This is my inaugural interview of a series on How to Build a Commonwealth. I’ll be taking the framework of the caret economy, with which I ended How to Dismantle an Empire, and brainstorming ways to apply it to real world problems.
Great discussion you two. Two of my favorite people planning how to take back power.
Now, if I may, I would like more clarification on this point, made by Tereza, in response to Gabriel comment about why communities can't just finance their own hospitals. Money is cheaper to borrow for the elites, he reasoned logically. And interest paid on that loan by the community who use the hospital goes to the elite class.
As a solution, Tereza says, "we [the newly established community bank] can create the loan [to our community] in [federal reserve fiat dollars] that pays [the corporation that now owns the hospital] off for it. And it doesn’t matter how much [federal reserve fiat dollars] you create, because it’s all going down. So don’t worry about it because once you create that loan, it becomes a loan to yourself in your own currency, in carets."
So through this process, the community bank creates the federal reserve notes necessary to buy out the corporate owners of the hospital and the community (hospital) owes that money to the community bank. But the community bank wants to be paid back for that loan in community currency (which you call carets) not federal reserve dollars. So the community bank has to create carets and get them into the community (through a subsidy) so that people can spend them at the hospital so that the hospital can pay back the loan.
Why can't the community bank just create the federal reserve notes to buy out the hospital corporation and forget the loan owed by the community in carets?
I see that you need to create a desire for carets in the community. So I see the community hospital charging for services in carets. But can you think of a better way to get carets into the community than paying out a subsidy?
It definitely sounds empowering the idea that we can create community banks that then forcefully buy out all the globally owned land and public infrastructure. Can I suggest that instead of using "eminent domain" to force sales, the local government can raise property taxes on all land that is not a first residence/business of a local citizen (all first homes are property tax free). So you get the global owners to voluntarily sell by over taxing them.
I'm glad you enjoyed this, Tori, since you were the instigation for the series! Your offer to interview me got this started. Your willingness to read my whole book in preparation for the interview was more generous than I ever would have asked. It was very empowering. You got me over the hurdle of figuring out podcast platforms (and I'll be curious as to your thoughts on the Zencastr I trialed with Gabe instead of the Riverside that lost your video feed). And our conversation as two moms who've thought through the details was what I've been looking for over the two decades I've been working on this. It made me want more of those conversations, and I'm looking forward to interviewing you on your book, The Girlie Playhouse, in March.
I'll post this, having learned my lesson with the bagel crumbs, and continue into geeking out on the tech details ;-) After my dance class ...
Thanks for playing with me on these little puzzles, Tori. I love thinking through the particulars.
So let's look at the hospital, which is a real problem here in Santa Cruz. Let's say you buy out a little hospital with all its equipment for $20M. That becomes a loan in carets at 5.3% interest, doubling the repayment to $40M. Those who are going to repay this loan are the providers who want to rent space in the hospital and use its equipment. If there are 40 providers over the course of 30 yrs, they'll pay around ^3K per month in rent. Maybe some want to share an office different days of the week.
That rent money goes back to the commonwealth fund and the interest--^20M--gives the Soc Sec fund that capitalizes the bank its 7% return. It also gives private retirement savings a 3-4% return, with a cap on maximum contributions.
So you now have around ^100K coming in every month to pay off that mortgage. That means you can push it out to your hamlet. For 2000 people, that would be an additional ^50/ mo. in their wellcare subsidy, to be used on anything that loosely falls into that category.
But I'm still going here. To be part of the caret system, providers can only give themselves the maximum level of monthly tax-free carets as disposable income. This doesn't include their expenses, including for personnel, rent or equipment use, or educational loans. I wouldn't allow liability lawsuits--so they wouldn't need insurance. YOU choose the provider, they do their best.
So most healthcare will be affordable. If you want insurance, you can buy it. Personally, I would take my chances. The people I want to see will be within my budget--unlike now.
Great conversation, and thanks for the transcript.
I have said I was willing to help with the simulation project, and I even started prototyping some basic models for the caret currency itself. But I'm not good at UI or game or simulation design. So I hope someone who's good at those things can show up.
