[p2p-research] excellent contribution on flow money by Martien van Steenbergen

[Ryan Lanham]

Martien:

I cannot imagine, even under extreme crisis, a democratic move to change
money and finance in the extraordinary ways you suggest.  Therefore, I
cannot imagine a feasible path to implementation.

If it is anti-democratic, it fails of its own roots.  If it is to be a
democratic change, there will need to be specific proofs that such changes
lead to desired outcomes as well as the necessary cataclysms to convince
people to consider such changes.

P2P is widely in use today.  There is nothing about it that requires radical
social change or radical systematic procedural change.  It quite happily
co-exists for the most part in Germany, Mexico, Africa, the US, China and
Sri Lanka with very little systematic differences.  Indeed the commons of
most of those places are international.

I see nothing in P2P, even in alternative currencies, that suggests radical
systematic change--rather they are peacefully co-existing systems with
straightforward open membership where people opt in willingly and in great
numbers.

Are you moving from the democratic, evolutionary to the anti-democratic
revolutionary?  Surely anti-democratic revolutionary ideas cannot be
justified morally in any legitimate movement of today.  And what leader is
going to propose untested radical systematic changes unless they have
acceded to some form of authoratarian/totalitarianism--like a Chavez in
Venezuela--whose economy is crumbling at a tremendous rate versus
surrounding nations--his rate of foreign exchange reserves expenditure
exceeds virtually any other nation, as one example.

Ryan Lanham



On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Martien van Steenbergen <
Martien at aardrock.com> wrote:

> Hi Ryan,
> Prepare for a bloody battle, one way or the other. Unless a few enlightened
> leaders have the guts and power and diplomacy and humanism to pull it off
> (Obama? others?).
>
> Or, better still, someone somewher just unleashes some viral software or
> service exemplifying the traits we discuss on the web that catches on like
> wildfire; just like the phone, radio, tv, fax, internet, email, the web,
> blogs/rss, wiki, twitter, what's next...
>
> We need to include and transcend. Not throw the baby away with the
> bathwater.
>
> To the benefit of all. With the least amount of destruction, and triage
> when needed.
>
> Financial engineering, yes. Economy as a science? Not quite yet. New paths.
>
> Succes en plezier,
>
> Martien.
>
>
>  On 27 May 2009, at 17:01 , Ryan Lanham wrote:
>
>  By what authority will you create and remove traits of money?  Through
> the state?  How will this occur?  Do you see people democratically choosing
> to destroy the prospect of wealth formation, holding financial assets, etc?
> This is larger as a portion of global wealth (by far) than physical
> production.  Massively so.  We've had almost 6 centuries of financial
> engineering since the earliest serious banking operations.  Will all this
> human effort be simply destroyed?  To whose benefit?  By what proof?
>
> I agree to the trial so long as everyone who is an advocate goes and lives
> in the first place that tries it.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Martien van Steenbergen <
> Martien at aardrock.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 26 May 2009, at 19:38 , Dmytri Kleiner wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 26 May 2009, Ryan Lanham wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>     The reasons people "own" money is that we store consumption
>>>>     until when it is advantageous.
>>>> Yes, that is one of the most useful traits of money: it abstracts trade
>>>> from
>>>> time and space. That is, you don't have to trade 3 chickens for a ham at
>>>> the
>>>> exact time and place, you can sell your chicks and buy something else
>>>> from
>>>> someone else at some place and some time. Let's keep that trait.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is one the most destructive traits of money, real wealth can not
>>> be stored at no cost, or actually negative cost (positive interest), to
>>> the owner. Such a form of wealth can only extend from granted privilege,
>>> most likely enforced by state violence.
>>>
>>> This feature of money, money as a store of value, is esentially a
>>> transfer of wealth from future producers to current owners.
>>>
>>> This theft of future value from it's producers is among the sources of
>>> the great inequality of the world, and any form of exchange based on the
>>> ability to "store" consumption at no loss or risk would perpetuate
>>> inequality.
>>>
>>
>> Fully agree with you, provided you are talking about a money system that
>> supports the saving function.
>>
>> Please also see my previous email.
>>
>>
>> That is why Gessellian "friegelti," i.e. stamp scrip, has demmurrage
>>> (negative interest) as a feature.
>>>
>>
>> Right! ‘Flow money’, or ‘stroomgeld’ in Dutch, or ‘demurrage’ in French.
>> A.k.a. as liquidity tax, but I dislike the word.
>>
>> I'm jumping in late, so appologies if this has already been covered.
>>>
>>
>> Please continue to contribute in anyway you like.
>>
>> I tend to be very definite, but I know nothing for sure. So each and every
>> rebuttal that does not kill it, makes it stronger.
>>
>>
>> Succes en plezier,
>>
>> Martien.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090527/4f52e9bc/attachment.html>