that the root meaning of the word 'devil' is that which divides us.

THE DANGER OF DIABOLIC DIVISIVENESS
===================================
To illustrate this, I offer the following fable:

PAY ATTENTION TO THE FEATHERS, ESPECIALLY THE TAIL FEATHERS
===========================================================
There was once a beautiful eagle. It had two powerful wings, which were covered with beautiful feathers. Ordinarily, the wings operated in cooperation with the rest of the feathers, especially the humble tail feathers.

Interestingly the tail feathers were situated, humbly, right over the very important anus--the bottom line of what we consume.

The wings, directed by the head (the source of knowledge and wisdom) agreed to serve all the needs of the whole bird, including the wings, every day.

However, one day one of the wings--it matters not which one--for some diabolic reason, decided, egotistically, to do its own thing: "I will spread myself out when I choose to do so" said the wing. "I will rest when I want to. What need have I to balance myself with the actions of my other wing, as long as I give it the right to do its own thing, too."

Unfortunately, the wing made this divisive decision when the eagle was in full flight, high in the sky above the place where the eagles had their nest--the home to their very-hungry and new-born eaglets.

Without cooperative wings the eagle was no longer able to fly, majestically. In the full view of the shocked partner, the eagle came crashing down to its death leaving the other without a mate, and with the lonely task of raising the eaglets as a single parent. Sad.

The moral is obvious: Without feathers, especially the tail feathers, the ones humbly situated right over the anus, which act as a guidance and a balancing mechanism, no bird can survive.


[Does anyone know if male eagles, left without a partner, will
actually raise eaglets on their own? If he abandons his offspring, the tragedy is made even worse.]

WHERE ARE THE FEATHERS-LIKE ECONOMISTS?
========================================
This calls for the development of a third way of doing economics--neither exclusively left-winged nor right-winged--one which takes into consideration the needs of the least, even the smallest feather, among us.

THE CALL FOR A TRULY DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM
==========================================
It also provides a way and the means of challenging the least among us to become democratic capitalists and wealth producers.

COMPLEMENTARY AND COMMUNITY CURRENCY (CCC)
====================================
How? By learning about and how to use what I call complementary community currencies (CCC). The following will tell you what a CCC is and how it works.

[ Check out http://www.torontodollar.com
Also look at the work of
Professor Bernard Lietaer, MIT graduate and a world expert on the
history, the nature and the function of money.
http://www.transaction.net ]

Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/21/08 05:09 PM
HERE ARE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS BY BERNARD LIETAER
============================================================
What is money? Do we need more of it to solve some of the world?s problems? Or is money the cause of them? Ex-banker Bernard Lietaer thinks the latter is the case. And he has the solution: a new kind of money.

You have no idea what money is. Bernard Lietaer is too friendly and modest a man to say it that way, but this is the easiest possible way to sum up his message. If you did know what money was, then you?we?would see to it that we had a different monetary system.

Everything revolves around money. It's more than a cliche?; it's the daily experience of just about every world citizen not part of an indigenous tribe in the Amazon rain forest. And this daily experience involves, above all else, a continuous shortage of money.

There is not enough money to send the children to school. Not enough money for hospitals, or to care for the ever-greater numbers of old people who are getting ever older. Not enough money to clean up the environment and keep it that way. There is a lot of work to do, but no money to pay for it.

Who among us is not familiar with the feeling of wanting to contribute something but not having money to pay for that valuable contribution. The sad conclusion: If we just had more money, the world and our lives would be better.

But the kind of money we need is not the same old fiat-kind. Printing more of it just makes for inflation. Lietaer is talking about a new kind of community-based, not debt-based fiat currency. And it is not funny-money.
Posted By: RicS Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/22/08 12:50 AM
G'day Revigking,

Pleasant sentiments and whether you are spiritual or not, to dedicate oneself to helping others is a worthy path.

Actually Australia's economy is about as good as it gets considering what's happening in the rest of the world. Our interest rates are a bit high but our unemployment is the lowest it has ever been and hovering around 4%. There are hiccups. No land has been released to satisfy the increased demand for housing in our largest cities for a very long time and no low income housing has been set aside for anybody. Right now in my suburb, the vacancy rate is about 0.03%. Since we have to move that is a real problem.

Oh and if the question was related to the social problems I mentioned, let's see. We have pretty low teen pregnancies. Sex education is compulsory in all schools. Religion is not. We have much lower drug rates than the US and much lower violence relating to drugs. We have around 100 firearms deaths per year in Australia and considering our population and the US, it is not hard to figure out who has a better figure. And if you think the absence of guns justs means that stabbing deaths go up, you're dead wrong. Our overall homicide rate is statistically insignificant. You have more chance of being killed by lightning.

