 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| | Author | Message | z 
Posts: 11
Since: 6/17/2010
50.8.6.160
|  7/12/2013 2:36:34 PM 
Rafael,
Here's what I think: I think that
the solution lies in making our
economic transactions (and not only
those, but especially those)
between people a fully conscious
process. Much of economic activity
still remains covert, or better
stated: occult. Then we need to
strive to make each such
transaction perfect, which means:
complete. Complete means that the
entire transaction takes place
between the two parties involved,
and there is no space for
parasitical forces to interpose. A
perfect transaction involves no
interest, no profit to third
parties, no taxation, no tribute,
no debt, no reside. You see where
I'm going with this?
Peace,
Ken
| z
Posts: 11
Since: 6/17/2010
50.8.6.160
| 7/12/2013 2:38:49 PM
Ken
I usually avoid stating anything is
"perfect", because if anything has
been proven is that everything
keeps changing and can be improved,
especially regarding the socio-
economic processes we're talking
about.
The main "hidden" part of the
trading transaction we are doing
today, is the fact that the MEDIUM
(money) IS NOT what we're told it
is. It is presented to us as a
"neutral" measurement of energy but
in fact itself is treated as a
commodity that can be used for
speculation, and therefore the
price of money itself is constantly
being manipulated, up or down in
disregard of the true value of the
products and services that are
purchased with it. This is the
reason Bitcoin is a failure. It
was set up as a ponzi scheme from
the beginning with the original
"miners" that made them in their
computers at a cost of a fraction
of a cent, kept most of them and
now are worth over 70 dollars each
(after getting up to 220 dollars)
without solving the problem of the
need for a proper exchange medium,
truly neutral. The moment
Bitcoins themselves became a
"merchandise" to speculate with,
its use as the medium to measure
the value of products and services
was rendered useless.
If what we call "profits" are
merely the surplus of wealth
created as a result of the
production of a product and its
sale-purchase in the process of
satisfying a human need, or the
result of a needed service like
cutting your hair, then profits are
a welcome outcome. However the
issue in this case is not with the
profit itself but with WHO owns it.
From this point of view, profits
are the logical result of a natural
process and what turns them into
poison is in how we humans handle
the rules as to who owns them.
A surplus of wealth is what is left
over after the production and
exchange of goods has covered the
costs of manufacturing and
distribution. This is the
"capital" we save for later use.
Profits are the base of capital
creation and accumulation that
gives society a very needed
"reserve" to endure the bad times,
and expand the wealth using it to
invest in new enterprises and
technology to increase efficiency
in the good times.
I don't see any problem with
taxation, as long as it is handled
for the benefit of the whole of
society.
I think profits as described are a
natural process as long as it has
not been poisoned by the greed to
keep them by individuals for their
own purpose in disregard of
society.
Debts is an issue I am still
wrestling with and for that I
recommend you the book DEBT: THE
FIRST 5,000 YEARS by David Graeber.
He's an anthropologist and has a
very different take than most
economists.
The problem with debt is when
applied after the creation of
money. Before that debts were a
personal matter within the village
where most people were born and
died, and the place of anyone in
that society was set for life as
part of an organism. The "debts"
then were not transferable to third
parties. You owed a "favor" to
someone who gave you a tool, a cow,
or helped you to fix your roof.
With the advent of money, debts
became transferable to anyone
because the "favor" to pay back was
put into a coin or a piece of
paper, and therefore the debts
became impersonal.
In the village a favor to fix the
roof was something that lasted a
life time, even after the favor was
paid back it was part of the fabric
of society for its members to feel
in debt to each other. We were
part of an extended family.
But money changed all that and
today we feel no loyalty to anyone
after we pay them with money. As
far as we are concerned we already
paid them all we have to pay and
feel no responsibility to that
person or group.
This is how billionaires can sleep
at night while they are surrounded
by people starving, and all this
disease is based on how we have
defined money.
