Michael Tellinger

[mosquito]

Thanks for posting, it sounds great and I fully endorse it ! My only question/concern is that the way things currently stand, it would only be applicable to internet based "businesses" until such time that we can use alternative currencies to buy groceries, flour, nails, wood, medicines and all the other little things that we will probably still need when off-grid. And web hosting of course !

I'm impressed by Michael Tellinger, he has some brilliant ideas and is very forward thinking and creative.

[GuyFox]

Tellinger...

Does anyone else have the feeling that his Ubuntu ideas are like a Bubble that needs popping?

Before doing so, I just want to put the idea out there, to get a reaction...

[GuyFox]

Michael Tellinger : "We don't Need Money!"

Telllinger's UBuntu Contributionism: May I politely disagree !

Modern Knowledge Tour 2014 with Michael Tellinger, Linda Mouton Howe, Richard Dolan ThatChannel.com

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=W509Dz0ILeE

( Michael Tellinger's section starts at 1:15 Hours )

The male interviewer takes him straight To THE POINT:
"It sounds a lot like Marxism: to each according to their needs, from each
according to their abilities"; and that hasn't worked out very well.
MT responds:
+ The Rothschild bankers hijacked it
(Give me a break, Michael! human nature hijacked it!)
+ I never studied Marxism, this came from me, with divine intervention
+ Read my book, I explain it there (chnace being missed)

MT: "We don't need money"
Interviewer: "It's food, we need money for food."
MT: "As high conscious beings, we will not need food."
(What? Well then maybe we should wait...)

[Rollo]

We don't need current money. Made out of tin air, corrupted, influenced by politics, speculation and with a lot of blood on them. Money without a real value behind are not going to work.
What we need is money that hold real value. Value that comes from our time, energy, sweat, creativity and thoughts put in to.

Recently Polish government is telling the people that better is to borrow from international banks than issue the money by national bank.

I have a client who insist on paying me in dollars. I don't want them.
It is hard for him to understand that dollars are not that strong anymore.
Any other fiat currency will suffer sooner or later.

We can do better than this.

[GuyFox]

That's a different point, Rollo.

I disagree with Michael T. - unlike him, I do think we NEED money*.
But I agree with him and you too, that the present mode of creating currency through a cabal-control Central bank is NOT a good idea. That is for many reasons that we could discuss - but mainly because it surrenders too much power to Central Bankers (and their puppet Masters) who will then exploit that financial power to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.

*Why do we NEED Money?

For the simple reason that all exchanges cannot be voluntary, and based upon the charitable good will of he/she who is creating a good or service you may desire.

Think about it...
+ If you are a farmer, and
+ I am a carpenter

At the time when I am hungry (and need the food you grow), you may have little need for my services as a carpenter. So you may prefer something from me, which is not carpentry. If I give you Money, it represents a store of wealth - and you may spend the money I give you on something other that carpentry. So the farmer may buy seeds or fertilizer. And the guy who sells the seeds may want a massage. And the masseuse may want me to build him/her some shelves. Money benefits everyone, because it allows these free and voluntary exchanges to take place at a later time. And they are fully voluntary, not imposed by some dictator running an Ubuntu Village, and assigning out tasks ahead of time.

Michael T's inability to even DISCUSS simple cases like this, makes me think he is hiding his real motivations. Perhaps he is seekers readers for his book, and political power, rather than trying to communicate a powerful new concept that everyone can benefit from.

[aheb]

I agree that we need money, but the money we have is not a " store of wealth". Now that could be because it is actually fiat currencey rather than money. I think our concept of what money is may very well change. There are some like me who are a bit traditional and look for things of value in themselves, such as precious metals.
I'm not sure that I even agree with Armstrong but he does raise some interesting points
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/0...ing-in-london/
Electronic money would be what our Masters desire the most, so we can be easily taxed and controlled....he also talks about "Google wallet" which he believes will usurp Bitcoin. I am not sure, but what I do believe is that technology is ready to take a huge leap again, and the next 20 years will make the last 20 look primitive by comparison. I don't know how we can survive as soverign individuals, I think a good grasp of modern technology is a start.

