We don't need money - we need food, water, shelter (including clothing), transportation, privacy, community, play/work, material, tools, education/training, etc. All we have comes from Earth, it's all given freely. Who's Earth? Our Earth! All of us, each and everyone, not just the few. Occupy Earth!
Coercion = persuasion. There is really no difference but degree. Both persuasion and coercion are a FAAAAAR cry from doing something out of the passion and joy of doing it, which is what Eisenstein is advocating. Internal motivation vs. external motivation. When we are internally motivated we are truly free to do it or not do it. When we are externally motivated, we are persuaded or coerced of the need to do something, and not truly free.
I've been wondering for years how we could replace the illogical, damaging growth economy. I think a solution that can't be easily explained to most people is likely to fail as too few would understand and be able to make an informed decision. The gift economy is a wonderful, life enhancing system that can be explained to almost anyone. This three minute film is a brilliant introduction. The same speaker has longer films on TH-cam for anyone who'd like to know more. Here is a way to stop using up ever more irreplaceable resources and to enhance our lives.
we are mostly afraid to venture outside the paradigm that we are used to even if it is already counter-intuitive and counterproductive as it is. People who are at the top of the growth economy do not want to change the game plan that they are excessively winning. Why would they like to?
When going shopping, i don't bring my own shopping cart. I borrow the one from the supermarket. Just like the library system. So this library system can be applied for tools, cars, houses and services. With todays ERP software you can track the supply and demand real time, like most of the biggest companies. And there are already some networks that share cars and tools. i personally do not need to own e.g. a car, i only want access to transportation.
Very true. Anything you can hold on to is like grabbing river-water with open hands: it'll stick for a time, then go back to the river. But the river isn't the same as it was and you end up with wet hands that eventually dry. If everything comes and goes, what is eternal?
I vote for an economy where money decays over time. The reverse of what we have today where money grows if left in a bank... This way everyone would have incentive to use their money as fast as possible, so not to loose value due to negative interests... This would make money into what they were ment to be; A Currency. A flowing trade tool, with no point in saving/hoarding massive amounts for yourself.......
Depends who you give too and what you give. Usually, people want something quite precise from you. Fortunately enough, not everybody wants the same thing.
Wouldn't a gold standard with 100 reserve banking accomplish the same goals without undermining private property and investment? End the Fed, end the wasteful consumption.
The problem is not about giving more or having more givers. The problem is related to the greed of the reciever. How can you fullfill (or it is better to call it "cure") the greed of the reciever by just giving more and more?!!
I'm obviously interested on the subject, but the concept of a gift economy seems to me like a huge failure at larger scales. In a small town people interact often, and know about each other, rather easily… but trade with another town is a whole different level… state and country levels are even worse. This is were barter and money/currency come from, to solve an actual problem. All I'm saying is we shouldn't dismiss and try to replace everything.
This is not my experience at all, working with co-ops and community gardens that involve dozens or sometimes a hundred families. Few of these people know each other at all (at first), yet things work quite well.
Besides you will only get something if you live in a community which has something to offer in return, which mens society will be building up in different classes, even more then today
Question your concept of reality, there is only a thin veneer between what we perceive and what is really happening. ie. Consumerism, economic growth/greed and unsustainability in a finite world, or what is being proposed here. eg. Why aren't we allowed to grow vegetables and fruit on our nature strips, ideally free due to abundance of sustainability?
Copyleft does much better during recession = increasingly good free software raising the bar, while commercial alternatives fail. Legal sharing & copying is new tech languages. Capitalism's singularity; creativity as the opposite of ownership. Copyleft hardware; Arduino, rep-rap, DIY CNC, thingiverse, most popular in high-tech, innovative & equal countries. Factories as public utilities; (public wikis make the orders). Great new market for capitalism to negate itself out of existence with.
