Topic: Refining the Story
Posts (1 - 5 of 5)
|
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
“David, what exactly do you mean by "what holds us back is the belief that someone else is responsible"?” “How can we view poverty and environmental degradation as assets?” This is the part of the story where we are all richer if each of us can express our gift and we are all poorer when any of us cannot express our gift . . . The market cannot produce an abundance of basic goods and services because - as a thing becomes abundant - its market price drops below the cost of production . . . But if you and I join forces to produce an abundance of something, we can do that without regard to the market price. The right to use something that is abundant has "value" independent of the market price . . . The unused human potential and the unused biological potential of any given locality - if organized in a way that entitled contributors to a share of what was produced - could produce an abundance of food, clothing, shelter, education and preventive health care . . . and the right to partake of abundance would have value independent of the market price of the goods and services produced. See Economics of Integrated Production. The part about unused biological potential has to do with this part of the story: What would happen if agriculture was something we did where we lived involving many creatures - and those who do not fit elsewhere – instead of monocultures done somewhere else. What if we honored the gift of the smallest of creatures and treated ecosystems as something that is a part of us – instead of something to be preserved someplace else? What did you learn about upward spirals? Do we have any idea how productive we could be if we added bridges for all the poor people and all the creatures?” |
|
|
<!--
@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
In another discussion the following issues were raised and addressed:
“I read David's dialectic on bridges and the value of labor. It very much reminds me of bartering.”
by using the words dialectic and bartering you categorize what I am saying into that which you already know. I am not offended by that - but the reason that I used the name Self-help corporation is to try to get people to think outside the box. The purpose of an SHC is not an alternative currency supplement to the existing market economy - which is designed to maximize the efficiency of financial resources. It is a different kind of organization designed to maximize the utilization of labor - and as such, it has the capacity to produce an abundance of basic goods and services - and anyone in the community could earn a share of that abundance - and still hold a job in the market economy. That is converting financial resources back into living resources - in an organization owned by all those in the community that contribute to the organization. “The sticky part in all of this is power. Even now there is a tension between proponents of different organizational or economic models. Resolving this tension is a very important and challenging task. Where does the buck stop on a global level?” This type of community organization can bring the power of choice back to the community level. Humans will still need a mechanism to make choices on a planetary level - but, if every community were self-sufficient in food, clothing, shelter, education and health care, there are fewer choices that need to be made at that level and more choices that will be made at the community level. At the community level, I would think that we would want to use the best information -> knowledge -> wisdom available. I do not like consensus models or extreme democracy for the reason that it produces decisions from the lowest common knowledge - and because most people cannot be troubled to educate themselves about the issues involved in a decision. For that reason, I like the corporate model, in which the community - based on the number of shares that they own - elects a board of directors - to oversee the best talent that can be found - to oversee the operation for the purpose of: "The more favors you give and receive, the more you get to know your neighbors and the higher your quality of life. We only need a way to keeps track of those favors, creating an incentive to do more of them, and accumulate tools and assets to make those favors easy to perform (convert financial resources into living resources)." “. . . I must totally and completely reject your case against "consensus models or extreme democracy". These things, to me, are vital to have a vibrant community that is responsible and moral.” “I can see the point to your argument, David, but the truth is no matter how clear these ideas and concepts are to you and a handful of other thinkers, they will remain marginalized until they can be expressed in even plainer, simpler language. Could you sum up your whole idea in twenty eight ordinary words or less?”
28 ordinary words or less . . . perhaps the key to this controversy is in a different way of looking at the forces at work in the world. We already have extreme democracy in the sense that all political and economic power already resides in the individual. The most powerful organizations in the world only exist because people choose to interact with them . . . and I am already past 30 . . . but the solution is not to take power away from someone else and the problem is not that someone else has power . . . the solution is to give less power away and exercise more power for ourselves . . . and that includes being smart about how we organize ourselves . . . have you ever been to a Homeowners Association Meeting? . . . why do I care who they hire to mow the lawn? . . . and can the lawn wait to be mowed until we reach consensus . . . all I need is the power to vote the board members off if they do something wrong . . . |
|
|
A commenter in the Global Mind Shift discussion
[http://www.global-mindshift.org/converse/conversation_details.asp?convInstID=256] said: "I feel that I disagree with you to the extent that you try and incorporate the conventional monetary economy into a vision of the future. I feel that it is too destructive, on the planet and on people. It dehumanizes trade, making it anonymous, removing soul or responsibility to another person - as something becomes more anonymous it becomes more dangerous." and my initial response was: Yes, I understand the sentiment - but focusing on what is bad about the way money works only increases the resistance to change from the majority in the world who see only the objects of their desire and believe that money is the only way to obtain what they desire. but after thinking about that I wrote: I have been thinking about my last response - and find that I have adjusted it in the way that I often do because I know that my correspondent does not know the whole story . Since you do know the whole story - I should have responded in its terms: http://www.aboutus.org/USF_Understanding All that we know is a set of bridges over which we exchange gifts. It does no good to try to decide what bridges are good and what bridges are bad - each bridge exists because of the choice of the parties to the exchange and every one gets to make their own choices. So, there is no good or bad - only choices and consequences. One of the benefits of the financial system has to do with the availability of all those source materials - allowing us many more options in how we choose to share our gift. Without the existence of financial resources we would be severely restricted in the type of living resources we could create for our communities. It is not necessary to end the financial system to build better communities. Each of us maintains lots of bridges to businesses - as owners, employees and customers - to our religious organizations - to our countries - to our clubs and social organizations - it will be no big deal to extend a few more bridges to our neighbors. Perhaps some of the old bridges will fall away - but remember, there is more in the world with each new bridge we create and there is less in the world with each bridge that is lost. See Systems to Complement the Market . http://www.aboutus.org/3DN_Systems_to_Complement_the_Market |
|
|
In the Open Money Discussion
[http://openmoney.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=1180168%3ATopic%3A5965] a commenter said: "I read part of the 'Understanding System function' and enjoy the simplicity on how it is presented. The short pieces of dialogue are very easy read and easy to understand. I loved the part of the gift and the bridges." http://www.aboutus.org/USF_Understanding and gave me some pointers on making a good story. I responded: I also hope that you and others will feel free to suggest or make changes - or republish the story in your own words. It is my hope that this story is told and retold until it becomes Our story. I think it would be a good idea to give the teacher and the student names - preferably names that evoke a tradition of inclusiveness or community pulling together for mutual benefit. I added some notes for what I think goes into chapters 5 and 6. I see chapter 7 as: And so the student went forth into her community, armed with the knowledge of how the system functions, in search of wisdom . . . |
Contributors to this Page
“Okay, David. I know you're trying hard to answer my short question, but I still don't get it. Please give it another stab and force yourself to say it with a maximum of fifty words. If you are passionate about your position, you will accomplish this Olympian feat.”
Try looking at it this way:
Think of any group of people as a family. As a family, we can go out to eat, or we can have a member of the family cook dinner for us, we can hire the house cleaned, or we can have a family member clean the house, we can send the kids to day care, or we can have a family member watch and educate the kids, we can buy all of our own food at the market, or we can have a family member grow some of our own food. The value of those services to the family is independent of the money cost for those services - and independent of the market value of the family member performing the services.
If any of us can always provide that kind of value there is no reason that anyone should be without that kind of value - or without something to do so long as someone else is in need of that kind of value.