[72MAV27]

The problem with money is that it sets up the environment for jealousy. And jealousy turns into all kinds of other negative emotions. And those emotions end up getting the planet into the mess it's in right now. IMO money could only truly work if everyone had an equal amount.

I have a friend that has an opinion that we could do away with money. He thinks that right now technology has advanced to the point where most "jobs" could be done mechanically or robotically. This would leave each person with time to focus on what they have a true passion for. And when someone is doing their true passion they would gladly give it away for free simply because they love doing it in the first place. Also with all the free time without having to work all day humanity could spend time focusing on the real aspects of reality and better the planet

[GuyFox]

Posted by aheb (here)
I agree that we need money, but the money we have is not a " store of wealth". Now that could be because it is actually fiat currencey rather than money. I think our concept of what money is may very well change. There are some like me who are a bit traditional and look for things of value in themselves, such as precious metals.
I'm not sure that I even agree with Armstrong but he does raise some interesting points
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/0...ing-in-london/
Electronic money would be what our Masters desire the most, so we can be easily taxed and controlled....he also talks about "Google wallet" which he believes will usurp Bitcoin. I am not sure, but what I do believe is that technology is ready to take a huge leap again, and the next 20 years will make the last 20 look primitive by comparison. I don't know how we can survive as soverign individuals, I think a good grasp of modern technology is a start.

I dunno, aheb.
I think our currency works reasonably well (now) as a store of value. If real inflation is now 4-5% a year, that's not much to lose over a few weeks or months.

The problem arises when you want to save for future retirement, or the fiat currency where you are holding your savings begins to lose value rapidly through a sudden lose of confidence.

Will this happen, as Martin Armstrong and others believe it will? Probably - which is why I prefer keeping my own savings in Gold rather than US dollars. But to be honest, over the last three years, Fiat Federal Reserve notes have been a better store of value than Gold.

So, yes, i understand those arguments.

I had hoped to make clear that I was talking about something else, the FLEXIBILITY provided by currency when it is used as a Medium of exchange. If there is no money at all (as Tellinger says is desirable) then how does one gain access to the flexibility provide by free markets? If I understand Tellinger, he is against both money and markets. (Please correct me, if I am wrong.) Without markets, you are left with simple barter, and exchanging favors. These are of very limited use in a sophisticated economy.

I think that Dominic Frisby understands Money far better than MT. And that comes across in this interview about his recent book:



MP3 : http://commoditywatch.podbean.com/mf...terviewsdf.mp3

Do you know what might be interesting? A debate between Mr Tellinger and Mr Frisby on the virtues of Money. I doubt he would consider it, but if he did, MT might tighten up and improve his ideas considerably. As it stands, I like the local economy notion that MT is calling for, but I think his community might be like a dictatorship when it comes to assigning jobs and limiting people's flexibility in making purchases.

[TODD & NORA]

..........

[GuyFox]

Posted by 72MAV27 (here)
The problem with money is that it sets up the environment for jealousy. And jealousy turns into all kinds of other negative emotions. And those emotions end up getting the planet into the mess it's in right now. IMO money could only truly work if everyone had an equal amount.

I have a friend that has an opinion that we could do away with money. He thinks that right now technology has advanced to the point where most "jobs" could be done mechanically or robotically...

Hmm.
Do you really think it is MONEY that causes jealousy?

I think it is inequality. I think Michael Tellinger isn't telling you, is that he really wants to do away with inequality. And he plans to do that, by allowing no one to own assets privately. All property would be owned by the State in his ideal world (I believe.) And, to be honest, that worries me greatly.

No: all jobs cannot yet be done by robots. Think about child care, health care, and even just washing the dishes. Many aspects of these jobs require human involvement.


I do think that a better place to focus is on change the economy to eliminate Rent-Seeking behavior - and I will not (yet) try to explain what I mean by that. Instead, I shall just post a definition:

RENT SEEKING :
In economics (see public choice theory), rent-seeking is spending wealth on political lobbying to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating wealth. The effects of rent-seeking are reduced economic efficiency through poor allocation of resources, reduced wealth creation, lost government revenue, increased income inequality,[1] and national decline.

