TrueLife - Designing the Systems That Come After | On Value, Collapse, and Coherence

Episode Date: December 23, 2025

One on One Video Call W/George https://tidycal.com/georgepmonty/60-minute-meetingSupport the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US🔥 Save $2,000: Master Plant Medicines from Home (Ayahuasca, Psilocybin, San Pedro & Cannabis)Transform Your Mental Health & Consciousness with Blue Morpho’s Proven Courses:https://bluemorpho.org/plant-medicine-training/george/?ref=georgeThe Lila Code: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4612-3942🚨🚨Curious about the future of psychedelics? Imagine if Alan Watts started a secret society with Ram Dass and Hunter S. Thompson… now open the door. Use Promocode TRUELIFE for Get 25% off monthly or 30% off the annual plan For the first yearhttps://www.district216.com/True Life Podcast Episode DescriptionIn this powerful return conversation, host George welcomes back Remzi Bajrami, co-founder of Common Planet, to dive deep into the future of economics and human coordination.Remzi introduces Creditism — a bold alternative economic system designed to replace debt-based capitalism with pure credit, eliminating scarcity mindsets and enabling true abundance. Drawing from a decade of research across finance, philosophy, game theory, and systems design, Remzi breaks down:•  How modern banking actually works (and why banks are privileged debt creators)•  The hidden truths about government “debt” and infinite money creation•  Why capitalism, socialism, and communism all fail at the same foundational level: pre-distributing Earth’s commons to a privileged few•  The core principles of Creditism: unconditional income, activity-based credit creation, democratic bonus metrics for production, and currency deletion upon spending•  The planetary membership project IU (“life” in Sanskrit) — a decentralized network launching soon to co-create digital tools for governance, record-keeping, and a new infinite gameThis episode challenges everything you thought you knew about money, power, and possibility. If we’re going to solve the metacrisis — ecological collapse, inequality, endless conflict — we need a fundamental evolution in how value is created and distributed.Remzi and his team are going public now: Substack launching tomorrow, YouTube in January, and the IU app in early 2026.Join the conversation. The old game is breaking. It’s time to build the one that comes next.🌍 Visit CommonPlanet.org to get involved, donate, apply as a partner, or join the early invite list.#Creditism #PostCapitalism #EconomicEvolution #Abundance #InfiniteGame #TrueLifePodcast One on One Video call W/George https://tidycal.com/georgepmonty/60-minute-meetingSupport the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US🔥 Save $2,000: Master Plant Medicines from Home (Ayahuasca, Psilocybin, San Pedro & Cannabis)Transform Your Mental Health & Consciousness with Blue Morpho’s Proven Courses:https://bluemorpho.org/plant-medicine-training/george/?ref=george

George Monty, True Life Podcast Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the True Life podcast. I hope you're all having a beautiful day. Hope the sun is shining. Hope the birds are singing. Hope the wind is at your back. Today I have with me Remzi Badgerami. We're designing the systems that come after.

on value, collapse, and coherence. In a time of systemic strain and unrealized potential, Rimsie works with clarity and discipline. He studies how economies function, where they fail, and what must replace them. Where others see disorder, he sees structure. Working across data, development, finance, and philosophy, his focus is coherence over control,

designing systems that serve people rather than extract from them. His aim is a future where value moves freely. equitably and with purpose. Remsey, thanks for being here today. How are you, my friend? Thanks for having me, George. It's great to be back. Yeah, I think it was about a year ago.

I think our last conversation was roughly about a year ago. Almost, yeah. It was like, I think it was earlier this year. So, yeah, it was. Yeah, very nice. There's been a lot happening since, and we're finally ready to move forward, so this is why I reached out.

Yeah, I'm super stoked here. Maybe you can catch people up to speed and maybe miss the last conversation. Like, what are you working on? What are some of the things you're super excited about? Sure. So, well, I'm the co-founder of Common Planet, along with my daughter. And, you know, it's basically, the project is basically we wanted to, you know, introduce

the world to an alternative economic system, one that's not based on debt, right? One that can enable life. And for the longest time, you know, because it touches on everything, it was hard to describe it to people. And then a couple of years ago, we finally coined a name for it, calling it creditism. The reason being is because, of course, the current system operates with credit and debt. And so the future system, creditism, is one with just credit, with no debt. And so that's the name.

Now, we've been developing the alternative economics, you know, really for this past decade, mostly learning, you know, internally. Like we had to, ourselves, understand economics a little bit better because it's a big field. Like you just touched upon, you know, it touches everything, psychology, sociology, you know, game theory. There is no aspect of the world in our lives that isn't directly connected to our economic system. So there was a lot to discover. But what we found, George, is that there is a path here. There is a transitionary path that we can move forward to change the game of the world so that,

we can start coordinating with one another for the first time really in history because we think about it humans have always been in competition for presumably scarce resources even though there's enough for everybody there's enough food there's enough housing so it's kind of strange and if obviously there's enough money because money is a human you know made up concept so the the idea that isn't enough of these things is just flat out false so obviously that means that we have a distribution problem. We have a coordination problem. And so what creditism is designed to do is basically solve that problem so that we can live with one another in peace and prosperity. And so the reason why I reach back out to you today is because not only are we finally ready

to come fully public and begin our launch, our own media, you know, substack is going to come out tomorrow. Our own YouTube channel is going to get launched in January. But beyond the, you educating the public and raising awareness and beginning the conversation about creditism in the world, we're also excited to announce that we're going to be launching a planetary membership to actually co-create and build the digital decentralized tools for digital credit, for digital governance, for digital record keeping, and all of that. So we can essentially overcome and just do it without permission and transition the world that way. And so that's, that's, that's, that's the goal. That's the, that's the, that's the, that's the dream. Man, I love it. I, I, I, I think that we're ready for it. You know, we've seen quite a bit of this idea of scarcity and this idea of fear that seemed to be the last drivers of productivity happening in our world. And we're ready for a change. You know, let me, let me, let me start here at the beginning. I got some, some, some ideas and some questions that I think will help me understand and perhaps the audience understand a little bit more. Uh, what do you think? What do you think?

the current's what where do you think the current system is most dishonest about about its own health debt uh you know the this dishonest because the you know we're we're constantly told that our country is bankrupt or at least about to go bankrupt and is in is in debt couldn't be further from the truth it's nonsense uh because you know we'll get to that in a moment the details on it but yeah it's just it's just a false perspective, there is no debt, at least not at the national level, not in the way that people think of it, at least. The government isn't borrowing money and spending it. It's spending it first and then sucking it out and having people put it in a time-locked savings account called the bond. And because the government has taken your money, your savings, and put it

in a savings account, it's a liability for them. They have to give you that money back. But they have it. You gave it to them. The money is there. It's accounted for. It is. It is. It exists it is not a debt in the traditional sense that like you and i are you know for example if we go and buy a car we take on a debt we have to pay that money back because we've already spent it on the car right but the government hasn't spent that money at all what is spent into the economy would always spend some of the economy's credit it is the sole authority in control or an issuer of the u.s dollar every time congress uh appropriate some spending bills The central bank facilitates the number, boom, boom.

They type in the numbers, and the money is just spent and created into existence. You know, I think I may have mentioned this last time. Like the game of monopoly. Like we've all played the game of monopoly. There's a so-called bank. The so-called bank in the game of monopoly is your country, is your central bank. That's the source of the money. Every time it, under its rules, decides to spend money in the case of the game of monopoly,

is based on time and I guess we can say moving around the board is like labor so it spends for you know and gives it to the players now the players have the money and and even in the game of monopoly there is a community chess and tax right what happened the money goes back to the so-called bank it's being deleted that's exactly what's happening in the real world no different really these are these are digital units of account that's all they are and and digital numbers are infinite you know, always happen. And so the idea that money is scarce, the idea that governments are in debt and that the world can't afford things is just pure bunk and pure nonsense and designed as a tool of essentially international banking to kind of disguise and or make us think that debt

is natural and inevitable and it's just the way it is and it has to be that way when it actually doesn't. Yeah. You know, there's a lot of, there's a, you can, one of the great books out there is the creature from Jekyll Island where they talk about the, of course you have. Of course you have. Like, we have all these central banks. And you got like the central bank in Switzerland. It's like the central bank of central banks. And it is. Yeah. They make the rules. You know what? I'd like to do, George, which I've never heard anyone do before is, I want to go through the steps here. Because so. Okay. Let's do it. A lot of your listeners are probably familiar with opening up a corporation it's really straightforward right you go to your your state you register the corporation you register a name it's not taken it's yours they give you an id number uh now you're an official corporation then you register for a federal id you know number so that you can uh have a bank account okay so now you are you have a corporation you are 100% its owner uh and most businesses they need money because usually you have up front You have to buy stuff, labor, equipment, whatever it is to launch most businesses.

