The biggest Ponzi scheme of them all (hint, it's not Madoff's).

[JohnyCanuck]

The Ponzi Scheme As Way of Life
By Sharon Astyk

SNIP

Madoff may be a criminal, but he’s a criminal in large part because he’s engaging in a particular form of ponzi scheme that we look down upon, one small enough to be called illegal. In general, we’re pretty comfortable with ponzi models -we live, quite happily, in a ponzi economy, one in which the concept of perpetual economic growth is sold, divvied up again and resold. We live in a Ponzi ecology where we borrow constantly against the future to pay for our present affluence.

Is this truly a Ponzi scheme? I think the answer is yes - a Ponzi scheme never really generates new wealth, it simply relies on a constant stream of new money. And since the eco-Ponzi economy relies most of all on reducing the capacity of future generations to live well - because natural resources and associated wealth are already drawn down, I think that it does meet the criteria at both the economic and ecological levels.

SNIP

And of course we’ve got the best possible reason for this - we’re in a crisis. There’s always a good reason for taking just a little more of what belongs to the future - to bring people out of poverty, to resolve this or that crisis. Of course, the crisis was caused by borrowing against our children’s inheritence of natural resources, but more of the same is now necessary. A good Ponzi scheme always needs new investors - and if none are going to volunteer, well, let’s volunteer them. We’ll use the to prop up the stock market and today’s version of the Roman chariot business.

Our ecology and our economy all fundamentally are built on a Ponzi scheme in which we can never make enough to keep up - we are always losing ground, always having to steal from further down the line of our posterity. At the same time, we justify their forcible participation in this speculation by saying that we are protecting them - we have to protect them from a Depression, so it is worth risking their future. But, of course, if you actually care about your children and grandchildren, you don’t ask them to make sacrifices you aren’t prepared to make. Fundamentally, we’re covering our own asses, and asking our kids to do it for us.

http://sharonastyk.com/2008/12/19/the-ponzi-scheme-as-way-of-life/

A thought for the day from http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEFAQs.html#anchor_84

Remember: to think there is no limit to growth on a finite planet is precisely, mathematically equivalent to thinking that you may have a stabilized, steady state economy on a perpetually shrinking planet. Both claims are precisely, equally ludicrous!

[annabanana]

1. Capitalism is all Ponzi...

It's just writ so large that we can't usually see it. Like all those years assuming that the Earth was flat..

[JohnyCanuck]

12. Neoclassical economics based on invalid application of an outdated 19th century physics theory.

From an article, Brother Can You Spare Me a Planet? by Robert Nadeau, posted on Scientific American's web site:

The Origins of Neoclassical Economic Theory

In economics textbooks, the 19th-century creators of the economic theory now used by mainstream economists (Stanley Jevons, Leon Walras, Maria Edgeworth and Vilfredo Pareto) are credited with transforming the study of economics into a rigorously mathematical scientific discipline. There are, however, no mentions in these textbooks, or in all but a few books on the history of economic thought, of a rather salient fact: The progenitors of neoclassical economics, all of whom were trained as engineers, developed their theories by substituting economic variables derived from classical economics for physical variables in the equations of a soon-to-be outmoded mid–19th century theory in physics. (2)

The physics that the economists used as the template for their theories was developed from the 1840s to the 1860s. During this period, physicists responded to the inability of Newtonian mechanics to account for the phenomena of heat, light and electricity with a profusion of hypotheses about matter and forces. In 1847 Hermann-Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz, one of the best known and most widely respected physicists at this time, posited the existence of a field of energy that could unify these phenomena. This proposal served as a catalyst for a movement called "energetics" in which physicists attempted to explain very diverse physical phenomena in terms of a vaguely defined protean field of energy that fills all space.

The strategy used by the creators of neoclassical economics was as simple as it was absurd—the economists copied the physics equations and changed the names of the variables. In the resulting mathematical formalism, utility becomes synonymous with the amorphous field of energy described in the equations taken from the physics, and the sum of utility and expenditure, like the sum of potential and kinetic energy in the physical equations, is conserved. Forces associated with the field of utility (or, in physics, energy) allegedly determine prices, and spatial coordinates correspond with quantities of goods. Because the physical system described in the equations of the theory in physics is closed, the economists were obliged to assume that the market system described in their theory is also closed. And because the sum of energy in the equations that describe the physical system is conserved, the economists were also obliged to assume that the sum of utility in a market system is also conserved.