I don't necessarily agree that YOU HAVE TO give to someone. That implies a flawed logical system, because you are forcing people. More like, you shouldn't care if someone gives back, just give him. Again even if he doesn't gift you back, you will still have a good impression in the community simply because of your faith in the action of gifting. Labeling people as selfish, will only fuel their selfishness - or even if selfishness actually exists (which fundamentally doesn't because people on a regular basis unintentionally do things for others without realizing), the idea/concept of selfishness if presented in this system, would only flood the overall goals of "gifting". Gifting by definition is not something that should necessarily be done for your own material benefit. In fact the search of material benefits is what is so toxic to society in this capitalist/consumerist age. People don't realize the role that our faith has on the universe. Faith is not simply a religious concept, but a fundamental force in our minds that MAKES US DO THINGS. People naturally are prone to do things that they find inner interests in and the ones who succeed are the ones that don't blabber on and question their capabilities, they simply feel the force of faith in the success of their actions. And so once they take the steps of doing the things they feel the need to do, the effects of their actions are almost guaranteed. And this is important when it comes to gift economy, because once someone starts giving things to others, it doesn't matter whether they will gift back, what matter Is the action in of itself. People who do it simply do it out of pure will and that will ultimately has an effect on the individuals and the environment they are in. And so the longer they do these things they will for sure inspire others to do the same.... and this is how the "system" will form. It doesn't matter whether there will be people who are selfish. That's the same as questioning your own capabilities and hence questioning the system that you willfully created. Questioning systems is what usually leads to their downfall. And I'm not saying that all questioning ultimately leads to negative consequences, however faith should be the biggest driving force of this economy. ((((Eisenstein))))
So rather than freeing up money from centeral authority and let the price system serve humanity you want to go back to stone age. yeah everyone will surely line up to do that.
Psychedelic drugs can seriously impair one's cognitive ability, even years after minimal to recreational use, as evidenced by Mr. Eisenstein. Currently the effects are irreversible. Discovering a cure would truly be a gift to humanity, and would make us all richer.
All I see is a lot of declarative statements and not much of a an actual framework. Statements like thing that we need are not paid and those that we don't are. That is clearly false as the market tells us what people want. How? They are willing to pay for that. Whether the currency is pound or kindnesses it makes no difference except money can be used outside a narrow community.
While I understand the sentiment that you need garbage collector more then a pop star this analysis is missing some crucial insights into how economy actually works. First is that most entertainers are not paid well only some are paid well, while garbage collectors are paid similar rates depending of location. Also garbage men utility is dependent on technology so it can service so many bins while music can be easily distributed in millions so a small contribution on a large scale adds up to big sums. And the most important thing is scarcity. Most people can be garbage collector while only some can be rock stars. I would bet that average wage of an engineer is higher then an average entertainer. Sure you have Taylor Swift but then again there are plenty Joe's playing in the local restaurants for pennies or for free.
First it is a problem with what would you define as capitalism. I would call myself a proponent of capitalism but in regards to organised system which protects an individual under the rule of law and creates competitive and free markets. You've managed different topics with the comment. 1. Illegal drugs are profitable as a result of their illegality. If drugs were legal more people would participate in the market without the risk of getting locked up. It would be more transparent and in my opinion safer. There wouldn't be the need for violence as you would be able to grow weed (example) legally. Al Capone made a lot of money because booze was illegal. The moment it became legal again it the violence stopped and interesting enough the alcohol consumption went down. This is well understood in economics as monopolies, oligopolies and perfect competition. 2. Slavery on a global scale is the lowest in the history of the world. It has to do less with economic systems then with progress on the moral and institutional scale. States protect individuals and the most dynamic economies don't have slavery at all (with exception of some cases of forced prostitution in Europe). 3. When it comes to salt and marketing humans are irrational beings. There is no denying that marketeers create value out of thin air and sometimes to the determent of consumers (knowing or not). We do have protections in place which fines false advertising. It is generally understood that we eat too much salt so you won't find that this practice is still in use. Now you have bigger problem with people like Dr. Oz who sell panaceas on TV which have no scientific merits while making loads of money. Still standard of living in modern capitalist societies as far as they are from perfect was and in better then the alternative systems that were in place. So still waiting for a viable alternative at this point. I'm not denying the disparity between people and it is often as a result of luck.
I would agree that it would be profitable. But safer as well. But why is that wrong? I know couple of garbage collectors and I wouldn't consider them poor. And they are not complaining nor trying to start a new business. They don't have to worry how they are going to adjust the business because of drastic exchange rate difference, increasing wages, flood in the shop, IT issues with server ... and in the end make sure everyone is paid and that the company doesn't go under. While they are sipping beer I still worry about these sort of stuff. So if they want to be paid more, they would need to start worrying and thinking about these sort of things. Makes sense?