And guns are not all that difficult to get in Australia if you really want to. An acquantance wanted a gun and got one delivered to his house within four hours. Personally I think he is an idiot but there is supply. There jusn't much demand. Most hold ups are done with machettes or knives. That's still not good but it sure beats killing five people in a convenience store because someone gets nervous.


Regards


Richard
Posted By: odin1 Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/22/08 01:55 AM
Hello RicS,

You almost sound like you are describing heaven. You aren't holding back on us are you?

odin1
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/22/08 02:17 AM
ABOUT FUNNY MONEY
=================
I will happy to dialogue with, and to learn from, anyone who thinks that complementary community currency (CCC) is just another form of "funny money". If you can convince me that it is, I will be glad to laugh with you.

Now about some really funny money.

REALLY FUNNY FIAT MONEY
=======================
For a real and sardonic laugh, check out the story, nature and
function of fiat money.

How many really know the story of how fiat money came, and continues to come, into being? And that it is created "out of thin air..."? as economist Paul Samuelson (MIT)--the first economist to win a Nobel Prize, in 1969--points out. [See Page 331 of the Canadian edition of his book, ECONOMICS. Then, over the next number of pages he gives a detailed example of how this works. He makes the point that the deposit is created by the bank and the public. Things get interesting when the bank decides that it does not have to keep 100 per cent
reserves.]

If anyone can convince me that funny fiat money has any real and
sustainable value, I am all ears.

BANKING CAN BE VALUABLE AND HONEST
==================================
Don't get me wrong. I am not against having a transparent and honest banking system. No modern society could exist without it.I am a firm believer that honest banking and the creation of real and honest credit, based on real and dividend-producing value, is possible.

But the problem, as I see it, is debt-based fiat money, with the
following note on its paper notes: "This is legal tender".

By the way, I remember when the the note read, "The Bank of Canada will pay the bearer". Why was this promise removed for all bank notes?

QUESTIONS?
Does anyone know who gave banks the approval to make this change? And why?
When and why did this happen?
Was there any public consultation?
When a bank gives you a loan, does it loan you its money?
Or do they use depositors money?
What is meant by "the multiple expansion of deposits"?
What is monopoly banking? Chain banking?
What is fractional-reserve banking?
What role did the old goldsmiths and jewelers play in creating
fractional-reserve banking?
What is the Bank of Canada?
Is it the bank of all Canadians?
Why is that one can't open an account in the B of C?
Why is the B of C not a private enterprise like the U.S. Federal Reserve System?

The above are but a few of the funny questions about the funny fiat system.

Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/22/08 02:35 AM
No odin he's not! We have, last weekend, also had a meeting of 1000 people (you could nominate yourself if you wanted). They went to our capital (Canberra) where they discussed what they felt were important areas that could be improved. The PM and Govt have promised to consider them. Not everyone is totally happy, most of us were impressed though. It was an amazing idea. ... the parliament listening to people, some of whom really were very, very ordinary. And believe it or not some of the ideas were brilliant. This is not democracy-- the attendees were not elected by anyone to represent anyone, just themselves. If you want a model it would be Market Research.
Posted By: odin1 Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/22/08 03:12 AM
Hello Ellis,

Our elected officials listen, but it kinda rolls around in their head and fades away. If you want to get attention here you have to write it on a check. I say that jokingly, but it is really sad.

I noticed an item you mentioned to Ric about the Welfare System in Australia. The problem we have with the system here is it is abused and the administrative cost is staggering. I don't have the current figures but about 7-8 years ago for every $1.00 put into social services about .17 of it went to the recipients. the rest went to the adminstrative end or dispersing the money by government employees. Not enought is done to catch the cheaters or lets be more specific-nothing is done to catch the cheaters. And like I said earlier, a teenager has a baby and gets a check. If she has another one she gets another check. They get all kinds of money to go to school and get a decent education and squander that. We have educated out the ying yang.
Now, I am going to tell you why nobody does anything about it. If you run for public office and tell someone you are going to take their check they don't vote for you. Ellis, 60% of the people in the county I live in get some kind of check from local, state or Federal govenments. We put out the money in this country but it is badly mismanaged. the plan was to pull the poor up, but what has happened is the middle class has been pulled down and steadily adding to the problem. On top of that we have the illegal Mexicans now to feed and furnish health care to. If we had a national health care plan ran like our welfare program you would be sending Care packages to this country in 10 years because we would be broke. I am glad you have a plan you like and it is cost effective, but we have some factors here in the US you don't have in Australia that make things a little more complicated. Anyway, thank you for thoughts, like an old geometry teacher told me once, you must consider every angle.

odin1
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/22/08 05:48 PM
THE DIVISIVE GAME OF WINGISM
=============================
What possible benefit does society stand to gain from the divisive game of wingism--"My wing is better than your wing"? May I remind readers that the root meaning of the word 'devil' is that which divides us.