I'm with Gabe in that I see a connection between the open source/free software world and the caret system. I started using Linux in 1995 because I wanted to have greater freedom in what I do with my computers, and because I no longer wanted to make people like Bill Gates richer by using their inferior software. In other words, local control vs. monopoly power.
Gates used FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) to try to prevent people from defecting from his monopoly. I see the same thing happening in the use of AI now, especially in software crafting. Most of the articles on Hacker News now are about how AI coding tools are great, and that There Is No Alternative (TINA), and that you have to use them or be left behind. I see this as yet another Windows Psyop designed to keep people from defecting from the system these companies are creating.
Caret nay-sayers will probably say the same thing: you can't fight the System, so join it. But there is a third paradigm (hah!), which is to work alongside The System. We see that in free software (much of the internet is running on Linux), so why not in economics?
I was looking forward to you reading this, Mark, because I knew you'd relate to the tech details. It's been very kind of you to start prototyping an app for the caret exchange. And, as we've discussed, I've wondered if that could be retrofitted into the game. But they serve different purposes, one as a user and the other as a designer.
It would be helpful for people to see how it feels to live in a caret system but the designers have to come first. And the mindset that shifts from being a consumer of an economic system to being its producer--which isn't as easy as people think!
I think there's a role for both in the simulation. It would be useful to have people represent factions of society--youth, renters, homeowners, parents, wage-workers, corporate employees, would-be entrepreneurs. Then the game can play out with real interaction.
I'm going to post and continue, so I don't lose the comment like I just did brushing bagel crumbs off the keyboard ...
The second part I'd started before the bagel crumb snafu was on 'working alongside the System.' For now, that work is entirely in the imagination. The System is that the Bankers usurp ownership of the land and we are in debt to them for the right to use it. It's not possible to work alongside of that because our work has been claimed by them already.
In my OMGdess research this morning, I was citing Graeber's book Debt. He refers to a 2402 BCE inscription where the King of Lagash calculates the rent, interest, and compound interest on HIS land occupied for decades by the King of Umma. It comes to four and a half trillion bushels of barley.
The word for interest is literally offspring. So it's the labor of wives, adult children and young children who pay the interest--serving as slaves in another's house as a debt pledge. That's been The System for over 4400 years. To replace that system with our own requires planning and collaboration. It's not going to happen spontaneously when no one even sees it as a problem that banks own all the houses.
Yes, I did get that--after the system's gone, the currency will remain. And that's good! We don't need to replace it, just let it become more and more worthless when it can't usurp ownership of the homes.
Whenever you speak of the labor to repay debt and interest it always brings me back to the concept of trading social security numbers on the market as some sort of collateral. It is the argument that “sovereign citizens” use when they talk about the dangers of the SSN. I’m still not able to get my head around this concept but little by little you are helping me understand this better. It seems like SSNs and taxes are a more efficient way to quantify the labor of slaves….
Hello, Anneke! I see you haven't gotten yet to my shout out in the new episode, which you instigated. I'll look forward to that!
I'm not on board (so to speak) with the whole anti birth (berth) certificate movement as a sovereignty thing. I think it's a disempowering thing. Other people are dying to become US citizens--literally.
We need to have a unique indicator for a person to know they're not scamming several commonwealths at once. I need to know where you are a commoner, which is my word for citizen, and where you are a guest or perhaps another status inbetween.
And to get rid of taxes is to not organize labor collectively. In order to disburse carets, you need to collect them back. Right now mortgages do that but I'm not opposed to taxes if they reflect what we want to encourage or discourage. It's only slavery if our labor goes one way and the labor of others doesn't serve us.
I listened once to your latest episode but am in the middle of listening a second time before I comment (and I also need a few mins to compose something thoughtful so I’m hoping baby takes a good nap today!).
I see that you are aware of the maritime law that plays such a huge part in all this….
