[Music]
afterward, we'll have the links, there you go.
download it, it's open access, it's going to
talk about free currency, the
the theory of principle is there and trying to
put a form to it by proposing to others
like last year, we want to make a
currency that is egalitarian for everyone,
for everyone, that's the Swiss model after all
this time the developers, the subject is
taken on, he's going to talk about five
marginals, the port of the Rhine including Stéphane
thoughts of Pascal that he wanted
Semedo of thoughts that were precise
axioms of thought to arrive at
this demonstration that the only
possible way this monk creates the
currency, the possible way is estimated
against individuals to his children
is to do it with the form of a
universal dividend every day.
So there you have it. Hello everyone.
So I'm finishing up some adjustments because
at the same time I'm live on
YouTube and there, hop. There we go, not that.
There... So... There. Hello everyone. Welcome.
There we go, I have a little feedback.
So this conference that I'm going to
give you, and if you
have questions afterward, of course, well
I'll try to answer them, has a very specific
theme. In fact, it was to
respond to a video that came out a
while ago, which was a bit of a hit piece
on free currency,
which wasn't well thought out, made
quickly by someone who hadn't
thought about the issue and who had
talked about a Ponzi scheme or Ponzi chain
and so the theme of the
conference today is to show,
is to demonstrate why free currency
is precisely not a chain or
a Ponzi scheme.
Whereas, in fact, all other
currencies are, that's what's important
to understand.
We must, we must come to understand this
principle, which is that the only
solution to escape a
Ponzi scheme, we'll see what that is,
what a Ponzi scheme is with the
theme of the conference, so we're going to talk
about Charles Ponzi.
We'll talk about him later, so you'll
know who he is. We'll draw a parallel
with another famous recent chain creator
named Bernard
Madoff.
And then once I've
presented what a Ponzi scheme really is,
because to say that
something is or is not a
Ponzi scheme, you first have to understand
what it is. It's not enough to just say it,
you have to have understood what it is, you
have to have thought about it calmly and not
say nonsense just like that
when it pops into your head. It's
... you have to think about it.
So we'll see that, and then we'll see
why free currency
is not a Ponzi scheme and
why,
to conclude, everything that is
not free currency in fact participates or
is likely to participate in a
Ponzi scheme if we believe that we can
gain something
for everyone all the time just by believing
that all you have to do is recruit people. So
we're going to define all of that.
So to start,
I'll go slowly because I'm
... I have to go there, I'm going to
talk to you about Mr. Charles
Charles Ponzi.
There you go. So on your screen you have,
you see the address at the top, it says
trm for a monetary creation
.info, I'll underline it for those
who... there. So trm.creation
monetaire.info, there you go. So it's
written there, it's the site where there's the
Relative Theory of Money
available for free download
under a free license.
You can get it in PDF,
you can read it directly on the
site, there are also printed versions
that you can get if you
want, but you don't need to, you
can print it, you have the right
to print this theory yourself,
the Relative Theory of Money. There you go, that's what
is allowed by free licenses.
There you go. So the TRM is published under
so I put in the TRM, you see
that there is, in fact, we are well within the TRM
here, free theory, Relative Theory of Money.
We are on a chapter in the theory
which in fact reviews the history, a brief
history of money to show
how it was able to evolve over time
and why we have arrived at what
it is today.
It's not just anything.
Well, I'm not going to list all of that, all
that is written in the TRM, and at one point
I talk about Charles Ponzi.
One might wonder what he's doing
in the history of money because
he's not a creator of money, Charles
Ponzi.
I'm going to explain to you who Charles Ponzi is.
So Charles Ponzi is an
American of Italian origin who became
famous during the years
of the 20s, the 20s and 30s, especially
during the crisis of 1929 at the time of
this crisis because a financial scandal
was revealed around
his person and so he is considered
the inventor or the creator of the
Ponzi principle, of the Ponzi system. In
fact, he wasn't the first and he won't be
the last, as we'll see.
Quickly, so on Wikipedia we have a
page concerning Charles Ponzi. He,
well, it's true that the principle is a
principle of fraud. So what is
the Ponzi system?
So we can call it a Ponzi pyramid,
that's what it's called, we also call it
a Ponzi system, Ponzi scheme,
or, I prefer the term that is
written here, Ponzi chain, Ponzi
chain. So a Ponzi chain
consists, if you will, you say, you
are a financial intermediary, and you
tell your clients "Here, I'm going to
guarantee you an annual return of 10% per
year on your capital, so give me,
give me a value of 1000
and I will give you 10%,
that is to say 100 each year and so
after ten years you will have recovered
your initial investment and beyond that
you will earn much more than what
you put in initially." That's the
promise, and the principle, one could say
"the person who makes this
promise, they will invest in
companies, they will have houses built,
they will have cars built,
they will... whatever, they will
hire engineers or do something
else, whatever,
and with that she estimates that she will be able to
remunerate the investors with the
creation of value that would be under-
-lying this investment." But in fact
that's not at all what Ponzi did, and
that's where you have to understand the
principle,
he, once he had his first
clients, he recruited new clients
by promising them the same thing and these
new clients,
the amount of money they brought him,
in fact, was used to
remunerate the first ones. So in fact it's
a system where the new clients
remunerate those who are already clients.
So you need more and more clients,
you have to understand that, you need
more and more to remunerate those who
are already there. That's what you have to
understand: you need more and more
clients. So if there are, you imagine
that if there are ten clients at the beginning, for
example, you will need
maybe 100 to remunerate these 10, then
these 100 will then need
1000 and these 1000 will need
10,000 etc etc...
So you have to increase all the time,
because the money that is put into
the system comes out each time
since it is put back into the hands of the
clients. Each time you need
more and more money to pay the
promise that was made. So the system
can only work if there are always
more clients.
So if the number of human beings
were infinite, I would say "it works."
If there were a number of
infinite humans, it works.
You would just have to, each time,
go find more and more
clients, but if the number of human
beings is infinite, you can always
go find more and more
clients.
The brain, a little, resists that because
we're not used to dealing with
infinity, and in reality, precisely, the
system is not infinite, that is to say
that at some point, imagining that
all human beings participate in the
chain, when everyone is a client, there are
no more new human beings to
pay all those who are already in the
clientele of our investor.
So at some point it stops
mechanically, either because people
realize it or because we
reach a limit simply because
the number of clients at the end is
limited, whereas you always need more.
So, you have to understand this
principle. So that's what a Ponzi
scheme is. So more
recently, 80 years after 1929, so a
human life expectancy, you have to
understand that, 80 years is not
just any length of time, it's
a human life expectancy, so between
1929 and 2008,
and yes, 80 years plus 1929, we get
2009, 2008 / 2009 is about the same
date,
new financial crisis. So that's
something we can note, anyway,
is: is it a coincidence that after
80 years, a human life expectancy,
human beings who don't know each other
at all, since they are separated
completely, the human beings who
were alive in 1929 are almost
all gone when we find ourselves in
2009,
the population is no longer the same at all,
completely, it has been completely
replaced by their children, quite
simply, and the children of the children
etc...,
we find a financial crisis and,
coincidence or not, we find a
new financier that we're going to throw to the
media, who in relation to the
financial crisis didn't, didn't weigh
very heavily,
obviously it wasn't him who, who, who
created the most damage, and we'll
talk about that again at the end. It's a certain
Bernard Madoff,
there you go, who is a financier, also
an investor, he has the right, in
Wikipedia, he has the right to the terms
"financier, investor," notice, in
addition to "fraudster," whereas Charles
Ponzi
he only has the right to "fraudster," that's
for the little joke, I
found that amusing, but he has the right
to the titles of "financier,
investor" and also, incidentally,
"fraudster." Well, okay, but in fact it was the
same, it's the same principle.