Current studies of rent-seeking focus on the manipulation of regulatory agencies to gain monopolistic advantages in the market while imposing disadvantages on competitors. The term itself derives, however, from the far older practice of gaining a portion of production through ownership or control of land.
==
> wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

[aheb]

Yes I understand what you mean about money. It is a huge step forward from barter, and if we did go back to barter I think people would quickly realise that money is far better. As to gold, well it has never been considered an investment, because it pays no dividend...but if we look at the banks now, they pay no dividend and also there is the risk of bail ins, so in that sense gold or silver, or anything of intrinsic worth is better than the money that we have now in the bank. I think you have to look at gold and silver over the long term and by that I mean 5 years and up. I listened to an interview with Grant Williams and he made what I think is a very valid point. We have seen huge inflation in high end real estate and works of art etc, so when people realise that there is inflation about and the banks are not safe we may well see those kind of astronomical rises in precious metals.

[spiritguide]

Natures money is gifting among itself for mutual accommodation. We are part of nature, shouldn't we act as part of it instead of trying to live apart from it.

[GuyFox]

"As to gold, well it has never been considered an investment, because it pays no dividend..."

Gold is the oldest money. And so I think that idea was something that people may have had for only a few decades. I will go with Gold's record over hundreds and thousands of years, considering it as Real money - while the value of Fiat is just a matter of opinion.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by spiritguide (here)
Natures money is gifting among itself for mutual accommodation. We are part of nature, shouldn't we act as part of it instead of trying to live apart from it.

Thanks, but I am not really sure what you mean by that.

Can you explain how this might work in my little example please?
Which was:
+ If you are a farmer, and
+ I am a carpenter
At the time when I am hungry (and need the food you grow), you may have little need for my services as a carpenter. So you may prefer something from me, which is not carpentry. If I give you Money, it represents a store of wealth - and you may spend the money I give you on something other that carpentry. So the farmer may buy seeds or fertilizer. And the guy who sells the seeds may want a massage. And the masseuse may want me to build him/her some shelves.

[apokalypse]

money is illusion so why we focusing on it anyway? any value based system will not work, money still exist but we should focus on quality of life not the economic numbers...get rid of money might take 100 years with current human nature.

mainstream wise, we in different times now at digital age with technology so going back or anything to do in -90's 80's or before that is damn wrong.

one thing i don't get why we need to have ownership of land or progression of the stuff or thing? we live and die so make sense that the public is the owner not individuals, you can use it for life and once you die give it back to the public. Damn frustrated me with these billionaire "donate" their wealth to charities.

one of the first thing i do is fixing the nature of human working towards spiritual beings and at same time have a system to support that..many of you know both come in hand...how we do it? how about create a thread for that?

[spiritguide]

Posted by GuyFox (here)
"As to gold, well it has never been considered an investment, because it pays no dividend..."

Gold is the oldest money. And so I think that idea was something that people may have had for only a few decades. I will go with Gold's record over hundreds and thousands of years, considering it as Real money - while the value of Fiat is just a matter of opinion.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by spiritguide (here)
Natures money is gifting among itself for mutual accommodation. We are part of nature, shouldn't we act as part of it instead of trying to live apart from it.

Thanks, but I am not really sure what you mean by that.

Can you explain how this might work in my little example please?
Which was:
+ If you are a farmer, and
+ I am a carpenter
At the time when I am hungry (and need the food you grow), you may have little need for my services as a carpenter. So you may prefer something from me, which is not carpentry. If I give you Money, it represents a store of wealth - and you may spend the money I give you on something other that carpentry. So the farmer may buy seeds or fertilizer. And the guy who sells the seeds may want a massage. And the masseuse may want me to build him/her some shelves.

You need to wrap your mind around gifting as apposed to trading. One deals with needs the other with wants (ego).

[GuyFox]

I understand what Gifting is.
Have you heard of Charles Eisenstein (Sacred Economics) ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4LsktuiaOU

History shows: Gifting works inside a family, or a very small or primitive community (perhaps), but not a large and complex economy such as we have now.

