Synergetic trading model
Following my article on the design of money, I propose here a complementary approach to the means of exchange.
In my article on the subject, I recently explained that official currencies are far from being synergetic. In fact, they are perfectly designed to enslave people, nothing less, and to guarantee the durability of the control of a small number of oligarchs over all the economies of the world.
Several perverse effects follow from the way official currencies work and the way their use has spread.
First, we have the unfortunate tendency to think that a currency must be a one-size-fits-all solution to our needs to exchange goods and services. But this is not a necessity. Certainly, fiat currencies (issued by official central banks) lead us to think that we need a single, common reference for the market, but this is not true.
Also, our reflex is to perceive money as a reserve of value, a characteristic of money that was already affirmed by Plato. If this is necessary in the short term of commercial exchanges, it is not necessarily the case in the long term. Moreover, when it comes to the savings of each individual, history shows us that money is a very poor investment solution.
Finally, we tend to think that everything has to be measured in an accounting way in order to be sure that we have not been wronged in our exchanges. While this makes sense in most cases, it can become a real neurosis when it invades all our thoughts, which is often the case, let's be honest.
Not one but several currencies
In this day and age, especially thanks to computers and the internet, it is possible to use several currencies, potentially thousands in fact (the famous cryptocurrencies). This is interesting when you actively participate in specific economies, which you want to boost. However, this type of activity concerns very few people, especially because it takes time and requires certain technical skills.
All of these currencies have their own characteristics, conveying various underlying values and which could in theory be suitable for almost everyone.
The euro and the dollar, for example, are immediately useful currencies that many of us are eager to acquire. They are by the way, contrary to what most people think, just as digital as cryptocurrencies and sometimes less secure and just as prone to bugs.
However, in order to limit the surveillance of exchanges and aggressive taxation by states, the use of cash whenever possible is to be preferred. The project of the banking lobbies is to abolish it in the long run and this is why it is important to value it as much as possible when we are forced to use fiat currencies.
It would be inept to propose an immediate abandonment of fiat currencies. However, it may be interesting to consider complementary currencies. Monero is one of them, whose particularity is that it is very difficult to track (it is not impossible, but it is expensive in time and means). This currency is appreciated by people who defend the anonymity and confidentiality of their transactions.
Instead of being subjected to the massive digital surveillance deployed by states and large corporations (including banks, of course), we can use Monero from time to time, which is also extremely easy to use.
If we want a community-centric solution, both simple and private, we can go for the G.A.M.E See more in this video and in the following articles:
Exchanges without money
Using currencies whose design we defend is tempting but let's not forget that one of their biggest flaws is that they are used on a computer, and most often via the internet. A massive censorship of the internet or a drastic shortage of computer components could make them obsolete quickly.
The oldest exchange system in the world and also one of the most robust is barter. A simple consensual exchange of goods or services. Regardless of the level of civilization, humans barter things.
Let's say, to take an extreme case, that even a post-atomic nuclear winter would not call into question the principle of barter.
And let us not forget that barter, like other kinds of exchange, can also take the form of reciprocal loans, with or without a fixed term.
However, barter has a serious disadvantage: what to do when I want to acquire something from someone but do not possess anything that interests that person (either because I will never have it, or because I will have it later and the exchange must be made now).
This blockage, which generally appears both with poverty and with the number of interactions within the market, led human societies to invent debt recognitions and later money.
Nevertheless, this mode of exchange is still used and practice shows that the markets it generates are often small and concern local communities.
Let's think about bartering whenever possible, because it is the most robust mode of exchange, although it has some limitations.
A friend of mine organizes a barter event twice a year where anyone can come and give and take something. This greatly reduces the problem of exchange between only two parties and opens it to about 400 people. It requires a great deal of maturity on the part of the participants, however, so that the majority don't bring crap and take everything of value without concern for the others. This can only work in a civilized community where a sense of belonging and similar values exist.
Non-exchange
It is often forgotten and it is certainly because it is the most natural, but the gift is very present in our daily life. Giving without expecting any immediate return is an attitude that we often adopt.
However, it is necessary to understand that pure giving does not exist and that it is in fact a search for relational fluidity. It is therefore rooted in our feeling of closeness, even intimacy. If we willingly open the door to an elderly woman whom we do not know, which in itself constitutes a free gift, we are not going to give her the keys of our car. This type of gift, quite easy to accomplish in this example, is part of a broader community logic where politeness and mutual aid contribute to the social well-being to which we aspire.
On the other hand, what we agree to give willingly to our family or spouse is of a greater magnitude.
The difference lies in the intrinsic value we place on people and the relationship we have with them. When I give my time freely to my friends, it is because I value who they are and I know they will not take advantage of it. I also do it because I know they do the same for me whenever possible. It is the trust that we have in each other that determines the fluidity of the gift and it is important to understand that trust is something that is earned.
In fact, giving rather than selling is a way of merging the principle of exchange and the market into a much larger and less accountable dynamic: that of the organic community. And in this case, the more we value someone, the more we will be inclined to give them something.
Let's not hesitate to give whenever we see the possibility of participating in a collective dynamic that is essential to us and that we wish to encourage.
Where I live, it is very common to give some stuff to someone else “until I need it myself”. It is like a loan with an undefined term and sometimes it can turn into a gift when the person never needs it in the future. It appears to be very efficient to bring people together and increase the level of trust.
Accumulate as value what really has value
When we need to accumulate capital in order to spend it all at once later (e.g. buying a house) or to leave it to our family by inheritance, we think that money is a good solution. However, history shows that this is a very bad idea.
In fact, I propose, in unison with many, to consider as a store of value assets that actually have value. For example: land, buildings, materials, a forest, a source of drinking water, a vehicle, metal, etc.
It is not a question of indexing money on it, or anything else, it is simply a question of thinking of the accumulation of our capitalizing power through tangible things whose intrinsic value is somehow unalterable and in some cases priceless.
For me, land is one of my favorites, but so are autonomous vehicles like bicycles or sailboats. I also value plant seeds, tree grafts, animal breeds, weapons and ammunition (precisely to defend my properties if necessary), musical instruments, books and materials like steel.
We can also think of the capitalization of value at the level of our skills. Is keeping 3000 dollars in the bank indefinitely more valuable than learning how to hunt or fish with a pro and thus teaching these skills to our children later? It is up to each of us to answer such questions according to our own frame of reference.
Summary of the synergetic monetary model
The immediacy of some of our needs forces us to use fiat currencies. Whenever possible, let's prefer cash. This allows us to participate in a market of several hundred million people and, with bank exchanges, in the global market. But let us be careful with all the surveillance that it implies.
When we want to trade anonymously and confidentially, let's use cryptocurrencies like Monero. This concerns several tens of thousands of users.
In order to avoid becoming totally dependent on computer systems, let's use the G.A.M.E and keep the habit of bartering goods and services whenever possible and especially within our local communities. Often limited to around 500 people but potentially of interest to anyone, it is mostly a matter of culture.
When we interact with people we value highly, let's not hesitate to simply give things. This usually represents a community of no more than 50 people per person.
Whenever we want to accumulate capital, let's think carefully about how to do it and remember that keeping money in the bank is a bad idea. Land, tools, materials and skills are, on the other hand, very valuable things.