Nothing new, I believe, for regular readers of this list or the P2P blog, maybe even banal: "These bankers are not proposing to loan their money to the world. Rather, they propose creating new money out of thin air... they loan the fabricated money, collect interest payments and demand the principal back in real money from the debtors. It’s a lucrative scheme if you’re on the inside. What bankers call ‘Credit’ the rest of world experiences as ‘Debt’ owed to the bankers... Alternatives exist" what's interesting is _where_ this is written, a place a little more "mainstream" than those usually hosting these talks: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/deep-green... Marco
M. Fioretti wrote:
"These bankers are not proposing to loan their money to the world. Rather, they propose creating new money out of thin air..."
I don't understand. If THEY can create money "out of thin air", what is stopping US from doing the same? Who gave THEM that authority, and who took it away from US? Just curious.
I started a Meta "Micro-Action" on this topic : http://ifwerantheworld.com/we_would/3380 ----------- Nothing is stopping us, I guess, except that many of us may still feel dependent on access to the system which uses the current monetary system ( that is : The power and resources to act to fulfill one's own potential http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty ? ) , and that politicians would need to change laws as to accept alternative currencies as tax. ( that is : Freedom of interference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty ? ) This may already be happening - see developments regarding "California IOU" : http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1939282/guide_to_accepting_californ... http://www.capradio.org/articles/articledetail.aspx?articleid=8659 Hence my question is : how to build up a critical mass of users ( in a peer production - peer property approach ) for information systems of interdependency as to ensure a system providing us with what we may need to live comfortably. As some of us may know, there are various projects in development for alternative vector information systems. based on gift economics : http://www.altruists.org/projects/ge/ff/ metacurrency : http://www.metacurrency.org/content/open-rules We may have discussed such approaches - I m currently interested in an approach very similar ( and which could use ) metacurrency type of extensible rule formats, for visualizing networked and potentially interdependent "transaction contracts" via graphs. On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>wrote:
M. Fioretti wrote:
"These bankers are not proposing to loan their money to the world. Rather, they propose creating new money out of thin air..."
I don't understand.
If THEY can create money "out of thin air", what is stopping US from doing the same?
Who gave THEM that authority, and who took it away from US?
Just curious.
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
M. Fioretti wrote:
"These bankers are not proposing to loan their money to the world. Rather, they propose creating new money out of thin air..."
I don't understand.
If THEY can create money "out of thin air", what is stopping US from doing the same?
What is stopping NATIONS from doing the same? Why do NATIONS rent money from those private bankers? Anyone? Beuler?
Who gave THEM that authority, and who took it away from US?
Why did NATIONS give THEM that authority, and who took it away from NATIONS?
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
M. Fioretti wrote:
"These bankers are not proposing to loan their money to the world. Rather, they propose creating new money out of thin air..."
I don't understand.
If THEY can create money "out of thin air", what is stopping US from doing the same?
What is stopping NATIONS from doing the same?
Why do NATIONS rent money from those private bankers?
Anyone? Beuler?
Dude, did you, like, miss the 90's :)? The "democratic state" is merely an instrument by those in power to "manage the masses". That's what the p2p revolution and such is for. Dig it: [http://pangaia.sourceforge.net new form of governance]. Cheerio, marcos
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 06:54:18 AM -0700, Patrick Anderson ([email protected]) wrote:
M. Fioretti wrote:
"These bankers are not proposing to loan their money to the world. Rather, they propose creating new money out of thin air..."
If THEY can create money "out of thin air", what is stopping US from doing the same? Who gave THEM that authority, and who took it away from US?
Patrick (and list) If yet another (re-)discussion about this theme starts here that's OK for me, of course. I have almost no answers myself on these things, but it's always interesting to read answers from others. Personally, however, that's not why I posted that link: the news, I think, is not what is said, but only _where_ it is said. What I mean is simply that, if even Greenpeace (audience) start asking certain questions, maybe this is the time, and a good opportunity (not for me personally, but for you or somebody else more prepared than I am) to go THERE to ask questions like these, to people who maybe wouldn't have listened, or seen the problem, just one or six months ago. Marco
I noticed from my recent experience in Green movements here in western europe that certain audiences are more open then others. I noticed that some politicians from green parties are not necessarily very outspoken or critical - sometimes only scratching the surface, trying to picture a more "soft" capitalism, without re-questioning its structure. At a european green level, I notice there is an agenda for a ( pro capitalist ? ) Green New Deal ( speculative capitalist bubble ? ). I feel less reservations in requestioning the system from people involved with Friends of the Earth, or, apparently - when reading the article you sent - from Greenpeace. Although even in various "representative" green parties, I notice big differences. I did notice ( and believe I sent to the list ? ) a draft from the US green party for "Monetary Reform". http://www.monetary.org/greenpartymonetaryplank.html On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:04 PM, M. Fioretti <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 06:54:18 AM -0700, Patrick Anderson ( [email protected]) wrote:
M. Fioretti wrote:
"These bankers are not proposing to loan their money to the world. Rather, they propose creating new money out of thin air..."
If THEY can create money "out of thin air", what is stopping US from doing the same? Who gave THEM that authority, and who took it away from US?
Patrick (and list)
If yet another (re-)discussion about this theme starts here that's OK for me, of course. I have almost no answers myself on these things, but it's always interesting to read answers from others.
Personally, however, that's not why I posted that link: the news, I think, is not what is said, but only _where_ it is said.
What I mean is simply that, if even Greenpeace (audience) start asking certain questions, maybe this is the time, and a good opportunity (not for me personally, but for you or somebody else more prepared than I am) to go THERE to ask questions like these, to people who maybe wouldn't have listened, or seen the problem, just one or six months ago.
Marco
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't understand.
If THEY can create money "out of thin air", what is stopping US from doing the same?
Who gave THEM that authority, and who took it away from US?
The government, at least to the extent that bank licensing and legal tender laws are enforceable. -- Kevin Carson Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism http://mutualist.blogspot.com The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
Kevin Carson wrote:
The government, at least to the extent that bank licensing and legal tender laws are enforceable.
So governments had the authority to issue currency for themselves, but then gave it away to private corporations? How funny. I wonder why they did this. It must be for the best, right? I've heard people say "It is to control inflation" as though those private corporations have more self-control than governments. If this logic is true, does that mean all the P2P currencies are fundamentally flawed? If this logic is false, does that mean our governments and the corporations that operate those governments are lying to us?
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
So governments had the authority to issue currency for themselves, but then gave it away to private corporations?
As far as I can tell, the private corporations are the government. (In the same sense that feudal landlords, optimates, etc., were the government under previous dispensations).
How funny.
I wonder why they did this. It must be for the best, right?
I've heard people say "It is to control inflation" as though those private corporations have more self-control than governments.
If this logic is true, does that mean all the P2P currencies are fundamentally flawed?
Sure. And if high fructose corn syrup and rubber tomatoes are good for you, people like Michael Pollan and Frances Moore Lappe are fundamentally flawed. But that's not the way I'd bet.
If this logic is false, does that mean our governments and the corporations that operate those governments are lying to us?
You just won a cigar! -- Kevin Carson Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism http://mutualist.blogspot.com The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
Well, I wrote a whole book on this called Life Inc.: How Corporatism Conquered the World and How We Can Take it Back. Most simply, p2p currencies were made illegal because the people were getting wealthy. There was a new middle class actually creating and exchanging value, and the aristocracy had to stop this before they lost their artificial hold on power. So they made money illegal, and chartered monopolies to do all the business (in return for passive returns). In US, the right to issue money went to a private corporation for other reasons. On Feb 17, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Kevin Carson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
So governments had the authority to issue currency for themselves, but then gave it away to private corporations?
As far as I can tell, the private corporations are the government. (In the same sense that feudal landlords, optimates, etc., were the government under previous dispensations).
How funny.
I wonder why they did this. It must be for the best, right?
I've heard people say "It is to control inflation" as though those private corporations have more self-control than governments.
If this logic is true, does that mean all the P2P currencies are fundamentally flawed?
Sure. And if high fructose corn syrup and rubber tomatoes are good for you, people like Michael Pollan and Frances Moore Lappe are fundamentally flawed. But that's not the way I'd bet.