Agreed. I'm sure you know that the game of Monopoly was designed by an Amish woman to teach her children how capital takes over. Oh! I just read that it was designed to teach the Georgian single-tax theory so of course you do. And it was stolen and sold to Parker Bros, who later paid her $500 for her patent. What an immorality tale!
I really enjoyed this interview, Tereza and I look forward to more. This is our future; people who see what's happened and rather than pretend it isn't, or give up in despair, engage, rise above and move forward with new solutions.
That's kind of you, Gabriel. So here's more - you look great, very healthy and handsome - I've really appreciated how you've shared your journey toward that end.
I texted your YT comment to Gabe, Kathleen, which I'll reprint here:
"The small stuff does make a big difference - even when the challenges appear impossible. Nice interview, Tereza, and Gabe is a wonderfully bright and insightful guest."
What an inspiring interview! Teresa, each time you talk about the carrot system I understand it a little better and I am believing more in a future where communities can break free from debt slavery.
Gabe, you are so insightful and your input helped to clarify many concepts for me. I love that you say that the bar for making a difference is quite low - I just wish you could give us a few examples of how each of us could be making small differences right now. I don’t have your charisma or knowledge of economics or an inspiring story (like your weight loss journey) that I feel would make any difference so I don’t think writing a Substack would be something for me to do.
What a great exchange between you two, Anneke and Gabe! I'm so glad you asked the question to elicit that eloquent answer. In fact, you just gave an example of Gabe's answer. Your question brought his answer into being.
I don't think you realize, Anneke, how much writers rely on a perceptive reader. I spent decades writing into the void, with no echo of whether the pieces I threw into them ever hit bottom. It's a very lonely journey. From my perspective, the world doesn't need another Substack but my perspective is selfish, wanting you all to myself ;-)
Gabe, your answer really resonates with me. I'm sad that you ever felt unsalvageable and I think of how bright that makes you as a lighthouse to those who still do.
When you get to my recent article, read the comment where I talk about my falling Tree of Life. There's an analogy to every time we crack that web of lies, the fissure spreads in ways we could never imagine. That's what I'm getting from what you're saying, Gabe.
And going all woo-woo, we're not in this alone. The other people are certainly there, and we keep their momentum going, but there's a synchronicity to it that's all Goddess. From my interactions at the Farmer's Market to my online connections, there's no doubt in my mind. I'm set on a path that bumps me into just the people I need. And who are also the ones I want in my life!
"I think it's really important to recognize untapped potential in others (and ourselves!) and figure out what we can do to nurture it. Fundamentally this is what I mean by "the bar is low". This is beautifully said, Gabe. Appreciation brings people into focus.
One of the big things I had to learn in the process of my weight loss was to actually adopt a "growth mindset". By this I mean not only understanding that change is possible, but recognizing and appreciating the smallest steps towards progress. A big part of this is accepting the problems of the past, but also being patient with challenges and setbacks.
I now believe that to be truly (or fully?) "awake" in any particular domain, you have to have a similar growth mindset regarding the problem. People are going to disappoint us, and we're going to make mistakes, that's part of the process. My younger brother has a saying "if [the problem] is up to me than it's already out of my hands".
I have a different spin on that idea, which is that for any sufficiently large problem it is important to accept that it isn't all up to us. It is so easy to get trapped in despair if we are only focused on our individual capacity to change things, but if we see it as a larger 'team game' the right moves look very different. Suddenly it's no longer "I must become rich and powerful enough to unilaterally solve things" and more "How can I add momentum to the ongoing efforts to address the underlying problem?"
One of the things that 'radicalized me' in the process of my weight loss journey was that I realized some of the little things that helped put things into place. I assume I'm not the only person who felt "un-salvageable", I think it's really important to recognize untapped potential in others (and ourselves!) and figure out what we can do to nurture it.
Fundamentally this is what I mean by "the bar is low". It really doesn't take a lot to add momentum to any particular issue. I don't want to prescribe specific goals but I can talk about the goals that are meaningful to me:
- Very few initiatives are actually 'wasted effort' as long as we learn from them and share the findings with others.