And most founders often don't have enough money. So what do they do? They supposedly go out and find investors. What they're actually finding is not they're finding buyers. They're selling their business. You're selling a piece of your business. The shares that you're selling are ownership stake in your business. And so the process of raising money is actually selling your business.

a piece of it for the money. And so that's what happens, right? You go out there, you find these investors, they give you money, you give them a piece of your business. Now you have money in your bank. That's a traditional corporation. Now, a bank is completely different. It's also a corporation, but here's what happens. Let's say you and I wanted to open up a bank. Okay. So first of all, with a bank, you have to have, you know, you go through the same processes. You register to do all that, but you have to find, you need to have a minimum amount of capital. And so you have to find, you know, investors to pony up a lot of money. And they'll tell you how much. Let's say it's $100 million. And so we go out there and we get $100 million from, you know, a bunch of

people. Now they collectively own, you know, the bank, those shares. We take that money. Now we have money. We take that money and we deposit it in our, we get, we open up an account. We're the only ones who can do this. Regular corporations open accounts with us at the bank. We open account at the central bank called the reserve account. Okay, so now we take our investors capital. We put it into our savings account at the central bank called a reserve account. So now the investor's capital is sitting in the reserve account. Okay, so now we have, let's say, it's a, well, it keeps things simple we'll save one billion dollars so we have a billion dollars in the reserve account now in america you also have to put money into the federal deposit insurance corporation for you know for banks right so

a fraction of a percent goes into that pool and so we the money comes out of our savings account goes to the fdic okay now we have expenses ourselves because remember we're a business too we have to you know buy buildings or pay rent or pay employees etc and so we have we have to commercial account, an account with ourselves in our own bank. Okay, so we basically transfer money from the savings account to our commercial account, check an account, anytime we want, any time a day, anytime we want to spend money, we transfer instantly. So money comes out of the reserve account, goes to the commercial account.

That's how we're spending. Now, a lot of people may think that, you know, there was a movie that came out recently, a British film called Bank of Dave. And in the movie, they, you know, they, they portray completely incorrect. They have the guy go out there and they say that you need to raise $15 million. But in the movie, they go out and they raise $15 million of depositors money. They pretend, they keep insisting that this lie of banking that you need depositors money somehow, that that's what a bank is.

But it's not, like I just mentioned, they have investors. We have our pile of money sitting in the results. account. Okay. So now, according to the Bank of International Settlements, because we have this a billion dollars in our reserve account, we have the special privilege to borrow money into existence. This is the so-called double entry bookkeeping. A lot of people, an economist, call this credit creation, but that's not true because credit is credit. Debt is debt. They're not the same thing. Otherwise, they would be the same damn word. Credit means if I give you credit, it means it's yours for free. You don't have to pay me back. If I give you debt,

it means you owe it back to me. So banks are debt merchants. They're borrowing money into existence. They're not credit creators. So when this special power that banks have, because they have this a billion dollars of reserves that can, you know, they can afford to to lose, they're allowed to borrow this money into existence. And then what do they do? Legally, they're purchasing assets. Okay. They're not lending money out. They're buying a loan contract. That's an asset. And so the double-entry bookkeeping that everyone talks about with banking is them borrowing the money into existence. That's a liability. That's money they have to pay back. Those are the international banking

rules for all banks in the world. It's liability. On the asset side, they record the asset, the thing that they purchase, your loan contract, your mortgage, your car, loan, your credit card, etc. That goes on their asset side. And that's how the whole structure works. And so these guys are allowed this leverage. That $1 billion, the Bank of International Settlements says that we are allowed to borrow up to more than 20 to 30 times that billion dollars into existence. And so now what's happening, George, every time us as a bank, we're always trying to find, you know, assets to purchase. But there isn't that, you know, but because we're banks and because we're leveraged, we're restricted on what types of assets we can purchase. Normal corporations can buy

whatever they want. There are no rules. You can buy bonds, stocks, real estate, derivatives, options. Nobody cares. It's your private business, right? But a bank is different. They can't do that because obviously they would crush the game and they would be very dangerous, of course, but they're only allowed to buy these loan contracts. And so it's no surprise that in America, what you've seen in the past 50 years or more is more and more debt, more and more types of debt, right? It started with, of course, businesses and governments. Then it moved on to homes. Then I went to cars. Now it's like you everything, you can buy a freaking toaster with debt. You know, it's absurd. Refrigerators. So education, everything has become, you know, debt-based.

for their sole reason that it's basically free interest for the banks. They're able to borrow this money as zero interest and then you use it to purchase assets and put us in debt at interest. And that's their entire business model. And that's what's happening here. And that's what the bank is. And so people may not realize banks came first. Then corporations essentially, well, corporations, I mean capitalism obviously was already

happening, right? But the notion of corporations in the sense of limited liabilities. and spreading your risk, not putting all of your assets or monies into one venture, that became the corporate shell, you know, Italians famously, right, spent buying, you know, resource stuff, putting on ships, and only that ship is at risk. And of course, they would get multiple investors. So banks came first, corporations at the same time. Then nations came later, why? It was a structure to legally, to codify by law and enforce this, this, you know, property and trading regime. And of course, their ability to borrow money into

existence and essentially to keep that secret. Because you see, if you're a country, what's happening in the world today is that countries are created in a currency and they're purchasing stuff, right? What are they purchasing? Well, they're purchasing oil. They're purchasing, you know, resources. And so that money, they're basically creating money to give to whoever owns the oil, whoever owns the trees, to the capitalists, to the owners, the owner class. And so that's the entire structure. Now, if you knew, if people really knew that money was unlimited and that the country is able to spend whatever it wants, whenever it wants, on whatever it wants, then the question would be, well, okay, clearly these are political and decisions and, you know,

social decisions. So why is it doing what is doing? You know, but this is why it's important for the state and the whole entire structure to pretend that they, that they can't do that, that they must borrow money, and that somehow they're monetarily restricted in what they can do. Otherwise, you know, the whole entire scheme of banks borrowing money into existence would be untenable. It would be, we would have already overcome that situation. We would have changed that, those rule sets, and we would be playing a different game. As a matter of fact, in America, we've already had revolutions in monetary systems multiple times, you know. I don't think I share this with your audience, but the American revolution itself was, you know, a monetary revolution. We didn't go to war with Britain because of, you know, why did we go to war with Britain?

What is the general story, by the way? Like, how do you see, like, why did we all of a sudden want to be independent in our own country? I think it was taxes, right? Like with the Boston Tea Party. Okay, so that's interesting. Okay, so let's see. Here's what happened. In 1767, the British Crown banned the colonists from creating their own currency.

They banned them from borrowing money into existence. They said, no, you have to use the gold coins of the crown. And so what was happening was is that the, that they were unable to borrow money into existence meant that they were unable to grow. They can't invest in build new trains, buildings, et cetera, because if you don't have money, then you can't begin the, you can't order stuff. You can't purchase materials and labor and build, right? Because you need the money first.

And so because they couldn't borrow it into existence, credit creation, they were starting to lose. The gold that they had was being taxed. the T tax was directly flowing to the UK. And so over the years, they were less prosperous. More and more money was flowing out of their territories. They weren't growing anymore. And so that was untenable to that. And so what they did is they said, F, this, you know, this is unacceptable.

They wrote a Declaration of Independence. This is why we, you know, these are the reasons why we are, we should and we are allowed to, we are compelled to, you know, dissolve, whatever. And so they borrowed a billion dollars of gold from. France. They used that as their reserve currency, and they created their own currency. And they use that money to provision themselves and win the war. And that's the story of America. And then the further story of America is that every single time that these bank charters of who's going to control the money, is it going to be a central bank, an independent central bank? Is it going to be

a bank direct by America or why? And so there was always, you know, charters giving these powers over to this other entity and then back to the state. And there was always these fights throughout our history. And so, but we haven't had one in a long time. You know, we're sitting in the system now, you know, with that creature of Jekyll Island, it's for over 100 years. We're stuck in, in the power of banks in this debt-based structure. And we can't get out of it because we're gasoline, because we're liable.

Because we're lied. Every piece of language is twisted in such a way as that we don't understand what's happening. And it's so, it's strange to me. It's strange, you know, like, because even for someone like myself, I consider, I thought I was smart. You know, I studied finance all my life, you know. And, but I never had to ask myself, like, about money. Like, where did it actually come from? It's just something that we just don't, for some reason, so central to our lives. But for whatever reason, we're not allowed to ask or know, like, where it comes from. It makes no sense. Like, it's shocking to me that we can be so stupid. Yeah, it's, it blows my mind to think of.

And the question that comes to my mind, and I agree 100%. And I think anybody who starts really digging into the problems of their life or the community or the environment or your state or whatever, all of a sudden you eventually trace it back to money. are they doing this? Oh, they need the money. Why is there so much homelessness? We have these NGOs that just get money and then they create more homeless people, you know, if there's no incentive for it. But it comes back to this idea of money. My question, Remsey, is that, you know, power is never relinquished. It's only taken. So what do you do when you have these giant entities whose tentacles spread out across the world? Like, these people are not going to give up

their secrets. They're not going to give up their control of the money, their power. Like, what do you do. Yeah. Well, there's an interesting book I read, which I would recommend to your readers as well. It's called, hold on a second, James Kars. Darn it, I forget the title right now. Hold on. It'll come to you. Check it out. Oh, yeah. Finite and Infinite Games. Okay. Essentially, what he says is that those who must play must play, must play. can't play what we're playing this global economic game these guys have power but the power is in the rules is in the rule set and the rules are something that we either can follow or not and so the power

is in is is in our core the challenge though george has been that what okay we we don't like the current game we don't like the current centers in the current rules but we've never been actually able to figure out an alternative rule set an alternative incentive structure that can not only overcome, of course, the existing game, but produce something that's stable and viable and infinite. And so that's what creditism is designed to do, but that's just it. We haven't been able to do that. And there's a lot of reasons for that.