In the mathematical formalism that resulted from these substitutions, economic actors allegedly operate within a field of force identified, in both figurative and literal terms, with energy. The natural laws of economics are assumed to operate within this field and to legislate over the decisions made by the economic actors. Because utility–energy in this mathematical formalism is conserved, the creators of neoclassical economic theory concluded that production and consumption are physically neutral processes that do not alter the sum of utility. And this conclusion became the basis for the claim that capital circulates in a closed loop from production and consumption and that the value of any good, commodity or service can only be determined by decisions made by economic actors. The creators of neoclassical economic theory also failed to realize or chose to ignore the fact that market systems are not closed and the conservation principle is quite meaningless in any real economic process. Nevertheless, these assumptions are now used to legitimate the existence of the invisible hand in its current form in the neoclassical economic paradigm—constrained maximization in general equilibrium theory.

SNIP

Several well-known mid–19th century scientists told the economists that there was no basis for substituting economic variables for physical variables in the equations of the theory in physics. But the economists did not appreciate how devastating this criticism was and proceeded to claim that they had transformed the study of economics into a scientific discipline comparable to physics. In what is surely one of the strangest chapters in the history of Western thought, the origins of neoclassical economics were forgotten, the claim that neoclassical economic theory is scientific was almost universally accepted, and subsequent generations of economists disguised the existence of the unscientific axiomatic assumptions in this theory under an increasingly complex maze of mathematical formalism.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=brother-can-you-spare-me-a-planet

[MisterP]

28. neat: that's what Marx rapped in classical economists: that they relied far more

on miracles than any cult, positing supernatural "laws" of economics that dealt harshly with deviance--rather than Marx's view of thousands of mortal humans acting and interacting
if you look at Latin American historians like Pamela Voekel, David J. Weber, or Juan Pedro Viqueira Albán (following in Foucault's footsteps) saw the Enlightenment as a vicious new elitism, dressed up in unimpeachable "empirical" justifications against "superstition," "the masses," and nomads
this article reminded me the most of http://www.borders.com/online/store/TitleDetail?sku=0809095068">The Great Delusion: A Mad Inventor, Death in the Tropics, and the Utopian Origins of Economic Growth[/i>]

[libertypirate]

40. No Capitalism is not a ponzi scheme - the Federal Reserve is

Capitalism should be regarded as the free flow of capital towards growth. You can call fascism capitalism until the cows come home, it's putting lipstick on a Palin.

Money didn't grow on loans until the privately owned federal reserve bank came to exist.

To call monopolized wealth capitalism is a joke, because capital driven markets abhor such freedom limiting feudalism.

[Greyhound]

2. The inevitable corrosive effect of interest. No new money is created to cover the

usury, therefore lenders eventually own everything.

And yes, the fractional reserve central banking system is the very definition of a Ponzi scheme, replacing the necessary and rational system of currency with a pyramid that is dependent on a constant and ever increasing flow into the bottom to continue the payoffs at the top. When the flow slows or stops it collapses as we have, and are, seeing.

[formercia]

3. Usury is not a Christian value

then why do these Xtians defend the capitalist system?

Ah, yes, selective interpretation again.

[Irish Girl]

6. I agree .. and what happened to Jubilee?

This is coming from someone who has no debt whatsoever. But why do we as a Christian nation love usury and are so against the concept of Jubilee?

The concept of the Jubilee is a special year of remission of sins and universal pardon. In the Biblical book of Leviticus, a Jubilee year is mentioned to occur every fifty years, in which slaves and prisoners would be freed, debts would be forgiven and the mercies of God would be particularly manifest.

[truedelphi]

19. We have Jubilee all the time - unfortuantely it is for the top

Two per cent of all Bank Owners, as opposed to the biblical concept of being for those enslaved by the debts they owe to the lenders. <sigh>

[BR_Parkway]

7. The same reason that it's gays, not divorce,that is destroying marriage

they see what they want to see, to keep getting what they want to get.

