http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/10/31/idUK52931037820111031
I presume your'e talking about the gift economy stuff:
Now they are seeking economic structures that will embody the same horizontal principles. The New York General Assembly at OWS is in the process of designing a new currency based on gifting. Gift economies are ancient; Graeber argues in Debt that they may be the oldest economies in human history. They are getting an update in the work of such thinkers as Charles Eisenstein, as outlined in his book (available free online), Sacred Economics. He argues money should be an agent of abundance, not scarcity, connecting "human gifts with human needs."
In that spirit, the Alternative Currencies Working Group at OWS is putting out for consideration by the General Assembly a software-enabled gift currency called PermaBank, that's premise is "to develop and deploy a set of technologies that align 'financial services' with the principles of permaculture." PermaBank would enable individuals and groups "to post their wish/requests and gifts/offers and indicate whether they've been completed." It would also use paper money and credit cards (on a local credit union).
At face value it's an interesting concept, and a constant favorite of leftists. It calls back to a more primitive time where people live peacefully and gifted eachother things rather than using that evil of all evils: Money. The problem is, how do you organize a modern society and the capital structure required to maintain it on gifts? Is is possible to form money prices from just gifts? If not, then you run into all the usual problems with getting rid of money prices.
Yes, that and anything else such as the idea that wages have become stagnant or falling and what the actual causes are of that if it is true.
I think the broader point is that there is enough 'wealth' to go around, but that it's concentrated. How do we 'democratize' the flow of the things people need to live their daily lives?
How do you know there's "enough" wealth to go around? How much is "enough", exactly?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
"How do we 'democratize' the flow of the things people need to live their daily lives?"
Hmm ok let's do that. A few other people and I have voted that you have enough and your wealth should be democratized. We've also decided that the materials in your home could be more fairly distributed and, therefore, we will demolish your home and spread trhe materials between us. Thank you, have a nice day.
How do I know we have enough? Well I haven't checked the grain towers myself, but I'm pretty sure Wal-mart is still stocking the shelves. Corporations are still making record profits.
"Shares of McDonald’s rose 3 percent after the company reported a 9 percent increase in income. The results beat analysts’ expectations and represented the ninth straight quarter of gains for McDonald’s." https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/business/daily-stock-market-activity.html?_r=1
Like I said, enough to meet everyone's daily needs.
Money isn't wealth.
Sounds like capitalism.
You've made an almost insane non sequitor there.
Sure, but it determines our relationship to the things we need to live. Can't get bread without bread, you know? Unless you steal it, and I am all for hungry people stealing bread.
I think you're on to something! Everyone should have a say in how the wealth in society is distributed. I propose that everybody gets to vote on who gets what. Of course, we can't have people just sitting around and voting themselves free stuff, otherwise we'll starve, and the system has to be granular enough to encompass the worth and value of the many millions of different goods and services in our society. So lets give everyone tokens that they can exchange with eachother based on thier own individual valuations. If you run out of tokens, you have to work for more by doing something that somebody else needs or wants, so you contribute to society. That way everybody can vote inherently with their own economic action!
Wait... that sounds kind of familiar...
Your example described US foreign policy for the last 50-200 years to the T.
Only people on this website would argue that we don't live in a capitalist system.
Wouldn't it be easier to just move the resident to a more suitable home and turn their McMansion into a homeless shelter than just destroying it outright (seeing as how most materials would be non-recoverable at that point)?
(And on her point: sounds like capitalism... isn't that just about what banks do anyway when they foreclose on someone? lol)
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
"Only people on this website would argue that we don't live in a capitalist system."
I think many others have admitted that we don't live in a free-market capitalist system. We live in a fascist/corporatist state capitalist system.
Full disclosure: Porco Rosso is my brother, and he (gently) goaded me into coming on here. And, I don't know why the avatar's a woman. It just came up that way.
"Wouldn't it be easier to just move the resident to a more suitable home and turn their McMansion into a homeless shelter than just destroying it outright (seeing as how most materials would be non-recoverable at that point)?"
Umm, materials wouldn't just disappear if you dismantled the house. Anyway, you jsut illustrated my point, but only in another. We should force people out of their homes because we had a vote on it. How great would that be?