The main reason I'll point out to in the past has been because of game theory, has been because of trust. If we're playing a game of distributing resources and value, then it becomes a game of trust. Do we trust that our opponents or our counterparties are going to continue the past agreements? Are they going to agree that what I have is still mine? Or are they going to say, are they going to defect and say, F that? I don't recognize your currency or I don't recognize your race to this. And so because in the past, there was no way to assure record keeping, at least in a unalterable way, because records were kept either in our head or on paper. And unfortunately,

those, you know, aren't very effective and trustworthy, right? Right. It can be changed. But now all of a sudden we have digital technology with unalterable records. Now we can trust the data. Now we can trust our past agreements and we can move forward and have a different incentive structure. And so anyway, to answer your question, to overcome the existing power structure,

we basically just have to defect. We have to build our alternate incentive structure. alternate game of credit, of currency, and overtake theirs, because they get their power from the games, from the rules, and from the existing money. But once we don't acknowledge it anymore, they're powerless because they won't be able to command people with their money if people have an escape path. If people have an alternate that they can join and survive in, then the power that these existing oligarchs and corporations and nations have over us disappears and withers. And so we effectively are giving them that power because we're going along and playing their game.

So we have no choice but to create an alternative. And that's what we're doing with IU, you know, planetary play for life where we can distribute currency under different conditions without their consent. And they can't stop us because, you know, these are things. that you know we believe these are things that you know we can do humans are the ones who are the players and so we don't have to play their game but we have to create the new game and that's been the that's been the that's been the that's been the bottleneck is that there hasn't been a new game that really was stable viable and attractive I mean attractive sure you know the socialism communism are very attractive philosophies right but they're not fully

baked, stable, complete economic systems. They're not, they don't have the entire structure, you know, for a viable, infinite game. That was their, that was the problem. And the reason they didn't have it is because they're still actually playing capitalism. They just didn't know it. Meaning, here's how I would define it, by the way. The foundation of our economic system today is, it begins, just like in the game of Monopoly, right? Somebody has to own stuff.

Somebody has to own the oil, the trees, the fish. Every single thing on this planet becomes somebody's private property. And so what you've done, what you're doing, what we're doing in this world at present and for a long time is we're creating the unit of account, the money, in order to then give it to these people who've captured our common resources. The Saudi Arabians, the Norwegians, et cetera, are getting the money for doing nothing. It's almost like, imagine the game of monopoly, you predistribute the property. You predistribute Park Place and all these other resources.

And they automatically collect money every single time because, let's say they own the oil, right? Oil is in everything. Energy is embedded in the price of everything that we purchase because everything costs energy. Everything must be moved. And so we're paying for that. So we're creating the money to give it to these people because they, are the ones who won this battle centuries ago of, you know, of owning, it just happened to have been born in that area. It makes no sense. So we're distributing the currency without

realizing we're distributing currency. Like it's a distribution problem, but we don't see it that way. We see it as people like, oh, well, they, it's there. So I can't take it. It was like, well, how did they get it? Who did they buy it from? Did they buy it? Like, did God hand out titles? Because I don't know that. I wasn't in that auction. So this is, you know, the whole game, like, look what we're doing right now. What is America doing? Why are we going to war with Venezuela? Why?

Because of the oil, because that's the, it's free money. It's free money. That's why. And so this is the problem with capitalism, socialism, well, maybe, you know, maybe not socialism so much. Well, yeah, definitely socialism. And communism, they couldn't overcome the foundational structure of pre-distributing the valuable resources, which themselves are then traded for the money.

So it's almost like you're giving them money for no reason. And so this is the fundamental problem of the world. We're continuing to play that bullshit game. We're not realizing that we have a distribution problem. And it's not because we can't do things differently. It's because the ones who are currently winning love it. Yeah. Why wouldn't you?

Who wouldn't love it? How do you fix that distribution problem? I mean, like, we haven't fixed it ever. Like, you know, and the problem is that we've made the distribution, um, political and the redistribution is political. And it's like who, okay, so the distribution is unfair. Right. And then the redistribution becomes unfair too.

And then so then people get upset. They're like, you're taking my tax dollar. It's like, you know, that's redistribution. You know, by the way, no one's taking your tax dollars and giving it to somebody else, right? They're just taking your tax dollars as all that's happening. They always, you know, the money's infinite so they can give to whomever they want anytime anyways. They didn't need your tax dollars to give to somebody else. The money's already being created and giving away as it is anyways.

So the whole, I don't know, man, it's just really frustrating when I think about, you know, situation that we're in. But I don't want to talk about that too much because what's more important is, you know, what are we going to do? about it. What we do? So that's really why I came to the show to talk about what we can actually do and what we're going to do to overcome them. Let's hear about it, man. What are we going to do? Like what is the way moving forward? Yeah. Okay. So I mentioned earlier that myself, my daughter, and our small team is going to be moving forward with educating the world about creditism. We'll talk about a little bit about that a little bit later in the show and the details on creditism. But so as we begin our media campaign, articles, videos, you know, white

papers, et cetera, and all that. And conversations obviously like this. And then we imagine that next year, as we, you know, conversation increases, an awareness increases, that other people begin to talk about it because now it has a name, like socialism and communism. I won't be the only one talking about creditism anymore. So that's really the key. But, but really, George, what we're going to be launching in a couple of months is I have some really tech dynamos. And these guys are, we're going to be creating an application. And so we're going to incentivize people to join a network and give them, you know, points and tokens. And so we're going to reward people to join the network for the participation to do things like,

obviously, you know, to confirm their identification, to make sure that people don't register multiple times. that's obviously important, right? You need a unique identifier. And then we're going to be, you can reward them for all kinds of activities, referring people, signing treaties and constitutions, joining various other networks, social networks, whatever it may be, or contributing to regenerative projects. And so we can begin to, to create the creditist principles of distributing the currency inside this new planetary membership. And at first, when we launch it, It'll be invite only because we still want to, you know, we're still going to be playing around with it, you know, adding features and tools to it and ironing out any bugs, et cetera. And so in the first, you know, iteration, probably six months or so it'll be invite only.

And so the order of the, you know, invite would be the people who contribute to the project, right? So what we're doing at this early phase is we're going to be launching probably tomorrow. So everything will be updated tomorrow. and we'll begin post-sun substack, and we'll begin to, you know, send emails to all of our networks to contribute to the project, and in return, they're going to be put into a patron pool. Basically, it's a non-diluted pool of 1% of the points for the early contributors to reward them. They're going to get more than just the points. There's also further benefits later where they can get more of the future credit currency

because of their early contribution. And so there's incentives for people to, obviously, to contribute to the project and join the network. Those patrons will be among the first to be invited into the network. Along with, we're going to have a partner pool. There's going to be two pools.

1% of the points will go to two separate pools. So 1% for the first 150 partners and then another 1% for like 300 partners. And what a partner is, is basically, it's an individual or organization, that's working on some of the regenerative or commoning of our resources, right? Somebody, there's a lot of people out there who are working on helping us solve this, you know, metacrisis, this polycrisis.

And so those are free. Anybody will be able to apply to be a partner as an individual or organization. You come to the site, you apply, and it'll be myself mostly who's reviewing these at this time because we are a small team and everyone's. busy but so but yeah so people will be able to apply and those partners will enter in that pool and they'll also be among the early members of the of the network we're calling it iu by the way it means life in sanscript and so you know the name we're going with is iu it's short a yu and we're calling it planetary play for life or the infinite game we can have a whole

series of qualifiers in subtitles for it, but essentially it's a planetary network, planetary membership where, you know, people will be joining for free, getting points and ultimately future currency and tokens and interacting with other people and helping us basically build the decentralized tools, like I mentioned earlier as well, the governance structure, the voting mechanisms. We have, you know, experts for that on the blockchain. We have the property record keeping, which is obviously important, right? You want to make sure that we can have an open digital architecture of everything that exists, not just on a personal level, but also the commons as well, the entire Earth.

And so that's going to be geographical information systems and mapping structures. And recently I found a map. Somebody had mapped out in 3D, all of the structures in the entire world, which is really cool. And so things like that, we can incentivize our members to help us build and that data by giving them more points or end or tokens, you know, for their, for their activity. And so as we're growing this network, eventually we'll open it to the general public and then anybody will be able to join. In the, in the network, in IU, we can also begin implementing some of the what is been up to date called UBI, you know, universal basic income.

the language isn't ideal it's a better framing is unconditional income because it's not basic and it's not universal it's unconditional in the sense that everyone gets it with no strings attached you know you don't have to do anything for it it's just yours here you go and so there will be an unconditional income proponent a component excuse me inside iU as well and the earlier the incentives of the network are that the earlier you join the network, the more points and or tokens that you might get in the future. And so there's reasons for people to want to have to, you know, to join earlier. There's kind of a, there's already a precedence for this, right? I don't know if your audience is aware of WorldCoyne and Sam Alton's World ID project.

