Jul 09
22
P2P Politics
Part 1. – P2P is threatening the US Monetary system
It took humanity 25,000 years to create the “perfect financial
system” and less than a hundred years to destroy it.
Perfect? Well that depends on who you are talking too.
For sometime, we at Perceptric have been saying that the
world needs to return to the community values espoused and commonplace in the pre-industrialized world. In other words – all for one and one for all – ensuring community survival and
peer support.
This is for several reasons.
1.
The world is running out of oil.
2.
The pollution that we are generating may
be harming our planet more than we realise.
3.
The Global Financial System has failed
miserably as predicted by President Andrew Jackson nearly two hundred years
ago.
“The bold
effort the present bank had made to control the government … are but
premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded
into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like
it.”
“You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its
charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but
that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand
families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves.''
– President
Andrew Jackson, 1836
President Jackson
was wrong, for the Central Banking system has not ruined 50,000 families, it
has created a world where:
40% of the Worlds Wealth is held by less than 1% of the
Population
50% of the population live on less than $2.00 per day
and 34,000 children die from poverty or preventable diseases
every day.
4.
The Internet is allowing people to become
aware of the banking systems failures and shortcomings.
5.
Social Networking (aka person 2 person or
P2P) is allowing through the Blogsphere, Twitter and Facebook to discuss all of
these issues and unfortunately;
6.
Spread knowledge and dissension amongst
their fellow internauts.
I was chatting to Chris yesterday about Life the Universe
and Everything (LTUAE for you old BBS fans) and the topic of control and
President Obama’s new “Rumour Eliminator” (God Mk2)
appointee cropped up.
So Chris, do you think he’s going after P2P.
“Doubtlessly” said Chris – “we cant have the public talking
to each other without censorship…..”
“No”, I said, “without censorship, everyone might have the
opportunity of becoming wealthy.”
Um yes – that includes you dear reader.
If we can get you off your butt and find a way for you to
contribute to real wealth creation.
What’s that you say? You already have a share portfolio. No,
I’m sorry, that is not real wealth creation. That is like jumping on the train
without buying a ticket. Eventually a conductor will come along one day and ask
you for your ticket.
You may make money out of the stock market, but if you do,
then someone else has lost money. Real Wealth creation requires both parties to
be involved in a win win scenario.
Wealth can only be created by the manufacture of a product. For
example, a cake. The wealth that is created is the applied knowledge of the
baker in combining the ingredients, the heat that is used to bake the
ingredients and the application of the icing.
The value the baker receives for the cake on its sale value is
based on the recognition by the public of the value that the baker has created.
The baker has subsequently created a value in the community
that is returned to him in the form of wealth.
The better he is at the practice of his art and the more
diligently he applies himself is indicative of the wealth that he is creating.
Unfortunately, cakes are consumables and the created wealth
only lasts for a short time. Therefore the baker must continually bake new creations.
This is a system of barter that has existed for many millennia
ever since the first recorded P2P transaction in 4000 BC in Mesopotamia
where farmers bartered loans with each other to be able to buy corn to seed
their crops.
The methodology used was person 2 person as a central
banking system controlling and regulating money flow hadn’t yet been invented.
That took another 6,000 years.
Throughout the 1800’s USA
attempted to create a Central Bank to protect itself against the European
currencies and to provide itself with an insulation against the economically
overbearing England.
With a number of false starts, the US Federal Reserve was finally
incorporated by a charter of Congress in 1913.
It has succeeded in promoting the US Currency to be the
bartering instrument of the world.
In other words, through the instigation and funding of the
World Bank, the IMF, the WTO the Federal Reserve and the US Congress together
have managed to intercept the 6,000 year old tradition of person to person financial negotiations by
interjecting themselves via interest and balance of payments into every
financial transaction in the world.
They have done so by continuing to issue dollars, not
against the creation of merchandise, which is the recognised methodology of wealth creation, but through
the depreciation of the US Dollar by haphazard printing of money in direct proportion
to the amount of political favour currying that was needed to be done.
Through these machinations, the US Federal Reserve with the
US Government have reduced the value of the Greenback by an average of one
percent per annum.
In other words, a one dollar bill from 1913 now only buys
six cents worth of goods.
What has this got to do with P2P ?
Patience – I’m getting there……
Since the introduction of the Federal Reserve Bank and their
policies originally outlined in Modern Money
Mechanics the United States
has been growing disproportionately in its economic control of the rest of the
world.
In February this year I blogged about Australia
closing it’s economic borders and becoming self reliant and thereby no
longer being subject to American consumerism.
Why ?
Because today; the Australian people owe the US Government an
average of 5% of our GDP.
Today’s two biggest costs to the Australian community are
weapons and copyright payments.
Both of these account for 94% of our trade deficit.
In other words, five dollars out of every hundred that you
earn is paid to the US Treasury supporting that countries own internal deficit.
Not much you say?
OK – how about this – out of your weekly wage packet, you
are paying $42.30 to America,
every week. Last year it was $39.88.
How much will it be next year?
What about Chinese goods?
We balance our books by selling the Chinese people raw
minerals.
Am I suggesting that Free Trade is not beneficial to Australia?
Nope. Free trade is like the stock market – it’s beneficial
for some and detrimental for others.
Am I a modern day Robin Hood suggesting take from the rich
and give to the poor?
No, Karl Marx tried that, it only created a new different
elite.
But I do have to look at the issue of copyright and it’s
part in the current Global Economic Crisis.
Copyright is a relatively new construct only appearing in
the last 120 years to protect the interests of less than 1% of the world’s
population.
