François Roddier, thermodynamics and society

[moinsdewatt]

Endless verbiage very little for me!

It's been a long time since I understood the waste of time reading Janic.

[Janic]

It's been a long time since I understood the waste of time reading Janic.

It's very good, continue like this! you are like Sen no sen, only your point of view has value for you, so avoid them forums!

[moinsdewatt]

It's been a long time since I understood the waste of time reading Janic.

It's very good, continue like this! you are like Sen no sen, only your point of view has value for you, so avoid them forums!

I boycott creationists. Point.

[Janic]

I boycott creationists. Point.

you boycott especially what you do not understand and that you especially do not try to do!

[sen-no-sen]

127 - Currency serving the common good
September 23, 2018
François Roddier

It is quite rare to see an entrepreneur defending the concept of the common good. This, however, is what Philippe Derudder does in his latest book entitled “A currency in the service of the common good (Yves Michel editions). It is interesting to see that the author offers a dual-currency economy there, as I did myself at the Ecole des Mines de Paris (ticket 120).

Philippe Derudder is known for his support for complementary local currencies through his association AISES. The reader will find in his book a very educational description of the properties of money. This is how, in a small story, a banknote recognized as being false is torn after having allowed a certain number of people to pay their debts. All this will not surprise a scientist who knows that money has the formal properties of a catalyst in chemistry. Just as a catalyst is regenerated at the end of a reaction, any money borrowed is returned once the investment has paid off.

Mix one volume of oxygen with two volumes of hydrogen: nothing happens. Add a small piece of platinum to the mixture: the mixture explodes. It is therefore not surprising that some authors speak of "currency violence" (1). Similarly, we can therefore expect that a currency in the service of the common good will have very important effects: the wish, clearly expressed by the author, is that a currency in the service of the common good will encourage cooperation which is very commendable.

Unfortunately, the author seems to be only interested in local currencies. At a time when the economy is becoming globalized, shouldn't we better reintroduce common currencies at national scales? It is on this scale that cooperation has developed. After my speech at the school of mines, the economist Jacques Sapir spoke at length about national sovereignty. In his book, Derudder speaks of an economic space dedicated to the common good (EEBC), but does not speak of a nation. Do entrepreneurs fear any national sovereignty?

One of the most basic laws of biology, fully verified quantitatively, is the so-called parentage selection law. She tells us that the degree of cooperation between two living things is proportional to the number of their common genes. It explains the cooperation between two ants of the same anthill or between two bees of the same swarm.

In humans, where exchanges have become cultural, cooperation is proportional to the degree of common culture. This is mainly observed at the national level because the individuals of the same nation have a common history. This generally results in a common language. We should therefore expect maximum cooperation at the national level. One of the effects of globalization is the mixing of cultures. This implies a degradation of cooperation. If a complementary currency becomes necessary to strengthen cooperation, is it not at the national level that it should be introduced to have the best chance of success?

Obviously, the author has a certain reluctance towards any action by the State. It is true that the creation of money by the State has always had bad press. This is due to the fact that historically states have paid their debts by creating money, which made it lose value. This would no longer be the case for a state currency competing with an international currency. Our leaders have no other words in their mouths than those of "free and undistorted competition", but when it comes to money, there is no longer any question of competition, except at the local level where it remains harmless!

One of the basic commons is education. Can you imagine paying teachers in local currency? It would mean returning to an à la carte education, which differs from one region to another. A state that no longer has a common education no longer has a common culture: its members stop cooperating. Favoring local currencies over a national currency means promoting cooperation at the regional level at the expense of cooperation at the national level.

This question of scale is very important. It is found in biology under the name of cell differentiation. This essential process distinguishes liver cells from lung or heart cells. But when the differentiation is done on a very small scale, it becomes pathological: it is called cancer. For an analogy between our current societies and cancer, see my post 67.

In conclusion, my answer to Philippe Derudder is: yes for a currency serving the common good, but at the national level not at the local level.

(1) Michel Aglietta and André Orléan, The violence of money, PUF, 1982.

http://www.francois-roddier.fr/

[Ahmed]

F. Roddier Always uses with relevance analogies that we usually don't dare, here between money and physical phenomena. However, I am not convinced by the need for a double currency, any more than by the (moreover generous) theses of P.Derruder on local currencies.
An assertion of F. Roddier particularly caught my attention:

One of the effects of globalization is the mixing of cultures. This implies a degradation of cooperation.

Inherently, one could argue the opposite: since it is the proximity of memes that strengthens cooperation, the diffusion of a common substrate for all humans should facilitate understanding and unity; on the other hand and more deeply, does he not confuse cause and consequence? The dissolution of solidarities is a prerequisite for the spread of economic exponentialism, so it is not surprising that faced with the overwhelming domination of the economy over human psyches the previous ways of living are erased.
The idea, which he supports, of a national currency only makes sense if we first accept the validity of a local currency, which remains to be demonstrated. I maintain, as I had already mentioned previously, that the division between a "large" currency dedicated to the commodity sphere and a "restricted" currency reserved for social exchanges only confirms the separation that already exists between market / masculine aspect and the domain of "care" / feminine (which also constitutes the dividing line between the profitable and the more or less charitable. It is an essential opposition, in the sense that it is the second aspect which is a condition of the unfettered expansion of the first.