It's a bit of a scam in that, you know, Sam raised a whole bunch of money from investors, right? offering people free coins, free tokens. If you join our network, you know, scan your eyeball and or do the other identifiers to confirm your identification, you get free tokens. And, you know, that's great. And so, and a lot of people signed up. Millions of people have now signed up for that program because why not? You get something for free, you know, what's to lose? What Sam gets out of it, of course, is he gets to license your digital ID to whomever he wants.

And so he's trying to do that. He's trying to license that data, your ID, to other people so that you can, you know, use it online. And he'll keep the money. That's their business model. That's their kind of scheme. But the scheme, it's a scheme because he's pretending to care and to solve the, you know, the poverty or the, you know, or the not enough money with UBI when it's not. And when it's not a solution, UBI by itself isn't really a viable solution in the existing system. And so he's not genuine.

But we can use those similar incentives to build a network, and it's proven. Obviously, people will sign up for something for free. And so that's kind of where, you know, yeah, some of those incentives may be kind of not the best, right? Like, we ideally, we want people to join the network because they believe in this alternate vision. and they want to help us go-create it, not because of the points of the tokens, right? But of course, that helps too. Any incentives, all incentives are going to be, are fine with that. And so that's basically the structure.

So we'll have, you know, invite only people join the network, the donors, the partners, and as that network is growing in building, as we're out there, you know, growing awareness on creditism, writing articles, ultimately a book on it. Who knows where it's going to take us? Who knows where it's going to go? But that building this digital open architecture with other people and with other partners and projects to capture value from the existing gain, from the existing world, and to funnel it to these different projects,

do these different regenerative commons recapturing of the commons, you know, people, then we begin to change the world. Then we begin to change where the world is investing. Where are we investing our time and energies? As opposed to today, we're still investing in our 401 case. We're still playing the long game of capitalism because we're stuck in this. We have to, right? But this really can offer people on off-ramp in a path,

to a future where they don't have to worry about money ever again. And really, that's what's at stake here. You know, a coordinated system, we either are going to kill ourselves over the resources of the world under the stupid game that we're playing, or we're going to finally wake up and say, hey, guys, you know, this is reality. We've mapped out the world. Let's let everyone live and play. I need you to help me understand a little bit more in that.

What is it that? You know, say investors come in. I guess there's two questions. First off, how do you stop the arbitrage? It seems to me, like, if you look at the world of cryptocurrency, you know, even Bitcoin, you like Michael Saylor that owns most of it, or you have my friend from the Matt, or I forgot the guy from the orange team, Max Kaiser, you know, there's all these Bitcoin billionaires. And like, they own all of it.

Like, I can't even buy a Bitcoin for like less than 80 grand now. And I guarantee it gets smaller. But that's just one example. When you look at all these other sort of blockchain currencies, like there's so many of them that like people are begun to get like Bitcoin or cryptocurrency fatigue and there's all these rug pulls because people arbitrage. Like how could how is creditivism? If you're on the blockchain, how is it different? No, you're right. That's a great question.

So we have been having some internal conversations and internal discussions on that as well. So the difference is here, the George, is that you're right. These are all speculative assets is what they are, by the way. They're not currencies because a currency can only be issued by a national government. Currency is a dollar, Australian dollar, the rupee, the yen, the yuan, et cetera. Those are currencies. The game that we're playing capitalism is a game of trading assets. Currencies just happen to be at present abstract assets.

But Bitcoin is only pure. an abstract asset and not a currency. So as anyone can trade an asset, you can, you can trade your money or your laptop or your car for anything with anyone else that you guys can agree on. That's that's capitalism. No one cares, right? If you give your car for a laptop, they don't care. If you give your car for a Bitcoin, nobody gives a crap because they're both presumably, what are you trading? You're trading assets. But you're right to point to speculation as a problem. Now, here's where IU points and our future tokens or et cetera aren't necessarily speculation.

Okay, so first of all, we're not selling any of them. They're always going to be granted for free. The members who join the network are getting them for free. They don't have to purchase them. You join the network, you confirm your ID, you're going to get the points or future tokens. You join, you refer people, more points. more tokens you sign constitutions more so you're getting them for free first so we're not selling them like like ripple did with xRP and they continue to do right that's a scam okay and so

so the only speculators in our network should we decide to you know to make the points into tokens and tradable which is still an internal debate within our team then there would be speculators some people, just like with WorldCoin, are speculating on it. You can buy WorldCoin without joining the network. And you will be able to, if we do the same thing, you'd be able to buy the IU tokens and speculate. But the members themselves didn't get them through speculation. The members themselves aren't speculating. And it is possible for us to incentivize people to hold some of these tokens because part of the plan here with creditism with IU is that there are there are not just one token or points there's at least two there's the the current one which is the points in our

token and then there's the credit currency the future currency which is it which is think of it like it's like an nfti almost right it's not tradable it's only for you and so it's not speculative But it could become your money in your country if you can help your country transition to creditism, that credit currency, that token would then become live on chain and yours and usable. And so the real goal with IU is essentially to co-create the alternate digital economic system and then be politically adopted by any country. countries already have the power of credit creation, they could transition to creditism right away, no problem. I mean, not that easy, of course, but it can be done because they're already doing it. They already have, you know, money already exists. Anyway, but the key here is that we could incentivize people to hold on to the IU points and our tokens

that would, a portion of which could then convert into the credit tokens. And so we can we can kind of manage, if you will, some of the potential and remove some of the potential speculation out of the, out of this because the reason why people ultimately should want to own IU points and or tokens is because of the future of the credit token, not the present value of their token. That makes any sense. Like Worldcoin, for example, if you join the World Coin network and you get in these tokens, it's not that much money. So who cares, right? You're not going to get rich by joining that network and getting a bunch of free UBI WorldCoin tokens. Same thing here. You're not going to get rich by joining IU and getting some points in their tokens.

It's not going to happen. So, yeah, will there be speculators? If the token is tradable, there will be. But are we concerned about it? Some of us are, yeah. And so we're still kind of debating that piece of it, whether or not, you know, the points will turn into tokens and become tradable. But there are pros and cons to do in there, as you're kind of realizing and pointing out.

But again, so really the people who are joining our network and who are participating in what we're building should be more interested in what we're building rather than any value that they may get through the tokens that they're getting. And so if that's true, then great. But if it's not, and they only care about speculation, well, then, I mean, who cares? They can speculate on any number of things, right? We can't stop them from necessarily from speculating on some of these things. But we can make it so that we could stabilize it.

We can control a lot of the more of the value that people realize. Like you mentioned, rug pulls, those guys intentionally engineered those things. Those weren't accidents. They were intentional, you know. And so you could, with this kind of structure, we could stabilize it. We could only because we get to control the future currency. We get to decide, you know, the distribution rules of creditism, the mathematical fairness of it determines the value of the credit. And so determines the conversion ratios, et cetera.

And so it's in our control. We get a lot of power and control over those conversions, since we're the ones who are issuing those tokens and points. Yeah. So it is different than those projects. When you look at some of some currencies in the past that began to take hold, they always start like in the community, like a town will start issuing like their own credit or their own coin or something like that.

And it begins organically. Can you run us to an example of what it looks like? How does it start? Like maybe you've already started it in your community, but what does it look like when people are trading this value between each other? But break it down on a little small scale so people can understand. Well, what you're referring to are called let's systems. They're called local exchange trading systems.

And there are examples throughout history, of course, and at present all over the world. And communities are attempting to do this. But it's not the solution, by the way, because what they're creating is, and I hate to call it a currency. I mean, it is, but it's more an abstract asset than a currency, really, because in my, definition currencies have issuance and deletion. And a lot of these schemes, they don't have deletion. They only have issuance. They'll have a certain quantity. What they generally do, George, is if you create a currency locally, you know, like the Berkshire Bucks or, you know, Ithaca dollars and the Bristol dollars in the UK, they've got a lot of experiments with these local exchange

training systems. Germany had one, a famous one that were, I forget the name of it, something with the w but in the 30s or something and it was fantastic is it's successful what what it does is it like credit creation like borrowing money into existence that you know that america you know first started with um it it it allows for the the growth it allows for you to purchase materials and to begin that cycle of investment begin the uh you know play to play the game and so less trading systems are great for circularity are great for increasing the the velocity of money moving locally like essentially increasing everyone's incomes in a way right yeah but but if you're doing remember capitalism is a zero-sum game if your community is winning somebody else is losing and so

you can create a local exchange trading system but you're not going to change the game all you're doing is you're plugging in to the same game of creating an abstract asset and continuing to base value based on the exchange of assets. And that's a terrible way to distribute value by value. I'm using the word value here to point at true currency. Like, you know how famously money has multiple features, presumably multiple features, right? It's a unit of exchange.

It's a store of value, it's this and that. Currency is a unit of exchange. That's all it needs to be. All it has to be is like points in sports, right? And so as long as you can, it can be exchanged, that's all it needs to be able to do. So, I lost track for a second there. All right. Get me back on track.

We were talking about local currencies and leads. And then you brought up the point of deletion, which I think is where you're moving to. Like there is no deletion. There isn't. Well, even so, even if there were, there would be more creation. But it's still, again, it's still plugging into the same system of basing, distributing the value, the currency based on our exchange and trade rather than other things. So what creditism does, it says, hey, look, currency value, the unit of exchange, if you will,

can be distributed to people. Because we all need it, by the way. Why do we need a unit of exchange? Why do we need currency? Simple. because we have to use it as a choice-making tool of what to consume and use from the market. We all must consume things, food, materials for housing, clothes, you know, couches. So we need a currency, a unit of exchange, to exchange and to choose those things, right?