- Encouraging people doing the right things goes a very long way
- Any and all measures taken to break free (either mentally or in totality) from mass manipulation systems (like corporate social media) are worthwhile in their own right
- Charity and support has an immeasurable ROI, even on the smallest scales.
Regarding "But if you want to take back things like the Internet, you have to take back what is local" using eminent domain. In the US, the cable Internet companies have to bid on the contract to the local county. The community itself can form a cooperative and bid on that contract. If the corporation currently holding that contract loses it, they might be keen to sell all their equipment and other assets to the community Internet co-op. The people formerly employed by that corporation can then go to work for the new Internet cooperative.
I think there are ways to take back public infrastructure assets that doesn't involve eminent domain. (Gabriel and I are both afraid of that concept.) And we would be using the tools of the corporate elites insofar as we force sales by manipulating contractual arrangements.
FYI after reading Tereza's book, I would now add community banks to my monetary policy, which service the mortgages on all properties in the community by offering the best rates.
Excellent article, Tori. I love the idea of a Post Office Internet. I was just thinking that, now that search engines are practically worthless AI propaganda, someone needs to be offering a new one that lets you get around the half-dozen approved websites and find real people researching the same question.
I think that the first question to ask in an economic system is whether you're looking at system change or what can be done within the existing system. In the existing system, the Rothschild banking dynasty usurps ownership of the homes every time they change hands and holds them hostage for 30 yrs of hard labor. Talk about eminent domain! They are the sovereign, the fief lord, to whom all properties belong, and which return to them in every generation. Community banks don't change that system and can only offer rates within the Fed window that sets the prime rate. A low interest rate leads to high property costs, in which you're bidding against the hedge funds because their ill-gotten speculative money is as good as your hard-earned savings.
It's possible that we part ways at this point. I think you might be looking at what's possible without changing this system.
However, if you did change it, the next question is what size sovereignty? How small can your decision-making go? Here, we'd differ if your size is 350M people for Federal greenbacks and I'm looking at 2000 for a hamlet.
I agree with you about making contractual obligations written so they discourage foreign ownership, extraction and monopoly rather than using eminent domain. I would require all businesses within the hamlet's borders to have an account at the commonwealth bank, through which all transactions go. Any money extracted is subject to a tax that halves it. There's a limit on how much income can be transferred monthly into tax-free carets per individual. The rest, as dollars or another imperial currency, is taxed when spent at half its value. For a window of time, I'd allow properties to be sold for dollars without any tax other than what already exists. After that window, their sale in dollars as a lump sum would be halved by the tax. However, they can be disbursed over time as a tax-free caret monthly income that can be inherited and split. That can also be done through mutual agreement with another hamlet--where a parent might move to be with their children, for instance. These are parameters I'd propose for my commonwealth.
The game would measure how many times carets circulate before being cashed out, and how widely or narrowly distributed they are over several rounds of years. It would look at how much is being extracted, and how much is being imported to drain dollars. It would count the difference in home ownership by long term residents and natives, small business ownership, and small local landlords. It would calculate how many people born and raised there stay in the area or come back.
Despite these incentives, however, you may have corporations or hedge funds who hang on to their holdings in your hamlet. They may not care if they're not extracting money as long as they keep owning those stack-and-pack behemoth eyesores. What will you do about that? What if they keep polluting your water and spraying pesticides? What if they refuse to have the money they make from you go through a local account?
Here's the definition of eminent domain: a right of a government to take private property for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction. I would substitute 'foreign-owned, extractive or monopolized' for private. I'd start with the biggest offenders and stop when the problem was solved. YOU are the superior dominion. YOU are the sovereign power over all lands within your jurisdiction.
Thank you for this Tereza!
I look forward to the rest of the series and I'm thrilled to be a part of the discussion.
I'm very glad people found it interesting!
Great discussion you two. Two of my favorite people planning how to take back power.
Now, if I may, I would like more clarification on this point, made by Tereza, in response to Gabriel comment about why communities can't just finance their own hospitals. Money is cheaper to borrow for the elites, he reasoned logically. And interest paid on that loan by the community who use the hospital goes to the elite class.
