This wiki page is to discuss about open money. Feel free to share your feelings, questions, opinions about it here.

---

Discussion about Open Money

Sebastiano Scrofina?:
Probably the most important feature of complementary/alternative currencies is freedom from private banks' (either central ones or not) seignorage and interests exaction. Actually money lies under an "artificial scarcity" status: this is IMHO the biggest issue transitioners are facing. So, instead of Open Money or Open Source Money, maybe the German "Freigeld" ("Free Money") definition is more useful to understand that a new money could be either free from bankers' stifling seignorage but also "free" in the sense you have right to "earn" a monetary citizen's dividend (something similar to basic income). (see also Freiwirtschaft and FAZ)

ernie:
We have no problem with banks and credit unions (cu) providing community currency (cc) services - indeed, we have approached several with that proposition. We had an arrangement with Vancity, a very large credit union, to provide that very service but it fell through. Here's the business plan.

We are not concerned about interest charges in the openmoney context because the money is in fact free. Since any community/network/association can have its own money, no one will be able to charge interest when people, businesses, organizations can simply switch to a system that doesn't charge interest, negative or positive (demurrage).

This in turn frees us from dependence on conventional money. It also frees us from banks/cu in that any reputable agency can provide cc services. But since banks/cu are already set up to handle money, we see no reason for them not to. Our case to them, like any business, is that they will attract new, repeat, loyal customers.

jf:
I agree with Ernie. There is another tactical reason why I would not focus our action against the banks: we need to separate the problems from the people (and the institutions that are also made with people). The banks are not bad by essence, it is what they do now that is bad. This is a fundamental difference in conflict resolution: by separating the issue from the author of it, you give the author a change to evolve. Rather than fighting him frontly by condemning his own essenceand ending up in a sterile war, you open a door by inviting everyone to look at an external objective issue that can be solved together. This has to be applied with banks as well.
Banks have a role to play in a world with democratic money because their initial mission is to invest. Investment will always remain something necessary, it is not related to our current monetary system. Investment means providing energy into something that will return the energy back later. As parents we invest in our children. In a CC system, investments will be needed to build buildings, to make companies, etc. Generating wealth is always a matter of investment. This is what banks are initially made for, and this is the role thy might play later when the money becomes democratic. — jf

Sebastiano Scrofina?:
Sorry, but probably my poor english led to a misunderstanding. I was not calling at war against banks. I just wanted to say that "Free Money" sounds to me better (for economic as for aesthetic reasons) than "Open Source Money" or "Open Money". But maybe this is just a nominalistic issue that could lead us to a sterile path...

jf:
No, dear Sebastiano, I do have to apologize because I have been to fast in my reply. Of course you are not advocating to fight the banks. I should have been more precise: the word free means get free from something, and this something becomes the object of opposition (see what the reply about this I wrote in FAZ). But this question deserves a whole wiki page, I will work on it very soon.
The English language is facing another interesting issue here with the word "free" because it has 2 meanings: free as in freedom and liberty, and free as in gratuitousness. This double meaning produces many interesting effects around the fact that freedom should be also a free place with free goods, and usury free, etc... But when it comes to being more precise and technical, I have seen the term "free money" relating to money that you don't pay because it's not charged (as you can read in Margrit Kennedy's links).
Anyway, never be afraid of expressing your opinion, Sebastiano. We are in an open place and it's our duty to remain in abundance. We are not having opinion against other opinions, we are sharing experiences and views, and we are free to play with them the way we feel the most comfortable with. It's not a sterile path :-)

---

Tony Bondhus:

I don't see this solving anything. I don't see anything preventing hording or multibillionares. I don't see it not creating greed. Only thing I see is different is there is no borrowing money, but people need to be able to borrow money, and they will find a way.

---

Annie Boudreault:

Human nature teaches us this: when people get less than others, they ask for equality, claiming justice but... as soon as they get more than others, they want to keep the advantage, saying that they deserve it. Trying to stop unequal sharing is against natural forces and is a waste of time.

In order to get desired results, we need to focus on what we really want in an affirmative way instead of saying what we don't want. The negative formulation is usually fear driven and keeps us away from our real creative power. Saying what we don't want is: focusing on the absence of the thing which is the presence of nothing, because we didn't specified what we really want instead. It's important to keep the focus on what the Open Money IS, what it will DO, etc. What it is not and what it will not do is about something that do not exist so why spend time on it?

I think the most important about Open Money is it's success. Will people LIKE it? Will they trust it? Will they be satisfied and be proud using it? What else really matters?

<add your next comment here>