What can Psychology do that others are less able to do

What can Psychology do that others are less able to do?

I belong to an online group called Climate Psychology Alliance – facing difficult truths about climate change and ecological crisis. I wrote the essay below in response to many posts and references offered by members of that group.

Without any disregard of the capacity for compassion, connection and care shown by many articles, without disregard for the wisdom of both/and in personal cultural and structural discussions and impacts, the recognition that future is uncertain and the help given to contain and bear everything that brings, I find myself criticizing and carping and not liking myself, my ingratitudes. And so, a wee bit of What and Why to myself, and I discover I am missing the clarity of the statement: to be alive is to be in contradiction.

I am seeing it, but not easily saying it to myself. Surely this is what psychology can say to all: there is no rational or reasoned way through to a better [or any] future, if by rational you mean without experiencing contradictions. From inaccurate memory I quote:

eg Bowlby: “ambivalence is a mark of health”,

or ?Bion?: “the inherent contradiction of being born into dependence with a need to become an individual”,

or, many cultures such as Native American and Chinese that share: “I have two wolves in my soul, the fighting angry greedy destroyer and the upright warrior defender [very male this part of the story] that finishes with Which Wolf wins? The one I feed the most.” [maybe this is where the female comes in, the nurturing breast/food provider].

In short, what psychology can say is that at all times in lived experience, us humans and sentient beings are BOTH destructive AND altruistic. The many unconscious and subconscious vectors that criss-cross our behaviours and our reactive and proactive intents have been tracked by neuroscience, and can be mixed and matched to bring the varieties of conscious feeling/action whether that be aggressive / assertive or altruistic / enlightened self-interested caring. Whatever – see Panksepp’s naming of “emotions” [basic instincts, in capitals to stress basic rather than felt in our consciousness – FEAR, RAGE, PANIC, LUST, SEEKING, PLAY, CARE]. These produce the contradiction.

That is Fact 1.

I am trying to say, and wishing I could be more simple, concise, a better writer, that the neuroscience also states another fact just as our experiential observational therapeutic art does: the emotion we feel [conscious or unconscious] is not in our individual personal control, it arrives as a message to the self from the self in its surroundings: This is the state you are in. Information accepted, as therapists [and friends and mothers/fathers carers] know, often, the state changes, dynamic, the process of being a living being. I wonder often how I can share that magical joyousness felt as a person’s being shifts, even in great grief, or recognizing the truth in anger, the joy arrives at the same time, and my eyes can tear up as I write, gratitude wins when truth is fed. We do not control feelings to produce change, we witness them, and hold them or fail to hold. Feeling happens because we live, NOT because we control them. Our agency lies in our willingness to hold, for ourselves, and, as we are connected, also for others.

That is Fact 2 [but I don’t hear it said often, is it my opinion?]

I am emphasizing this because non-psychologists think we help people with their feelings [as we do, from the crude assumptions that counsellors offer advice, a step up from friends’ tea and sympathy, to the much more sophisticated and real work done by holding a space for the feelings to be shared and witnessed.] What we also do is understand the nature of mind, and one of its products, thought. Before I wander into looking at mistakes of thought, and better forms of thinking, as well as the other parts of our being, entwined, not separate, I remember I want to address thoughts on climate. Here it helps me to make an analogy to my understanding of systems thinking, or ecological thought, addressing the whole without losing my threads in a variety of other perspectives.

Do you remember physics lessons, and all those batteries, wires and crocodile clips that made little light bulbs grow bright, or dim, or as many pupils would find so frustrating, sometimes failed to light at all? From such lessons, one was taught a formula: V = IR, where “V” is volts and “I” current, in amps, and “R” is resistance, ohms. This is science, or REALITY, not a piece of mathematics. Volts, amps and ohms are different categories of stuff, and they do not go in a circle like rocks, paper, scissors.

Analogy – current, I, [or brightness] is the effect seen, resistance, R is the context, and the battery providing V is the motivating cause. The only way to change “I” is to fiddle with R, or provide more or less V. If the crocodile clips on the battery are rusty, there is no V, as rust makes a lot more R than was intended etc. The formula is very reductive, it does have severe initial and boundary conditions, necessary  for the results, the effect, to be as expected. Not many physics teachers stress that the system of initial and boundary conditions is what makes the formula science, the story of reality. But, the analogy holds to help thinking about climate change, where, like current, what we see is the resultant effect of many things that happen in the context R, and are caused by the motive force V.

In talk of mitigating or reversing climate change, the effect, we have to work with R, the context or V, whatever is causative. There is a lot of fiddling with R. This may be more or less effective, from “ban fossil fuel” to “eat no beef”, but in my view only some attention to V –the growth growth growth mantra, linked to both individualism and achievement as well economy based on competitive trade. And in this case, V is man-made cultural or structural attitude. We can use the formula: V = R X I to help us think more effectively, more wisely.

I believe the R, the context, is necessarily local, and indeed individual. Each of us has our own mass of contradictions and differences in circumstance. As a creative and productive culture, Extinction Rebellion is an example of being good about acknowledging this, e.g. not everyone can face arrest, but all agree to non-violence. I see it as a mistake to “tell” the Chinese or any other culture, us, not to eat beef. The way forward for context is not “tell”, but as always – education, accurate information, communication, and respect for individual need.  [The classic example of this is on a related topic, that of population growth, where dictat in China has indeed reduced population but brought a slew of unwelcome side-effects, while in the west, population growth drops without dictat, as women – and men – are more free to make different work/life choices.]

V, like its many effects, inequalities, exploitation and damage, as well as climate, is global, its effects are local. For example, the growth of trade war, and its ally, the growth of military war, and its industry, are global. Hope for a better future, enabling the probability of creating a better future, lies in seeing that these global attitudes, the motive force that causes the effects, are NOT science or results, they are man-made. The economy, the monetary system, the military belief in nation and nation states, are all thought systems. I never thought that I might quote that to-me-awful organization, the NRA: “its not the guns, it’s the people behind the guns”. [Help, there is a good reason to adjust context, the number of guns, as well as attend to cause.]

Hence I return to “what can psychology do?”. Keep exploring, looking, educating about thought systems. Of course psychology in action also helps all in distress, supports those who despair or seek peace, and can  also support those who try to change the monetary system, and those who bring technology to context change.  I have been missing that psychology can also say loudly and clearly that we are contradictory beings who by being born, then living, then dying, have both “growth” and “stasis” built in. We go through spring, summer, autumn and winter. Our thought in every department needs this knowledge.

In the last few years, pre-Trump election, pre-Brexit vote, I was struck by the number of rational beings making arguments on the basis of “greed is part of our nature” or “we survive by paying attention to self, so of course the system is like this”, as if these were the only human attributes that mattered. They are of course part-right, and my quite murderous judgmental wish that they would shut up, tells me I have a good bit of that in me too. But, my reasons for living, the things that have me smiling, are hardly ever about achievements, unless it be seeing the toddlers’ face as she reaches the top of the slide in the local playground. Our other truths are contradictory, our ‘seeking’ curiosity, our humour and ‘play’, our defending and protecting ‘care’, for people we don’t even know as well as many we do, can be given a lot more space than our present culture honours.

Working against culture and structure is hard. De-growth will be hard, one has to stand up looking silly, or naïve, bear the disagreements from others, and live with pieces of guilt, whatever they are, when we go along with the present setting. [I could choose not to fly to see my family, but do it anyway, I cannot choose how the pension I need for my daily living is invested, can only choose to ask that question.]

Psychology can say this. Hold the contradictions. The Brexit mess on the UK news at this very time, demonstrates the contradictions, and shows how some are willing to bear and contain, stay in collaboration, while others bluster and bully, driven by survival mode. [There was a great paper about the Eton boys survival on here recently.] Media jump from reporting with some skill, to demanding a lead that would satisfy, etc. Psychology can say “Hold the Contradictions does not mean Do Nothing. It allows more clarity and less pre-judgment about what needs to be done, and what needs to be valued. Be aware of thought process as well as its content.”

My personal view – heeding the V and the R of my equation – has become three passions:

And – I tell the two wolves story in whatever form the context will take. I try to own my contradictions.

I write poetry for self- therapy: If you have read this far,

Bees know

No-one told the bees to make honey
but they do.
No-one needs to know how the grass grows
but it does.
When the tree falls in the forest we do not hear
but fungi flourish
We have not asked the sun to rise and shine every time
Morning comes
In a darkened night we lift our eyes to the stars, or sleep
and dream.
Did you hear the rain pitter patter your window, or the wind’s rattle?
Planning permission not required.

Did you hear about the bananas? Dole’d to consumers faffing and Fyffing
Wanting golden skinned
Nations unfed while consumers led to love the bananas
not too soft or black
tons crated from plantations and tonnage tossing over seas,
Hands harvest the hands.
Fair trade or agribusiness. How do you know there are bananas
in your fridge?
Are you bananas? You forget the world will touch you with its gifts
Let your skin take it in
While the bees buzz on busy honey making.

No-one told you: you will get something for nothing every day
No-one told you: you will be born and grow
No-one told you love, or hate or fear or pride or joy
Let them come, as they will, as surely as the sun shines.
See what honey comes.

Thanks for reading. Elspeth

Usury, and becoming an activist.

Usury has been misdefined as excessive interest, the charging of excessive interest. But, usury is not about having a debate around which percentage of interest is acceptable. Usury is the earning of interest on something that did not exist before.