[surrealAmerican]

9. ... and as opposed to things like homosexuality and birth control, ...

... the bible does go into much detail about the evils of lending money.

[tama]

22. Because

they are not real christians. Just worshippers of Mammon.

[JohnyCanuck]

5. As explained in the video "Money As Debt."

Watch it here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&hl=en

Elizabeth Kucinich on the video "Money As Debt":

"I have worked for a long time looking into monetary reform and after 10 years, finally someone has produced a DVD entitled "Money as Debt". It is a fabulous fun yet powerful introduction to the issue of monetary reform. It's the best over view I have seen so far; the best by far. ESSENTIAL! Everyone should watch it!

The topic of DebtMoney is THE issue of our times. It forms the basis to every nation's areas of core material and spiritual concerns such as economic development, employment and environmental sustainability.

If only government officials, civil society organizations, environmental groups, unions and well meaning international development strategists trying to eradicate poverty really understood this topic... the world would be a much better place.

www.moneyasdebt.net (click on the "reviews" button)

[Greyhound]

13. I liked that one, accurate enough to get the basic ideas across.

without putting the average American Idol fan into a coma.
:kick:

[anigbrowl]

15. Wrong

Of course new money is created.



The trick in central banking is not to create money too much faster than the increase in productivity due to technology + demographic growth, so as to avoid excess currency inflation. It is not all a Ponzi scheme, because in a real economy wealth is created through the application of labor and knowledge.

Ponzi scheme, I invite people to give me $1000 and pay back $1500 in three months. This will keep 'working' as long as the growth rate of new 'investors' exceeds 50% per quarter; as soon as it falls below that, it's time for me to cash out and flee to someplace without an extradition treaty. The essence of the Ponzi scheme is that I never invest the cash on anything, I depend SOLELY on incoming deposits to pay outgoing liabilities.

But if you borrow money to invest in a business which makes a profit, then you are creating wealth whether you're running Google Mark II or baking and selling pies. The fact that the money is also lent against expectations of future returns does NOT make it a Ponzi scheme. Every time this ridiculous charge is made, it de-legitimizes valid criticisms of the banking system.

[truedelphi]

20. So think about this:

You say:
"The trick in central banking is not to create money too much faster than the increase in productivity due to technology + demographic growth, so as to avoid excess currency inflation."

But the fact of the matter is that the Ponzi schene created circa 1990 to Sept 2008 through the over extension of SIV's and Credit Default Swaps now swamp the monetary system. Since Aug 2007, the USA has given, lent, and guaranteed over 8 Trillion dollars of "BailOut" monies to the central banks.

Unfortunately, over 181 Trillion dollars of derivative losses are on the books here. So we would have to offer 1900% what we have already offered to clear up this mess.

At this point each man woman and child owes between $ 25,000 to $ 50,000 based on the "BailOut" figures being 8.8 Trillion dollars. (It is not possible to say how much each person really owes as some of the "BailOut" is loans and there is a slight chance that some of the monies we loan will be spent by Paulson on financial entities that might offer We the Taxpayers a chance to recoup a partial investment.)

In even conceiving of having a BailOut to compensate for such a massive Ponzi scheme, there is nothing else that can happen but for the creation of far far too much money at far too fast a rate for the realization of some offsetting factor which formerly might have occurred due to some increase in technology and demographic growth, etc.

In fact, as I type this, much of the technological world is shutting down. Capital is non-existent -so if your new company were about to invent the new light bulb, chances are you will be in foreclosure long before the product goes out the door.

Some big entities like MicroSoft won't have to worry, but even they are facing hard times. People losing their homes do not buy new software or computers.

Of course, we still are the strongest military force in the World, so maybe we could just blow up the major capitals of the rest of the world before they start ignoring our needs for their capital. Given that we could not conquer a nation whose standing army had been decimated by Our forces some ten years earlier, I'm not counting on even that far-fetched plan to have any success.

[anigbrowl]

21. I didn't say there was nothing wrong with the financial system

I'm just pointing out that the concept of lending money at interest in a fractional reserve system is not a ponzi scheme. It's a fashionable phrase to throw around, not least because if you've lost money you don't really care why as much as about the fact that you've lost it. Nevertheless, there is a difference. I am NOT endorsing the the current state of the financial sector, which i think has been woefully bad at risk management.

