NCN Chat 15 Oct 95

How do we exchange value with each other in a new civilization?

<ffunch> Theme: How do we exchange value with each other in a new civilization?

<jhs> What is a fair exchange, does it exist?

<ffunch> Does it have to be a direct exchange?
*** bobhilt (bobhilt@eskimo.com) has joined channel #ncn

<cbwillis> Fair exchange is an agreement between the individuals/groups
+involved.

<cbwillis> hi bob!

<ffunch> Hi Bob, we're just getting started

<bobhilt> Hola!

<ffunch> Right, it is fair if it is according to an agreement or understanding

<cbwillis> fairness and value notions could differ widely among individuals
+and situations

<ffunch> If I cut your hair and we both enjoy it and are complete about that, then it
+is fair exchange.

<cbwillis> and I pay you money or whatever

<bobhilt> f: I might add--reached on equal terms, not with one side having
+decided advantage over the other (?)

<jhs> I was thinking about an invention: an electronic device that measures
+your desire for an article.  If you want that icecream bar badly, you pay
+dearly.

<bobhilt> jhs: :-)

<cbwillis> :@

<ffunch> Value is whatever you perceive it as. If you are happy with the arrangement,
+and you choose it freely, everything's fine.

<cbwillis> buddhist gizmo?

<jhs> If we both enjoying cutting my hair, would I pay you anything?

<ffunch> No

<ffunch> Except for if we agreed that that was part of the arrangement

<bobhilt> There are other factors involved that may be external to the
+parties.

<ffunch> Maybe I would only enjoy it fi I also got paid

<bobhilt> commons-type issues...

<ffunch> We might both have advantage of working on something we share, without any
+money being paid in any way.

<ffunch> I would like more activities to move in that direction.

<jhs> You would have to know that BEFORE you get out those scissors, tho!

<ffunch> Yes, we would need an understanding first.

<cbwillis> right, agree in advance

<ffunch> But how necessary is money, then?

<cbwillis> where there isn't that agreement in advance there arise some pretty
+strange feelings

<bobhilt> As long as there is scarcity, quite necessary I think.

<cbwillis> good as a universal medium of exchange

<ffunch> Yes, we might get mad at each ohter if we had different views of the
+agreeemnt.

<cbwillis> some people have stuff that is not universally desired, so in order
+to be able to have what they need, money is helpful

<ffunch> Is money needed at all levels of a society?

<ffunch> Money applies to what is scarce?

<cbwillis> what are levels of a society?

<bobhilt> I see money as a means.  One among many.

<ffunch> Eh, I'm not sure.

<ffunch> I mean, inside a family we don't really need money.

<ffunch> But between differetn communities or groups we might.

<cbwillis> right, except for allowances 

<ffunch> Right

<cbwillis> but there is the original notion of economy, which involves the
+home

<ffunch> But allowances are for spending outside the family.

<bobhilt> We shouldn't get as stuck on it as the central issue, but it should
+be available for enhanced exchange.

<cbwillis> true

<cbwillis> enhanced exchange, yes, allows you to extend beyond what you could
+do with direct simple exchange

<ffunch> Money is needed if you don't quite trust somebody or don't know them well
+enough, or aren't close enough to them.

<ffunch> I know my family members are sticking around, so I don't have to charge
+money for my services to them.

<cbwillis> money is needed if the other person wants money, has nothing to do
+with trust

<bobhilt> ff: or, obviously, if you don't have some mutually desired goods

<cbwillis> my clients trust me, I trust them, but I don't want 1000 massages
+and no money to pay my bills

<ffunch> Well, yes, money is necessary if the other person has something you want,
+and wants money for it.

<ffunch> But when does one choose to charge money and when doesn't one?

<cbwillis> I charge money as a representation of value, validation for
+professional background and preparation, and because I need money to pay
+others in turn

<ffunch> I charge money when I have a scarcity of something and aren't willing to let
+it go for free.
*** Signoff: SwamiG (SwamiG)

<bobhilt> ff: when one is asked to do something that they wouldn't normally be
+doing for free.  Sort of a circualr answer...

