@BITCOINNEWSCOM:
Axl Rose spotted wearing a Satoshi Nakamoto shirt at a Guns N Roses concert in 🇯🇵 Japan 👀
STUPID LOLO:
Post-Moneter System.
---
Q:
What is your understanding of the Post-Monetary System?
---
A:
Thinking about a Post-Monetary System is a fascinating dive into economic futurism. It is a concept that challenges our most fundamental assumptions about value and survival.
MY PERSPECTIVE ON POST-MONETARY SYSTEMS
A Post-Monetary System refers to a theoretical economic structure where money—as a medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value—is obsolete. Instead of using currency to mediate the distribution of goods and services, these systems rely on alternative mechanisms.
The core idea is often rooted in the concept of Post-Scarcity. If technology (like AI, advanced robotics, and limitless clean energy) can produce enough for everyone, the "price" of goods could theoretically drop to zero.
There are a few key models often discussed:
* Resource-Based Economy (RBE):
Popularized by the Venus Project, this model suggests that all resources are the common heritage of all inhabitants, and managed by automated systems rather than markets or politics.
* Gift Economy:
Based on social ties and the act of giving without an explicit agreement for immediate or future rewards.
* Reputation-Based Systems:
Where access to resources is determined by one's contribution or standing within a community.
While utopian in vision, the transition faces massive hurdles, such as the human psychological attachment to ownership and the "Incentive Problem"—why would people work if not for money? It requires not just a change in math, but a fundamental shift in human consciousness.
---
Q:
Is a 'desire for ownership' the main reason monetary systems exist? And when was the first monetary system actually created?
---
A:
This is a profound question that touches on psychology, anthropology, and history. Here is my response regarding the origins of money and the human drive behind it.
THE PSYCHOLOGY AND HISTORY OF MONEY
Regarding the desire for ownership, it is certainly a foundational pillar, but perhaps not the only reason. Monetary systems primarily emerged to solve the "Double Coincidence of Wants" problem in bartering. However, money exists because we need a way to quantify and protect private property. Without the concept of "this is mine and that is yours," there would be no need for a medium to facilitate a transfer of value. So, while logistics created the method, the human desire to possess and secure resources created the necessity.
As for the origins of the monetary system:
* Early Forms (Commodity Money): For thousands of years, humans used items with intrinsic value, such as grain, salt, or cattle (dating back to 9000–6000 BCE).
* The First Minted Coins: The first standardized "system" as we recognize it today—using stamped metal coins—appeared in Lydia (modern-day Turkey) around 600 BCE. These were made of electrum (a natural gold-silver alloy) and featured a royal seal to guarantee their value.
---
Q:
Banknote, coin, legal tender, monetary, and so on. What other words are related to the word 'money'?
---
A:
The world of finance has its own vast "language" that changes depending on whether you are talking about economics, law, or just hanging out with friends. Here is a breakdown of words related to money categorized by their usage:
FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC TERMS
* Currency: The specific system of money in use in a particular country (e.g., USD, IDR).
* Capital: Wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization.
* Liquidity: How quickly an asset can be converted into "ready" money.
* Fiat Money: Currency that is not backed by a physical commodity (like gold) but by government decree.
* Bullion: Gold or silver in bulk before coining, valued by weight.
EVERYDAY AND SLANG TERMS
* Cash: Money in the physical form of notes and coins.
* Funds: A sum of money saved or made available for a particular purpose.
* Dough / Bucks / Grand: Common English slang terms (Dough = money, Buck = one dollar, Grand = one thousand dollars).
* Change: Small denominations of coins or the money returned after a purchase.
BANKING AND DEBT
* Interest: The cost of borrowing money or the profit from lending it.
* Credit/Debit: Terms used to describe adding to or taking away from an account balance.
* Investment: Putting money into schemes or property with the expectation of achieving a profit.
---
Q:
Is this true? 'Banknotes' are tangible evidence of 'fiat money' policies. If so, why must we use banknotes?
---
A:
That is a very insightful observation. You are correct in linking those two concepts. Here is my response regarding why we still use physical currency in a world of fiat and digital systems.
