[GiftEconomy] questioning the gift economy

[Tereza Coraggio]

Hi, Frank

Thanks for your respectful reply to my note. If you're on my website,  
my shows are sorted by theme under Third Paradigm in the menu bar. All  
of the shows on economics come up first, if you want a shortcut to  
them. Thanks for being interested in pursuing them further, Frank.

The basic question that I wanted to get back to is: if money isn't a  
valid form of exchange (which we both agree it isn't) what gives you  
the right to the tea you "gave" to your friend? Did you give away  
something that didn't belong to you in the first place? Is that a gift  
from you or is it a "gift" from the tea-grower to both of you - a gift  
that was stolen from them?

If money isn't valid and property ownership depends on money, in our  
society, what is it that we really own? My answer would be our time  
and labor. That's the only thing that's rightfully ours. I also  
believe we have a right to secure tenure on the land - which was  
stolen in the US from the indigenous peoples and which has been stolen  
from us since through property taxes and mortgages.

I'm not rejecting the gift economy. But I think that we should be  
defining a variety of economic goals that we have, and choosing the  
system that most enhances that goal, rather than one system for all  
circumstances. It may be cash, a tax-deductible donation, a local  
currency, an investment in products not profit, barter, my charitrade  
model, or the gift economy.

I often feel that this group starts with the position that the gift  
economy is the answer, no matter what the question is. I think that  
the gift economy is valid when you're giving what truly belongs to you  
- your time and labor. If you're a farmer or a miner, you can give the  
products of your labor without qualms. But otherwise, if you give the  
product of someone else's labor, you're giving what was first stolen.  
How does the gift economy address this?

Thanks for the conversation,

Tereza


On Mar 28, 2011, at 4:17 AM, fran k wrote:

