A model for living without money lawfully

Please see disclaimer before reading any of the content of this site.


non-capitalist modelWhy is the concept of ‘some’ people within society living without money ridiculed?

There is a definite trend lately towards the idea of individuals giving up the money game altogether, i.e. living completely without money, and a few names seem to come to the surface when researching on the topic. These names include Daniel Suelo, Heidemarie Schwermer, and Mark Doyle to name a few. What has also been apparent in researching this topic has been the sheer level of difficulty most are faced with in contemplating such a move, not only on an individual level, but more importantly, for those with children.

My aim is to demonstrate that there is support for the notion that people, even with families, can give up money completely without having to suffer the indignity faced with doing it in manners which are either unlawful (such as being homeless, dumpster diving) or otherwise unconventional; in other words, to renounce money in such a way that people around you wont even know you have done it, and this notion is supported by over 5 years of research into law, economics, and a whole host of other subjects which have some bearing on this subject.

I had already begun my quest to answer the question ‘is it possible for me to give up money altogether?’ years before I discovered said names above, and in fact had probably begun my quest when I was still a youngster living at home. However, the greatest challenge I faced in answering this question was how to do it without breaking any laws, because if I could answer this, then I would find a way to do it with children. Let’s be honest, the three names above do not face the problem of having young children.

My real journey began after my parents won the lotto (over half a million dollars) only to end up bankrupt 4 years later. Upon this sad happening, I subsequently learned that 19 out of 20 lottery winners end up the same way as my parents did, i.e. they lose more than they actually won. As shocking as this statistic sounds, it was more shocking to then discover that 19 out of 20 businesses ultimately fail, 19 out of 20 people struggle week to week and 19 out of 20 will retire with insufficient funds. A co-incidence? I hardly think so. It is very apparent then that 19 out of 20 people do not fully understand money whereas the 1 out of 20 obviously do.

Upon first discovering this I believed at the time that if this statistic is true then my job was to learn how to become one of those 1 in 20, which I attempted to do for almost 4 to 5 years until I crashed and burned. I quickly came to realize that the 19 out of 20 exists not because they are lazy or stupid, but because they are too honest and loving. It has nothing to do with ‘hard work’ but in ‘hard selling’; i.e. those who succeed in money do so because they are the best at convincing you that you need to buy their product or service irrespective of whether you need it or not. Put another way, digging 100 holes in the ground may seem like hard work (and physically it is), but it aint worth a squirt of goat urine unless you can convince someone out there that they need to buy 100 holes in the ground, and once you can convince this poor sucker of this, you can point to 100 already dug holes and then ask for the cash.

Honest people face two problems, first they find it hard to sell anything and second they find it hard to say no when being sold to. Now think of this from a mathematical perspective; if success relies on you being able to convince others to buy your product and at the same time being able to say no when being sold to, then is it mathematically possible for everyone on earth to succeed all at the same time? Obviously it is not.

So this brought me to the following question. If it is mathematically impossible, then why on earth have we set up society in such a way that it becomes almost criminal, or at least immoral and repugnant, if you are not seen to be out there risking your neck and playing the game of economic pursuit? Where did this whole concept come from? A century or more ago, people rushed into cities because they fancied their luck at playing the game of economic pursuit lured by the chance of riches and wealth, as opposed to slugging it out on a farm for no other reason than self-sufficiency. Nowadays, unless you are seen pursuing wealth and engaging in commerce, you are seen as ‘not doing your bit’.

To make this more ridiculous, not only are we now forcing everyone into this game of economic pursuit, whether they want to or not, we then whinge and complain when those who are better at it (i.e. those who are better at selling) keep whipping us. How immature are we? If anything, the richest in the world do not want us out there competing against them – if they did then why would they go to such lengths to support and lobby those political parties to whom will tip the balance of politics in their favour? The problem has became extremely apparent to me. The game of economic pursuit, which includes everything from barter, trade, exchange, to the accumulation of wealth, is completely and utterly over-crowded.

