Commerce system notwithstanding, 7 billion people on an Earth size planet consigns most people on the planet to starvation and thirst, once the non renewable resources become scarce, hence the concept of overshoot.
I have a picture in my head that may help you visualize how capital and debt work. Think of an isosceles triangle with the richest people at the apex and the poorest people forming the base. Money moves up the triangle while debt moves down. Everyone can pay off their own debts as long as a new layer of indebtedness is formed at the bottom of the triangle. Many view this as a Ponzi scheme because it requires the triangle to forever grow. In fact some people picture the triangle the other way round, standing on its point to emphasize this aspect.
The idea that there isn't enough money to pay back debt is wrong. The total amount of money in the triangle is equal to the total amount of debt in the triangle. (Remember money is created as debt). The problem is the distribution of money and debt within the triangle.
When the limits to growth are met the triangle can no longer grow. The people at the bottom of triangle cannot pay back their debts because the people above them have all the money and there isn't a new layer forming beneath them to keep the Ponzi scheme going.
Hope this helps visualize the situation.
Ed
ps One way to salvage the situation is to redistribute the money within the triangle. That is why the German taxpayers will ultimately end up paying off Greek debt.
Thoughts on "joining the peasants".
Do not assume that you will be welcomed by rural communities. As a member of the government of a community of less then a thousand people within a half a tank of gas range of Chicago, I can say that we are painfully aware that there is very little we can do for a large influx of internally displaced people.
Bring provisions. If you arrive with food, fuel, bedding, clothing and some cash you have a much better chance of integrating yourself into a community then those that might arrive destitute.
Be prepared to work. Pitch in whole heartedly with what ever needs doing. You want to be seen as, and be, a legitimate part of the solution, not as part of the problem.
Bring a sense of humility. Country people have a long history of feeling that their intelligence is being questioned by city people and we tend to be alittle defensive. Thinking that you are going to bring culture to the hinderlands by telling us how affluent people do it in the big city is not going to win you many brownie points.
We don't wear suits out here. The guy with the tousled hair, grubby barn coat and camo bedroom slippers is the Fire Chief. The petite, mild manored, grey haired lady in the house coat is the Mayor. The disorganized young woman with the crying baby and the unfortunate tattoos, is related, one way or another, to a quarter of the Village. Be polite to everybody.
Timing would seem to be the critical issue. If/when egress routes begin to get choked/blocked, you want to be the useful person inside the barricade rather then the scary one outside the barricade.
Good Luck,
John G.
All of this creates pressures and tensions and fractures that I do not think are containable and manageable much longer, even if suddenly next week, you get an announcement that they’re going to get by for another 30 days. I don’t think you can run the world 30 days at a time with this much built up pressure and tension.Without the ability to plan strategically on a global scale we are truly screwed. Running countries and economies on the fly, not knowing what will happen tomorrow or next week, never mind 30 days from now is absolutely why there are all of these pressures and tensions. People need to have hope for the future and the lack of any kind of long-term strategic planning takes away anything tangible on which to pin those hopes.
Diversification on a personal level really is the key, all the more so now than ever before. Creating a balance in all aspects of life along with a personal strategic risk management plan that assesses realistically what each of us, in our own particular circumstances, are likely to experience going forward is the only way we can counteract the lack of strategic planning elsewhere. In the big picture "they" might not be able to plan where they are going or how they are going to get there, but we can do that on our own small scale. A great personal plan may not eliminate all of the risks but it sure a heck will help mitigate and reduce exposure to the down drafts that are surely coming.
Jan
As someone raised in a rural environment who fled for the city, then settled in a different rural area, I'd add another item to your list – SHARE YOUR SURPLUS. This can be something as simple as offering to walk the dogs of a neighbor who works long hours (sharing surplus time), or give away surplus garden produce (sharing surplus food). This will help you to establish a reputation as someone who is dependable, who is willing to help – in short, will help you to bank a feeling of trust with your neighbors. Because if things go to hell in a handbasket and you're in an area like this, those neighbors will be who you depend upon to get by – and it's too late to build up trust at that point.
A barter system is untenable, inefficient. Barter is great way to augment easier to manage stores of value, like precious metals or fiat currency that is intelligently managed. But alone, it won't work. If you advocate for this kind of system, in a world of 7 billion people, you are consigning most people to a slow death by starvation, thirst, disease.We have been taught for several generations to think that in the absence of money, most transactions were conducted by barter, and that people lived primarily within a barter economy. As neoclassical economists are fond of saying, "Money is a veil over barter."
