New Money

[Michael Hardner]

Money isn't natural, nor is it an invention. I would say that it's a construct that arbitrates and facilitates social interaction.

Money was more or less invented in ancient Sumeria and was one of the primary causes of the advancement of humans as it allowed trade, and created an efficient economy.

But now, perhaps, it needs to change.

Not that it hasn't changed lately. Paper money eventually supplanted gold coins, and eventually the banking system was allowed to lend money it didn't actually have. Virtual money flies around the world at the speed of light.

Question for the big brains at MLW:

How can we change money so that it can better serve our needs today ?

Some ideas:

- Eliminate paper money, and create only virtual money.

- Virtual money needs to be associated with a person or a corporate entity to have value.

- Virtual money exchanges are timestamped and the reason for the exchange is given.

Others ?

[eyeball]

Money needs to be based in reality starting with natural capital. Natural capital is the aggregation of all the goods and services provided by the ecosystems we depend on for our existance. To do this however we need an economic system that recognizes the existance of the real world and a metric that quantify's it. I'd suggest the genuine progress indicator or GPI. The GDP is a flawed metric that is a product of an economic system and worldview that catagorically states the natural world is an externality. This is straight up insane. Money will always be an un-natural or should I say anti-natural construct so long as this view persists.

Edited December 19, 2008 by eyeball

[White Doors]

Money is an easily carried unit of measurement for someone else's hard work or imagination.

simple. that's all it is.

[eyeball]

Its never as simple as it seems because what a lot of people imagine is hard work is viewed by others as being a complete waste of time which is often equated with money.

[Oleg Bach]

Well spam me silly - I thought someone was giving it away..speaking of "imagination" payed for...Heard a story from an old accociate - He and his friends back in the early days..loved to drink beer and smoke hashish...These guys would get together and play blues guitar...one of the people at these get togethers was Bill Gates - He was young and it was reported to me from a third party that Bill and a stoned hippy friend of his were dicussing buisness ventures - the stoned hippy had a visionary idea about creating the personal computer...He had given it a lot of thought - From what I understood the Bill said to the nobody hippy..."That's a great idea and if you are not going to use it - I will run with it" - to para phrase - I wonder if Bill ever took care of his friend or if he paid him for his IMAGINATION?

[White Doors]

Its never as simple as it seems because what a lot of people imagine is hard work is viewed by others as being a complete waste of time which is often equated with money.

well then that's easy, you don't buy the product that you view as a 'complete waste of time'.

Valuation, much to your chagrin it seems, is not built to what eyeball or white doors thinks is valuable - but to what everyone thinks is valuable.

[eyeball]

Our evaluation of something like a tire or a box of cereal is easy enough to agree on but the trouble usually starts when we try to agree on the value of something a little more complicated like an ecosystem's sink resources (an ecosystems ability to absorb and recycle our garbage).

Most people usually deal with these complications by simply pretending there's nothing worth evaluating especially if it means having to give something up, like the time it takes to recycle their tires and cereal boxes.

[Michael Hardner]

So, eyeball, what are you saying exactly ?

That somebody evaluate natural resources, such as lakes, and give a value to them ?

If so, how will that change things ?

[M.Dancer]

So, eyeball, what are you saying exactly ?

That somebody evaluate natural resources, such as lakes, and give a value to them ?

If so, how will that change things ?

I feel sorry for the poor bedouins.....all they have is dirt.. no lakes, no trees just dirt.

They are dirt poor.

On the otherhand we are lucky that our ecosystem produces crude oil, gas and uranium.

[Michael Hardner]

Until somebody mandates that we tie currency to the 'sand standard'.

I notice you're not laughing...

[Mr.Canada]

The elimination of paper money is the first step to humans being micro chipped and numbered. The micro chips will be scanned like the tap and go system on Mastercards now. We are getting close to that. This is the Mark of the Beast. Christians will never be microchipped.

[Michael Hardner]

The elimination of paper money is the first step to humans being micro chipped and numbered. The micro chips will be scanned like the tap and go system on Mastercards now. We are getting close to that. This is the Mark of the Beast. Christians will never be microchipped.

Mr. C.

I don't think we should microchip all Christians, just you. At least we can fit you with one of the tracking devices they clip on elks' ears.