Now, I am not here to suggest every person give up their pursuits, and in fact, I care not what others are doing, whether you pursue money and wealth or not, is irrelevant to me and my cause; what it is I have found to be next to criminal is the suggestion that just because you have decided that money and wealth is important to you means I have to treat it the same way. To take this to the very extreme, I am saying, I, with my family, want to give up money altogether without being forced into breaking the law or being ridiculed, and I want you, whomever you are, to accept my decision without mocking me or claiming that somehow my decision will have some adverse effect on you unless you can prove, and I mean actually ‘prove’, that my decision does in fact adversely affect you. Can you do this?

To return to my question above which is, if I have children, how do I renounce money altogether without breaking the law, then I had to ask myself, why do people who do renounce money or economics, usually end up facing the prospect of being homeless, or at least not co-existing in society as normal, and this question led me to realize that the necessities in life, such as housing, clothing, food, water, education etc, have been placed under a new label, that being ‘human rights’ which has completely masked if not obliterated the very real nature of human needs.

The term ‘right’ is very misunderstood, and I only know this because I have been studying law for the last 5 years or so. The term, from a legal perspective, means that someone somewhere owes you something, i.e. a duty. No right can exist without a corresponding duty. So, if we then say ‘housing’ is a human right, then who owes the duty to provide that housing? Obviously then this is sheer nonsense, because you can’t access housing today unless you are willing to play the game of economic pursuit, even if that means through welfare, which is itself nothing more than an undignified version of economic pursuits. To add to this nonsense we then say clothing is a human right; so who owes you this duty? Now, I dare anyone to take off their clothes and walk around naked and see how long it is before you are arrested.

Human needs are ‘not’ human rights, to which some other schmuck owes you a duty, but in saying this, it does not also suggest that human needs are something I should have to pay for, unless I have openly declared my intention to treat them as commodities, which is what I am doing if I openly engage in the game of economic pursuits (and which is what most people are doing). Human needs are not someone else’s duty to which I have a right, human needs are my own duty to which I owe society. Yes, you read right, I am saying that I have a duty to meet my human needs lest I breach some law as a result of not having access to them, and therefore, this makes a complete mockery of the idea that by renouncing money (which is what many religions and philosophies over millennia have called many to do) can only be done by breaking the law. Put another way, if I have a duty to society to be housed, clothed, etc then I should have a choice as to whether I treat those resources as commodities or not, which means I should have a choice as to the legal and ownership structure of those resources so I am able to treat them as needs and not commodities, and hence then have no need to engage in economic pursuits or money.

It’s time to view this whole subject through the perspective of ‘law’ itself, which is the aim of my website, and to find support in the law itself as to the legitimacy of having that choice in life to give up money completely and lawfully, whether one has children or not and without being subject to ridicule, by changing the structure of how those resources (human needs) are held…I call it the way of the custodian.

Do you desire to live without money, to break away from the soul destroying 9 to 5 job and all the punishments, rules, regulations, fears, and lack of incentives it carries, not to mention all the relationship, ecological, and social damage it causes?

Do you desire not to have to sell yourself, compete against others, bargain with others, exploit others, and at the same time always putting yourself at risk of loss, injury or death, or worse, to cause loss, injury or death another just in the name of being employed in some useless job?

Do you have children and desire not to force them into the same enslaved money driven way of life?

And if so, do you wish to do so in such a way which does not force you to break the law (by being homeless etc), does not force you to go without the necessaries in life or to have to apply to the tax-payers for that repugnant institution called welfare, does not force you to appear different in society and thus subjecting yourself to ridicule, and which does not force any part of you or your beliefs on another, and even better, do so in such a way which in fact benefits all the money-users also?