I have written before about what I have come to believe is a root problem undermining all our attempts to create better lives and better conditions for all who share living on our finite planet. We need Monetary Reform, a change in the way money is created and put into circulation in our economies. [This is a man-made construct, not a natural law; history shows many precedents regarding different methods of money creation.] Recently I heard/read a brilliant podcast on the same theme. I hope you who read this will also listen. The definition of usury, earning interest on something that did not previously exist, is there. Also there is a distinction between causative injustices and derivative injustices. If the monetary system is indeed a causative injustice, from which so many other injustices derive, and if we consider how it was brought into being, we can see that well-meaning people as well as psychopathic greedy people [each of us capable of being both] sleepwalked into the creation of this dangerous destructive system that feeds derivative problems the world over. [It’s a systemic problem, we are part of it, that is why we often feel so helpless.]

How to reform/change?

We need a different image, an easily imaginable mind map of how a different money system would work. The first essential, that is indeed well on the way in many parts of the world, is that we stop giving precedence to purely rational thinking, AS IF by reasoning we could encompass ALL the elements that made up a causative story line. We can’t. See modern neuroscience, or less modern maths logic, like Godel’s theorem, and recognize that any thinking will either be circular or move outside its initial bounds*.

Enter: UNCERTAINTY, we really do not know the future, but duh, we don’t know past nor present either. Language, and its mind-mate reasoning, does not capture all. Perception is not only limited, it can be false.

Enter: EMOTION, the biological response that tells us the state we are in, filtered and nuanced through nature, nurture, memory and experience to become a present feeling.

Enter: INSTINCT, the impulse to act, to be an agent in our living.

Because these enter and affect our experience in our body knowledge, before our higher cognitive capacity gets going, thinking includes them.

ENTER: we no longer feel helpless, we can act, in humble and ordinary lives, each of us may be as a drop in the ocean, or a butterfly wing tossed in the wind, but, we become part of the change. We can each make a new Money Mind Map for ourselves and share that, as widely as possible, making connections, adapting and changing as we live it out.

usury2HOW will I act? I cannot push your action in any direction, but I can write these posts.

As well as writing posts, I am looking more closely at where and how usury enters our lives, my life.

I have come to believe that the Monetary System where banks create money through credit/debt came into being because usury was ignored. This is, as always, about money creation, NOT about money lending, as lending means that the something lent already existed.

I can’t do much about the price of my coffee, and the amount of that price that is interest in the usurious system. I can move away from some kinds of  “money” making, like share dealing. [As my income is relatively small, this is easy, I do not have spare money with which to deal.] The best I can do seems to be to support activities that are based on commons principles, or cooperative endeavours. Especially I can support community actions that do not involve money at all, see for example the “101 things to do“.

And, I write to my representatives, both local and national. Apparently they do heed what constituents say, if they hear it often enough from enough of us.

*We know that psychologically complex holistic thought that includes all, is difficult if not impossible. In fact, the good old Enlightenment [male] understandings, let us mistakenly believe that reason was the most powerful element in our mental armoury. OOPs – neuroscience and experiential psychologies and lots of non-western and feminist thinking now puts reason in its more realistic non-hubristic  place, an outcome of emotion and experience enabled by test and connection with the whole world out there. Wilfred Bion called this thinking  process an “intersection with truth“.
I find that this truthful thoughtfulness (in which one is active, an agent) has many names, call it what you will:
be mindful; meditate; use systems thinking, situated knowledge, reflexivity, ecological thought; heed heuristic as well as evidence based science; use critical friends, the examined self, connect with others; be open to change, hear and bear criticism, use  self.

Money and Society: Review

I really do recommend taking this free online course, MOOC Money and Society. It is well run and accessible whether or not anyone has previous experience in the areas covered, but for those who do, it is thorough and offers reliable information with a very interesting perspective. I wrote a review with my personal comments at the end, and I have added a reply from Jem Bendell.

Summary of Money and Society MOOC: Lessons 1-3, then Lesson 4.

[Bendell, J and M. Slater (2015) Money and Society, free course, www.iflas.info]

An overview of Lessons 1- 3, then Lesson 4, Alternatives

These give a good view of the current Monetary System, analyzed from the perspectives of 1: Money Functions, Forms and Fallacies; 2: The History of Money; 3: Impacts and Problems with Money. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWeQfNpW9sQ gives Jem Bendell’s twelve minute recap, but without references and sources this feels too general, only convincing if one is already convinced. Many of the resources available through reading, online audio and video, etc. were provided, and excerpts well chosen. Documentaries, available on you tube are informative, especially the three hour tedious Money Masters [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrJGlXEs8nI], from Bill Still and made in 1995 but not out of date, and all three of Paul Grignon’s Money as Debt. [The documentary “The Four Horsemen” was not mentioned by Bendell and Slater, but other participants besides myself did. It is also a convincing account of history, problems and impacts, referring to the way cultural hegemony builds, and the need for cognitive change in mind-sets, but unfortunately in the last ten minutes it opts for a return to the gold standard and classic capitalism as a solution. Maybe this is why the MOOC did not recommend it,]

In lesson 1, the functions of money, , are identified, and forms of issuance [fiat, sovereign, commodity, etc]. Eight “traits” that money has are stated, as these are necessary to make it acceptable to the people who use it, whether they understand its function and issuance or not. These are:

  • Backing / intrinsic value
  • Nominal / face value
  • Incentives – put in place by issuers to create greater circulation, i.e.tax is the way government creates demand for its currency, local currency convertible to national may create demand by offering a % discount on exchange. Incentives and local currency can be banned by legal tender laws.
  • Payment technology – how people experience “the money” coins, notes, cheques, now often digital, via card or a pattern on a smart-phone screen.
  • Trust in the issuer
  • Cultural prevalence
  • Unit of value
  • Value over time

Along with lessons two and three, history and problems, the Current Monetary System and can be understood, and the analysis separated necessary issues from obfuscating details. The flaws are shown, and also how this system came about, through human construction. The groundwork necessary for Lesson 4: Alternatives, is laid. This makes the view of money as a tool for human need much clearer, at a meta-level, and opens up thinking about how to answer those needs.

In brief, whatever the system/s, or type of currency, the summary of my understanding is:

a) Money (and use of a currency) is a social relationship: the promise to pay;

b) There has to be a third party that upholds the promise, enables trust;

c) Although the system relies on promise, it is a claim on real resources otherwise the supply is not valid.

d) Real resources (planetary and human capital) are both limited in the present and uncertain in the future. Monetary systems are not neutral regarding these resources. The false belief that it can be is one of the reasons why the current system is flawed.

The Money and Society MOOC aims to look at alternatives, and actions that can be taken, rather than claiming a solution.


Lesson 4 Alternatives.

The first distinction made is between alternatives that have been tried, known to history, or as workarounds when economic failures have occurred, and alternatives that have not yet been implemented, or have only very local application. In considering alternatives, the capacity for trust, risk and governance needs to be transparent, hence the following groups of ideas were analyzed illustrating possibilities and issues.

Banking Reform, and other re-makes within the present system

“…we have explored in this MOOC that the root of the problem lies far below the day to day practices of globalised banking institutions, psychopathic though those practices appear to be. Even if banks broke no laws they would still be stewards of a constant transfer of wealth and power from the poor to the rich, the commodification of everything, and the consumption of every resource.

Consequently banking reform could be seen as a distraction …”

There are however proposals worth considering such as that of Public Banking [Ellen Brown] and a similar proposal from the New Economics Foundation to turn state-owned RBS into a network of local banks, modeled on Germany’s Sparkassen. These have not received much media coverage, nor have attempts to create the legal framework that would enable them been made. On the contrary, some countries have tried to prove in court that national central banks are unconstitutional. The other alternative form of banking that already exists is Islamic Banking. Although lending and borrowing of money at interest is prohibited, the Islamic banking movement has copied the institutional framework and product range of the interest-based sector so that in practice fractional reserve banking and interest-like financial products dominate.

In recent times, some leading voices within the monetary reform movement have called for greater reliance on equity financing, the promotion of investment funds rather than banks as financing intermediaries, and the separation of financing activities from payment transmission services. There are proposals for regulation rather than reform, narrow banking, where the institution is not allowed to take risks by giving fresh loans to business. Instead, it would use the incremental funds to invest in zero risk government securities, a very restricted form of banking.

Following the discussion of banking, there are brief discussions of:

  • The Gold Standard – backing can be any tangible substance to prevent issuance abuse, but it is noted that what actually gets traded is the promise of gold, not the gold itself, and that the gold can be ‘cornered’ by the already powerful. The dichotomy of ‘gold’ vs ‘fiat’ is the first level of the monetary reform debate, and neither solves the problem of trust without proper government.
  • Free Market Money [Hayek] – suggests that currencies of any kind could be treated in the same way as other commodities, and traded similarly, without the legal tender laws that privilege those nationally defined. Those issuances of currency that inspired confidence and trust would survive.
  • Or, New World Currency has been proposed, and the IMF already has a facility called the Special Drawing Right, originally created in 1969 to replace gold and silver in international transactions. SDRs could be global, replacing national currencies, in the same way that the Euor become a European currency.

I agree with the authors of the MOOC, Bendell and Slater, “We, your authors of this lesson, are very cautious about ANY global currency. There is a problem if one currency becomes the dominant or only currency across a diversity of economies, as then, as we see in the Eurozone, it can prevent countries from setting their own policies. But the main problem with a global currency is governance. The IMF is not a democratically accountable body to all governments or citizens of the world. A global currency could centralise political power, more so if and when it became global legal tender.”

Reforms and Alternatives needing Government Action

Bendell and Slater call these “Neo-chartalist Solutions”. They include Positive Money, the American Monetary Institute and Modern Monetary Theory. [AMI even has a bill prepared for Congress to enact, but there is no uptake by congressional representatives.]

In all of these, government (or governments, one by one, internationally) have to be convinced and take the action necessary to bring monetary reform. The challenges are listed:

  • What kind of reforms would be needed to ensure the government could be trusted with monetary policy?
  • How would the banking industry respond to losing the income stream from creating credit?
  • Government issuance, banks at 100% reserve and onward lending guidance for money from government.