If we go a little further in the analysis, we quickly understand that this second sector is a provisional crutch and that in a later phase of the development of the technosphere, this already poorly considered branch will be pruned as soon as it is not more of no use.

[sen-no-sen]

An assertion of F. Roddier particularly caught my attention:

One of the effects of globalization is the mixing of cultures. This implies a degradation of cooperation.

Inherently, one could argue the opposite: since it is the proximity of memes that strengthens cooperation, the diffusion of a common substrate for all humans should facilitate understanding and unity; on the other hand and more deeply, does he not confuse cause and consequence?

I think he wanted to say that by multiplying exchanges on a global scale, these have become uniform down, the quantitative has taken precedence over the qualitative.
Globalization is the result of a process far too rapid for it to give birth to a world culture worthy of the name.
Because what is world culture, if not the dominant ideology of consumption?*
International cooperation is in fact more the result of "measured predation" than of genuine cooperation.

Sociologically, this state of affairs largely explains the phenomenon of delinquency among young people with an immigrant background, caught between two cultures, that of their parents on the one hand and that of the host country on the other. most often end up adopting a syncretism: tradition "outside the ground" and economic liberalism, the result is a subculture which results in the expression of the most primary impulses of our species.

*The culture of open society de Georges soros or Mc Donald for example, i.e. "uniformity in diversity".

[Ahmed]

The quantitative took precedence over the qualitative since the criterion of comparison between all things is the price: it does not matter then the content, the utility, the specific character, since it is always possible to relate it to a common denominator perfectly abstract; it is thus possible to put on the same level a plush and a cluster bomb ...
Global cooperation is a fact, not a deliberate will of everyone, but an anonymous obligation and can be characterized more precisely as you describe it: a predation which does not dare to say its name, proportional to the power relations existing between the countries and between people inside these countries.

[sen-no-sen]

Globalization.

The reader of this blog must wonder why I devoted two successive posts to talk about French culture. The reason is that it tends to disappear. Formerly considered to be the diplomatic language, the French language is increasingly replaced by the English language. When you travel, you find the same airports everywhere with the same international food, that of the United States.

We talk about globalization, but it is the globalization of the American model or more precisely of the Californian model, that is to say that of the part of the United States that has succeeded (Hollywood, Google, Facebook). Young French people seem fascinated by this culture. They are not the only ones: all developed countries are standardizing. What is the reason for this standardization?

First, the explosion of means of transport. My first trip to the United States dates from 1950. At that time, we crossed the Atlantic by ocean liner. The crossing lasted 5 days. The morning of the last day, I saw the statue of liberty appear in the mist: an unforgettable spectacle. Twenty-eight years later, I crossed the same ocean in three hours, aboard the Concorde supersonic aircraft. On arrival, I took my car to fall asleep soon after, parked at the edge of the road. I would probably have slept better if I had taken an ordinary plane. Today, Concorde no longer exists. Have we discovered that growth has limits?

After the explosion of the means of transport came that of the means of communication. In the 60s, you had to wait 6 months to get the phone at home. Today, everyone has the internet and communicates with Facebook. Not only do you always have your phone with you, but you are increasingly replacing it with what are called "smartphones", real pocket computers that interconnect with each other.

Biologists tell us that the robustness of an ecosystem is linked to its interconnectivity. The greater its interconnectivity, the more the ecosystem develops, but the more it becomes fragile. there is an optimal interconnectivity beyond which the ecosystem tends to collapse. We have seen that this result can easily be transposed to human societies (note 116). Our present societies have a very high interconnectivity. This maximizes their efficiency, that is to say their ability to produce material goods. It promotes what is called economic growth. But the more a society is interconnected, the more it becomes fragile and as soon as a link gives up everything can collapse. This is the case of a globalized society whose culture is becoming unique. It therefore seems high time to demondialize the economy and restore the diversity of cultures.

I would like to give a ray of hope here. One of the characteristics of French culture, which distinguishes it from English or German culture, is the sense of equality. Emmanuel Todd links this characteristic to inheritance rules (absence of birthright). The movement of yellow vests in favor of greater social equality seems to be an expression of this. It gives hope: French culture has not yet completely disappeared.

http://www.francois-roddier.fr/

[Ahmed]

F. Roddier writing:

... the more a society is interconnected, the more fragile it becomes ...

Conversely, a weakened society because it is no longer able to satisfy what it is based on (work, money, merchandise ...) tends to exploit micro niches through the tools of interconnectivity for temporarily escape his contradictions. This is how uberisation or new forms of marketing (professional or private) are developed on the internet.