Not trying to be too confrontational.
Sorry, were you referring to me? If so I have no idea what you're talking about. You were asking about how we can "democratize" wealth distribution. Well, my proposed token system allows people to vote in the only way that is just: Based on how much they produce, as valued by the individuals they're trading with. Surely you can't mean that everyone only gets one vote, no matter how much or little they produce. Then people would get exploited!
occupy_octopi:How do I know we have enough? Well I haven't checked the grain towers myself, but I'm pretty sure Wal-mart is still stocking the shelves. Corporations are still making record profits. "Shares of McDonald’s rose 3 percent after the company reported a 9 percent increase in income. The results beat analysts’ expectations and represented the ninth straight quarter of gains for McDonald’s." https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/business/daily-stock-market-activity.html?_r=1 Like I said, enough to meet everyone's daily needs.
Looks like you didn't answer my question. I'm not surprised. So let's try this again: how do you know there's "enough"? And exactly how much is "enough" in the first place?
Actually, let me add in a third question: what exactly constitutes "daily needs"?
"Sorry, were you referring to me? "
No I was replying to the hypothetical that Porco had about taking stuff from people using force.
"Looks like you didn't answer my question."
Not sure what you're getting at. Recommended caloric intake?
It seems like by your line of questioning you don't think there's enough to go around.
He's asking you to quantify how much it would take to make sure everyone has "enough", and that the wealth in society currently exists to meet those conditions.
Keep in mind that your claim that there is "enough" has important implications beyond just mere stocks of grain. Merely claiming that there is "enough" sitting around says nothing about distribution, which, I believe, is what you're getting at. But distribution is much more complex than just sending a boat over to the areas where there isn't "enough".
The question was, How do you know there's enough to go around?
"No I was replying to the hypothetical that Porco had about taking stuff from people using force."
Well, exactly. Socialism would only be that.
occupy_octopi:"Looks like you didn't answer my question." Not sure what you're getting at. Recommended caloric intake? It seems like by your line of questioning you don't think there's enough to go around.
As LogisticEarth and Porco Rosso stated, I'm trying to figure out how much you've actually thought about the statement "there's enough to go around for everyone". To me, that statement doesn't suggest only food - it refers to everything. How do you know there's "enough" stuff for everyone? Before you can answer that question, first you must explain just what you mean by "enough".
"Keep in mind that your claim that there is "enough" has important implications beyond just mere stocks of grain. Merely claiming that there is "enough" sitting around says nothing about distribution, which, I believe, is what you're getting at. But distribution is much more complex than just sending a boat over to the areas where there isn't "enough"."
Yes, it's complex.
As far as quantifying what's enough, that seems like a trick to trip me up. I don't think I could come up with an answer to satisfy him. But isn't that kind of common sense anyway? Enough is enough. Basic necessities are food and shelter. Maybe the more important question is when is it too much. Should people be able to accumulate wealth to no end?
"Should people be able to accumulate wealth to no end?"
Who has the right to stop them? And, no, it's an important question. What is enough? Who has the right to determine it? What kind of force can they employ to attain their standard of enough?
occupy_octopi:As far as quantifying what's enough, that seems like a trick to trip me up. I don't think I could come up with an answer to satisfy him. But isn't that kind of common sense anyway? Enough is enough. Basic necessities are food and shelter. Maybe the more important question is when is it too much. Should people be able to accumulate wealth to no end?
If you can't even explain what you mean by "enough", how can you make the claim that there is "enough"?
"As LogisticEarth and Porco Rosso stated, I'm trying to figure out how much you've actually thought about the statement "there's enough to go around for everyone"."
I've thought about it plenty, thank you very much! I've also experienced it. I've grown up in the US, where there's abundance and excess, but still people starving and living on the streets. I've seen the same thing in other countries, though those conditions are perhaps more widespread there.
"To me, that statement doesn't suggest only food - it refers to everything. How do you know there's "enough" stuff for everyone? Before you can answer that question, first you must explain just what you mean by "enough""
It seems like if we're truly libertarians (me anarcho-communist, you Misean) then we believe in peoples' ability to decide for themselves when enough is enough. Of everything. The line is when having 'enough' means taking from someone else who will then be left without enough.