Bendell and Slater also address the idea of Universal Basic Income. [They do not refer to Social Credit as proposed nearly100 years ago by Douglas, although it seems similar, nor to modern proponents of UBI such as Standing: The Precariat, last chapters on basic income and recovering the commons, and the Basic Income Earth Network, BIEN].

Bendell and Slater finish this section saying:

“While engagement in public policy can and should continue, given the limited prospects for deep analysis and informed policy debate on monetary policy today, where else might reformers put their attention?”

Complementary Currencies and Local Actions

Local, complementary or community currencies are social processes agreed by a group, say by exchanging legal tender notes for locally issued notes in a way that traps value in the local economy, creating more circulation there (the multiplier effect). Various means are employed to enable the exchange with legal tender. See for example Bernard Lietaer. Bendell and Slater acknowledge that complementary currencies do nothing for monetary reform, but are nevertheless proposed as actions that informed people can and should take. Slater stresses a vital value recognition:

“If a community currency was simply a printed note or an accounting system, then you could make a 1 2 3 recipe for starting one in your community, like boiling an egg. However this approach is unlikely to succeed, because a currency is more than just tokens and symbols. Currency is a social construct made from trust relationships; creating a currency involves deep work in your community. Because the Necessary Transition [to environmental sustainability] cuts across all areas of life, and because money is a symbol of value and not value in itself, a currency project should be an integral part of a wider … agenda in your community.”

There are many examples of complementary currency projects existing, and ‘recipes’ for helping the start-up. All involve work and support, possibly but not all need initial financial support, from many others. Certainly time has to be volunteered. The Money and Society MOOC finished with many of these examples, of the following different types: localized legal tender, collaborative or mutual credit, self-issued currencies, and crypto-currencies. It is clear that Bendell and Slater believe these are worth doing, for the human value and local benefit in the present, but also, because should more global monetary reform happen, they would favour a system that included a plurality of currencies, interchanged collaboratively, rather than reproducing a dominant national or global currency.

It was not stressed, but is notable, that all forms of complementary currency have to grapple with the problem of governance: What kind of ‘third party’ upholds the social contract that validates the currency? Many attempt to form a de-centralised or non-heirarchical self-correcting process, in the ‘rules’ by which they are set up. Crypto-currencies like Bitcoin may claim that this is built in to the blockchain by which they operate, but Bendell and Slater say:

“We would like to clarify the meaning of decentralisation in blockchains because the concept is often seized upon by apologists. Decentralisation can apply to many different aspects of a thing. The blockchain is a technology for decentralised data storage, but everything else about Bitcoin, we would argue is centralised. There is ONE currency, with ONE ledger, running on ONE protocol. In addition, the issuance of bitcoin has been to early adopters or those with the most powerful computers, leading to a distribution that is not at all decentralized. We do not think that bitcoin should be called a decentralised currency or that the expression is helpful. Decentralised data storage though is very useful as it inspires trust in the one true blockchain.”

It also seems inevitable that some form of crypto-currency, a digital currency, is likely to arrive within global and national monetary systems, whether reformed or not, and whether complementary currencies of digital or other types exist or not. Other open source blockchain currencies that have been proposed were also brought to attention. Whatever the kind of complementary currency, Bendell and Slater show that they want to see a plurality of types, and also, that a Commons type of governance [Elinor Ostrom] is established, so that the currency serves local and human need.

Absolutely recommended:

Greco, Thomas, Reclaiming the Credit Commons: Towards a Butterfly Society, in

The Wealth of the Commons: a World Beyond Market and State (2012) http://www.wealthofthecommons.org

My personal response:

I was convinced that complementary currencies are worth beginning, but see that much time and energy is required. I also am pretty sure that crypto-currencies will be developed, and indeed advance with properties we have not yet thought about, just as ways of exchange are also advancing and changing. I have negatives:

I believe that to spend time on complementary currency development of any kind, although worth doing in ones own community, may be a distraction from the real need for global reform. We must continue to tackle the need for reform of the global monetary system via representatives, government educational processes and planned campaigning. We should join with and collaborate with groups whose aims are different but overlapping or affected by money matters. My most important reason for campaigning to educate representatives is that I do not believe that ‘most people’ are ignorant, or even if they are, that they need to become experts in money matters. I believe that most people function as best they can in the system they are in, that their wish, like fish in water, is to spend time swimming, not examining and changing the water quality. This is the job of elected representatives, and I want them to be brought to realise that this establishment of good governance is their responsibility. I know I will not become a crypto-currency developer, may never work out how to use my smart-phone, nor do I want to be an economist, even a better informed one. Similarly I understand that in varied and different ways, this is true of most others.

The underlying humanness is about ethics – the inner attitude to living collaboratively, that is easy to demand, hard to enact when it seems that ones own life has to be protected.

Many references, sorry they are unsorted.

Wray, L. R. (2013). Modern Money Theory: A Primer on Macroeconomics for Sovereign Monetary Systems. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin Q1 2014 http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1.aspx

Positive Money http://www.positivemoney.org/2014/11/press-release-uk-parliament-debated-money-creation-first-time-170-years

NEF, A Green New Deal (2008) http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/a-green-new-deal

UNEP Global Green New Deal (2009) http://www.unep.ch/etb/publications/Green%20Economy/UNEP%20Policy%20Brief%20Eng.pdf

Dyson, B. (2014, pers com) Personal communication with Jem Bendell

Ryan-Collins, Josh and Tony Greenham, Richard Werner, Andrew Jackson (2012) Where does money come from? New Economics Foundation.

UNEP (2014) “Inquiry on the Design of a Sustainable Financial System.” http://www.unep.org/inquiry/




Brown, Ellen Hodgson. The Public Bank Solution: From Austerity to Prosperity, 2013.

Bendell and Greco (2013) Currencies of Transition, in The Necessary Transition, McIntosh ed (2013), Greenleaf Publishing.

Ryan-Collins, Josh; Werner, Richard; Jackson, Andrew (2012). Where Does Money Come From?: A Guide to the UK Monetary & Banking System (2nd ed.). London: New Economics Foundation. p. 178. ISBN 978-1908506238. OCLC 816167522.

Werner, R., Jackson, A., 2012, Where does money come from: a guide to the UK money and banking system, 2nd edition, nef (the new economics foundation): London

Simmel, Georg, The Philosophy of Money (1907)

Dodd, N, The Social Life of Money, (2014) Princeton University Press.

Riegel, E. C, The New Approach to Freedom (1976) or full PDF book: https://duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=http%3A%2F%2Fnewapproachtofreedom.info%2Fdocuments%2Fnaf.pdf

Lietaer et al (2012) Money and Sustainability, The Club of Rome.

Adams, J (1787) Letter to Thomas Jefferson, August 25, 1787. http://www.john-adams-heritage.com/quotes/

Standing, Guy. The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London, UK ; New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2014.

BIEN, Basic Income Earth Network, http://basicincome.org/

http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/Debt,_The_First_5000_Years Or PDF of full book: http://www.datafilehost.com/d/ddc62659

Some excellent explanations: http://wfhummel.cnchost.com

The Cobden Centre, a collection of writers giving a broadly Austrian perspective

Episode 1 of this podcast:


Grignon, Paul, Money as Debt III: Two kinds of money 6 min

Martenson, Chris, Crash Course:

-chapter 6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8dq1bH1X6s 6 mins

-chapter 7 Fractional Reserve Banking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIxhsF6JLEA 4 mins

-Chapter 8 Government money creation with treasury bonds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3_Q1SiRN-A 7m

More on Margrit Kennedy

BCCI bank of the CIA

Cobden centre, a blogging platform for Austrian Economists

First UK debate in 170 years in parliament

New Economics Foundation: Inequality and Financialisation,

Money as Debt shows all money is promises, even Gold money at the end of the day

Hudson, Michael, The Bubble and Beyond (Book)

Frederick Soddy, The Role of Money (PDF Book)

Rickards, James, Currency Wars (Book)

Money and Life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL4cPujObDA

The Money Fix https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwmM5Nb6hiE

Peter Joseph creator of ‘Zeitgeist’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBRXuKVEBaY

“People Money” and free tools from http://www.communityforge.net

Wizards of Money Podcast 6 – Democratizing the money system. http://www.robinupton.com/people/WizardsOfMoney/

Regulation http://www.coindesk.com/future-commodity-bitcoin-regulation-cftc


Hearn, Mike, Turing Festival 2013: Future of Money (and everything else) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu4PAMFPo5Y#t=255

World Islamic Mint Study Centre http://www.islamic-finance.com/study_reading.htm


Davies, G (2002) The History of Money: https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfMoney

Ferguson, N (2008) The ascent of money , Penguin Books. Documentary: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-ascent-of-money

Graeber, David, 5000 years of Debt (2011) Chapter 8. Audio is here: http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/archive/audiobooks/Debt, The First 5000 Years/5000-debt-08-Credit-Versus-Bullion,-And-the-Cycles-of-History.mp3

Zarlenga, S (2002) The lost science of Money

Martin, F (2014) Money: The Unauthorized Biography.

Rickards, James http://www.internationalman.com/articles/jim-rickards-decline-of-the-petrodollar-system-is-good-for-gold

 Reply from Jem Bendell

Dear Elspeth

Thank you for taking the time to review the MOOC. Does your report feed into a consultation and any decision making within the Positive Money network?

Your report is timely as we will be making upgrades to the content in August. We will also tweak the system to allow every other MOOC to run over 2 months not one month. We will also make a decision in August about whether to create a bespoke version for a specific profession, eg. development professionals, and whether to seek funding to record the history lesson as a video and promote it as a stand alone that could be watched by anyone and generate interest in the topic and the MOOC.

