A recent study has been done by Vohs and work partners, who demonstrated the money influence in people´s decisions without them have consciously known that influence. Were given for the research´s participants specific tasks as how puzzle words to form a phrase about money; with other participants, were left some fake Monopoly piles of money, another group has been seen a screen save with many money means. In spite of another people, randomly selected, had to organize phrases without money meaning, they have not seen the Monopoly´s money and have seen different screen saver protectors. In all of those cases, people who have been taken to think about money – from the called money´s group – had had a different behavior from those people whose did not think about money.

Is impressive how those banal factors whose would conduct to think about money had a huge influence in the human behavior. While the control group, that people whose was not induced to think about money spent on average 42 minutes helping somebody in some task, those people from money´s group have just offered 25 minutes from their time. When requested to make some donate, the money´s group only gave a little more than the amount that was given for the control group. Greg Mankinw makes that question: “What does the money make us low ready to find help or to help, or even to seat near somebody?”

Vohs and work partners suggest by the time the societies have started to use money, the necessity for depend on the family and friends decrease, and people became more self-sufficient. In this way, they concluded the money increase the individualism and decrease the community motivations, an effect that is clearly showed on the people´s comportment now a day. Meanwhile, on the other coin´s side, Elizabeth Dunn and colleagues have discovered to spent money with other people promotes happiness. In this form so or more important than money quantity that is earned, the way to spend seems has directly been connected for happiness and welfare sensation.

With this spirit in 1999 I theorized a system of properties and service´s exchange that I called on the time in a little humble way of “The Big World Cooperative”. It was idealized to work in a global way; The Great World Cooperative would be centralized in a website and/or in some land address, a big and apparently complex system, but in reality simple enough where people with products and services to offer could be found for people with products and services necessity. One specie of advertisement system, but the objective will have not been the products and services SELL, but an EXCHANGE. In this way, we would be given “the return” in a system under overloaded-tax, we would be making properties circulation that have not been used and will have been avoiding an extraction of raw materials for build up new consumer products and decreasing a pollution arisen on the production and product´s transport, in the case of the exchange be local.

Around the world there are people who need services, materials, space, objects, finally, general stuffs. At the same time, in that same world, there are people willing to provide services, materials, space and objects that do not need at some point, “stuffs” that which are in a corner unnecessarily, without anybody has been using it. Why does not registry that im(material) products, associating it to their worth in the area where they are provided and distribute for who need them, under exchange of another contribution to the Cooperative by who had received?

(Note: this e-mail does not exist more). Look at principle it is an essentially civil activity, was made by common people, without government, but would not has obstacle on happen participation or even Cooperative activity´s regulation by the different Estates. Ever post-comment, please contact through the above e-mail. Enjoying an opportunity and in front the Mundial Social Forum´s subject: “Great World Cooperative, look around a better world, impossible now, but certainly possible tomorrow.

My experience as an observer was positive. In the both active groups that I have followed – São Paulo and Lisboa, the offers are packages as how the answers accepting that offers. For who receive a donation, must get him at the place set by who is offering. Between offers products for donation I have been found charges for mobile, berths, blender with a broken corner of the lid, puppies, books, shoes and baby carriages, printers, monitors and even a laptop (with battery broken), but at least working as well. I have already made a call to keep contact to be a group´s mediator in my region. It is interesting to observe that the Freecycle does not accept exchange between products or services. Just offers and requests, without conditioning. For the original Great World Cooperative´s idea (we need a name at least less pompous for it), all exchange and donation sorts would be possible:

1) Offer of product or service in exchange for “credit points” along the Cooperative (ex: I offer gardening services for 30 credit points per day – in this case, the gardener who runs the service receives 30 credit points in his account which could be used in future acquisition of any product or service, without interest, tax or impost).

2) Receipt of products or service in exchange for “credit points” along the Cooperative (ex: acquisition of an old lamp by 50 points – in this case, the old lamp´s purchaser will have 50 points debited from his account and who offered the old lamp will have 50 points credited in his account).

4) Simple donation of Product or service (pay the cost of o points (free) 6 pairs of leather shoes size 41, in good condition, withdraw at the follow address, and arrange the time by the follow telephone.

We have been living in a different world, quite different from a decade ago. Very, very different from 3 or 4 decades ago. Few things make us excited, is hard something excite the average citizen to action. The self-indulgence, a pursuit of comfort through psycho-drugs and a circus as a form of anesthesia´s sense has been becoming stronger. Aldous Huxley, in 1932 narrated in his marvelous book “Brave New World” about this future which seems is already present.

For how much longer still would exist the “smarts” who insist to take advantage of “ingenuous”, those stubborn who still believe that should do the things “in the right way”, even though there are people who have been taking advantage of everything?