SENVI

Social Economics New Visions Incubator

We can fix economic and financial problems now

Posted by Victor Jasin on July 12, 2011 at 7:57 AM

Debt relief and new spending two key areas to consider manipulating.

 

None of this is a formal theory or formula and as such each element can be changed or eliminated as needed. The following is a suggested starting point for discussion with the idea that what is proposed is within the realm of not only possibility but probability of happening. Take each on its own to discuss this as the entire issue is too broad to cover in a thread on Facebook. This will be a part of SENVI forum information. We will be discussing these issues there and will be making some serious suggestions and making sure those who can do something with it, get it and/or join our community.

 

That’s nuts can be your first response but after you ponder it and are ready to ask questions, please do. Answering questions will result in revisions that make sense. Consider both sides of opposing ideas and arguments and then come up with a third choice that considers the other two but is not simply the sum of the other two. Synergy from synthesis, by accommodating contradiction and scepticism. That is the goal of this note as well as to stimulate reaction and hopefully subsequent action of a positive and progressive nature.

 

Consider this:

 

Elimination of all interest related debt. Principal only. Profit in lending is eliminated. All debt that exists that has an interest component should be adjusted.

 

Spending is essential. Public spending on infrastructure at local and regional levels.

 

Spending on innovation, education, infrastructure and financial equalisation for the unemployed.

 

Estate divestiture plans where as the owner of capital whether it be in estate form or personal or corporate investment form will not automatically be passed on to designated beneficiaries, but rather to the collective ownership of the region or community.

 

Where the money comes from for public spending is not simply from taxation but also from injecting more cash into the system (The Fed). International values of currencies should be fixed no market manipulation on the basis of currency demands for trade.

 

Immediate change toward sustainability, quality, and responsibility in resource management. Profit is not in the formula for assessing priority and need.

 

Encourage those to find automation to replace themselves. Incentive in that is you get similar or equal pay as before during your life time as a reward for replacing yourself.

 

Innovation becomes the priority after balancing of basic conditions related to food, health and housing. If you need something to make a discovery and it’s available and it will help humanity then why is money getting in the way? Because our society has made rules that allow for that to happen not because it wouldn’t work any other way.

 

Price and wage controls would be in place to compensate for cost of living increases (a.k.a. inflation). With controls on both prices and wages we can prevent any possible runaway inflation. Canada has already used price and wage controls as have other countries.

 

As the need to redistribute income to the technologically unemployed growing numbers approaches the point where managing and maintaining such a mechanism creates more work and complexity, it becomes an ever increasing beuaracracy whose entire purpose is managing the redistribution of currency. Absurd. Those who remain employed can do so voluntarily and have other volunteers substitute for them if needed. That condition is closer to the 2050 time period in my humble opinion. All other related conditions approaching "zero money needed" condition will happen gradually in various ways before then.

 

There will no doubt be fallout from such drastic measures. Some of these ideas exist within the Zeitgeist movement, The Venus Project, Transfinancial Economics and Resource based economics. If you think this is utopian, pick a POINT and explain why and we can discuss it. This is a serious discussion. Those who want to mock or ridicule will be deleted. No apologies for “editing” civility. It’s called moderation and it is part of how SENVI works.

 

I hope this starts a discussion or an argument or something, because complacency would be the scariest part. Not because I wrote it and want a response, because the issue is more than you or I or any one personality. This is a social issue affecting us all. SENVI is invitation only. If you know a member ask them about it and get them to invite you. SENVI is a private closed community of innovators and benevolent and responsible activists and those who support them. If you have something to offer the community please let us know about it. It is an action community not a social network and is not open to the public.

 

Start your own SENVI and or group. Webs.com offers free web sites. Anyone can organise positive action or better yet, join others when possible as collaboration will be our salvation in all this turmoil.

 

Vic Jasin

Categories: General Discussion

Post a Comment

Oops!

Oops, you forgot something.

Oops!

The words you entered did not match the given text. Please try again.

You must be a member to comment on this page. Sign In or Register

19 Comments

Reply WILSON PARDI JUNIOR
5:36 AM on August 17, 2012 
Hi Vic,

Forgive me for posting a comment here only today (more than one year after your interesting reflections above), but like you say in English, "before late than never" :-)

I liked the ten paragraphs that follow after "Consider this:". Since one comment isn't enough to talk about everything above, I will try here to reflect about the first two paragraghs, the one that starts with "Elimination of all interest related debt" and the one that starts with "Spending is essential".