Nothing in psychedelic research indicates this, so unfortunately your argument is totally subjective. Eisenstein if anything seems to be an above average human being in terms of cognitive ability, and all of his arguments were more than cogent to me. What if he's just a naturally shy person? In your view therefore, only the most gifted natural public speakers are not mentally dysfunctional.
So, he's a de-growth theorist. Good choice of words since "theorist" implies it's a theory that does not necessarily mean there's any evidence that it would work. On a small scale, what he's suggesting is just fine. I have neighbors who share a ride-on mower. Community gardens are nice when just a few households are involved. But in practice, this CANNOT work on a larger scale. As soon as you have to deal with someone you don't know and trust, the whole system breaks down. He's dreaming.
Maybe he's dreaming. I can see where you're coming from when it comes to doing it on the large scale. But maybe also human beings just get to work on our trust issues, being trustworthy individuals and being willing to get to know strangers better. Issues that one finds with a solution doesn't always mean the solution doesn't work it just means those issues need to be dealt with for the solution to work.
Are you advocating against the right to property and ownership? To say that a worker is being coerced by being paid(getting money) is a falsehood. Workers voluntarily choose the job and benefit from the pay and they own money that resulted from the work they have done. They are persuaded and there is a big difference between that and coercion.
"Money does not represent such a value as men have placed upon it." -Nikola Tesla
We don't need money - we need food, water, shelter (including clothing), transportation, privacy, community, play/work, material, tools, education/training, etc. All we have comes from Earth, it's all given freely. Who's Earth? Our Earth! All of us, each and everyone, not just the few. Occupy Earth!
Yes, this is the truth we don't want to face! 🙏
Coercion = persuasion. There is really no difference but degree. Both persuasion and coercion are a FAAAAAR cry from doing something out of the passion and joy of doing it, which is what Eisenstein is advocating.
Internal motivation vs. external motivation. When we are internally motivated we are truly free to do it or not do it. When we are externally motivated, we are persuaded or coerced of the need to do something, and not truly free.
Damn, I would be rich in a gift economy, not pissed off and poor like in this broken system.
I've been wondering for years how we could replace the illogical, damaging growth economy. I think a solution that can't be easily explained to most people is likely to fail as too few would understand and be able to make an informed decision. The gift economy is a wonderful, life enhancing system that can be explained to almost anyone. This three minute film is a brilliant introduction. The same speaker has longer films on TH-cam for anyone who'd like to know more. Here is a way to stop using up ever more irreplaceable resources and to enhance our lives.
we are mostly afraid to venture outside the paradigm that we are used to even if it is already counter-intuitive and counterproductive as it is. People who are at the top of the growth economy do not want to change the game plan that they are excessively winning. Why would they like to?
@@santyasanuma8023yup!!
When going shopping, i don't bring my own shopping cart. I borrow the one from the supermarket. Just like the library system. So this library system can be applied for tools, cars, houses and services. With todays ERP software you can track the supply and demand real time, like most of the biggest companies. And there are already some networks that share cars and tools. i personally do not need to own e.g. a car, i only want access to transportation.
And everybody is nice enough to leave part of their detritus in the next shopping cart for you to dispose of.
Love, love, love this! And the phrase "de-growth." That's a great term.
Thank you Charles for being a pioneer in the field of living in the Gift x
Very true. Anything you can hold on to is like grabbing river-water with open hands: it'll stick for a time, then go back to the river. But the river isn't the same as it was and you end up with wet hands that eventually dry. If everything comes and goes, what is eternal?
Gio Bard Zero change. Change is eternal.
I vote for an economy where money decays over time. The reverse of what we have today where money grows if left in a bank... This way everyone would have incentive to use their money as fast as possible, so not to loose value due to negative interests... This would make money into what they were ment to be; A Currency. A flowing trade tool, with no point in saving/hoarding massive amounts for yourself.......
It is entirely feasible to know and trust a MUCH larger community than just a few households.
read his books, they are great!
This guy for president.
Depends who you give too and what you give. Usually, people want something quite precise from you. Fortunately enough, not everybody wants the same thing.