So in fact Bernard Madoff only
reinvented,
if you will, the Ponzi system.
He recruited, look, it's written
here, I'm not making anything up: "On December 12,
2008, he was arrested and charged by the
FBI for having carried out a
Ponzi-type fraud"
there you go, which could amount to, anyway,
65 billion, it's, there you go, it's
not... There you go, it's not, it's
not the local minimum wage. 65 billion dollars.
It's the same principle, he recruited the
first clients to whom he promised, if you
will, a return on investment of
10% per year and to pay these clients, well,
he needed new clients and
for these new clients to be
paid, he had to look for
others, etc. etc... obviously.
So he lived very well for a few years, but
after a while, it doesn't work anymore
because there are no more new clients
coming in and the system collapses,
people ended up losing what they
thought
they had invested well and the fraud is revealed.
There you go, so same principle, so to say
that, there you go, it wasn't, Ponzi wasn't
the first
and apparently he's not the last.
We can assume that in 10 or 20 years,
30 years, why not 80 years, we'll find
ourselves again with systems of,
of the same magnitude with the same scheme.
So to talk about the Ponzi system,
you have a whole page, also in
Wikipedia, complete on this system, so
you can, you can simply,
I'm not going to do it for you in detail,
you can look here, there are little models
that are a bit complicated mathematically, but
it's not... you don't need very
complicated things to understand, what I
told you is enough. We promise the
first arrivals a guaranteed return,
simply this return is paid
by the new ones, there are no
investments, it's just the money
of the new ones that will pay for
the investment, the placement of the
old ones, and so you always need more
and more people for it to work
and so it can't work. It works
for a certain time, until there
are no longer enough clients to
pay for all that, or it collapses all
by itself. So once we've understood that, we've
understood what a Ponzi scheme is, and now we're going to talk about
free currency.
We're going to see what a free currency is.
So if you're here, you've already
undoubtedly, most certainly, discovered
you've already noticed, you've
worked a little bit on the concept of
free currency. If you haven't, I'm going to give you
a brief little, little reminder.
Free currency is a, it's a currency
that is created on the basis of a universal
dividend. What does that mean?
What is this jargon?
It means that when you become a
member of the currency,
you don't give anything. There are no
promises, either, of a return on
investment in a currency
other than the main currency. That is
to say that we are not promising you
that you will become rich
in the French currency, rich in the
American currency, or rich in
I don't know what.
We don't even promise you at all that you
will be rich, we don't promise you anything at
all, except what we offer you in fact,
well what is allowed to you, what
is offered to you
but what you also decide for yourself
to do is to create, you will create
yourself, so you give nothing, you
become the owner of an individual
monetary creation, you will
participate in the creation of the currency.
You will become the creator of the currency
yourself. We can also ask ourselves
the question: who are the creators of the
other currencies? Who are the creators
of the European currency? Who are the
creators of bitcoin? Who are the
creators of... etc. There are a number of
currencies today that circulate, including
in video games, including
digital currencies such as
bitcoin, including therefore various
state currencies, etc...
We are entitled to ask the question
of who creates these currencies, who
creates them? In free currency it's very
clear,
each member of the currency, each
member, each person who becomes a
member of what we call the web of
trust, so who becomes a member,
a unique individual, certified by
all the other individuals who are
part of the currency, becomes in turn
a creator of money. So he doesn't
give anything, so that already invalidates
totally any qualifier of, of
a Ponzi scheme. There is no obligation,
you simply become, by the sole fact
that you exist and the fact that you
are a member of the currency, a creator of
money in the same way as the others.
So not only in the same way as
the others, but it goes even further
in the fact that it's not a Ponzi scheme,
because you are assured by the
mathematical properties of free currency
which are that we will create
money for everyone and all the time in
the same proportions, in the same share of
money, you are assured,
by these mathematical properties,
that you will create the same share of
money as those who were before you,
and no more than those who
will come after you. It is precisely the
solution that allows
to avoid Ponzi schemes. But more
than that, it is not only the solution
that allows to avoid Ponzi schemes,
but it is the ONLY solution that allows to avoid
Ponzi schemes.
It's the only one. That's why Ponzi is
present in the Relative Theory
of Money. It's precisely because it
was necessary to avoid this chain mechanism
that requires that, to exist, an economic
value, which is an investment, which
is a currency, etc.,
requires that there are always more and more
demanders for it to work,
to avoid this functioning which
fatally leads to crises,
either local for Ponzi or Madoff,
or even global for the monetary system
as a whole.
To avoid this, it is necessary, it is the only
mathematical solution that exists, that the economic value
that we are going to create is created in the same share
for everyone and all the time. In the same share, that
means in the same proportion. Typically,
free currency is 10% per year of the
money supply that is created by all
the members and so it appears on
the accounts of all the members. So it's
10%, so, since it's a percentage,
even if we arrive after the first ones,
we will eventually join them and that we
will see right away in another
diagram. In the diagram first, before
I show you the other diagram, in this
diagram that you see there, you have on
the x-axis, here, if you see well, 0 20
40 60 80, these are the years. So you see
that here it is a diagram over 160 years.
And you have here in red the quantity of
money, which is expressed here in
number of universal dividends, since I
told you that we create the money, we
call it the universal dividend, 10%
per year of money. I hope you
are following, that it's not going too fast.
Well, a new entrant will create his
share of money and he will converge, he will
reach about an average which
is found here around 10, and
in fact here why does it go down? Well
because a human being is not
eternal.
So here we have 80 years of life expectancy,
we took the lifespan of an average
human being. Well, obviously, when
this human being disappears, his share
of money, on the other hand, will decrease. Why?
Because precisely, with what we are going to
see now,
those who come after him continue to
create money, so his share of money
in the total money disappears after,
after his death, but it does not disappear
right away, note well, it takes a
certain time to go down but it
does eventually disappear.
There is also another principle that we
can see here on this graph, which is
that if someone finds themselves above
the average,
this average that we reached there, that we
saw earlier around 10,
here if I go back to the diagram, someone
who creates his money here has reached the
average,
if someone finds themselves below it,
we just saw that since when we
start we have zero, but if we are above
it too if we do nothing, well
his share of money ends up converging
towards the average. And so it doesn't depend
on whether we are below or above
the money, it's a property
of this unique solution. It's not
something that was decided.
The unique solution for the money
to be equitably distributed in
the economy is a free money, there is
no other solution. And one of the
properties that we then notice, once
we have established this solution, is
this property here, which is quite
remarkable,
it is true, but which is not, which
was not a research criterion at
the beginning. So to show you well
this principle of equality over time, this
principle of symmetry between the
generations, there is, within the, I would say
the ecosystem of the currency, there is a
module, here, hey, I'm going to remove that,
because there's no need to
put it, it's a bit in the way,
there is a module, there is a module that
is called the Galileo module, there you go, Galileo module.
So Galileo, if you don't know,
he was a great scientist of the 16th,
16th / 17th century, who, who is considered
the father of physics.
So he's here more as a tribute,
there is no direct relationship with this
module. We can find one,
we can find a little one in
the principle of relativity, but it's not,
it's not, it's not a very, very,
very essential relationship. This module was made
by a lot of people, there you go, we have here the
people who made it. "Thatoo" who already
made it four years ago, in 2016,
and then we also find "Paulart", who is
present here, at the summer university, who is the
4th to have succeeded. There is "Elois" also who
is present at the summer university, who has,
who is in charge today of, of the
free currency also with the software
Duniter, who is one of the developers
of the core of the free currency, who
made this module in
2017, three years ago already. There is "katelroy" who
is a doctor in physics. There is "Salomé" who
is an astrophysicist. There is "yyy",
there you go, who remains anonymous here, with his
pseudo. There is Jytou. And there is Ceclic.