<ffunch> Eh, yes.

<ffunch> Freely, then.

<cbwillis> I find that if people don't pay money for some things, esp
+intangibles, they don't value it as much, may trivialize it
*** SwamiG (SwamiGyank@line170.worldweb.net) has joined channel #ncn

<ffunch> When I do something out of my own free choice, I feel less need to charge
+money for it.

<cbwillis> And the more they pay, the more they try to create value out of the
+the experience, create value from intangibles

<ffunch> Having problems with the connection, Swami?

<ffunch> I think it is a problem with our current economy that people don't feel as
+much to pay for intangibles.

<ffunch> The industrial economy values tangibles.

<bobhilt> We're getting very much into the classical economics here--econ 101
+stuff.  The general thinking about money.  So what's different with ncn?

<cbwillis> people are stuck in the physical universe and 5 senses, they don't
+understand the intangible, haven't been educated to understand it

<ffunch> I would like to be able to assign value wherever it is, even if it isn't
+something that could be used as bank security.

<cbwillis> I never had econ 101, so I'm willing to reinvent the wheel!

<ffunch> So am I\

<cbwillis> assignation of value is an assertion by its creator or holder, but
+an agreement with its perceiver

<ffunch> I think exchange is fine, but it is a problem if there is way too little of
+the substance used for exchange.

<ffunch> cb: true

<bobhilt> Still, pretty basic:  Money is a means to allow for exchange between
+people to ease transactions.  

<ffunch> that is fine

<ffunch> trouble is when somebody else controls the supply of money and there isn't
+enough for what we need to exchange.

<cbwillis> what do you mean somebody else controls the money?

<ffunch> Banks make the money

<ffunch> They make it by loaning it out.
*** Signoff: SwamiG (SwamiG)

<cbwillis> OK, banks

<ffunch> I can't really MAKE money, I can only get some of what somebody else has
+already.
* bobhilt is back from the coffee pot

<ffunch> I would like money to be created by those who perceive the value there.
*** SwamiG (SwamiGyank@line170.worldweb.net) has joined channel #ncn

<cbwillis> there is a finite amount out there, but by *circulation*, velocity
+of exchange, it doesn't matter how much is out there.

<ffunch> Yes, if it circulated really quickly we can stretch it.

<bobhilt> ff: disagree--banks are more like poolers of capital (think in terms
+of credit unions where there's  not a profit motive)

<cbwillis> velocity gives the effect of near unlimited amount

<ffunch> But the banks have a monopoly on doing so.

<bobhilt> you have to still have it connected to roughly equal value though.

<ffunch> Banks need to be paid back with interest.

<cbwillis> And it's people's *willingness* to *move* money, to move *energy*

<bobhilt> ff: not necessarily.  One of the "problems" of the LA riots was that
+the Koreans were doing this amongst themselves.

<cbwillis> It's their willingness to take movement in life

<ffunch> Systems making it easier to move money quickly could make a big difference,
+such as electronic cash over the Internet.

<bobhilt> ff: Bingo!

<bobhilt> ff: E-Cash is THE future.

<cbwillis> I take visa/mc over internet, feels safe

<bobhilt> ff: it's really practically speaking, the present too.  Good
+example, cb

<ffunch> Yes, but stll makes me uncomfortable that the money is defined outside the
+control of the users, and based on an industrial age paradigm.

<cbwillis> there are city-based dollars, Ithaca NY has a system like this

<cbwillis> a parallel econ universe so to speak

<bobhilt> ff: Part two of econ 101 is that money is used to obtain "scarce"
+items or goods.

<ffunch> I think it is important to get to some kind of abundance feel. That there is
+enough available to pay for what you want, so that you don't have to hold on
+so tightly to your currency.

<cbwillis> anyone can generate money ad lib, outside the main system

<bobhilt> if we can get beyond scarcity for those items, then no problem, no
+need, no money.

<cbwillis> then we see the dynamics of agreement

<ffunch> Yes, but there are degrees of scarcity.