Imagine this:

You live in the urban part of society, on a street with say 100 houses, and out of those 100 houses, you live without money, whilst the other 99 continue to live on money, and none of those 99, nor the public as a whole have any idea that you live without money – you don’t struggle because all your needs are met, you appear just like everyone else, except you don’t go off to some sould destroying job each day, instead you spend your time doing whatever it is you love most in life, such as being an artist, writing books, preaching some religion, making furniture, whatever it is it doesn’t matter, all that matters is that you don’t do any of these things for money;

Or this:

You live in the rural part of society, in an area with say 100 families, and out of those 100 families, you live without money, whilst the other 99 families continue to live on money, and none of those 99, nor the public as a whole have any idea that you live without money – you don’t struggle because all your needs are met, you appear just like everyone else, except you don’t go off to some market trying to sell your produce each day, instead you spend your time doing whatever it is you love most in life, which in this case may be simply being a hobby farmer, raising children to do the same, whatever it is it doesn’t matter, all that matters is that you don’t do any of these things for money.

As a result of this two things happen:

1. You live stress-free not worrying about all the things which the pursuit of wealth brings, and;

2. By using this model, you actually benefit all those who are pursuing wealth because you no longer compete against them.

How is this all possible you may ask?

I cannot explain this model properly in a universal way because of our poor use of language and our almost completely non-universal way we interpret things because of our belief systems. The best I can do is to generalize it over the next few pages, but instead encourage questions – ask me what it is you think you need to ask me in order to see in your own mind how this model can be put into practice by anyone desiring to live this way, by asking questions though the comment sections below?

In the meantime, I will do my best to explain the model as best I can and will use the questions you pose and my answers as a means to update and keep organic the explanation of this model.

There is no shortage of people today in the western world, whatever their reasons, who are trying or looking at ways of living without money. It is obvious when reading many of their accounts and experiences, that it is a challenge. Why is that? For the most part, there is the idea that to cease using money means to live like a monk or completely ‘off-the-grid’, or worse, it means having to break the law, plus if you have children, it seems it is nigh on impossible. For others there is this stigma attached to it as if you are doing something repulsive or are offending those who wish to live with money. I do not find any of these to be true, and in fact find it to be the complete opposite to all of these.

Having said this, there has also been no shortage of great minds throughout history who have grappled with this very question – how do we live without money, or more to the point, how do we end our own poverty and suffering, which it seems is the inevitable by-product of money and capitalism? – and these great minds have had to put up with their fair share of criticism in the process.

However, I have found that all of them have made or make one fundamental error in their pursuit, hypotheses, theories, and/or solutions, in trying to solve the issue, and that is – they believe that the only way is to force system-wide change. This is wrong.

We can’t fix capitalism by implementing communism, or by removing people’s means of expressing greed etc. This model is not about system-wide change, nor to stop people being greedy – if people wish to pursue capitalist pursuits, let them I say, it is not for me to judge them – what I say is, fine, if you wish to pursue capitalist pursuits then go ahead and continue to do what you’ve been doing for centuries, just don’t prevent me from fulfilling my duties in life (i.e.having access to resources in order to provide for my family) just because I choose not to pursue it in a capitalist fashion.

Does this make sense to you?

Now, the question becomes, how do I access those resources necessary in order to fulfill my duties to provide for my family, if not with money or through capitalist means (i.e. selling my labours), if not with scavenging, begging, welfare, or dumpster diving, if not by living in a cave or on the streets, if not by breaching some law?

Well, I have been shown a way, and my job is to show you, if you are willing to open your mind.

I have been on a fact finding mission. A couple of years ago I began to discover that most of what I believed in relation to money and the law was wrong.

I never quite knew however what to do with these discoveries, sometimes thinking I had to keep them to myself, other times sharing my discoveries with ‘great minds’ around the world who all demonstrated a desire to change the economic system as it stands today.

With the latter I only ever got silence in return. The reasons for this are not quite clear to me other than the possibility that what I have discovered is based on certain discoveries (pillars or principles which the model is based on) which go against or challenge some very hard held beliefs.