As a solution, Tereza says, "we [the newly established community bank] can create the loan [to our community] in [federal reserve fiat dollars] that pays [the corporation that now owns the hospital] off for it. And it doesn’t matter how much [federal reserve fiat dollars] you create, because it’s all going down. So don’t worry about it because once you create that loan, it becomes a loan to yourself in your own currency, in carets."
So through this process, the community bank creates the federal reserve notes necessary to buy out the corporate owners of the hospital and the community (hospital) owes that money to the community bank. But the community bank wants to be paid back for that loan in community currency (which you call carets) not federal reserve dollars. So the community bank has to create carets and get them into the community (through a subsidy) so that people can spend them at the hospital so that the hospital can pay back the loan.
Why can't the community bank just create the federal reserve notes to buy out the hospital corporation and forget the loan owed by the community in carets?
I see that you need to create a desire for carets in the community. So I see the community hospital charging for services in carets. But can you think of a better way to get carets into the community than paying out a subsidy?
It definitely sounds empowering the idea that we can create community banks that then forcefully buy out all the globally owned land and public infrastructure. Can I suggest that instead of using "eminent domain" to force sales, the local government can raise property taxes on all land that is not a first residence/business of a local citizen (all first homes are property tax free). So you get the global owners to voluntarily sell by over taxing them.
I'm glad you enjoyed this, Tori, since you were the instigation for the series! Your offer to interview me got this started. Your willingness to read my whole book in preparation for the interview was more generous than I ever would have asked. It was very empowering. You got me over the hurdle of figuring out podcast platforms (and I'll be curious as to your thoughts on the Zencastr I trialed with Gabe instead of the Riverside that lost your video feed). And our conversation as two moms who've thought through the details was what I've been looking for over the two decades I've been working on this. It made me want more of those conversations, and I'm looking forward to interviewing you on your book, The Girlie Playhouse, in March.
I'll post this, having learned my lesson with the bagel crumbs, and continue into geeking out on the tech details ;-) After my dance class ...
Thanks for playing with me on these little puzzles, Tori. I love thinking through the particulars.
So let's look at the hospital, which is a real problem here in Santa Cruz. Let's say you buy out a little hospital with all its equipment for $20M. That becomes a loan in carets at 5.3% interest, doubling the repayment to $40M. Those who are going to repay this loan are the providers who want to rent space in the hospital and use its equipment. If there are 40 providers over the course of 30 yrs, they'll pay around ^3K per month in rent. Maybe some want to share an office different days of the week.
That rent money goes back to the commonwealth fund and the interest--^20M--gives the Soc Sec fund that capitalizes the bank its 7% return. It also gives private retirement savings a 3-4% return, with a cap on maximum contributions.
So you now have around ^100K coming in every month to pay off that mortgage. That means you can push it out to your hamlet. For 2000 people, that would be an additional ^50/ mo. in their wellcare subsidy, to be used on anything that loosely falls into that category.
But I'm still going here. To be part of the caret system, providers can only give themselves the maximum level of monthly tax-free carets as disposable income. This doesn't include their expenses, including for personnel, rent or equipment use, or educational loans. I wouldn't allow liability lawsuits--so they wouldn't need insurance. YOU choose the provider, they do their best.
So most healthcare will be affordable. If you want insurance, you can buy it. Personally, I would take my chances. The people I want to see will be within my budget--unlike now.
Great conversation, and thanks for the transcript.
I have said I was willing to help with the simulation project, and I even started prototyping some basic models for the caret currency itself. But I'm not good at UI or game or simulation design. So I hope someone who's good at those things can show up.
I'm with Gabe in that I see a connection between the open source/free software world and the caret system. I started using Linux in 1995 because I wanted to have greater freedom in what I do with my computers, and because I no longer wanted to make people like Bill Gates richer by using their inferior software. In other words, local control vs. monopoly power.