Please, anyone who receives this email and has done the MOOC, consider coming to our summit on April 22nd in London. Its free. We will discuss various ideas.

My thoughts on your comments Elspeth:
– It is important to emphasise that the first 3 lessons provide the context whereby most people conclude to support fundamental monetary reform
– The MOOC is very critical of many currency innovations, for instance we prepare students to critique Ven in lesson 1 and we are critical of bitcoin in lesson 4
– A range of alternatives are discussed and these all imply different theories of change and some different emphases on principles. We spend a little bit more time on collaborative credit forms of complementary currencies in Lesson 4 as this is what we consider has less attention than crypto, local pounds or monetary reform and is what we know more about. However, we do not argue these are the things students should focus on, as it depends on what your opportunities and skills are

You wonder whether complementary currency work “may be a distraction from the real need for global reform.” My view is that it could be an aid for such global reform as well as comprising an element of that global reform. It “could”, because it depends on how it is done. In the first two Positive Money retreats, I gave a presentation on whether currency innovators and monetary reformers are “Foreigners, Friends or Foes,” where I made the case for having a strategy to engage for mutual benefit. Your review makes me think I should write that up for publication as a blog. The benefits are for giving Positive Money campaigners more ways to engage on a daily basis in building monetary consciousness, and enlisting currency innovators in monetary reform campaigns. You wont get bitcoin fanatics to go along with that, and that’s the point… there are good and bad currency innovations with people involved for a wide range of motives, and we need to differentiate and promote what is useful for the common good and aligned with democratic reform of national monies.

Once I write the blog Ill send to everyone here… but it will take some time. Better to discuss in person on April 22nd.

Here is a link to the certificate course that runs in April in London

Thanks, Jem

Dr Jem Bendell
Professor of Sustainability Leadership
Institute For Leadership And Sustainability (IFLAS)

Enable Sustainable Reform?

This blog is a copy of a final assignment written for the Money and Society MOOC online course I have been enjoying very much for the last few weeks. Because of the word length required, quite a lot of the detail is in the footnotes, sorry about that. I am very grateful to Jem Bendell and Matthew Slater for a great piece of learning. I heard about it through the Positive Money group, so thanks to them also.

Enable Sustainable Reforms: an Ethical Guild for Developers?

Missing from the Money and Society course is a Systems Perspective approach[i]. The course analyses ‘moneystuff’, offers information and ideas[ii]. Systems thinking brought a recommendation to the surface.

Systems thinking asks questions about underlying factors, for example, not what makes Fiat or Commodity the same or different, but why are they both called “money”?[iii] In the system, what is a part, and what is a container of parts? Can parts be expressed in different containers? System is personal, I am in it, so what I bring is not just about me, but also provides partial system information[iv]. A systems account takes holism as its start point, however unfocussed, as each individual aspect carries information. It is more like a hologram[v] than a flowchart. First, free association vignettes, then a search for connections and commonalities in the picture.


  1. In Michael Connelly’s crime fiction[vi], the detective Bosch has a credo: everybody counts or nobody counts. The stories tell how Bosch can only do the job, feel valued, when he works for the others, the least important, the forgotten. Without this valuing, everything flips to nothing, is meaningless.
  1. Some years ago, I queued behind a woman offering a cheque to pay for her purchase. The assistant declined, only cash or card, woman distressed, humiliated, assistant helpless. I paid for the goods with my card and accepted her cheque. Everyone happy, woman and I chatted. She was afraid of cards and going into debt, reluctant to change how she managed her life. She decided to ask her bank for a debit card, explained as ‘like a cheque’. She managed life well within limits she could choose. Knowing more would not have helped.
  1. Following links, I was on Ethereum[vii], thought I would get a “wallet” and learn something about crypto-currency. Click went to a “Security Warnings” list from “You are responsible…” to “SURE I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE”. As part of the 21st Century, I have entered sites, bank accounts and passport renewal, playtime apps, computer upgrades, and happily clicked “agree to Terms and Conditions”. Ethereum, transparent and detailed, scared me with my ignorance. I do not understand, I would not click. I did not want to spend the time it would take to learn its meanings.


The woman in the store stands as symbol for all Bosch’s others: me with limited time to learn among other commitments, the teenager with disability seeking independence, the lecturer in literature asking her kids to program her phone, anyone anywhere with inner self-image ‘not capable, don’t know’. We all count, and we are all capable of adapting, but adaptation is sometimes choice (me), sometimes according to previous experience and help available (woman). Guy Standing has identified loss of “time control”[viii]. It is easy to adapt and adopt when either I already know this system or I can easily learn it. The woman and I represent the inevitability of change, how we adapt and manage real limits. We want systems we can safely use, not always becoming well-informed users.


This is about autonomy, BOTH taking personal authority AND having trust in someone else’s. Monetary systems cannot return to ‘tally sticks’, nobody believes in the divine right of kings to issue them[ix]. Instead, we know we are dependent on imperfect others, and vulnerable to their goodwill, their human qualities[x]. Limits in our capabilities and capacity for education are real[xi]. Life chances are not equalized in exchange systems, however devised, but unfair practice can be minimized by an ethical protocol[xii]. I believe this means a restoration of “Commons”[xiii]. ‘Commons’ or not, an autonomous system requires a code of ethics, an infrastructure that maintains ethical direction, and a means by which failing system parts are corrected. From Ann Pettifor:

  1. a) Money is a social relationship: the promise to pay;
  2. b) there has to be a third party that upholds the promise;
  3. c) a system relying on promise is a claim on real resources (with limits and uncertainty) otherwise the supply is not valid[xiv]:

Money systems should be explicitly ethical, as banking is not[xv]. However, reform depends on perception[xvi] not just the quality of the proposal[xvii]. We can learn from history: advances in knowledge practice lead to the formation of guilds, or professional bodies[xviii]. New techno-systems will come[xix]. Let us have planned ethically informed change[xx], not a chaos echoing the old, just as likely to fail.

  1. The ethics of new proposals should be explicit.
  2. Individuals devising monetary systems or currencies should create a professional guild, characterized by transparency, statement of purpose, and ethical code of practice [With or without expertise everyone can choose their involvement and risk].
  3. There should be sanctions, educational and legal.


Books, journal articles, URLs to sites, articles and video are listed by author, editor or organization, alphabetically, not by item type. All weblinks accessed 14 March 2017.


Aronson, http://www.thinking.net/Systems_Thinking/OverviewSTarticle.pdf

Bendell, Jem, and Thomas H Greco. ‘Currencies of Transition Transforming Money to Unleash Sustainability’. In The Necessary Transition: The Journey to the Sustainable Enterprise Economy, n.d.

Bendell, J and M. Slater (2015) Money and Society, free course, www.iflas.info

Beuys, Joseph, ed. What Is Money?: A Discussion. Forest Row, England: Clairview Books, 2010.

Bollier, David, and Silke Helfrich, eds. The Wealth of the Commons: A World beyond Market and State /Ed. by David Bollier and Silke Helfrich. Amherst, Mass: Levellers Press, 2012.

Brock, Arthur, MetaCurrency Project, http://metacurrency.org/portfolio-item-tag/deep-wealth/, SourceTree Commons, http://sourcetreecommons.org/

CEPTR, http://ceptr.org/

Crawford, Elspeth [1] https://transitionalspace.wordpress.com/2017/03/03/love-hate-relationshipshistory-of-money/

Crawford, Elspeth [2] Making, Mistaking Reality, https://transitionalspace.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/makingmistakinginterchangedownload.pdf

Crawford, Elspeth [3] https://transitionalspace.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/twist-or-psychopathy/

Davies, Glyn. A History of Money: From Ancient Times to the Present Day. 3rd ed., With revisions. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2002.

Ethereum, https://www.ethereum.org/

Faraday, Michael (1839). Experimental Researches in Electricity, vols. i. and ii. Richard and John Edward Taylor.; vol. iii. Richard Taylor and William Francis, 1855

French, R. B., and P. Simpson. ‘The “Work Group”: Redressing the Balance in Bion’s Experiences in Groups’. Human Relations 63, no. 12 (1 December 2010): 1859–78. doi:10.1177/0018726710365091.

Hoggett, Paul. ‘Perverse Social Structures’. Journal of Psycho-Social Studies 4, no. 1 (June 2010): 57–64.

Fresco, Jacques, The Venus Project https://www.thevenusproject.com/

Greco, Thomas H, Beyond Money, Devoted to the liberation of money and credit, and the restoration of the commons, https://beyondmoney.net/


Gupta, Vinay [1], Ethereum, https://www.ethereum.org/

Gupta, Vinay [2], https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFSvttMg6E and


Helfrich, Silke. ‘The Logic of the Commons & the Market: A Shorthand Comparsion of Their Core Beliefs’. In The Wealth of the Commons, n.d. http://wealthofthecommons.org/essay/logic-commons-market-shorthand-comparsion-their-core-beliefs

Hutton, Jean, John Bazalgette and Bruce Reed, Organisation-in-the-Mind https://www.grubbinstitute.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/034_Organisation-in-the-mind.pdf

Menzies, I. E. P, and London (GB) Tavistock Inst. of Human Relations (TIHR). The Functioning of Social Systems as a Defence against Anxiety: A Report on a Study of the Nursing Service of a General Hospital., 1984.

Money and Society MOOC, IFLAS, see Bendell and Slater

Ostrom, Elinor. The Future of the Commons: Beyond Market Failure and Government Regulation. Occasional Paper / IEA 148. London: Inst. of Economic Affairs, 2012.

Pettifor, A. Thinking Allowed – Money – how to break the power of the banks – @bbcradio4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08gy87s

Roesch, Ulrich. We Are the Revolution!: Rudolf Steiner, Joseph Beuys and the Threefold Social Impulse. Forest Row: Temple Lodge Publishing, 2013.