The problem is that this bears no resemblance to actual history. The fact is that most people up until about 200 years ago did not live in a barter economy, they lived in gift economies. What this meant was that when someone had a surplus of one thing and someone else had a deficiency, the resource was shared. And the expectation was that if the giver found themselves in need of something, someone else would step up and help them out. This lack of immediate exchange so common to market economies results in obligation and gratitude developing among the participants – something that makes the economy a source of social cohesion as opposed to something that puts people in competition with one another.
Backing up the gift economy were a few other social phenomena. One was the network of mutual obligations among kin and community. The best example of this in the modern world is an Amish barn raising. Able-bodied men in the Amish community do not receive direct compensation for coming out and helping – rather, they do so because it is expected of them, it is their obligation as members of the wider community. In this way, every family gets a barn without having to go into debt or spend an outlandish part of their savings.
Another was the role of gossip. When someone in the community would shirk their responsibilities, word would quickly get around – and that person might not find others stepping up to help them in the event that they find themselves in trouble. Despite the negative connotation surrounding gossip today, the reality was that it served a crucial role in community gift economies by ensuring that everyone put in their fair share, and correcting those who did not.
ON EDIT: I am frequently reminded of the way that gift economies worked when I think about stories my 96 year old grandfather still tells me about growing up in the depression, in rural Western PA. His family was fortunate to have a small homestead with a milk cow, gardens, and even a coal shaft on the land. He and my great-grandfather would mine coal out of that shaft, and it was not uncommon for my great-grandfather to advance coal to other people in the community who needed some. My grandfather could never get over the fact that those neighbors were not going to be able to pay them back, and says he would point this out to his father. He says my great-grandfather would just shrug his shoulders and say, "Well, what are you going to do?"
I think that this reveals a big disconnect between a generation that was brought up in a functioning gift economy (my great-grandfather, born (I think) in 1879 in a rural area) and one that came of age as it was overtaken by the market economy (my grandfather, born in 1918 in that same area). I think my great-grandfather realized that they had more coal than what they needed, and that being the case, you didn't just hold on to it and let other people freeze during the winter. At least not without word getting out that you were a cold, greedy, heartless bastard – and hurting your prospects with other people in the community.
CAH, good point.
Parable of the Loaves and Fishes, a couple of interpretations.
-
Follow Jesus and all your needs will be magically taken care of, or…
-
Follow Jesus's example and give freely of what you have. Jesus puts his lunch on the table, everyone else looks around for a second then puts their lunches on the table, and not only was there enough for everyone with left overs but the multitude is now a community of people who have shared a meal and owe each other a favor. What was a mob is now a tribe with functioning gift economy, miraculous!
John G.
jgritter,
As someone re-integrating myself with the Christian traditions in which I was raised, this comment really hit home. I still really have issue with the way that the concept of a "personal Jesus" is spread throughout mainstream Christianity. When my wife and I took our kids to Sunday school the first time and they were doing prayers, some of those we heard were things like, "Help me improve my grade in English."
I honestly had to bite my tongue from blurting out, "You're not getting it! It's not about what magical gifts can be provided FOR you, it's about what gifts YOU can bring in the spirit of service and gratitude to others!" And as you pointed out with your second interpretation of the parable, when you get enough people taking that kind of an approach to things, the end result is a situation where you always get what you need, even if it isn't necessarily what you wanted.
CAH - I really enjoyed your post… have been reading Eisenstein on and off myself. Question; you said,
I think that this reveals a big disconnect between a generation that was brought up in a functioning gift economy (my great-grandfather, born (I think) in 1879 in a rural area) and one that came of age as it was overtaken by the market economyYour statement could be interpreted as saying that the gift economy and the functioning of a market economy are mutually exclusive. Are they? I am not sure they are.... it still seems to me that honest, transparent, reasonably regulated markets should be able to give price signals that are, in the end, beneficial to our stewardship of the earth... i.e. if something is scarce, it should become more expensive.
At the highest level, I don't think the answer to our problems of today is going to be all or nothing. I don't think the answer is a pure gift economy. I don't think the answer is pure capitalism either, or simply a matter of honest money (though that would go a long, long way). I think the answer lies in a hybrid.
It's a good thought experiment to imagine what a working system that embodies the, "best practices" might look like, regardless of how realistic it might be to get from where we are today to this new system.
