Whose Money is it Anyway?

Last week at work I was talking with a colleague about the government, more specifically, the corrupt politicians and their dirty deeds. I used the disgusting behaviour of our city and the police in the eviction of the Occupy protest camp as an example of our government at its worst. Of course there are many more examples of corruption, greed, mismanagement and general sneakiness. But it seems I was talking to a wall when the response I got was that I can't really complain because I work for the government. "You can't have it both ways."

At first I was shocked. Naturally I can complain about the government even if they sign my paycheck since I am not obliged to agree with what the government does as a condition of my employment. Our country has a couple of documents securing my right to free speech and free thought called the Canadian Constitution and The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I thought most Canadians would be familiar with these documents. Perhaps not.

What is even more shocking is that my colleague believes the government owns the money. The government doesn't have money, it collects and distributes the people's money, our taxes. I work for the public, not the government. I work in a public institution which means it belongs to the public. I owe no allegiance to this or any other government party or leadership. It is very scary to know that people believe we cannot question authority if they sign our paychecks. In actuality, it is our obligation to question authority, especially the government, whom we have placed in office to oversee the management of public resources.

Let's get this straight. The government works for the people, not vice versa. Anyone is allowed at anytime to voice objection to this or any other government department, agency or party. If you are working within the government and don't like the criticism, might I suggest moving to the private sector?

Eye Exercise

I think it was last week. Someone sent me an article about exercising your eyes. I didn't think much of it but was curious and sure enough, 10 minutes later I was doing the eye exercises described in the article. It got me thinking though. Why do we not exercise our eyes? They are, after all, a muscle. We work our other muscles, in gyms, jogging, swimming, yoga, pilates, tai chi...even vocal exercises. Why not exercise our eyes? They're kind of important no?

Anyhow, it's been niggling in my mind for days. I'd rather exercise my eyes than wear glasses or contacts. Having recently joined the four-eyed club with a prescription for reading glasses, I now understand the difference between good and bad eyesight. And, glasses (although sometimes a cute accessory) suck! I think glasses are weakening my eyes. After I wear them, my vision is worse than before. Yes, I need them to read books but maybe an e-reader with large font is a better idea. I digress.

Today is when it all began to make sense...the annoyance, the niggling, the curiosity. I was in a meeting at work with some colleagues and some international students. We were meeting about a college program that sends employees overseas for short-term individual volunteer placements. We were talking about what people in different countries think of Canada...and the difference between Canada and their country. Everyone in the room had an opinion because every one of us has gone on overseas placements, or relocated, or experienced some sort of work or personal travel to Asia, Africa, South America, Middle East, etc. We all have had experiences abroad that were eye-opening and mind-broadening. We all had on some level exercised our minds culturally, intellectually and socially.

Now think about it. We are told that our eyes, over time, harden and become more rigid. We become unable to focus on things near or far so we go to the eye doctor. A specialist! The eye doctor examines us and, if we're not 20/20, gives us a prescription. The eye doctor then tells us it is likely our eyes will get worse over time so expect to return in a year or so for another prescription...on and on it goes. What the eye doctor does NOT do is suggest eye exercises instead of buying glasses. Instead the eye doctor advises us to close our eyes and rest our eyes regularly. Ha!

Examinations! Prescriptions! Lenses! Resignation! Bah. How familiar. When I applied the same line of thought about eyesight to cultural competence it dawned on me that our society would rather us wear 'glasses' than take the time and effort to exercise our minds, even though the results would be far more favourable.

Consider this...what might our society look like if we all had some intensive experience in a foreign country with an unfamiliar culture or language? Would we need to have diversity policies, cultural counseling or inclusiveness courses? Or would we not need these 'prescriptions' because we all would be exercising our minds in a way that would help us to understand that we are all different and that different is not bad or fearful, it's good. Would we be as dependent on government to give us the rules on how to behave fairly and without prejudice? Would the government be as capable of instilling fear and hatred in us? I think it would make a huge difference.

When we try to correct a problem in an unnatural way (prescriptions) we risk becoming dependent on something originating from authority (specialists), and this dependence compounds.We relinquish our power and surrender without taking the time or making the effort to correct the problem ourselves. We capitulate and, in the end, lose a lot more than we had expected. Meanwhile the authority lines its pockets with our gold and controls us with false promises of security or support.

Prescriptions are mechanisms of control and they ought to be the very, very last resort in ANY situation. Policies, laws and processes are designed to keep us in line so we'll be compliant thus easier to control. Effort would be much better spent on learning programs that give us opportunities to exercise our minds than on policies that close our eyes and keep us in the dark.

Demurrage

Demurrage. This is something new I've learned about in the past few weeks. Defined, demurrage is "the cost associated with owning or holding currency over a given period. It is sometimes referred to as a carrying cost of money. For commodity money such as gold, demurrage is the cost of storing and securing the gold. For paper currency, it takes the form of a periodic tax, such as a stamp tax, on currency holdings. Demurrage is sometimes cited as economically advantageous, usually in the context of complementary currency systems." (wikipedia)

In an interest based monetary system the cost of borrowing is a burden on the borrower. In effect, it is beneficial to retain money instead of spending so that you can accumulate wealth for current and future expenses, both real and imagined. It is a fear based system in which saving for a rainy day is deemed wise. Insurance companies make billions on this societal assumption. Pay now...just in case. Risk adverse financial planning banks on this idea. And, yes, there are risks and we do need to save for our retirement, unforeseen accidents or economic downturns, etc.

But, when you think about it, why is this so? Why do we fear the unknown and plan so cautiously for the future. Well, I think it is because of the interest-based system itself. It generates fear in the belief that storing funds is the only way to be prepared for what may come to pass. We don't invest in preparing for the future, we invest in not preparing for the future...not creating a better future. This makes no sense.

In a demurrage system, the reward for accumulating wealth is gone. In this system it is a burden to store money since its value or purchasing power depreciates over time. Distributing currency becomes the ideal. If there is a cost to accumulate wealth, what would happen? Would more money flow through business and the community? Would more lenders lend? Would entrepreneurship increase? Would we invest more in the tangibles, better systems, infrastructure, services...in each other?

Who benefits from interest? Certainly not the majority who hold the burden of interest payments. It is a fundamentally flawed system in which the wealthy get wealthier. I wonder how much currency is locked away in private holdings, only used to exert influence and control over the majority, domestically and internationally.

Governments would benefit from the demurrage fees placed on currency holding, as would other institutions. Imagine if we actually lived in a gift-based society where wealth, influence or wisdom were not determined by the size of your bank account but by by the size of your generosity.

Do I think our bankers are crooks? Definitely. There are other options to our current financial system to consider and demurrage is one of them. We just need to think differently. Giving is definitely better than taking, as any volunteer will admit. We just don't place real value on it yet....and we should.

read: http://www.sustainwellbeing.net/different_money.html