Slater, Matthew, Community Forge http://communityforge.net/en

Standing, Guy, http://www.guystanding.com/files/documents/Precariat_and_Class_Struggle_final_English.pdf

Sweeny (1977) The capital hill baby sitting coop, http://cda.morris.umn.edu/~kildegac/Courses/M&B/Sweeney%20&%20Sweeney.pdf

The Merchants of Doubt, documentary film, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3675568/

Waddell, Margot, and Tavistock Clinic. Inside Lives: Psychoanalysis and the Development of Personality. London: Karnac, 2002.

Further reading and media:

Armstrong, David, and Robert French. Organization in the Mind: Psychoanalysis, Group Relations, and Organizational Consultancy: Occasional Papers 1989-2003. Tavistock Clinic Series. London ; New York: Karnac, 2005.

Bion, Wilfred R. Experiences in Groups, and Other Papers. London: Tavistock/Routledge, 1989.

Bollas, Christopher. The Christopher Bollas Reader. London ; New York: Routledge, 2011.

Coleridge, Greg, The Power Elite’s Ten Strategies Opposing Money Reform https://www.afsc.org/story/power-elite%E2%80%99s-10-strategies-opposing-monetary-reform

Ferguson, N (2008) The ascent of money , Penguin Books. Documentary: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-ascent-of-money

Four Horsemen, documentary film, https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5fbvquHSPJU#t=1226

Hoggett, Paul. Politics, Identity, and Emotion. Boulder, London: Paradigm Publishers, 2009.

Maizels, Neil Is That Really What It Is! Capitalism un-emperored, http://www.academia.edu/28713577/Is_That_Really_What_It_Is_Capitalism_un-emperored

Rowbotham, Michael. The Grip of Death: A Study of Modern Money, Debt Slavery, and Destructive Economics. Charlbury, Oxfordshire : Concord, MA: Jon Carpenter ; Distributed by Paul and Co, 1998.

Pettifor, Ann. Just Money: Society Can Break the Despotic Power of Finance. Commonwealth Publishing., ///.

Solms, Mark, and Oliver Turnbull. The Brain and the Inner World: An Introduction to the Neuroscience of Subjective Experience. New York: Other Press, 2002.

Standing, Guy. The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London, UK ; New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2014.

Standing, Guy. The Corruption of Capitalism: Why Rentiers Thrive and Work Does Not Pay. London: Biteback Publishing, 2016.

Zarlenga, Stephen. The Lost Science of Money: The Mythology of Money, the Story of Power. Valatie, NY: American Monetary Institute, 2002.

[i] Aronson: “The approach of systems thinking is fundamentally different from that of traditional forms of analysis. Traditional analysis focuses on the separating the individual pieces of what is being studied … Systems thinking, in contrast, focuses on how the thing being studied interacts with the other constituents of the system—a set of elements that interact to produce behavior—of which it is a part. This means that instead of isolating smaller and smaller parts of the system being studied, systems thinking works by expanding its view to take into account larger and larger numbers of interactions as an issue is being studied. This results in sometimes strikingly different conclusions …”

[ii] In Money and Society, assignment 1, I defined “moneystuff”, Crawford [1], as everything this course would be about. We got: Introduction, money as social technology, History, trust and backing properties, Problems/Impact, issues of mindsets, challenge to worldview, and Alternatives, old and new ideas. Gupta [1] and Bendell specifically state their belief that monetary systems should benefit all people; Slater, Community Forge website is purposefully aimed to help communities and transparent about its methods.

[iii] In a totally unrelated but analogous systemic process, in 1832 Michael Faraday began a series of experiments called “the Identities of Electricity” in which he asked – remember this is 1832 – Why do we think the spark from a cat’s fur and a thunderstorm and the jump of a frog’s leg etc. are all called “electricity”? Fast forward, his study of commonality led to the discovery of electrochemical theory, the production of steady current, Daniell’s production of the first chemical battery in1838, and many other developments in chemistry and physics.

[iv] I can ask: What would I consider the essential property of a monetary system, or of a currency? see CEPTR values levels, or Brock. Or, I can heed my feelings and more idle thoughts, and wonder what information these carry. See Crawford [2] “Use of Self”, and Hutton, et al.

[v] Hologram characteristics: because of interference between two beams of light, the hologram carries information about the illuminated object at every point it occupies, see http://www.holografia.wz.cz/holography/Characteristics_of_Holograms.php

In analogy, a system that consists of many parts, layers and levels, can show some information about each part at any point, depending on the perspective from which the view is obtained. In human systems, feelings and atmosphere offer perspectives on levels differing from that accessed by cognitive rationality.

[vi] see http://www.michaelconnelly.com/series/

[vii] links from Money and Society, lesson 4.25, Gupta [2], and Ethereum

[viii] Standing: “What are the crucial assets over which the precariat must struggle? … they are socio-economic security, control of time, quality space, knowledge (or education), financial knowledge and financial capital. All are unequally distributed, and in terms of control are becoming more so. One can even claim that many of them are more unequally distributed than income itself.”

[ix] Davies, and Money and Society, lesson 2.10 identify the tally system parts, but the overarching ‘protocol’ that makes it possible to accept the inherent risk of credit was the hegemonic belief that all kings had divine right. They could demand trust.

[x] For authors writing with reference to money and factors inherent in a holistic life, see Beuys, Roesch, Fresco. For depth psychology, Waddell may be a place to begin.

[xi] In a group/cultural phenomenon, as Money and Society, Davies, Gupta, show, each kind of money or currency fails in some respect. All relate to power (issuing and backing), all affect the group that uses them, in a complex feedback loop, people become like the money system they first devised and now are using. Analysis of this phenomenon, that helps us understand the growth of hegemony, is variously called ‘institutionalization’, ‘groupthink’, basic assumption process etc. See Menzies’ seminal paper in social understanding, French, Hoggett, and for an example from Money and Society course, see Sweeney.

[xii] Gupta [2] brings this to the fore this when he notes that Bitcoin is political.

[xiii] The most realistic ethical society I know of is a return to the idea of “Commons”, see e.g. Ostrom, Bollier, Greco, Helfrich.

[xiv] In a recent radio programme, Thinking Allowed – Money – how to break the power of the banks – @bbcradio4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08gy87s

Ann Pettifor identified these three money properties. It seems to me that Money and Society analysis agrees with these properties, as I do. Consider ‘backing’ for example, or whether money is Commodity or Fiat. History has had chiefs and priests and kings, and law and judiciary play their part, as they always have, with sanctions that operate or not, as in ‘bailing out the banks’ and exporting of the credit risk where a promise cannot be kept.

[xv] NB “Ethical Banking” does not refer to having a code of ethics that governs ones own behavior and direction. It uses the word ‘ethical’ [wrongly?] to refer to particular types of investments and their impact on externals in the environment.

[xvi] see Waddell, Crawford [2], [3].

[xvii] for opposition and propaganda as well as simply mistaken perception, see Coleridge, and documentary film The Merchants of Doubt.

[xviii] The purpose of guild or professional body is usually ethical: the protection of both future knowledge and of those who use the expertise offered. Examples:1377 printers Guild of Stationers, https://printinghistory.org/timeline/ ; Doctors, 1832, revision 1855, British Medical Association. https://www.bma.org.uk/events/venue-hire/our-history All are in danger of institutionalization, becoming the establishment, see note x above, and suffer from politicians’ failures to represent needs of constituents even though they take oath to do so, etc. Ethics code and infrastructure should address this.

[xix] See Standing: “proficiens, a growing group who live as contractors, consultants, self-employed “businesses” and the like. They earn high incomes, but live on the edge of burn-out and constant exposure to immoral hazards, often breaking laws with abandon. Their numbers are growing, as is their influence on political discourse and popular imagery”? Do “proficiens”, often anti-authority personality types, need education regarding autonomy – independence within a system, and the nature of personal authority – inner recognition of rights, responsibility and ethics?

[xx] Consultancy on code can be available, free, should include “this code is to be re-visited in [insert time scale here] or when request for revisit is made by [proportion of guild members here] or [number of external referrals here], and other guards against institutionalization, note x above. Contact elspethcr@gmail.com.

Love-Hate Relationships/History of Money

While taking a really good online course [Institute for Sustainability and Leadership: Money and Society] I have had to write an assignment for the first time in many years. Having been taken through Monetary History with a series of slides and associated papers, we were asked to develop our own theory on the main factor influencing monetary history, using examples, recurring themes etc. This is what I found myself writing, it was supposed to be 500 words, but this is over 1000. [Luckily, online courses do not assess.]

Human Interactions and System Creation

Sorry, I am out of time to shorten this … but very grateful for the way the assignment gave me an opportunity to put the ideas into words within the monetary context.

Systems, their Currencies and Functions (Moneystuff) are inventions of humans, not universal laws. Money stuff comes from human minds. How do brains/minds work to make these artefacts, cultures, organizations, institutions?

Theory: Bio-social-psychological learning from neuroscience, anthropology, sociology, psychoanalysis, suggest states of mind result from dynamics of experience through feedback loops (amygdala, hippocampus, cortex) acting on and responding to the complexity of internal and external happenings, bringing artefacts, cultures and institutions into the loop.[1]

LAW: Moneystuff is a product of mind-states projected onto the outside world.[2]

The states of mind existent in humans give rise to three different types of “projected cultural interactions” applicable to monetary history.[3]

These interactions conflict, are productive or degenerate, depending on use and particular context. Each can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the feedback loop resonates; hegemony takes hold. If projection is of a single interaction mode it will in time become dysfunctional, even though at first it may have shown promise of wellbeing. A single interaction mode may be useful by itself in particular circumstances, but reality requires flexible engagement with each as circumstances change.

