dubmeup wrote:
I'm afraid you'll have to go on dubs. As far as I can see, it isn't money that causes these problems. It is profit margins, its hoarding

True scarcity and artificial scarcity can indeed be created using money, but it isn't money that creates it. The whole system depends (the one we have now) on a very fine knife edge that means people need to continue spending. Artificial scarcity (making people stop spending) contracts the market and we hit recession.

If you make in impossible to hoard, you stop scarcity. This was the whole notion behind fractional reserve banking, but it never worked. I'll explain....

Certain people began to save their money as they had plenty of excess that they didn't need (todays 1%, lets call this character the Lord). This caused money to be sucked out of the system (£5=£500) and make it even harder to get hold of. People still wanted money, and were coming to the banks for help, which the banks couldn't because not even they had enough coin. The banks realised that all of this money The Lord had, was just sitting there. He might come in and withdraw up to 5% of it, but the rest, sitting there doing nothing.

An agreement was reached between the Lord and the banks, that they would lend out his money at interest, which they did. It didn't matter that they lent out 5x more than existed because money itself is worth a multiplier of its face value. The same problem arose but at a slower speed. All the money slowly went to the Lord anyway. If the Lord isn't getting his way, he can stop the bankers lending out his money, which creates artificial scarcity.

The problem that you don't see with your version of rbe (from what you've described thus far). Is that there will still be real scarcity. Resources are finite. Some are scarce and hence valuable, and its these resources that will get hoarded. It won't matter if there's no money if certain individuals hoard what is deemed expensive.

TVP makes a distinction of practicality.

There's plenty of rare things out there, they are not necessarily worth anything though because we don't necessarily need to make important use of those resources.
There are prime resources such as water,food etc and theres shitloads of it. Same goes for building materials and most base products.

If people have no need to hoard stuff for trade or leverage of some kind because its made pointless to do so then they won't do it, simple as.
It shouldn't be a difficult concept to get your head around but some people are just programmed so hard they'll never get it. Its that aspect that prevents TVP more than any practical aspect about resources. TVP was about first of all cataloguing resources with exact figures to make decent well informed judgement calls.

Bear in mind that you yourself are expecting some kind of solution to come from the existing control system that has already been shown to be a completely failed concept. NaN's for example expect some kind of perfect benevolent dictator to overcome that problem.
Also bear in mind that a monetary system does not address resources, it pays no attention whatsoever, the same issue remains and waste is encouraged for profit so its a weak point to be coming from within an economic solution involving profit.

andyh wrote:
Its not that I don't get it. Of course I get it, but I don't think you understand me.

I've already explained that we do indeed live in a resource based economy. That will never change. That's the most important point that needs to click because it highlights a crippling factor in ANY broad system, human behaviour. TVP does not address it.

The sentence that I've bolded, is completely throwing me off. This is the exact thing that I've been proposing is the problem, and I've offered a solution to that problem to prevent people hoarding. Where in the TVP is this aspect addressed?

We may well have enough finite essential resources for now, but what is going to stop certain people from attempting to take control of them in this "rbe" or "VP"? Lets keep it really simple, and discuss rice. What would happen if you've eaten/destroyed/lost your rice and more isn't going to be available for X weeks? People would either trade surplus of what they do have to get rice, hence money is needed (I've think we've established that universal payment is needed in all systems, if you don't follow I'll explain). Or, they'd maybe steal it. This would cause short term hoarding of rice.

What about the Irish potato famine? What if some natural event caused issue with resources in this system? What would happen then? They would become more valuable, people would try to control potatoes for a time. Do you see where I'm going?

I'm not expecting a solution from our current system as such, but I do recognise that the ground work has been laid. This system didn't appear over night. It took hundreds of years to develop and evolve and it did so in order to solve certain problems that we all face in trade. Of course it isn't perfect, but the basics are there if you want a fair and productive economy. I'm not saying that's what we have now, we don't merely that the potential is there and we're due another evolution cycle as it were.