There you go. Who all made this module, and
so have understood the questions and who
have managed to make it. Which has allowed them
to deepen and for me it allows me
to have references here, and
graphics that I'm going to explain to you,
with, in particular, this graph here at the bottom
that I'm going to comment on a little bit.
So I remind you, if I go back a little
bit,
this is how the money is created for an
individual. And this is how it disappears
once he is deceased.
It's a property of creating a
free currency. Well in this diagram,
look carefully here at the bottom, it's the same,
it's the years. So it goes from zero
up to 156 years. And in fact we see 156
but in fact it must go up to 160 years.
So it's twice 80 years. It's
a very enormous period of time
compared to human existence, quite
important.
We have here in green, we have underlined one of the
multi... Look there are plenty, why are there
plenty of lines like that? Well because,
we tried to model how the
successive generations of human beings,
who are part of a free currency, will
create this free currency. And so we see
here in green someone who arrived in
the free currency, 36 years apparently if
I look at the number at the bottom, 36 or
37 years after its departure. So someone
who arrived later, so if we compare
with a Ponzi scheme,
it's a client who, for a Ponzi scheme,
would come to pay, in a way,
the first ones if it were a Ponzi scheme.
But that's not what happens at all.
He doesn't pay anything at all, on the
contrary, he will create his share of
money. He will create his share of money.
So here he will increase his share of
money to reach the average here and
then here, that's 80 years
since we're at 36 or 37 plus 80 we
find ourselves, approximately, at 12... 116 or 117, 116 or 117,
we can see the number 116 here
by the way. So here, after 80 years
of existence within the free currency,
well he dies, he leaves and his share of
money, look, mechanically it
decreases. Why does it decrease? Because those who
arrive after him, here for example the
blue curve, which goes up, those who arrive after him,
continue to create money. And this
share of money that he continues to create,
in fact, will, if you will, make the
old money, the money of the old ones,
precisely the money of the first
comers, less and less important
in..., within the economy.
So in fact it's the opposite of
a Ponzi scheme, since it's as
if the old ones, in a way,
mechanically transmitted their share of
money to the new ones. So it's not at
all... the new ones who pay the old ones.
It's rather the old ones who pay the
new ones, in a way. It's as if,
it's as if that's what was happening, it's
as if the old ones were paying the new ones.
So in fact, the people who arrive
later are not disadvantaged, it's not
"First come, first served,"
it's not "He who goes hunting
loses his place" either, it's not that at all.
All members of the currency are at
equality regardless of the period at
which they enter the currency.
They will create the same share of money and
that is a remarkable property.
We called that, we called this
property a temporal symmetry, there you go, temporal
symmetry. Now, now, and this is where I'm
going to do a little dangerous manipulation,
no, there you go, I'm coming back here, now, the
monetary system in which we live, and
that had been denounced by a Nobel prize winner
in economics. It shouldn't be called a Nobel prize
in economics, since it's a prize
rather from the Bank of Sweden, Nobel
had not created a Nobel prize
in economics because economics is not
really a science yet. It's
rigged, it's falsified, it's
politically rigged, politically
twisted. It responds more to interests, the
pseudo science of economics, than to a
truly serious analysis.
Maurice Allais, however, who was
an engineer, is one of the rare
engineers I believe, by the way, who was,
who received this prize, who was a great
French scientist, he didn't just do
economics, he also did
physics, had precisely denounced the fact
that it's the monetary system in
which we are, which is a pile of debt,
is in fact a Ponzi scheme, a
global Ponzi. It's a global Ponzi scheme.
It's a Ponzi scheme that sees its end, however,
arrive at the end of periods that are
quite long. Typically at the end
of 80 years, for example, there you go. You have
a crisis in 1929 which is a crisis
monetary, economic, and you have again
a crisis in 2008 / 2009, 80 years
later, which is again a crisis
monetary, economic. In particular, in
particular, the global monetary system
in which we are, which is therefore not a
free currency, creates its money on
the issuance of credits. Bank credits.
A non-banking agent, so
a person or a company or even
a community, a state, a city, a
region, a department, must make a request
for credit from the banking system and
the banking system does not give it
something it has in its coffers,
it creates the money when it grants
a credit. There is a monetary creation.
And this money is then supposed to be
repaid by the one who had requested
the credit, so, and, during this
repayment, the principal of the money
is destroyed, however the interest due
to the bank,
they, they remain with the bank, they are not
destroyed. This principle only works, or would only
work, if the number of
credit applicants was always
larger and larger.
If you have understood the scheme of the
Ponzi scheme, well you have understood
right away that fatally, at the end
of a while, it doesn't work anymore. Fatally,
at the end of a while, it doesn't work anymore but
it's worse than that, it's so stupid,
because it's really stupid, that the
banks are only allowed to grant
credits that, well that's not stupid,
but I mean, it's to such an extent
obvious that it can't work, that's what
is stupid, to think that it can
work, banks are only allowed to grant a
credit up to a certain degree,
a certain level, for example ten times
what they own. So a bank that has
3 million for example will be able to create
up to 30 million in credit. There are
conditions, there must be
deposits in the bank, it must
therefore have its own funds but,
in principle, it can create up to
30 million in credit, provided
it has, say, 3 million in deposits in
the bank if there is a leverage of ten. The
leverage is not quite ten, it must
be twelve and a half, but whatever. What
is interesting is to know that there is
a maximum leverage. So at the beginning, at the beginning
say of a, of an economic period where
banks are being formed, banks are being
created. In this case they can
grant credits, no problem,
since they have their own funds and
they grant credits. And so it
goes up.
They create once more, once the
credits they have in stock, then twice,
then three times, then four times, and
what happens when they get to
ten? Stop. It's forbidden to go any
further, because they don't have enough to
cover in case of default. I'll spare you
the details but in any case they cannot
go any further.
So even if there were demands, even
if there were demands for new
credits, the rule that was chosen does not
allow it to be done, since we are at the
maximum of the balance sheet. All the banks have
already created ten times the mass of credit,
even if there were new clients,
they are not allowed to do so.
Do you understand? It's very important to understand that.
Look at the situation there was in
2008,
look carefully, do some research, what
I'm telling you, don't take my word for it.
Check what I'm telling you. What was
the situation of the banks in 2008? And even before,
in 2007 already.
They were all even beyond the
permitted threshold, all of them.
So they had to restrict new
credits. But if you stop creating
new credits, who is going to repay the
debts,
where will the money come from? You always need
more money to
repay the old credits. If you
stop issuing credits, either because there are no
more applicants, or because you are
legally unable to do so,
because you have already created
all the possible money, well we have
a system where the money that already exists
in circulation, when it is recovered
by those who are in debt and repaid,
it destroys the money supply. The money supply
will decrease,
and if the money supply decreases it's
a catastrophe, because prices
fall,
if prices fall, companies
make less profit,
the state will also collect less and less
taxes and duties, so the
debts become more and more
difficult to repay. So the only
solution they found, to go
beyond this limitation that they have
given themselves, and of which they have not
seen the limits, and which intrinsically can
only lead to catastrophes,
well it's to say to the central bank
"You are the one who will create without limit,
the central bank, to try
to absorb the losses." Of whom? Well of the people
who cheated in the end, of the people who
"Ponzified" the rest of the world.