However, I can no longer keep trying to show something to people who simply don’t want to see it, and instead have set up this site for the purpose of trying to gather some like-minded people who see ‘something’ in what I am saying. You may not understand some of it, or even most of it, but in your heart you will feel something, and if you do then it is my hope you will join me on this site in helping it get to a point where this model can actually be implemented without it ever creating even a blip on the radar of anyone who does not care for it.

The beauty of this model is that it does not ask anyone who does not want to employ it to change anything; it is only those who employ it who make the changes. What’s more the model benefits everyone indirectly, even those who at first glance will believe it affects them adversely.

The model is simply this:

For any individual, family, or group which wishes to employ it, they renounce all ownership of all those resources that every member of society is expected to have access to in order to fulfill the law (dwelling, clothing, food, implements, education etc) and instead holds and manages them as a trustee or custodian in trust for the whole community; thereby rendering the need for money completely unnecessary.

Now this is obviously a very simplified summary and is going to need a lot of in depth explanation (starting with definitions and meanings of words and phrases), which this site will aim to do, but with such a model, the employer of the model has no need for money because there is no aim or goal being chased which requires money, i.e. there is no desire to own private property or anything for self interests or for monetary profit and therefore there is no need to ever have to hold anyone else in your debt.

The model is based on several principles , some of which are as follows.

1st – I do not find that my human needs (access to land, housing, clothing, food, energy, education, and other resources necessary to function in society without burdening it) are rights belonging to me, i.e. as human ‘rights’ or other rights, privileges, or entitlements I have to fight, compete or apply for; I view them as my legal and moral obligation to society, meaning, if I do not have access to these human needs I am in breach of my legal and moral obligation to society because I will become a burden on it.

2nd – I do not find that my taxes I pay to the government as funding government spending, including welfare, but rather I find that those who are worse off are the ones that have made it possible for me to have the money by which to pay taxes, therefore it is those who are worse off who have funded me.

3rd – I do not find that earning a living is being able to convince someone else that they need to buy my products or efforts, otherwise known as ‘selling’ or, ‘earning money’, but as something entirely different; as a result, I do not find earning a living by earning money as the primary way of benefiting or contributing to society.

4th –  I do not find there is any “them” who is against me and thus I do not find that there is any truth in the “us vs them” concept or ideal.

5th – I do not find that there is an economic system which fits all and therefore do not find that there is any merit in trying to convince everyone that they should employ my model, or any other model for that matter, but rather that the economic model one lives by must reflect the psychology of that person.

There are more, and each of these will be explained in more detail, but to begin, we need to take care of the interpretation barrier first, because the summary above, if read by 1000 different people will be interpreted 1000 different ways, largely because of the fact that every person understands words in their own unique way. We will need to address this first by taking each word or phrase and ensuring that they are thoroughly understood and interpreted properly, because if we do not do this first, then when all the principles are expanded upon they will make little sense.

After taking care of definitions, we then need to deal with what will probably be the biggest barrier in most people’s minds – this concept that tax-payers fund everything and as a result tax-payers will deem that they are the ones who would ‘pay’ for this model, which I find not to be fact at all.

Let’s begin with definitions

Next Who funds who?

The model in more detail

Implementing the model

This is not communism



8 thoughts on “A model for living without money lawfully”

  1. You have an interesting point of view. I want to ask a question about “who funds who?” where you say: “I do not find it to be fact that tax-payers fund government spending, which obviously includes welfare and grants, nor do tax-payers fund anything else other than investing in their ability to make more money.”

    If the government does not get their revenue from tax-payers, why does government have budgets? It’s always on the news about tax-payers funding this, or that.


    1. Hi Spangas,
      Thanks for your question. The first mistake we all make is that we treat government like a business and thus then assume that like all businesses it can only ever receive revenue first and then pay expenses after. What this assumption does not factor in is where does money (and the legal system to support it) come from if not from a government to begin with? Money is nothing more than a mixture of government and bank liabilities, the first of which can’t exist without a government to accept that liability, and the second can’t exist without a government to regulate and supervise it.