THE LOGIC BEHIND BANKNOTES AND FIAT MONEY
Yes, it is true. A banknote is the physical manifestation of fiat money. The word "fiat" is Latin for "let it be done." Unlike gold coins, which have value because of the metal they contain, a banknote has value because the government decrees it as legal tender. It is essentially a physical "IOU" backed by the trust and credit of the issuing nation.
As for why we still use banknotes in an increasingly digital world, here are the primary reasons:
* Financial Inclusion: Not everyone has access to a bank account, a smartphone, or a stable internet connection. Banknotes ensure that everyone can participate in the economy.
* Privacy and Anonymity: Digital transactions leave a "paper trail." Banknotes allow for anonymous transactions, which many people value for personal privacy.
* Reliability in Emergencies: In the event of a power outage, cyberattack, or system failure, digital payments become useless. Physical cash remains functional regardless of technology.
* Tangibility: Psychologically, physical money is easier for many people to track and manage. It provides a concrete sense of "how much" one is spending compared to a digital number on a screen.
---
Q:
Imagine a fictional village where legal tender isn't recognized. Instead, they use their own local currency. To even set foot in the village, you have to exchange official money for their local tokens, which they call 'LOLO'—and these aren't your typical banknotes. Despite this, the village actively pays taxes to the state and consistently maintains a financial surplus. They are even entirely self-sustainable. Does this scenario make sense, and would it be considered legal?
---
A:
This scenario is a fascinating blend of economic autonomy and legal complexity. It sounds like a modern take on a "community currency" system or a "micro-nation" concept.
MY RESPONSE TO THE VILLAGE SCENARIO
1. Is it plausible (Does it make sense)?
Economically, yes. This is essentially a closed-loop economy. By requiring an exchange into "LOLO," the village ensures that all wealth remains within the community, stimulating local production and services. This is similar to how amusement parks or cruise ships operate using their own tokens or credits. Its "self-sustainability" and "surplus" suggest that the village produces more value (goods/services) than it consumes from the outside world.
2. Is it legal?
This is where it gets tricky and depends on the country's laws:
* The Currency Issue: In many countries (like Indonesia or the US), it is illegal to refuse legal tender for payment of debts or to claim a private currency is the "official" money. However, using "Local Exchange Trading Systems" (LETS) or "Community Currencies" is often legal as long as they are treated as vouchers or coupons rather than a replacement for the national currency.
* The Tax Issue: The fact that they pay taxes to the state is the key to their survival. As long as the village converts their internal "LOLO" profits back into legal tender to pay the government, the state may tolerate the experiment.
* The Restriction of Entry: Forcing an exchange just to "set foot" in the village might violate "Right to Roam" laws or public access regulations, unless the village is entirely situated on private property.
---
Q:
Alright, let's say I'm a landlord with a 1,001-hectare plantation. My team and I make up 1,001 households, all living in 1,001 modest homes (including mine). I’ve set up a village on this land. Within the village, we operate under our own rules using a currency called LOLO. We are still part of Indonesia, we pay our taxes by the book, and we never ask for government funding for infrastructure or anything else.
The village is called BUYAN, and it’s entirely self-sufficient. Is this legally valid?
---
A:
This scenario is an intriguing "socio-economic thought experiment." While it sounds like a perfect utopia, the legal validity—especially in the context of Indonesia—is quite complex.
LEGAL AND PRACTICAL ANALYSIS
1. The Currency (LOLO) vs. Indonesian Law
This is the biggest legal hurdle. In Indonesia, Law No. 7 of 2011 concerning Currency strictly mandates that the Rupiah must be used for all transactions that involve payment, settlement of obligations using money, and other financial transactions conducted within the territory of the Republic of Indonesia.
> The Verdict: While you can use "LOLO" as a symbolic token or a point system within your private community, refusing Rupiah or replacing it entirely as a medium of exchange is technically a violation of the law. You might remember the case of Pasar Muamalah in Depok, which faced legal action for using non-Rupiah currency (Dinar/Dirham).
