In this article
, Michel Bauwens says that such a thing as peer money exists based in something like a russonian social contract.
We will not argue this fact, though we think that is very difficult to get it to work this way.
Recently I´ve been working around Adrian Bejan´s
works about the constructal theory
that says "For a finite-size (flow) system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve such that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through it."
We can consider money as the fluid of the economic system . The economic system controls its fluxes as it is scarce. I think that in the abundance system fluxes do not have to be “control”, thy have to be “institutionalised” to preserve the common from depredation and that´s all.
So in terms of fluxes, our system must be constructed in a “constructural” way, in that case no accumulation, and no interference of the fluxes are permitted.
I don’t think that such a thing as money, in the way as we think in money today, will coupled with the constructal law.
In countries like our´s, Argentina, inflation makes money loose it´s value, and in that way accumulating money in an inflationary economy is not worth, so it tends to flow until it dies out. There are many barter clubs
, in the ´02 collapse they flourished around here, that emits money (shares) that last fore a finite lapse to encourage the flow.
Perhaps we need to start to talk about flows, goods flows, services flows, productins flows and all other flows that can treated in a way to provide them with an easier access to the imposed currents