If this logic is false, does that mean our governments and the corporations that operate those governments are lying to us?
You just won a cigar!
-- Kevin Carson Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism http://mutualist.blogspot.com The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Douglas Rushkoff <[email protected]> wrote:
Most simply, p2p currencies were made illegal because the people were getting wealthy. There was a new middle class actually creating and exchanging value, and the aristocracy had to stop this before they lost their artificial hold on power. So they made money illegal, and chartered monopolies to do all the business (in return for passive returns).
Capitalism is all about "private property," true enough, but it's mainly property in controlling access to natural opportunities so as to extract rents from them. "Competition is Theft" http://c4ss.org/content/3853 "Yes, the Rent Really is Too Damn High" http://c4ss.org/content/4480 -- Kevin Carson Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism http://mutualist.blogspot.com The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
hi doug, perhaps you have a section of your book that can be excerpted for this, on the p2p blog? I'm interested in that particular historical passage, Michel On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Douglas Rushkoff <[email protected]>wrote:
Well, I wrote a whole book on this called Life Inc.: How Corporatism Conquered the World and How We Can Take it Back.
Most simply, p2p currencies were made illegal because the people were getting wealthy. There was a new middle class actually creating and exchanging value, and the aristocracy had to stop this before they lost their artificial hold on power. So they made money illegal, and chartered monopolies to do all the business (in return for passive returns).
In US, the right to issue money went to a private corporation for other reasons.
On Feb 17, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Kevin Carson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
So governments had the authority to issue currency for themselves, but then gave it away to private corporations?
As far as I can tell, the private corporations are the government. (In the same sense that feudal landlords, optimates, etc., were the government under previous dispensations).
How funny.
I wonder why they did this. It must be for the best, right?
I've heard people say "It is to control inflation" as though those private corporations have more self-control than governments.
If this logic is true, does that mean all the P2P currencies are fundamentally flawed?
Sure. And if high fructose corn syrup and rubber tomatoes are good for you, people like Michael Pollan and Frances Moore Lappe are fundamentally flawed. But that's not the way I'd bet.
If this logic is false, does that mean our governments and the corporations that operate those governments are lying to us?
You just won a cigar!
-- Kevin Carson Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism http://mutualist.blogspot.com The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
Sure. You want an e-file of the whole book? I can point out the section to you or anyone who is interested in converting from PDF.... On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:29 AM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
hi doug,
perhaps you have a section of your book that can be excerpted for this, on the p2p blog?
I'm interested in that particular historical passage,
Michel
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Douglas Rushkoff <[email protected]> wrote: Well, I wrote a whole book on this called Life Inc.: How Corporatism Conquered the World and How We Can Take it Back.
Most simply, p2p currencies were made illegal because the people were getting wealthy. There was a new middle class actually creating and exchanging value, and the aristocracy had to stop this before they lost their artificial hold on power. So they made money illegal, and chartered monopolies to do all the business (in return for passive returns).
In US, the right to issue money went to a private corporation for other reasons.
On Feb 17, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Kevin Carson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
So governments had the authority to issue currency for themselves, but then gave it away to private corporations?
As far as I can tell, the private corporations are the government. (In the same sense that feudal landlords, optimates, etc., were the government under previous dispensations).
How funny.
I wonder why they did this. It must be for the best, right?
I've heard people say "It is to control inflation" as though those private corporations have more self-control than governments.
If this logic is true, does that mean all the P2P currencies are fundamentally flawed?
Sure. And if high fructose corn syrup and rubber tomatoes are good for you, people like Michael Pollan and Frances Moore Lappe are fundamentally flawed. But that's not the way I'd bet.
If this logic is false, does that mean our governments and the corporations that operate those governments are lying to us?
You just won a cigar!
-- Kevin Carson Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism http://mutualist.blogspot.com The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
yes, that would be fine, I can copy-paste only a portion of the section you indicate, Michel On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Douglas Rushkoff <[email protected]>wrote:
Sure. You want an e-file of the whole book? I can point out the section to you or anyone who is interested in converting from PDF....
On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:29 AM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
hi doug,
perhaps you have a section of your book that can be excerpted for this, on the p2p blog?
