Organic annual money system

[tama]

Humans lived as hunter gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years. Then we learned horticulture as organic parts of forest ecosystems, tens of thousands years ago. About 10 000 years a coevolutionary pact was made with certain annual hay plants that give grains that can be stored for a long time. The birth of civilization and growth ideology, money and banking. Products of coevolution with certain annual hay plants.

Money serves today as abstract mechanism of power and subjugation. You can't eat money, so what real natural value money has, that comes from what nature gives from year to year. Annual hay plants give food to eat annually (as do also perannuals based on weather etc). In rough and most basic terms the value of money per year (MY) is equal to number of grains in the grain bank. Now, why should some members of a society based on equality have more money (=grains) from the annual harvest than others from year to year? For no reason except for mechanisms of power and subjugation. For Farao and his pyramid frauds.

Annual money MY (money per year) is very simple and easy. Anyone can do it from the bottom, no hierarchic power structure needed, no state needed. Just declare out of thin air MY open for all willing to join. All participants get equal share of MY as a joining gift. The numerical value of the joining gift can be anything, so why not make it a million, everybody wants to be a millionaire :). Then people can do with their money what they want, no need for any rules.

The catch is that the MY (e.g. Money per 2010) has value only during that year, when the money year ends all money is cancelled and new MY created (money per 2010) and shared equally with all participants as a new years gift. The purchasing power of each MY is left to market forces, ie. to people to freely sell and buy what and how they want with their share of MY. That means that the purchasing power of MY is ultimately dependent of the yearly harvest of those participating in the organic annual money system. That reminds that if grains are not saved for seeds of new harvest, next MY will have no purchasing power. If land is not taken care of but robbed with short sighted greed, MY will have less purchasing power. Purchasing power shared equally, not robbed by bankster-faraos at the top of their pyramid fraud.

What the banksters have taught us is that money is easy to create - just make it out of thin air. Anyone can do it, just plant the money seed by declaring a MY and invite all willing to join. Just be wise to remember the organic roots of money and keep it an annual harvest, shared equally with all members of the MY community. That way money can't fool you into believing that you can eat money and that money rules your life.

MY Money Year works as a kind reminder and teacher of OUR Organic Unitary Relation with annual hay plants and all of nature.

It's free, just let it loose. If you do it can and will coexist and then replace the totally unsustainable Federal dollar fraud with pyramid fraud and all-controlling eye pictured in the one dollar bill. It's free, you don't need to control and legislate it so there is nothing illegal about it, it's just free money given freely to each other, by nature, by us, by we the people. It's freedom.

[Nederland]

1. Not sure this would work

If I read this correctly, the amount of money I would get every year has nothing to do with how hard I work (unless I'm a farmer). Is that correct?

[tama]

2. Not correct

The purchacing power of the MY (amount of money) depends on how hard each participant - you including - works to put something in the market to be bought and sold. You can put offer for a bloody good massage or any other skills in the market, etc. etc., and this can work as parallel system of exchange purely in the internet (like the exchange markets in multiplayer role playing games and net auctions) - but it has potential for much more, if primary producers start joining the MY and put their harvest in the MY market. That way the MY monetary system has potential to become global organic revolution based on self-sustainable equal participation in equal society with in-build peacefull revolution each year, building gradually from the grass roots level to replace the collapsing hierarchic structures by hitting at the root of the problem, bankster monopoly of money creation and and accumulation of capital in the hands of few.

If this catches on, this could become huge. This could be it - the way out and forward from all this doom and gloom, caused by bankster money as global pyramid fraud. And as this can by started and restarted easily by anyone, they can't kill it like they killed Kennedy when he tried to brake the Fed's monopoly of money power. But needless to say, the said potential can actualize only if the seed gets planted and people start to experiment the MY system as a creative social experiment.

This idea of MY is freely distributed, give it a thought and share it and try it if you like and see what happens. Most of all, this is meant to by a fun social experiment, to make money genuinely funny munny instead of a method of oppression... :)

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. What about people who produce things other than crops?