Incidentally, as regards credit default swaps, it is worth bearing in mind that a lot of these and other derivatives cancel each other out. The total size of the market is not the same as the total liability.

[tama]

23. Well it is

any system requiring continues growth - as any system based on usury is by nature (very simple math) - needs continuously increasing flow of energy to keep it growing. A Ponzi system by definition. Cf. cancer.

[truedelphi]

25. He's also not remembering the posts he made telling us how

Necessary the 700 billion dollar bailout was.

It was titled something like "Anti Bailout people, your realitycheck is in the mail."

At the time the big banks had plenty of liquidity - they just wanted to pretend that they didn't.

And it worked well for them, didn't it?

Though not so good for you and me, the tax payer.

Furthermore, not even my "reality check" arrived!!

[anigbrowl]

27. Not at all. I did indeed think it was necessary..

..and while I also think that the banks have been sitting on far too much of the capital and in some cases misusing it, spreads have come down somewhat and the rate of bank failures has slowed as well. I am glad the payment system didn't collapse completely.

none of which alters the fact that lending money at interest does not fit the definition for a Ponzi scheme.

[truedelphi]

29. If greed, market controlled bubbles and Ponzi schemes did not exist, than your theory that

"none of which alters the fact that lending money at interest does not fit the definition for a Ponzi scheme" wouldhold true.

But since greed, bubbles and ponzi schemes exist, then your cental tenet concerning Ponzi schemes is irrelevant.

[anigbrowl]

35. That doesn't even mean anything.

[anigbrowl]

26. (eyeroll) so you're saying that profit is an impossible concept

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Economic growth = increase in goods and services people want to buy. Borrow money; open bake shop; sell pies; pay off loan; profit. The growth stems from the time and expertise you put into baking pies (or whatever).

[tama]

30. Read what I said

if you are unable to understand most simple logic, then I can't help.

[anigbrowl]

36. I did, it's clear you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is

And are possibly not too clear on economic growth either. Your argument assumes economic growth never has any tangible gain, such as the production of a house or some valuable commodity. Of course continuous growth is possible as long as the population continues to increase and innovation takes place. Your argument might make sense in a closed and purely resource-based economy in which no new technology was ever developed. We don't live in such a world.

[tama]

37. We do and it's called Earth

and what this Ponzi scheme called global capitalism is doing is sucking up everything, undermining its own carrying capacity - what do you call a guy who is sawing of the branch he's sitting on in order to "profit" from natural resources?

[anigbrowl]

43. No we don't. Our economy is not purely resource based, at all.

Simple example: you pay someone for a back massage. No resources are destroyed in the process, but a value is created: your back feels better than it did before.

Meanwhile, some resources are limited. Some are so abundant as to be effectively unlimited (eg sand), and others are renewable. further, resources can be used more efficiently through application of technology. Human knowledge doesn't get consumed as it is used, it accumulates as long as we perform research and innovate. The information you can look up quickly via Google has a cost, insofar as their servers need resources to build an electricity to run, but it's a fraction of what it would cost to put that same information at everyone's disposal by building huge libraries everywhere.

[tama]

44. Good massage

makes life feel better, but why or anyone else should pay for it, when we can do it to each other? Money is like too much wanking, it makes you blind. ;-)

All complex systems with metabolism to grow and sustain feed on energy in some form or other. As there is only limited amount of energy available, it is thermodynamically closed system and the second law applies.

[anigbrowl]

46. It's not a thermodynamically closed system

Think about it. And even if it was, you would still be able to innovate and thus increase your efficiency.

[tama]

51. For all practical purposes

yes it is - the amount of solar energy coming in is relatively constant. And as for technological innovation and efficiency, law of minimun and law of diminishing returns apply. That's the big picture.

As for small picture of near future, for all practical purposes PO means it's over.

[Greyhound]

31. Did not say that new money is not created, it is. Every time a "loan" is made

through a bank the principle is created (minus the reserve of 1%). What is not created is the money to pay the usury they charge on the loan.

