nika & david wealth p4

another age restricted one so have to go to youtube to watch here []

21 min video – What is wealth? part 4 – march 2019 – of nika and david on wealth


? gap between 3 and 4.. or out of order?.. 3 left off on book.. then 4 starts w sahlins

major thing about sahlins is the powers of work.. and that’s really true about progress.. we assume that progress means free from slavery to natural environ where we need to struggle for survival .. but actually the more tech you have the more hrs you work.. it’s actually gotten worse.. working more.. one could easily imagine a tech that would turn it around.. we could easily be working 3-4 hr days again.. but for some reason we decided that was wrong..

not even 3-4.. if we org around legit needs and trust that dance..

1 min – but in terms of extinction.. i think no.. i mean.. ok .. the aztecs there was a disease environ which they weren’t used to.. but intro’d at same time as military conquest and mass slavery so it caused a huge demographic collapse.. but while they are now finding that a lot of places like amazonia.. there were civilizations that seem to have disappeared.. it’s not like the people disappeared.. the sickness disappeared.. i don’t want it to seem like i’m romanticizing.. all egal/happy.. they’re all diff.. just like anybody.. but the ones the french guys were talking to were people who have a very specific history because there was an urban civ in n america .. a big city in what’s now called st louis.. had human caste system of human sacrifice.. and that collapsed.. replaced by bunch of small kingdoms which then collapsed.. and then suddenly the settles show up about 100 yrs after last one collapses and discover these hippies.. it never occurs to anybody that there might be a connection here.. in fact what they probably ran into was the revolutionary theology of the guys who overthrew those people.. so politics does exist before europeans show up.. just weren’t able to recognize it..

3 min – so collapse doesn’t mean people go extinct.. sometimes it just means they radically change their structure of values

in terms of outer space i’ll say one thing.. saying we’re in a temp stage right now.. either all going to kill selves in 100 yrs.. or turn into something we don’t recognize

4 min – frank: maybe real wealth is being able to relax.. but only makes sense for our societies.. ie: because in christian societies keen to get to earth so good to suffer here.. and now.. thinking after death.. nothing.. so focus on fun now..

6 min – girl on left.. on native religions on holy forest/river.. can’t harvest too much or pollute.. in christian religion has nothing like this.. it’s take whatever you can.. human is the master.. make it useful for you

7 min – q: how much is it worth to focus on wealth in general.. first you have to define it.. property or being happy.. but actually is it worth it that we suffer for having property.. doesn’t make us happy.. then we have something and wealthy but why.. why do we do this

8 min – there’s a marshal sahlins story about hawaiian on beach fishing.. missionary goes up .. says wasting life.. doing a fishing business and make money.. get lots of boats be a boss.. do it for 10-20 yrs.. could retire.. then wouldn’t have to do anything.. just lie on beach all day..

9 min – frank.. on needing to go thru this to realize how happy i was.. still has as basis that wealth/poor really necessary.. why do we all think about it.. we’re looking for escape since stuck in it

10 min – nika: on similar w going thru ed process.. why do that.. in order to survive.. we can’t lie down on beach.. and plus probably no beaches..

we need a means to undo our hierarchical listening.. to get back/to graeber stop at enough law.. so we don’t think ie: we have to earn a living et al

q: made me think.. it’s all about what do we get wealthy for.. not the process of getting wealthy.. it’s that people forget that people shouldn’t get wealthy just to get more/more money.. but to be able to live life they’d like to live.. whatever..

graeber stop at enough law

12 min – a: main issue causing this is the motivation to get money and what value of money is on.. past 500 yrs.. mostly on what it prevents you from.. something neg like debt.. rather than something positive.. like what you’d like to achieve.. how do you think we could possibly change the nature of money into getting toward a more purpose driven econ

13 min – there’s a been a lot of people trying to work on that

perhaps let’s try/code money (any form of measuring/accounting) as the planned obsolescence w/ubi as temp placebo.. where legit needs are met w/o money.. till people forget about measuring

ie: ubi as temp placebo.. (people thinking they have money when really just getting whatever they legit need.. till they forget about measuring)

14 min – what i say about money.. it’s like a rationing coupon.. like during war.. for bread/milk.. it’s a rationing coupon you can use for anything.. but obviously.. it’s hard to imagine a place where nothing is rationed.. but it also seems reasonable to want to keep rationing to a min.. so anything we can keep out of the money econ we probably should..

i think we could get to a place today where we don’t need rationing/mony/any form of m\a\p..

ie: if we org around legit needs.. so that people get back to grokking enough ness

but the other thing i always say about money is that money is a promise that people make to each other .. so i think first thing we need to do is be self conscious .. that these are mutual promises

mutual?.. 1\ i don’t think promising ness is humane 2\ i don’t think promises.. esp in regard to money are legit mutual.. they’re more like voluntary compliance et al..

15 min – *if democracy is to mean anything it is that we have to decide collectively what sort of promises we want to make to each other and under what conditions.. and therefore can change them if conditions change.. which we do w every other promise.. if i promise to meet you at 5 and then your mother dies.. i don’t expect you to show up.. but somehow when it’s money it’s all diff.. so getting rid of that impersonality.. remembering what it (money) really is.. is the first step in my mind to doing that

oh my.. *root of problem w democracy ness.. public consensus always oppresses someone(s).. and we don’t need to do that anymore.. because today we have a means to get out of sea world

16 min – q: potential.. when you were talking about promise.. what i find fascinating.. not about value/wealth.. but power/hierarchies and how we positions ourselves w others around us.. i find this whole subject extremely fascinating..

17 min – yeah.. how you turn wealth into power.. when we were thinking 99 and 1 % of occupy that’s what we were thinking.. not just wealth/ineq.. that’s wrong way to imagine it.. it’s who gets to turn their wealth into power and their power back into wealth again.. and that is a really interesting question.. how we play this trick on ourselves.. why should stuff make people do things.. but we can do that..

18 min – someone was saying something about what is the motivation.. i just want to throw one thing out that i was surprised.. that story about the hawaiian.. i found that in adam smith.. he came up w this theory that people aren’t going to work except for idiots .. people weren’t going to do that.. he must be very disappointed if he knew what was going on in his name.. but do you know his idea for motivation of why people want wealth was?.. it’s really interesting.. he thought the reason we want wealth is so that other people will care about us.. he thought if too miserable everybody forgets you exist.. naturally drawn to empathize w other people he says.. but if suffering too much it’s compassion fatigue.. so people just forget you’re there.. but if you’re doing pretty well and then something bad happens to you.. everybody feels sorry for you.. so the point was to acquire enough wealth so that everybody knows about you and cares about you.. and then stop and relax and enjoy life at the fact that people love you.. that’s why he thought capitalism would work.. so obviously he got something slightly wrong.. but the basic conception was quite interesting

20 min – q: in eng language ‘wealthy’ implies ‘wealthier than other people’ so wealth is a measure of ineq.. regardless of how you are measuring it.. if discrete/quantified currency/energy.. but in an egal society you could say as a whole they’re wealthier in comparison to another society i guess.. but on an individual level wealth is kind of a measure of ineq.. there might be an english language bias there?

(video stopped mid nika talking about russian word for wealth)