DEPENDENCE – An experience of all humans (birds, mammals also) engenders a state of mind that obeys authority, feels envy and gratitude, seeks and gives help and security[4]. The monetary systems of Mesopotamia, Yap stones are decreed by law or custom equivalent to law, and refer to human necessity, agriculture, food, shelter. In authority and obedience responsive to need, they represent dependency interactions. The example from Rome seems to show how what was at first a productive fiat currency, Dependence, became dysfunctional, causing a switch to the next mode.

INDEPENDENCE or SURVIVAL As it develops, mind engages with attachment, separation, anxiety, loss of unconditional provision, but at the same time, gains experience of mutual support, and/or competition. “Me” realizes “Us” and “Them”. Entering the world of siblings and others, we echo how humans moved from hunter-gatherer living to settlements about 10,000 years ago, necessitating brain development overlaying more basic biology [Solms]. When competitiveness, fear, anxiety about scarcity or other threats to survival exist, the projection becomes fight or flight, us or them. Money becomes a commodity, capital, of which there is enough, or not enough[5].

Where Survival and Dependence co-exist, co-operative and collaborative systems develop. The Tally Sticks of the Middle Ages may look like “fiat”, and are established by the king’s decree, but in practice are exchange between the king and his subjects enabling the aims of each. However, it could be said that Survival became the sole interaction after the death of Charles I and the brief puritanical republic. Central banking and capitalism emerged at this time, alongside colonialism, fear of scarcity bringing exploitation. Laws passed in the 17th century allowed debts to be freely bought and sold, a social interaction became a commodity. In Survival mode plenty is achieved through “survival of the fittest”. Survival dominates later monetary history, helped by Adam Smith and the enlightenment putting reason above emotion not seeing the way in which emotion underpins all reasoning and enables it to be in tune with reality. Later, living within an already formed Survival understanding of Money, many believed the free market promised well-being. Neo-liberal philosophy is a degenerate form of Independence/Survival that diminishes both Dependence and the third interaction mode.

FUTURE (called Pairing in psychosocial literature) is the human ability to plan, perceive future, remember past, use tools, and join with others to regret, repair, and reproduce to find hope in the future, rather than repeat. This mode contains memory and desire, used alongsid ethe other two is genuinely creative. However, when used without the other two, pairing allows emotionality, fantasy and prejudice unchecked by evidence, to dominate. Many utopian proposals and conspiracy theories that hope to trigger monetary reform probably belong in this interaction, but I cannot find examples in monetary history where money or currency could be considered a projection of this type.

A monetary system that issues money as debt with interest diminishes this third interaction. It makes a destructive charge on the future of ourselves and our planet. Possibly Islamic Banking that restricts usury, may be one form of money that recognizes some aspect of “Future”, micro-finance schemes may also do so, but I do not know enough about either.

Prediction: Recognition of the failure of the neo-liberal monetary system, will lead to either a different form of Survival, or to a Dependent mode. For example, the film The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse analyses the system failure, then supports a return to a regulation and gold standard, i.e. commodity money, exchange, limited by authority. This is again Survival, with a reach for something that can be identified as secure with competitive problems deemed soluble by appeal to authority. Positive Money seeks a monetary commission, but its own solution is to have a Money Committee taking the power of issuance away from banks, and deciding on how much or in what currencies money will be issued. This seems to be a return to a Dependent mode, though with good listening parents, the family will be allowed to participate. This could be reconcilable with the third interaction, but equally might see-saw between Dependence and Survival modes, as most solely rational functioning has done in monetary history.

A transformative system would include Future Pairing mode, acknowledging human gift, all our interaction modes, our capital. This may grow in small local cooperatives or transition groups, but none that has appeared has gained much traction[6]. I am intrigued by Bendell’s “Acknowledgement” function of money that seemed to me similar to “paying forward” or “what goes around comes around”, in which trust in goodness, remembrance of past worth, allows different ways of thinking about what money might become. If money were used according to observed circumstance for human-and-environment wellbeing rather than economic growth, its interaction mode would vary. I do not see any government at present able to formulate such a flexible monetary system. My hopes from this course are to be more able to so, but I cannot predict it.


Beuys, Joseph, ed. What Is Money?: A Discussion. Forest Row, England: Clairview Books, 2010.

Bion, Wilfred R. Experiences in Groups, and Other Papers. London: Tavistock/Routledge, 1989.

Bollas, Christopher. The Christopher Bollas Reader. London ; New York: Routledge, 2011.

Davies, Glyn. A History of Money: From Ancient Times to the Present Day. 3rd ed., With revisions. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2002.

French, R. B., and P. Simpson. ‘The “Work Group”: Redressing the Balance in Bion’s Experiences in Groups’. Human Relations 63, no. 12 (1 December 2010): 1859–78. doi:10.1177/0018726710365091.

Hoggett, Paul. Politics, Identity, and Emotion. Boulder, London: Paradigm Publishers, 2009.

Maizels, Neil Is That Really What It Is! Capitalism un-emperored, http://www.academia.edu/28713577/Is_That_Really_What_It_Is_Capitalism_un-emperored

Rowbotham, Michael. The Grip of Death: A Study of Modern Money, Debt Slavery, and Destructive Economics. Charlbury, Oxfordshire : Concord, MA: Jon Carpenter ; Distributed by Paul and Co, 1998.

Solms, Mark, and Oliver Turnbull. The Brain and the Inner World: An Introduction to the Neuroscience of Subjective Experience. New York: Other Press, 2002.

Standing, Guy. The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London, UK ; New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2014.

Waddell, Margot, and Tavistock Clinic. Inside Lives: Psychoanalysis and the Development of Personality. London: Karnac, 2002.

Zarlenga, Stephen. The Lost Science of Money: The Mythology of Money, the Story of Power. Valatie, NY: American Monetary Institute, 2002.


[1] See e.g. Solms for neuroscience, Waddell for states of mind, Hogget for processes of cultural formation.

[2] Psychosocial references: Solms, Waddell, Maizels, Hogget, French.

Monetary History and socio-political references: Rowbotham, Standing, Davies, Zarlenga.

[3] Adapted from Wilfred Bion’s theory of basic assumptions in group unconscious and Robert French’s development of it in leadership studies where the assumptions are considered to be universal interaction modes that can be both positive and negative. The names above are mine, to apply the ideas better within 500 words.

[4] Maslow heirarchy of needs – food and shelter

[5] Neil Maizels:

[6] Joseph Beuys “What is Money?”


A new Paradigm for a new Monetary System [4]

Read Part 1 here, and Part 2 and Part 3.

Based on philosophical and psychological inquiry, part 1 referred to the philosophy of science in order to show the need for a new paradigm approach to a world problem: to think how “money” or a monetary system might be better planned to support life. Part 2, supposed three interlinked relationships within life as the foundation of this holistic approach [transcendent, rights, and exchange]. Then in part 3, a thought experiment began where “exchange” was left out, so that some notions of what “money” might mean without that aspect we are so accustomed to viewing could emerge. This “out of the box” thinking helps the realisation that the current paradigm (a hegemony in thought) allows exchange to dominate. This can be seen again, but each time a little differently, when the exchange aspect of life is paired with each of the others, but all three are not in combination. Leave out “transcendence” and inevitably, the view moves to conflicting aspects of sociology and psychology. The “elephant in the room” is that we talk about cultures, spirituality, the uncertainty of future, as if we were not in the experience. This is OK if we do not forget that there is a wider perspective, but when that perspective is forgotten, it can be observed that thinking tends to become reductionist, about short-term, immediate issues.


Politics tries to balance the needs of economy – seen as market – without which aims (even self-interested aims) for the well-being of all cannot be begun, nor rights advanced. The viewpoints shift from ‘left’ to ‘right’, neither seems to succeed.

If “exchange” is paired with “transcendence”, leaving out “rights”, observation from this view shows another familiar dichotomy, that between simplistic reductionism, and a more utopian idealism. The idea of “rights” gets dragged in to discussion, almost as an afterthought, again linear thinking as if either ‘left’ or ‘right’ had the answer, overwhelms more complex thoughtfulness. People are again in US and THEM mode, one group being thoughtless consumers, the other utopian idealists, depending which sort of US group one happens to be in at the time.


One aspect of life has become dominant, so that it is almost impossible to use the word “economics” as meaning life management, it refers primarily to “exchange”, trade, things with technical meaning like “balance of payments”.

In a more holistic view, considering disparate fields of inquiry, every discipline* has proposed a different theory of living that contains some truths. From each particular lens, a version appears, of three, sometimes four, drives, instincts, or needs, differently named, but similar in quality, to the threefold approach being used here. Finding correlations, or links, or even differing semantics, is welcome, a collaboration in understanding from a variety of perspectives. 

The foundation chosen here, although it refers to Beuys, an artist with a deep interest in economics and money, is a re-wording of discovery from the psychoanalysis of groups. Over the many years that psychoanalytic thinking (an experiential observational inquiry) has developed, it has left behind early cultural misapprehensions, it has found affirmation from the newer discipline of neuroscience, as well as from practical results in particular applications (therapy being just one of these). For psychoanalytic thinking, often called psychodynamics, one of the biggest problems now is that of expressing valid and useful findings in ordinary language, so the information can be used by all, rather than using the specific technical language that is just as hard to understand as the languages of physics or literary criticism, or any other depth inquiry.

The next part of this exploration of how to make change in a monetary system will use this basic understanding of human life and its motivations, applying it to economics, the idea of “money”.

return to  Part 1 here, or Part 2 or Part3.

*look up almost any discipline and search for “basic human” …: Cultural anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, Genetics, Evolutionary biology, Economics, Neurology, Philosophy


A new Paradigm for a new Monetary System [3]

Read Part 1 here, and Part 2,or go to Part 4

These produced questions, that are counter-intuitive to how we often consider money: First: Could we, creative people, conceive of a money system that is like life? [Life is a gift] Second: What would money as gift look like?