I'm interested in that particular historical passage,
Michel
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Douglas Rushkoff <[email protected]>wrote:
Well, I wrote a whole book on this called Life Inc.: How Corporatism Conquered the World and How We Can Take it Back.
Most simply, p2p currencies were made illegal because the people were getting wealthy. There was a new middle class actually creating and exchanging value, and the aristocracy had to stop this before they lost their artificial hold on power. So they made money illegal, and chartered monopolies to do all the business (in return for passive returns).
In US, the right to issue money went to a private corporation for other reasons.
On Feb 17, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Kevin Carson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
So governments had the authority to issue currency for themselves, but then gave it away to private corporations?
As far as I can tell, the private corporations are the government. (In the same sense that feudal landlords, optimates, etc., were the government under previous dispensations).
How funny.
I wonder why they did this. It must be for the best, right?
I've heard people say "It is to control inflation" as though those private corporations have more self-control than governments.
If this logic is true, does that mean all the P2P currencies are fundamentally flawed?
Sure. And if high fructose corn syrup and rubber tomatoes are good for you, people like Michael Pollan and Frances Moore Lappe are fundamentally flawed. But that's not the way I'd bet.
If this logic is false, does that mean our governments and the corporations that operate those governments are lying to us?
You just won a cigar!
-- Kevin Carson Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism http://mutualist.blogspot.com The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/
Kevin Carson wrote:
You just won a cigar!
Ha, ha. Yes, I know I'm playing the fool, and these are stupid questions with obvious answers for those in the know... But if it is all so obvious, what makes it so impenetrable to reconsideration by all the nations throughout the world? Why do most all citizens choose to quibble over the theatre of politics and the minutea of ineffective bandages while this massive issue is left untouched? How is it that our education systems leave this fundamental misdesign out of the curriculum? How is it that so few people I know are aware of this?
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
Why do most all citizens choose to quibble over the theatre of politics and the minutea of ineffective bandages while this massive issue is left untouched?
Because the range of "mainstream," permissible alternatives in any political system is defined in terms of what can be carried out while preserving essentially the same structure of power, by the people who are currently running things.
How is it that our education systems leave this fundamental misdesign out of the curriculum?
Because the main function of the educational system is to reproduce the kinds of human resources who are necessary to keep the present system, with its existing structure of power, going. That means taking the system, its goals and values, for granted. It definitely does not aim at inculcating an ability to critically examine the fundamental premises of the system. -- Kevin Carson Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism http://mutualist.blogspot.com The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
Hi Patrick, is there any chance that you are asking questions to answers you perhaps already found ? ;) ... to incite us to think ? :) ... or to find out what we come up with ? you ask : *> So governments had the authority to issue currency for themselves,
but then gave it away to private corporations?*
My current short answer : There apparently have been different periods in the recent US history what concerns control over monetary creation, including times where central private banking was a big issue in political campaigns. ( if I remember properly, as seen on this video - the money masters<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#>- ) Charters to a central bank have not always been renewed. for example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States There is a big dependency of politicians in Governments towards money, so when money is centrally controlled by ( officially semi-public ) private banks, I di question : whom has control over whom ?
I've heard people say "It is to control inflation" as though those private corporations have more self-control than governments.
some economists say interest leads to inflation... around 5min30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuBy3BzCXwg <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuBy3BzCXwg>----- What concerns me, is that in addition to this, there seem to be at least two parallel economies : - the real economy : in which people try to survive and purchase goods for survival, potentially investing in some needed infrastructure. - the speculative economy : in which investors try to maximize profits by creating speculative bubble economies, likely to be disconnected from the needs of people. When the speculative economy accelerates the bust of the real economy, or vampirizes it by sucking up money in circulation in the real economy, my perception is that it hurts, really badly. The current financial and monetary system may facilitate such speculative economy, as it requires exponential monetary growth. I imagine that such risk could also appear with other monetary architectures / any artificially scarce currencies ? ... Any markets allowing unlimited speculation ? But I do not believe all p2p currencies are fundamentally flawed... and anyway, I believe its worth a try... currency monopolies are, from my point of view, a big risk. Diversification can enable us to test out a variety of architectures, and choose the most suitable currency characteristics adapted to the contexts we may want to use them... On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>wrote:
Kevin Carson wrote:
The government, at least to the extent that bank licensing and legal tender laws are enforceable.