Gates used FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) to try to prevent people from defecting from his monopoly. I see the same thing happening in the use of AI now, especially in software crafting. Most of the articles on Hacker News now are about how AI coding tools are great, and that There Is No Alternative (TINA), and that you have to use them or be left behind. I see this as yet another Windows Psyop designed to keep people from defecting from the system these companies are creating.
Caret nay-sayers will probably say the same thing: you can't fight the System, so join it. But there is a third paradigm (hah!), which is to work alongside The System. We see that in free software (much of the internet is running on Linux), so why not in economics?
I was looking forward to you reading this, Mark, because I knew you'd relate to the tech details. It's been very kind of you to start prototyping an app for the caret exchange. And, as we've discussed, I've wondered if that could be retrofitted into the game. But they serve different purposes, one as a user and the other as a designer.
It would be helpful for people to see how it feels to live in a caret system but the designers have to come first. And the mindset that shifts from being a consumer of an economic system to being its producer--which isn't as easy as people think!
I think there's a role for both in the simulation. It would be useful to have people represent factions of society--youth, renters, homeowners, parents, wage-workers, corporate employees, would-be entrepreneurs. Then the game can play out with real interaction.
I'm going to post and continue, so I don't lose the comment like I just did brushing bagel crumbs off the keyboard ...
The second part I'd started before the bagel crumb snafu was on 'working alongside the System.' For now, that work is entirely in the imagination. The System is that the Bankers usurp ownership of the land and we are in debt to them for the right to use it. It's not possible to work alongside of that because our work has been claimed by them already.
In my OMGdess research this morning, I was citing Graeber's book Debt. He refers to a 2402 BCE inscription where the King of Lagash calculates the rent, interest, and compound interest on HIS land occupied for decades by the King of Umma. It comes to four and a half trillion bushels of barley.
The word for interest is literally offspring. So it's the labor of wives, adult children and young children who pay the interest--serving as slaves in another's house as a debt pledge. That's been The System for over 4400 years. To replace that system with our own requires planning and collaboration. It's not going to happen spontaneously when no one even sees it as a problem that banks own all the houses.
I meant that the caret has to coexist with the dollar or whatever the imperial currency happens to be.
Yes, I did get that--after the system's gone, the currency will remain. And that's good! We don't need to replace it, just let it become more and more worthless when it can't usurp ownership of the homes.
Whenever you speak of the labor to repay debt and interest it always brings me back to the concept of trading social security numbers on the market as some sort of collateral. It is the argument that “sovereign citizens” use when they talk about the dangers of the SSN. I’m still not able to get my head around this concept but little by little you are helping me understand this better. It seems like SSNs and taxes are a more efficient way to quantify the labor of slaves….
Hello, Anneke! I see you haven't gotten yet to my shout out in the new episode, which you instigated. I'll look forward to that!
I'm not on board (so to speak) with the whole anti birth (berth) certificate movement as a sovereignty thing. I think it's a disempowering thing. Other people are dying to become US citizens--literally.
We need to have a unique indicator for a person to know they're not scamming several commonwealths at once. I need to know where you are a commoner, which is my word for citizen, and where you are a guest or perhaps another status inbetween.
And to get rid of taxes is to not organize labor collectively. In order to disburse carets, you need to collect them back. Right now mortgages do that but I'm not opposed to taxes if they reflect what we want to encourage or discourage. It's only slavery if our labor goes one way and the labor of others doesn't serve us.
I listened once to your latest episode but am in the middle of listening a second time before I comment (and I also need a few mins to compose something thoughtful so I’m hoping baby takes a good nap today!).
I see that you are aware of the maritime law that plays such a huge part in all this….
I have thought about this often! We need a game to play that implements various monetary reforms to see how they work.
Agreed. I'm sure you know that the game of Monopoly was designed by an Amish woman to teach her children how capital takes over. Oh! I just read that it was designed to teach the Georgian single-tax theory so of course you do. And it was stolen and sold to Parker Bros, who later paid her $500 for her patent. What an immorality tale!
The lesson survived: whoever owns land gets to monopolize everything. A good government would discourage the hoarding of that finite natural resource.