You assume, then, that people with more took it from someone else. Can you prove that? The problem with left anarchists is that they would impoverish everyone and they believe in a zero-sum world.
occupy_octopi:"As LogisticEarth and Porco Rosso stated, I'm trying to figure out how much you've actually thought about the statement "there's enough to go around for everyone"." I've thought about it plenty, thank you very much! I've also experienced it. I've grown up in the US, where there's abundance and excess, but still people starving and living on the streets. I've seen the same thing in other countries, though those conditions are perhaps more widespread there.
So what precise conclusions have you reached from your thinking?
occupy_octopi:"To me, that statement doesn't suggest only food - it refers to everything. How do you know there's "enough" stuff for everyone? Before you can answer that question, first you must explain just what you mean by "enough"" It seems like if we're truly libertarians (me anarcho-communist, you Misean) then we believe in peoples' ability to decide for themselves when enough is enough. Of everything. The line is when having 'enough' means taking from someone else who will then be left without enough.
Because you're breathing right now, I feel like I'm left without enough air. Please stop breathing.
occupy-
To many people in the world it might seem as though you are living an opulent lifestyle. So, simply because they feel that way does that mean they are entitled to your things or that you are morally obligated to give away some of your things to them?
"To many people in the world it might seem as though you are living an opulent lifestyle. So, simply because they feel that way does that mean they are entitled to your things or that you are morally obligated to give away some of your things to them?"
Well I don't really have much to take. My bike? My debts? They're already taking my house.
Squabbling about "amounts of money" with a central bank makes no sense. If the serfs (that's us, folks) make too much money, they can just print more, cause a credit bubble, call in their loans, cause a credit crisis, and collect material possessions in exchange for the promise to deliver silly pieces of paper. It's called "fleecing the flock".
Well, I think it's fair of me to assume you consume enough food to survive. Many don't have even that. Therefore, I propose you give up half your supply of food. You might as well cut your living space in half as well. Or how about your cellphone, dryer, refrigerator, etc.? You keep half of those type of amenities, and the rest we'll ship off. I just can't stand to see some people living as you are while others are starving across the globe.
occupy_octopi:Should people be able to accumulate wealth to no end?
Can you suggest an appropriate maximum? Would you care to speculate as to what the ramifications of setting that maximum would be?
"I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgments."-Albert Einstein
Should people be able to accumulate wealth to no end?
Alright, so after a specific point people lose their right to make things and keep them or exchange their own things for things of others.
And how do you calculate this point? Surely you mean to say that 1 million dollars is more than 1 million grains of sand, and hence someone with 1 million dollars may be stopped, while the person with 1 million in sand may keep accumulating. But how do you determine the relative value of things? How do you convert from one into another? Perhaps you would like to use the "fair market price?" But how do you determine the supply and demand when you have people who have actively been prevented from entering the market (because they are already too wealthy)? Coordination requires supply and demand, which would not be allowed to manifest themselves, because people at the wealth limit would not be able to participate in the system.
Wealth limits are inherently unfeasible. It all comes down to "he has more than me, thus I think I can take things from him."
From an ethical standpoint you lose the universality of the system when you impose limits on how much of your right you may exercise.
From a utilitarian standpoint you lose efficiency when people lose the incentive to work at what appears to be a trade they're good at.
What grounds are left for the argument? Selfish, dictatorial grounds.
And surely, since value is subjective, then someone at the wealth limit cannot under any circumstance trade anything for anything else, as that would increase his utility and prove that the thing he receives in exchange is worth more than the thing he traded away, hence going over the wealth limit, and becoming illegal.
Reductio ad absurdum.
"Alright, so after a specific point people lose their right to make things and keep them or exchange their own things for things of others."
My point is actually that the system we have in place now functions as a vampire, living off the work that others do, thereby creating 'wealth'.
I realize we have different worldviews, but it sometimes seems like Miseans are not living on the same planet as the rest of us. Why defend capitalists when you probably aren't one of them and may never be one? Nevermind that, because the point isn't to attack individuals, it's to organize within and against the social systems that create concrete lived realities.