THE DANGER OF DIABOLIC DIVISIVENESS
===================================

The following is a revised version of fable I wrote about the need for all of us to be TAIL FEATHERS:

Quote:
PAY ATTENTION TO THE FEATHERS

There was once a beautiful eagle. It had two powerful wings. The wings were covered with strong feathers designed by nature to enable the eagle to fly. One of the wonders of nature is that the feathers on the wings of birds are designed to work in harmony with the rest of the bird's feathers, especially the humble tail feathers.

Keep in mind that no matter how strong the wings, without the use of the humble tail feathers, no bird is able to take off and maintain flight, essential to its total well-being. Tail feathers help the bird ascend, descend and change directions. Interestingly they are situated, humbly, right over the all-important anus. Everything birds consume, after it has been used to provide for their bodily needs, including energy, pass out the anus. What comes out is not just waste. It contains rich nutrients which it go back to the earth and water and become part of the food chain.

Usually, the wings of birds operate in harmony with all other bird parts.

But imagine what would happen if one day one of the wings--it matters not which one--became aware of itself and for some diabolic reason decided, egotistically, to do its own thing: "Now that I am aware and know that I know, I think that I will do what I want to do when I want to do it. I will spread myself out only when I feel like and rest when I feel like it. What need have I to balance myself with the actions of my other wing, as long as I give it the right to do its own thing, too."

Unfortunately, the wing made this divisive decision when the eagle was in full flight, high in the sky above the place where the eagles had their nest--the home to their very-hungry and new-born eaglets.

Immediately, without cooperative wings, the eagle was no longer able to fly, majestically. In the full view of its shocked partner, the eagle came crashing down to its death leaving the other without a mate, and with the lonely task of raising the eaglets as a single parent. Sad.

The moral is obvious: Without feathers, especially the tail feathers, which act as a guidance and a balancing mechanism, no bird can survive. A non-cooperative and a un-balanced approach to life leads to disaster.

This prompts me to ask:
WHERE ARE THE FEATHERS-LIKE ECONOMISTS?
=========================================

The moral is obvious: Without feathers, especially the tail feathers, which act as a guidance and a balancing mechanism, no bird can survive. A non-cooperative and a un-balanced approach to life leads to disaster.

This prompts me to ask:
WHERE ARE THE FEATHERS-LIKE ECONOMISTS?
=========================================
WHERE ARE THE FEATHERS-LIKE ECONOMISTS?
========================================
This calls for the development of a third way of doing economics--neither exclusively left-winged nor right-winged--one which takes into consideration the needs of the least, even the smallest feather, among us.

THE CALL FOR A TRULY DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM
==========================================
It also provides a way and the means of challenging the least among us to become democratic capitalists and wealth producers.
Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/23/08 06:28 AM
Odin.. I look at the welfare thing slightly differently from you. Our country is a wealthy one and we feel everyone is entitled to 'a fair go', so if you are missing out we want to help you. We will give you an unemployment benefit and encourage you to attend free training and education to enable you to get a job. If you cannot find one we will require you to try, but we will still fund a benefit for you. This allows you to take part in society and not become alienated as you are part of the whole thing in a meaningful way.

I also feel that assuming that young mothers are not deserving of support is very counterproductive. .Their children are valuable resources for the country--here the educated women put off having kids and the birthrate is quite unhealthy! The support given to these girls to nurture and educate themselves and their children should be seen as an investment. And while we are discussing this a good use of state money would be to find the fathers of the children and have them support their children too. Yes it's a problem but one we should be solving and using.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/23/08 01:08 PM
Helpful comments, Ellis. But who gets to decide what is a "fair go"? The collective? Or the individual? A system dominated by socialism? Or one dominated by capitalism?

Would you say that what you describe is a left-wing--let-the-government-do-it--solution? Is it the job of governments to look after the poor? I agree that, like the role of good parents, government help is sometimes needed too help those who are not quite ready--due lack of education and and maturity--to help themselves.

But what do we do with mature people, including the lazy, who just want something for nothing?