But I am not sure that you truly understand the power and value of Money.
I strongly recommend you listen to the interview with Dominic Frisby

Michael Tellinger should too IMHO.
His party did not do well in the South African election - Do you know why? I have my own guess.

[GuyFox]

Posted by apokalypse (here)
money is illusion so why we focusing on it anyway? any value based system will not work, money still exist but we should focus on quality of life not the economic numbers...get rid of money might take 100 years with current human nature.

mainstream wise, we in different times now at digital age with technology so going back or anything to do in -90's 80's or before that is damn wrong.

one thing i don't get why we need to have ownership of land or progression of the stuff or thing? we live and die so make sense that the public is the owner not individuals, you can use it for life and once you die give it back to the public. Damn frustrated me with these billionaire "donate" their wealth to charities.

one of the first thing i do is fixing the nature of human working towards spiritual beings and at same time have a system to support that..many of you know both come in hand...how we do it? how about create a thread for that?

I think you might read a bit more carefully what I have written, and take a look at topics like Usury, and Rent-seeking behavior.
If these can be minimized, we can have a less toxic economy, where wealth and power does not get concentrated in a banker class.
And we can still retain some private ownership of property, Free choice and Free markets.

Some of the best thinking along these lines has been done by a guy called Henry George, and here is a little bit about him:



Henry George (September 2, 1839 – October 29, 1897) was an American writer, politician and political economist, who was the most influential proponent of the land value tax, also known as the "single tax" on land. He inspired the economic philosophy known as Georgism, whose main tenet is that people should own what they create, but that everything found in nature, most importantly the value of land, belongs equally to all humanity. His most famous work, Progress and Poverty (1879), is a treatise on inequality, the cyclic nature of industrialized economies, and the use of the land value tax as a remedy.

> wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George

Michael Tellinger say that he "did not study the work of Karl Marx" when he sat down to write his book. Instead, he was "divinely inspired" (haha.) I think he needs to do plenty more study of economics. I have an honors degree in Psychology and Economics from probably the top university in the world - and I can see so many holes in MT's thinking, that it reminds me of swiss cheese. If he wants to create a successful party based around his concepts he will need to tighten them up, unless he intends to rely on "magical thinking."

[ceetee9]

Posted by GuyFox (here)
*Why do we NEED Money?

For the simple reason that all exchanges cannot be voluntary, and based upon the charitable good will of he/she who is creating a good or service you may desire.

Think about it...
+ If you are a farmer, and
+ I am a carpenter

At the time when I am hungry (and need the food you grow), you may have little need for my services as a carpenter. So you may prefer something from me, which is not carpentry. If I give you Money, it represents a store of wealth - and you may spend the money I give you on something other that carpentry. So the farmer may buy seeds or fertilizer. And the guy who sells the seeds may want a massage. And the masseuse may want me to build him/her some shelves. Money benefits everyone, because it allows these free and voluntary exchanges to take place at a later time. And they are fully voluntary, not imposed by some dictator running an Ubuntu Village, and assigning out tasks ahead of time.

Guy, I think the problem with your argument is that the Contributionist society isn't based upon the charitable giving of a good or service per se, if I understand Tellinger correctly, but upon a work-based, free society. Essentially, everyone continues doing what they do (farmer, carpenter, scientist, doctor, etc.) and everyone just takes what they need when they need it--no money is exchanged. Consequently, there is no need to "store" an exchange vehicle (e.g., money) or worry about how you're going to get food if the farmer isn't in need of your carpentry services. There is no power hungry, control-freak elite to siphon-off the majority of the wealth and dole out what crumbs they feel appropriate to keep their flock working in their factories and corporations. This paradigm truly does level the playing field and bring equality for all.

The problem, as I see it, however, is that humanity isn't really interested in equality for all. If it was we wouldn't be fighting and killing each other for power and control and clinging to the notion that we earned our money while all those billions of poor people didn't. Those of us who were lucky enough to be born to a decent family that had some money, and in a country that provided some opportunities to get an education and/or to better oneself, seem to forget that the majority of the people on this planet had no such luck or opportunity. So are those people not worthy of having food to eat, a decent home to live in, a job to contribute to society, decent medical care, etc?