Basically, I do agree with both statements. I just would add that public spending should be done not only in infrastructure, but mainly on health, education, and security. Coming from a (still) underveloping country (Brazil), I do believe strongly that on the long run (at least, two decades) the best way of changing the "status quo" of a place is through investment on education to local people.

Public spending on health system and security is also essential because if people are sick and/or don't feel secure to walk on the streets at anytime, their chance of succeding on education is almost null.

Personally, I think that one very basic reason (there are more, of course) why there are so many financial debts related to a city, state, and/or country economy is because they don't manage their economy as a balanced-budget family does...

One of the most common mistakes in a lot of countries is that they spend our money (taxpayers) on things completely no-related to our daily lives.

I will stop here, otherwise this comment will be longer than your reflections above.
I will post more comments as soon as I can, and please forgive me for being so intrusive ;-)

Best Regards,

Wilson
Reply Victor Jasin
6:05 AM on August 17, 2012 
Hi Wilson,

"[WILSON PARDI JUNIOR]
Hi Vic,

Forgive me for posting a comment here only today (more than one year after your interesting reflections above), but like you say in English, "before late than never" :-)"

It is NOT intrusive at all. The comments have been around for a while and info and experience change lol. Not to say I'm back peddling on anything, just in case. Agreed on the spending priorities. The North Dakota banking model allows for capitalization as for infrastructure.

The expense side can/could e handled by public and/or private sector contributions but collective community efforts would seek local/decentralized governance and autonomy as much as systemically and peacefully transitionally possible.

Affiliation and collaboration with surrounding collectives an communities would be for trade and joint infrastructure projects for most part in my vision vs. a state or nationalized governance mechanism. And yes a couple of decades before it is commonplace but it's already started in some places and resettlement plans.

Vic
Reply WILSON PARDI JUNIOR
2:47 AM on August 22, 2012 
Thanks Vic for your kindly reply.

Interesting your mention about the North Dakota banking model.
Since I'm a foreigner I didn't know about it :-)

Anyway, it reminded me that in Brazil we have something similar, but in a large scale since it's a federal bank. It's called BNDES that, literally means, "Social and Economical Development National Bank):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNDES

I also share your opinion that "affiliation and collaboration with surrounding collectives and communities would be for trade and joint infrastructure projects for most part in my vision vs. a state or nationalized governance mechanism".

However, there a lot of communities that, often, seek for a national governance mechanism when they think that their market share can be decreased and/or "invaded" by products (of any kind) from abroad (some examples: rice farmers in Japan, cotton farmers in US, etc)...
Reply WILSON PARDI JUNIOR
3:04 AM on August 22, 2012 
Hi,

Regarding the third paragraph "Spending on innovation, education, infrastructure and financial equalization for the unemployed":

I agree completely with the above statement, especially if we want to make the unemployed become an employer and/or entrepreneur.

However, if we want to make the unemployed just become employed again we also must decrease the employer's costs for hiring someone (believe me, it's really very high in my country), flex the job market rules and/or have a national formal hiring process that doesn't discriminate job-seekers related to age, sex, etc..
Reply WILSON PARDI JUNIOR
5:47 AM on August 22, 2012 
Hi Vic,

Regarding the fourth paragraph "Estate divestiture plans where as the owner of capital whether it be in estate form or personal or corporate investment form will not automatically be passed on...":

I confess I didn't understand properly. Can you give us an example? Thanks in advance!
Reply Victor Jasin
6:28 AM on October 26, 2012 
WILSON PARDI JUNIOR says...
Hi Vic,

Regarding the fourth paragraph "Estate divestiture plans where as the owner of capital whether it be in estate form or personal or corporate investment form will not automatically be passed on...":

I confess I didn't understand properly. Can you give us an example? Thanks in advance!


The transfer of private/personal capital to the collective results in greater access to convenience, affluence and supports the only thing lacking is ownership that is traditionally passed on or transferred within legacy terms.

