I like the 'bank money' concept as described in msg 57 in Today thread on Barclays profits. The idea of operating in other ways that don't use bank money have been around for many years. Unfortunately they haven't expanded beyond very small geographical regions.

Some of my other thoughts on economics are below. Not very well organised!

Money is imaginary. It is a method for equating the value I put on a good or service with the value that the supplier puts on them. Moving this equation into the future via consumer debt alters the difference is perceived value. This is manageable if the future is near. However, the higher the debt the further into the future the equation moves, thus reducing any relationship between the equation and reality, both in the future and in the now. onsequently the tight relationship between resources,money, and the user breaks down. We are almost at that break point even if the totality of resoources was connected directly to the user. Our economic system does not, and never has, taken account of the full totality of resources. It has only ever been applied to privately held resources.

Economics extracts a particular item within a large set of possible, and relevant to the real world, items and gives it a god like status; this is money, or more specifically an abstarct entity relevant to individuals and individual institutions. Anything not directly related to this imaginary concept is confined to the realm of 'not relevant'. Whist it determines that some of the real world is worthy of economic theory it deliberately ignores the rest of the world. In other words when it enhances the status of economics it is a good thing; if it detracts then it is considered not suitable to be included in economic theory. Items are moved into and out off this exalted status partly to explain economic theory failures and partly to respond to public pressure. In general, the aim of economic theory is not to predict and lead but to promote both the status quo and those at the top of the pile.

Money is the way we allocate decision making, or power. Inventing more money via banking, stock markets, and credit does not increase the power needed to allocate the resources of the world; it only moves that power between individuals, institutions, and nations. When we say we don't have the money, or it is too expensive, to reallocate resources we are saying that we are unwilling to step away from the current imaginary, self imposed, restraints.

The developed world has reached a level of sophisticated technology, that is machine assisted natural resource modification. Significant amounts of human labour is no longer necessary. Imaginary money is no longer a necessary fairy tale. Whether we can move onward in childhood remains to be seen.

It is good to see that some change of viewpoint is occurring in the mainstream. This has been happening in the background, in little pockets for at least 70 years (it could be claimed that one of the first textile mills where the owner provided housing/education/etc for his workers was part of this). Open Source software on the internet is part of this change. Distributing music via the internet is part of it. In the business community it is females who seem to beginning to influence ingrained business thought. (R4 Sunday 17:30). Which leads to my objections to traditions/religious ideas that have been imported to the UK which are influencing, for the worst, our long fought for emancipation of women.

When you get a loan, for example for a mortgage, the bank doesn't have the money; it invents it!! In other words they create more imaginary stuff solely so that you can give them back even more imaginary stuff. This is 'bank money'.

It doesn't take money to supply blankets to a refugee camp. It takes the collective will to do so.

A famous quote is

"Anyone believing growth can be contiuously maintained is either a madman or an economist."

Can someone explain takeovers. I just don't see the point. If I buy A then I expect to gain a benefit from A. For example, if A is a coat it helps keep me warm (and possibly enhances my 'reputation', an abstract benefit). 'Benefit' is the tricky concept. It seems to have the types concrete (e.g. warm), abstarct (e.g. reputation), and 'investment'. Takeovers must incvolve investment, but I cannot see the return that this must involve.

What is the real difference between the rich and the poor? It is the ability to command energy to their needs and wants. In an energy poor economy the rich will always appropriate the energy to themselves. The world currently has an energy poor economy. Narrowing the gap between rich and poor can only be accomplished by increasing the energy available to exceed tohe riches requirements. This can onlt be achieved by importing energy from outside the closed system.c