Before damning this as totally unrealistic, playing games, think instead about breaking the paradigm, gostarting from what is in life that is indeed a gift: the sunlight, the seeds that know how to grow, the seasons, and ourselves with myriad capabilities, including those of death and destruction. This post is about real, not a fantasy wish-list.

People created money as we think of it at present, and most of us think about it as something it is not!! It is not concrete stuff, it is an idea, an artifact of mind, that we use to represent necessary relationships.

Look back at the foundation diagram (in part 2), and take it apart from different venn1perspectives, remembering that it is a whole. Or, at least an attempt to represent something holistically.

Leave out the exchange part, that has become so dominant in recent history.

Surprisingly, historical research[i] into money creation suggests that it first emerged as a combination from the Transcendent and the Rights sectors, not using exchange at all! And, it allows me to think about children, dependents generally, as well as those bugbears of power and authority, both inner world perceptions and beliefs as well as the outer world effects. These are so evidently part of the necessary debate about money and its uses and abuses that somehow it feels like a good road to take. [Reflexive thought, inner awareness of feelings plus outer observations, evidence, combination to assess truth or prejudice. Keep going.]


This brings notions about holistic think methods – basically the well-known brainstorm process. Brainstorm “money as gift” or “life as gift” or just “what kind of money do we want”? What do you get? What did I get? Words like money is relationships between people, payment for service or product, trust, risk, not enough, root of all evil, work reward, many things to many people…

I also discovered that brainstorming alone is not a great idea, so looked at the record of an earlier brainstorm process with others, at a recent Positive Money Retreat a brainstorm about good or bad groups, produced the flip-chart below. It seems to me that the “bad” group represents pretty well how our society has sleepwalked its way to the monetary system we have at present, and the good group processes have been pretty much absent when it comes to designing what we want from money, or monetary system.


Using words from the ‘good’ group brainstorm – do they apply to money? Effective, common purpose, synergy, … why not use these alongside the other words that are more commonly used to describe the meaning and use of money.

Also, would the other parts of the diagram reveal interesting aspects of what we really want from “money for life”?

go to Part 4, or return to  Part 1 here, or Part 2.

[i] See Stephen Zarlenga, the New Science of Money

A new Paradigm for a new Monetary System [2]

read part [1] here

How do we set about creating a system that would represent life better? Inadequate as it is, the Venn diagram below helps me think about how we can stop seeing money as only a means of transaction between people, helps me start from something more whole in human experience. There are three interlinked relationships within our life, expressed in many different ways and differently divided by other writers[i]. However they are expressed, all agree that without each and without each in combination, the picture of life fails in some important respect. Joseph Beuys[ii] proposed a basic foundation that encompassed what he called the Spiritual Life, the Rights Life and the Economic Life. A little differently, I consider the life of the transcendent, rights, and exchange[iii]. Suppose a foundation could look like this:


If we said the need was for a money idea that covered life needs, human and world in which we live, then it is not utopia to say this is a final objective, but on the way there will be lesser aims, transitional shifts. Whatever these are, they need to be seen to be stages in heading towards a monetary system that might be uncertain but would even so be more genuinely reaching for real requirements than the present pseudo-science that is too frequently taught as economics[iv]. The direction in which proposed change takes us matters.

In brief:

Could we, creative people, conceive of a money system that is like life?

What would money as gift look like?

read Part 3 here, then part 4

or return to Part 1

[i] Interactions: see French, R. B., and P. Simpson. ‘The “Work Group”: Redressing the Balance in Bion’s Experiences in Groups’. Human Relations 63, no. 12 (1 December 2010): 1859–78; The Threefold Social Impulse: see Roesch, Ulrich. We Are the Revolution!: Rudolf Steiner, Joseph Beuys and the Threefold Social Impulse. Forest Row: Temple Lodge Publishing, 2013; add your own knowledge from whatever perspective e.g. ecology, religion, sociology, philosophy, etc.

[ii] Beuys, Joseph, ed. What Is Money?: A Discussion. Forest Row, England: Clairview Books, 2010.

[iii] This is roughly comparable to Wilfred Bion’s unconscious theory of group behaviours, pairing, dependency and fight/flight. see French and Simpson above for development of this idea as basic interactions.

[iv] References, many include:

Rowbotham, Michael. The Grip of Death: A Study of Modern Money, Debt Slavery, and Destructive Economics. Charlbury, Oxfordshire : Concord, MA: Jon Carpenter ; Distributed by Paul and Co, 1998.

Jackson, Andrew, Ben Dyson, and Herman E. Daly. Modernising Money: Why Our Monetary System Is Broken and How It Can Be Fixed. London: Positive Money, 2014.

Ivo Mosley, and Positive Money websites.

A new Paradigm for a new Monetary System [1]

Equity, Fairness and Worth

We, or our governments, spend time talking of economics and money, and even more esoteric things like fiscal policies, and when some idea is proposed, there is an instant antoinettequery about “resources” which usually means, “Where is the MONEY?” Our societies and their institutions are made up of people, made by people, they may seem fixed, but are, like our minds, more plastic than we may wish to acknowledge. The word “money” is also not concrete, not fixed, it is in fact an idea rather than a thing, and throughout history has had many forms. However, when the talk is of values, what is valued, it is the future that is envisaged in many different ways, with all its uncertainties, and over and over again, the wishes, for something fair, and something worthwhile, something equitable. “Be the change you want to be” is now a mantra, a useful one. What it may mean is that things will be different, will become different, when we are different in both thought and action, when our minds have changed along with our behaviours. We do now know that body, mind and action are not separable, but interlinked.

Thinking, the process or the way people think, has many forms, patterns if you like. It often seems natural, indeed often is instinctive, to start with parts, and build towards a whole, understanding the organism by seeing what each bit does, and then trying to find relationships. This is classificatory, cognitive, rational, and has often been mistaken for the “scientific process”[i]. However, this is only one aspect of scientific thinking, indeed only a part of any kind of thinking or thoughtfulness. There is another equally important, probably more important aspect to thought. This more inclusive, but more uncertain, way of thinking starts with the “whole”, allowing perception, feeling, intuition, experiment, and allows the parts themselves to show their enfolding into each other, so that understanding follows the actuality of their relationships. A better idea of whole emerges into the thinking mind.[ii] This is creative thought, reflexive, situated in the reality of observation, aware of bias in the self. Reflexive thinking moves mindfully between subjectivity, feeling experience, and logical connections, towards a stronger more enduring objectivity. This fluid thought process properly acknowledges that understanding is a matter of direction and probability, never complete, but what it grasps, is real. The parts, and logical patterns previously observed will fit in somewhere if the idea, so far, so good, matches reality. If parts don’t fit, if the process becomes mired in confusion, complication, anomaly, contradiction, then it does not matter how rational the theory sounds, it is a mess, not fit for purpose. The history of science, and politics and human endeavour is full of paradigm shifts, as theories were seen to fail, rather than succeed. In science, think Copernicus, Galileo, the wave theory of light, and in human interactions, remember the Berlin Wall, the Industrial Revolution, the outlawing of slavery, all the way back to the iron age replacing the stone age. Thought shifts towards the future, based in reality, when something whole is grasped, even if at first it is not at all understood.

Anyone attempting to follow modern 21st century economics theory, economics policies, government fiscal and monetary understanding, boom and bust, austerity, debt bonds, scarcity and wealth, the deficit, the borrowing, etc.etc. can see that economic theory, in particular neo-liberal economic theory, is not fit for purpose.

Economics is a study of a very important aspect of life, how people interact to produce the goods they and others need or want, how governments enact policy in particular ways to enable people to interact within markets to get what they want or accomplish certain goals. Or not, sometimes. It purports to study the production and consumption of goods and the transfer of wealth to produce and obtain those goods. Within the theories there will be parts that are in tune with real lives, as they are lived, and parts that are plain wrong. Without a new frame we cannot at the moment tell which is which.

Economics requires a rethink, a different paradigm, emerging from the sense of life. We may seek equity fairness and worth, but they can be put aside, temporarily, while life is observed as it is lived by all, not just some, not just in general, but by particular people each of whom lives their own story, connected to the stories from others. Life is a gift. We forget. How can we remember?

The next posts will look for the forward aspect of economics, that would happily not require too many major shifts in many of the ways we use money and production, as those parts of thinking and practice that do work well, will find a better home, and those that do not become redundant. Much of the detail and analysis, especially the details of economics and its history, owes a lot to Positive Money, to Ivo Mosley and to all those people who by active enabling listening and thoughtfulness have helped me to think. Positive Money ask that anyone who comes to see this need for a new way forward in economics, sign petitions here, asking that quantitative easing be directed towards the productive economy, and here, asking for a money commission.

Read part 2, then parts 3 and 4

[i] This is actually only the justificatory aspect of science, the checking out if the theory works, to see what evidence supports it, see by reasoning and logic if the theory stands up in practice. To create a theory, explore uncertainty, scientists also use a heuristic process, and this is more often than not an emotional and instinctive, highly subjective way of engaging with the world being explored.

[ii] Charles Darwin’s wife reported in the appendix to his autobiography that he had stated “it is fatal to reason whilst observing, though so necessary beforehand and so useful afterwards” Collins Edition, 1958. p.159. To work holistically from the real world of observation and experiment, not being afraid to see contradiction and anomaly, is how real understanding of anything has proceeded – and there is no “total” real understanding, no “certainty” just perspectives from which one can go outside of one’s mind and thought into the world, and find a fit with what is there. [Psychological references from Wilfred Bion, Learning from Experience, Daniel Seigal, Mindfulness, and Bessell van der Kolk, The Body Keeps the Score, and many others.]

Money: Do we have to have a debt system?