I really enjoyed this interview, Tereza and I look forward to more. This is our future; people who see what's happened and rather than pretend it isn't, or give up in despair, engage, rise above and move forward with new solutions.
Thanks to you and Gabe. Nice to see you both.
Thank you Kathleen, your praise means a lot to me!
That's kind of you, Gabriel. So here's more - you look great, very healthy and handsome - I've really appreciated how you've shared your journey toward that end.
Best.
I texted your YT comment to Gabe, Kathleen, which I'll reprint here:
"The small stuff does make a big difference - even when the challenges appear impossible. Nice interview, Tereza, and Gabe is a wonderfully bright and insightful guest."
He replied, "Awwww ..." Isn't he, though?
What an inspiring interview! Teresa, each time you talk about the carrot system I understand it a little better and I am believing more in a future where communities can break free from debt slavery.
Gabe, you are so insightful and your input helped to clarify many concepts for me. I love that you say that the bar for making a difference is quite low - I just wish you could give us a few examples of how each of us could be making small differences right now. I don’t have your charisma or knowledge of economics or an inspiring story (like your weight loss journey) that I feel would make any difference so I don’t think writing a Substack would be something for me to do.
What a great exchange between you two, Anneke and Gabe! I'm so glad you asked the question to elicit that eloquent answer. In fact, you just gave an example of Gabe's answer. Your question brought his answer into being.
I don't think you realize, Anneke, how much writers rely on a perceptive reader. I spent decades writing into the void, with no echo of whether the pieces I threw into them ever hit bottom. It's a very lonely journey. From my perspective, the world doesn't need another Substack but my perspective is selfish, wanting you all to myself ;-)
Gabe, your answer really resonates with me. I'm sad that you ever felt unsalvageable and I think of how bright that makes you as a lighthouse to those who still do.
When you get to my recent article, read the comment where I talk about my falling Tree of Life. There's an analogy to every time we crack that web of lies, the fissure spreads in ways we could never imagine. That's what I'm getting from what you're saying, Gabe.
And going all woo-woo, we're not in this alone. The other people are certainly there, and we keep their momentum going, but there's a synchronicity to it that's all Goddess. From my interactions at the Farmer's Market to my online connections, there's no doubt in my mind. I'm set on a path that bumps me into just the people I need. And who are also the ones I want in my life!
"I think it's really important to recognize untapped potential in others (and ourselves!) and figure out what we can do to nurture it. Fundamentally this is what I mean by "the bar is low". This is beautifully said, Gabe. Appreciation brings people into focus.
Thanks to both of you for the inspiration!
Thank you AnnekeB!
One of the big things I had to learn in the process of my weight loss was to actually adopt a "growth mindset". By this I mean not only understanding that change is possible, but recognizing and appreciating the smallest steps towards progress. A big part of this is accepting the problems of the past, but also being patient with challenges and setbacks.
I now believe that to be truly (or fully?) "awake" in any particular domain, you have to have a similar growth mindset regarding the problem. People are going to disappoint us, and we're going to make mistakes, that's part of the process. My younger brother has a saying "if [the problem] is up to me than it's already out of my hands".
I have a different spin on that idea, which is that for any sufficiently large problem it is important to accept that it isn't all up to us. It is so easy to get trapped in despair if we are only focused on our individual capacity to change things, but if we see it as a larger 'team game' the right moves look very different. Suddenly it's no longer "I must become rich and powerful enough to unilaterally solve things" and more "How can I add momentum to the ongoing efforts to address the underlying problem?"
One of the things that 'radicalized me' in the process of my weight loss journey was that I realized some of the little things that helped put things into place. I assume I'm not the only person who felt "un-salvageable", I think it's really important to recognize untapped potential in others (and ourselves!) and figure out what we can do to nurture it.
Fundamentally this is what I mean by "the bar is low". It really doesn't take a lot to add momentum to any particular issue. I don't want to prescribe specific goals but I can talk about the goals that are meaningful to me:
- Very few initiatives are actually 'wasted effort' as long as we learn from them and share the findings with others.
