TED Conversations

Joe West

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Since the Monetary system is man made, why do we allow debt, inflation, starvation etc... to persist? Can the system be transformed?

Money is a social system where value can be moved and recognized on a global scale, but at its very core it is still man made. It is not sentient by any stretch of the imagination, it is controlled by man.

Would a better system be one that allows Money to, only have labor value?

The current system allows Money to be made from Money, which places more value in Money itself, than the necessary labor to produce goods or services.

In essence "The Emperor's New Clothes" we make something from nothing.

+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • John Smith 30+

    • 0
    Jan 6 2013: Depending on your definition of "money" (which you really should define when starting a conversation about it) there are alternatives for the monetary system and not all of them require perfect government or perfect people. An example of such an alternative is the "energy accounting" system developed by the technocratic movement.

    • Mark Meijer 100+

      • 0
      HostAssociate
      Jan 7 2013: Isn't everything we do in essence already energy exchange? Why insist on accounting for it? Don't we trust reality to keep perfect score ;). But no, we want insight into the books, and control over them. But seeing as we have none (no insight and no control), we create our own simulations of them, with much ado. And then we think ours are primary, and that reality has to conform to our make-believe world.

      • John Smith 30+

        • 0
        Jan 7 2013: "Isn't everything we do in essence already energy exchange?"

        Yes, that's why energy has intrinsic value to everyone and that's the reason energy accounting was proposed as a replacement for the monetary system.

        "Don't we trust reality to keep perfect score ;). But no, we want insight into the books, and control over them."

        I don't think you know what energy accounting is...

        @below

        Energy accounting doesn't keep tabs on nature (where the hell did you get that idea?), it keeps tabs on the consumption of people and production processes to make sure that if I order a chair the chair factory has enough energy to produce a chair and also to make sure some people, in their infinite greed, don't use up all the world's energy, finally it allows society to watch for over-consumption (beyond sustainible levels) of natural resources.

        • Mark Meijer 100+

          • 0
          HostAssociate
          Jan 7 2013: I don't think you got my point. Any system we develop for accounting anything, is redundant. Everything is already "accounted" for. Nature "knows" exactly what goes where, because it IS it. All of reality is energy exchange. But we like to feel in control, so we develop all kinds of systems on top of it. The specifics make no difference whatsoever, it's all based on the same basic idea that we need to keep tabs.

        • Mark Meijer 100+

          • 0
          HostAssociate
          Jan 7 2013: Regarding your update (almost missed it): You seem to think that consumption and production and people are separate from reality. It's all part of the same reality, and keeping tabs is keeping tabs. I understand what you mean, but I'm trying to make a point. Try to take a larger perspective.

        • Mark Meijer 100+

          • 0
          HostAssociate
          Jan 7 2013: Ok so you've expanded your update again and brought greed into the picture. That was basically my original point in the other thread, and also in this one. Whatever systems we use will make no real difference unless and until we ourselves are willing to change. Keeping tabs is not only a measure against greed, it's also a symptom of greed.

          The perceived need for control is that too, and it's just as fake and redundant as those tabs that we insist on keeping. Can't get rid of the accounting without getting rid of the greed and desire for control, since they are all the same thing. And I wasn't suggesting that we could. I'm just making observations.

      • Joe West

        • 0
        Jan 7 2013: Hi Mark

        Your comments are very insightfull, they remind me of James Burke. In one series he describes Man as just redefining the Universe, through discovery, which is not discovery, just a different version of the way things are.

        Trying to remember which series that came from!!

      • Joe West

        • 0
        Jan 7 2013: Found it, "Balanced Anarchy" James Burke. From "The Day the Universe Changed"

    • Joe West

      • 0
      Jan 7 2013: Money has been defined, be it gold or naval lint, any currency where value has been placed and recognized on a global scale.

      I agree, nature has its own books, we try to account by offering control. What still worries me is how that control is dealt out.

      • John Smith 30+

        • 0
        Jan 7 2013: "Money has been defined, be it gold or naval lint, any currency where value has been placed and recognized on a global scale."

        That's awfully broad. Our current monetary system is but one of many that could exist by that definition, even without replacing dollars and euros for energy credits, a gold standard would already be different from the current monetary system (but not necessarily better) and still fit your definition of money.

        • Joe West

          • 0
          Jan 7 2013: Interesting, Would not Energy credits be even more slanted towards industrialization?

          I am a bit lost on Energy Credit being used as a Monetary system.

          If Society can not police itself with the current system, what would be the mechanism that would allow Society to police who obtains the most energy per unit?

      • John Smith 30+

        • 0
        Jan 8 2013: "Interesting, Would not Energy credits be even more slanted towards industrialization?"

        Yes, but why would that be a problem?

        "If Society can not police itself with the current system, what would be the mechanism that would allow Society to police who obtains the most energy per unit?"

        Things like inflation, investment bubbles and large inheritances are made very difficult, if not impossible, by the very nature of energy credits, so the economic system would change a lot, even if none of the other rules were changed. In addition you could change the rules the same way you could change them for ordinary money, for example with a social dividend and/or guaranteed minimum income.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.