[eyeball]

So, eyeball, what are you saying exactly ?

That somebody evaluate natural resources, such as lakes, and give a value to them ?

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. The people who are most dependent on, a lake for example, would be in the best position to start doing that. Estimates of things such as the monetary cost of replacing a natural source of fresh potable water are easy enough to come up with and so are the spin-off benefits of a restored salmon run.

I can present you with all sorts of research into the social and ficancial costs of losing a fishery. Trust me, the easiest way to place a value on something is to lose it.

I don't know too much about the ecosystems Bedouins live in but I recall a desert-dweller who piped up in a restoration ecology course I took once how many people often referred to deserts in disparaging terms. He thought his desert region in the southwest was the most beautiful place in the world and couldn't imagine ever permanently moving away from it.

If so, how will that change things ?

It will change how we look at and use things. The changes will mostly be in us.

[Michael Hardner]

eye,

You have my interest. Why not go through a specific example ?

Lake Typical is a typical lake in Canada. The Federal government has determined that for the utility it provides to the world, it is worth $50 Billion. It declares the lake a federal asset worth $50 billion.

There are industries in the town, some directly dependent on the lake, and some not, that may be closing due to less demand for goods.

How can the new value of Lake Typical be leveraged in order to help them ?

I'm trying to imagine, but I can only come up with horrible ideas of lakes being sold for profit.

Can you take the example further ?

[M.Dancer]

Can you take the example further ?

I don't think there is enough granola and hash brownies to go round...

[eyeball]

eye,

You have my interest. Why not go through a specific example ?

Lake Typical is a typical lake in Canada. The Federal government has determined that for the utility it provides to the world, it is worth $50 Billion. It declares the lake a federal asset worth $50 billion.

There are industries in the town, some directly dependent on the lake, and some not, that may be closing due to less demand for goods.

How can the new value of Lake Typical be leveraged in order to help them ?

I'm trying to imagine, but I can only come up with horrible ideas of lakes being sold for profit.

Can you take the example further ?

Its a big topic with big implications for both our economy and our democracy. I'd prefer you read up on the subject of natural capital yourself. Natural capital is about more than just simply commodifying everything. Your suggestion the federal government simply declare Lake Typical a federal asset is a good example why, if I was a resident of Lake Typical I'd have a lot to say about that sort of appropriation. Many residents might feel the best way to leverage the lake's value is to leave it alone. I'm quite certain these folks would think your idea of selling it for profit would be a horrible one too. Because they would be the one's most affected by such a decision their say should be given the greatest weight.

A better example of a source of natural capital would be specific areas of Lake Typical that produce an abundance of fish. These areas could be protected from things like development and fishing. Marine protected areas particularily around highly productive reefs have proven an effective way to both conserve fish and sustain the fisheries that rely on them. Instead of fishing on the reefs directly fishermen target the abundance of fish that spill out around the edge of the protected area. The process of developing a protected area can also have a positive effect on the local human population especially if it works towards building a consensus.

Marine Protected Area

To be of any real value I think the concept of natural capital will require some serious democratic reforms mostly involving a lot of de-centralization coupled with greater authority and autonomy being transferred to local governments. It will also require a lot of capacity building at these levels.

Bioregionalism is as good a topic as any to begin planting a few seeds of reform mindedness amongst rural folks. Placemaking is a good idea for city folks to begin dwelling on. It might also give city folks a better appreciation for why many rural Canadians feel a greater need for more say over the natural areas they rely on. I would suggest Doug Aberley and Jane Jaocbs for ideas on bioregionalism and placemaking.

The development of local management boards in a bioregional context seems to have had its best success when the boards focus is on maintaining high water quality. Fresh unpolluted water is the single most important natural resource on the planet. Everything depends on it and just about everyone has an opinion on it, especially the further downstream you get. Its for this reason that watershed or basin boundary's make the most logical bioregions.

[Riverwind]

Paper money eventually supplanted gold coins, and eventually the banking system was allowed to lend money it didn't actually have.

The fractional reserve system was actually started by merchants who gave out deposit slips for gold it keep on behalf of clients. These slips soon become tradeable commodities in lieu of gold. Some form of money will always appear in any complex economy.