Two thousand years ago, Paul, in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, told the early Christians: "Whoever refuses to work is not allowed to eat." Does this sound like Objectivism?

ABOUT OBJECTIVISM
I think that Objectivists--those who follow the ideas of Ayn Rand (Books, Anthem, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead) would approve.

Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
===================================================
As one who wants to avoid the extremes of left and right I see myself as an advocate of a feathers-approach to social justice.

Therefore, I see the role of government to be like that of the tail feathers of birds. Government is there to help the wings cooperate and stay in balance. As I say in my fable, the tail feathers are there to take note that
Quote:
Everything birds consume, after it has been used to provide for their bodily needs, including energy, pass out the anus. What comes out is not just waste. It contains rich nutrients which it go back to the earth and water and become part of the food chain.
With the help of the head and the wings, tail feathers guide birds, efficiently, to all the supply they need. And they see that nothing is wasted.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/23/08 05:08 PM
Hello Ellis,

I'm having a hard time following the reasoning on teenage pregnancy. Having a child is a pretty big resonsibility. I don't think having a child at 16 to avoid having one at 22 to 25 is good rational for the poor old tax payers and grandma and grandpa to have to cope with. I agree, the child can't help it, and none of us would let one go hungry or lacking for any of the pleasures and priviliges we enjoy. I'm talking about abuse and misuse, not legitimate claims. Welfare should not be a "living",
and it was never intended to be. But a lot enterprizing individuals have learned how to milk the system, and a lot of people that are just getting by theirselves with assistance are having to pay. That is my problem with this scenerio-not the use but the abuse! Hey, I'm a poet and don't know it ! Make a rhyme everytime.

Best Regards
odin1
Posted By: RicS Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/24/08 02:07 AM
G'day Odin,

Australia is not Heaven but I've lived in the Middle East, Asia, the Pacific and I would not want to live anywhere else. Australians do really believe in a "far go". That is the unfortunate should be helped and so you do not end up with people working two jobs and still not having enough to eat. You have some welfare frauds because our welfare system is quite generous but not enough to say the system is broken in any way.

Actually it might be generous but if you are like me and have a high needs medical condition, the amounts paid does not stretch very far. We have a truly universal healthcare system. It certainly could be better. It is run by beaurocrats so what more needs to be said. But people are seen and operations if essential are performed no matter how poor you are. My condition would cost around $3,000 a week in the US plus the cost of periodic operations. Here it is free, although a lot of my prescriptions cost me some money and even af $5 a script it does add up.

I was a moderator on the world's biggest pain site for some years and that involved mostly those in the US. The problems these poor people faced was just horrendous and this was on top of the fact that they were suffering such severe medical conditions. What I found was so very strange was that if they found a caring doctor there was a good chance the DEA would swoop in eventually and prosecute the doctor for overprescribing pain relief medication. In Australia they get around the idea but simply having you see a specialist who approves the medication and every three months or so another doctor aside from your family doctor has to see you and verify the need for the medication. You go to the same doctor and he or she calls up the Medical Authorities and gets permission to issue an "Authority Script". That way they have an exact record of the medication you receive and the doctor is protected.

I recall a person in the US who had her drugs stolen on the way home from the pharmacy and she was denied any further medication for the whole month because the doctor refused to refill the script. In nine years of needing these medications I've had my medications stolen once and most of it lost because of faulty caps and my wife laying the bottles over on their sides to save space. On both occasions a script was reissued without problem although I did have to prove the theft had been investigated by the Police and my wife did have to produce a little note saying what had happened the other time. That is a pretty fair system.

There is no such thing as a perfect government or a perfect balance of support for the unfortunate without some unwanted effect. And considering I'm pretty close to the bottom of the heap in socio economic circumstances, you'd think I'd complain that the pension should be higher or that public housing should be available to people such as me. I do think that public housing has been neglected but I still think that overall I'm better off here than pretty much anywhere else I can think of.

Both my children still in school go to private schools. That is because the schools have a hardship policy that if you are attending and the parents, through no fault of their own, can no longer afford to keep you in the school, then they will take on the burden. My youngest daughter is at the top of her whole year in all subjects but physical education. My eldest daughter had no trouble going to university with a father unable to support her and has just completed five years of a Social Services Degree. Yes, the government lends her money to do the degree and she has to pay it back but it isn't a huge burden.

So if you want a model of a world that works, Australia is not a bad example of most of it working most of the time.