That is to say the people who "Ponzified",
or "Madoffized" if you will, the rest
of the world, the banks in fact, will be
saved from the inevitable bankruptcy,
mechanical, it is mechanically
inevitable, we cannot therefore avoid it,
as I have just shown you.
Well to avoid this collapse it's
the central banks that will create
ex-nihilo public money, so-called,
so-called public, to try, in one
way or another, without it being too
obvious, to try to absorb all that, in
order to avoid a bankruptcy
so enormous that it would put the whole
economy, all countries, all
of humanity in a situation
completely disastrous. Because if we
no longer have money we have a lot, a lot
a lot of trouble managing
an economy, since money is
still very useful to us for our
economic exchanges.
So the system is intrinsically a
Ponzi scheme, in its very conception.
We cannot avoid that at some point there is no
more demand or that the
maximum amount of money to be created
stops when you always need
more for it to work and for it to
stay in place. So there you go, we are
faced, here, with a generalization in fact of the
Ponzi system. So what is still
quite remarkable but it happens
all the time, when we have crises, here
global, in fact we designate a scapegoat
so that, I would say,
the disgruntled population has something,
a bone to chew on, so we give them
Charles Ponzi in the crisis
of 1929, whereas, of course, no doubt he
did, he did something that was not
indeed sustainable
which was not... Was he
really aware of what he was doing?
It's not even certain.
But assuming, so it was not
sustainable and it was dishonest but the
system as a whole is of the same
nature. But can the system
attack itself? It's difficult.
So there is only an external factor
that could, that could put things
back in place, there you go. In any case it's
interesting to note that the global
system, as a whole as it
exists, of money is a Ponzi scheme,
I say it, I affirm it, I
demonstrate it. It's quite easy to show.
So besides, by the way we made a
game called the Ğeconomicus game,
it's a game also that I invite you
to discover to try
to deepen this system, this
understanding, where we see that,
when we play this game with a debt
money, we can clearly see the principle of a chain
of Ponzi, of cyclical collapses, which
is controlled by the banker, who can
even provoke crises and, in
comparison, when we play this same game
with a free currency, well there is
no crisis, the economy is doing
much better,
all the actors come out of it
much more winners. The average also
of values that we can see created
in this game is more important, it is
better distributed, whereas in the debt
money system we are, fatally, we obtain
cyclical crises.
That's what I wanted to show you
today, this principle of a Ponzi scheme,
first, understand what it is,
understand, try to see that you have
two examples to dig into if you want
to really understand what it's
about, Charles Ponzi,
Bernard Madoff, but that then you are
in a position with what I have given you
as information also to understand
why the monetary system in its
entirety is also a Ponzi scheme,
difficult to see because it is over
a long term, it is over a very long
term.
The time it takes for banks to be formed
and reach this famous top of the balance sheet
that I told you about, create the
maximum of credits that they can
issue before it collapses, it's
durations that are of the order of 40 or
80 years. So nobody cares about it.
We are in a society that thinks
like "after me, the deluge."
There you go. It doesn't matter what will happen
after, I do what I have to do
right away. I don't care that the
following generations suffer from the
mistakes we make. The free currency,
it, is concerned with the generations
that follow. Can we finally have
a currency, which is still
important in the economy, a factor
of universally accepted exchange,
unit of account,
unit of value, something that is
a common reference value, can
we use a
currency that has these properties?
For that we created the free currency which is
in fact a kind of work of art, it's
a,
it's a work of art on permanent
exhibition, it has also been exhibited
in Kortrijk in Belgium already, there is
already two years ago, in 2018, as a work of art.
The work of art is made to show
precisely something else.
That's what a work of art is, a work of art
is there to show that we can see
the world in a new light, on
something completely different,
and try to appreciate things from
a completely different point of view.
Well that's what the free currency offers,
that men become, as
individuals, as individuals, quite
simply creators of their own
money, directly, without going through
any delegation and above all, and above all,
by avoiding the mechanism of the Ponzi
scheme. Thank you for your attention.
If people have questions to ask, we can
pass the microphone around and take turns... Or
we can also pass the microphone to the interpreters,
if you have questions to ask orally.
First question perhaps?
Can you hear? Yes, I can hear you.
So can you hear when we speak into the microphone?
Yes, yes. So my
question is: You talked about, about... We understood
that debt currencies
were a Ponzi scheme, but you say that
ultimately all non-free currencies
are also Ponzi schemes.
So could you say a little more,
I don't know, about Bitcoin or any other currency?
Yes, yes, absolutely.
So, so, so, for bitcoin I can show you
very simply, it's easy
because, there again, in bitcoin,
the idea at the root of bitcoin
is to say: it's because the
quantity of bitcoin, of bitcoin, will be
finite, so that the object will be rare, that it will
gain value.
So it's true, but the problem with
money is not to gain
value.
The problem with money is to be able to
be used by all human beings,
as a medium of exchange. So
if there are human beings who are
deprived of it, well it's not a currency, it's
a value. It's very good, it's a
value, not everything is, not everything
is, not everything is meant to become
money. So there are rare things,
that's not a problem in itself. So creating
bitcoin for me, that's not a problem
in itself, it's just that it's not a
good candidate for money.
Why? Because it's limited to 21
million and the only ones who could
create it are the first ones, that is to say
that we are already on the 21 million
possible bitcoins, we are already at 19
million and change, that is to say that we have
already created the largest part of the
bitcoins. So that means "First come,
first served."
That means that the following ones, to have
bitcoins, cannot create them. They
cannot be creators. They
are obliged, well it's normal if you want
to exchange afterwards, it's normal to be able to give
services for money, that's
not the problem, but they didn't have
their share of creation. So there are some who
were able to create the money, and others who
have to work to obtain it. Or
offer goods and services, which
amounts to working to obtain it
from the first ones. So there we have
the last ones who give to have some,
you see, the last ones who arrive to
valorize those who were already in it. So
if, participating in bitcoin, is to enter into
a scheme, a kind of Ponzi scheme,
which has just, well, about two
links, the first ones who created, and those
then who must offer goods
and services to obtain some.
And then indeed, well there is no more
than to offer goods and services to
obtain some.
After the creation stage, we are
no longer in a pure Ponzi scheme
since we don't have, we are not on a
guaranteed remuneration etc... But
the first ones were able to pay themselves in some
sorts by the unilateral creation for
the... so it's "First come, first
served" which is the case of the Ponzi scheme,
if you will, understand that the Ponzi scheme
is "First clients, first
served." That is to say that if you are the last
client, it's over for you. Well
it's the same, if you arrive after the
creation of bitcoins, you pay, by
the offer of your goods and services,
to the first ones. There is no way for you
to obtain the same share of bitcoin that
the first ones had on this creation.
There you go, that's why for bitcoin.
Then, how to demonstrate it
for all non-free currencies.
The problem is that I'm not going to review
all non-free currencies, if
you will, because there is a
possible infinity. We can invent
all the currencies we want, which are
created in all the ways we
want. That makes a potential infinity of
types of monetary creation.
But what we can do is think
about what would be the solution to
precisely avoid that the first ones
are the best served? The only solution
so that the first ones are not the best
served, is that everyone is
served in the same way. And the only
solution to "everyone is served in
the same, in the same way" at the same time at a
given moment, that is to say for everyone
if we create money it's the
same share for all and over time, the
only mathematical solution to this
problem, so there you have to set up
equations, it's relatively simple but
it's well it's a bit of... Well you have to
be a little comfortable with math,
but it's at the high school level, it's
not even at the university level,
you see, it's at the high school level, it's at the
high school level, scientific high school.