I don't believe the Ubuntu society is about assigning tasks by some dictator either, but I have not read Tellinger's book so perhaps that is his idea. I thought his approach was a very minimal government that does not own anything and does not dictate but is more of an advisory group that recommends where and how resources should be allocated so, for example, we're not producing a surplus of cell phones and not enough food. Of course, the people may disregard the recommendations at their peril. This is an important distinction that sets it apart from Marxism and Communism. There are no classes and no controlling group that is above the masses.

Having said that, I did write Michael Tellinger some years ago with many questions I had about his Contributionist society. He did respond, but, unfortunately, referred me to his upcoming book for the answers. This was very off-putting and made me question his true intent as well.

Regardless, there are many questions that need to be answered and perhaps some (or all--which I doubt) have been answered in his book, but I think the concept of a Contributionist society has merit and could work. That is, provided people started caring more about each other and the planet than they do about themselves.

[wnlight]

My productivity was in creating computer software that would not be needed in the utopian societies discussed herein. Because without money, nobody would produce PCs. Nobody makes PCs from 'scratch'. They buy parts from all over the world and assemble the PCs. Then most PC makers do not have their own stores, so they must sell their product to stores. I suppose that the store could also have bread and wine on its shelves to trade with the the PC company which, in turn, could pay its employees with bread and wine. Then the employee could take his/her extra bread and wine back to the store to trade for baby food and shoes. There would be a great need for shoes with everyone walking around trading extra produce for goods they need. Perhaps wheelbarrows would be more popular too.

BTW, much of my software supported energy companies that would also be out of business because they cannot put their electricity on the shell and wait for you to come in with your extra bread and wine to trade. Unused electricity spoils a lot faster than uneaten bread. Some of you might be happy to see the energy companies go under. I really do understand. But you might wait a long time before TPTB release the specs for home-made, working cold fusion.

If none wanted my software for non-existent PCs,then I would have to find something else to do. I can teach mathematics. Does anyone out there need a crash course in regression analysis or in topological methods in non-linear analysis? I work for bread and wine. LOL

What I am trying to say is that we still need money. Any money that you don't need can be sent to me in Ecuador.

[ceetee9]

Posted by wnlight (here)
My productivity was in creating computer software that would not be needed in the utopian societies discussed herein. Because without money, nobody would produce PCs. Nobody makes PCs from 'scratch'. They buy parts from all over the world and assemble the PCs. Then most PC makers do not have their own stores, so they must sell their product to stores. I suppose that the store could also have bread and wine on its shelves to trade with the the PC company which, in turn, could pay its employees with bread and wine. Then the employee could take his/her extra bread and wine back to the store to trade for baby food and shoes. There would be a great need for shoes with everyone walking around trading extra produce for goods they need. Perhaps wheelbarrows would be more popular too.

BTW, much of my software supported energy companies that would also be out of business because they cannot put their electricity on the shell and wait for you to come in with your extra bread and wine to trade. Unused electricity spoils a lot faster than uneaten bread. Some of you might be happy to see the energy companies go under. I really do understand. But you might wait a long time before TPTB release the specs for home-made, working cold fusion.

If none wanted my software for non-existent PCs,then I would have to find something else to do. I can teach mathematics. Does anyone out there need a crash course in regression analysis or in topological methods in non-linear analysis? I work for bread and wine. LOL

What I am trying to say is that we still need money. Any money that you don't need can be sent to me in Ecuador.

A Contributionist society is NOT a barter system. There is nothing to exchange. People simply do whatever work they enjoy doing (and preferably do best) and what is needed and wanted by the society. I'm a software engineer too and I have no doubt that people will still want the technology that makes life easier and better (e.g., computers and the software that runs them). Without question some jobs would go the way of the dinosaurs (e.g., banking, telemarketing, IRS, accounting, etc.), but that has always been the case when new technologies and paradigms are introduced. Naturally for those who will have to learn a new trade this can be quite disconcerting, but what a relief it would be to know that you can do something you're actually good at and enjoy doing to contribute to society without having to worry about if there will be any jobs available or if you'll be able to support yourself and family doing that job.

Money is not the key to what makes a job worthwhile or necessary. Human needs and wants are.