For my part I would have to say that rather then being mutually exclusive the gift economy and market economies exist side by side at all times as reciprocals. In a large complex economy flush with cash, cash transactions will predominate. In a small local economy with little cash, gifts will predominate. Given human beings baseline predilection for banding together for mutual support I don't find it difficult to imagine a gift economy rising up so smoothly and seamlessly (at least on a local level) in the wake of a cash crunch that people hardly notice. I don't find it hard to imagine a world in which gifts, barter and money (be it precious metals or notes backed by something tangible) freely co-mingle. Our currant ethereal system of global finance might be dead but, given that the majority of people are essentially destitute and have nothing to loose but their debts, I don't think many people on Main Street would miss it for long.
John G
Great conversation John G and CAH. I've been experimenting with barter and gifting for the last few years myself. We moved to a rural area 4 years ago and are generating more surplus each year. Sometimes we barter, sometimes we sell produce and often we simply give it away. This is definitely a powerful way to build positive relationships (and to eat well at the same time! - it almost always comes back around.)
I'm not sure that gifting and money economies are mutually exclusive. Right now I can see a place for both. I'm reminded of a tai chi principle of not getting caught on the wrong foot. If that foot is taken out from under you, you're gone. We have a mortgage and live in the real world - money is a requirement for now. Equally we live in a community that is likely to see radical change in the next few years. Forging relationships that go deeper than money is vital.
In our society a lot of people have all their weight on their 'money leg' and I fear this will become problematical for them. It may or may not be necessary to transition entirely to a gift economy as events unfold. But either way it is useful and rewarding to have made a start.
The gift economy and money/market economy (especially under industrialization) are two very different animals. The gift economy is horribly inefficient at meeting wants, but due to the fact that its exchanges are left "open," it has the effect of increasing social cohesion through a sense of mutual gratitude among the participants. A market/money economy, on the other hand, is incredibly efficient at satisfying wants (and, in our current system, manufacturing those wants) – but it is horrible for social cohesion, because every exchange is completed immediately, with both parties walking away not "owing" anything to the other party.
While there are certainly instances where a gift economy and market/money economy exist together, by and large I do not view them as reciprocal nor complimentary. Anywhere a market/money economy has emerged, it has squeezed out the gift economy. This fact has been recognized by certain populations even here in the United States. In the pre-Civil War South, for instance, "improvements" such as river mills were fought against by yeoman farmers because they knew the way in which those improvements in the North had been the first salvo in turning independent, self-reliant heads-of-household into wage slaves – and they wanted no part of it. Similarly, the gift economy maintained the greatest hold in Appalachia, primarily because the terrain prohibited the intrusion of a market/money economy on any scale beyond a peddler's wagon coming through a couple times each year.
Anywhere that people gain access to money, the gift economy is squeezed out. Every time. This is supported by the fact that gift economies still in place in "mainstream" American society are uniformly in poorer communities, where they rely upon exchanging basic goods and services with each other outside of money. Now, what this also means (and Dmitry Orlov has written a fair amount about this) is that if things really do tip over and we all see a drastic decline in our standard of living across the board, the people best positioned to deal with it will be the poor, because they have been practicing how to be poor for a long time. Being poor, and participating in a gift economy, and making do with what comes across your path instead of what you want is hard work. While I see an adoption of the gift economy among downwardly-mobile middle and upper-middle class people happening eventually, I do not think that the transition will be anywhere close to rapid or seamless – because people in the middle and upper-middle classes will do whatever they can to hold on to their "status" as long as they can by keeping up appearances, and part of that will be a refusal to participate in the kinds of non-monetary exchanges that poor people do.
All that being said, there are groups that do manage to participate in both the market and gift economies. However, these are typically groups that consciously separate themselves from the rest of society (Amish, Hutterites, Hasidim, etc.). There are very conscious and strict limits on their interaction with the wider society and market economy, and these limits are usually founded on the separate identity (often religion-based) that these groups maintain.
Finally, with regards to market economies, I don't understand where this faith in fair, transparent markets comes from. Markets, by their very nature, will never be fair and transparent entities. First, because they are not ruled by rationality, but rather by greed and fear. Second, because those who have the ability to game the system will inevitably do so to their own favor. As Adam Smith said, "Men of the same profession rarely come together, even for merriment, without the end resulting in a conspiracy against the public." This fact was not lost on the yeomanry of the early Republic – it is why they often consciously avoided interaction with anything resembling a financial economy. They knew that it was more often than not a sure road to ruin. It is only since financial markets have managed to swallow up almost all other exchanges that we have convinced ourselves of the fallacy that they can be "fair" and "transparent".
davidallan – I want to clarify my above post in light of reading your reply. I too recognize the fact that we currently live in an over-financialized system, and it is nigh impossible to drop out of it completely. I, also, am trying more and more each year to reduce my reliance on money in order to meet our needs – often by leveraging savings into improvements that will meet some of those needs (solar heat/energy, firewood, micro-farming, etc.). However, I think that this acknowledgement and personal choice is a different thing than looking at the macro picture of how these different worlds interact with each other.
