Occupy Wall Street Considers a New Economy
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?
“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 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?
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.
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.
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)
“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.
- Your example described US foreign policy for the last 50-200 years to the T.
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!
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”?