Regards


Richard
Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/24/08 05:13 AM
Yay to everything Ric has explained- so I'll have a go at the teen pregnancy thing. To start with we do not have a huge number of teenage girls a) getting pregnant or b) giving birth. This is because every child in Australia (OK in the public system) has sex ed at school. Parents can withdraw their children from the classes but very few do. This education starts in the first years when children are taught about their body and how it works. They learn to respect themselves and others and they learn to protect themselves against disease and unwanted pregnancy. This obviously includes abortion and contraception. It is a good course and it also covers relationships and drug ed etc. The result is a huge reduction in pregnancies when young adults have the knowledge to protect themselves.

If a girl becomed pregnant and chooses to have her baby she is able to access free care etc before and after birth. She is encouraged to return to school (some schools have creches) and educate herself to have a job as her child gets older, when she can access a Child Care Centre at subsidised rates. Of course some girls have the babies for the welfare-- so what? There aren't that many and we can afford to support their children who will at least have the chance to turn out better than their wastrel parents!

And yes Rev I do think we have an obligation to look after those who find life hard for whatever reason. You think they are lazy, I think they are often ill or alienated in some way. There aren't many of them, and most have ended up destitute from some dreadful misfortune. Given the chance most people will work and earn money. We are motivated by self esteem and a feeling of obligation. Those people are perhaps different. Does that mean they should starve and forced to live on the streets? I happen to think it is wrong to ignore them, and most Australians agree with me.
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/24/08 02:47 PM
Ellis:
Quote:
And yes Rev I do think we have an obligation to look after those who find life hard for whatever reason. You think they are lazy, I think they are often ill or alienated in some way.
I understand and accept the points you make, Ellis.

Keep in mind: I was born, number 7 of 8, in 1930, in a mining town http://www.bellisland.net I was raised under almost third-world conditions. There was virtually no welfare or medicare. Even education, provided by the religions, had some fees attached. Therefore, I am not anti-poor. Is this clear?
As you say:
Quote:
There aren't many of them, and most have ended up destitute from some dreadful misfortune. Given the chance most people will work and earn money.
I am one of the founders and volunteers of http://www.flfcanada.com It is a registered charity designed to help those who want the chance to improve themselves--holistically, that is, physically, mentally and spiritually--to do so.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/24/08 06:26 PM
Hello Ric,

Hope you are well. You're right a lot of our doctors are too eager to prescribe medication. I have a friend that takes 32 pills per day. He has all kinds of medical problems and probably the medication contributes to a lot of it. Maybe I'm talking out of turn I am no physician but I see a lot people on a continuous cycle of new medication. Case in point is my mother-n-law. When my father-n-law died the doctor put her on blood pressure medicine. She had never had blood pressue problems. My daughter is a physical therapist and she said that it is completely normal for the blood pressure of a surviving spouse the go up after the death of a spouse. Now, she is on blood pressure medicine. The same with my mother when her sister
died.

It is good that we have education money for the kids. My niece is going to college and getting financial aid and doing well. When she gradudates this year she will have a degree in speech therapy and make good money. This is the best money we can spend,it is in deed an investment. You see Ric a lot of us Americans can't speak well so there is a big demand for therapist! Just kidding. Hope things are well with the family.

Best Regards,
odin1
Posted By: RicS Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/25/08 05:40 AM
G'day Odin,

I'm sorry my friend but you misunderstood me completely in relation to the "too eager to prescribe medication". If we are talking pain relief I would say completely the opposite. It is very dangerous in the US to be a doctor and care enough for chronic pain sufferers to prescribe narcotics (a narcotic is basically a drug of the opiate family, pethidine, methadone, morphine, oxycontin, oxycodone, heroin). You can end up losing your practice and ending up in jail. While people believe that the Constitution protects your rights in the US, if doctors cannot defend themselves against attacks when RICO or Homeland Legislation is thrown in (and doctors typically have sufficient money to hire good lawyers) then it is very unlikely that anyone is going to get a fair deal.

Overprescription of other drugs, now that is a different issue. The pleasant junkets that the drug companies provide, etc, greatly distorts the markets. Isn't as bad here because limits have been imposed and if a drug doesn't get on our NHS system (approved to be sold below cost) then it is very unlikely to be successful except to those that have no other choice.


Richard
Posted By: odin1 Re: Money- too much or too little - 04/26/08 12:05 AM
Hello Ric,

My mistake and yes, lawsuits have muddied up the water here in the US and raised the price of medical care.

odin1
Posted By: Ellis Re: Money- too much or too little - 09/18/08 12:55 AM
So it's all a bit of a mess now! I shall be a model of restraint and merely remark that the US government, through the taxpayers of the largest capitalist economy in the world, is going to bail out one of the largest examples of free enterprise on the planet! Luckily it's all happening before inflation reaches that of Zimbabwe (we hope).