If profits can be shared by all and
society (the village) only allows
individuals to keep a modest amount
for themselves, the accumulation of
capital will be enormous and the
public banks owned by all the
people, will be full of energy
ready to be re-invested into new
ventures to satisfy society's
needs, like new and better
infrastructure, faster and wider
range services, better education,
better medical services, a more
efficient government and also will
result in fewer working hours for
increased pay for the people.
A VERY important part of the new
society will be the promotion and
cultivation of entrepreneurship.
One of the biggest "communist
system" failures, if not the
biggest, was its handling of
entrepreneurship and its corruption
with crony bureaucracy, promoting
mediocrity covering each other's
asses when acting irresponsibly and
seeing effective people as enemies.
This was the real reason for the
collapse of that 70 year experiment
failure.
Entrepreneurs usually don't start
an enterprise with the mere
motivation to get rich, but in fact
they strive to service a human
need. Steve Jobs started to make
computers in his garage merely to
sell a few to his friends. It is
the capitalist system and the way
corporate law is structured, that
turns natural entrepreneurs into
monsters, as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates
etc. became.
If we could foment entrepreneurs
supporting them with the capital
owned by the community to expand
into anything they dream of, as
long as it is in true service of
society, which after all is the
basic idea of the free market
system, then we can make sure they
live a comfortable life, creating
jobs for millions around them and
improving the efficiency of all
existing technology. Today's
distribution of investment capital
is done by for-profit bankers who
supposedly know how to measure risk
for the pure purpose of making
profits for themselves, without
ever looking at society's benefits.
But what happens when the risk is
shared by every one in the
community? it is much less risky
and also what happens if the
individuals making the choices to
assign (lend) the investment
capital using the community's
capital is not trying to profit for
it as an individual and as a
representative of a for-profit
bank, but instead this
representative of the community can
see the long term benefits to the
community as an investment in
infrastructure or education that
would give the community benefits
in the further outcomes, as for
example Free Education? it would
appear as a loss initially, but the
fact every single member of the
community has the same level
playing filed to be a productive
member of society, will multiply
the pool base of entrepreneurs that
will enhance exponentially
society's development and the
expansion of the economy.
If we can promote this behavior
without allowing any particular
individual to enrich themselves to
the point they become corrupted and
start to manipulate their wealth to
give their greed the power over
others to the detriment of society,
and instead the community as owner
of the capital generated, offer
them all the "toys", tools, labs
and means to give their creativity
all the free reign they need, I
believe we can then rip all the
benefits of today's market system
without the pitfalls destroying it
as we speak.
But all this starts by changing the
nature of today's IOU-like-money.
This vision can't be considered as
long as we use debt-based currency.
We need truly "neutral" money.
Neutral as defined by money that
has no value in itself unless it is
used for measuring a transaction of
goods and services. It is a
totally new concept that I don't
know yet how to implement
technically. The first principle
for it to function is that you
couldn't make money with money, and
that brings us to the concept of
interest. Does interest for the
use of capital have a true natural
function in the ideal socio-
economic system?
INTEREST and RISK
If interest is the charge to be
assigned to the rental of capital,
then its rate is the measure of
risk. The higher the risk, the
more the interest rate. But what
happens if the vast majority of
capital is owned by the community
itself? that would mean the risk
is shared by all the community,
especially if the decisions to
assign it for all investments were
also shared by the community and
the entrepreneurs who "borrowed" it
to start their enterprise or to
expand it ended up creating new
wealth of which the majority is to
be attained by the community, and
if there is a loss, also it would
be the whole of the community that
shares in the loss, instead of a
single individual or corporation.
As we have seen with the large
corporations today, some of them
(GE, GM, banks etc) keep the
profits but they pass on the losses
to the community after they have
infected like a virus the
government that is supposed to
regulate them.
We need to find a way for capital
to be lent out at zero interest so
that anyone who has a good idea and
want to put it into practice, can
do it with the back up of the whole
of society, and since the risk is
being shared by all, the benefits
should be as well, and most of the
profits should be retained by the
community that supported it, while
allowing the entrepreneur to enjoy
a better than average comfortable
living.
This is the broad idea, and we have
to fill out the details as to how
to achieve it.
Rafael
|
| |
Transmitted: 4/28/2024 1:18:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