I follow a group from UK called Positive Money. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I do agree with the way they are asking questions about the way money / economy works. Or, I agree with some of the questions. However, I feel that like many others within a hegemony of thought, that it is hard to get outside the status quo to ask the questions more relevant to all those who are not in the positions of power – for example it is notable that within the Positive Money debates, so far I have heard from only three women, including me.

So I spent most of yesterday trying to think out how I could engage, stay within focus and at the same time open up a different angle. And to some it will be obvious that I was writing with Bion’s basic assumption groups in mind. [and of course I have not yet done a post on that – you will have to google.] What I did with them, is down to me. This is what I came up with:

To further Positive Money thinking

I am very much in support of Positive Money ideas, but have problems with aspects of the reasoning in its various videos, blogs and threads of conversation. Although worried in a minor way that we might be considered utopians, I am more concerned that the contributions to the debate can become (or are becoming) encapsulated within a theory of monetary exchange and rational argument concerning it, as though the answer was already known and has only to convince others. This is to the detriment of seeing how lives are really lived and how the best of Positive Money thought can indeed be furthered and taken on board by all, be they individuals, communities, governments.

Read on so that hopefully what I mean becomes clearer.

First – the Market Dimension
By the “money exchange” I include barter and saving, or any ‘token of value’ as this is how people operate. The miserly hoarder is bartering his pile for something he values, security, feeling of triumph, whatever. And so on, there is not a requirement that any exchange is rational, nor any judgment that the irrational is somehow a poor bargain. Did I buy an American doll outfit for my grand-daughter that cost more dollars than my own jacket? Yes I did, and the hours of play she has spent say that on this occasion at least, I used my money well, but not rationally. Thinking also of Arabian souks or Chinese streets, “money exchange” could be seen as operating within a “Market Dimension” one aspect of life.

We all live in such a Money Market of one kind or another. The system is transactional, something of value X is exchanged for something of value Y, and either it is even, or some other value Z is owed by one party to the other. Then, if we stay in this dimension, we notice, indeed know, that X, Y and Z fluctuate, as well as knowing that their supposed value has only sometimes got a relation to intrinsic worth. We also know that quantitative value changes frequently, and might be bargained to change to our advantage. [My grand-daughter might show that she loves me, as well as the American doll, so the worth of that plastic outfit changes for me, but be the same as it always was for others.] The changes of value are multiply determined by factors outside the original transaction.

A phrase (here taken out of its context) pushed me into writing this essay: they’re free to spend LESS on booze, holidays, clothes or whatever. This too popular notion of freedom to choose A or B according to a quantitative balance, is just NOT how people live. Quantity transaction cannot show how people choose between options in multiply constrained contexts, nor can it show present versus future, nor does it show how a past decision is now affected by factors quite randomly beyond the rationality of the original decision. For example, choosing a holiday, is that an inessential? It isn’t if you are carer for a disabled family member, and you are exhausted, and the other members of the family, all in work, club together to send not just you but also one of your sisters on a holiday. If you do not get a rest, they know both mum and dad will be needing care next. Etc. Think of real people, real examples. There are not only multiple determinants of choice, there are also many delimiters of choice. Some choices are simply not available in a transactional balance. Life does not provide free choice except in its most trivial matters.

Second – the Dimension of Dependence and Support
This is affected by money, as nearly everything is, but cannot be adequately addressed by a transactional or quantitative discussion.  As suggested in the purposely chosen carer example above, dependence and support are huge delimiters of choice. This dimension also illustrates how who owes whom what can shift momentarily or over time. Example, parent cares for child, both age, child cares for parent, further aging, grandparent helps care for grandchild, then grandchild becomes carer. Not always, not every way of living a life, but a fluctuating dependent /support /care system. We are ALL, whether we acknowledge it or not, in dependent systems. They are not just about childhood, illness or old age. Whether we live in urban or rural areas, whether we heed it with awareness or not, we live in inter-dependence with each other’s skills, work and behaviour.

Considering parenting a human baby as an example we all know: Parent cares for child, child smiles at parent. Both are enriched by something quite other than money, or any other form of bartered value system. The interaction is transformational, rather than transactional. We are all so used to everyday transformational interactions, that we almost forget how important they are, the good, the not so good, and the bad. In the not so good, a parent might care for a child hoping to feel good, so that she will feel like a good parent. At an extreme, this parent requires that the child makes her feel good. This is exploiting the child, and what might have been a transformational exchange has degenerated to become a transaction. Car eis bargained or is emotional blackmail. We can ask if there such a thing as a ‘pure’ transformational interaction where the care is unconditional, a gift? This is a different debate. It is enough to consider here that most of us will have millions of experiences that lie somewhere in between, in an ordinary life, an intermingling of transaction and transformational exchange.

What the dependence/support system has to do with economics, is that it says clearly
•    the quantity in the exchange may be necessary but it is not sufficient, the QUALITY has also to be considered
•    the quality of the dependence support system is a strong delimiter of choice in economic decision-making
•    poor quality leads to exploitation. For example, slavery and serfdom have high co-dependence between master and servant, but very low quality. It would seem that many loans to poorer countries, grossly mis-identified as ‘aid’ have the same low quality and are in fact forms of exploitation.

Any discussion of economics has to ask reflective questions of itself that take in from the beginning its effects on the qualitative dependence /support interactions, asking: How does this money production, control of supply etc support better quality of interaction? Will the quality of interaction be enabled or disabled (for example, how would aid to other countries be given?). Very few national or international discussions start from the plight of those who are disempowered, the disadvantaged groups, the women, the disabled. Ask the question: Who is this for? Is it for the person in control (the exploitative parent) or the person with whom we interact and on whom we depend for qualitative satisfaction?

[To me, the ‘Who is it for?’ question stops most debate about details like QE from further development.
if it is not for the people with whom we interact, we have become encapsulated in an already failed system.]

Third – The Dimension of Future, or Leadership
Transaction and transformation are both part of economic systems of thought, so also is transition. [Note also that economics is a system of thought, it is not food or shelter or other need.] Evidence, both historic and current, abounds to demonstrate that the current loan/debt/money system is failing abysmally, whether considered from the perspective of corporate world, nations, individuals or planet. It is ironic that the one that was not thought about until relatively recently, the planet, is the one that will take all the rest to extinction if we do not change the way we live on it. This third dimension has one obvious difficulty, we do not know what the future will bring. Therefore, what we can know is that we certainly do not need hero leadership, the narcissistic, I know and you follow, way of leading. We have had more than enough of that already. I do applaud the way Positive Money has worked to engage UK elected representatives, and has set up local groups.

We need unlikely leaders (see an Open University course on this). Positive Money could lessen its tendency to encapsulated thought (aka isolated economic dimension) by seeking the views of unlikely people, those who are poor, those who are disadvantaged, possibly ill-educated in standard qualifications, those who know a lot more than we tend to think. Why, for example, do so many voters in UK from typical lower income backgrounds, support conservative fiscal austerity or UKIP isolationist policy? They are not ‘just stupid’, turkeys voting for Christmas, or selfish racists. This seems to me to be a labeling assumption. Could they instead have responded to some aspirational hope that has been tapped by the appeals to austerity or nationhood? Is it because their lives are already austere? I do not think that we know, but could we not find out? These are the same kinds of places where Credit Unions once flourished, and probably Christmas clubs still do.

There is nothing wrong with detailed discussion of the market system of transaction and commerce, such as Positive Money is engaged in, provided that we know we are operating in a system that is not closed, and that concentration on this theory as transaction only will put people off engaging with it.

“I know it is not about me.” Dependency on others, and qualitative transformation, affects transactional market choices whether made rationally or irrationally. None of us are informed enough to grasp all our need for what the planet provide, and can continue to provide, as well as our needs in relationships with each other, but we know that this dimension is as real as the transactional. Then, we also know that the dynamics of time affect both, economic reality is three dimensional, contains transaction, transformation and transition no matter which is in the foreground.

The effects of dynamic transition, change to a different system, is where leadership lies. Given the way governments of the present are embroiled in holding on to the debt money system, we do need to continue to contact our representatives, but we also need to spread different kinds of knowledge. Bill Still’s documentary [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g] shows us past as well as a possible future. It does not show us how to act with regard to our own money now.

With regard to the future, and leadership, I have to move to the personal, asking questions that show what I need to know, and hoping others will respond similarly.

Conclusion – up for debate
Positive Money and the Still documentary have already shown me the difference between a commercial bank and a national government owned bank. Could someone start exploring and informing us of the differences between mutual societies (if there are any left) building societies, co-operatives etc. Could a bank like that of Dakota State (see still documentary) start up where I live and would it cope with my money needs (which happen to be multiple online management and foreign exchange, all on a teacher’s pension.) Can you help individuals show by their use of institutions, that hey care where they put their money, that they care how their money is handled? Also, has anyone analyzed the current interaction between Greece and the Eurozone with regard to closeness to Positive Money suggestions or indeed irrelevance? What is the role of micro-finance institutions? How would the ethics of Islamic banking support or not the perspective of Positive Money?

We should of course be interacting with the Green Party and other green organizations, particularly the transitional groups.

I personally want to see an approach that acknowledges these three dimensions of everyday life that I have very briefly addressed, and that reflects on how each of these is enabled, or not, by the details of the discussion. I write because I have felt too much discussion within the ivory tower of theory has taken place and I have felt confused rather than informed by it.

Am I wrong to ask this? No, I need to feel that I am enabled, helped to make personal decisions, however constrained they may be, and helped to become part of a movement towards something better. For Positive Money ideas to develop well and make a good change in the UK and hopefully in the world, it needs to feel less that it is providing an answer if only people would listen, and more like a community that seeks wider perspectives. Acknowledge how interdependent we all are, and how leadership might be found in unlikely places. Wonder what questions have not yet been asked.

Thanks for reading.