Why OM? (Open money)

You may be wondering, “Why is he creating the OM system and not doing something else?”

To begin with, I deduced for myself a seemingly simple pattern that any occupation in itself generates itself, until, for one reason or another, interest is not lost.

I will illustrate with the example of wars. Suppose country N has an interest in capturing a particular territory. After that, the population of country K may be interested in taking it back. From this it follows that the war, as a process, can continue in an endless series of conflicts, until one of the parties, due to heavy losses, loses interest in this territory. Or, for example, if someone has built a large building, then someone will probably have an interest in building something larger, etc. This principle, can be found in a more popular expression, if you do the same thing, then not one should hope for a different result.

Thus, approaching the issue of creating a new structure of the economy, we can assume that for significant changes to be done something else, completely new. And even minor, but real successes of this undertaking, can open up the possibility of expanding it to a global scale.

A fairly simple concept, but it fully justifies my categorical attitude to the state of society. Accordingly, in which I condemn both economic growth (aka success), since it naturally leads to environmental degradation, and the crisis, it worsens the immediate quality of human life, slows down the development of society. Therefore, realpolitik is a secondary issue for me, since it is only a consequence of the existing economic system. Simply put, if the leaders of the tribes are fighting over who has the right to kill more mammoths, reinforcing their right with the intention to share the prey more fairly, I propose to stop killing them, and if they do, then only with an understanding of all future environmental consequences.

Ideology

I perceive various kinds of ideologies and political orientations rather as forms of psychological self-expression. So people, depending on their character, but more often on circumstances, tend to have one or another political position. A lot depends on the character. For example, whether a person tends to work on his own or in a team.

However, in terms of changes for the better, for many people it is already quite clear that they lie not in the sphere of ideologies, but as the material itself, that is, a person, or rather this or that human culture, which developed, among other things, under the influence of ideologies. . Also, ideology is important as a vector, and to organize useful and correct interactions, you always need a useful and correct goal, a certain plan. The description of which is the subject of most of my articles on the topic of OM.

To determine this useful and correct goal, I sifted out a lot of everything that, in my opinion, is not relevant, that is, is secondary to the main one. What is the economic or, more simply, the economic activity of a person, that is, the relationship of a person with the environment and personal relationships between people, including the relationship of a man and a woman, and later all the rest.

I don’t talk about these relationships themselves, but nevertheless, all my proposals in the economic sphere are somehow tied to my understanding of the nature of the family, in general, how a person should live in order to survive, that is, some of my inner ethical understanding of the nature of human relationships and obligations of people to each other so that they remain people. Speaking of a certain ideology for people, you always somehow assume to change their behavior for the better, i.e. what is more in line with what you consider human behavior.

So, if we talk about my ideology, then this is an ideology, if I can say so figuratively, of common sense, in which I believe that everything that is healthy for a person and his surrounding nature is a blessing, that is, they allow them to survive on our planet as a whole without any outside help.

Most likely, I have traditional family values ​​in common with the reader, in the sense that the family consists of one husband and wife, someone will call them Christian, and yet for me they correspond to some image of a healthy and happy society. The happiness of the majority in this sense would rather be an indicator that the society is healthy. And I do not pretend to make people happy, rather, it is an indirect sign that everything is going in the right direction.

Regarding such an issue as polygamy, I will assume that most women will be unhappy in marriage being 2nd and 3rd wives, so I concluded that society, that is, its culture, will not develop in the right direction, that is, healthy for me. It is clear that I judge the happiness of other people by myself, by my own experience. If your experience tells you otherwise, one way or another, the free choice of people in a more or less economically secure position is the most important condition. Relatively speaking, first you need to organize the economy in such a way that people generally have such an opportunity to create ordinary families, and only then try to somehow influence them so that they remain within some of their usual limits.

It makes no sense to enumerate all my ethical attitudes, those that I consider correct or desirable. And yet, most of my articles, as well as the proposal of any politician and economist who have their own idea of ​​the structure of society, will come from his internal moral principles, which he proposes in one or another of his decisions.

Economic ideology.

And yet, no, even the best relationship is impossible without external activity, so the economy, in its basic form, comes first for me. My ideology is primarily of an economic nature, and it begins with the nature of what money is, in particular, it is the constantly arising obligations of people to each other and how to organize them in the best way.

So, having found the best solution for how we can agree on obligations to each other, and having critically analyzed most of the current forms of obligations known to me, in particular, monetary or, for example, directive planned, as was the case in the Soviet countries. I came to the conclusion that why not implement this solution, since it is so obvious and useful, at least for me, and for you and many people who know about it.

You say “NO” There are many good and fair ideas, many who offer to make life better.” And however, most of these ideas struggle with consequences, they can only share what someone has, and they also try to change behavior with exhortations or even threats. But it doesn’t work like that, a person’s behavior will not change because of the environment in which he exists, and the environment is built on already existing, one might say, unfair monetary agreements. In a figurative sense, as long as money itself, as a way of organizing society, is our unquestioned monarch, it makes no sense to talk about justice in their use, everything will ultimately be decided by this monarch, so that he himself remains in power.

Of course, the monarchy of money is much more reasonable and better than the usual or dictatorial power, or the power of the bureaucracy. And yet it is obvious to me that for the sake of the progress and survival of mankind, even this last power must fall and submit to the interests of all mankind.