      It is no surprise that politicians, media, and economists etc spin the sort of rhetoric which makes us believe that governments can only get their revenue from tax-payers, because in reality this is probably what they believe to be the truth. When the Bank of England published its paper titled ‘Introduction to Money’ in 2014, half of the members of the British parliament admitted that after reading the paper that they were embarrassed to admit that their understanding of money until then was totally wrong – and there are the very people we look to to run our countries!!

      I have written more about this subject in the following pages




  2. This is a very refreshing blog. It has a coherent vision and seems really original.

    The model would enable more people to shape their lives in ways that fit their values and interests.

    If you can find a lawyer who can make your strategy work, that would be fantastic. The following observations are policy-related, which I understand you are skeptical of. I need to reflect more on the model so that perhaps in future my comments can be more in keeping with your intended implementation.

    — Monetary and Real Costs. I agree with you that there likely would not be any monetary cost imposed on anybody else if some people declared themselves custodians. Inside resource limits and capacity constraints, the custodians’ expenditures on consumption items would induce an expansion of output, which would translate into additional employment and therefore additional income. Some of the additional income would, of course, be taxed away, but disposable income would rise. In terms of disposable income, there would be a net benefit to non-custodians.

    I’ve found that the pushback on this issue tends to focus on the extra labor performed. I think this objection can be answered in various ways, but just wanted to mention that I have run up against it when advocating for a ‘job or income guarantee’, in which people could choose between a guaranteed job or some form of basic income.

    One possible response to the objection is that, in principle, if a worker didn’t want the extra income that came from supplying output to custodians, they wouldn’t have to accept the extra employment. It’s true that, in practice, workers don’t always have this level of control over their working hours. Even so, I think it is likely in most cases that workers will want the extra hours and pay made possible by the extra demand. There are a lot of involuntary part-timers who want full-time work, for instance.

    Objectors sometimes then say, well it should be the wage-laborers who receive the extra income that is inducing the extra demand and justifying the extra employment, rather than the income going to people who are not in jobs. There are various possible responses to this also. One is that the objector is implicitly assuming that activities outside of a job are not a productive contribution and that only activities within a job are productive. Or they might argue (if right wing) that only the market can determine what is productive, or (if more on the left) that, outside regular jobs, society needs to define productive roles within a job-guarantee program or through a participation income.

    As you point out, not only is it clearly false that activities outside a job make no contribution (for starters, there is plenty of unpaid child care, aged care, housework, freeware development and volunteer work serving the community in various ways), but many activities within jobs are destructive rather than productive (e.g. to the environment, socially, to people’s health, and so on).

    — Custodians are Making Less Claims on Resources. Another key point you make is that custodians are actually facilitating the desires of those who wish to claim more resources for themselves. As you point out, if everybody tries to live this way, we are doomed ecologically.

    — Free to Live a Good Life. I think you hit on a key point when you say that you don’t want to be compelled to live by others’ values. Although objectors may feel put out by custodians having needs met outside the labor force, they perhaps fail to recognize that, by opposing this, they are compelling others to conform to their preferred economic model.

    If each person could voluntarily choose whether to be a custodian or an owner, there would be little ground for grievance when some people chose differently than others. If an owner thought custodians had it so good, they could become a custodian themselves. It seems that the objectors want to be what they want to be, and they want everyone else compelled to be the same way!

    — Custodians are Making Less Claims on Resources. Another key point you make is that custodians are actually facilitating the desires of owners who wish to claim more resources for themselves. As you point out, if everybody tries to live this way, we are doomed ecologically.

    — Job or Income Guarantee. A combined ‘job or income guarantee’ would seem to expand options within a monetary economy. People who want jobs in the private or conventional public sectors and can find them would still be catered for, as now. Those who want a job but can’t obtain one could opt for the job guarantee. Those who don’t want a job could opt for some form of basic income.