It has been the mark of recent history that "free market" economies have been destroying local indigenous gift economies around the globe. Always to much applause, since it created the much worshiped "per capita income" which has now become the measure of all things. But that will not always be the case, things must and always will return to their source. As the predatory system we live under based on fear continues to fail, as it must, we will all be forced to confront our individual and collective fears, the fears that are so well articulated here at PP on a daily basis. When we finally build the courage to peer into the darkness we will see only ourselves. When we finally own it, then we will finally be free. The problem is not my brother or sister, it is me. Blessed be the darkness, because it is from within it that I may finally see the light.
CAH,
I wonder if you and I are as blind men describing an elephant. I write from the perspective of one who lives in a deindustrializing area with a shrinking money supply. The gift economy here is tiny, but I can image it gaining traction as the money supply continues to dwindle. I see the potential, some years hence, of a vibrant community of people who are wealthy in food, fuel, social connections, feelings of self worth and general quality of life but who have little or no money.
John G
Yeah, John – your statement is probably pretty accurate. I live about 60 miles outside of NYC, so we have the benefit of all that money sloshing around the global financial capital – at least for a little while longer. But I also notice even in my own life that I will often take the convenience of a cash purchase over the work required to build trust and operate in a gift economy a little more each year. But I reckon even in that respect I'm ahead of the game, because most people I come across are oblivious to the vulnerability of relying on cash for everything.
I see the potential, some years hence, of a vibrant community of people who are wealthy in food, fuel, social connections, feelings of self worth and general quality of life but who have little or no money.That's actually my aim, more or less, over time. But in order to do it I have to be willing to take the "leap" that Geoff Lawton describes, and jump out of the life I don't want (but gives me a false sense of security) and into the life I do want (but scares the hell out of me with a wife, 2 kids, and a mortgage). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhgkoCTmgW0
OT
I'm gone for a couple of days and come back to such a great exchange of ideas! The current money economy is based on debt. If debt is destroyed either through default or non-engagement then money is destroyed. Climber 99's triangle (post 21)shrinks a little each time this happens. If you don't want a monster, don't feed it. The gift, and to some extent barter, type of economy can work now and help starve the monster.
All of the above discussion opens up the awareness of possibilities to function in a much different way in our lives. Most of this can be explored and entered into as a voluntary replacement for our current money based economic exchanges. As CAH brilliantly pointed out above, "You're not getting it! It's not about what magical gifts can be provided FOR you, it's about what gifts YOU can bring in the spirit of service and gratitude to others!".
On a personal level, I have always thought Descartes was wrong when he said "Cogito ergo sum" (I am thinking therefore I am). This idea makes it seem that we can 'be' as separate islands. This concept has been one of the foundational stones of Western philosophy and thought.
In contrast to this, the reality of my life has been based around knowing I exist and have some value as an individual because I have interactions with those that are in my daily path of life. The others around me on a basic level enable me to know who I am as I interact with them. Using barter and gifting for relating to others around us not only will help starve the monster of debt based money (and it's Ponzi like Isosceles triangle) but will enable a growing sense of knowing where we fit into our communities. This beats the heck out of going to school for years, having piles of debt, and not being able to find a job.
When we finally build the courage to peer into the darkness we will see only ourselves. When we finally own it, then we will finally be free. The problem is not my brother or sister, it is me.Brilliantly stated, Treebeard. When I stop and reflect on my own impatience in dealing with others, more often than not I come to the conclusion that in them I am seeing things about myself that I do not like, which in turn causes me to react in a less-than-productive manner. But I am slowly trying to file away those edges and get busy more with living the kind of life that I want, in my heart, to live.
If the only solution to overshoot is an inefficient system that imposes a summary execution style economic system, on billions of people, most people would decline its implementation. If the solution is to maintain and enhance the positives in our current system while mixing it up with some older cooperative type arrangements and some newer ways of doing things…cool.
The concept of overshoot has to be treated delicately and humanely. If we are trying to, in part, reintroduce soul, community back into our lives while we attend to the planet and end up writing off vast numbers of humans as 'outside the club' or somehow inconsequential, it makes a complete mockery of the very values we are trying to preserve.
There is a term for these cozy concepts…and I am not addressing you here but the countless posts I have read on many forums regarding overshoot. The word is German. It is "Volks".