<ffunch> I would like to supply of money to match what is there that is scarce. 

<bobhilt> And there are artificial scarcities too.  Diamonds are a blatant
+example, but only one of many.  Energy is perhaps the best.

<ffunch> Right now the supply of money is too little to buy all the scarcities.

<cbwillis> if you could buy all the scarcities, they wouldn't be scarce

<bobhilt> ff: RBF wanted to base it on energy, which is really more what it is
+representative of anyway.

<ffunch> Too many artificial scarcities.

<cbwillis> what do you mean by artificial scarcities--food?

<ffunch> If as a whole society all scarcities could be bought, specific items would
+still be scarce for individual people or groups.

<cbwillis> ?? I just don't get this.

<ffunch> Artificial scarcities: when you put up a toll booth where there wouldn't
+need to be one.

<cbwillis> OK, but who pays for road repair.  The toll booth is a solution to
+the problem of road repair

<ffunch> I have x dollars and must choose what scarcities to use them for. I can't
+personally buy everything.

<ffunch> But for the whole society, it should even out.

<bobhilt> CB: that would be an example of where there needs to be one.  What
+if you have two there on the road when you only need one?

<ffunch> I don't mind toll booth for the sake of the road itself. I more think of the
+principle of a tollbooth applied in other places.

<bobhilt> Software is a great example.  Free to copy, but not free to build. 
+Where is the line drawn?

<cbwillis> bob, if people are asking "why 2?" then I think this would be a
+case of artificiality.  Like KNT's parallel bridge example.

<ffunch> Like, some kinds of information. Can be passed on very cheaply, but somebody
+might artificially limit it, to make more money.

<cbwillis> you mean I can't make money on my book?

<cbwillis> sell limited edition for $100 each?

<ffunch> I think the most sane attitude is to make things available, rather than
+limiting things artificially to profit from it.

<bobhilt> I don't know, can you?

<ffunch> Yes, you can make money on your book, certainly.

<bobhilt> We're talking about motivation, at some level.

<cbwillis> making things available tends to trivialize the value

<ffunch> But a book is a tangible item. I feel good about having a physical book. I
+am willing to pay for it.

<cbwillis> think of how many WONDERFUL articles and such are on the net.

<ffunch> But the ideas in your book, you can't stop those from seeping out.

<cbwillis> there are so many, and people expect them to be free, they download
+them, and then DON'T USE THEM.

<bobhilt> OK, We've got an opening here.

<ffunch> Yes, to some degree free availability trivializes the item. That is a
+problem.

<cbwillis> ff, your tp books are a good example of this
*** AC (AC@d210.sth.pi.se) has joined channel #ncn

<cbwillis> I bet the people who spend $40 each get lots more value from them
+than those who download from the net

<ffunch> Hi Andreas?

<bobhilt> The reason you charge for your book is that goods are scarce to you,
+and you require that some of your effort go toward making those scarce goods
+available to you.

<AC> hello

<bobhilt> If you had no scarcities to worry about, then charging would be less
+of an issue.
*** Signoff: SwamiG (SwamiG)

<cbwillis> but people using the item is part of the mockup.

<ffunch> It would be a valuable service to connect people up with what is really
+useful to them. Help them sort through the information.

<cbwillis> not just buying it

<ffunch> Total abundance would do away with any need for money.

<bobhilt> cb: not sure I follow you...

<cbwillis> It's essential that people use my
+items/articles/books/consultations/classes--else I've failed bigtime

<bobhilt> ff: yes, and degrees of abundance...

<ffunch> Might make more sense if people paid when they actually used something and
+found it of value, rather than just paying for acquiring the artifact.

<cbwillis> I would say, why bother if they aren't going to use the material?

<ffunch> In a way it is unfair to pay for a book that you might not even read. But it
+currently would be hard to administer any other way.

<cbwillis> And I would have been a failure as a teacher that I didn't orient
+them to that, convince them of the need for it.

<bobhilt> But if charging them is a way to make them use them, well, that is a
+bit aberrative I would think... It buys into the "if I didn't pay, it has no
+value" mindset

<ffunch> I think we need to get beyond the equation between what you have to pay and
+the perceived value in the item.

<cbwillis> interesting ff, say more?

<bobhilt> cb: exactly.  You're trying to pass on your knowledge of
+spirituality, AND you'r trying to get along financially.

<ffunch> Value is where it is, not necessarily where you've paid the most.

<ffunch> If there were a scheme where people would pay or be charged when they
+actually gain value from the product or service.

<cbwillis> true, we need an alignment of true value and perceived value, if
+that is possible

<cbwillis> true value is priceless

<bobhilt> The INet has HUGE value to me, but I paid almost nothing for it.  I
+don't take the value lightly though.

<cbwillis> but it needs to be perceived and validated

<ffunch> Yes, and sometimes people might achieve great value from an apparently cheap
+item. That should be recognized somehow.

<cbwillis> the net is a gift on the planet right now

<ffunch> I think we somehow need to gauge how people perceive value. Surveying,
+feedback forms.

<bobhilt> OK, so if I obtain your knowledge and put it to use and value it as
+a student, then the only other thing required is that YOUR needs are met
+somehow too?

<cbwillis> we need much more communication about value, how people perceive
+value

<ffunch> I could imagine something like the stock market. CB's stocks go up if people
+really like or use the book.

<bobhilt> value 
<> money.  Clearly.

<cbwillis> bob: yes.

<cbwillis> but value is not a popularity contest

<ffunch> Internet could make it possible for us to communicate more efficiently about
+what we perceive to be of value, and tabulate it.

<cbwillis> many popular things have little value, many unpopular things have
+great value

<ffunch> Yes, there is more to value than popularity.

<ffunch> People might not notice consciously what is really of value to them.

<bobhilt> cb: So if YOUR needs are met, and you are feeling good about people
+using your knowledge, everything's cool?

<ffunch> I thnk so, Bob

<cbwillis> not noticing value is a failure of education

<ffunch> Who decides what is of value, then?

<cbwillis> bob, yes, for me

<cbwillis> there are levels of abstraction in assessing value

<bobhilt> Well, $ is not part of that equation.  $ is only one means among
+many, but we focus on it as an end in itself (we=western soc.)

<cbwillis> some bum on the street might say your tp book has no value as far
+as he is concerned, he's not interested, wouldn't take it if you gave it to
+him--too heavy to carry around.

<bobhilt> I'll make a bargain with the Universe if it'll make the bargain with
+me.

<cbwillis> but the higher level of value is that the info helps to heal the
+planet and humanity

<cbwillis> and others will see that value even if they bum didn't

<cbwillis> those who see the value will be willing to trade high value

<bobhilt> I'll work 4 hours/day for as long as I can, doing whatever I
+perceive needs to be done for the betterment of all, and Universe will
+provide me a comfortable living.  I've got no problem with that...

<ffunch> Do we need a central agency for determining value?

<cbwillis> now the rub is when they don't feel they have enough to trade it
+for what it's worth

<bobhilt> FF: bleh...

<ffunch> The bum on the street is free to not assign value to my book, but if others
+do it will still add up to being of value.

<cbwillis> I might say the tp book is worth $2000 because if you compare to a
+year of graduate school at a psychology institute that would cost $5000, you
+book actually gives me more.

<cbwillis> And you're only asking $40.

<cbwillis> But if I don't have $2000 or $40, we have a problem.

<ffunch> If we add up different people's assignment of value I think it would be
+reasonably fair.

<cbwillis> like a charitable average?  :@

<ffunch> If I similarly valued what you were doing, CB, you might also be worth a lot
+and be able to pay.

<ffunch> A market system of value.

<bobhilt> I think we're dancing around a key point though.

<ffunch> Or a stock market of value assignment.

<ffunch> What's the key point?

<bobhilt> What we do that gives value is good.  We should see if there's a way
+to not have to charge DIRECTLY ($) for that, but rather, what are OUR needs,
+and how can they be met.  that is...