So I understand that it's not accessible
to everyone either but it's not
at the level of... It's not
at the level of a Nobel prize winner, at all.
It's really, the equations that you have to
set up to solve the problem are
relatively simple,
maybe a little bit ???? on
certain points, but on the
principle it's simple. There is only one
solution to this equitable distribution
in space and time, there is
one, there is only one, it's a currency that
is created by a percentage of money
for everyone and all the time. There you go, there is
no other possible solution. So there
by doing this reflection in a
general way and by finding, and by demonstrating,
that the solution is unique,
we have simply evacuated that all the
others, therefore, forms of money, all the
others are necessarily currencies that
advantage those who create them and not the
others, quite simply, it's only
that in fact. It's as simple as that. If
you participate in a currency where
some have the right to create it and not
the others, you are mechanically in
a "First come, first served" system
"Creator of money, not creator of
money." And so you are in a scheme,
so more or less, more or less hard,
all Ponzi schemes are not
equivalent either, because Ponzi schemes,
there too, I can create an
infinity. It is more or less hard, if
you will, this Ponzi scheme but
It's a Ponzi scheme.
Hello, you know, you're talking about a
system, in fact, of Ponzi and in parallel
what would it be, a system, what do we call the
non-Ponzi system, what would we say?
Yes, well then, I have to repeat
there you go, or that I
re-explain what I just said in another way.
So what would be a non-Ponzi scheme,
precisely,
it's a scheme where we can
all participate, in the same share, without
needing,
it's true that we can specify
anyway, without needing, that's what
counts too, without needing there to be
always more demand. Because there is
also that in the Ponzi scheme, there is
the fact that if we don't create the demand, in
a way, well the scheme
will collapse but then those who did not
enter the system are not
really harmed. It's only those, only those
who entered the system who will,
who will find themselves harmed. There will be
winners and losers within
the system
so it must, the system must
not always demand more demand
but that's exactly the case with free money.
In free money you have created
the same share of money as those who
were there before you, the same share of money
as those who were after, but there is
no need for there to be more
demand. Free money could
work with the members of the free money
as they exist today, there is
no need for new members
to arrive tomorrow for it to work.
Okay? After so it's a
possibility that there are new members but
it's not at all an obligation.
We are not in the absolute search,
necessary, for new members for it
to work. A very small number of
people who use a currency
free is theoretically sufficient, or
practically, to make it run. There you go, there is
no, there is no necessity. Whereas
in the Ponzi scheme,
there is really a need for new
members for the first ones to
benefit and be able to have the return
that is, that is, that is expected.
So it's true that there we can temper
the fact that, for example, bitcoin,
unlike debt money by the way, the
debt money you really need there to
be more demand for credit at
each time. That's true. There is a
real search, so if there is not this
mechanical search for how to grant
new credits the system will
collapse mechanically. They know that.
In bitcoin it's true that, we are not
obliged to join bitcoin, we are
not obliged to accept it, we are not obliged
to go and offer our goods and services with bitcoin,
So there is no obligation
either for the holders of bitcoin, for
those who have bitcoins, there is no
absolute obligation to go and look for
new ones. So it's just, it's there
on the other hand just a scheme, if you will,
of Ponzi only if people believe that it
can be money and in that case,
indeed, as they are deprived of the
monetary creation, it does not work at
the level of, of the same, of the same properties
for everyone and all the time. So it's a
Ponzi scheme, let's say, I would say
"attenuated", it's not a real Ponzi scheme,
it, it resembles it only if we
say, if on the other hand there was a state that said it's
bitcoin that becomes my currency, and everyone
must use it, then yes, on the
other hand, it would institute an
obligation to always have more
members, who are all the citizens of the,
of that nation. And in that case
those who hold it, the first comers,
find themselves even more, even more
valorized, they are the ones who have the commodity
that everyone will go looking for.
So...
But it's true that it's not a scheme
of Ponzi to the extent that the fact
that there are no new people in a forced,
obligatory way, does not cause the system to collapse,
in theory. Provided that
they actually use it as a means
of exchange. Because if they only
try to speculate with it
so that it goes up,
then they are in search of
new people, so that the mass
of demand drives up the exchange
value.
There you have it, but it's not, it's not
strictly, stricto sensu, a scheme.
However, free currency escapes that,
we are not obliged to have new people
for this currency to be able to
serve as an intermediary of exchange
between the members.
If there are fewer, even if there are fewer
members
tomorrow, that doesn't prevent the free currency from
functioning and from being equitable towards
all its members.
Stéphane, we would like to clarify the question that was
asked, it seems that the question was more
about the term, in the same way that you, when
you call a currency that is not
free a non-free currency, is a chain
that is not a Ponzi...
What would be the name that we could
give to this chain? Ah, I see, so,
a chain that wouldn't be a Ponzi... Well,
I'll admit that I haven't thought about that in
detail, it would be necessary, it
would be necessary to conceptualize the thing in a
very, very precise way. So what
is, what is notable in the Ponzi
scheme, is that there is no, there is
no investment in the investment
that the first ones make. We are on, we are
on a scheme where it's the money of the
newcomers that, indeed,
pays the first ones.
So in fact we are in a, in a
mechanism of simple transmission of, of
money from some to others,
which... There you have it, that's all that would come out
of that, that would be, it's difficult to say. Pretty
much everything. Pretty much everything that
is not that, but I wouldn't know how to
qualify it. I don't think it's a
concept that is sufficiently, let's say, deep or
theoretical, to be able to characterize what
would come out of that. A chain that would not
be a Ponzi, what could that be?
I don't know, I don't know how to
characterize it exactly, I think that
it's pretty much everything that is, that
is not that. In the same way that a
non-free currency is everything that
is not a free currency. So it's
everything that claims to be a currency,
so that would want to impose itself or
in any case acquire
the status of a unit of account, of a unit of
value, therefore of a unit of measurement, which is for
everyone, but which would be created by some
and not by others.
In that case, that's it, that's what non-free
currencies are.
Whereas the free currency is distributed
among everyone. A non-Ponzi chain, a non-Ponzi
chain, you see I'm thinking about it
but I can't quite characterize it
exactly. What could it
be exactly? Would there still
have to be the concept of a chain?
I would say that the "capitalism" principle,
capitalist in general, is a non-Ponzi
chain but it's about, in
the capitalist system, telling yourself I'm investing,
I'm creating something that is not
the, that is not the money that I
invested, it's something else, I'm investing
money, I'm paying people,
I'm buying land,
I'm trying to create a value that is then
in demand but there I'm not
paying the first ones with the same
money that the first ones gave, you see.
I'm not in a mechanism of
simple transmission, I'm in a mechanism of
creation, so there is a risk. So there,
everywhere there is a risk it's..., we can
consider..., then we can promise those
who participate to say "you too
tomorrow can invest and succeed
but you can also lose". It's also a
chain but it's not, here, a
Ponzi one, it's not, it's not,
it doesn't deceive, it doesn't hide the
fact that there is a risk.
So couldn't we include the concept
of solidarity in this term of a non-Ponzi chain?
Not necessarily because capitalism is not
really about solidarity, at the start, even if
it could perhaps, it could
become a solidarity-based system if,
if it works with a free currency, for
example, why not. Is it, could
it really become
solidarity-based, I don't know. We would need
to deepen the question there but there, that
goes far beyond, that goes far beyond
the initial principle. That is to say that there
we are entering into a reflection that tends to
encompass the economy in its totality, and
that requires theorizing things
in more detail, and that goes very
far beyond the scope of this presentation,
you see. We could think about it and expose the
concepts etc...
but I'm not sure that it's very relevant
or very interesting tonight. I don't know,
but what you need to understand about the Ponzi
scheme is really that the first ones
give something, by the way
it's not necessarily a currency, it
could be, it can be something else,
it could be precious metals, it
can be anything, and we promise to remunerate them
with what the followers will bring.