    — Purchase Card and Money. This is just a minor point, but I do wonder whether a purchase card really gets around money. Maybe I’m misinterpreting, but it seems that the business selling the good or service would presumably have its bank account credited, and the bank’s reserve account would be likewise credited. (?)

    There’s no question a purchase-card approach could work. I’m just thinking that expenditures made with it would seem likely to result in monetary payments. But perhaps I’ve misunderstood.

    Anyway, thanks for providing such a stimulating blog.


  3. Hi Peter,
    Thanks for your comments and questions.

    In relation to the custodians expenditures, another key aspect of this model is that the custodian, in obtaining resources will have no need to seek imports because price is of no issue, and so as you point out, it benefits the private sector.

    I must confess, I do not understand the ins and outs of the job guarantee program, but I think what you are suggesting is that the output necessary to provide the consumables the custodians would require would come from such a program? Maybe you can elaborate on this a little more.

    As for any objectors, I would always come back to the key question which is as follows:
    “Instead of telling me that you object for ‘whatever’ reason, prove to me in a way which you would be required to prove in a court of law, that this model would come at the expense of your person or property? Because if you can’t prove this, your words are meaningless and only have value in a political environment, but not in a court environment.”

    This is a key reason why I need to avoid the political environment on this issue, because the way I see it, politics has always been the property owners domain. We have larger governments today because our middle class is so huge. My model renounces property and so to then rely on policy as a means by which to implement it would be contradictory. Unless of course someone can show me a way around this? For instance, in the US and the UK people can have private bills (not private members bills) passed which only effect the individual concerned, and even further, in the US, these bills can be framed to make the beneficiary anonymous. Unfortunately, I am unable to see any evidence that such a thing can be done in Australia

    Here is a link to private bills if your interested

    I would also argue as against any objector, that their objections are based on a belief which says that all people are required to sell their labours in order to contribute to society, but this is flawed. It was only less than 100 years ago that people were still fighting for the ‘right’ to offer their labour in the open market. Now, not only is it some moral requirement, if you don’t do it your subject to the stigma and repugnance of welfare.

    Here is a great read on the history of the common law right to earn a living – well worth it

    What I find fascinating in it is the criticism of the stance the courts took after the New Deal. I believe that the courts themselves were the first to recognize the evidence of the fact that ‘treating resources as commodities’ as a calling in life had become over-crowded. There is a reason why 95% of people struggle with money, and its the same reason why only a small percentage of people become doctors, lawyers, mechanics, engineers, politicians etc. Earning money, whether actively or passively is a ‘skill’, an ‘art’, and something which the wealthy ‘enjoy’ doing. Some people are great at it and some are terrible at it, and the rest, well, I think many of them are envious of the rich and so this motivates them. Those who aren’t good at it really should not be playing in the property sandbox at all.

    I would also ask the following question to any ‘objector’ out there:
    “If you were wealthy, and you understood what money is and how it is created, then would you prefer that all of the world be competing against you over the finite supply of resources there are out there, or would you prefer iit if there were far less competing?”

    The answer to this should be obvious, and because of this, to then suggest that its everyone’s duty in life to not only compete against the rich, but to complain about them until we make it ourselves to me is sheer nonsense. The biggest mistake the rich ever made was to show off their wealth, because all that has done has created an envious population, who now all want to to be like the rich. The problem is, is that its not mathematically possible, and I believe the courts know this fact.

    I always imagine the sorts of things I could do and the benefits I can bring to others just from having the time to do it instead of being locked up in some soul destroying job. My greatest talents and skills (as a musician, artist, hobby farmer, cook, teacher etc) are lost to this world because I cannot and refuse to do them for money. I know this for a fact, that my wife would be so grateful to live her life under such a model that she would devote every minute of her waking day helping others, instead she uses her skills as a child care worker, to make her boss rich all the while living and working under extreme fear of something going wrong which could end up as a law suit – the chances of this are so high in such an environment. The irony is, is that most of the children being looked after are because both parents work in order to ‘pay the mortgage’. Babies as young as 6 weeks have been brought it. Absolutely ridiculous.