So, we borrow $100,000, $1,000 of the bank's funds are reserved (sort of loaned but it much more complicated than that) and $99,000 that never before existed comes into being (giving the lie to the bank's "risk"), but the (say)5% interest being charged on that loan is not created and that comes directly out of the borrower's assets/labor/profits. Compounded over time this results in a huge and constant drain, thus requiring the constant creation of new loans to provide assets to allow the payment of that constant drain. and it drains to where? The banks.

Thus, it is a form of Ponzi scheme. The banks charge an accumulating fee to loan that which they do not own and their risk is limited to the 1% reserve, which is the first money collected so even that is an insignificant, very short-term, risk and the actual costs of tracking the debit and credits are, likewise, insignificant. Without constant growth, the system cannot sustain.

[anigbrowl]

38. Greyhound, this makes no sense

for one thing, no bank leverages its deposits by a factor of 100. Reserve requirements vary between 5 and 10% of the funds under management. The bank still has risk because the performance of the loan goes on their books and reduces their available reserve.

Yes, the 5% (or whatever) interest comes out of the borrower's profits. This is not a huge and constant drain at all unless interest rates are very high. Generally, it's economical for the borrower to take money from the bank, put it to work, and make more than the interest payments over the lifetime of the loan.

Suppose you want to start a plumbing business and are suitably qualified etc. You need a van and whatever tools it is that plumbers use, rooters and things; also overhead like phone, advertising and so on. You could work at something else and save up all the money you need, but this would take quite a while. Or you could borrow money from the bank and get straight to the plumbing. So you get the bank (or whoever) to loan you $100,000 at some rate of interest and you pay some interest on this, let's say you pay back $18,000 a year for 10 years. Well, the cost of the money is $8000 p/a (the principle is beside the point because you would have had to spend that anyway to get started even if you had it in cash). But if you can make a steady $68,000 a year you're clearing $50k minus your overhead.

The whole point of borrowing the money is that you expect to be able to make more with it than you will have to pay the bank for borrowing it. Making money requires both labor AND capital to get started. Even if you're just a ditch digger who owns his own shovel, your shovel is your capital. That's the difference between running a business and just earning a wage - you own the means the means of production, whatever they happen to be for your business. If you don't start out wealthy, then you borrow the money you need to produce your good or deliver your service.

Who is this 'huge and constant drain' you mention happening to? Not the bank, they're taking in money from interest payments. Not the borrower, unless they're foolhardy enough to take out a loan bigger than their ability to repay. Not to the depositors, who are being paid part of the interest (minus the banks' operating expenses plus profit) on their deposits. It's not a ponzi scheme no matter how you slice it, because the money is being invested in the purchase of actual assets which in turn provide actual value. Even when someone buys a house, which doesn't generate cash directly (unless you get a real estate bubble) there's still a resultant value because you can live in it, for which you would otherwise pay rent.

In a ponzi scheme the money is never invested in anything. In fact, that is its defining characteristic.

[JackRiddler]

49. The question is how much debt does this constantly growing money supply bear?

Insofar as the supply is generated through the creation of debt, and insofar as debt carries interest, the debt involved in creating all this M will always be bigger than the M. Insofar as the further generation of debt is allowed through casino instruments like credit default swaps, you end up with the debt being a large multiple of the M, and therefore unpayable.

(The other question you have to ask as this M accumulates is, who actually has it? If it's sufficiently concentrated in few hands, it's not being spent on the kinds of things that enrich the consumer society. Debt is the instrument most effective at concentrating the M in the fewest hands.)

[truedelphi]

16. So many of us knew that, and part of the proof was in how the "Powers that Be"

Controlled the discussion of our national economy by altering the vocabulary surrounding the discussion of economic issues.

Local job creation and tariffs were always considered important concepts. So the bastardization of Milton Friendman's "Supply Side" theory came into being. Then and there the discussion's vocablualry was Altered. Mentioning "jobs" or "tariffs" was quite passe - only morons referred to those outmoded concepts.

Instead, it became all all about how strong an economy could be if the cheap goods were eternally made available. And when somebody mentioned jobs being needed to obtain those goods, the answer was equity mortgages on our homes, and credit cards in the mail so we could buy anything we thought we needed even though our incomes did not match our need.