So governments had the authority to issue currency for themselves, but then gave it away to private corporations?
How funny.
I wonder why they did this. It must be for the best, right?
I've heard people say "It is to control inflation" as though those private corporations have more self-control than governments.
If this logic is true, does that mean all the P2P currencies are fundamentally flawed?
If this logic is false, does that mean our governments and the corporations that operate those governments are lying to us?
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
additional note : I believe that a lack of inflation is a really big problem in a situation with parallel economies. I have the feeling the ones who have money ( and power over money ) may try to keep inflation low "in the real economy", keeping wages down, and maintaining the value of their money in comparison to man/hour/slavery purchase, yet at the same time speculate on certain goods, such as housing, so much so that people that work may not even be able to buy a house anymore. In effect, it becomes an ideal approach to dispossess the population, increase the share of ownership within the hands of a minority, and increase the dependency of the population on renting resources it needs for survival but does not own anymore. Probably this would require more details and references - it probably opens up a long conversation that can be continued on some other list... On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson < [email protected]> wrote:
Hi Patrick,
is there any chance that you are asking questions to answers you perhaps already found ? ;) ... to incite us to think ? :) ... or to find out what we come up with ?
you ask : *> So governments had the authority to issue currency for themselves,
but then gave it away to private corporations?*
My current short answer :
There apparently have been different periods in the recent US history what concerns control over monetary creation, including times where central private banking was a big issue in political campaigns. ( if I remember properly, as seen on this video - the money masters<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#>- )
Charters to a central bank have not always been renewed.
for example :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States
There is a big dependency of politicians in Governments towards money, so when money is centrally controlled by ( officially semi-public ) private banks, I di question : whom has control over whom ?
I've heard people say "It is to control inflation" as though those private corporations have more self-control than governments.
some economists say interest leads to inflation...
around 5min30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuBy3BzCXwg
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuBy3BzCXwg>-----
What concerns me, is that in addition to this, there seem to be at least two parallel economies :
- the real economy : in which people try to survive and purchase goods for survival, potentially investing in some needed infrastructure.
- the speculative economy : in which investors try to maximize profits by creating speculative bubble economies, likely to be disconnected from the needs of people.
When the speculative economy accelerates the bust of the real economy, or vampirizes it by sucking up money in circulation in the real economy, my perception is that it hurts, really badly.
The current financial and monetary system may facilitate such speculative economy, as it requires exponential monetary growth.
I imagine that such risk could also appear with other monetary architectures / any artificially scarce currencies ? ... Any markets allowing unlimited speculation ?
But I do not believe all p2p currencies are fundamentally flawed... and anyway, I believe its worth a try... currency monopolies are, from my point of view, a big risk.
Diversification can enable us to test out a variety of architectures, and choose the most suitable currency characteristics adapted to the contexts we may want to use them...
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>wrote:
Kevin Carson wrote:
The government, at least to the extent that bank licensing and legal tender laws are enforceable.
So governments had the authority to issue currency for themselves, but then gave it away to private corporations?
How funny.
I wonder why they did this. It must be for the best, right?
I've heard people say "It is to control inflation" as though those private corporations have more self-control than governments.
If this logic is true, does that mean all the P2P currencies are fundamentally flawed?
If this logic is false, does that mean our governments and the corporations that operate those governments are lying to us?
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
The inflation issue had more to do with centralized currencies' bias toward longer savings periods. P2P currencies lose value over time because the grain store needs to be paid, and so on. Long distance currencies need to remain steady for longer periods, so that merchants can bring them across Europe. On Feb 17, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
additional note :
I believe that a lack of inflation is a really big problem in a situation with parallel economies.
I have the feeling the ones who have money ( and power over money ) may try to keep inflation low "in the real economy",
keeping wages down, and maintaining the value of their money in comparison to man/hour/slavery purchase,
yet at the same time speculate on certain goods, such as housing, so much so that people that work may not even be able to buy a house anymore.