By cancelling their money at the end of each year (whatever time of year that is), you make it impossible for them to save their wages for anything. What if someone wanted to save money to buy a house, for instance (which takes more than one year)? Or are you abolishing all private property too - everyone would rent their house from the authority that issues the yearly money?

[tama]

4. What authority?

There's no authority required, only free association to "millionaires club" if the chose numerical value for participation payment is one million. There is no copyright with this idea, only copyright is the mutual agreement of participants in MY not to copy more money than their equal yearly share.

I don't see limits to how inventive people can be what comes to art of building houses for example in purely MY system. There is no limit to agreements between humans extending from year to year. There is no monopoly, people can choose to belong and not belong in several MY and other monetary systems. MY agreement does not own anything but doesn't exclude people from doing also other kinds of agreements. There is no abolishing anything by MY system, it's not against anything, it's just parallel free economy free to evolve as it does.

Freedom is hard to imagine, that is what makes freedom free. If freedom would be all predictable, then it would not be free but deterministic control.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. The authority that cancels the money and shares out new money

"when the money year ends all money is cancelled and new MY created (money per 2010) and shared equally with all participants as a new years gift"

If this is not meant to replace the existing monetary systems, and is just a bit of fun for the participants, then go ahead. But I still think people are going to object to not being able to carry over the 'money' from one year to the next. It's an arbitrary limit on people's usefulness. It would have the worst features of department budgets that have to be spent within a year - at the last minute, people waste the budget on stuff because they know they have to use it or lose it.

[tama]

8. You are correct

"It's an arbitrary limit on people's usefulness." The annual nature of MY is exactly that, arbitrary limit on people's usefulness as wage slaves for accumulated monetary capital and power. That's the whole point, creating an opportunity to get rid of masters and slaves in all forms and a way of living as equals. A market economy way.

MY is a new free monetary system AND citizens salary combined. Citizens salary is worth only what the citizen and the others produce for the market in free economy. It's a free gift worth what you together all other participants make it worth.

If people object to not being able to carry over money from one year to the next, as they are used to, that is because they are used to wage slavery and distortion by capital power from year to year. They are not happy about that, just used to.

This is meant to have the potential to replace the existing monetary system and all that goes with it - states and all - if people so choose. The potential to build from the ground gradually and organically new parallel society based on equality to replace the current oppressive system that is crumbling allready. The potential for building gradually and organically a cushion of soft landing on the sustainable bottom while this system collapses. The potential for peacefull and fun constructive continuous revolution. Just potential, actualizing the potential is up to each and all of us.

Let's suppose the money cancelling would happen on shortest day of winter. OK, let's suppose people who had money left at the end of the year went shopping like mad for all the goods available in the market, to be given as gifts to friends if they don't need the stuff themselves. Let's suppose the new money for next money was issued only after a week of no money. We could call that week of no money and no shopping "Christmas" and the new equal share to the market a common "Christmas present" of all for one and one for all. :)

[Nederland]

6. Still confused

Does how much money I have depend on how hard I work, or how hard everybody works?

[tama]

7. It's not the quantity

but the quality of money called 'purchasing power'. And yes, that depends on how much products everybody you and I included bring to market for sale. Same as now, the purchasing power of a dollar depends of supply of goods for sale, that not the difference between permanent and annual money systems.

The difference is this, lets presume in the exchange system aka market there is available only one potato per member of the annual money system when everybody gets their million for the next year. Then the price of one potato is one million. The farmer who sold the potatos now owns all the money and can make everybody work for him if he has still potatos to keep the workers alive. But just for one year, not whole life of slavery, if also others plant seeds and produce food for the market for next year. Then the purchasing power of the million is e.g. whole sack of potatos. One sack for all participants and not all potatos for just one guy who got all the money last year and none for others. The difference is monetary equality instead of monetary monopoly.

[Nederland]

9. The difference is freedom

In the current system, my standard of living is largely determined by how hard I work and whether or not I possess the skills that society deems valuable--two things largely within my own control. In your system, my standard of living is largely determined by the choices other people make. No thanks, I'm not interesting in surrendering control to the collective like that. Feel free to join the Borg if you'd like, but I don't expect you'll have many takers.