The irony is horrific!
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 09/18/08 03:21 AM
THIS MESS WAS PREDICTED, LONG AGO
Hazel Henderson, yours truly, and others, decades ago predicted what un-bridled and un-democratic capitalism, based on greed and corruption, would do to the economies of the world.


The solution is the development of local economies using a local and complementary-kind of barter currency to assist our national ones. Check out the writings of HH. For example:

http://www.hazelhenderson.com/editorials/politics_of_money.html

READING THE FOLLOWING WILL TAKE SOME TIME, BUT IT IS WORTH IT
http://www.hazelhenderson.com/recentPapers/21st_century_strategies_.htm
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 09/23/08 07:49 PM
Recently I wrote the following letter to Conrad Black, who, though in prison, writes a column for the National Post. This is a response I gave to his recent column on the failure of laissez-faire Capitalism--caused by greedy manipulators--including us who want it all now--of the so-called free market.

I realize this post is rather long, but the famous article I quote is a very important document on the nature and function of money, which, by the way, was not invented to replace barter; it was invented as a way of making barter more efficient.

When metals, such as gold and silver, were used as currency--no longer so, since the 1960's--they were actually barter commodities, like animals and grains and the like. Local currencies are closer to barter commodities. We need to get back to it as an assist to a truly free-market.
==================================================

Mr. Conrad Black: (Google on this name. Interesting story)

Thanks for your excellent summary of the failure of laissez-faire economics.

Since the 1960's I have been a student of the political economy and an advocate of what I call complementary and community currency (CCC). Do you think that this is a crackpot idea? I think of it as democratic capitalism, at its best, and at the local level. CCC is not contra the national kind and can be designed to serve the needs of business, governments, churches and other charities.

This kind of capitalism is neither left wing nor right wing; it is what I call a feathers approach to the political economy. Feathers cover, protect and are essential to the well being of the whole bird. Without the tail feathers--humbly situated right over the anus--wings are out of balance and, therefore, useless. They govern the direction of flight and help the wings keep their balance. Good government, IMO, should be more like tail feathers than wings.

ABOUT THE FINANCIAL MESS FOCUSED IN THE USA: IT WAS PREDICTED, LONG AGO
=======================================================================
Hazel Henderson, yours truly, and others, decades ago predicted what un-bridled and un-democratic capitalism, based on greed and corruption, would do to the economies of the world.

The solution? In my opinion what is needed is the development of local economies using a local and complementary-kind of barter currency to assist our national ones. I realize that links are forbidden. But I presume it is OK for me to say: Google on the writings of Hazel Henderson, a widely respected British writer on matters financial.
==============================================
And have you heard about the work of Professor Bernard Lietaer?
Here is an article about his work that I have in my file.

A ARTICLE FROM
ODE MAGAZINE--It began in Holland and is now an international magazine.

| September 2005 issue

By Jurriaan Kamp
================

Money should work for us, not the other way around

You have no idea what money is. Bernard Lietaer is too friendly and modest a man to say it that way, but this is the easiest possible way to sum up his message. If you did know what money was, then you—we—would see to it that we had a different monetary system.

Everything revolves around money. It's more than a cliché; it's the daily experience of just about every world citizen not part of an indigenous tribe in the Amazon rain forest. And this daily experience involves, above all else, a continuous shortage of money. There is not enough money to send the children to school. Not enough money for hospitals, or to care for the ever-greater numbers of old people who are getting ever older. Not enough money to clean up the environment and keep it that way.

There is a lot of work to do, but no money to pay for it. Who among us is not familiar with the feeling of wanting to contribute something but having "no money" to pay for that valuable contribution? The sad conclusion: If we just had more money, the world and our lives would be better.

But Bernard Lietaer recommends another way around the problem: We could immerse ourselves in the meaning of money.

He sits on the edge of his chair and poses this question: "Have you ever thought about how much time you spend earning money, and managing or spending the money you've earned? And how often have you thought about what money actually is? We expend an enormous amount of energy—and frustration—on something we understand surprisingly little about."

What difference does it make, you might ask? Does it matter whether a fish knows it is swimming in water? Isn't money like the weather: a given? You can't change it.

Lietaer, a business professor and former banker in Belgium, shakes his head. We are meeting on Cortes Island, off the coast of Vancouver, British Columbia, where he is attending a conference. "That is precisely the difference," he says. "The weather, indeed, you cannot change.