Any time there is a condition that can exploit advantage of and individual over the collective there is room for both exploitation and dominance/power. When the ownership is removed the access and use of material assets and personal use items would be virtually seemless or apparent in law and formal accounting not in access and quality of life.

The legacy issue is really what I was referring to as that is a status quo conventional current day motivation within capitalist and materialist thinking.

I choose a more pragmatic approach that favors common sense interpretations that suit the choices of the constituents involved and not national, state or even regional governance. More like tribal affilations of the first nations cultures. What we need to lose in my opinion is the need for competitive and predatory rationalised ethics and moralities.

Altruism isn't hard to define in any choices. It is either present or lacking not much grey involved. We have some adjusting to do to make the affect more broad and sweeping, however I feel there are sufficient existing initiatives that include this thinking to have my certainty about a more universal affect over the next few decades.

I think you will see many offgrid cooperative networks who simply make other structures irrelevant and unnecessary. Microcosm as we define but self sufficient, ecologically responsible, sustainable, infrastructure and resource independence framed collectives that are tribal perhaps in a hub of cooperative cultures and expressions of consensus communal (broad term) living.

Is that what you mean't?
Reply Victor Jasin
6:44 AM on October 26, 2012 
WILSON PARDI JUNIOR says...
Hi,

Regarding the third paragraph "Spending on innovation, education, infrastructure and financial equalization for the unemployed":

I agree completely with the above statement, especially if we want to make the unemployed become an employer and/or entrepreneur.

However, if we want to make the unemployed just become employed again we also must decrease the employer's costs for hiring someone (believe me, it's really very high in my country), flex the job market rules and/or have a national formal hiring process that doesn't discriminate job-seekers related to age, sex, etc..


I take a micro-economics outlook and choose to leave the macro-economics as less meaningful issues for anyone that can achieve independence from centralized supports, infrastructure reliance or governance.

That can happen in a uniform gradual transition in my opinion as more people see successful communities that have collectivized their capital and live offgrid independent regarding their needs and supports. Sharing and affluence and gain is simply transferred to the collective vs competitively to the individual.

Thus the collaboration incentive vs. competition/individual advantage. The result by the numbers would mean greater overall affluence by pooling and cooperating by definitions suited to the constituents.
Reply Victor Jasin
7:14 AM on October 26, 2012 
WILSON PARDI JUNIOR says...
Hi Vic,

Forgive me for posting a comment here only today (more than one year after your interesting reflections above), but like you say in English, "before late than never" :-)

I liked the ten paragraphs that follow after "Consider this:". Since one comment isn't enough to talk about everything above, I will try here to reflect about the first two paragraghs, the one that starts with "Elimination of all interest related debt" and the one that starts with "Spending is essential".

Basically, I do agree with both statements. I just would add that public spending should be done not only in infrastructure, but mainly on health, education, and security. Coming from a (still) underveloping country (Brazil), I do believe strongly that on the long run (at least, two decades) the best way of changing the "status quo" of a place is through investment on education to local people.

Public spending on health system and security is also essential because if people are sick and/or don't feel secure to walk on the streets at anytime, their chance of succeding on education is almost null.

Personally, I think that one very basic reason (there are more, of course) why there are so many financial debts related to a city, state, and/or country economy is because they don't manage their economy as a balanced-budget family does...

One of the most common mistakes in a lot of countries is that they spend our money (taxpayers) on things completely no-related to our daily lives.

I will stop here, otherwise this comment will be longer than your reflections above.
I will post more comments as soon as I can, and please forgive me for being so intrusive ;-)

Best Regards,

Wilson


Universal healtcare exists in Canada as it does in a number of other countries.The US has simply chosen military expenditures as a priority over such social safety nets of a compassionate society as the right to health care without prejudice or restriction.

That is a social responsibility in any civilized society that is not objectivistic or competitive for affluence and advantage over other community members as a source of inspiration as a primary motivator for innovation and progress.

Collaboration would do that in spades. When society wakes up and realises how much is wasted on consumption based economics and unsustainable consumerism and quest for western conveniences and ideals.

There is no way we can give western culture level of affluence for all the people of the planet and anything that is not altruistic will simply perpetuate greed, advantage and predatory human behaviors that are the source of conflict, control, dominance of one culture or interest over another.