So that's where, that's what
characterizes the Ponzi scheme, and everything
that comes out of that scheme is a
non-Ponzi, it's not necessarily a solidarity-based
system but it's a system that can
include risk and the risk, not sure that...
I don't know if risk is solidarity-based
or not, these are notions that are
difficult to frame, I think that goes
very far beyond...
We would have to write a whole book
on it. Stéphane, I thought I heard you
say about the universal dividend that through
mathematical calculations you found
that the mass of the shared universal dividend
had to be a maximum of 10%
of the creation,
is that right?
So it's not...
the creation... the universal dividend should not
exceed 10%.
Have you done calculations
to see if we could go further
or is it really a figure
that appeared as such, as
created in advance and that we cannot
exceed it?
Do you understand my question?
Absolutely.
So absolutely. So I think that was,
so wait, that's a very
good question.
So I'll answer you like this, I
think it was worked on in the
Leibnitz module if I'm not mistaken. So
if you go find the Galileo
module, you'll find the Yoland Bresson
module that follows, there are links,
and then to the Leibnitz modules. So on
the internet you will have the answer to your
question in a detailed and
quantified way
by those who created these modules.
But I'm still going to answer you
directly here. I'm not saying that it's a maximum of
10%, it's a minimum of 10% because if you
fall below 10,
imagine that you go down very low,
for example, to 1%. We create the currency at 1%
per year, why not. The problem is
that you don't reach the average,
first, that means that you will
reach during your life which only
lasts 80 years you do the, you do
the estimation, you look it's
mathematical,
the share of currency that you will create if
c, if the growth factor c of
the currency is only 1%,
it grows so little that at the end of
your existence you will not have even reached
half of the average money supply,
okay? So the lower the growth
rate, the slower you
reach the average and you even
reach it so much slower that
during a human life of 80
years you don't reach it. So if you
understand what I just said, you
understand that the 10% rate was
found because we precisely wanted
to, to reach if you will the average,
so we may not have it exactly
mathematically, but let's say that we
converge towards the average quickly
enough to be
close enough to it during a
human lifespan. And typically, we made
sure that we reach it roughly at the
end of forty years, there you go. That's the
principle,
and with this rate of 10% we can
even be more precise, after, well
the exact figure I don't remember, but it's
after fifteen years, I don't remember the
exact figure,
after fifteen years you have already reached
half of the average money supply,
there you go. So that's what
guided us towards this rate of 10% for the
free currency, it's the search for a
rate that allows to reach the
average during a lifespan
sufficiently shorter than the
human lifespan. After that it's not
indeed, it's not an
absolute value, 10%. We can very well
create a free currency at 15%, even at
8% it's acceptable if you
want, around 10 it works.
After that, if you create a currency too quickly,
if you create a free currency at 100%
per year, typically, why not, you
double the money supply every year,
there the problem is that you reach...
the advantage is that you reach the average very quickly,
after a year or two,
you are almost there at 80 or 90%,
but the problem is that your currency
will therefore be diluted very quickly.
So there is no real saving possible.
That is to say that there you are in a
currency that cannot really be kept
because it will be drowned in the
new monetary creation very, very
quickly.
So there you are not going to... You
have a currency that will undoubtedly have very little
value. You can probably
use it for exchanges but for
small values, small things.
Exchanging baguettes for
olives and that's it, it will,
it will stop there. That is to say
exchanges that must be done
quickly within the year, it's not
things that you can... so you won't be able to
make longer-term exchanges,
typically keeping money to
buy yourself, I don't know, a piece of land, a
car, or even why not a house,
that kind of thing, there you go. So, so the
smaller the rate, if you will, the
more the value of your currency is supposed
to be important since we don't create
too much of it, so it can be kept for a long time,
and so it can keep an exchange
value for longer and so it has more
value, it is more difficult to obtain.
And the faster the rate, the more your
currency will on the other hand devalue
quickly.
So you have to understand this double aspect,
There is an economic aspect, the value of
savings, dilution of the currency, that
is typically, purely economic which
is not the decisive factor,
according to the relative theories of
money. There is a human factor, which is
more important, we must be able to
create the currency during a
lifetime, within a human lifetime.
So over a period that is
less than 80 years,
typically a half-life, that's a good
factor. We could have chosen the, we can
choose the quarter, the third but you will see
that it doesn't vary that
factor so much, but it's not a factor
indeed.., it's not, it's not a
value, it's not a constant,
I would say, it's not..., the
numerical constant is not essential. The fact
of creating the currency by percentage
is important, the fact that it is
exactly 10% no it's not
important. It could be 12, it could be 8,
it can even be 15, why not 20
but, on the other hand, 20 and beyond it
starts to be a currency that will not
really allow for savings, and therefore
will have a very
low value. There you go, you have to understand these
principles.
There was another question I think.
*incomprehensible discussions*
For example, you talk about *chrematistics* in relation to debt money
so I'm trying to make the link
with debt-money in relation to this term.
I didn't understand the question.
The term *chrematistics*, is it equivalent to
debt-money or is it different?
I didn't understand *chrematistics*
I don't know what it is. I didn't understand.
Chrematistics
I don't know the term
Can you write the term in the chat?
I'm trying to see what it means but right now I don't
know. Honestly I don't know
why he's talking about that.
Chrematistics, is that it?
"Which concerns the management, the negotiation of
business, more particularly
money matters... Is a notion formed
by Aristotle to describe the practice
aimed at the accumulation of means
of acquisition in general". Okay.
"The accumulation of means of acquisition, more
particularly the one who accumulates
money for its own sake and not for the purpose
of another..." Ah yes, okay. "Is the one who
accumulates money for its own sake and
not for the purpose of another end, an end other
than his personal pleasure" Okay.
Ah yes, okay, I didn't know. I didn't know
the term, I knew the concept
but I didn't know the term.
So does that characterize
debt-money? Yes, a little,
indeed, a bit like the Ponzi
scheme. Since in fact, indeed, we
try in both cases... Ponzi scheme,
we put in money and we hope
to get more money out. And it's the
money of the new entrants that comes in
so, indeed, we put in money
to get money. Whereas an
investor, in the capitalist sense of the
term, theoretically, that's not what he
does. Normally he takes money
to buy something that is not
money,
tries to transform it to make it
attractive, interesting, useful, so that
it's worth something, that it's
useful to others, that others are ready
then to buy it, in part or in
whole, it doesn't matter, so as to
recover his investment or more.
But there is no desire to
directly transform his money into
more, it's especially the desire to create
something intermediate. That's
the, theoretically, the principle of
the entrepreneur. Whereas indeed,
chrematistics, we try right away,
we try to typically lend
money, "I lend you 100 on the condition
that you give me back 110" There you go. Indeed
so we try to accumulate more and
more money and with bank credit
that's what it is. We credit money to
get more back directly. There is a
bit indeed the attempt to, to
want money for its own sake. Yes we
can say that it is, I think that it is...
Yes I think that it is... We can, we
can link the two, the two
concepts. There is a notion of
chrematistics in, in the Ponzi
scheme and also in debt-money yes.