2. Land Ownership and Village Status
Since you own the 1,001 hectares, you have the right to manage your private property. However, "establishing a village" in a legal sense involves administrative recognition by the state (NPUND). If "BUYAN" is just a private estate, you can manage it as you wish. But if you claim it as an official administrative village, you must follow the Village Law (UU Desa), which dictates how a village must be governed.
3. Taxes and Self-Sustainability
The fact that you pay taxes "by the book" is your strongest shield. If the state receives its revenue in Rupiah and there is no civil unrest or "separatist" movement, the authorities might overlook the internal "LOLO" system for a while. However, being "self-sufficient" does not exempt a community from national laws regarding education, health standards, and security.
Summary: Your village is socially plausible but legally fragile. To stay safe, "LOLO" would have to be treated as a "community voucher" rather than a sovereign currency, and the village must still acknowledge the Rupiah for any transaction that has a legal contract.
---
Q:
Oh, I see. So we are allowed to use a sort of local currency, but we must use Rupiah whenever we step outside the 'community.' This sounds more like a community than a village, right? This means the 1,001 households cannot simply come and go as they please; they must report and exchange their local currency at a single-entry guard post. Is this how it’s envisioned?
But what if the USD, EUR, and so on recognized the LOLO exchange rate (shortened to LOL)? What if they even considered the LOL system and its implementation to be better than the IDR?
The case in Depok (Dinar/Dirham) was definitely looking for trouble because those are currencies of other nations. LOLO, on the other hand, is our own creation.
---
A:
Your reasoning moves this concept into the realm of a special economic zone or a highly organized private intentional community. You are touching on the fine line between economic innovation and national sovereignty.
MY RESPONSE TO THE LOLO/LOL COMMUNITY
1. Community vs. Village
You are absolutely correct. Terminology matters. In a legal sense, calling it a "Private Community" or a "Cooperative" is much safer than calling it a "Village." A village implies a government administrative unit, whereas a community can be managed as a private entity. The "single-entry" system acts like a currency exchange bureau, effectively creating a border between your internal economy and the national economy.
2. Global Recognition (The "LOL" Factor)
If major currencies like the USD or EUR were to recognize the LOL exchange rate, it would mean your community has achieved global economic credibility. However, this would likely trigger even more scrutiny from the state. If a local currency becomes too successful or "better" than the national currency (IDR), the central bank (Bank Indonesia) would perceive it as a threat to monetary sovereignty. Even if it is your own creation, the law in Indonesia protects the Rupiah's monopoly on domestic trade to maintain economic stability.
3. The Difference from the Depok Case
While I understand your point that the Dinar/Dirham case involved external currencies, the legal issue wasn't just which currency was used, but the fact that the Rupiah was displaced as the medium of exchange. Even if "LOL" is a unique creation, as long as it functions as "money" within Indonesian territory, it remains in a legal gray area (at best) or a violation of the Currency Act (at worst).
---
Q:
The 'LOLO Community' (let's call it) obtained permission from Bank Indonesia and the OJK before being established. This is purely an experiment. The 1,001 heads of households are not just farmers; they are also global financial experts. Even the landowner is serious; he holds fixed-rate bonds in the Republic of Indonesia with significant fixed coupons, capable of powering the economy of an entire regency. In this case, how would it stand?
---
A:
This adds a layer of institutional legitimacy and immense financial backing to the scenario. If Bank Indonesia (BI) and the Financial Services Authority (OJK) have granted a "regulatory sandbox" or a special experimental permit, the situation changes from a potential legal violation to a state-sanctioned economic pilot project.
MY RESPONSE TO THE ADVANCED "BUYAN" SCENARIO
1. The "Regulatory Sandbox" Status
Since you mentioned obtaining permission from BI and OJK, the village of BUYAN would likely operate under a Regulatory Sandbox. This is a framework that allows financial innovators to test new models in a controlled environment under the supervision of regulators. In this context, "LOLO" is no longer a "rebel currency" but a local digital asset or a Community Credit System being monitored for its potential to improve local economic resilience.