The best method for stretching the abundance of our planet is to share resources and supports through collaborative mechanisms and adjusted social expectations that recognize altruism as the sanest healthiest choice for what is best for all or any. Perspectives, values, ethics and morality will need some tweaking.

That may require upcoming new minds and values to fully implement such new ideals in my opinion. Either way any progress is good progress and a step closer to Gaian leaning philosophy perhaps where the result is freedom for intellectual, philosophical, artistic, scientific exploration and indulgence driven by interest and passion for the subject not as a source of income and subsistence or affluence but out of the significance of one's effort and contribution.

Results based social values that embrace tolerance and compromise without sacrificing individuality or liberties.Part of an evolution I envision includes a redefinition of ego not an elimination as altruism might suggest. Ok done for now. Will wait for some replies.
Reply WILSON PARDI JUNIOR
1:53 AM on November 5, 2012 
Hi Vic,

Thanks a lot for your comments.
Indeed, I do agree 100% about you've written below :-)

It was quite interesting when you mentioned the Gaian leaning philosophy.
I confess I have forgotten its basic idea, so I took a look at the following link at Wikipedia with the purpose of refreshing my basic knowledge about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_philosophy

Reading the article above and your comments below again, reminded me of a personal opinion that I've embraced for years: EVERYTHING (people, places, facts, whatever) has a CONNECTION.

Most of times, unfortunately, we don't know what is (are) the connection(s) between two or more distinct facts, consequences, etc.

One example: a SUBTLE message that I got the other day when I was watching one episode of "Star Trek" (season 1). In a dialogue, near the episode end, Captain Kirk comments with Spock something more or less like: "Spock, did you know that we, humans, a long time ago, used to battle in a lot of wars? That's part of our heritage!" Then Spock just replied: "What a waste of resources" ;-)

VicJasin says...
Universal healtcare exists in Canada as it does in a number of other countries.The US has simply chosen military expenditures as a priority over such social safety nets of a compassionate society as the right to health care without prejudice or restriction.

That is a social responsibility in any civilized society that is not objectivistic or competitive for affluence and advantage over other community members as a source of inspiration as a primary motivator for innovation and progress.

Collaboration would do that in spades. When society wakes up and realises how much is wasted on consumption based economics and unsustainable consumerism and quest for western conveniences and ideals.

There is no way we can give western culture level of affluence for all the people of the planet and anything that is not altruistic will simply perpetuate greed, advantage and predatory human behaviors that are the source of conflict, control, dominance of one culture or interest over another.

The best method for stretching the abundance of our planet is to share resources and supports through collaborative mechanisms and adjusted social expectations that recognize altruism as the sanest healthiest choice for what is best for all or any. Perspectives, values, ethics and morality will need some tweaking.

That may require upcoming new minds and values to fully implement such new ideals in my opinion. Either way any progress is good progress and a step closer to Gaian leaning philosophy perhaps where the result is freedom for intellectual, philosophical, artistic, scientific exploration and indulgence driven by interest and passion for the subject not as a source of income and subsistence or affluence but out of the significance of one's effort and contribution.

Results based social values that embrace tolerance and compromise without sacrificing individuality or liberties.Part of an evolution I envision includes a redefinition of ego not an elimination as altruism might suggest. Ok done for now. Will wait for some replies.
Reply WILSON PARDI JUNIOR
2:27 AM on November 5, 2012 
Hi Vic,

Thanks a lot fo your detailed explanation below. Basically, I understood almost everything. ;-)

However, as I asked before, can you give us a practical example?
I confess that I wasn't able to find a practical example (i.e., that REALLY HAPPENED in some part of the world) related to the state divestiture plans where the owner of capital whether it be in estate form or personal or corporate investment form was not automatically passed on to designated beneficiaries, but rather to the collective ownership of the region or community...

VicJasin says...
The transfer of private/personal capital to the collective results in greater access to convenience, affluence and supports the only thing lacking is ownership that is traditionally passed on or transferred within legacy terms.

Any time there is a condition that can exploit advantage of and individual over the collective there is room for both exploitation and dominance/power. When the ownership is removed the access and use of material assets and personal use items would be virtually seemless or apparent in law and formal accounting not in access and quality of life.

The legacy issue is really what I was referring to as that is a status quo conventional current day motivation within capitalist and materialist thinking.