But so the question then becomes, well, is the stuff the same as the currency? if it is, then you're not really playing creditism. You're playing capitalism. You're still distributing the currency based on the capture and trade of the stuff. That's capitalism. And so what creditism is saying is let's stop that. Let's stop distributing currency based on trade and distributed under different conditions. And what are those conditions in creditism? Well, it's number one, humanist, unconditional income. Here, here's some money. that everyone gets the same amount every month. Here, you have currency. What does that do for you? Well, now you have a unit of exchange to choose what to consume from the market. Perfect. You've

solved poverty so far, right? Distributing the currency based on humanness, universal amount. And how much that is, what percentage of the amount of total amount of money or currency that you're distributing to individuals is, is irrelevant right now. Obviously, we need to do some modeling and simulations to optimize those flows. But whatever that is, as it's changed, it's still fair because it applies to everyone. And so you have a universal flow of currency that goes to every single person. Then instead of basing exchange based on capture, who can own the oil, who can own the trees, who can own the farm, you know, who can extract the gold and the diamonds and the fish, et cetera, et cetera, we say, no, no, who's actually

doing activity. Who's doing the labor? Who's teaching? Who's caretaking? Those activities then become credit creation. They are the ones who get the currency. And so now you're distributing currency for real human purposes rather than through competition of ownership and trade. And then the third piece actually kind of mimics in a way but better trade. We call it bonus. And it's complicated, but essentially it is, imagine it's like sports, but for corporations. So I always use bike manufacturers for some reason. You have bike manufacturers. They're making bikes, right? So this year, the bonus, like more money is going to go to those producers, those employees and that co-op who produce these other metrics that are set annually

by various either industries, communities, or sub-tiered councils. However those decisions are made, they're made. So, for example, the metrics could be this year. It's not going to be who can sell the most bikes. Who cares? How is that relevant, right? No. What's important will be who can sell the, excuse me,

who can reduce energy costs in making the bikes? Can you reduce your energy input? Because we still need to conserve energy because we're still using gas in oil and all the other non-renewables. Who can reduce labor? Who can make the bikes last longer? Who can make the bikes lighter? Who can, et cetera, et cetera.

So whatever the metrics are for the bonus, now we can incentivize production towards, you know, human purposes rather than who can sell the most, which is a game of power. Let's be honest. Trade is a game of power. You know, who can sell oil? You know, it's a game of power.

not Venezuela, America can. Saudi Arabia can, but not Venezuela. We won't allow them to. And so trade is bullshit. Determining, you know, value in currency distribution based on trade alone, it means that we're always going to be creating scarcity. We're going to be creating, you already know, all of the negative externalities of capitalism of making products that break, right?

It makes no sense to make a light bulb that lasts forever refrigerated, that last. a hundred years because the whole game is about selling and buying and so you you have to make it break you know and so anyway those are embedded in that logic of trade you remove that logic and you change the incentive structure and now you've got a distribution of currency that is fair infinite and now when you when you've given out this currency to people as a universal income as a more for their participation, which is human purpose-based, right? There's a reason we want people to do these things. We want people to play, to learn, to work.

And every time they do, those things, the person who did it, not the owner, not the guy who owned the thing, they don't know. Only the people, people get the money, not the corporations. There is no such ownership structure anymore. You don't need those complex, complex financialized schemes in creditism. And so, and then because nobody owns the oil, because nobody owns the fish, because nobody gotten rid of that ownership class, the money simply deletes when you use it to buy something. When you purchase a fish or a couch in the market, the money deletes.

Simple as that. Currency is infinite. Life is, is infinite. There's always going to be, you know, more people coming and going and being born and dying. And same thing with money. Money is always going to be created in. deleted. And it'll always be stable. You can never run out. We can always issue more. So the, the currency portion becomes separate, sort of, from the capture of the stuff. We don't have to,

you don't have to fight over who owns the building or a corporation or these fractionalized speculative assets known as stocks or, you know, or crypto or any other abstract asset anymore. because what are you even doing like how is that even valuable you know somebody I used to be a trader by the way successful and not you know I had some winning years and some losing years because it basically it's all of course is betting is gambling not that's what speculation is right you're you're hoping that this whatever thing that you purchased you're going to be able to sell it for more money but what are you actually producing in the world nothing what did you actually do nothing I didn't do anything the years I made a lot of money what did I actually do

in the world. You know, at the time, the justification that I was used, what I was led to believe was that I was offering liquidity to the market and therefore I was doing a good service to the system. So that's why I was being rewarded because of my liquidity. It's all bullshit. It's all nonsense. But what about like, first of up, I love the idea. I love the idea of passing go and getting your 200 bucks and incentivizing the people that are actually doing the work. But how do, like

again, like that doesn't come without a fight. Like the people that own the oil in Saudi Arabia, those guys will chop your hands off, man. Like you're not coming to get their oil. Or same thing with the banks. Like they're not going to let that stuff go quietly. Like I know, I know. Listen, this is part of the reason why, George,

I haven't been public and open about this kind of stuff is because I didn't really want to be on their radar. naturally but honestly we have no we have no choice but the way that we move forward the way that the transition happens of course is that the idea is that okay we we don't want to obviously these people are going to have we're going to have to decentralize wealth and power that's that's a given i mean that's that's unfortunate that's that's a reality um but we don't have to take everything everything from them right we don't have to make them equal to us we can what

Essentially, what creditism is saying is that, you know, make these people hold. Let them keep what they have, but the stuff that should never have been privately owned, like the oil, like, you know, farms or buildings or corporations, et cetera, they're going to cash out. So if you own stock, if you own Bitcoin, if you own whatever corporation you own, you're going to get the equivalent value of it in the new currency. And you're basically cash an out because that is no longer the game. if you own a hundred pieces of property that you're renting well guess what you don't live in them they're not actually yours you're not using them you're they're only a vehicle for you to collect

this rent therefore you have to cash out whatever value you have in those homes they're not yours anymore but here's the money that was that is yours you know that was yours in the last game we're going to buy it back and so what's this Douglas Harrison comes up. He says news flash. The United States was long ago conquered by corporate economic plutocrats and imperialist. I realize this sounds bad, but I honestly don't give a shit who you vote for in November. And the real power in this country also doesn't give a shit who you vote for. If you think that the unelected power of the private sector corporate industrial complex is going to entrust the American public with deciding how things are going to be run and is who are going to run things, you're not living in the real world. What are your thoughts on my friend Douglas Harrison? I mean, he's correct, obviously. I mean, we all know this, really, right? We know that the game of power, money, right?

The state exists for individual corporations and individuals to use it to benefit, right? Like we want the state to make laws and our rules to benefit my team. And so we're going to capture that process, that decision-making process, and who gets to decide who distributes the majority of the money in the game. Obviously, the country does. Look at the spending of our country. We spend, what? How much do we spend a year?

Three, four trillion a year? No, excuse me, I'm talking about five or six or seven trillion a year. That's a lot of money. And so, you know, that's if you can influence that spending, well, then to your industry, your corporation, why would you not do that? Everyone's going to do that. And that's the game that has devolved. And it's open corruption, obviously.

Totally. And so we're not going to, you know, the only way to overcome that, like I was suggesting, with creditism is that it has to be at the national level. It is a country that makes the rules on property, on corporations, and on currency. And so it is a country that can recapture and reclaim these assets if it wants to. But famously, just like every country, you know, that has attempted to reclaim their commons, like communism, has been met with massive. aggression and force and violence, but that's because they were localized. They weren't international at scale, and they didn't have an infinite, they didn't have, they didn't have creditism, basically.

They had the foundation of capitalism, but they were calling to something else. But they were wanting to play the same thing on a local level. And it's like playing the game of Monopoly, reshuffling the board, you know, and playing the game all over again. And, of course, it'll go into inequality all over again. And that's what the history has shown. Okay, so what's this guy saying? This is my friend Lila Lang.

Everybody check out the Lila Code. She's got some amazing work out there. Thank you to Douglas. Thank you to Lila for being here. She says, what structured constraint makes this model behave differently from previous regenerative or non-debt systems rather than reproducing the same governance and control dynamics? That's a good question. And I think it was just to what I was alluding to in a moment is that they're still playing the game of capitalism.

They're still distributing value based on the stuff, based on trade. And so even if they had like Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, all these other, you know, Cuba, et cetera, communist countries that maybe were distributing their currency under non-debt-based systems and doing regenerative practices. But the problem is that the global game, which many people that I know, we call Game A, is still based on the capture and exchange of the stuff. So even at a national level, the accounting that you're keeping with other countries, even though you have independent corporations, whatever, is based on trade. And so that win-lose dynamic of, you know, what is the value of your resources? It's like you can even have the most valuable resources in the world, like Venezuela,

in oil and yet still not be allowed to participate in play and sell at the correct value because of the political, you know, and violence of other players, of the dominant players like America. And so, yeah, so rather than reproducing, that's just it. The game A is all these other attempts of changing the game, changing the structure actually didn't change the foundation. They continue basing, you know, basing the foundation of the game based on extraction and trade of the stuff. And you're forced to do that on an international level. The USSR, internally, of course, no one cares. Like a family, no one cares how you distribute the money in your household. They don't care if you give the money equally or unequally to your children or your brothers or sisters.