Wouldn't a gold standard with 100 reserve banking accomplish the same goals without undermining private property and investment? End the Fed, end the wasteful consumption.
The problem is not about giving more or having more givers. The problem is related to the greed of the reciever. How can you fullfill (or it is better to call it "cure") the greed of the reciever by just giving more and more?!!
I'm obviously interested on the subject, but the concept of a gift economy seems to me like a huge failure at larger scales. In a small town people interact often, and know about each other, rather easily… but trade with another town is a whole different level… state and country levels are even worse.
This is were barter and money/currency come from, to solve an actual problem. All I'm saying is we shouldn't dismiss and try to replace everything.
"Honor Sytem Economics"
I wonder why thought of this before of this before...
Great ideas for new economy💗
This is not my experience at all, working with co-ops and community gardens that involve dozens or sometimes a hundred families. Few of these people know each other at all (at first), yet things work quite well.
Besides you will only get something if you live in a community which has something to offer in return, which mens society will be building up in different classes, even more then today
Time banking is exchange economy , NOT gift economy.
Question your concept of reality, there is only a thin veneer between what we perceive and what is really happening.
ie. Consumerism, economic growth/greed and unsustainability in a finite world, or what is being proposed here.
eg. Why aren't we allowed to grow vegetables and fruit on our nature strips, ideally free due to abundance of sustainability?
Yes you are right, he is dreaming. And dreaming is why we now explore space.
Can i invite you to watch this clip of Dr. Robert Sapolsky /QZcTvFqzxA0
Copyleft does much better during recession = increasingly good free software raising the bar, while commercial alternatives fail.
Legal sharing & copying is new tech languages.
Capitalism's singularity; creativity as the opposite of ownership.
Copyleft hardware; Arduino, rep-rap, DIY CNC, thingiverse, most popular in high-tech, innovative & equal countries.
Factories as public utilities; (public wikis make the orders).
Great new market for capitalism to negate itself out of existence with.
We choose the job so we do not starve and even flipping burger jobs are hard to come by now, not much of a choice.
I don't necessarily agree that YOU HAVE TO give to someone. That implies a flawed logical system, because you are forcing people. More like, you shouldn't care if someone gives back, just give him. Again even if he doesn't gift you back, you will still have a good impression in the community simply because of your faith in the action of gifting. Labeling people as selfish, will only fuel their selfishness - or even if selfishness actually exists (which fundamentally doesn't because people on a regular basis unintentionally do things for others without realizing), the idea/concept of selfishness if presented in this system, would only flood the overall goals of "gifting". Gifting by definition is not something that should necessarily be done for your own material benefit. In fact the search of material benefits is what is so toxic to society in this capitalist/consumerist age.
People don't realize the role that our faith has on the universe. Faith is not simply a religious concept, but a fundamental force in our minds that MAKES US DO THINGS. People naturally are prone to do things that they find inner interests in and the ones who succeed are the ones that don't blabber on and question their capabilities, they simply feel the force of faith in the success of their actions. And so once they take the steps of doing the things they feel the need to do, the effects of their actions are almost guaranteed. And this is important when it comes to gift economy, because once someone starts giving things to others, it doesn't matter whether they will gift back, what matter Is the action in of itself. People who do it simply do it out of pure will and that will ultimately has an effect on the individuals and the environment they are in. And so the longer they do these things they will for sure inspire others to do the same.... and this is how the "system" will form.
It doesn't matter whether there will be people who are selfish. That's the same as questioning your own capabilities and hence questioning the system that you willfully created. Questioning systems is what usually leads to their downfall. And I'm not saying that all questioning ultimately leads to negative consequences, however faith should be the biggest driving force of this economy.
((((Eisenstein))))
no such thing as real ownership ... just long/short term leases/rentals.
Here is the reason why that would not work,
This sounds like Ascent of Humanity
So rather than freeing up money from centeral authority and let the price system serve humanity you want to go back to stone age. yeah everyone will surely line up to do that.
Psychedelic drugs can seriously impair one's cognitive ability, even years after minimal to recreational use, as evidenced by Mr. Eisenstein. Currently the effects are irreversible. Discovering a cure would truly be a gift to humanity, and would make us all richer.
