Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A Proposed Economic Plan in a Nutshell

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 8, 2011, 3:17 a.m. EST by iseeamuse (155)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

we should keep money. we should change paradigms. Change what money is based on (trust system, not sound system), and change the mode of enterprise (cooperative not corporate). Devolve government to the local levels, connected in a network. Create two markets, one shared (The Commons). The other traded (The Commodities). Invest in two kinds of credit unions (instead of banks). One containing the membership of the citizenry (Local Credit Unions). The other containing the membership of the professions (Professional Credit Unions). Both generate the same currency, with the value based on the the total movement of the work being done, and the value of the product. Instead of credited debt, or gold. Both of the Credit Union systems under the same regulatory umbrella, acting as moderator, accountant, and maintenance. Everything would be directly democratically decided. Supply and demand would be handled through an open source registry of demand and a open source registry of skills (sorta like craigslist). MOST IMPORTANTLY We need to decide what must be shared, and what can be traded.

31 Comments

31 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by kbatta3502 (9) 13 years ago

anyone who took out loans and was some how fooled into taking out more then they could afford is an idiot if you don't know how much you make and how much you can pay and still have enough to live then you are an idiot anyone with any brain could figure that out and I don't think they fooled anyone I think a bunch of deadbeats took out loans with no intention of paying it back and I think this protest is a bunch of union creeps who are mad because goverments are cutting jobs but those same unions will not do what it takes to save those jobs they just throw younger employees under the bus and refuse to pay for anything and also a bunch of deadbeats who live off taxpayers through welfare,foodstamps,student loans that they use for thing that were never intended like living on and buying other junk having nothing to do with college,and then the deadbeats who have lived off goverment forever and have brainwashed their children into thinking the taxpayers have to should take care of them while they sit at home on their asses spitting out kids and doing nothing but sucking the life out of the middle class I think welfare for everyone should end today and maybe those deadbeats would take the jobs that are out there and there are plenty do like the pay whaaa tough get to jobs then you lazy bums I have thru my entire life so suck it up stop complaining and get to work you lazy good for nothing leeches

[-] 1 points by kbatta3502 (9) 13 years ago

anyone who took out loans and was some how fooled into taking out more then they could afford is an idiot if you don't know how much you make and how much you can pay and still have enough to live then you are an idiot anyone with any brain could figure that out and I don't think they fooled anyone I think a bunch of deadbeats took out loans with no intention of paying it back and I think this protest is a bunch of union creeps who are mad because goverments are cutting jobs but those same unions will not do what it takes to save those jobs they just throw younger employees under the bus and refuse to pay for anything and also a bunch of deadbeats who live off taxpayers through welfare,foodstamps,student loans that they use for thing that were never intended like living on and buying other junk having nothing to do with college,and then the deadbeats who have lived off goverment forever and have brainwashed their children into thinking the taxpayers have to should take care of them while they sit at home on their asses spitting out kids and doing nothing but sucking the life out of the middle class I think welfare for everyone should end today and maybe those deadbeats would take the jobs that are out there and there are plenty do like the pay whaaa tough get to jobs then you lazy bums I have thru my entire life so suck it up stop complaining and get to work you lazy good for nothing leeches

[-] 1 points by Freebird (158) 13 years ago

Is this a voluntary system? Do people get to opt out if they wish? What's the consequence for people that are of the opinion that central planning is a disaster, has always been a disaster and want no part of it? Are they free to leave and try something else? Or does this scheme rely on "enforcement" - force through fines, confiscations, imprisonment... all that wonderful stuff we have now.

[-] 1 points by Madhusudana (90) 13 years ago

If we're examining this critically as a viable option and not just the ponderings of a 14 year old with an internet connection I have to ask the same question.

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

LOL how'd you know I was 14?!

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

well, another benefit is we could place a specific value on greed and charge it as a misdemeanor or something. The idea is that everyone has what they need already, anything else is just extra, and would be have to be paid for. There are obvious pros and cons, but it's new as far as I know, so it has to be worked out.

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

It also should automatically compel everyone to work if they're able because hopefully it would remove the worry caused by the flaws in our current system, and replace it with care and involvement in our civic society.

[-] 1 points by Freebird (158) 13 years ago

Any system that does not allow people to opt out is authoritarian. And the only way to escape the few people who think they know better than three hundred million people is revolution. Doesn't that seem a bit retarded? Do people who just want to be free of other peoples mistakes always have to revolt? Can your ego withstand the option of people voting with their feet? If they like it, they stay - if they don't they leave.

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

The ideal point of a democracy is that everyone involved understands the proposed system, and has a fair chance to voice their opinion on it through a vote. Like I said this is a proposal, only. I'm not assuming it will be understood or accepted by all, and I'm not advocating enforcing it in any sort of authoritarian way. It should be decided on democratically after informed debate.