Which cannot be the case in
bitcoin by the way, because
indeed in bitcoin, as
the quantity is finite, we cannot
hope to recover more than 21
million, there are no more. So, at some
point this notion of
chrematistics will be limited by
currencies such as bitcoin, but
also limited by the free currency since the
free currency, although it is created
perpetually, in number of
dividends in the currency in fact, it
is finite. It just depends on the number
of human beings who are part
of it, and it is finite. So we can
accumulate it but we cannot
really go beyond the average,
we cannot, in any case there is no
more. So there you go there is no... There you go. But
we can, we can still,
we can, I think that in the free currency
we can still fall under the spell
of, of chrematistics if we, if we are
affected by this evil. We can accumulate
more and more Junes, it's
possible. I'm not sure it's useful but,
in any case, it won't bother others.
That is to say that the hoarding of the
currency by some, because they
would be attracted by the fact of having
more, will not bother others, they will not be
deprived of this currency since they
are always creating more. Note therefore
that this perpetual creation does not create
problems that can be found
in debt-money, where some will
hide their money in tax
havens and we cannot go and
recover it to finance this or that. We
are a bit stuck if we don't create more
through credit, and if there is no more
credit from the banks we are stuck. In the
free currency the fact that someone
hides their money somewhere does not bother
the creation of money at all. So
we continue to create the currency.
So we may be a little short of it
temporarily, if this currency has
gone elsewhere,
but, little by little, we remonetize ourselves
naturally and permanently.
I hope I was clear. I hope that
I answered the question, which was not
easy. "Chrematistics". that's the basis
There you go, I would have left the floor if there had been another question.
It's a clarification that I need to...
This free currency, this monetary creation,
I understood the dividend well,
the interest of the universal dividend which is created
by each one. Where I need
clarification is on the fact that..
There are some who can say "Well I'm going to save
my, my dividends to one day buy
something bigger". If there are not
very many of us,
someone who saves their
dividends
in anticipation of the future, it circulates less
in the present for daily exchanges,
more common, as you were saying
earlier to buy one's bread or
one's zucchini or something else.
And I thought that on the contrary, if
there were more of us, it would allow
for a movement, since it
increases monetary creation, there are more
UDs (universal dividends), so more possibilities of UDs
in circulation and the fact that
some may consider saving them
for a future project, it's
less of a problem if there are more of us. And
after me... but that's not the subject
now...
this notion of,
of value of the UD which comes back
regularly, in all groups we
hear about it, questions,
there are some who...
So, in any case, these are UDs
that circulate, Junes,
but the June will be different depending on
the UD, the UD will evolve so it's true that for
me it's important to talk about the
UD. But someone who is going to exchange a
service or a material, the same one in
Paris or in Nice and one who will put it at
1 UD and the other at 10 UD, it
seems to me that it blocks the UDs more with some
for the same service. I need
clarification on all this.
I don't know what the question is. What is the question?
It's a need for clarification regarding the storage
of the UD and the circulation of the UD.
Yes but that's not a question,
that's not a question. It's not a
question.
No it's not a question, it's a need for clarification
to know... Is it... I don't know...
I don't know how to answer if there is no
question. Would the question
be "Is it a problem if
the same object is sold at a different price
in one city or another?" Is it
to talk about the value of the UD? Does
Stéphane, do you want to perhaps clarify the
notion of value and does the UD
have a value? Is the purpose of the UD that it
has the same value everywhere? Can you
perhaps clarify the notions of value,
of value that we put in the dividend?
Does it create inequalities?
There you go, according to the person, could
you perhaps specify what you
mean by value of the UD?
Is it... What is the UD in
relation to value?... That's a
question. What is the UD in relation to
value? That's a question. So
according to the relative theory of money,
the.... All economic values are
all relative,
they don't have... There is no
absolute value. There is not, there is not a
consensus, if you will, human, neither in
space nor in time, on the exchange
value between two distinct economic values.
distinct.
That is to say that it's good to say that
things like... Some people tell you "gold
keeps its value" but no, that's not
true. The amount of gold
necessary, even to buy another
metal which is silver, is not stable.
It evolves over time. So it's
limited, there is still, if we
observe, there is a certain limit,
but in fact it still goes... quite a bit... it
goes from one, it's a factor of 10 or 20. So it
really varies depending on the period.
So even between two things that seem
absolutely, really, well, very rigid
and so on... What matters in the notion of
value is what I can
get from Y for X. So I have
gold I want silver, the metal, or
I have silver and I want gold,
there you go, that's what will interest me. It's
what is the quantity of one that I
can get for the other. But you have to know that
it's a function that depends both
on space and time.
Not only does it evolve over time
but it also evolves depending on the place.
You won't get the
same amount of silver metal for
gold in Peru, where there are many silver mines,
although I don't know if they are still
as active as they may have
been at a certain time, but you won't get
the same rate as if you
make the same exchange, I don't know,
in China. Or the same exchange in the
Sahara or anywhere else, there you go.
So in space it's not the same
thing and in time either. And that's
true for all values, there is no,
there is no notion of stability
at the level of the relationship between two
values. That's a first point.
The second point is that when we
create a new value we are
never sure that it will be accepted and
used and therefore take, gain, exchange
value against other
economic values. We are never sure of that.
When an entrepreneur believes in his
project, he will create a company, he will,
he will create an economic value, it
can be anything, we often cite
successes like those who were able to create
companies on the internet, I'm not going to
name names, there you go, that have gained
value.
That's all very well but we don't see all the
failures. Because for one success, there are
100 failures.
You have to understand that.
Because there have been a lot of failures
also a lot of attempts that have not
succeeded.
Often because, for example, they
started too early or too late,
if there was already a competitor already
established. Too early, people were not
ready so it didn't follow, whether it was
the investors or the customers.
Or that simply what they wanted to
create met with no public or
was poorly defined, or etc... So we are
never sure when we create something
that it will gain value, and that's
true for everything, it's true for
absolutely everything. If you, if you create
anything tomorrow you are not
at all sure that there will be buyers
for your, for what you are going to
create. Whatever your belief. But
if you think that, I don't know,
potatoes are a value
economic that people are ready to
fight over,
you are going to try to grow
potatoes and you are going to realize
that the price at which you are ready
to sell it is too high, people are not
ready to buy it at that price and the
price that they will, at which they will
buy it from you is lower than the cost price.
That is to say that you are going to spend more than what
people are ready to pay for
it. And so finally it's not..., it
becomes something absolutely
negative and you will quickly give up
because you will do two or
three years, then when you realize
that it is impoverishing you, you will
stop. Or mechanically you will no longer be
able to do it anyway,
because you still need a minimum
of things to to grow crops,
you need land, you need water, you
need a whole bunch of stuff, there you go. So
you are not sure, ever, The June
is no exception to that, the June is a
monetary candidate, the June is a
candidate to be a currency, it is
created, on the other hand, it has a
particular form, it brings something
new, that had never been tried
before which is to say: we are going to create
something that is created by universal
dividend, which ensures that it is not the
first come, first served,
even if we arrive later we will create the same share of
currency. It's a proposition. It turns out that
it pleased a certain number of
people, that's a fact.
There were both developers who
were willing to develop it, to
create it. There were,
then, users who found
the idea charming and who said to themselves "this is
a great thing I want to do it",
very good. Does that mean that it
convinces everyone, far from it. There are
plenty of people who think that it, that
it is, that it is not, it cannot be
a value, who don't want it for
a whole lot of reasons that can be
good, not good, etc..., voluntarily
harmful to safeguard their interests
also, anything is possible. And it can
very well be totally abandoned
tomorrow, we know nothing about it since
it really depends on the choice of
each individual and I am not at
all master of the choices of individuals neither
in space nor in time. I
cannot guarantee that in Mayenne a
carrot will be exchanged for two
potatoes,
while in Nice you need three carrots
to be exchanged for one potato. Well,
what is true for carrots and
potatoes, why do you want it to be
different for the June. It's already true
in currency, in all the currencies
that we use, depending on where we
are
the prices are not the same. And depending on the
period we are in, they are not the
same either. But the June is no exception
to that. The June is no exception to that, there is
no reason why the June should be an exception to
that. No economic value in
history, everywhere, has been able to escape
that. There are no two economic values
that have remained stable in potential
exchange between them over time. There are
none, it doesn't exist. So it's not, what
the June brings, it's not the
belief that economic values
are: 1) fixed, that they would not evolve
over time, that they would not change tomorrow.