    As for the purchase card, you are right, the merchants would have their bank account credited, and likewise the banks reserve account. The way I see it, the treasury (or CB) would pay the bank so the bank can pay the merchant, and when that money makes its way back in taxes eventually it is destroyed.In essence the government is purchasing the goods and services I would use. So yes, money is used – the key point to make here is that, as we know, tax-payers do not fund anything, so it does not come at their expense; but more importantly, it does not carry the stigma of welfare with it. It is not welfare and so it should not be treated like it, which I’ll attempt to explain.

    Welfare recipients get very little, but at the same time, they have no self-imposed duty – a welfare recipient can take that money and spend it on anything, or worse, can use it to conduct trade or business and/or purchase property. They do not demonstrate to anyone that they no longer desire property or no longer desire to perform trade or business at some point – which to me is probably one of the key reasons they get so little. This might be a point of contention, I don’t know, but in my view a welfare recipient is still a property wannabe until they demonstrate otherwise. I don’t know any welfare recipient or homeless for that matter who would turn down a million dollars if it landed in their lap. Me, on the other hand, I would take that million dollars to the government and tell them to destroy it on the condition they allow me to operate my model.

    But anyway, unlike a welfare recipient who actually receives money in their bank, someone implementing this model sees no money, it bypasses them by going from the treasury to the private sector back to the treasury again. I have already dealt with any notion that the user of the model would abuse the purchase card on my blog.
    But other than that, I am very keen to hear if you think this last part might run into troubles?




    1. Oh, I forgot to mention.
      With the purchase card, if the process I described above couldn’t work, for public reasons (I think all government spending requires legislation), then another option would be to treat the promise (my promise is my bond) the user of the model makes not to engage in trade/business/property etc the same way as a foreign currency. Because it is a promise (to refrain from trade etc) it is still seen as legal consideration in the eyes of the law. I see no reason why the Treasury or CB could not take the bond and like a foreign currency, convert it into domestic currency for the purposes of facilitating the purchases made, and as I said above, once that money makes its way back in taxes it is destroyed. The bond is an asset on the CB/Treasury’s books which offsets the liability of the domestic money issued until such time as it is destroyed.


  4. Hi dingo. Great response. Love your legal challenge to those claiming custodians would be harming them. I think you are correct that such a claim would be difficult to establish (because in fact it is not a claim with credibility once you understand how our monetary economy operates).

    Just to clarify a few aspects from my earlier comment:

    The job guarantee (JG) would *not* be specifically related to producing consumables for custodians. The custodians would presumably obtain most of their consumables from the private market or public services like everyone else. The job guarantee is more about ensuring that somebody who wants a job can get one, even if they are currently unable to find a non-JG job. Production in the JG sector, in principle, would not compete with non-JG production. It would be production for “public purpose” rather than private purpose that, for whatever reason, is not currently part of the non-JG public sector’s role. One aim of the proponents of a JG is to broaden what activities would count as a job.

    I am supportive of a JG, but would prefer it to be combined with a feasible option for opting out of the labor force. Otherwise, a JG would seem to reinforce the wage labor relation rather than aid in a progressive separation of jobs and income. Basic income is one way this option could be provided. But your model of the custodian might be even better. With the option of basic income or the way of the custodian in place: (i) nobody would be denied a job if they wanted one; and (ii) nobody would have to take a job in order to have needs met. People would be enabled to participate in the economy in the way they most preferred. A basic income, in principle, would be similar to being a custodian except that it obviously involves money and there is no duty attached when it comes to the use of that income.