No one gives a crap, right? But with the outside parties, with the other countries, you have no choice but to play capitalism. The Bank of International Settlements creates the rules for the banking structure, for them to be able to create the money in your country. And of course, your country has its own power of credit. And that's the design. And so as far as I'm concerned, no attempt of any kind internally is going to work until the entire structure is no long. game a until the entire world is no longer distributing currency value based on trade we're going to keep getting what we're getting we're always going to be fighting over the stuff if the stuff is the

is the is the is the source of the points then of course we're going to be fighting for that and that's the the stuff isn't so here's what i like to say like the copernican revolution we used to think that the earth was the center of the universe right right at present we think the stuff is the center of our economic universe. No, dude, it's life. It's us. We're at the center. So how do you put us in the center and not capital? Well, creditism. You credit individuals directly with currency. And now all a sudden, we're at the center of the economy. Life is the center of the economy. We're investing in people and our capacity to grow as individuals, to be able to consume, learn, teach, and produce and co-create and develop, that is going to build a real economy rather than

this extractive, top-down command control system that we have at present. And so that's what's happening here. We need to undertake a fundamental evolution of value in the world and recognizing that the value doesn't come from this stuff. We're the source of the value in the world. And so that's what creditism is aiming at and saying, hey, guys, we're focusing on the wrong stuff here. We're fighting for no reason over here when we can simply create the credit to incentivize and enable life instead of create the credit to give it to those who fucking,

you know, fighting to own the resources. What are we even doing here, man? Why are we even giving Saudi Arabia a billion dollars a day? For what? For what? So they can maintain power and be dictators? Come on, dude. Silly. This whole thing is just, it's just, I can't believe it's going this goddamn long. It's so true. Without a doubt, without a doubt. I see a contagious model if you can get a working model, even in a small area, even in a local community.

Like if you can create a thriving community with a brand new system, it'll catch on like fire. What are you guys doing? How did you do that? But how do you get that model going? What does that look like? I mean, the people that are coming in for the first people that are coming in as early investors. Those guys invest and they buy like a chunk of land and then you use the money from that land to give people money. Like, how does it work?

At the local level, George, I mean, a lot of people, there's some who claim that they figure that part out. I haven't really dug into their ideas and models yet. But I don't know that if it's possible, but if it is great, I'm all for it. Okay. So there will be opportunities to reclaim local commons to make local economies and local values. and local value flows, more efficient and optimal and maybe even stable while we're transitioning, but really the game, the structural, the current, there's a book I read called Law is Code.

And it's nations who make the laws of their territory. And so, unfortunately, it's at that large structure that this, it's at that large structure that this change can only truly be implemented. The only thing you can do at a local level is the let's. It's a local exchange training. We can do the same thing. Of course, we can create a currency when we're going to be the IU token can become a local exchange trading currency that, of course, expands beyond your local territory and includes

the entire world. Of course, you too can use it in your local community and it can become the dominant tool in your community. but it still doesn't change the game. The game can only be truly changed by changing the laws of your country, changing the laws of credit and debt of banking, and, of course, property relations and corporations.

If you don't do that, you structurally haven't changed anything. And so, unfortunately, the local towns and cities, they don't have that power. You know, they really don't. And so you can't, you can't escape As far as I can see right now, the path essentially is to attract the network, to have a local currency that is used within the network to essentially flow more value towards more regenerative and cooperative and recapturing some more of the commons and housing or whatever it needs to be, you know, energy systems, water, whatever the or the critical needs of that local community can be done. you know outside of the capitalist regime and so that's what we're trying to introduce with iu

that possibility of coordinating one another in using your time your skills and your existing monies and values to flow them in the different ways that you would have never done before because remember we're we're still playing capitalism so people are going to invest in their 401ks because they have to right like i need this money in the future and so i'm playing that game But all of a sudden, as we're building this alternative, and it becomes, and it grows, and more and more people are joining the network, and more and more of the activities are becoming, you know, oriented towards regeneration and capturing more local value, then we begin to change people's expectations and their willingness of how to invest, of where to invest their existing money. There's a lot of money in 401ks, in the stock market, in real estate, et cetera. A lot of that money could be, or some of it, at least, could be altered and directed into different avenues. And so, but at present, the majority of it is directed towards what?

Making more money. Because we have to. Because we need, it's the only way we can get money is by trade, is by like either working or trading and owning things. And so that's the game we're stuck with. But all of a sudden, creditism is saying, hey, guys, we can escape. that game and to the point where you won't have to worry about money but unfortunately it's going to require a level of like of kind of group building to change the political structure in not just in your country be ultimately the entire world but we can do it it's possible you know is it going to

be easy of course not but it the door is open for us the technological tools are actually finally here I know that I was saying this stuff like 10 years ago. I was like, oh, my God, look, hollow chain, we got this, we got blockchain, we got this. You know, we got digital, you know, democracy. Oh, my God, we can totally do it. But it really, it was in its infancy. And a lot of them were really still in development. But now the layers of the digital layers for coordination, for even recording the activity, the property and all that actually is good.

And it's ready. And so now the challenge is. you know can we have us do we have a organizing uh story uh and can we can we create can we create a planetary membership can we can we can we can we attract people to a network to build these tools so that they can be adopted and no one can't stop them and the answer is we can't but will we i don't see i think i think we can't i think it's inevitable on some level i think that it is Who does it? I don't know. Well, you know, if you look at the central banks trying to create CDBCs right now,

like they're already working on a new model because they realize the model they have is defunct. You know, and you look at El Salvador, like they've moved on to like the Bitcoin standard. You know, and it wouldn't take much for someone like Bahrain or like a small independent company to move to their own currency. You know, like something on the blockchain with smart contracts. I think it's totally plausible that you could have a country with a fundamentally way better economic system. But then again, you risk the power of, you know, the U.S. coming and saying, like, we're going to kill you. You can't have that. Like, maybe that's what's happening in Iran right now.

Like, they're not on the, they're not on the central bank system, you know. Carry this for a second. I got to turn off my camera, but carry that conversation for a moment. Go ahead. Oh, sure. So, okay, so you can do that. Any country can still do that, but you're still going to be playing import and export game. You're still going to be playing the game of differential values based on trade at the national level, even though that national level is the culmination of all of the activities of your businesses is still at national level.

So you can create additional currency. You can create your, but it doesn't matter if it's digital or not. I mean, let's be real, the U.S. dollar for all intents and purposes, it's been digital for a long time, right? it's it's uh your bank account is digital it's just a number you know the physical even though you can convert some of those digital numbers and the government will uh will will do the accounting for you um you know you can delete some of your digital numbers and and take dollars in the paper form it's all the same thing um so these c bDCs that the the the scary thing about cbc is that people are scared about is is overblown it's already happening like money's already digital

the only thing that these guys are trying to do on an international level with the CBDC is basically trying to make them the transactions quicker because at present you know bank clearing as it's called the transactions between banks right take some time to to be cleared and confirmed and so that's all they're trying to do they're trying to create a digital record keeping that can speed things up Now, the real fear that people have with CBDCs is the idea that these guys are going to somehow create a new international CBDC currency that would be centralized, right, and then replace all these other currencies and replace the dollars, the global reserve. And that's a real fear, by the way. That is a real possibility. But I don't see that happening personally because I don't think, remember, the people who are really running the world, the ones who are ultimately.

in control of this entire structure is the international banking cartel. And so if they create a CBDC is dangerous because it'll open the door towards understanding the banking too. And they don't want to, they want to keep their power of borrowing. Remember, I mentioned when I started this conversation early on, we have two types of corporations in the world, regular corporations and banks. regular corporations are playing the same games as banks, almost, meaning like the game is to buy and sell.

You have to buy something and sell it. You're trading, right? And so if a corporation, if the only money a corporation can have is of their own or through investors, they're limited. They're limited to how much they can buy and sell. You know, imagine if all of a sudden, like you're in the market, you know, in the medieval times, whatever, we're trading apples and oranges and socks or whatever in shirts in the market.

And all of a sudden, but somebody has the capacity to create double or 10 times more apples than anyone else. It's going to, you know, or money, rather, it's going to create some problems, right? And that's what banks are able to do. So corporations have these limitations. Bankings don't.

They are borrowing money into existence. So they have an advantageous position in this game of buying and selling and so they're not going to want to relinquish that the other part here george isn't that these guys are just selfish and greedy and and you know maleficent like that no the reality is is that they fundamentally actually don't know how to do it differently than the current debt credit structure they don't the reason is is because the fucking game is based on the stuff and so you have to have that and so debt actually helps to fuel growth and prosperity. So you need money creation. You need somebody to be able to borrow money

into existence, to expand and to crank that engine, if you will, of extraction and production and whatnot. And so money is that tool, unfortunately, and they just don't, they're devoid of ideas. And they don't have an incentive to want to change it, especially since they have these privileged positions of money creation. And for that reason, they have no interest. in even attempting to change it. And here we are stuck because of that freaking situation. Yeah, it's a great point. You know, I think it's Hanlon's razor that says don't attribute to malice,

what can be attributed to incompetence. And this idea, right? That's what it is here. Honestly, it really is. Like I said earlier about myself, too. I feel so dumb because we just don't ask the simple questions, man. People just aren't asking the most basic. questions at all. I love people who are like, oh, MMT, so stupid, you know, the modern monetary theory.