> Hi Tereza.
>
> Thanks. My, it is interesting to get a preliminary sight into your  
> thinking. I also googled you and got to your website to read some of  
> your information.
>
> It is good that you have an angle on money from the angle that you  
> do. Too many dont. And it is important. I shall read and think on it  
> for some time, as it forms a part of my learning from years ago, and  
> it is time to revisit and brush the dust off those files so to  
> speak. And that is not to arrogantly say that I have grown past it,  
> but rather it forms a very important part of the whole, which must  
> be taken account of.
>
> Past of what you are talking about the mechanism of Usury and rent.  
> Pay up or die! I call that the forced exchange. In other words we  
> are forced into having to do an exchange. And I tend to express the  
> view that that this tax, lies behind the reason as to why we  
> exchange. (Exchange, trade, from my perspective being a bad thing as  
> regards lifes needs, because of the inherent scarcity of it). But  
> you are further expressing that as the mechanism of 3rd World debt,  
> and the wealth coming up to us from poorer countries, and the part  
> we as individuals play in that through our purchases. It is a valid  
> perspective, and needs thinking about, as it is good deep thinking.
>
> The author of the piece in the Guardian is coming from his angle and  
> I feel that is that money is exploitative and wrong per se. So that  
> any trade and money system creates scarcity and shortage in any  
> circumstance. That being so, then, he does address the issue from  
> his angle to go on to say that all freeconomy and gift economy  
> activities and projects are the answer, and anything that we all can  
> do to pursue those ends will reduce our dependence on money.
>
> He doesnt consider the option of fair trade at all. Me too. It is a  
> pipedream. Never possible. Utopian. Only possible in theory. In  
> talk. Sounds sensible. Exchanging surpluses, rice for beans etc. Not  
> in reality. In reality it is never ever fair.
>
> Where I have agreement with you possibly is that in our natural  
> cultural group tribal, large family size, we share and there is a  
> gift economy. And we would tend to trade with other groups that we  
> are distant from, and who we as a group distrust.
>
> Exchange is a relationship of distrust. Sharing is a relationship of  
> trust.
>
> So for me, in order to ensure that all in a community are fed,  
> requires gift economy system, not trade.
>
> Trade may happen between communities.
>
> But trade does not feed all. The reason is distrust and distance,  
> and one will always want the better out of the deal, and competitive  
> ability will win, which sets up a hierarchy of few winners to many  
> losers, and where this same separation is a lack of empathy for the  
> losers plight. There is noconcern for the other, in this trade  
> relationship.
>
> Trade is the cause of scarcity and insufficiency and hunger. It is  
> not a solution to a world in which we would wish everyone to be fed  
> and wish everyone to be able to pursue their likes and to grow to  
> fulfill their abilities and joy. And so I agree with the author.
>
> But that is not to say that your analysis does not get to the heart  
> of the Usury, rent, tax matter. Which from my perspective is also  
> the reason why we do what we do.trade! Trade needs to fizzle some,  
> and sharing, to rise!
>
> :) frank
>
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:47 BST Tereza Coraggio wrote:
>
>> Hi, Frank
>>
>> Thanks for the response. I'll answer in line in blue below:
>>>
>>> Id love to respond, but before I do, I have to understand fully  
>>> what you are saying, so below I have put my questions to what you  
>>> said, which I write in italics:
>>> 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.
>>> I don't understand what you are saying here, could you explain it  
>>> to me in a different way. What in your opinion is the exploitation  
>>> that backs our money? Are you saying that we can have something  
>>> called fair exchange?
>>> In Ellen Brown's book Web of Debt, she talks about the nobles  
>>> being patrons of the arts and how, by giving everyone a living  
>>> stipend, everyone could have this same ability to use their time  
>>> for high pursuits. But the nobles didn't back their money with  
>>> their own labor. The money that the nobles gave to artists was  
>>> backed by the labor of the peasants, who grew and produced the  
>>> food and goods. Through their militaries the nobles forced the  
>>> peasants to pay taxes in gold or else they took their land. And  
>>> so, rather than making products for their own benefit or for trade  
>>> with other people making real goods, the peasants had to sell them  
>>> for money to pay their taxes. The artists who worked for the  
>>> nobles got money that would have been worthless except for its  
>>> ability to buy products from the peasants. The peasants gave their  
>>> products to the artists to get money to give to the nobles so the  
>>> cycle could start again. Likewise, our money is backed by our
> "entitlement" to take the products of someone else's labor without  
> giving any of our labor in return. Through debt and violence other  
> countries are forced to work for US dollars rather than their own  
> trade currencies. Our money would be worthless unless it gave us  
> access to this pirate's booty of exploitation.
>>> In order to move from a society divided into consumers and  
>>> producers we need, I think, a mechanism that gives an incentive  
>>> for this.
>>> I don't understand this, surely there are always consumers and  
>>> producers. If I make the tea, others consume it. Or if someone  
>>> else has made a pot of tea, I will be a consumer, when I pour my  
>>> cup out! What do you mean?
>>> Good example. You don't make the tea. You merely prepare it.  
>>> Someone else has grown the trees, harvested and dried the leaves,  
>>> processed and packaged the tea. What has your labor, or the labor  
>>> of the person you pour the tea for, ever done for the person who  
>>> made the tea? What have you made for them in return? Can the money  
>>> they received for their tea buy anything that you - or anyone else  
>>> in the developed world - do for a living?
>>> 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.
>>> Oh, this is my problem with money. It socially excludes us, it  
>>> causes scarcity!  and in the case of food - death!   I am very  
>>> interested to know what you mean about liability that prevents it?  
>>> (sounds like you mean insurance costs here)
>>> Sort of. If I want to share my labor helping on a chicken ranch,  
>>> they can get fined $1000 a day for not putting me on their payroll  
>>> and worker's comp. If I loan out my chicken plucker, as I did  
>>> today, and somehow you break a finger on it, nothing protects me  
>>> from liability even though I did you a favor.
>>> A global gift economy for medicines and "intellectual property,"  
>>> including anything that can be put on the web, makes terrific sense.
>>> I agree. Lovely to share. To give to others and so enhance all  
>>> “our” lives. :-)
>>> But I don't think that the gift economy is the solution to all the  
>>> problems that our exploitation-backed money has created.
>>> How not? Are you seeing the gift economy as a small local thing,  
>>> not able to create big changes?
>>> It's the local level where it doesn't work - in the virtual global  
>>> world it works fine. But you can't give what doesn't belong to you  
>>> in the first place. When you buy the tea, you've paid your debt to  
>>> the shop owner. You've paid the distributor and corporate  
>>> manufacturer, all of whom exist in the same economy you do. But  
>>> the tea grower is half a world away. If her labor has been forced  
>>> because the corporation took all the land, or imposed debt and  
>>> taxes, or used violence, then the tea doesn't really belong to the  
>>> manufacturer or distributor or shop owner to sell. And you still  
>>> owe a debt to the people whose lives were destroyed in order to  
>>> force them to grow your tea.
>>> We also need a currency that reverses the exploitation, before we  
>>> can even get to a trade-backed currency.
>>> Trade backed currency? What is that, is it , does it relate to  
>>> your first sentence at the top?
>>> I don't think a trade-backed currency is possible in the US  
>>> because we're a services labor force - we don't make products.  
>>> What I've been working on is a charity-based currency. In example,  
>>> say we provide services in return for people making donations to  
>>> int'l human rights organizations. For every $50 in donations a  
>>> Fair Trade 10 is generated which can circulate in the local  
>>> economy with a variable value. If used for food, it's worth $10.  
>>> If used for products or services, it's worth from $20-$30. But  
>>> when used for the kind of education we want to encourage, it's  
>>> worth $40. So it facilitates trade within a community based a  
>>> mutual regard for people.
>>> What are your thoughts, Frank?
>>> Tereza
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Sun, 27/3/11, Tereza Coraggio <tereza at retrometro.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Tereza Coraggio <tereza at retrometro.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [GiftEconomy] Great little article. Puts it into  
>>> context.
>>> To: "frank bowman" <greenwomble at googlemail.com>
>>> Cc: gifteconomy at lists.gifteconomy.org
>>> Date: Sunday, 27 March, 2011, 16:28
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>