Auteur
expert de rien

4 commentaires à “Le cinquième pouvoir monétaire”

1. Antonin ip:1
   22 November 2008 @ 13:22

   Je crois qu’il ne faut pas confondre le don et un échange monétaire.

   Un amis à qui l’on rend ser­vice et qui nous rend ser­vice à son tour ne relève pas d’un simple échange moné­taire mais du don. L’intérêt est d’abord social et la réci­pro­cité n’est pas for­cé­ment équi­li­bré économiquement.

   Quand on rend ser­vice à un amis, il y a dés­in­té­res­se­ment écono­mique. Pas quand on achète un pain au cho­co­lat à la boulangère.

2. Didier ip:2
   22 November 2008 @ 15:21

   A Anto­nin,
   Et si tu dis à ta bou­lan­gère:
   “Je te coupe du bois pour une année afin d’alimenter ton four à pain et tu me four­nis le pain une fois par jour et le pain au cho­co­lat le dimanche”?
   Cer­taines ini­tia­tives dans ce style ont déjà été lan­cées, comme le SEL (sys­tème d’échange alter­na­tif)ou la Loze en Lozère

3. Antonin ip:1
   22 November 2008 @ 15:33

   Oui, ça c’est un sys­tème d’échange équilibré.

   Quand on rend ser­vice à un amis, c’est un dons.

4. open money project ip:3
   11 January 2009 @ 18:02

   The pro­blems with money stem enti­rely from how conven­tio­nal money is nor­mally issued — it is crea­ted by cen­tral banks in limi­ted sup­ply. There are three things we know about this money. We know what it does — it comes and it goes. We know what it is — it’s scarce and hard to get. And we know where it’s from — it’s from “them”, not us.

   These three cha­rac­te­ris­tics, com­mon to all natio­nal cur­ren­cies, deter­mine that we constantly have to com­pete for a share of the limi­ted amount of the “stuff” that makes the world go round. This money can go anyw­here, and so it inevi­ta­bly does, lea­ving the com­mu­nity depri­ved of its means of exchange.

   It is sim­ply the nature of conven­tio­nal money that by its coming and going it creates condi­tions of com­pe­ti­tion and scar­city, within and bet­ween communities.

   So we have to scramble for money to sur­vive, we are for­ced to com­pete for it, often ruth­lessly. Intent on get­ting the most for the least, we strive for the best bar­gains, as indi­vi­duals, busi­nesses, non-profits, govern­ments, and nations.

   As a society, as a gene­ra­tion, it seems we are deter­mi­ned to have eve­ry­thing our­selves no mat­ter what conse­quences our excesses and negli­gence bring for others, now and in the future.

   We rely on this money. It seems there isn’t much choice, des­pite its evident fai­lings. Some people have lit­tle or none and can­not do what they need to live in this world — some people have vast amounts of it and yet it seems to do them, and the world, no good.

   And what’s it all about? A money that is scarce, runs away in all direc­tions, and comes from “them”. This money of theirs comes with many problems.

   the pro­blem of sup­ply — how much money in cir­cu­la­tion is “right” for the eco­nomy? Nobody seems to know how to keep he balance bet­ween too much and too lit­tle.
   the pro­blem of dis­tri­bu­tion — where is it? who has it and who hasn’t? is it where it’s nee­ded? clearly not.
   the pro­blems of cost — costs of crea­tion and secu­rity, ope­ra­tions and accoun­ting, the costs of inter­est, the costs of the courts.
   But above all, at a cost beyond coun­ting, our mone­ta­rily dri­ven beha­viour has utterly disas­trous effects on our society and the glo­bal environment.

   That’s the bad news, but you pro­ba­bly knew it already. Now here’s the good news — all these pro­blems can be fixed with money that’s bet­ter designed.

   Money is just infor­ma­tion, a way we mea­sure what we trade, nothing of value in itself. And we can make it our­selves, to work as a com­ple­ment to conven­tio­nal money. Just a mat­ter of design.

   There is no good rea­son for a com­mu­nity to be without money. To be short of money when there’s work to get done is like not having enough inches to build a house. We have the mate­rials, the tools, the space, the time, the skills and the intent to build … but we have no inches today? Why be short of inches? Why be short of money?

   Open moneys are vir­tual, per­so­nal and free. Any com­mu­nity, net­work, busi­ness can create their own free money — “free” as in free speech, free radi­cal, freely avai­lable — but NOT free as in free lunch, or free ride. It’s not some­thing you get for nothing.

   Open money is money that must be ear­ned to be res­pec­ted. When you issue it, you are obli­ged to redeem it — your money is your word. It’s just a mat­ter of your repu­ta­tion in your community.

   Open money is flat money. It confers no power of one over ano­ther, only one with ano­ther. Exploi­ta­tion is no pro­blem; when you have your own money, you can’t be bought and sold so easily. You can choose what you do to earn your money. And there’s no mono­poly, all sys­tems coexist in the same space. Flat­ter than flat — open money is superflat.

   Open money is vir­tual and not limi­ted. Phy­si­cal things exist in space and time — which makes them limi­ted — in num­ber, mass, place. Vir­tual things don’t exist and need not res­pect any such limits.