All I see is a lot of declarative statements and not much of a an actual framework. Statements like thing that we need are not paid and those that we don't are. That is clearly false as the market tells us what people want. How? They are willing to pay for that. Whether the currency is pound or kindnesses it makes no difference except money can be used outside a narrow community.
While I understand the sentiment that you need garbage collector more then a pop star this analysis is missing some crucial insights into how economy actually works. First is that most entertainers are not paid well only some are paid well, while garbage collectors are paid similar rates depending of location. Also garbage men utility is dependent on technology so it can service so many bins while music can be easily distributed in millions so a small contribution on a large scale adds up to big sums. And the most important thing is scarcity. Most people can be garbage collector while only some can be rock stars. I would bet that average wage of an engineer is higher then an average entertainer. Sure you have Taylor Swift but then again there are plenty Joe's playing in the local restaurants for pennies or for free.
First it is a problem with what would you define as capitalism. I would call myself a proponent of capitalism but in regards to organised system which protects an individual under the rule of law and creates competitive and free markets.
You've managed different topics with the comment.
1. Illegal drugs are profitable as a result of their illegality. If drugs were legal more people would participate in the market without the risk of getting locked up. It would be more transparent and in my opinion safer. There wouldn't be the need for violence as you would be able to grow weed (example) legally. Al Capone made a lot of money because booze was illegal. The moment it became legal again it the violence stopped and interesting enough the alcohol consumption went down. This is well understood in economics as monopolies, oligopolies and perfect competition.
2. Slavery on a global scale is the lowest in the history of the world. It has to do less with economic systems then with progress on the moral and institutional scale. States protect individuals and the most dynamic economies don't have slavery at all (with exception of some cases of forced prostitution in Europe).
3. When it comes to salt and marketing humans are irrational beings. There is no denying that marketeers create value out of thin air and sometimes to the determent of consumers (knowing or not). We do have protections in place which fines false advertising. It is generally understood that we eat too much salt so you won't find that this practice is still in use. Now you have bigger problem with people like Dr. Oz who sell panaceas on TV which have no scientific merits while making loads of money. Still standard of living in modern capitalist societies as far as they are from perfect was and in better then the alternative systems that were in place. So still waiting for a viable alternative at this point. I'm not denying the disparity between people and it is often as a result of luck.
I would agree that it would be profitable. But safer as well. But why is that wrong?
I know couple of garbage collectors and I wouldn't consider them poor. And they are not complaining nor trying to start a new business. They don't have to worry how they are going to adjust the business because of drastic exchange rate difference, increasing wages, flood in the shop, IT issues with server ... and in the end make sure everyone is paid and that the company doesn't go under. While they are sipping beer I still worry about these sort of stuff. So if they want to be paid more, they would need to start worrying and thinking about these sort of things. Makes sense?
It sounds like an excellent idea only not possible to accomplish scince humans are to egocentric for that,
in America maybe but other cultural societies can still saved from this madness
Exactly @@santyasanuma8023
Not a bad idea, this could be a way to achieve socialism.
Nothing in psychedelic research indicates this, so unfortunately your argument is totally subjective. Eisenstein if anything seems to be an above average human being in terms of cognitive ability, and all of his arguments were more than cogent to me. What if he's just a naturally shy person? In your view therefore, only the most gifted natural public speakers are not mentally dysfunctional.
DMT the money system.
So, he's a de-growth theorist. Good choice of words since "theorist" implies it's a theory that does not necessarily mean there's any evidence that it would work.
On a small scale, what he's suggesting is just fine. I have neighbors who share a ride-on mower. Community gardens are nice when just a few households are involved. But in practice, this CANNOT work on a larger scale. As soon as you have to deal with someone you don't know and trust, the whole system breaks down. He's dreaming.
Maybe he's dreaming. I can see where you're coming from when it comes to doing it on the large scale. But maybe also human beings just get to work on our trust issues, being trustworthy individuals and being willing to get to know strangers better. Issues that one finds with a solution doesn't always mean the solution doesn't work it just means those issues need to be dealt with for the solution to work.
Mens=human (autotype)
Are you advocating against the right to property and ownership?
To say that a worker is being coerced by being paid(getting money) is a falsehood. Workers voluntarily choose the job and benefit from the pay and they own money that resulted from the work they have done. They are persuaded and there is a big difference between that and coercion.
I don't like his mouth for some reason