The fractional reserve system and fiat currency have their risks if not managed properly but they do make credit available to many people who would never have otherwise been able to borrow money at reasonable terms. Access to capital is one of key elements required to foster entrepreneurship within a society and it is entrepreneurship which creates the wealth that we enjoy.

Inventing some limited physical asset to control the supply of money would simply take access to money away from the average person and put it in the hands of either big government or big industry. I don't like either idea.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

Access to capital is one of key elements required to foster entrepreneurship within a society and it is entrepreneurship which creates the wealth that we enjoy.

Inventing some limited physical asset to control the supply of money would simply take access to money away from the average person and put it in the hands of either big government or big industry. I don't like either idea.

Access to natural capital is one of key elements communities of human beings need to sustain themselves. Without access to this natural capital many entrepreneurs are limited in their ability to be entrepreneurial.

Big government and big industry control most of the access to natural resources instead of small governments and small business' and you shouldn't like that either idea.

[Michael Hardner]

Hi eyeball,

I read the sources you cited here (Wikipedia pages) and although I think that these ideas are sound, they're not revolutionary, or evolutionary. I saw Paul Martin's name on there supporting the idea, so we're not talking about as big a change as I have scoped out in my first post.

The idea, from what I read, is to create bottom line costing for all natural resources. In my mind, this should have been started at least 30 years ago. The fact of the matter is that the government doesn't care, in the end, what you do to "your" land and "your" air, which is ridiculous.

However, money is still an anonymous agent that can fly in and cause bad things to happen, even with controls on our natural resources.

Who fronts the huge investments required to bring harmful drugs into our society ? Who pays for all manner of unneeded and unwanted changes to our society - legal and illegal ? The fact is, we don't know. Sometimes, we can - after the fact - find bags of little green pieces of paper that "someone" gave to "someone" to make it happen but that doesn't help much.

People forget that money isn't part of nature. It was designed and developed by people to fit one of the most natural needs there is - the need to trade. But the original attributes of money are gone now. You probably never see the actual beneficiaries from your cash transaction these days, assuming you did use cash.

I'm proposing that all money have (like email) a To: and From: address. That would help governments, who are responsible for the creation of money, to track how well it's achieving its purpose.

That's a bigger change than you're proposing.

[Riverwind]

Access to natural capital is one of key elements communities of human beings need to sustain themselves. Without access to this natural capital many entrepreneurs are limited in their ability to be entrepreneurial.

People need access to resources - not natural capital. The banking system as it stands provides a mechanism that allows people to access the money required to purchase the resources required for innovation. Restrict the supply of capital available to lend and you will find that fewer are able access the money they need.

Big government and big industry control most of the access to natural resources instead of small governments and small business' and you shouldn't like that either idea.

Small businesses don't need access to specific resources as long as they can access the capital they need to purchase what they need. The various agreements between big companies and governments for resource extraction rights are not relavent to a general discussion of money and capital. Edited December 22, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

I'm proposing that all money have (like email) a To: and From: address. That would help governments, who are responsible for the creation of money, to track how well it's achieving its purpose.

I don't see the point. Governments already know what they need to know about the supply of money. The trouble is they have been either interferring too much or too little in the process used to create the money (i.e. they forced banks to make loans to poor people and then failed to restrict the trade in derviatives).

[eyeball]

I'm proposing that all money have (like email) a To: and From: address. That would help governments, who are responsible for the creation of money, to track how well it's achieving its purpose.

That's a bigger change than you're proposing.

Its at least as big as a change as other things I've proposed and may even be just as threatening to governments as mine. You're proposing to monitor money to the same extent I've proposed we monitor power. I love it.

I still think we need to monitor the power that creates money more than the money it creates and I'd monitor power for a different reason than you'd monitor money. I'd monitor power to see how well it's achieving our purpose, not its own or money's as the case often is.

[M.Dancer]

I'm proposing that all money have (like email) a To: and From: address.

Congratulations.

You have invented the personal cheque.

[eyeball]

No, he's invented a new way for the government to check people.

[Michael Hardner]

If you replace all cash with the cheque and make it easy to sign from and to via thumbprint or saliva (you'll like that option) then we're done.