Message 02956 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT02752 Message: 19/123 L12 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox-en] Re: Basic income as an option?



Hi Michel and all!

2 weeks (19 days) ago Michael Bouwens wrote:
Thanks Stefan, for your interesting comments and
probing questions,

I understand this in that way that you are no longer interested in
discussing. Sorry I noticed this so late. I'll stick to
some minor clarifications.

Smarter currencies systems for
example.

IMHO we already have the smartest currency system
thinkable in this
historical situation. From this point on societal
progress can only be
accomplished by abandoning the exchange system -
which will surely
mean a new era in human history. IMHO all this talk
about alternative
currency systems does not understand what money is
after all.

Again, you assume a direct leap from capitalism to
communism, i.e. a highly unlikely possibility,

Well, so far I argued mostly that your ideology won't help this step.

Otherwise I don't know what you mean by a direct leap. If a direct
leap can last 200 years I indeed think that a direct leap is possible.
Just as there were a direct leap from feudalism to capitalism.

Our current currency
system is not 'smart' at all, since 90% of it cannot
be used in productive endeavour, and it creates global
poverty.

You are thinking in moral terms. This is indeed what I understand
least when talking to some of these alternative money guys: They are
using moral terms and *still* find a society based on exchange an
option.

I'd follow completely your moral terms but the fundamental moral term
to me is "Everyone according to his/her needs". This, however, is
completely incompatible with exchange because it is a simple truth
that not everyone in need has something to exchange. A moral society
simply can not work under exchange conditions.

Instead for a moral society - which is probably we all strive for -
you need a completely different basis. IMHO this basis needs to be a
mode of production oriented in use value. This is what we see in
(Double) Free Software. Everything that furthers this mode of
production helps, everything which helps other production modes
doesn't. Simply so.

Different protocols are being thought of by
very smart people, such as Bernard Lietaer, who
understand money very well.

Well, I'm not impressed by names. I find arguments more convincing.

Conditional social welfare creates an unemployment
trap, since it becomes unattractive to work for
marginal gains. Unconditional basic income does not
destroy any incentive to work, only the attractivity
of  low paid/ low quality options, which must
therefore be adapted in a positive sense.

Sorry but this sounds really ridiculous to me. If I get money because
I'm in a bad social situation and I have to prove this then you say
this kills incentive to work. If I get money even without needing to
prove the necessity the incentive to work is higher. What???

SO THE KEY QUESTION IS: apart from your germ theory
which you describe as a 'natural law', do you really
believe in a straight line from here to full peer
production. Do you not have any transitory program at
all?

Well, the transition already happens. As it seems it doesn't need my
help ;-) .


						Mit Freien Grüßen

						Stefan

--
Please note this message is written on an offline laptop
and send out in the evening of the day it is written. It
does not take any information into account which may have
reached my mailbox since yesterday evening.

_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT02752 Message: 19/123 L12 [In index]
Message 02956 [Homepage] [Navigation]