Finally, we need to acknowledge that the earth's resources are a legacy that we all have an interest in, rather than commodities that accrue to the individuals or groups that can gain the rights to control and exploit them. This will require rethinking ownership and use patterns that have been accepted since the beginning of the industrial era. The place of the commons as well as both real and intellectual property in the economy will need to be reconsidered. The concept of the for profit corporation may have to be scrutinized.
Transition
Current initiatives
Some groups, including the American Monetary Institute, propose that the Government put 'credit' money into circulation. It needs to be understood that this kind of money doesn't come for free. It is a one time tax on the market by the government which issues it. It is a loan to the government by the taxpayers, creating seigniorage - a commitment on the part of the government - to provide services to the population. If the money thus created is used for the general welfare, this may not be a problem, however money thus created can also be used for military/corporate imperial projects as is being done by our current government.
An additional disadvantage of such a system is that it perpetuates central control and management of the money supply, rather than having the money supply self regulate at the local level, as occurs in a mutual credit system. On the other hand it may be appropriate for the national government to have a bank to deal with catastrophic events, for instance. In this case money creation can be seen as seigniorage/commitment by all of the citizens to help out those in need and repair infrastructure. Use of this bank must be limited so that it is used only for the general welfare. In order to maintain fiscal balance, these loans should be paid back through taxes over time, not left in circulation as is proposed by the AMI and others, just as other loans are.
Another group, exemplified by the upcoming book by Thomas Piketty xxvii, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, suggests that progressive income taxes and taxes on wealth can stabilize the present system. This proposal doesn't meet the criteria of value consistency noted in the quote from Lietaer earlier. Instead of making a system that is stable, it tries to offset the instability with tax policy. This tactic has historically been one that over time is reversed, and the instability and movement of wealth toward those who control the money system resumes.
A third group, characterized by the Public Banking Institute xxviii, comes closer to the mark, with their program to move banking to the local and regional level, and make it not for profit. This effort can be seen as a part of the transition toward a more just and democratic money system, however it does not yet deal with a number of issues raised here which must also be dealt with. These include the issue of mutual, democratic creation of money, and the issue of an international standard of value, which makes unnecessary exchange rates between currencies. So while it is a step in the right direction, it should not be seen as the ultimate goal.
A fourth group, those promoting community currencies, represented by the International Journal of Community Currency Research (IJCCR)xxix, is free to innovate in ways consistent with the new economy. Many of the existing community currency systems use mutual money. However many of these systems are up against a major blockage, because they are not accepted in payment of taxes, and, under the law in payment of contracts. Where community currencies have had this support from the local government, they have had major inroads on the economy. A proposal for making money more stable through the use of complementary currencies has been written by Lietaer et al xxx However this proposal does nothing to deal with the problems in the structure of the existing money system.
Future challenges
It is easy to say that the vision described here is all well and good, but it is pie in the sky -- not attainable from where we are now. This brings up the issue of transition.
Transitioning to an economic system based on trust, sharing, and community rather than greed, fear, and anger will be filled with problems. One of the most pernicious will be the resistance on the part of those who benefit the most from the status quo to loosing their preferred status and power. Also knowledge of how things currently work may make those who have been on the short end of the stick very angry. We will have to relearn how to relate to each other in institutional settings.
Those who will lose power in the money, corporate manufacturing, corporate media, military, and political spheres need to look at the alternatives for their children and grandchildren. Helping these people recognize the unsustainable nature of the present money system can hopefully help convince them that change is necessary, and that to bequeath their power in the present system to their children and grandchildren is to bequeath them a society in chaos. Either we can move toward fair and just money, economic, and political systems, or we will move toward economic and social breakdown and fascism. xxxi Everyone needs to recognize the basic humanity of everyone else, and try to move creatively from where we are to a place that is resilient and sustainable for us all. It will of necessity be a world without war, and great differences in personal wealth. The commons may be expanded, as the necessity for privatizing resources to accommodate the need for growth in the money system is no longer an issue. Property rights will likely be redefined.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