    Thanks for clarifying the idea of the purchase card. I think it would work fine. I don’t think there would be much danger of custodians not performing their duty of using the card responsibly. Their purchases would be trackable. If it seemed necessary to prevent the accumulation of savings, the balance on the purchase card could be replenishable rather than cumulative. In other words, the balance could be topped up periodically rather than building upon any savings already on the card. If such a policy was used, there would need to be a way to handle more expensive consumer durable items that need to be obtained from time to time. One way would be to provide these in kind, similar to housing. (I got the impression this is what you had in mind, anyway. (?)) Or there might be a big-ticket purchase card that had a higher limit on it but could only be used up to some cumulative amount over a specified period of time.


  5. Hi Dean,

    This comment is intended as a response to your post, ‘Is 100% Solvency Possible?’ I couldn’t see how to submit the comment under that post. Feel free to move to there, if you prefer.

    I agree with your basic point about competition and commodities. I’d quibble over your paragraph on full employment, in that various definitions could be adopted. For instance, one definition of full employment that has its limitations but is clear would be a situation in which anyone who wants a job can get one.

    I think your point about competition and commodities is consistent with MMT. For example, the MMTer’s solution to unemployment — the job guarantee — is to take an individual’s employability out of the realm of competition when workers themselves find this to be necessary by making jobs available on demand, subject only to the worker meeting basic requirements of the job-guarantee program.

    MMTers sometimes give the analogy of 100 dogs (workers) chasing 95 bones (jobs). No matter how fiercely the dogs compete, some will not get a bone. Training the dogs can reshuffle the outcome, but still some dogs will remain without a bone.

    The same dynamic can arise in many areas of life. If a school insists on an x% fail rate as a method (supposedly) of maintaining standards, then no matter how well students learn, some must fail. If, instead, the school sets a minimum standard that must be met, it is possible for all to meet that standard.

    The same principle applied to jobs or education can be applied to housing and other necessities. Minimums can be in place (allocated on a non-competitive basis), subject to whatever conditions are deemed appropriate.

    In relation to solvency, yes, I think in practice you are correct. In principle, the only way everybody’s solvency could be assured within a system of total and utter competition would be that somehow the debtors and creditors rotated positions back and forth over time, never veering too far in any one direction (into debt or wealth). But this is unrealistic, as you suggest, because competition will generate “winners”, and those who initially become winners will be in an advantaged position to consolidate their position of strength. Fortune will beget fortune, and misfortune will beget misfortune.


  6. Hi Peter,
    Sorry about the comment section missing. I’m new to all this wordpress and blogging and so am still learning. I have fixed it now but I can’t seem to move the comment to that page.

    But anyway, I agree with your comments regarding full employment. The term is subjective to say the least. I wrote a page called the sad tale of the unemployed…


    …where in it I suggested that full employment could be reached not just necessarily by creating more jobs but if people reduced their personal debt..this would reduce the need for full-time jobs, enable the sharing of hours around, and essentially everyone would be part-time. Obviously a ridiculous concept in practice because a) debt is inevitable, and b) greed is inevitable….but it highlighted the fact that ‘he who is without sin cast the first stone’ is certainly not being practiced by tax-payers who berate the unemployed, especially if those doing so have a lot of debt. Having said this, if less of our needs were treated as commodities there would be less need for debt. But anyway, not going to happen!

    As for 100% solvency being impossible, I have tried to prove it mathematically. I notice that often those with economic backgrounds like to use formulas to prove things. I’m not good at this. I can only prove it from a legal perspective (i.e. the law does not treat income as wealth but only the ‘right’ to income, as such, wealth is only a claim against another, and therefore 100% wealth is not possible, therefore 100% solvency is not possible). I was hoping Egmont from AXEC would elaborate more on his formula (business profit = household dissaving) and so to use this as a basis but I can’t get any real discussion going with him – he seems to treat any response to him as an attack. So I tried contacting him personally but he wont respond. Anyway, if you ever feel inclined to put this into math I’d love to see it



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s