I choose a more pragmatic approach that favors common sense interpretations that suit the choices of the constituents involved and not national, state or even regional governance. More like tribal affilations of the first nations cultures. What we need to lose in my opinion is the need for competitive and predatory rationalised ethics and moralities.

Altruism isn't hard to define in any choices. It is either present or lacking not much grey involved. We have some adjusting to do to make the affect more broad and sweeping, however I feel there are sufficient existing initiatives that include this thinking to have my certainty about a more universal affect over the next few decades.

I think you will see many offgrid cooperative networks who simply make other structures irrelevant and unnecessary. Microcosm as we define but self sufficient, ecologically responsible, sustainable, infrastructure and resource independence framed collectives that are tribal perhaps in a hub of cooperative cultures and expressions of consensus communal (broad term) living.

Is that what you mean't?
Reply Victor Jasin
2:46 AM on November 5, 2012 
WILSON PARDI JUNIOR says...
Reply Victor Jasin
2:58 AM on November 5, 2012 
WILSON PARDI JUNIOR says...
Hi Vic,

Thanks a lot fo your detailed explanation below. Basically, I understood almost everything. ;-)

However, as I asked before, can you give us a practical example?
I confess that I wasn't able to find a practical example (i.e., that REALLY HAPPENED in some part of the world) related to the state divestiture plans where the owner of capital whether it be in estate form or personal or corporate investment form was not automatically passed on to designated beneficiaries, but rather to the collective ownership of the region or community...


It hasn't happened, I am suggesting that over time the social transition and redefined rationalised morality is intended to replace OWNERSHIP with access and the capital issues are simply transitional considerations. Once everything in one's microcosm are own by the collective, serviced by the collective, staffed etc etc, then how you distribute the affluence/wealth is the choice of the collective.

Rewards and perks will indeed make for folks with various levels of affluence no doubt vs. some sterile communist commune. The difference being is the bestowed benefits and affluence advantages are things the community and collective as peers give as recognition to it's members for contributions above and beyond the maintenance level of collective responsibilities.

The innovators, teachers, managers, professionals make contributions to society that are of exceptional value to the collective at large and it is those values that are rewarded not money, politics or academic credential alone, but the value of contributions both material and spiritual/psyhco-social.

As to the plan. My idea at this point is some concepts from existing communities and other things that I feel are better suited to my ideals and perhaps others. I have a "cradle to grave" idea on organising a resettlement (new community). The logistics and requirements are quantifiable, realistic, achievable and simple needs presentation and promotion to other interested parties. I put my target for having the concept for presentable recruitment for collective partners within by 2015 or sooner is the plan right now. Somewhere in Canada.

Those interested have to agree to the capital brought in as adequate how to maintain capital outside the community collective ownership is also something that can be accommodated to suit the conditions. This type of project by the way that I have in mind is intended for groups ranging from 300 to about 3,000. Urban planning beyond that level is not what I have in mind or consider. Not all will be suitable but independence can be achieve with retrofitting existing urban centers with a reorganisation by say precinct/parish/riding. The independence is what is functiionally possible and there will no doubt be variations. What I propose is suited for some not all conditions and people. The larger urban centers don't make sense anymore when you consider a moneyless society. Getting back to nature and off the concrete and pavement should become a voluntary, natural choice not anything forced or decreed without consensus.
Reply Victor Jasin
3:10 AM on November 5, 2012 
WILSON PARDI JUNIOR says...
Hi Vic,

Thanks a lot fo your detailed explanation below. Basically, I understood almost everything. ;-)

However, as I asked before, can you give us a practical example?
I confess that I wasn't able to find a practical example (i.e., that REALLY HAPPENED in some part of the world) related to the state divestiture plans where the owner of capital whether it be in estate form or personal or corporate investment form was not automatically passed on to designated beneficiaries, but rather to the collective ownership of the region or community...


Divestiture is nothing more than letting what you own revert to the collective when you die. Those who are collective members have a trust that is governed by whatever rules the group decides on vs. anything I suggest.

That end product for such things is in my mind, but how to implement it to the satisfaction of all is a WIP but is a transitional/temporary problem. You put all your eggs into the same basket all the others do and ya share lol. That's the plan.

