[GiftEconomy] Great little article. Puts it into context.

[Tereza Coraggio]

It has a good analogy about representative government making us like a  
rat in a maze running from one party to the other but without an exit  
because both serve the party of money. It doesn't, imo, get to the  
root of the matter of the exploitation that backs our money, and that  
a money backed by labor, food and goods, community, or charity would  
have different results.

In order to move from a society divided into consumers and producers  
we need, I think, a mechanism that gives an incentive for this. In the  
US, money prevents us from being producers because no one can afford  
the land, property taxes, insurances, licenses, and labor costs for  
help. A gift economy for services, labor, and sharing tools makes  
sense within a community - if you can get around the laws that use  
liability to prevent it. A global gift economy for medicines and  
"intellectual property," including anything that can be put on the  
web, makes terrific sense. But I don't think that the gift economy is  
the solution to all the problems that our exploitation-backed money  
has created. We also need a currency that reverses the exploitation,  
before we can even get to a trade-backed currency.

Thoughts?

Tereza


On Mar 27, 2011, at 4:43 AM, frank bowman wrote:

> Gets to the heart of it. The issue. And the why and how to act. Link
> from demonetize:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/26/protest-rule-of-money
>
> :)frank
>
>
>
> On 15/03/2011, Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Forwarded conversation
>> Subject: [fp] free vs shareful diff. (once again)
>> ------------------------
>>
>> From: *mrc* <eskerda at hacklaviva.net>
>> Date: Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:35 AM
>> To: freeprojects at lists.freeactive.net
>>
>>
>>
>> hi
>>
>> i have reedited this issue once again, now:
>>
>> http://sharewiki.org/en/Shareful_Invitation#Shareful_Project
>>
>> and well diferenced, without the need of offering the production as
>> "Shareful":
>> http://sharewiki.org/en/Free_project
>>
>> Should the Free project's production be "free" or the free project is
>> just about an "open-free managament for a planned production"?
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Freeprojects mailing list
>> Freeprojects at lists.freeactive.net
>> http://lists.freeactive.net/listinfo.cgi/freeprojects-freeactive.net
>>
>> ----------
>> From: *robin* <robino at robokow.net>
>> Date: Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:45 PM
>> To: freeprojects at lists.freeactive.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Marc,
>>
>> could you elaborate on this and explain a bit more ? I am not ready  
>> to go
>> through
>> all the levels of abstraction yet :-)
>>
>> Robin.
>> --
>> The way is the goal!
>> http://robokow.net
>>
>
>
> -- 
>  It's a revolution. But it's the sort of revolution that no one will
> notice. It might get a little shadier, or brighter. Buildings might
> function better. You might have less money to earn because your food
> is all around you and you don't have any energy costs.  and more
> people will be fed, as more land and resources, kept scarce for the
> dollar, for the  abundance called glut,  will be shared.
> _______________________________________________
> GiftEconomy mailing list
> GiftEconomy at lists.gifteconomy.org
> http://lists.gifteconomy.org/listinfo.cgi/gifteconomy-gifteconomy.org
>