[IrateCitizen]

12. Funny...

Feel free to join the Borg if you'd like, but I don't expect you'll have many takers.

This coming from the same person who is wholly convinced that artificial intelligence is the next great evolutionary leap forward? :rofl:

As for your standard of living being determined by what society deems valuable -- does that mean that Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon and their ilk have skills (economic parasitism) that society deems of the highest value, thus justifying their compensation?

[Nederland]

17. A good point

I should have made clear that my Borg comment alluded to systems that have little room for individual choice, not systems that are heavily tied to computers. And while I agree with Kurzweil that predicting what the coming age of AI will look like is next to impossible, I am hopeful the the resulting society will allow for more individual freedom, not less.

As for Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon, I'm afraid the answer is yes. Blankfein and Dimon run corporations that essentially allow people to get the things they want right away rather than saving up to buy them. Unfortunately, western society has spoken loud and clear on this point: people either want to get stuff for free, or as a second best choice, get stuff with the illusion of getting it for free. Blankfein and Dimon cheerfully provide people with that second choice, and get rich in the process. In a free society were people are allowed to make idiotic decisions, such outcomes are inevitable. The only thing worse than this arrangement is the alternative, where government decides what is good and bad for people and restricts everyones options to only the things it deems "good". The only cure that is acceptable to my political biases is compulsory education that teaches every member of society how to manage their money and then sets them free to ignore that advice if they so choose. I believe if we had that, Blankfein and Dimon would not have such a huge market for their products, and not be so obscenely rich.

[tama]

20. "Skills that society deems valuable"

are not in your control, you can just try to adapt and become, say an investment banker.

Yup, that is the most valuable skill in this society, monopoly of making money out of thin air.

Monopoly is not freedom. Of course the purchasing power of monopoly money depends on enforcing the rest of society to produce goods and sell them for the monopoly money so the bankster can consume what others produce without doing anything productive.

There are probably much better free money systems than my idea, which is great, but they all share the idea of breaking up the monopoly of making money and the robbery in form of usury.

[ncguy]

10. Do you intend this

as sort of an intellectual exercise about money supply, or is this an actual proposal that you intend to make to members of your community.

If the former, it is not precisely clear to me the argument you are making.

If the later, there are certain bartering groups being set up around the country that are catching on to a small degree. Let us know how it goes.
However, I think you will need to be able to explain yourself a little more clearly.

[tama]

11. Both

Just sharing thoughts. Not selling anything. No copyright on my thoughts.

[ncguy]

13. I don't know if you have

but some of the local barter systems are interesting. They are not a replacement for monetary policy, but interesting and getting more popular, none-the-less.

[tama]

14. Yeah

Money is not really necessary, mostly it's a - well The hypnotizing power fetish.

But so what, reality is that civilization is hypnotized with money, which makes the fact that the 10 000 year evolution of money is now at critical point because of some basic unsustainable origin of money.

And like we like to say, Another world is possible, so what could another money be like? Creative thinking is fun. New thoughts are best considered seeds, if the conditions are right the seeds and conditions meet and something starts to grow. Thinking is like gardening, some weeding and replanting is allways necessary.

Blimey, I'm talking like ol' Chauncey Gardener, so why not make me the president! :D

[Nederland]

18. True, money is not really necessary

However, you have to ask why almost every society on the planet either invented it or adopted it upon being exposed to it. The reason is that money serves the simple purpose of making an economy more efficient. If I had to barter for everything, the amount of time I would have to spend figuring out the chain of transactions need to get the stuff I need/want would be ridiculous. That's all money really is: a universal good that simplifies trade. If you got rid of it, you'd quickly replace it with something that did the exact same thing.

[tama]

21. Anthropology

shows that among human cultures the most common form of economy is gift economy without money.

[On the Road]

15. Who Would Accept Payment in December?

[DaveJ]

16. Great Idea...

It's nice seeing someone has original thoughts, instead of just copy pasting news articles. Of course it will never happen. People, like most animals, have a primal desire to dominate one another.

[tama]

19. And be dominated n/t