Meanwhile, NAFTA and Globalization made more and more people passe. We held on as a consumer society until finally the house of cards came crashing down.

[Irish Girl]

4. ..

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. A Ponzi scheme is the ultimate redistribution of wealth.

[surrealAmerican]

10. Of course, the problem with ponzi schemes is ...

... that they all eventually collapse. If there were an orderly way to replace them, the current crisis, and the one that we are building toward, could be avoided.

[Greyhound]

14. There is (I think) and the system is already in place.

Since the entire global currency and banking system is now entirely fiat and controlled through the various central banks, we could convert in a very short time to a new system backed, not by promises or resources the quantity of which are variable (i.e. precious metals), but by an absolute and universal constant, time.

Each nation can call their currency whatever they wish, but the value is set and immutable. An hour in America is equal to an hour in Botswana so the USD is in fact equal to the Pula is equal to the Bolíva is equal to the Ruble.

[truedelphi]

17. o-o-h I like that. n/t

[Greyhound]

34. Take a look at #32 I would be interested in any feedback you might have. n/t

[tama]

24. Money is time?

Monetize time?

So, no more taking of time to idle, love, celebrate, just to be...

[Greyhound]

32. Not at all, rather a revaluing and more accurate reflection of true costs.

If you examine this closely you will find that we are spending far more than half our time laboring to finance the existence of the parasite class, which is why I refer to them as such.

Many things we currently view as cheap would become far more expensive, meaning requiring more time to produce than is currently paid, and other things currently highly valued, such as managing the system of production would become very inexpensive indeed.

The two biggest drawbacks to this system are that it becomes nearly impossible to hide or push off the true costs of production, and it would be nearly impossible to accumulate vast wealth since all people's lives become equal in value.

There is far more to it than I've presented here, most notably the natural resources that are the root of most of what we value but pay for by stealing it from others and ourselves, but this is the basic concept.

[truedelphi]

45. Okay here is one question - are all hours going tobe valued equally??

I have nothng against having many of the current crop< of "CEOs" getting the same amount per hour as does a seamsteess in a sweatshop, but some positions (I think) are deserving of more pay.[br />
IF you take the time to learn a skill and do it well, then shouldn't you receive a rewward for that?

[Selatius]

47. That was the only variable that was hard to define in the concept of "labor notes."

For instance, if you cleaned out somebody's septic tank for an hour, is that hour's labor equivalent to cutting someone's lawn with a lawnmower for an hour?

The stores that experimented with the idea of "labor notes" set up a market where people would list the local rates they would accept for certain types of work and also list things that need to be done or wanted done, say the painting of a house. For example, cleaning out a septic tank for one hour would be worth, say, five hours of mowing lawns in the prevailing local market. If you wanted somebody to mow your lawn and were the person who cleaned out a septic tank, you could use 1/5th of the labor note you have to purchase 1 hour of somebody else mowing your lawn.

A good example is found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_note

[Greyhound]

48. Yes. This or some other alternative currency system requires a change in

motivation and world view, replacing the profit motive with an understanding that all lives are inherently valuable to the person who's life it is. We have all been thoroughly indoctrinated to equate a currency system with finance. This is only so because we believe or accept it to be, there is no longer any fundamental truth that dictates it must be so.

This type of system provides a dual benefit, true equality and eliminating the motive for going into some field or profession simply to make money. For example, the best doctors are those that go into medicine because they truly desire to be healers while the worst are those that go into medicine because it is a means to profit or because dad was a doctor and so on. I know it is hard to believe, but there are people that love to drive trash trucks or farm or build or... whatever is needed, there are people that enjoy doing it. I used the trash truck example because my dad is one of them, he really loved it and given the choice would have done it forever, but the way things are he had to go into management to make more money and hated it for years. Einstein developed the basis for his theory of relativity while working as clerk in the patent office. Teachers have to stop teaching and go into administration in order to better their lives. The examples are endless, but result in most people doing things they would rather not do for years until they die. You've heard the saying that "Nobody has ever, on their deathbed said, "I wish I'd spent more time at the office", well why is that?

