Re: [ox-en] Re: Open Money?
- From: Michael Linton <lcs mars.ark.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:44:50 -0800
On January 21, 2002 02:54 pm, Graham Seaman wrote:
........If I understand you correctly, for you there
are not enough of the necessities to go round,
so they have to be rationed somehow.
True that there are scarcities that society must find its ways of
distributing - space, food, water, energy, great cooks, musicians, painters,
etc - but that's not the driving reason.
...............Rationing through
conventional money is unfair; rationing through open money could be
fairer.
Certainly we're looking a considerable easing of the power curve between the
haves and the have nots. But it comes not from the authority of any
rationing or reallocation (or revolution) but rather from the developing
autonomy of the individuals who use open money networks. Allocation isn't
what these systems do.
Also, it's not really about trying to be fair, it's not so much a moral issue
as a practical one. Not "...we / the people SHOULD use open money because
it's good for this, that, etc ...." but rather " ...people will use open
money because it comes back, so it just makes sense." Why spend cash (that
just goes) when you can spend cc (that comes back) and keep the cash? This
is not a trick question - it is as simple as it looks.
The fact that it turns out to have all sorts of other beneficial effects is
just the way it turns out.
Again, this is NOT because open money is inherently good, but rather because
conventional money is inherently bad (in so many ways) and any relief from
dependence on it is as refreshing as ceasing to bang your head against a
wall, or vice versa. It's wonderful what you don't have to do with/for
conventional money, when you can use open instead.
For me rationing is inherently unfair, and attempts to carry it out with
any type of money are structurally similar and will eventually end up
recreating the same system.
We agree entirely - fortunately control is not an issue in these systems,
since they're basically beyond control.
..............Attempts to carry it out without money result
instead in dictatorship. So the key is to look for ways in which rationing
can be completely avoided - where 'means to buy the necessities of life'
are simply unneeded, because they can be taken without payment.
That has first to be a matter of organization. Conventional economists
generally claim that "free markets" (which don't exist) and competition (for
some but not others) create an exquisitely efficient engine of production and
distribution. I would guess that it's probably only about 20% of what it
could be doing if it were truly self-organising. And that's on quantitative
product. When you add in the qualitative considerations it gets markedly
better again.
We think there will be progressively more basic needs available
progressively more cheaply / affordably. We expect a guaranteed basic living
income will become increasingly common, probably first in europe, for the
usual politically progressive reasons and the average work week will drop
below 20 hours. We suppose some people, maybe most, will have different jobs
/ occupations at different times of the year. That's the mainstream
profile - what the radicals will do with their time is a lot less predictable.
But there are also issues about survival NOW, rather than future systems:
could open money be used to help fs writers survive now? RMS is also
trying to create a micro-payment system, but I believe that's with
conventional money? On the other hand, there is a LETS system in the area
where I live - based entirely on local exchange between people who know
one another physically. And the openmoney.org website also uses local
communities in its examples. Suppose I (in the UK) write a program which
becomes widely used by secretaries in China (unlikely but possible). In
this case there is no sense in which the word 'community' applies. How
could open money operate in cases like that?
We think the present best guess is through a set of music / software / IP
micropayment moneys.
Mutual credit systems will generally function progressively less effectively
as they get bigger and / or physically dispersed. They will tend to grow
outwards and take on progressively larger and more frequent exchanges.
If follows (actually it does, but I am jumping some steps here) that as
inter-regional and inter-national trading networks emerge, there will be
increasing need for and use of "loose change" currencies that are accepted
everywhere (as the US $ is now, but much differently).
We expect these to be the tokens / cybercoins of a larger currency base
formed on a family of open money payment systems. These payment systems will
be designed particularly to facilitate royalties, acknowledgements, fees,
credits, licenses or whatever conferred on content creators, performers,
installers, trainers etc by happy content users.
Currencies such as these will be important in providing balance in
the global payments process.
...................like issues in the UK over whether LETs should be taxed.
With regard the tax issue in the UK or anywhere else. No issue. Money is
money and taxes are taxes. The means of settlement doesn't change the tax
implications of any event.
Michael
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/