But money wasn't created by God: We have forgotten that it's a system designed by people. And I believe that this design, which dates from centuries ago, is at the root of most problems in our society. And the good news is that with a small change to the money system we can make an important contribution to the solution of a number of those problems."

Lietaer's proposal is to introduce—alongside the existing national currencies—complementary money systems on a large scale. Based on barter, these systems would fulfill needs and make transactions possible when "normal" money is unavailable.

His idea is less revolutionary than it appears. In history, as well as in the world today, there are many successful examples of such systems—from the construction of European cathedrals in the Middle Ages and temples in Bali today to the present-day care systems for the elderly in Japan and airlines' frequent-flyer programs. What these systems have in common is that they do not promote competition, but cooperation; they support community instead of undermining it; and they make possible important and valuable work.

Lietaer says, "Complementary money systems put us in a position to be ourselves—to literally cash in on our talents. Even when there's no official financial market for them."

According to him, the possibilities of such systems are virtually unlimited. "I'm not saying reformation of the monetary system will solve all our problems. But I know that money is one of the key functions. There is actually nothing that doesn't have to do with money. It is an extremely vital element. I am convinced that within a generation we can realize great positive changes."

Bernard Lietaer discovered the destructive effects of the prevailing monetary system while working in Latin America during the 1970s. "Enormous loans were being granted for senseless projects. The banks were throwing money around. I wondered if I was seeing things other people weren't seeing."

As a professor of international finance at the University of Leuven in Belgium, he wrote a book about his experiences in which he predicted a major debt crisis. The book came out in 1979. In 1981 the crisis in South America broke loose.

Lietaer's belief that the global monetary system needed reform led him to the Belgian Central Bank, where for several years he was involved in the establishment of the "ECU," or European Currency Unit, the precursor of the euro. He subsequently became general manager of a foreign-currency fund. His remarkable successes in that capacity attracted international attention. The influential U.S. magazine Business Week proclaimed him the world's best currency dealer in 1991.

Even more than that, Lietaer had become a genuine expert on money, privy to the deepest secrets of the financial world. He decided it was time to write new books. While teaching at the University of California in Berkeley and California's Sonoma State University, in the 1990s, he worked on The Mystery of Money (Riemann Verlag, 2000) and The Future of Money (Random House UK, 2001). These books unravel the present concept of money and show how different approaches have different social consequences—including environmental and social sustainability.

According to economics textbooks, money is value-free. It is nothing more than a means of exchange and is regarded as having no effect on transactions. Lietaer contests that view. "Money isn't at all value-free," he argues.

"The monetary system is programmed—albeit not deliberately—to cause certain behaviour. It promotes competition and short-term thinking; it forces economic growth; and it undervalues care, education and tasks crucial to maintaining a society. Economics theory teaches us that people compete for markets and raw materials; I think, in reality, people compete for money."

This competition is a direct consequence of the manner in which money is created. Banks put money into circulation by means of loans. For example, as soon as someone negotiates a 100,000-dollar mortgage, money is created and begins circulating in the economy. But then the bank expects the recipient of the loan to pay back a total of 200,000 dollars in repayment and interest over the next 20 years.

But the bank does not create the second 100,000 dollars. The receiver of the loan must get hold of that money—the interest—one way or another, and this forces him or her to compete with others. It's simple: Some people must lose money or go bankrupt in order to put others in the position to pay off their loans.

At the same time, this collection of interest results in a concentration of wealth: Those who have money "automatically" get richer. In addition, the system forces society into an endless loop of economic growth: New money must constantly be put into circulation to pay off old loans. Lietaer says, "My conclusion is that greed and the competitive drive are not inherent human qualities. They are continuously stimulated by the kind of money we use. There is more than enough food and work for everyone. There is merely a scarcity of money."

A monetary system driven by interest payments also blocks progress toward a sustainable economy. "The environment is a time problem," Lietaer says. "A company like Shell undoubtedly has a better idea of the next century's energy needs than any government. But within the current monetary system we cannot entrust Shell with the future. Shell has to make a profit today. A government bears the responsibility for the future of the society."

Business investments today are weighed against interest rates. This continually leads to short-term choices. "It is financially attractive to cut down trees, sell them and put the money in the bank," Lietaer says. "Through interest, the money in the bank grows faster than the trees. Solar panels, by contrast, require investments that are only earned back over longer periods. The long repayment period makes these investments no match for the growth of money you can put in the bank today to earn interest.