You know, these guys are just, you know, but, you know, like, okay, fine. They're wrong. You know, they're wrong in their prescriptions in describing, you know, the monetary system. I say, okay, great. So then you describe it. Where does it come from? Tell me. Like, if they're wrong, well, then what is the correct answer? And they won't tell you. And they can't. They're so sure that that's wrong, but they don't know what is right. It's like, come on, dude, where does it come from? Like, it's a simple question, who creates the money? Yeah.

But they won't talk about it. They won't answer that question because as soon as you do, it's obvious. It's like in the game of Monopoly, it's like saying, where does the money come from? Well, it comes from that pile right there. Yeah, right. How does it come from that pile? Well, it comes from the rules. The rules determine the distribution.

And so what are those rules? What are those rules at present? while the rules are present or is that the state gets to decide it gets to decide and spend as much and create as much but it's it's it's a it's we're stuck in this situation just from just what was that word it's just we're just we're just uh it's easy you know it's we're doing what we're doing forever um and it's it's not i mean it's not easy to change it's not easy it's not easy this shift that we're talking about from capitalism to creditism, from distributing value currency outside the sphere of trade, never been done before, never been done before.

And that's exactly what we would need to do. I'll give you an example. Imagine we move to Mars. What kind of incentive gain would you create on Mars? If we all move the million people to Mars, are you going to predistribute pieces of valuable resources of Mars to only a few people? Are you going to let a few people say, oh, guys, whatever we extract from this piece of territory we're here all these minerals and rocks and other stuff

are i'm going to get the money for that why why would you do that how does that make any sense but that's what we're doing here on earth with the reason why we're doing that here on earth is because the proximity you know like who's going to own the fish the trees well obviously the whoever can take it right it's bandit tree you know uh yeah i call it finders keepers you know it's my fish now it's mine dude if you want it well you have to give me something for it, but the reality is it's not your fish. You stole it from us. If we're considering ourselves as one, as the resources of the earth, as unowned, then

you change the trajectory of distribution of the value and currency. Now you can reward currency and value to the person who caught the fish because they caught the fish and they brought it to the market, but it's not their fish. That's the key. that's what creditism is saying creditism is saying look that person we don't need to give them money for the fish we only need to give them money for catching the fish for their late we can recognize their contribution without assigning them ownership of the thing itself and then making the sale of it subjective like in the market that's that's a game of power that's always going to be

winners and losers and mathematically if you do it that way if you distribute value based on trade and every trade is a win-lose proposition. Of course, it could be equal. But over time, the more transactions that are win-lose, what is equal? It yields inequality. It's math. It's structural.

And so that's what we're saying here. That's what creditism is saying is that we've built the foundation of our entire world on this game of capture and trade. And somehow we need to go back from the beginning, clean the slate and stop playing that game and recognize true value creation which is us and our activity not the fact that we happen to have the fish or the tree

sorry it wasn't never yours to begin with and it should have never been yours it's ours collectively because as soon as it's yours the incentives change if it's your fish and your tree and your oil well your incentives are to extract as much as goddamn possible because you win in that scenario Meanwhile, the rest of us may not want to do that. Maybe we shouldn't cut all the trees, hmm, you know.

Maybe we shouldn't eat all the fish. So this is what's happening in the world. We can't, there is no resource management because the incentives are to those whoever can extract it and trade it. And so you're never going to, you're never going to solve the environmental crisis, the inequality problem, or any fucking problem if we continue to play the game of capitalism. And so this is the, and this shift. has is you know is philosophical too like it's social like we have to educate people you know but but

not everyone has to know like not everyone has to be an expert no not everyone has to dedicate 10 years of their life to study economics and all these other things to understand this system we're close and i believe once we are able to produce short videos animated videos explaining what we're talking about you know creditism etc capitalism even um that's when we changed that's when that's when the conversation will change. That's when people's understanding will change. And we're close to that place, not there yet, but that's what we're launching now, us going public, is designed for us to be able to do that. And so if we can, you know, if we can produce this kind of content, we can shift this narrative pretty quickly. And of course, then others can add their expertise and their

bits and their storytelling and their flair and make it even easier, simpler to understand than what we ourselves are capable of doing. Yeah. It's so well said. Like, you know, and maybe it's not as far away as we think. Like, um, it could happen quick. Yeah. It wouldn't take, yeah.

Without decades. It wouldn't take that much just to shift some laws. Like, and I think with the next generation coming up, they see this. Like, it used, it used to be that the U.S. would take the tax money and fund technology. and then that technology would go to the people. It just got caught up in like DARPA, got caught up in these, okay, we're going to, you guys all fund the technology and then we'll spin it off to a private corporation

and then charge you for the money that we've already done. We've already created this service you guys paid for it, and now we're going to charge you again for it. But it wouldn't take that much to change company charters or like you look at some of these sovereign wealth funds where people are already getting money for what their company invest in and stuff. If that happened on a global scale,

if we just shifted from this belongs to these people to this belongs to us, everybody will get a portion of I think that's what Elon was trying to do with AI is like everybody gets a portion of this this is all of ours yeah but the problem there though George is the traditional mindset

is the portion that they're getting is the revenue streams the flows from the input from the and so that's you're still playing capitalism they're still stuck on this idea of value flowing based on exchange and trade what creditism is saying is no value

is just flowing because we exist values already automatically conferred people And it's actually deleting when there's exchange and trade. When somebody is consuming something from the market, that's when the currency deletes. The currency isn't created to give to the capture of the resources. It's given to people as a universal flow for their activity. For the person who catches the fish, here's money.

The person who brings the fish to market, here's money. But there's no owner of that fish who's also collecting money for having done nothing. Why are we giving distributing currency? value to somebody who's actually not to be honest not only have they not done anything usually they actually do negative things right they would have sabotaged the market in some way or another so that they can maximize their profit which has nothing to do with the value creation or increasing the quantity or the quality or any of those other real metrics and real economics none of it can be accounted for and can be incentivized in the game of capitalism.

So Musk is, no offense, but obviously he hasn't thought about these things. I know that, so, okay, no offense to him, I'm not trying to downgrade his intellect or anything like that. But here's what I'm trying to say. Look, I was a, I don't know anyone. I've never met anyone in my real life who is investigated and who is, dedicate their lives to finance, right? But that meant almost nothing in terms of my economic education. It was not economics.

Finance is only one branch of economics. Economics has to do with life, labor, and the resources, too, not just the money, not just the abstract stuff. And so that's the thing. Just because Musk has a lot of money, it doesn't mean he understands economics. That's true. He doesn't. And so they're trapped in thinking that, hey, the way to get money to people is if we make them owners, like co-ops, right?

If we share ownership, but you see, you're still distributing money based on ownership, based on owning what? Owning the subjective value of the thing that you own in market for trade. You're still distributing value based on trade. And it's not a fair game, basically. Trade will never be fair because the prices are subjected. It's based on who's more powerful in that exchange. Who needs it more? And unfortunately, dude, we all need it.

Like, you can't live without food. You can't live without health care. So, of course, you're going to be willing to trade whatever it takes to save your life. That's insane. And so you're in a losing position, my friend. And so that's the game we want to play. That's stupid. You can lose every, you know, you need to save your life.

You need this particular medicine. And because they legally command this marketing, control that thing. And, you know, they're going to say, hey, we're going to take whatever we can from you. That's not fair. That makes no sense. You've worked your entire life to build a nest. They give hundreds of thousands or whatever. And all of a sudden, you get one medical illness in the United States and without insurance and you're screwed.

Why? It makes no sense. So anyway, so that's basically the fundamental problem is that this notion of distribution of value based on trade in crypto by itself doesn't solve that. It's just entering into that universe and creating another abstract asset that is playing into this game of trade. It's not, it isn't ever going to produce an alternative. And it's certainly not an alternative currency. Dude, stop it. No, it's like I always tell people in crypto and Bitcoin, it's, it's, it's, you know, it's, like I always tell people in crypto and Bitcoin,

if the dollar didn't exist, what would be the price of Bitcoin? No, for real. Like, it's price is priced in dollars, right? Right, right. It's exchangeable for a certain quantity of another currency, of actual currency, the dollar. So if the dollar didn't exist, then what would be its price? Like, where would you be pricing in it? Another reserve currency, perhaps, you know, but.

But it, but not, you know, like, but what? But it can't be pricing itself. The Bitcoin, obviously one Bitcoin is always one Bitcoin. Just like $1 is always $1. But what is this exchange value relative to other assets? Remember, it's an asset. And so what is this exchange value? If it's not, if the dollar doesn't exist, if crypto claims to be this, you know,

Bitcoin claims to be this new alternative currency, then what would it be priced? What would his value be? Two donkeys? Well, donkeys are cheap. You know what I'm saying? It's abstract. It's layers and layers and layers of abstraction. Again, these are these are just these are exchangeable assets is what they are right.