<ffunch> I think that other's perception of value of your service is a better
+indicator than the physical scarcity of it.

<cbwillis> ff: it's called whatever the market will bear

<bobhilt> Let's look at our needs, not our "positions" (from _Getting to Yes_,
+a book about succesful negotiating).

<ffunch> Yes, if our needs get met then we don't need to calculate values, we would
+just do what we feel like.

<cbwillis> yeah, but who gets to define what we need

<cbwillis> that's the problem with communism, lowest common denominator

<bobhilt> ff: yes.  How can we get our needs met, AND how do we define that. 
+That's the crux, I spose...

<cbwillis> I think we need a highest common denominator

<ffunch> Only I know (maybe) what MY needs are.

<cbwillis> why limit ourselves?

<bobhilt> If you had surety of those needs though--basic good level of
+survival, then what?

<cbwillis> the line between needs and wants is very slippery

<ffunch> If we can put in systems for supplying common needs more easily to more
+people, then there will be less of an issue of exchange.

<bobhilt> Do you lay on the couch and watch threes company? Or do you work on
+stuff like this that produces value?

<ffunch> If I knew that my food, housing and energy needs were covered, many things
+would be different.

<bobhilt> ff: Excellent.

<cbwillis> I continue to produce value

<cbwillis> but not everyone would do that

<ffunch> I would probably work harder on what I want if my needs were covered.

<bobhilt> cb: Yes, and I think majority will also.  Sitting on the couch gets
+boring!

<cbwillis> it has been argued that few would do that

<bobhilt> ff: yes, you can do what you think is most necessary...

<cbwillis> There would have to be a whole culture shift to one of contribution

<cbwillis> and social ostracising if that wasn't happening

<ffunch> Yes,

<bobhilt> cb:  That's the shift i'd like to pursue...  What means to we have
+in BIG society to ensure folks are working within the betterment-system?

<ffunch> Part of this is to find more ways of people having their basic needs
+covered. Like energy systems people can have in their back yards.

<bobhilt> ff: and food and shelter...

<ffunch> If we help people being more self-sufficient they might have extra energy
+available to look more positively at the world.

<bobhilt> I know, how about a desktop nano-factory? :-)

<cbwillis> I think it would enhance self esteem to be more self sufficient

<ffunch> I'd buy one.

<cbwillis> I have one!

<bobhilt> :-)

<ffunch> Too many people are too co-dependent to the economic system.

<ffunch> You have one, CB?

<cbwillis> my computer system

<cbwillis> it's all a writer needs

<bobhilt> co-dependent.  Interesting choice of words

<ffunch> Thought you meant a potted plant.

<cbwillis> we could throw some dirt under it

<ffunch> We need to help people have a bubble of safety where THEY are in control of
+the parameters of their living.

<cbwillis> interdependence is good, but when really basic things such as food
+are totally out of our hands, that could be trouble

<bobhilt> ok...

<cbwillis> and the very young, old, or ill cannot do this for themselves

<ffunch> Interdependence in the useful way would best come from being independent
+first.

<ffunch> Dependence -> Independence -> Interdependence

<cbwillis> like in relationships, be whole first, don't seek the "other half"
+to "make a person whole"

<ffunch> Right, CB

<ffunch> If you are yourself whole first, then you can much better relate to others
+in meaningful ways.

<cbwillis> not having one's needs met is a way to not be whole

<cbwillis> it constantly drains energy and attention from worry

<ffunch> So, creating more wholeness on a low level of society would be worthwhile.

<bobhilt> Hypothetical Q: If you have a solar still, hydroponic system, blah
+blah, and could be self sufficient by working the garden 2 hours a day, and
+then only need money for gas for your bicycle and your inet connection, then
+what?  Do people buy into this system or not?

<ffunch> Then you have free time to relate to others.

<ffunch> A big complex system is best built on simple elements that already work (are
+whole).

<cbwillis> I agree, you have to have fundamental simplicity

<ffunch> A new civilization built, not from the top down, but from individuals and
+families and communities that work and that are self-sufficient.

