Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Matthew Slater's avatar

There's a whole in the argument as described on this page because if as you say, "This money isn't spent.", then there's no need to seed the pool with money in the first place.

Here's another idea. What if you could seed the pool with the physical 'means of production'. This too would not be spent, but would be available to the whole community to produce wealth.

It would be interesting to imagine a 'designed' economy - a group of hand-picked people who collectively have all the skills needed for their dignified human sustenance. Seed the pool with the means of production, and some kind of governance of course, and they could obtain a high degree of self-sufficiency i.e. economic freedom!

Expand full comment
Nomad Dad's avatar

I like consequence more than the word cost. Granted economics is seeded into the origin story of your work... I decline.

I hear in your work, "how do we bypass systems of control, extraction, debased health, etc (the commons)." In otherwords, we can do better than ourselves than the 'betters' that presuppose to act in our best interests and fail due to commonly known systemic failures (oligarchy, greed, external locus of control on a national level).

My questions....

Is this system scalable so that it can be individually and autonomously governed at a local or regional level, bypassing old world domination style hierarchies?

What is the emotional resonance of the system you are proposing?

What is are the qualities of money, does money want to be aligned with rebirth or stuck in creating harm?

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts