Competition vs Sharing as a Means of Distributing Resources and Wealth

[Caliphrepose]

PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO:
https://youtu.be/lNgbDE4RPco

Money is not the root of evil, though use of money employs the root mechanism that is responsible: Competition for Resources.

Though there are healthy forms of competition, competition for resources is NOT healthy. If you have ever watched nature videos, you will see that competition for resources is brutal, and down right barbaric.

Since we use a negative mechanism to distribute resources, there are negative effects, all over society. If we were to replace this negative mechanism with its opposite; Sharing, whish is a positive mechanism, it would rapidly solve all the worlds problems....Please watch my video to understand what I am educating people about.

[5th]

Yes, in principle this is ideal but it doesn't address the problem that people are self centred and many (most?) damaged to degree that they could never work this system. What would be the motivation to go work in that factory for 8 hours a day when you can get whatever you want without doing any work at all? Those altruistic enough to try and make this system work will forever be thinking whether it's fair that they do more work or harder work than others and yet get no extra benefits. Do you really think prostitutes will be happy giving out freebies because they know that food is free?

It's not just the system that is messed up, it's the people! As a society we create and attract the world in which we live and you can't change one unless they both change. From that point of view, you need to first have some magical way of creating ideal parents to raise ideal children who could actually implement a better system. Given the fact that what we accept as good parenting damages and traumatises us to the degree where we live in such an unfair and screwed up world, this is not going to happen because we unconsciously perpetuate the cycle of damaging our children. Perhaps this is slowly changing but the bottom line is that you can't change the world by trying to change the world - you need to change the people by having enlightened parents and an enlightened education system.

Nobody comes to power in this world unless they are severely damaged so how can you expect 'the powers that be' to do anything good? So, while your idea is good in theory it could never be implemented because it misses out a necessary step.

[Bo Atkinson]

I like your presentation, which is agreeable for the majority, but beyond just agreeing, there is the daunting task of totally overhauling everything in every life. It seems too overwhelming to unanimously commit everything in one’s hands to all others, for compatible sharing. When experience has stressed one and all, into the presently prescribed order, of this backward planet earth.

Fast-forwarding to the standstill, we see confused versions of reality. Rather, is there one true reality, or, are there multiple realities, all competing for dominance, some even providing loopholes for encroachment? Having the State agree on one reality for the one physicality we all live in, seems key. Laws currently fail to balance the rights, such that none encroach on the rights of others! Encroachment is a disorderly pileup, which needs full disclosure.

For those with a will to unity, here is a source of wisdom detailing all the basic issues. Here is one clip from many, free PDF downloads:

“…State capitalism will never be able to compete with private capitalism in efficiency and productivity. The state is suited, not to run business, nor to be a distributor or manager, but just to be an efficient auditor. One of its foremost tasks is to ensure that no class interest may have an opportunity of encroaching on the other ones.”
source: http://www.laurency.com/DVSe/ps1.pdf
1 EXOTERIC WORLD VIEW AND LIFE VIEW /
1.1 THE WILL TO UNITY /
1.23 Practical Politics

[Bill Ryan]

See also this thread:


Star Trek / End of money for society (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91187-Star-Trek-End-of-money-for-society)

This is the simplest version of how come we have money. It's hard to think of an effective, practical, workaround to this problem.

Read carefully. :)


I have a bunch of apples from my orchard.
You have a bunch of pears.
I want your pears, and you want my apples. So we swap. Not a problem.

But here's a different situation.


Now, our neighbor has potatoes... but they're not ready yet.
You want my apples, now. But I want the potatoes, later. And HE wants pears, which can be kept for him in a cold cellar.
So I give you my apples, now. But there's nothing anyone can give me right this moment.
So you give me a piece of paper instead, which I later give to the potato guy.
And I give you a piece of paper, too.
Those papers say:






You owe me a bunch of pears. When you give them to me, please give me the paper.
You owe me a bunch of potatoes. When you give them to me, please give me the paper.

That's what money is, and how it got started.

[norman]

That's what money is, and how it got started.







And then one says to the other, "How can I be sure this piece of paper is good, to your word?"


The other says to the one, "Don't worry it's backed up by that guy over there who will use his thugs to make sure it's good, to my word" . . . . . . .


And off we go down that long and wrong road . . . . .

[Bo Atkinson]

Now, our neighbor has potatoes... but they're not ready yet.
You want my apples, now. But I want the potatoes, later. And HE wants pears, which can be kept for him in a cold cellar.
So I give you my apples, now. But there's nothing anyone can give me right this moment.
So you give me a piece of paper instead, which I later give to the potato guy.
And I give you a piece of paper, too.
...

An additional point would be, that the nature of sowing and reaping, (causes and effects), is actually timeless. A mature culture would so ingrain the essence of unity, from generation to generation, that one would not need records of status, papers or money to assure anything. Abundance would come from the competition to produce abundance, instead of wasting job efforts of saving promises tangled up in market complexities. (I think the linked video covered this in other words).

[Bill Ryan]

Now, our neighbor has potatoes... but they're not ready yet.
You want my apples, now. But I want the potatoes, later. And HE wants pears, which can be kept for him in a cold cellar.
So I give you my apples, now. But there's nothing anyone can give me right this moment.
So you give me a piece of paper instead, which I later give to the potato guy.
And I give you a piece of paper, too.
...

An additional point would be, that the nature of sowing and reaping, (causes and effects), is actually timeless. A mature culture would so ingrain the essence of unity, from generation to generation, that one would not need records of status, papers or money to assure anything. Abundance would come from the competition to produce abundance, instead of wasting job efforts of saving promises tangled up in market complexities. (I think the linked video covered this in other words).

But you have to have records. Essentially, money is a record of an IOU. (Here are my apples, but your potatoes aren't ready yet. So please give me a paper IOU which says: "I owe you a bunch of potatoes.")

That's useful, in case you (the potato grower) deny, or forget, that I've given you apples already. And if you were to die, then I can take the IOU to your family and say "Hey, I'm very sad to hear that your potato growing Dad died, but I'm still owed a sack of potatoes. Here's the piece of paper he signed."

That "piece of paper" is a promissory note.

There's nothing wrong with any of this. The real issues kick in if I start charging interest.

Like: "If you don't give me my potatoes immediately, then I want an extra 10% of potatoes pro rata, for each year that goes by."

See the Money as Debt series on YouTube. The entire catalog is here. (It's a lot of material, very well done indeed)


https://youtube.com/user/PaulLWGrignon/videos


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nBPN-MKefA

[norman]

[/I]That "piece of paper" is a promissory note.

There's nothing wrong with any of this.[I][B] The real issues kick in if I start charging interest.



I'm not sure about that.


Ok, charging interest is predatory on insecurity and fear of insecurity, but I'd take that a step back and say that "trading" is an energetic opposite of positive sharing.


When we can 'bring and share', we can get out of the energetic loop that's perpetuating this stuff.

[Bill Ryan]

When we can 'bring and share', we can get out of the energetic loop that's perpetuating this stuff.

But we can't just 'bring and share'. That's the whole problem.

You live in the UK. I'm in Ecuador. So take the analogy further, considering global trade.

Say I grow pineapples here. You want some, and there are none in England. So I ship them to you. That means that I have to give something to the shipping company. Maybe they don't WANT pineapples. (They want diesel fuel, not fruit.) Then what?

And you have to give ME something. Maybe you can send me some Marmite. And then THAT needs to be shipped to ME.

Anyone doing work (like shipping) needs some compensation. So you offer them some Marmite, too. And they don't LIKE Marmite. :)

That's why we have pieces of paper as substitutes. Because they're interchangeable.

Pineapples = Marmite = Shipping costs (with an agreed rate of exchange).

[norman]

Yea, ok, I can see that it's an organisational nightmare but I insist that we must pay attention to the energies involved in our actions. Other than that, you "win" this round :)


Here's the challenge, if there are any geniuses reading. How do we live in an energy of sharing ( not trading, and all that goes with it ) without building the hive mind society that the brute force cowboys believe in ?

[Bo Atkinson]

But you have to have records. Essentially, money is a record of an IOU. (Here are my apples, but your potatoes aren't ready yet. So please give me a paper IOU which says: "I owe you a bunch of potatoes.")

...

Indeed we comply with rules of life and common sense. I’m not disrespecting ordinary, ongoing ways and means or rejecting written contracts. Up until we contract with unapproachable entities to buy default, required needs of life, which might be causing the pending ecocide. We tacitly sign the contracts which both advance and also ruin the earth, in complex ways. This motivates my support of enthusiastic unifying efforts.

In this thread, i’m probing what little i learn from the Pythagorens, who are working to encourage humans to make the next step forward, out of the pitfalls of our current world systems. They explain the higher system from where we come and go, as a completely unrecognizable system, compared to human conventions of living. Their teachings are hard to focus at first, but fit so well together, with time to study it all. Some personalities need thousands of incarnations to accept the path of unity (and step out of devolving paradigms).

At the root of human existence, (Pythagorean) Hylozoics says we engage in either repulsion or unity. Regardless of what we do or think, we engage either repulsion or unity or some extensively complex composite of these two. I love the holistic wonder of it all, as it fills my days with PDFs converted to MP3s, (to hear while physical laboring, mostly at no pay).

I might add that your forum here provides an excellent hub for the navigation through the difficulties of our time, towards a sense of unity.

[Caliphrepose]

I dont understand how the conversation changed into how bartering gave way to currency. Bartering, and money use the same mechanism, Competition. Competition for resources is an agreement that we are all working against one another. This agreement causes most of the broblems we have to deal with. I know it would be a monumental task to convince the world to share, but its the only solution to the problem. You cannot have a negative mechanism for distribution of resources and expect positive results. Please watch my video, and understand it, and lets continue this discussion. https://youtu.be/lNgbDE4RPco

[Caliphrepose]

This is still bartering. Sharing as a means of distribution, means there is no debts to pay. Please watch, understand, and I will be happy to elaborate if there are still questions.
https://youtu.be/lNgbDE4RPco

[Bill Ryan]

I dont understand how the conversation changed into how bartering gave way to currency. Bartering, and money use the same mechanism, Competition.

Bartering isn't win-lose competitive. It certainly doesn't have to be. In my simplistic model here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?103970-Jordan-Sather-goes-on-Comedy-Central-w-Jim-Jefferies-to-talk-QAnon&p=1244136#post1244136), about Pineapples, Marmite and Shipping costs, there's no competitive bartering. There's just agreement. ("If I give you this, will you do that? Hey, thanks, great.")

When I go to my local market in Ecuador, I always buy my fruit and veg at the asking price, whatever it is. I never try to bargain anything down.

That's just playing small. The vendors are good, honest people who need the income. And it's all very cheap, anyway. (Never forget: though by most first world standards I'm a pauper, compared to any Ecuadorian farmer, I'm rich.)

Even using money doesn't have to be competitive, in any way. You're a market trader, and have something to sell me, that I need? Wonderful, I'll buy it. We have a deal. I'm pleased, you're pleased. Everyone wins.

Competition is triggered by wanting to sell something rather than lose out to the other guy's sale — or buy something cheaper than the other guy's price. But it doesn't have to be like that — in theory.

In practice, though, it seems 100% impossible to eliminate without heavy, legal everyone-sells-at-the-same-price regulation. And that sounds like a Problem-Reaction-Solution scenario, another brick in the totalitarian control wall.

[onawah]

Good commentary here about sharing vs competition and gatekeeping information from Max Igan
W4h-Ir6zlF0

[hermit]

This is still bartering. Sharing as a means of distribution, means there is no debts to pay. Please watch, understand, and I will be happy to elaborate if there are still questions.
https://youtu.be/lNgbDE4RPco

What's the calculous to determine who gets what, and how much? And who creates that calculous?

And are you familiar with New Harmony?

*"Poverty and Wealth" by the late Dr. Ronald Nash. I think you might enjoy it. Good read.

[happyuk]

How about this as an alternative system - I have inklings of this heard elsewhere so this idea did not originate from my brain ;)

I have heard of exchange clubs in which each member gives some labour or service and receives a credit of a certain value, so that in place of currency, credits are exchanged. Example: a man goes to a doctor, and instead of paying the doctor with money, he gives him so many credits. The doctor then goes to the exchange club and exchanges these credits for labour to have his house painted. And so on.

Is there any good reason why such a system would not work, at least to a certain degree?

Everyone wants money. Unfortunately many are proud members of the something-for-nothing brigade and would rather not have to work for it. Man is always hoping to get something for nothing.

Unless all men work and appreciate the value of honest labour, there will always be inequities in the distribution of the world's capital. Work is beneficial to everybody. Lazy wealthy people - the "idle rich" - lose concern for others and become insensitive to the difficulties of those who must struggle to make a living. They become rude and unsympathetic. Selfishness is sometimes a curse of wealth.

On the plus side - although ambition to make money contains this potential for greed and selfishness, it can also be a noble impetus to self-development.

[Bill Ryan]

How about this as an alternative system - I have inklings of this heard elsewhere so this idea did not originate from my brain ;)

I have heard of exchange clubs in which each member gives some labour or service and receives a credit of a certain value, so that in place of currency, credits are exchanged. Example: a man goes to a doctor, and instead of paying the doctor with money, he gives him so many credits. The doctor then goes to the exchange club and exchanges these credits for labour to have his house painted. And so on.

Is there any good reason why such a system would not work, at least to a certain degree?

Yes, this can work really well locally, but it'd be almost impossible to implement globally. (Globally, one still needs exchangeable symbolic tokens of some kind. If I ship pineapples to Norman in England, he's not going to travel to Ecuador to paint my house or mend my car. :) )

Here's info about LETS (Local Exchange Trading Systems):


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_exchange_trading_system
https://letslinkuk.net
https://lets-linkup.com

(and many more)

[Foxie Loxie]

And I keep wondering....exactly what do the Clintons expect to DO with all the money that has flowed their way?! :noidea: Talk about a world wide crime syndicate!!

Time to read "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer! :cash::bigsmile:

[norman]

I dont understand how the conversation changed into how bartering gave way to currency. Bartering, and money use the same mechanism . . . . .





I completely agree with this part but I see it at an energetic level. I don't understand why you have to throw "competition" into it, because that takes us off down another wrong argument, in my opinion.


The competition argument becomes a "straw man" case that sets up the discussion wrongly framed for making real progress, again in my opinion.


It's logically competitive to be finding the best ideas and best solutions etc. Competition is in no way the right concept to define the opposite case to finding a way to live in a sharing energy. As I see it, it's an argument that comes from a faulty school of thinking, and gets in the way. It walks, quacks and talks political utopianism, and is quite scary from a personal sovereignty perspective.

[Bo Atkinson]

My writing here about unity, as it relates to sharing vs competition, is vague, hardly summarizing the source material at Laurency.com (books). They, (the esotericians and Pythagoreans), do map out the levels of existence, from earth, (a physically dense world), to higher realms of existence, (worlds with lighter work loads and more freedom, more sharing). While encouraging voluntary, human evolution upwards, to improve earth-life at very the least. They call this map a hypothesis, for humans to objectively try it (by developing more consciousness, including as a personal experience).

Evolution beyond the need of money or commerce is conventionally so far ahead of current worldly conventions, it is hard to discuss this topic directly. Yet there are extensive essays to see the steps of evolution ensuing. Example of preliminary navigation:


1.17 The Art of Living

Morality is the infantile version of the art of living….
...Thus morality is enforced conventions for the subjectively minor. When, in addition to this, morality lays down any kind of “thou shalt” or “thou shalt not”, it violates personal freedom or individual sovereignty. Morality has not any right whatsoever to do so. Without his sovereignty the individual will never find the law that he will himself become. Man does not exist for the sake of convention. As long as convention is above man, as long as man can be judged according to convention, so long man is deprived of his human right and human dignity. The slaves to convention regard their slavery as the meaning of life.

The art of living is tact, duty, and virtue. Tact is the inability to hurt. Duty is to fulfil one’s task. Virtue is the “golden mean” between the extremes. The art of living is far from self-torture and moral complexes. The art of living requires the insight that commands do not raise the level of culture, that life grants freedom and men issue commands, since they deny each other freedom. The art of living is (also from the collective point of view) the art of the possible.

http://www.laurency.com/DVSe/ps1.pdf