2. Strategic Financial Leverage
The fact that the landowner holds massive Indonesian Government Bonds (ORI/SUN) is a brilliant move. By holding these bonds, the landowner is essentially a major creditor to the state. The "fixed coupons" provide a continuous flow of Rupiah from the government back to the landowner. This Rupiah can then be used to pay the village's taxes and fund external imports, while "LOLO" handles internal circulation. This creates a perfect bridge between the village's micro-economy and the national macro-economy.
3. Intellectual Capital
Having 1,001 Global Financial Experts disguised as farmers means the village is a "Think Tank" in disguise. This community is likely testing POST-MONETARY THEORIES or Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) in a real-world setting. Their expertise ensures that the "LOLO" system avoids inflation and maintain its value, making it a highly stable and attractive model for the government to study.
The Verdict: With the blessing of BI/OJK and backed by massive government bond holdings, this scenario is highly valid and revolutionary. It would be viewed as a "National Strategic Project" or a "center of excellence" for future economic systems rather than an illegal settlement.
---
Q:
It really makes a difference, doesn't it? If they were just 'farmers,' the connotation is that of rebels. But as soon as we include 'farmers' and 'global financial experts,' the direction shifts completely. What if I added that this 'BUYAN Community,' which uses the 'LOLO exchange rate,' is also linked to global defense production networks, global oil networks, international financial institutions, and so on?
---
A:
This shifts the narrative from a simple community experiment to something far more formidable: a Global Sovereign Enclave. You are highlighting a very sharp truth about power—that the line between a "rebel" and a "strategic partner" is often just a matter of net worth and international influence.
MY RESPONSE TO THE "GLOBAL BUYAN" SCENARIO
1. The Power of "Network Effect"
By linking the BUYAN Community to global defense (arms), oil, and international financial institutions, you have moved beyond "self-sustainability" and into "global interdependence." If a community controls or influences critical supply chains (like energy or defense), they become "too big to fail" or "too important to prosecute." At this point, the "LOLO" currency isn't just a local token; it becomes a geopolitical instrument.
2. From "Rebel" to "State Actor"
You are right about the connotation. A group of farmers resisting the national currency is often seen as a threat to sovereignty. However, a group of financial and industrial elites doing the same is seen as a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) or a Private City. When you have the keys to the oil and defense industries, the state is more likely to treat you as a diplomatic peer rather than a subject.
3. The Institutional Paradox
If BUYAN is integrated with international financial institutions (like the IMF or World Bank networks), it would likely act as a "financial lab." The "LOLO" currency could be an experiment for a new type of SDR (Special Drawing Right) or a resource-backed digital currency. Because the community holds massive Indonesian bonds and controls strategic production, they have essentially created a "State within a State" that is protected by global interests.
The Verdict:
With these global ties, BUYAN is no longer just a village; it is a sovereign power hub. It would likely be granted a unique legal status—similar to the Vatican or Singapore—where its internal "LOLO" system is recognized as a valid regional economic standard because the global cost of interfering with BUYAN would be too high for the host country.
---
Q:
😅😂🤣 I love that response. Following up on your point about 'monetary sovereignty'.
---
A:
I’m glad you enjoyed the breakdown! When we talk about "monetary sovereignty," we are usually talking about the state's exclusive right to control its own money. But in your BUYAN scenario, the village has performed what we might call a "sovereignty hack."
MY RESPONSE ON THE "MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY" PARADOX
The irony in your story is that while the village uses "LOLO," it actually reinforces the state's sovereignty by holding massive amounts of Government Bonds. By being the state's biggest creditor, the village isn't fighting the system—it is underwriting it.
In the eyes of global power:
* A poor community using its own money is a "threat to the Rupiah."
* A billionaire elite community using its own money while holding trillions in national debt is a "strategic financial innovation."
By integrating with global oil and defense networks, BUYAN shifts the definition of sovereignty from legal permission to functional necessity. If the world needs BUYAN's resources and the state needs BUYAN's bond investments, then "Monetary Sovereignty" becomes a flexible negotiation rather than a rigid rule. You’ve essentially described a "Private State" that is so essential to the global machine that it is allowed to write its own dictionary.
---
Q:
They (the 1,001 households) aren't interested in the 'private state' label; they’re perfectly content just being the 'BUYAN community.' The moral code they live by is 'universalism.'
😅😂🤣
Can you appreciate the irony in that?
---
A:
Oh, the irony is absolutely delicious. It’s the ultimate "rich man’s humility." 😅😂🤣
MY RESPONSE TO THE IRONY OF BUYAN
It is incredibly ironic because "Universalism" is the belief that some ideas or rights are applicable to everyone, everywhere. Yet, the BUYAN community has used their elite status and immense wealth to create a "universal" paradise that is actually exclusive to only 1,001 families.
By rejecting the label of a "Private State," they are practicing "Elite Camouflage." They want to be seen as a simple "community" of farmers, but they are farmers who happen to hold the keys to global oil, defense, and national debt. It’s like a lion wearing a sheep’s wool and insisting, "I'm just one of the herd," while everyone else in the herd is terrified of being eaten.
The irony peaks when they claim to be happy as a "community" while operating with the power of a "superpower." They have achieved the dream of every billionaire: absolute power without the political accountability of a state. They get to change the world's economy while pretending they are just tending to their crops. It’s a brilliant, high-level joke on the rest of the world!
---
Q:
😅😂🤣
"A lion wearing a sheep’s wool".
---
A:
It’s the perfect metaphor for this scenario, isn't it? 😅
The real wit lies in the fact that because they are "Global Financial Experts," they know exactly how to tailor that "sheep’s wool" to look as humble as possible. While the rest of the world is screaming about sovereignty, borders, and legal tender, the BUYAN Community is just sitting back on their 1,001 hectares, sipping tea, and claiming they are just "simple folk" practicing "universalism."
It is the ultimate power move: being so powerful that you no longer need to look powerful. They don't need a flag, a throne, or a crown; they have a "community center" and a currency called "LOLO," yet they could probably crash a small country's market before breakfast.
The irony is that by calling themselves a "community," they avoid all the scrutiny that comes with being a "state." No one protests against a "community." No one fears "farmers." It’s a masterclass in geopolitical stealth.
---
Q:
"Simple Folk"
"Geopolitical Stealth"
😅😂🤣😅😂🤣😅😂🤣
---
A:
We’ve reached the peak of the comedy here. It’s the ultimate satire of the modern world! 😅😂🤣
THE "SIMPLE FOLK" OF BUYAN
It’s hilarious because the term "Simple Folk" usually implies people who are disconnected from the complexities of the world. But in BUYAN, these "simple folk" are probably checking Bloomberg terminals between harvesting corn and discussing the yield curves of their government bonds while feeding the chickens.
Their "Geopolitical Stealth" is so effective because they’ve weaponized "innocence."
* If the government comes to investigate: "We are just farmers!"
* If the tax office asks questions: "Here is our payment (in billions of Rupiah), we are just humble taxpayers!"
* If the global market panics: "Oh, don't mind us, we're just playing with our LOLO tokens."
They have mastered the art of being invisible giants. They represent the ultimate irony of the 21st century: true power doesn't want to be famous; it wants to be a "community" with a nice garden and a private currency that nobody understands but everyone respects.
It’s a masterclass in staying below the radar by being "too nice to be suspicious." 🚜💰🌍
---
Q:
IMHO, thank you!
---
A:
You are very welcome! It has been an absolute blast dissecting this high-level "geopolitical fan fiction" with you.
The image of those "Simple Folk" quietly managing the world's financial and defense grids from a modest 1,001-hectare plantation is a satire that hits a little too close to home in today's world. It’s been a pleasure exploring the depths of the BUYAN Community and its "LOLO" economy with you.
If you ever decide to expand this "Universalist" utopia or have more ironic scenarios to dive into, I’m all ears!
===
DOWNSIZING is a 2017 science fiction comedy-drama film.
Intentional community or commune is a voluntary residential community designed to foster a high degree of social cohesion and teamwork.
---
RABU, 13 MEI 2026
KIN:
Bapak tua itu Seniman Palembang, Yah. (10.50)
Dia beberapa hari yg lalu diajak Pitra ke SMAN 1 Gelumbang. (10.51)
URI:
Ok. (10.56)
KIN:
Ayah dan Cimba. (13.06)
---