The transfinancial mechanisms for this to happen are yet to be implimented as there are many ideas in mind, just as yet theoretical, like what I presented above. Bottom line is there are no rules, we are making them up as we go and using whatever makes sense to those who are doing it.

Collaboration vs. competition is a whole new world folks are yet to wake up to and realise. We have competition and predatory instincts to overcome. That's going to take education of a generation or two of younger minds imo.
Reply Victor Jasin
3:52 AM on November 5, 2012 
WILSON PARDI JUNIOR says...
Thanks Vic for your kindly reply.

Interesting your mention about the North Dakota banking model.
Since I'm a foreigner I didn't know about it :-)

Anyway, it reminded me that in Brazil we have something similar, but in a large scale since it's a federal bank. It's called BNDES that, literally means, "Social and Economical Development National Bank):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNDES

I also share your opinion that "affiliation and collaboration with surrounding collectives and communities would be for trade and joint infrastructure projects for most part in my vision vs. a state or nationalized governance mechanism".

However, there a lot of communities that, often, seek for a national governance mechanism when they think that their market share can be decreased and/or "invaded" by products (of any kind) from abroad (some examples: rice farmers in Japan, cotton farmers in US, etc)...


It seems to me it is a South American country (don't remember which) has a alternative to currency based economics and others that use alternate currencies that are suited to local or group members (local currency). If I remember what they were called/link I'll let you know unless you already know what/who I mean. I looked under barter, work/volunteer credits/coupons,etc.
Reply WILSON PARDI JUNIOR
12:20 AM on November 8, 2012 
Hi Vic,

Thanks a LOT for your detailed reply and patience with my questions! :-)

OK, NOW I DO understand it. :-)

And I have to confess here that I really had the feeling that this STILL HADN'T happened before as you perfectly explained below. That's why I was inquiring about it...

Also at the first (or second) time when I read the fourth paragraph I was worried about the "...Rewards and perks will indeed make for folks with various levels of affluence no doubt vs. some sterile communist commune...." concerns you had just mentioned.

Besides, when I was trying to understand your idea, it remind me, VAGUELY, of something very unpleasant that has been happening in my own country for decades... :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landless_Workers_Movement

But don't worry, I do understand that your project doesn't have anything in common with the (bad) example mentioned above.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how the idea of an "independent" money-less community will be accepted and/or recognized by the Canadian society AND government.

Best Regards,

Wilson

VicJasin says...
It hasn't happened, I am suggesting that over time the social transition and redefined rationalized morality is intended to replace OWNERSHIP with access and the capital issues are simply transitional considerations. Once everything in one's microcosm are own by the collective, serviced by the collective, staffed etc etc, then how you distribute the affluence/wealth is the choice of the collective.

Rewards and perks will indeed make for folks with various levels of affluence no doubt vs. some sterile communist commune. The difference being is the bestowed benefits and affluence advantages are things the community and collective as peers give as recognition to it's members for contributions above and beyond the maintenance level of collective responsibilities.

The innovators, teachers, managers, professionals make contributions to society that are of exceptional value to the collective at large and it is those values that are rewarded not money, politics or academic credential alone, but the value of contributions both material and spiritual/psycho-social.

As to the plan. My idea at this point is some concepts from existing communities and other things that I feel are better suited to my ideals and perhaps others. I have a "cradle to grave" idea on organizing a resettlement (new community). The logistics and requirements are quantifiable, realistic, achievable and simple needs presentation and promotion to other interested parties. I put my target for having the concept for presentable recruitment for collective partners within by 2015 or sooner is the plan right now. Somewhere in Canada.

Those interested have to agree to the capital brought in as adequate how to maintain capital outside the community collective ownership is also something that can be accommodated to suit the conditions. This type of project by the way that I have in mind is intended for groups ranging from 300 to about 3,000. Urban planning beyond that level is not what I have in mind or consider. Not all will be suitable but independence can be achieve with retrofitting existing urban centers with a reorganization by say precinct/parish/riding. The independence is what is functionally possible and there will no doubt be variations. What I propose is suited for some not all conditions and people. The larger urban centers don't make sense anymore when you consider a money-less society. Getting back to nature and off the concrete and pavement should become a voluntary, natural choice not anything forced or decreed without consensus.
Reply WILSON PARDI JUNIOR
12:35 AM on November 8, 2012 
Hi Vic,

Just a minor doubt,

What does WIP mean?

