Writing about sustainability, clarifying my position on the Go Green Initiative to Heather, and seeing Ron’s comment about the unworthy topics of agriculture and population density have got me thinking about what’s at the core of this “sustainability” thing.

I’ve been reading Douglas Rushkoff’s fascinating and rich Life, Inc. In one section (quoted below) he talks about about why currency puts communities at a disadvantage. He connects Wal-mart, currency inequalities, barter and community expertise as a lower-valued commodity, all into a single talking point whereas these topics have stood independently in many of my recent discussions around town.

All of the advantages and efficiencies of local commerce are neutralized when we are required to use long- distance, antitransactional currency for local exchange between people. We must earn the currency from one corporation that has borrowed from the central bank in order to pay another corporation for a product it has purchased from yet another. We don’t have an easy way to get the very same product from the guy down the street who knows how to make it better and get it to us ultimately more efficiently than the factory in Asia.

But the notion of purchasing things with some kind of local currency system, bartering for them with members of our local community, or–worst of all–accepting favors in exchange for other ones feels messy and confusing to us. Besides, Wal- Mart is a big company with lots of insurance and presumably some deep pockets we could sue if something goes wrong. When favors replace dollars, who is responsible for what? Too many of us would rather hire a professional rug cleaner, nanny, or taxi than borrow a steamer from a neighbor (what if we break it?), do a babysitting exchange (do we really like them?), or join a carpool (every day? Ugh). Social obligations are less defined than financial ones.

Rushkoff’s ideas have relevance in Fairfield’s long(er)-term sustainability model. I guess it’s largely irrelevant whether ideas of barter, local commodities, and local solutions are sanctioned by the local gov’t (tho’ that  would be helpful). I’m more interested in seeing how this community can take over the ideas themselves.

Rushkoff talks about “comfort dollars” in the video linked above (and at his site). I wonder if we can’t implement something similar in Fairfield (I know there are many people in town discussing this regularly), and what it might take to go into a sustainable currency model. I propose we call them Fair Bucks.

Ron, over at Growing Freedom has an interesting post with videos about the topic of currency, fiat and worth. I’m not in agreement with much of the videos (I don’t have a problem with fiat since it’s as disingenuous as valuing gold. I’d much rather have a protein or calorie-based standard for currency valuation, but that would introduce it’s own set of problems), but I like the fact that these discussions are ongoing in Fairfield.

Anyway one thing’s for sure. If we start bartering for things I’m *not* carpooling with y’all every day (ugh!) . But I’m happy to take your Fair Bucks. (Now I’m starting to wonder if the idea of Vedic City’s currency is not that crazy after all!)