- Encouraging people doing the right things goes a very long way
- Any and all measures taken to break free (either mentally or in totality) from mass manipulation systems (like corporate social media) are worthwhile in their own right
- Charity and support has an immeasurable ROI, even on the smallest scales.
Thank you, this is exactly what I needed to read first thing this morning!
I will be writing a longer reply, hopefully later today but that all depends on whether my baby takes a good nap.
Regarding "But if you want to take back things like the Internet, you have to take back what is local" using eminent domain. In the US, the cable Internet companies have to bid on the contract to the local county. The community itself can form a cooperative and bid on that contract. If the corporation currently holding that contract loses it, they might be keen to sell all their equipment and other assets to the community Internet co-op. The people formerly employed by that corporation can then go to work for the new Internet cooperative.
I think there are ways to take back public infrastructure assets that doesn't involve eminent domain. (Gabriel and I are both afraid of that concept.) And we would be using the tools of the corporate elites insofar as we force sales by manipulating contractual arrangements.
Here let me plug my article on taking back the Internet: I argue that at the Federal level Greenbacks can be created to buy back public infrastructure that should never have been privatized. https://posthumousstyle.substack.com/p/how-do-we-escape-the-panopticon
FYI after reading Tereza's book, I would now add community banks to my monetary policy, which service the mortgages on all properties in the community by offering the best rates.
Excellent article, Tori. I love the idea of a Post Office Internet. I was just thinking that, now that search engines are practically worthless AI propaganda, someone needs to be offering a new one that lets you get around the half-dozen approved websites and find real people researching the same question.
I think that the first question to ask in an economic system is whether you're looking at system change or what can be done within the existing system. In the existing system, the Rothschild banking dynasty usurps ownership of the homes every time they change hands and holds them hostage for 30 yrs of hard labor. Talk about eminent domain! They are the sovereign, the fief lord, to whom all properties belong, and which return to them in every generation. Community banks don't change that system and can only offer rates within the Fed window that sets the prime rate. A low interest rate leads to high property costs, in which you're bidding against the hedge funds because their ill-gotten speculative money is as good as your hard-earned savings.
It's possible that we part ways at this point. I think you might be looking at what's possible without changing this system.
However, if you did change it, the next question is what size sovereignty? How small can your decision-making go? Here, we'd differ if your size is 350M people for Federal greenbacks and I'm looking at 2000 for a hamlet.
I agree with you about making contractual obligations written so they discourage foreign ownership, extraction and monopoly rather than using eminent domain. I would require all businesses within the hamlet's borders to have an account at the commonwealth bank, through which all transactions go. Any money extracted is subject to a tax that halves it. There's a limit on how much income can be transferred monthly into tax-free carets per individual. The rest, as dollars or another imperial currency, is taxed when spent at half its value. For a window of time, I'd allow properties to be sold for dollars without any tax other than what already exists. After that window, their sale in dollars as a lump sum would be halved by the tax. However, they can be disbursed over time as a tax-free caret monthly income that can be inherited and split. That can also be done through mutual agreement with another hamlet--where a parent might move to be with their children, for instance. These are parameters I'd propose for my commonwealth.
The game would measure how many times carets circulate before being cashed out, and how widely or narrowly distributed they are over several rounds of years. It would look at how much is being extracted, and how much is being imported to drain dollars. It would count the difference in home ownership by long term residents and natives, small business ownership, and small local landlords. It would calculate how many people born and raised there stay in the area or come back.
Despite these incentives, however, you may have corporations or hedge funds who hang on to their holdings in your hamlet. They may not care if they're not extracting money as long as they keep owning those stack-and-pack behemoth eyesores. What will you do about that? What if they keep polluting your water and spraying pesticides? What if they refuse to have the money they make from you go through a local account?
Here's the definition of eminent domain: a right of a government to take private property for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction. I would substitute 'foreign-owned, extractive or monopolized' for private. I'd start with the biggest offenders and stop when the problem was solved. YOU are the superior dominion. YOU are the sovereign power over all lands within your jurisdiction.
I think eminent domain is a power tool.