"Work In Progress"? OR "Wide Irrational Plan"?

and a minor comment:

Something that I have learned (by my own experience AND seeing other's mistakes) is that you NEVER should put ALL your eggs into the SAME basket...

Cheers,

Wilson

VicJasin says...
Divestiture is nothing more than letting what you own revert to the collective when you die. Those who are collective members have a trust that is governed by whatever rules the group decides on vs. anything I suggest.

That end product for such things is in my mind, but how to implement it to the satisfaction of all is a WIP but is a transitional/temporary problem. You put all your eggs into the same basket all the others do and ya share LOL. That's the plan.

The trans-financial mechanisms for this to happen are yet to be implemented as there are many ideas in mind, just as yet theoretical, like what I presented above. Bottom line is there are no rules, we are making them up as we go and using whatever makes sense to those who are doing it.

Collaboration vs. competition is a whole new world folks are yet to wake up to and realize. We have competition and predatory instincts to overcome. That's going to take education of a generation or two of younger minds IMO.
Reply WILSON PARDI JUNIOR
12:48 AM on November 8, 2012 
H Vic,,

I think you mean the SUCRE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUCRE

Besides, some weeks ago I watched something similar (in a much smaller scale, in England) at the BBC News:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/13032-bristo
l-england-adopts-alternative-currency

Best Regards,

Wilson
VicJasin says...
It seems to me it is a South American country (don't remember which) has a alternative to currency based economics and others that use alternate currencies that are suited to local or group members (local currency). If I remember what they were called/link I'll let you know unless you already know what/who I mean. I looked under barter, work/volunteer credits/coupons,etc.
Reply Victor Jasin
1:33 AM on November 8, 2012 
WILSON PARDI JUNIOR says...
Hi Vic,

Just a minor doubt,

What does WIP mean?

"Work In Progress"? OR "Wide Irrational Plan"?

and a minor comment:

Something that I have learned (by my own experience AND seeing other's mistakes) is that you NEVER should put ALL your eggs into the SAME basket...

Cheers,

Wilson


WIP as Work in Progress.

The putting all our eggs into the same basket was a bad metaphor. Perhaps thinking of it as a partnership wherein everyone's capital is collaborative not for personal gain. Everyone owns everything with no separate or distinct control or preferred access to the capital, infrastructure, resources, assets or priveleges is what I mean.

As to the moneyless society, that is local. Any community can choose to use it's own currency. What and how inter community trade will happen, that is open to whatever works best for those involved.

What can/would happen is independence from infrastructure and services offered by the gov. (no need for gov services) thus no need to contribute to the taxes. That will take some transitional consideration but is amply just imo. Independence from the NEED for government more so than some rebellious declaration of independence. A transition toward decentralised collectivism vs. nationalism and capitalism.
Reply Victor Jasin
1:40 AM on November 8, 2012 
WILSON PARDI JUNIOR says...
H Vic,,

I think you mean the SUCRE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUCRE

Besides, some weeks ago I watched something similar (in a much smaller scale, in England) at the BBC News:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/13032-bristo

l-england-adopts-alternative-currency

Best Regards,

Wilson


Yes that is what I was thinking about. What I also say and can't find is software that incorporated all those complexities re SUCRE, ie. barter, various local currencies, coupons, trade credits, etc.
I follow some community planners etc. but haven't spent time in that group nor do I know much about them (some on LinkedIN) others on Google and Yahoo.

I have ideas on how to use community planning software to direct, deliver, manage, and produce products and services for diverse needs. The first step is to make it simple, define what the BASIC community needs are, make them local, independent and sustainable and then improve the system as you are able to provide more of those things that would bring affluence and an improved quality of life beyond those basics.

Volunteers man the process and structures until you can automate it away. You use and take what you need (tracked and inventoried) but you don't need to PAY YOURSELF as the owner of the capital unless you choose to. Unnecessary at that point. When you have all the components of a microcosm that is autonomous and sustainable then how you share the abundance is nothing more than a consensus choice of those involved.
google-site-verification=qLGk0UZ3kcQFHbLo3vYD-KCntF9QdXVpHu7UcZlWMGc