| Subject: | [socialcredit] money vs. commodity (Chris Cook) | | Date: | Tuesday, May 2, 2006 10:29:21 (EDT) | | From: | Triumphofthepast <Triumphofthepast @...com>
|
I always find Chris Cook's ideas interesting. I think his idea of partership structures with Temporary Equity replacing loans simply by virtue of natural superiority makes sense and contains nothing obnoxious to social credit.
However, I find his idea of new "energy money" consisting of proportional shares to "energy from (say) a wind-farm" or money consisting of proportional shares of a stream of rental revenues to be imperfect.
One of Douglas's first principles is that the economy is a consumer production system. Another is that money is a CONVENTION, that is, a system using SYMBOLS for THINGS.
If symbols in the hands of consumers can be claims to the things they want, it is unnecessary and messy for those symbols to be claims to things they don't want for them to "exchange" for what they do want. If it is possible to create symbols that are proportional shares to energy from a wind-farm, it is possible to create symbols that are shares of consumer goods and services directly, without any mediating commodity.
Symbols that are proportional shares to (cash) rental revenues is even more circuitous, being symbols representing symbols.
Michael
|
money vs. commodit
Reply to this message