In effect, it becomes an ideal approach to dispossess the population, increase the share of ownership within the hands of a minority, and increase the dependency of the population on renting resources it needs for survival but does not own anymore.
Probably this would require more details and references - it probably opens up a long conversation that can be continued on some other list...
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Patrick,
is there any chance that you are asking questions to answers you perhaps already found ? ;) ... to incite us to think ? :) ... or to find out what we come up with ?
you ask :
So governments had the authority to issue currency for themselves, but then gave it away to private corporations?
My current short answer :
There apparently have been different periods in the recent US history what concerns control over monetary creation, including times where central private banking was a big issue in political campaigns. ( if I remember properly, as seen on this video - the money masters - )
Charters to a central bank have not always been renewed.
for example :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States
There is a big dependency of politicians in Governments towards money, so when money is centrally controlled by ( officially semi-public ) private banks, I di question : whom has control over whom ?
I've heard people say "It is to control inflation" as though those private corporations have more self-control than governments.
some economists say interest leads to inflation...
around 5min30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuBy3BzCXwg
-----
What concerns me, is that in addition to this, there seem to be at least two parallel economies :
- the real economy : in which people try to survive and purchase goods for survival, potentially investing in some needed infrastructure.
- the speculative economy : in which investors try to maximize profits by creating speculative bubble economies, likely to be disconnected from the needs of people.
When the speculative economy accelerates the bust of the real economy, or vampirizes it by sucking up money in circulation in the real economy, my perception is that it hurts, really badly.
The current financial and monetary system may facilitate such speculative economy, as it requires exponential monetary growth.
I imagine that such risk could also appear with other monetary architectures / any artificially scarce currencies ? ... Any markets allowing unlimited speculation ?
But I do not believe all p2p currencies are fundamentally flawed... and anyway, I believe its worth a try... currency monopolies are, from my point of view, a big risk.
Diversification can enable us to test out a variety of architectures, and choose the most suitable currency characteristics adapted to the contexts we may want to use them...
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: Kevin Carson wrote:
The government, at least to the extent that bank licensing and legal tender laws are enforceable.
So governments had the authority to issue currency for themselves, but then gave it away to private corporations?
How funny.
I wonder why they did this. It must be for the best, right?
I've heard people say "It is to control inflation" as though those private corporations have more self-control than governments.
If this logic is true, does that mean all the P2P currencies are fundamentally flawed?
If this logic is false, does that mean our governments and the corporations that operate those governments are lying to us?
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
in reply to the article<http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/deep-green-debt-human-rights-and-nature/blog/33343> when I notice that debt based monetary mass ( needs to ) expand exponentially and , often, wants to make a profit, I get concerned for our survival. Even in a situation where one would still want to play the game of the current monetary architecture, in the current scenario where more and more vital needs and resources are controlled by the monetary system through increased monetization of the economies of the world, and where the incomes of individual people do not expand as quickly, financial market needing to make profits can inflate prices for basic goods beyond the capacity for people to purchase them. Such inequality may be a strong contributing factor to recent revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa : http://www.truth-out.org/the-egyptian-tinderbox-how-banks-and-investors-are-... I created a "micro action" called *"implement laws to forbid financial speculation on food"* http://ifwerantheworld.com/we_would/3382 <http://ifwerantheworld.com/we_would/3382>I believe similar laws should be passed on the prices of housing, and other basic living necessities. On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:58 AM, M. Fioretti <[email protected]> wrote:
Nothing new, I believe, for regular readers of this list or the P2P blog, maybe even banal:
"These bankers are not proposing to loan their money to the world. Rather, they propose creating new money out of thin air... they loan the fabricated money, collect interest payments and demand the principal back in real money from the debtors. It’s a lucrative scheme if you’re on the inside. What bankers call ‘Credit’ the rest of world experiences as ‘Debt’ owed to the bankers... Alternatives exist"
what's interesting is _where_ this is written, a place a little more "mainstream" than those usually hosting these talks:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/deep-green...
Marco
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
participants (7)
-
Dante-Gabryell Monson -
Douglas Rushkoff -
Kevin Carson -
M. Fioretti -
Mark J -
Michel Bauwens -
Patrick Anderson