Take a look at this video, about the 2:30-3:00 mark onwards. Do these actions remind you of anyone?



Violence is the only outcome of such a system.

Why would potatoes or rice just disappear?
You're at the straw stage again which reinforces what I said about people having a brainfart with this topic.
Again, how would a monetary system solve potatoes disappearing? The disappeared previously within a monetary system, not TVP, so this is brainfart land again isn't it?
Do you have a like for like strawman at least?

andyh wrote:
I didn't say they'd disappear. I said a natural event could make them become scarce for a time. I gave you a real life example of this happening and what the human reaction would be. I'm pointing out that TPV doesn't address the problem that some people will attempt to control whatever resource is deemed valuable at the time and have asked you how TVP addresses it. You haven't answered my question. It is this issue that is the common problem. Something you seem unable to comprehend.

There is no straw in my argument whatsoever.

Do you understand why a symbol of universal payment is needed? A yes or no will do. If you don't understand I will explain it to you.

I never said that a monetary system alone would prevent scarcity. I am suggesting amendments to a framework that will prevent overall stagnation due to the human need in some to hoard.

TPV assumes that all humans consume the same resources at the same rate. This simply isn't true and its the reason an exchange system like universally accepted payment is needed. You can force same-rate consumption via rationing. If this is the way TVP wishes to address this problem that necessitates trade and currency, it will make for a VERY unhappy populous.

How would my proposed method address true scarcity? I'll tell you.

So lets stick with potatoes for now, though it could be any natural resource, such as it is oil at the moment.

There will be no incentive in my proposed amendment to monopolise on natural resources. If you tax a percentage of income on a monthly basis, the more you have, the more you lose and what you lose gets distributed from the ground up, not top down like now. There will in effect be a cap at the level that is beneficial for you to trade. The more you monopolise, the less beneficial it is to do so. It is in your interest to not feed scarcity because you are penalised for doing so.

If you have all the potatoes and people come to you to buy them, the more of them that you alone sell, the more money you alone will earn, though after a time as your wealth increases you will be deemed to not be a team player as it were (are you following here? Do you know what I mean?) by the mechanics of the static income taxation system. It becomes in your interest to share your wealth with others, to pay higher wages, to use the services of others fairly.

The distribution of wealth will be a lot more even.

Do you follow?

You're not comparing like for like.

Also the given scenario considering todays circumstances would have to be serious enough to be an extinction level event.
If potatoes were gone then a lot of other stuff would have to be gone. It isn't enough to merely point at blight for example, not in 2014.

andyh wrote:
I'm not comparing like for like? Explain?

For the third time: How does TVP address inevitable control of resources?

For the second time. I didn't say potatoes would be gone, I said they could become scarce for a time and this would necessitate trade between those who have some and those who don't. This can be applied to any natural resource as availability fluctuates and people consume at differing rates.

Do you condone rationing instead of money?

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
I would prefer a sensible discussion rather than videos. A slave has no freedom whatsoever. The rest of us have degrees of freedom and the supposed wage slave in the western world has significant freedom. A child worker in Asia making footballs day in day out has far less freedom and is closer to slavery than I am. What about the self employed who pay themselves? Or do you think everyone earning a wage is a wage slave?

What statements about poverty? You have now launched into a completely different set of topics from anything I have talked about so far.

I think silva has a valid point tbh - the floods here have damaged crops and will have a knock on effect on prices - the old supply and demand thing again.

The concerns I have with tvp as I do with any form of system is that it will rely on some form of infrastructure in order to allocate/deliver resources - My feeling is that whatever system is in place either those entrusted with overseeing it are trustworthy or they are not.

Using the differences between dif and this place as an analogy - this place works because those charged with 'powers/controls' have earn't the trust of the membership and have thus far not abused their position - the same cannot be said for the dif.