   So any and all things are pos­sible in open money space — any form at all. It’s just a mat­ter of devi­sing a sco­ring sys­tem for those who consent to using it — money is sim­ply a social arrangement.

   Of course, a sys­tem won’t work as a money unless it’s well desi­gned. A sco­ring sys­tem that nobody wants to use isn’t a wor­king money. So while there’s no limit to the moneys that can be concei­ved, not all moneys will work.

   The new money that will work will be crea­ted by us, in suf­fi­cient sup­ply to meet our needs, and in an open context so that all can contri­bute and be ack­now­led­ged. Open money will cir­cu­late within the net­works and com­mu­ni­ties it serves, quite legally and vir­tually free, by design.

   We believe that the pro­blems that come from conven­tio­nal money can be resol­ved with open money systems.

   - where conven­tio­nal money is scarce and expen­sive, the new money is suf­fi­cient and free.

   - where conven­tio­nal money is crea­ted by cen­tral banks, new money is issued by us, as pro­mises to redeem — our money is our word.

   - and where conven­tio­nal money flows erra­ti­cally in and out of our com­mu­ni­ties, crea­ting depen­den­cies that are harm­ful to the eco­nomy, society and nature, the new com­ple­men­tary money re-circulates, enabling busi­ness and trade.

   So let’s fix the money pro­blem and for the rest of the pro­blems that we face in our world, let’s see what follows.

   Just ima­gine …

   - ima­gine having enough money, suf­fi­cient to meet all our needs.

   - ima­gine a society and eco­nomy ope­ra­ting without any of the fami­liar mone­tary pro­blems of poverty, exploi­ta­tion, home­less­ness, unem­ploy­ment, fear and stress.

   - ima­gine a world where eve­ryone can have work and pay, work and play.

   - ima­gine clean air, water, and food — enough for all.

   - ima­gine human society living in balance with the environment.

   Too good to be true? Or maybe not? Maybe worth che­cking out?

   These are our beliefs about open money, our ideas for deve­lo­ping open money sys­tems, and our intent to act now to imple­ment our beliefs…we invite you to sign on.

   It isn’t a mis­sion sta­te­ment for any­body or any body. The sta­te­ments aren’t owned by anyone or any­thing or inten­ded to serve the inter­ests of any indi­vi­duals or organizations.

   The pur­pose of the open money mani­festo is self deter­mi­ned — it is inherent in its content.

   it isn’t nego­tia­ted, nobody votes on it.
   it’s not a mat­ter of opi­nion, nor a poli­ti­cal pro­po­sal.
   its vali­dity is based on the sense it makes in and of itself.

   The concepts of open money aren’t owned by anyone.

   The mani­festo is an open set of ideas — the concepts are there for exten­sion, deve­lop­ment, refi­ne­ment — we invite you to sign in.

   The mani­festo is an active document —

   it is a sta­te­ment of obser­vable evi­dence — there are pro­blems with money;
   it is a pro­cess of design — the pro­blems with money can be easily fixed;
   it is a decla­ra­tion of intent — we are fixing them.

Commenter “Le cinquième pouvoir monétaire”

Connectez-vous pour gagner du temps

Nom

Mail - ne sera pas publié

Site (facultatif)

Titre (facultatif)

Prévenez-moi lors de la publication d'autres commentaires pour ce billet.

Le cinquième pouvoir en image

Après   Cette carte ne se contente pas de prendre en compte le nombre de sites mais aussi leur influence (nombre de liens qui les interconnectent). J’espère bientôt collaborer avec rtgi.fr pour que nous puissions croiser nos données. Si nous voulons comprendre les bouleversements politiques actuels, nous devons prendre en compte les nouvelles forces et ne pas nous cantonner dans les anciennes bientôt dépassées. Sur cette carte, il manque l’essentiel, tous les sites Open Source par exemple, qui font de la politique appliquée, qui changent le monde. Le cinquième pouvoir, c’est tout ça, toutes ces nouvelles forces non alignées qui se moquent des vieilles querelles de chapelles, de tous ces partis qui se disputent un pouvoir dont ils ne sauront quoi faire. Pour estimer les forces en présence, il faut toutes les représenter et ne pas entrer dans le même travers que les instituts de sondages. La réalité politique est bien plus complexe qu’on essaie de nous le faire croire à droite ou à gauche.

Le cinquième pouvoir militaire

Les nouvelles technologies favorisent la décentralisation et la redistribution des pouvoirs. Ainsi émerge le cinquième pouvoir. J’ai jusqu’alors négligé la décentralisation du pouvoir militaire. Lire la suite →

Redéfinir le cinquième pouvoir

Je reçois régulièrement des alertes Google pour me signaler les articles qui parlent du cinquième pouvoir dans la presse. Si l’usage de l’expression se vulgarise, je me rends compte que ce n’est pas forcément dans le sens que j’ai essayé de définir. Je crois qu’une grande incompréhension subsiste. Lire la suite →

Le cinquième pouvoir (selon moi)

J’ai commencé à écrire ce billet comme une réponse aux échanges un peu enflammés entre Carlo Revelli et Axel Karakartal, puis je me suis dit qu’il était préférable d’ouvrir la conversation. Lire la suite →