And in the form of Bitcoin, it's a it's an abstract asset. That's all. You know, stocks are themselves also abstract assets. They're fractional. assets, fractional shares. But in the, so if you and I had a, if Musk had never, Tesla had never gone public, Alon Musk, a regular corporation, you know, remember they have investors, they have their own capital, they're dependent on profit.

If they don't make profit, then they have to get more money from somewhere else. They have to raise more money. They get to sell more of their company. Musk would have to sell more of Tesla to other people so they can take their money, so he can continue running that business. And at some point, he's going to have to make a profit because he'll run out of shares to sell for more money. Right?

But guess what? That's what Tesla did. Tesla, but what they did instead is they go public. What does that mean? So he's selling the shares to be into a casino, into a tradable casino where now the shares aren't, worth what the company's actually making, but they're worth whatever, they're value based on the future revenue stream with the company. So in Tesla's case, it's insane. At present,

Tesla has a PE price to earnings ratio of 343. What that means is that Tesla is trading at one second one second one second george yeah no worries okay so tesla is trading at 340 p e that means that tesla would have to earn the same amount of money they earned last year in profit which is whatever billions now for the the next 343 years, that's the value. So Alon Musk is able to pretend to have created value 343 times what in reality his company Ashley did. That's why he's worth $700 billion, you know, because he's able to collect that value today as if he's already produced it. But of course, he has, Tesla, the company hasn't. To date, if there was a private company, Musk would barely be a billionaire. The company, as a matter of fact, was losing money all the way into like 2020 or something,

2002 or something like that. That was the first time they actually made a profit. Up until that point, they've been burning through money and losing money. And if it weren't for this stock market casino, him being able to sell his shares and then those being able to be pumped up in value to, you know, based on the future revenue streams, he wouldn't he wouldn't be a regular business person is is limited to their income their incomes are in there are limited to their actual real profit now not in the future but of but of sudden you create this fractional structure and allow them to be traded and and speculated on you know then what the value of that can easily be pumped up by just creating more currency and that's exactly what's happening in the world more currency is creating a pump up more of these values. Where does the currency go? When you and I get money and we have savings, what do we do with the money? We don't invest in dollars. Nobody puts their money in their

savings account and says, that's my investment vehicle. Of course not. You invest in things that make more money. You invest in stocks, bonds, real estate, you buy these assets. And because you have to buy them, right, because if you don't, you will certainly lose to inflation, it ends up pumping the value of these things. So it's no wonder the stock markets at, you know, of these kind of record highs and, and so this is what's happening here, man. The whole scheme is complex, complicated, and most people don't understand it.

But reality is that no one, especially even in capitalism, like Musk shouldn't have, you know, the ability to pretend his companies earn 300 years into the future. That's absurd. It's absurd, dude. It's just, come on, silly. Yeah. No other corporation can do that except for public companies.

That's stupid. So that's basically what's happening in the world. We have this stupid, financialized scheme, and we just can't break out of it, man. I think what creditism does, at least the way I'm seeing it, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it sort of incentivizes the idea that relationships are the real currency and that there's value in those relationships. ships you got it it's us our coordinated activity is the source of value right right without us let's be real without us and doing things none of owners are doing shit without us actually doing all of the

extracting production shipping you know maintaining you know upgrading and repairing that's that all of that that's that's what should get value not person who's who's who's selling and buying. That part of it, the exchange is necessary. Obviously, you know, sometimes you're going to be producing things that aren't for you. Sometimes you're going to be producing growing more tomatoes than you can consume, right? And so others will have to buy those things. But why, you know, why do we have to allow you to command more value in that exchange process by owning the tomato. You don't need to. You don't. We don't have to do that anymore. And so this fundament, this shift in the source of value in the world is our future economic

evolution. Now, look, a lot of the design constraints and the value flows that we're now proposing inside what we're calling creditism aren't like fixed, right? We're still exploring the territory. We may not have everything right. we recognize that we're not stupid we're not arrogant um however we i know for certain that if we're going to get out of you know of global chaos and war this shift of economic uh excuse me of value creation is is this is the key and so what the actual mechanics and uh percentages are of that value flow is is going to be is going to be part of the new game and the new conversation and will always be evolving and shifting a little

bit, but that the fact that court, that our activity is the foundation of the credit creation of currency is definitely the future. And if it isn't, then we don't have a future. Then we're going to definitely have chaos. We're going to kill ourselves. We're going to have ecological problems. We're going to have social problems. You know, I mean, it's already beginning. Yeah, it is. It's already beginning. It's already here. We live in a world full of lies. And it's even worse now. We have now with, you know, AI and, you know, and bots and all of the other fake people.

And how can you make sense of the world? You know, you can't. If we don't transition, like, we need to transition like very quickly. Like I said, in years, not decades. If we don't do this soon, it's not going to be good. The longer we wait, the worse it will be coming. We've already waited too long. We have.

But I think, like, what you're working on now, and there's a lot of people out there, like Janus Veras Fawkes has some great ideas. I think that you have some great ideas. Ours are better. I respect Yianus. He's great. But, again, he's doing a lot of good, but he has. Obviously, he's intensely studied economics, but he hasn't discovered this fundamental shift in value yet, like what we're talking about with creditism.

He's still stuck with the old thinking of it. Some of it he does. He has, you know, the universal, you know, unconditional income. He's a big proponent of that. And that's easy. That's basic. That's actually a good starting point for any country to move towards creditism. you can begin right away with an unconditional income.

The challenge of doing an unconditional income in the current system, of course, is that it does create inflation because the game is constantly, of what? You're creating currency to extract resources to build up more and more assets and exchange them. And so you're just constantly pumping up just to produce more exchangeable assets.

And Janus hasn't yet quite discovered that piece of it. But when he does, he'll see the logic. And so I'm actually really excited at one point in the future, hopefully next year, that we get an opportunity to talk about some of this stuff, introduce these concepts to Janus. And I'm convinced that if we end up getting, if we can get through that guy and we will, and he comes on board, man, we can really, we can really, you know, drive this conversation into a higher gear. And so that's, that's our goal. Our goal is to get the attention of some of these folks begin these conversations. So they can, too, can begin to kind of see this design structure and either help us build it or improve it. Well, I think we're doing it today, my friend.

And I know that this is one of the many conversations we're going to have and looking forward to seeing all the things that come out of there. But, Remsey, let's say somebody's watching right now and they want to reach out to you. Where can they find you? What do you have coming up and what are you excited about? So they can find me online through our website, of course. My email's on there. My face is on there. You can click on there.

I'm on LinkedIn. I'm on Facebook. I'm all over the place. So it's easy to find me. That's easy. But what we're, again, what we're working on right now is, you know, we're finally going public with this stuff. So if they can follow our substack. That will be launched tomorrow.

They can follow our YouTube, which will be launched next month. If they can go to our website tomorrow when we launch the update and they can then either donate to the project and join that the Patreon pool, for the 1% of the IU, they can sign up to be partners or they can join the early invite list so that when we do launch the application, they can be among the earliest members to get invited to the network. But that's all you can do at this moment. Of course, I'm also open to anyone out there who has some ideas or wants to discuss some of these things personally. This is what I've been doing for the past 10 years is talking about this kind of stuff and trying to understand it better and developing. I mean, that's how we developed it to this, to the degree that we have is through conversations with others, you know.

And so, yeah, anyone is, I'm open. Anyone is welcome to reach out to, listen, we're a small team right now, but even our team is open. We're going to be looking to expand our team as well. So if there's other people out there who have, who can contribute more than, you know, money or whatever, and they want to be part of our team, that's also a possibility. So as we move forward, that will expand as well. So we're looking to do all that. Hopefully, we anticipate the app launching, like I said, in about a couple months, and we anticipate the app opening up to the open to the general public six months after that approximately.

It depends on the growth. It depends on an hour, readiness, and our, you know. But there's a lot of pieces to this, Georgia. It's not just like, it's not just me. It's not just coming planet who's launching IU. It's really, remember, it's an open, membership architecture. So the key to the structure is to not only to attract as many people from the world, but attract as many other regenerative projects so that what we're trying to

flow value isn't to us and our foundation necessarily. Obviously, we need some support so we can produce the education and the media content, but in terms of the real value flows of during this transition of investing into regenerative projects, that's our main focus, is building this network of partners so that they can be supported so that they can do their piece because their stuff is real world now our stuff is theoretical and future and it's going to take more time their stuff is active and you know in recapturing the commons today and so that's kind of our focus it's kind of a dual focus there so there's a lot that people can do there's a lot that this can be a big tent you know it's a big it's a planetary movement essentially

Yeah, it takes all of us. If you're listening to me right now, commonplanet.org, if you're watching the program, you can scan the QR code at the bottom right down there. It'll take you to the website. You can reach out to Remsey yourself. And Remsey, hang on briefly afterwards, but to everybody else within the sound of my voice, to yahim. Yahim, what's up?

Big dogs. Hope to see you, Douglas. Awesome comments today, my friend. Thank you for dropping some truth bombs out there. Lila and Douglas. Thank you all, Desiree, and Jacob. Thank you guys all for hanging out with us today. I hope you guys all have a beautiful day.

and that's all we got. Aloha.