If the current system was run by people who were not self serving and who did not exploit it for their own agenda then things would not be quite so bad - improvements could be made to certain areas for sure but if the game were not rigged it would not be quite so objectionable.

Human nature unless it drastically changes will see any new system fail eventually.

So what changes can we make that account for the fact that some humans will stab their own mother in the back for a bag of chips even if they have all you can eat supplies of chips for life? How do we get people to think not solely of their needs and wants but the needs of others? How do we remove the fear that sees some people hoarding resources not for monetary gain but because of a desire not to 'run out'?

How do we decide who gets to be a bin man and who gets to be an inventor? what resources we should set aside for development and what resources for maintaining the lifestyle people are accustomed to? Are those in the richer countries willing to forgo some comforts in order to reallocate resources to those with currently appalling living standards? Where does conservation fit in? does any system shift have to be global or can it be national or even local?

I am yet to see any solution address all or even the majority of these sorts of issues in anything more than a wishy washy utopian manner.

In order to remove fear and reliance on the current system we need imho to admit that the fears that exist are pertinent and very real and show that alternatives address those fears in a practical way. particularly when it comes to fear of human nature which can be very ugly indeed.

SilvaRizla wrote:
Violence is largely the outcome of inequality & poverty.

Space Bandit wrote:
Created by the greed of sociopaths. Yes. Can you see it yet?

SilvaRizla wrote:
I'll try to explain again.

TVP people who adhere to it completely (and I'm not one of them) think that its somehow going to magically happen like switching on and off a lightbulb.

I on the other hand see that there would have to be some kind of transitional process. I used ararcho-syndicalism as one possible example of how to do that.

You too have a good idea which I have no problem with in concept. But it has the same problem as TVP does. You have no transitional process.

This leaves both your idea and TVP as both being a pipedream that does not address the current situation.
If someone could come up with a plan which addresses the current situation which I'm assuming we are all pissed off with (otherwise why bother with the entire truth movement because thats what ALL of it boils down to- the current socio-economic paradigm).

Trying to point out problems with TVP without a proper solution of your own is a double negative, a cognitive failure of epic proportions fuelled by emotional obsession. TVP crowd are just as guilty of it as you are, just as the NaN's and just as the anarcho-capitalists are.

All those so called solutions do not address the current situation, I have yet to see anything that does. I have seen things that might improve this aspect or that aspect but nothing that gets a handle on the larger socio-economic paradigm.

As for the crops for example, TVP assumes global coverage, not separation in the form of a single nation state, ergo it would be a straw man to propose trade with some other entity that does not exist within the world of its conception...do you get it now?
So for there to be a shortage of potatoes it would have to be an extinction level event because it would have to be global in scale within the context of the situation via a vis TVP

thoreau wrote:
Thanks, feeling sort of alone and misunderstood here lol
thoreau wrote:
Bang on. That's why I suggest it is not just the government that need to be voted in. Banks need to be run on a vote in/out consensus of the board basis
thoreau wrote:
This is the trickiest one of all. I reckon that this fear has been created by the artificial scarcity that we've experienced for the last 1000 years. It will take some time for people to loosen up, but I don't envisage people hoarding hundreds of tonnes of timber (lets say) for fear of it running out. Its a tricky one, and I'm not suggest there won't be problems. But it must be tried
thoreau wrote:
I say people decide for themselves what they want to be, people need to recognise that no job is more important than another and their pay should be fairer to reflect that.

We need bin men as much as we do doctors.

To be honest I haven't thought about allocation much, I'd say that's more stage 2.
thoreau wrote:
Same here.
thoreau wrote:

andyh wrote:
Right, I see what you mean. There is a transitional process, but we have to start it. I can think of 2 examples that have already started taking control of their own money. Monodragon and Iceland was it? (Could be Finland, I forget)
andyh wrote:
No it isn't, but that doesn't matter because I've given you my solution, its a transitional process that others have already started.
andyh wrote:
Then there is something you're missing. My solution addresses the current situation quite well.
andyh wrote:
Does it not take time to shift resources around resulting in temporary shortage? Necessitating local trade? The fact that the system is global and greed is not addressed makes it all the more exploitable that someone will start to control resources on a global level much as they do now.

It is you andy, that doesn't get it

EDIT: You're still avoiding my questions btw

Ummm I just said TVP is global from the get go in concept.
They expect some miracle to happen and the entire planet to immediately switch to that situation.

So you can easily see, it is transition which is not addressed and there lies in front of everyones faces TVP's weakness, yet you choose not to attack it on that point.

AFAIK I am the only guy who does and I'm the only guy who does not get debunked, TZM actually didn't want me around on their forums...

You have still not said how you're going to get politicians to order your changes. So this is why I see you are guilty of the exact same thing as TVP are. I'm not interested in any questions because I've already outlined one possible transitional theory which was anarcho-syndicalism moving upwards in scale until global. Even that has its weak point as being the elite attacking it.

So again we are left with basically a violent confrontation ultimately, I fail to see what can be done otherwise. Only the Swiss have the power to change their situation peacefully.

andyh wrote:
I didn't feel it was needed. I'm fully aware it just has to happen without transition (and it won't). My point is more concerned with the fact that even if that was sorted, its core mechanics are incredibly flawed and it would never ever work, ever.
andyh wrote:
Iceland stood up to the banks, did they not? So did Mondragon did they not? It isn't really a stumbling block to be honest.
andyh wrote:
Yes I can see that, I'm hoping others can too, and I hope they know why you aren't, much as I do
andyh wrote:
So? Where did I say it needs to be a peaceful transition? I said it doesn't have to be a complete redo with millions of deaths, and it doesn't. I said it was transitional, it is.

You're improving a bit with a hint that it might include some violence but still no specifics as yet

As for Iceland, NO they did NOT address 'the problem' because they still have a central bank, borrow at interest and they still take part in the global FR system.

They arrested a couple of bankers but not shareholders or controlling interests in foreign central banks and they appointed a new parliament which is slightly improved but with the same potential for corruption as before.

Had they printed their own debt free treasury notes then I might have sat up and taken some notice but theres just some red lines the paradigm will not cross.

Mondragon also does not address FR banking directly, more indirectly as per Barnfish's idea of using co-op banks, ofc Mondragon goes a whole 1000 yards further than merely banks and really makes some positive impact but its still not enough, as of and in itself it will not stop the elite from pwning the planet and that really should be the common goal of everyone here and our raison d'etre.

We can muck around with our money all we like, its a piss in the pond, they will laugh at your pathetic puny attempts.
Its that which I'm trying to get across, how truly powerless you are if this is the best we can come up with.

The issues are systemic and connected at core to the monetary system, unless we address that in a fruitful manner then we are wasting time here.

Andyh, what will you replace money, FR and interest with?

Barnfish wrote:
Thats up to the people involved in whatever system they choose.
I'm not the NaN type so I'm not the perfect benevolent dictator

NB: I should add that FR needn't exist at all as part of the monetary system. Banks needn't be anything like as major an aspect as they are today. Only loaning occasionally for business purposes with self risk. If that happened prices would plummet as credit would not be available generally. Wages would not need to keep pace with inflation because there would be no inflation.
Again such an economy is difficult to bring about and maintain within any single nation unless its quite self reliant and not corrupt and so on and so forth. We have had it in the past and it worked just fine, the example is ofc the wild west but back then homesteads are what kept that working.
Today you cannot walk out into the countryside and build your own house, the land is owned. There might be some countries where it is still allowed somewhere, personally I don't know of any offhand. Given the amount of empty wild land it 'ought' to be something forced upon the landowners but again thats not going to happen either.

“If one wanted to crush and destroy a man entirely, to mete out to him the most terrible punishment,” wrote Dostoevsky, “all one would have to do would be to make him do work that was completely and utterly devoid of usefulness and meaning.”

That is all