I have done a wide variety of things in my life, I've been a janitor, sales creep, bartender, systems analyst, database architect, businessman, teacher, and student of the sciences, and what I've learned is that whatever you do requires skills and not everybody can do it. Could you, for example plant, tend, and harvest lettuce? Perhaps, but I know I could not, it is hard, labor intensive, time consuming, and boring beyond endurance, yet there are people for whom nothing could be better. Is the "born farmer" any less valuable to society than a fireman or a factory supervisor?

If we replaced the stick, from the proverbial carrot & stick, with an apple would that be such a bad thing? We have developed technology to the point where, honestly, most of us are useless baggage. We produce such abundance that there are sufficient resources to feed, clothe, and shelter the whole world. Further we have the ability to educate and provide the care and conveniences to free us from the daily struggle to survive. The fact that we don't is due to a lack of will, not scarcity as we are led to believe. What we cannot do, yet, is give the whole world a lifestyle of the rich and famous. Money as it is, or rather the perceived scarcity of money has become the stick.

OK, this went a little sideways, but I hope I have conveyed the premise. What do you think?

[truedelphi]

50. This is one of the few things that has restored myusual optimism.

What a great theory. I am loving it.

[Greyhound]

52. Thank you very much, that really means a lot to me. n/t

[Greyhound]

33. Sorry I forgot to address your original idea.

Sustenance requires very little of our time and this system would, I believe, allow the individual to value her limited time as she sees fit.

I, and I suspect you, would spend more of our time in that celebration of existence, while others will choose to spend most of theirs in pursuit of what floats their boat. The workaholic can still choose to put in 120 hours a week in order to gain more things or whatever, but could no longer require it of others.

[Hannah Bell]

39. If you don't know about these guys, you might be interested - similar thinking.

Today the average worker is approximately 400% more efficient than a worker in the 1950s. In just eleven hours a worker can produce the same amount of goods and services as someone working 40 hours in the 1950s. It also means that 400% more stuff as to be consumed or people will loose their jobs.

One potential solution that was implemented in 1933 by President Roosevelt during the great depression is to reduce the workweek from ten hours a day to eight hours a day. Instead of having a high unemployment rate, the work is shared so that more people can become employed.

Technological efficiency gives us a choice; we can either continue to work just as hard and exponentially consume and grow the economy, or we can translate those gains in efficiency into other more meaningful activities such as child rearing, education, arts and holding elected leaders accountable. It is not surprising to learn that countries that do have lower workweeks such as Norway, Holland and Germany are more egalitarian and have lower crime rates. This might be coincidental, but I suspect that when people have time to invest in other types of work besides trying to endlessly fill up landfills with junk, we create the opportunity for a healthier and wiser society.

In 1933 we changed from a 10 hour day to a 8 hour day. Maybe its now time to change to a 6 hour day.

http://www.worklessparty.org/

[Selatius]

41. France's socialist party instituted the 35-hr work week years back, but Sarkozy wants it repealed.

They may have already repealed it, but I need to check up on it. Sarko blames it as a contributing factor to high unemployment but whatever.

[Festivito]

11. Creative and ever so true. /nt

[truedelphi]

18. Thank you. ANd your sig line is truthful, as well. n/t

[KakistocracyHater]

42. an economy model based on an explosion is crap

I've been saying this for years, endless expansion is just unrealistic. A model based on a strong & steady goal is better, smartly filling in areas-places that are overlooked & someone finds a way to meet that need. An economic model based not on capital but on material elements; a clean watersystem, steady power sources, durable goods that do last-planned obsolescence is the bankrupt way. People will take vacations, will eat at restaurants, will buy things-why make vacuum cleaners that have to be replaced yearly? The corporations have to spend capitol on raw materials to make those crappy 'short product lifecycle' goods; stuff that falls apart is a sign of 3rd world direction, same with poisonous food.

[truedelphi]

53. One thing that has been said about Russians who locate to the USA -

They cannot believe how much waste we have. One guy wanted to refurbish old mattresses - he would find people abandonning mattresses outside their Browstones. Assuming it was done on a sunny clear day, he could not think of any reason not to take them to resell.

But no one produces any of the mattress springs, except for the manufacturer, who keeps them under lock and key.