If you are an author/artist who produces original works and
you obtain a benefit from having your works protected under copyright, then
that is by accidental inclusion and not necessarily by design.
Unless of course that copyright is vested with a large
corporation that can afford to sue for breach.
The copyright system makes it nearly impossible for
artists to create for and within the digital domain while using lots of
sources. This frustrates the development of a completely new artistic field and pushes artists into illegality.
Madonna evokes and ironically reconfigures several
20th-century sex goddesses (Marilyn Monroe, obviously, but also Jean Harlow,
Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Gina Lollobrigida and perhaps a touch of Grace
Kelly) (Coombe, 1998: 96–7).
Let us furthermore not forget the role of the public in
the creative process, about which Marilyn Monroe said herself, ‘if I am a star
– the people made me a star, no studio, no person, but the people did’ (Coombe,
1998: 94–5)
The people made me a star. Not the studios, not the
publishers, the people, you the consumer.
The purchasers of movie tickets, CD’s, DVD’s and the
electrical paraphanalia required to replay them on are purchased by consumers.
The same consumers who vote for representation in the
legislative assemblies around the world.
We often forget that but for us, there would be a different bum
on the seat in Canberra.
Kevin Rudd was the right man at the right time and the
people of Australia
elected him.
He appears to have surrounded himself with a capable crew
whom (apart from the Internet Filter) have not made any real blunders, yet.
In fact, the FTTH NBN is a fine indication that this
Government in general is putting it’s constituents ahead of corruptive
influence.
Am I arguing in favour of total abolition of Copyright ?
No.
“creators and inventors should get incentives, otherwise
we will see no more innovations and inventions” (Boyle, 1996: 44).
I believe Boyle – up to a point, however, has Boyle
considered all of the alternatives? We think not. We think he has overlooked
the previous 26,000 years of history.
The underlying assumption here is that human
beings require economic reward to be intellectually or artistically creative. The philosophy of intellectual property
reifies economic rationalism as a natural human trait. Yet
from our historical analysis we see that throughout
most of human history there existed no
concept of intellectual property rights. Nevertheless,
humans still
produced technological and cultural artefacts. (Bettig, 1996: 25)
In other words until
popular music started to be pirated by backstreet printers in the late 1800’s,
copyright was not considered a serious issue.
The Guttenburg Press
brought freedom of information, the mass media continued that evolution through
the invention of the radio, the television, the video recorder and now, the
Internet.
Unfortunately, Hollywood, Warner Bros, Universal, Vivendi, EMI, Sony
and the official political Historians now have competition.
Youtube is an
example of thousands of daily copyright free submissions of altered, parodied
or original works created with no thought of compensation.
Isnt it curious that
the countries that have the longest histories, the strongest cultures
and the deepest tradition seem to shun
the necessity of Copyright until it is forced in them by Free Trade Agreements.
Therefore it could be successfully argues that copyright is
an artifact attempt by countries that have a lack of substantial tradition or
history, to artificially create one.
Viz “Lambada” – A traditional dance from central America,
now copyrighted for the profit of US and UK interests
The justification:
If it hadn't been for two French businessmen, Lambada may have
disappeared altogether. [Editor: Cough BULLSHIT Cough] Seeing a lucrative business opportunity, these
two men from Europe travelled to Brazil and bought the copyright to
over 300 Lambada tracks. They then recruited a group of experienced
dancers including Braz, Didi and Mariley from Porto Seguro and several
from San Paolo. On returning to France they founded the Kaoma Band
which was an immediate global success. Their first single reached
number one in 64 different countries and the world was introduced to
Lambada. [Link]
Once again, the countries with the oldest, the most colorful
and interesting societal traditions have the least use for copyright.
Why ?
Because man is the evolution of all man before him. The
ideas of today are improvements and re-arrangements of the developments of
yesterday.
Free Trade?
Yes, exactly, how can something be considered free if it
comes with a list of pre-requisites, conditions.
Come play with us because we are the United
States of America – Oh but first, you must allow
us to export all our surplus sugar to you.
Oh yeah, you have to agree to take this loan from the World
Bank to pay for the surplus sugar.
But – if you do take the loan because you want access to our
trade dollars, and if you default on the loan, it doesn’t matter because we
will just spin off the assets that you have given us as security for the loan.
All of your oil fields and sugar plantations.
Well what about P2P financing ? Why don’t countries go to
each other, their neighbours, their peers and ask for loans – rather than take
the US money?
For the answer to that question, I suggest the viewing of a
film, Zeitgeist – THE Addendum is available via ed2k
or Torrent
– or for the less digitally prepared can be ordered on DVD here.
After you have viewed the movie – come back for part 2.
References:
Coombe, R.J. (1998) The Cultural Life of Intellectual
Properties. Authorship, Appropriation, and the Law. Durham, NC
and London: Duke University Press.
Smiers, J (2000) THE
ABOLITION OF COPYRIGHT Better for Artists, Third World
Countries and the Public Domain
Zeitgeist
5302.0
- Balance of Payments and International Investment Position, Australia, Mar
2009
5302.0 – APPENDIX
RELATED ARTICLES
TABLE
7. GOODS CREDITS: ORIGINAL – QUARTER (CONSUMER)
TABLE
80. FOREIGN DEBT LEVELS AT END OF PERIOD- FINANCIAL YEAR
Please note the missing data in Table 80 for
|
Jun-2006 |
|
Jun-2007 |
|
Jun-2008 |
In Sheet marked Data1.
It only relates to financial institution performance. Not very important at all.