It's not the belief that therefore, that there
would be the possibility that suddenly,
we don't know why, all prices
would be everywhere all the time on
economic values that would not move
when the reality is not that. The
reality is that economic values,
they change all the time. So if the values
economic are replaced over time,
how do you even want to consider the
fact that their relative exchange value,
is stable. It's not possible, because
the elements themselves are not. The
elements themselves are not. So how
do you want the ratio to be?
The ratio cannot be stable because
the elements that induce this
ratio are not themselves stable.
There you go. So you have to abandon all
belief in a stability that is a
vain hope. That doesn't exist. The June
on the other hand brings, the free currency
brings stability in its creation.
And that's new.
Until now there had never been
an economic value whose mode of
creation proved to be stable. In any case,
the free currency brings at least this, this,
this contribution. There you go, a value
economic that assures you that, for all
and all the time, if you use it,
its creation rule ensures a symmetry
of creation between its members.
After that, what is its exchange value
with something else, that does not escape the
law of relativity and we can't do anything
about it and I can't do anything about it. That
is a, it's a, I would say that it's
a human law, it
is not physical here, it is human,
but which is insurmountable. I don't see
how human beings could agree
on that, given
that they do not live at all in the same
economy.
A 20-year-old man does not live in the same
economy as a sixty-year-old man, they
don't have the same references, they
are not interested in the same things, they do not
create the same thing and they live
in periods that are not at all
the same. The economy of the 60s has
nothing to do with the economy of the 2020s,
and this economy that we live in today
in 2020 will have nothing to do with
the economy of the year 2100. However
it is possible that the June, by
continuity, will last until 2100 and it,
on the other hand, it will have kept this
property of always being created in the same
way.
Will that allow it to acquire
a generalized monetary status within
a population? Without dreaming that it
will be universal in the sense of all
men all the time, no, I don't believe
in that. I believe that, simply, a
consequent population of human beings
can adopt a free currency and
do business with it I think. That is
possible.
Now, is it guaranteed?
Absolutely not. It could stop tomorrow
since it depends on the will of
each actor and I don't control that.
I am unable to tell you
what men will do tomorrow. I have no idea.
Other questions?
Well, we'll conclude, it's time to eat.
Stéphane I want to thank you for this conference and
also thank so
??? for welcoming us.
We thank you once again
for selling your video projector
in June, which allows this viewing. We also thank
"Squick?" for lending his screen, and which
is rented in June also, the screen that allows us to see you.
Thanks to those who
contributed, participated in bringing their
cables, and the interpretation so that's mainly it
We thank Christelle and Aurélie who translated into
French sign language your
intervention.
So I would like, to conclude
perhaps, to thank Mathieu. Because
Mathieu, who is here, organizes these
summer universities. These are the first.
It must be said that he is very, very
active, in Toulouse.
He is the one who created
almost all the Toulouse events;
from the beginning. He became interested in
the June very early, even before it
existed, in 2014,
when he encountered it at the summer university
of basic income, where it gave him
a shock. And so there he moved a lot
for this event. So there
I should have come normally, I would have
been able to come if... Well there I have
a hindrance,
I'll spare you the details, but there you go.
But well I had planned to come but
there you go so I was able to make it. I am
very happy to have been able to still
give this conference by
videoconference thanks also to the help of
"Polar?" whom I thank. I thank the
interpreters and then Mathieu and Nadia who
are like the leaders, the masters
of work, a bit the masterpieces also, but
the masters of work of this summer university.
It's their event,
they are the ones who created it, I always
make a point of respecting the creators
of events.
There you go and then I also invite the
participants to contribute to this
event by making a small donation,
so I don't know if there is an account for
the summer university, or MLO
I don't know, but to make a small donation
even one UD or two UD I don't know. A
small donation to the organizers to
to contribute there you go and then, indeed,
it's very pleasing to see
that a projector that was sold in
Junes you see, I sold it in Junes this
projector,
well it turns out that it's Mathieu who
bought it, well very good, and that
the screen that is rented in Junes and then
the interpreters also it wouldn't be
bad but maybe those who
benefited from the interpretation well give them
also a little something in
Junes, so that they can discover that in
exchange for these Junes that they could
receive,
well they could perhaps get
a good or a service for
example on ğchange, or in the
workshops that I suppose are numerous at this
summer university.
Thank you for your interest. So I believe
that this conference is
broadcast on Youtube. By the way there are
a lot of comments on Youtube,
I will try to read them, I couldn't do it at the
same time. It will be rebroadcast, I
believe, tonight. There will be new
questions according to what Nadia told me.
So eventually I will reconnect
if I get confirmation of that, I will
reconnect tonight, I don't know
at what time, at 6 pm or at 7 pm,
once the conference is over,
to eventually resume,
answer a few more questions.
Thank you all, enjoy your meal,
I'll let maybe the final word to
Mathieu to conclude definitively.
Will there be subtitles on the rebroadcast?
So that people who don't speak French...
On Youtube it's possible to put,
subtitles on Youtube, you
can do it. If you do it, you
tell me and normally I just have to activate and
I can activate it afterwards. And it will, it
will be able to, if you have subtitles put
it will appear also. There is ??? who is asking
a question. So thank you very much to
Mathieu for the organization and, just,
??? for the artists and so for
the interpreters why not also but
well Spanish in fact, we could
add the interpreters in Spanish,
in other languages.
And so the subtitles, it's not just for
me as a deaf person for example, it's more a value of
freedom and so I propose that we create...
not long ago and with the
coronavirus situation,
with the confinement, we became aware, when
we were stuck, that we had skills,
that there were two people who had...
professionals and professionals
of certified subtitling, and so we
worked for three months on subtitling,
we did, we took some "VOST G1?".
There you go we created that and so we managed
to do that, and we got 3000 Junes
to do it, and so it is possible to
do, to do that during different
conferences and if you donate for the conferences we can do it,
there you go, to adapt to each person's situation.
I am here for ????. And so
it's true that there are several deaf people
who are present and it allows
for exchange afterwards.
carpooling in France is called au pick
up
the duval in blablacar in free mode
finally in cooperative mode and taxes is
also that of the judges notably not only
of the 27 in the retribution system
of the posts there you go 14 years and a bit I am
part of it I have no choice it's at
this cooperative ah yes it's there from where
its fans
this moment of very rich local exchange
thank you for being present for that
that we could also come back to gstaad
but it will not be interfered with since
the one from the start of the school year it still has work
on the side of poitiers
I know it and the smell first of all these
magnificent interpreters not on one side and
it shows that it's possible when we
think but it's possible to mobilize
skills it's possible to
remunerate them in development
in juice of 6 meters to unite our forces and
we don't know an early child and at
6 pm you will have waited they are not
stable to come back tonight for the
borde
there you go the hockey no it's just because
we are there there you go so it's finished so
there you go I'm going to leave you there for those
who are on youtube I'm going to stop there
and so tonight maybe maybe a
new live and so we'll call each other