Skip to main content

Money is power but power is not limited to money


What if we created a system where we handed out power units (called a Pu, pronounced pyoo) for those who can't access money? Would we develop a currency based on relationship to one another instead of a system that has become so complex and remote from social needs, even the experts no longer understand it? The world of finance seems to have been taken over by tricksters and magicians and their theories work like spells over banks. But the gap between haves and have-nots is getting so wide that the fissure in our future puts even the haves at risk.

Please feel free to download this image and print as many times as you like. Hand it out to your friends and family, the local baker, the grocer. The point is you exchange it for what you want - a carrot, a paper clip, tomato seedling, oatmeal cookie. You will have to negotiate with the vendor as you both decide how many Pu's a carrot is worth - but at least this exercise will bring currency out of the locked boardrooms and into the commons. Of course you could not force anyone to take a Pu. Any time power leads to force it loses its worth (its a fact that many on this planet haven't noticed yet). Also it is not recommended for use in the illegal drug trade, human trafficking or pornography.

Ideally, a Pu should be used for necessities: food, water, love, understanding, music and art. But you could try paying your taxes with it as an exercise in creative protest. Or, if you think this whole idea is just plain silly, don't use it at all.

You can, instead, give away your help and services, without asking anything in return. Give a neighbour a lift to the library, drop off vegetables from your garden to the food bank, send encouraging letters to politicians and public service employees, fill in the comments sections of surveys. The options are endless.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Ultimate Goal of Patriarchy is the End of Life

I want to clarify the line between men in general and patriarchal values propagated and imposed on human society.


In order for patriarchy to succeed, it had to kill more efficiently than the nine months gestation it took for a woman to give birth.  So the craft of war  became more than simply defending territory. It became the ritualized erasure of our human nature for the rule of centralized power. 

And no, it hasn't succeeded in diminishing the human population on this planet but it has succeeded in sustaining an ideology of what it means to be a man. 

Civilizations built on myths of great conquerors. Histories about the exploits of the greatest killers. Inventions of race, religious ideology and ritual that transformed the teachings of thoughtful prophets into crusades. Endless games of winning and losing.
Men who celebrate life through medicine, science, education, art, philosophy and poetry must be dismissed as soft, shamed as effeminate. 

Men who have been raised with love, love …

Anonymous Sources

Where does "Greatness" come from? The imagination? Facts? Confidence? A willing suspension of disbelief in a slogan that makes us happy? A capacity to judge well? An ability to observe and find solutions that benefit most if not all? Taking responsibility for the community? A masters degree from Oxford or Yale?

Let me offer the opinion that greatness comes from extraordinary effort or talent.  Greatness as it may exist in our anonymous ambitions does not win fame except in isolated circumstances.  That is to say, fame is not a realistic goal for an individual.

Greatness is like a dove in the imagination, an angel, a temporary insight, a fleeting epiphany. Something aspired to in the privacy of our minds.

Greatness was an ambition I held when I was a teen and had no proof that I was good at anything or useful to the world at all. After repeated criticism and dismissal from the community around me where I attempted to win something, anything, like a medal, a competition, or a…

Torturing Youth is Okay with us?

“More than two-thirds of Canadians feel Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the wrong choice in awarding a $10.5 million settlement to Omar Khadr, according to a new poll by the Angus Reid Institute.” CBC News
But we don’t see the survey questions in this article. How was the poll actually worded? Reading one article might make us believe we are well informed, but how does a single poll actually tell us how people feel?  
“And while the survey shows that a majority of Liberals and New Democrats are opposed to the government's decision, how the numbers compare to previous polling suggests that views on Khadr have hardened over the last decade — and that he remains a divisive figure.”
How can a single poll tell whether Khadr is a divisive figure or not? What information do respondents have to make such a claim? 
The article then switches to a former US special force soldier who was blinded in one eye during the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan involving Khadr.  Of course he would be critica…