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

This is a just a proposal.

[-] 1 points by Freebird (158) 13 years ago

But you need to answer this. I am sincere here. Well meaning people who think they know what's best for millions of other people they have never met usually insinuate themselves into positions of authority, and if they're ideas are so great, why does it always come down to force?

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

like I said, this is just a proposal. I should hope we would all have to vote on it.

[-] 1 points by Freebird (158) 13 years ago

No, not vote. People vote themselves my money all the time. Can they opt out?

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

and do what? create a counter-existing system based on the old way? I assume there will be more proposals that will need debate.

[-] 1 points by hebronjames (12) 13 years ago

I have my doubts. I am relatively conservative for the OWS (I still believe in strong electoral reform and financial reform). The enterprise system has done good things in areas such as technology, at least information technology (don't give me the sweatshop argument). I agree that markets are overrated when it comes to education and healthcare. On the other hand, those are goods that suffer from Baumol's disease, so government-financed healthcare and education will still be expensive.

I'm not all too receptive to this idea because I still think the current system can be salvaged, even though it's in bad shape currently.

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

How should we account for the impact we're having on our planet?

[-] 1 points by hebronjames (12) 13 years ago

Some times outright bans of certain technologies, sometimes taxing, sometimes pollution-permit trading system, sometimes by clarifying property rights. I do find myself to be a utilitarian on the environment; I still believe in preserving ecosystems and the natural laboratory that is the earth, but my ultimate reason is rooted in sustaining human civilization and welfare.

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

How would we regulate our use of the natural resources? Your idea seems very very complicated, and easy to manipulate, as I'm guessing you're suggesting that we keep the corporate mode of enterprise This is a system hopefully without leaders where everyone is equal, and has an equal share in decision-making as it applies to them in their locality.

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

management would need to be replaced with regulators accountants and moderators in this system, as all decision making would be equally shared in the democracies in each enterprise, and at the next level in each credit union. Self-employment would still exist, but you would still need to be a member of a credit union.

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

at least all decision making as it relates to the enterprise as a whole, not on individual workers in their workspace.

[-] 1 points by hebronjames (12) 13 years ago

I think your ideas are worth consideration but I am a conservative in the truest sense (think Burke) when it comes to how we developed our economic institutions. It's hard to develop them once we've utterly destroyed them and replaced them. Your ideas might work, but it's such a radical shift that I worry about what happens if they fail. But even being a Burkean conservative, given how easily our politicians are bought by corporations and how screwed up our financial and energy sectors are, we can have drastic change that improves welfare and preserves the good embedded in our economic institutions.

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

I believe our economic institutions are flawed because of our current method of valuation, and because as a society we have accepted exploitation as a way of life. (read exploitation as: removing the intrinsic value of a thing, and applying an abstract value upon it, like a valuation via our fiat currency- from Wendell Berry) I also do not trust a sound currency because that, in essence, is pure exploitation of an entire natural resource.

[-] 1 points by ERS (5) 13 years ago

Add free energy technology currently hidden or suppressed and free health care for everyone and I love it

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

those are part of the commons of modern day society. And it's not free. It's shared. We still have to work for it.

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

Also, change the enterprise model from the corporate model to the cooperative model.

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

erg, I said that already. It's late on the east coast.

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

In determining value of the currency quantitative value of a good or service is measured; qualitative value is voted on by the members of the credit unions in each locality and profession.

Caveats: With every birth there would be inflation, and with every death there would be deflation, based on the gain and loss of potential in the workforce. All necessities would be shared (you do not pay for them) Necessities determined by the equal right to be born live and die, choose how you spend your life, and have equal opportunity for means to enact these choices. Each local government would set its price annually by vote, after determining the current situation of the use of the natural resources, and how much natural resource must be returned to the natural ecosystems.

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

All Professions would have to account for and vote on the value of their good or service in the commodities market, adjusted annually. A new court system might need to be created to determine whether a good or service should be shared or can be traded. (example: innovation would be in the realm of the commodities market (traded), because it is not necessary to complete a task. Demand for an innovation could come from the commons market and could be met by the skills in the commodities market. The individual [person or enterprise], would have to foot the bill for the initial innovation, but it would be shared from then on if it were determined to be fair to the ecosystem.)

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

Also, all individual savings, and spending must be public knowledge. All money would have to be accounted for.

Benefits: GDP would directly relate to the size of the currency. Currency size would grow and shrink naturally according to demand and it's satisfaction.

This is an attempt at creating an organic economic system.

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 13 years ago

another benefit: every person could have the potential for an equal chance in life.