<bobhilt> I think a good answer to my question is that people would buy into
+in degrees.  If it could be tried partially, then more and more, it would
+ease the transition.

<cbwillis> but they need the vision and understanding that that is a higher
+order of abstraction of value that needs to be communicated and agreed on

<ffunch> Each step of making people more self-sufficient would help.

<bobhilt> I could then look for my needs vs. talents vs. society's needs, and
+go from there, rather than looking at what job I can do for basic $$

<cbwillis> find a need and fill it

<ffunch> The fact of being more self-sufficient would help, even if people didn't
+quite get the abstract concepts of it.

<cbwillis> but how would they get there without some understanding? else it be
+forced on them

<bobhilt> ff: I think so. Especially if it was easy, and could be adopted in
+degrees rather than one big icy plunge...

<ffunch> By providing artifacts that work.

<cbwillis> artifacts?

<ffunch> Sell self-sufficient solar energy systems.

<cbwillis> products that make you self-sufficient

<bobhilt> yes

<cbwillis> services that make you self-sufficient, like tp

<AC> ff: but the abstract concepts are necessary for it to become a new
+*civilisation* (nag, nag)

<ffunch> Products or ideas that are spontaneously adopted.

<cbwillis> like www

<bobhilt> back to rbf's mode...

<bobhilt> WWW is such a cool example...

<ffunch> ac: the abstract concepts need to be there, but don't have to be understood
+by everybody.

<bobhilt> ac: and people don't tend to buy into abstraction until basic needs
+are secure...

<ffunch> People don't have to get the idea first. If they get presented with some new
+products or services that they like better than the old ones, that can lead
+them towards more self-sufficiency.

<cbwillis> as long as educators and other leaders have them, this could help
+ensure sustainability

<ffunch> The man on the street might mainly look for convenience and short-term
+payback, so we need to provide products and services that give that, and
+still lead towards a better society.

<cbwillis> have more consciousness and dimensions and resourcefulness *built
+in*

<AC> But how secure can basic needs really become? There's still earthquakes
+and hurricanes... And who's going to provide these things without it becoming
+another top down affair?

<ffunch> PEople need to be able to provide their OWN basic needs.

<bobhilt> BTW, Side note:  I saw a program on TV about JAVA.  This is going to
+be HUGE, folks.  check it out.  It's going to be better than sliced bread....

<cbwillis> JAVA???

<ffunch> You mean the WWW Java?

<cbwillis> iced tea?

<ffunch> Nobody will take care of everybody's needs, but we might invent schemes that
+allow them to fulfill their needs by themselves easily and locally.

<bobhilt> Yup.  This thing will allow people to build applications that are
+runnable by ANY computer over WWW.  Watch out!

<cbwillis> whoa!

<cbwillis> gnarly

<ffunch> Getting ready to wind down the chat ...

<bobhilt> JAVA could be a great NCN tool, and I think we should make every
+effort to learn how to create things with it.

<ffunch> We've gone more than an hour.

<cbwillis> I think we've had a very good chat!

<ffunch> Yes, would really like to do more interactive NCN WWW stuff.

<bobhilt> OK....

<ffunch> YEs, I think this was useful.

<ffunch> How about next week?

<bobhilt> check out (i think) //www.java.com and //www.sun.com

<cbwillis> ok

<bobhilt> yes, same bat time?

<ffunch> Any suggestion for a topic?

<ffunch> Same time, I'd say.

<cbwillis> I think we should use the same one, go at it from another angle

<bobhilt> topic: means for assuring basic needs?

<cbwillis> value creation? or whatever you said at the beginning

<ffunch> Basic needs, or value creation, yes good.

<ffunch> I'll synthesize a theme along those lines.

<ffunch> I'll see you guys next week!

<bobhilt> OK.  Thanks for your time.  Send me your bills...

<ffunch> The bill is in the email

<AC> *Defining basic needs?

<ffunch> That sounds good, AC

<cbwillis> ok, bye for now