"You wouldn't be able to build a cathedral (see box) within the existing monetary system. Those were investments over decades. And they ultimately had an extremely long-term yield: Eight hundred years later people still go to Chartres every day to see the labyrinth in the cathedral—and those people still make up the majority of the clientele of the city's merchants."

Businesses are trying more and more often to avoid expensive, competition-promoting money. Barter now accounts for almost 15 percent of world trade. And it's increasing every year by 15 percent, while trade conducted with money is growing at just 5 percent annually. Barter is also the basis of the complementary money systems Lietaer advocates as a solution to the social and ecological disruption our current money system causes.

The emergence of complementary money systems began 20 years ago in Canada with LETS, Local Exchange Trading Systems. Certain communities issued local currencies that people could use to exchange services. You might, say, repair your neighbour's car and use the proceeds in local currency to pay someone to paint your house. More than 5,000 such systems are now operating in communities of between 500 and 5,000 people worldwide.

That's just a drop in the bucket of the international monetary system. Bernard Lietaer, however, sees it differently. "Complementary monetary systems are no longer marginal solutions. It is true that they have no macroeconomic impact, but they have proven that they work and can change people's behaviour. It's like with the Wright Brothers when they proved airplanes could fly.

They literally fell down and picked themselves back up again, and their constructions were rickety. But it worked, and so they paved the way for serious high-quality planes. This is the pioneering value of the LETS systems, too."

The next major step for the complementary money systems will involve participation by businesses. "What else are frequent-flyer miles besides a currency issued by an airline?" Lietaer asks. "Initially they were mainly meant to commit customers to a certain airline, but over time you could use them to buy groceries in the supermarket, book hotel rooms and pay your phone bill. And you can earn miles without even flying."

Greater involvement by business, Lietaer says, is crucial for a breakthrough of complementary money systems. In the United States, a system is in development in which health insurers will pay customers for healthy behaviour—for example, spending an hour in the gym. People can then use this payment to buy certain things: bicycles, organic food, preventive acupuncture treatments.

"This isn't just marginal messing around," Lietaer says. "Everyone knows health care in the United States and other Western countries is a big problem that affects millions. Health care devours money. It is a remarkable system: It's in the system's interest that people get sick. After all, it can't earn money otherwise. Healthy people are of no use to the health-care system, or more accurately, medical-care system. A complementary system can work the other way around: For instance, only a century ago in China, doctors were paid by their patients when they were not sick. And he paid them, and took care of them, when they were."

In Japan, complementary systems have been developed for care of the elderly. People can earn credits by running errands for elderly people or helping them with housework. They can use the credits to buy extra help if they get sick, or send credits to their old mothers.

"This is an example of how a complementary system can be used to solve a social problem," Lietaer notes. "Almost 20 percent of the Japanese population is older than 65, and that percentage is rising. It is unthinkable that the care for this growing population of old people can be paid for under the current social-security system. Japan is solving this with a new complementary currency, which in addition supports the social structures in the country."

In Germany, authorities are collaborating with banks to develop a complementary money system for a million participants. In Brazil, a plan is afoot to finance education for poor families using a complementary currency. Bernard Lietaer enthusiastically offers example after example. "Money is nothing more than an agreement to use something as a means of exchange," he says. "Money is not a thing. It is an agreement, like a marriage or a business contract. And that means you can always make a new and different agreement."

Lietaer knows money can change the world: "I choose to remain optimistic. I can see how a crisis in the dollar could cause the global economy to collapse. Don't forget that in the last 25 years almost 90 countries have suffered severe currency crises. But I also know that together we have all the knowledge and means we need for a peaceful evolution. I want to help liberate that creativity. To design money that works for us, instead of us working for it."

======================================================

Thanks again for you writings,

Rev. Lindsay G. King
An intuitive economist.

905-764-1125



Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 10/24/08 10:40 PM
TO OUR FELLOW AMERICAN COUSINS, FROM CANADA, WE ASK:
Are you listening to your CONGRESSMAN, RON PAUL? (BTW, he ought to speak slower, so that we all get it): THE CURRENT FINANCIAL SYSTEM is broken. It is the result of greed and fraud, which, BTW, members of www.flfcanada.com predicted would happen.

The following was sent to me by one of our consultants. Please pay attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qzUtPq8pLE
Posted By: Revlgking Re: Money- too much or too little - 10/26/08 10:02 PM
Will our American cousins please tell us: What is the following all about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XgkeTanCGI

Are you now under the economic martial-law power of the US Treasury?
© Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums