Group discussion > Non-monetary economy?! Are you kidding me?

Non-monetary economy?! Are you kidding me?

Aleksandar Malečić
868 days ago

 

There are many reasons why people go to work. One of them (very important) is money. The concept of meshwork didn’t appear recently out of nothing. We have Wikipedia and social networks, so we could try to push interconnectedness even further. Who writes articles in Wikipedia? There are fans (probably sometimes PR managers) willing to write about different subjects for free. Wikipedia relies on already published (online or offline) articles and books. You won’t find projects, experiments, and business plans in their early stages there. I think that we need here ad-hoc online teams. Why would they work together? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, money can sometimes be a good reason. If you want to donate money to a creative and important member of this meshwork, you can’t. I know, money is debt (there are some alternative economic theories), but it’s even more difficult to send fried potatoes through wires.

 

Pamela Braide
723 days ago

I believe money is necessary however there are other currencies that come into play in human interaction and survival. Reputation, influence, commitment and skill offered to ones community encourage a barter system of sort that deemphasizes the undue importance people who earn a lot of money have. It is possible to be a rich person or coorporation and harm communities, people, the environment thereby making money and being destructive. But because of our present value system this is more important than sustaining, building and participating as equals with a legitimate share in the responsibility of preserving life.

I think Im talking too much now. ByE.

Aleksandar Malečić
722 days ago

Our present value system is facing some serious problems. There is a paradox: free enterprise (with money and investments) is extremely efficient when economy is relatively stable. Money is a tool for efficient exchange of goods, services and knowledge. Multinational corporations are enormously effective in their branch of business. You must be competitive if you want your business to survive in their proximity.

What happens when corporations start withdrawing, leaving ruins behind them (local non-competitive companies don't exist anymore)? What happens when monetary economy isn't in a good shape like it used to be? Money can enhance our ability to exchange goods, services and knowledge. What can also enhance our ability to exchange these things? It's network. A good network with its degrees of separation can be a powerful tool. It's something that is more visible in so-called creative industries but it applies to other industries as well.

Pamela Braide
722 days ago

I guess the network is what we had in the old days. Local. Limited. The possiblities now of course are enormous. I get an incredible amount of stuff done just by exchanging with people Iv never met. In my YES Nigeria members people barter skills to run their initiatives all the time.

 

Aleksandar Malečić
722 days ago

There is a good book "Adaptive Networks: The Governance for Sustainable Development" by Sibout Nooteboom. Its author makes a difference between power networks (political and economic influence, control over energy and resources) and adaptive networks (friends and families being a good analogue). Speaking in simple terms, adaptive networks rely on non-monetary and power networks on monetary aspects of economy. Some might say that free enterprise with profit as its fuel is adaptive, but how much adaptive or flexible is something that presumes the eternal growth?

Aleksandar Malečić
707 days ago

I hope there isn't all about money. There should be something about beauty, purpose and achievements.

Aleksandar Malečić
681 days ago

Gross domestic product (GDP) is not a real measure of success. Nature doesn't have economic/legal mechanisms for protection. You can't assess the real value of Catalonia or Bavaria and their people only by GDP. GDP has already caused enough damage. We need a mixed global economy - free and controlled, monetary and non-monetary.

Aleksandar Malečić
629 days ago

Business as usual will, one way or another (limited resources, climate changes, environmental problems, prevention against these problems), count its last days in this century. How to prevent a total disaster? The only way I can see is to gradually shift from monetary to non-monetary economy. Mind you, non-monetary economy will never exist (at least not in the near future), but an already existing non-monetary component of economy (volunteers, families, friends, neighbourhoods, people who trust each other) will inevitably grow. The only uncertain thing is whether this transition will be (relatively) smooth or painful. Inputs (e.g. investments), processes and outputs (profit) are our artificial concepts needed to understand what is going out around us. Profit and value aren't nor will they ever be the same thing.

Aleksandar Malečić
609 days ago

Is fiscal and monetary and fiscal economy really the best way to motivate and allow people's activities? Is modern economy the best thing ever seen? Should some aspects of it be re-examined before people start seriously dealing with biodiversity, carbon capture and storage, and renewable energy? Will we be able to say "We did it the best way we could" or not?

Aleksandar Malečić
572 days ago

Imagine the following situation: Your Windows on the computer has suddenly stopped working properly, it' broken. What happens when you carry it to our nearest computer service? They will lie that your computer was attacked by a very destructive virus and that everything on Local Disc C is deleted ("eaten"). They don't care who you are and what ou have on your hard disc. If you ask them to do something stupifyingly simple for them and at the same time time-consuming and cheap, they will go so far to lie to you.

Put the example above into the context of globalized and competitive economy ruled by multinational corporations and their stakeholders.

Aleksandar Malečić
567 days ago

Will people figure out how to change or adapt things when the tsunami of globalized and competitive economy returns home? Who knows.

Aleksandar Malečić
565 days ago

Money could almost be defined (with very, very rare exceptions) as "award for unsustainable behaviour and cheating the future". Everyone who develops this meshwork or anything similar and complains about money doesn't understand this definition.

Aleksandar Malečić
329 days ago

My comments in this discussion topic have partially been influenced by the film Zeitgeist. I must admit that I was disgusted by certain scenes while watching it, but the part about money-free economy still rings in my head. Maybe some parts of this concept are naïve, but it’s not a total nonsense. Food and water must be cheap for the sake of having a stable society. Also, you can’t hardly be competitive while producing food or keeping water and soil in a good and healthy condition. At the beginning of organized society there were masters (non-producers) and slaves (producers). Historical events that we learn in schools are like leaves on a tree. Historians tend to ignore the root, but it doesn’t mean that the root doesn’t exist. A philosopher’s slave (who was producing and allowed that philosopher to focus on metaphysics) was more or less replaceable by another similar slave, but he/she did exist. This idea that what you choose to ignore isn’t important has lasted for millennia. This century (actually, our lifetime) will the time for the conclusion whether organized society as we know it makes sense or not. I don’t believe in non-monetary economy. I believe in a combination of monetary and non-monetary economy. Actually, it’s been like that all the time. The value that functional families (instead of rich, empty and spoiled cocaine addicts), friendships, neighbourhoods, networks and interactions add to society as a whole has always been somewhere around us. Our disability to put it into numbers, statistics and strategies doesn’t make it less real. Perhaps virtual networks and interactions can increase this non-monetary component. We shall hardly be able to perceive its growth, but results are the only thing that matters in the end. By the way, the numbers behind monetary economy can be false. Somewhere along the line of tech bubbles, currency rates and inflation statistics can be adjusted for economists to see what they want to see. Those numbers not carved in stone. They are adjustable. Also, the numbers don’t understand “details” such as good manners and limits of growth. We can choose the portion of global economy that relies on bubbles and the other one that relies on functional interactions. Have we really tried to experiment with virtual communities in their full potential? I don’t think so. Even if we do, the results will hardly be traceable in numbers and statistics. If you can’t put an aspect of reality into numbers and models, it doesn’t make it nonexistent. A dog isn’t aware of the sky and stars, but they still exist. Complex problems need equally complex solutions and it’s logical that COMPLEXity is difficult to describe.

There is a tendency to use the same set of tools (investments and profit) from monetary economy while trying to make the global society and economy more sustainable. Renewable energy relies on very unpredictable energy sources such as sun and wind. As such, engineers are trying to find the most efficient way to connect them to the grid e.g. smart grids). The idea is, as competitiveness and weather changes, so do prices and profit. It sounds to me like Walmart on steroids. I don’t claim there is a better approach, but this one makes me intuitively feel uncomfortable. Do we really, while reaching the limits of growth, need the newest aristocracy as a result of the new industrial revolution? Also, is maximizing profit as the only purpose of life (this time as the core of virtual networks) the best way to create functional communities? WHAT IF there is a better approach in the world of ideas? Back in the day, when physics and mathematics were blooming, sociologists and psychologists were trying to make mechanical models of the ways people think, behave and interact. We live in times when monetary economy is showing its most perverse face. It’s easy to slip into belief that it’s the whole reality.

Aleksandar Malečić
312 days ago

A successful businessman isn’t genetically superior to other people. He could in an alternative world die of thirst or hunger.

In multinational companies few people are supposed to think. If you live in the “third world” and work for a multinational corporation, you are expected to be creatively and intellectually inferior to your colleague from the basis. Since you are expected to advertise and sell and not to create, your access to information, competent people and resources will be limited. After all that pressure, you will really start to believe that your genes are worse.

On one hand, big companies have a lot of money, resources and people to realize new ideas. On the other hand, a limited number of people and nations are expected to have any ideas. If you do someone else’s job, including using a brain, you are an intruder. For this reason, and some others, corporations have a big inertia. Smaller companies are superior if the barrier for realization of a new idea is low (sometimes with a little help of new technologies).

One innovative approach to production of gods and services can be enough to provide high salaries for many people within a company. At least it’s how it works as long as competitors can’t copy and use it. Monetary economy as we know it creates competitors and, let’s say, enemies both within and out of a company. The whole system built this way used to work fine. In the modern world we have rich people becoming richer after every crisis. Their mere positions make them special to the rest of us. They compare salaries to each other and not to employees in their companies and the rest of the world and only the sky is the limit. The world is changing. Climate and political changes combined with limited natural resources and climate change are becoming a threat to an increasing number of people all around the world. Financial schemes, combinations and gambling are the source of global influence and power. Production, agriculture and empathy aren’t. This absurd is even bigger if the world is globalized. It seems that, in order to remain globally competitive, people from the third world will be forced to literally walk over dead bodies.

Companies involved in green technologies and renewable energy have inherited business as usual. Renewable energy is a radical innovation, different from an incremental innovation. In order to make it properly work, a big part of the system should be changed. The paradox is that competition can sometimes make the changes faster. Renewable energy resources are unstable and as such they need special contracts and mechanisms (similar to Walmart) to make them more efficient. On the other hand, it would be really bad if the new industrial revolution became a new source of social stratification and selfishness. We are talking here about some nasty possible scenarios caused by peak oil, overpopulation and limited natural resources and the possibility that the majority of global population will feel them. Profitable or not, air, water, food and natural resources are at the root of global society. If something happens to the root, a big number of “inferior” people will feel it.

Aleksandar Malečić
301 days ago

Were you able to imagine ten years ago that you might hear the words (United States of) America and bankruptcy in the same sentence? We indeed live in crazy times. People are still willing to work and be worth wile parts of their communities. No matter how good you are in doing your job, suddenly the word “crisis” and “bankruptcy” are levitating above your head. Not so long time ago, successful people and all kinds of advisors were writing and selling books about “secret ingredients” of entrepreneurship. If you don’t become a multimillionaire after reading some of these books and applying the advices, it’s your fault. Those rules are supposed to work anywhere in the world under any circumstances. Take for example the rule that you should be brave enough to take risks that no one else wants to. I bet there are a significant number of people who have failed, but their stories aren’t interesting enough. Optimism sells books. Pessimism and tragedy also sells books, but these books don’t belong to new age and self-help genre.

The modern world is absurd. Technologies are more advanced than ever. There was never more money. Business is the method for social stratification the same way aristocratic birth was not so long time ago. Be good and talented, and you will get rich. The sky is the limit. Still, out of nowhere, the possibility that a country could become bankrupt is emerging despite the beauty of living in the modern society. But, maybe it’s “because of” rather than “despite”. The social stratification, specialization and isolated silos of “minding one’s own business” are stronger than ever. Not so long time go, Soviet communism was a threat to western democracy. It’s not just about the democratic right to choose between two absurdly similar political parties. During cold war it was still uncertain which vision (social or entrepreneurial) is economically and politically stronger and CIA was afraid of any stench of communism. When during 1980s the results of fiscal policy that rewards rich and successful people to become richer and able to buy anything on their way, it looked like the best idea in all human history. At least it brought the richest people ever in human history. One good idea from the past may be enough for a businessman to keep on becoming richer. Under right circumstances the first billion is more easily earned than the first million. With that billion in your hands you can control the situation no matter whether you understand the situation or not. Also, you can influence politics. At least this is how it works if the situation isn’t falling apart.

A small number of people control the world. Perhaps, out of billions of us, some people below the ever-increasing barrier have good ideas waiting to be heard. The rich people either haven’t paid enough to people who were helping them to reach the top or have had a brilliant idea or two. Maybe fiscal policy was on their side. The amount of money on their bank accounts doesn’t make them wiser or more intelligent. It’s not all about cash, but also about the way it flows in this ever-changing and limited world. Our attention span is painfully short. No matter how the situation looks like at the moment, we tend to believe that it will more or less remain the same. It won’t.

Aleksandar Malečić
290 days ago

During the wars in former Yugoslavia in 1990s, Croatian nationalists had their vision of the way to “solve the Serbian question” (a similar “Jewish question” was asked in Germany during World War II). Slobodan Milosevic wanted to strengthen his position as a national leader and the last thing he wanted was a rational reaction from Serbs to Croatian neo-fascism. Milosevic needed instability and violence.

What do the words written above have in common with monetary economy? Everything is for sale these days. If the people in charge are financially motivated (a legal form of corruption known as lobbying) to let you know only one part of the story, you will be forced by the propaganda to believe that Serbs are some kind of sub-human species that deserves anything, including genocide and ethnical cleansing (Croatia, Kosovo and partially Bosnia and Herzegovina). The worst war crime in Europe after World War II wasn’t killing of disarmed Bosniak (Muslim) soldiers in Srebrenica. It indeed was a crime, but not the heaviest one. Srebrenica was an inappropriate revenge for unselectively (including women, children and old people) killed Serbs in villages near Srebrenica. The people in charge (your politicians and journalists) were paid to be silent about the whole story. You are not supposed to know too much about people killing other people in Africa. Neither side has enough money in funds for buying their side of the story.

The new economy is an economy of networks. If you used only one word to describe the old economy, it would be “money”. If you used one word to describe the new economy, it would be “network”. As long no one can arrest you, you can use money to buy and sell anything. If you financially support political campaigns, you won’t be willing to pay taxes. When you buy a politician, you also buy the story about “job creators” (discustingly rich people who are supposed to be richer after every crisis caused by them). Once a bankruptcy happens, are people supposed to stop working properly? Communities and networks (degrees of separation between people, complicated relations between causes and effects, collective behaviour) are older than any monetary scheme or trick (becoming rich while producing nothing). I guess that networks as a carrier of the nonmonetary economy will never be enough efficient, fast to react and sophisticated, but they are the best addition to the monetary economy I can think of at the moment. We can’t try nothing and expect results. Look around you. There might be an important nod for your social network.

The life won’t stop if the economic crisis skyrockets. Your willingness to live and look for a solution might stop, but that’s another story. As long as I breathe, I shall have reasons to keep on trying. We are in the middle of a tectonic change that happens once in millennia. Any revolution that eats a single child isn’t positive. The world will soon (within a single human lifetime) become flat (the book “The World Is Flat” by Thomas Friedman), complicated beyond belief or both. The monetary economy will (like a computer program or machine) keep on moving along its predestined path on which slaves produce food. The future partially depends on our understanding of ad hoc activities and informal communities. They have been among us all the time. The whole world can’t be packed into statistics and numbers.

Aleksandar Malečić
220 days ago

Are the rich people who are ignoring the protests in Wall Street bad and evil people? Since they've started to understand words spoken by their baby boom parents, profit maximization was served to them as the only purpose of life. If you want to be popular, successful and sexy, all you need is to maximize profit.

Aleksandar Malečić
203 days ago

You have some opinion about Julian Assange and Wikileaks. If your opinion is negative, I hope you can still sympathize with this comment. Let's suppose that your hero disagrees with some aspects of the System. The System is a structure with an unquestionable background. You are not supposed to debate too much about the real nature of the System, especially if you have been brainwashed to call it democratic. The component of the System developed for online monetary transactions can treat (after an agreement from the top of political and financial hierarchy) anyone as an outcast. People who criticize foreign Systems are dissidents and those who criticize "our" System are betrayers.

And you can't do anything about it.

Aleksandar Malečić
195 days ago

As "developed" countries are losing momentum, who is supposed to lead us to a hopefully sustainable future? There are 7 billion of us.

Aleksandar Malečić
152 days ago

Without an entirely different collective mindset, we'll never be capable to protect the environment. Forests and their inhabitants are as much important for carbon capture and storage (CCS, carbon sequestration) as reduced emissions from vehicles, houses, and industry. Without stronger communities and different role models there will never be enough money needed to prevent or fix the damage.

Ignoring the herd mentality is just the first step.

Aleksandar Malečić
122 days ago

Is there such a thing as nonmonetary economy or is it just some hippie nonsense? Nonmonetary economy is as much real as the monetary one. Animals live just fine with it. Friends and functional families and neighbourhoods are actually nonmonetary economy in action. It's all about doing the right thing at the right time. If you don't do it, economy (monetary and nonmonetary alike) will face a crisis and eventually collapse. Also, even in the monetary worldview there are different approaches, such as microcredits and participatory economics. Even if the monetary part of the world falls apart, no one can take away from you your head, hands, and connections.

Don't let yourself be blindly swallowed by your herd. The fact there are more people accepting the status quo (even when the "status quo" is going through some bizarre crises and changes) as the only reality doesn't mean you are wrong.

Aleksandar Malečić
11 days ago

In the world as we know it, there is a widening gap between rich and poor people. If you want to be on the rich side (it would be nice since being rich means you financially control natural resources, especially in times of financial and resources crises), you will have more chances to achieve such a goal if you produce - nothing. Even when we must do something about overpopulation (human population will violently or voluntarily stop growing sooner than we are mentally prepared), new technologies for renewable energy, recycling and networking, thin air (not clean air) is still high on the list of priorities in global economy and it's still going up.

Don't let anyone think instead of you.