NationStates Jolt Archive

this idea came both from the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and.... star trek :cool:

is the idea of a society without money at all possible or desirable? is it an extreme form of communism?

i think that it is possible if mankind (or at least those in the no-money society) united under a single premise: to work for the betterment of mankind (and reject the self). Rousseau has this idea, calling the purpose, the Greater Good. He then goes on to talk about a kinda weird & evil-sounding way of achieving such a complete cultural and sociological change involving the 'Lawgiver'... which always reminds me of Judge Dredd :p

i however recokon this change - and thus a move to a moneyless society, where people work simply to better the greater good - is possible over a very long term - over generations - through education.

in star trek, unfortunatley the catalyst for their utopian, Rousseau-esque, moneyless society is the 3rd world war in the latter half of the 21st century, in which approxamatley 600 million people died. yes i am a nerd (but i just watched first contact :) )

star trek? *shudders* It won't happen because people will always want novelty items, which others will make and want something in return, thus spawning the concept of money or currency.

Umm...you do know that we lived without money for a good thousands of years? Civilizations flourished under a well-known exchange of items known as bartering.

Well, on the count of money...
We'll start with Aristotle. His rationale behind currency is that it is a given value per amount of labor. It's a standardization.

Example of a cash-free barter economy:
Basically, a shoemaker and a carpenter meet up. The shoemaker offers the carpenter a pair of shoes to finish a portion of his house.

-Problems
First off, that pair of shoes isn't going to go very far on the house, so the carpenter doesn't really have any responsibility to finish it, just do the equivalent value of work.
Secondly, the carpenter, as he is the one doing the partial work, can set the value at whatever he wishes, he could dig a hole or finish the entire house. It's his choice.

Currency solves this problem as it gives a standard level of exchange, and the ability to maintain the results of your labor without spoiling. Currency allows the shoemaker to pay the carpenter enough so as to get the entire house done, at a standard level.

Thus, money is vitally important to society and the function thereof. Currency is to work what meters are to length.

Umm...you do know that we lived without money for a good thousands of years? Civilizations flourished under a well-known exchange of items known as bartering.
Don't get upset...but we are taught from a young age that such a system is primitive and undesireable, as well as impossible in today's modern world. :(

Umm...you do know that we lived without money for a good thousands of years? Civilizations flourished under a well-known exchange of items known as bartering.
Of course this was the situation before civilization. In the hunter-gatherer stage of human evolution, this was the natural system of exchange, there were no goods beyond basic goods of sustenance. People slept and ate whatever. They had equality in poverty.

Once production, through agriculture came into being though, it became apparent that it was far more effiecient for a farmer to grow a limited number of things, rather than grow everything, and thus trade came into being. But squabbles over the value of each trade also came into being when the individuals began to debate how something that was tough to grow, and lengthy to refine (beer for example) compared to an apple. Do you just get a dribble of beer for an apple? This is clearly an inefficient system. So a standard was set. People used marked stones, or bones or whatever, to represent a value. And the rarer and more useful something was, more of these units of currency would be needed. So, this made it so that the guy who sold apples could buy a full container of beer, in one swipe.

But with the arrival of civilization, we see the arrival of currency. Money is ancient, and is a vital part of living in society.

Don't get upset...but we are taught from a young age that such a system is primitive and undesireable, as well as impossible in today's modern world. :(
Ah, but not just in todays world, but in Athens and Rome it was considered undesireable. Currency is just as vital to society as communication.

Thus, money is vitally important to society and the function thereof. Currency is to work what meters are to length.
No, money is vitally important to THIS society...the global one that we are creating. Societies would continue to exist without currency...currency did not create society. Currency may measure work, but certainly not as accurately as a metre measures length. For example, the work a movie star does is not the same as the work a police officer does. How do you compare the two? There is no standard, as we now have one for measurement. The parallel doesn't fit.

But with the arrival of civilization, we see the arrival of currency. Money is ancient, and is a vital part of living in society.

So, the Australian aborigines had neither society nor civilisation?

Currency is just as vital to society as communication.

Currency is a mode of communication, no?

No, money is vitally important to THIS society...the global one that we are creating. Societies would continue to exist without currency...currency did not create society. Currency may measure work, but certainly not as accurately as a metre measures length. For example, the work a movie star does is not the same as the work a police officer does. How do you compare the two? There is no standard, as we now have one for measurement. The parallel doesn't fit.
As I said, in any society beyond a hunter gatherer society, currency as a standardization is necessary. Maybe the comparison to meters was inappropriate. A better comparison would be to inches. The length between the knuckles of a king. The value of currency may change, but having a relatively set rate of exchange for goods or servies is vital to keep any post-tribal society flowing.

Communism basically is the abolition of money. There's more to it, but that is a key element. It is actually fairly simple to impliment it on a communal level. People receive what they need in exchange for pulling their weight and lose the privilege if they slack off. Implimenting it on a larger scale is more complex, though certainly not impossible. Instead of individuals, entire factories are kept track of and if they don't do anything useful, other factories don't have to supply them.

Of course this was the situation before civilization.
Just think about what you are saying here for a moment. BEFORE CIVILIZATION. You define then the birth of civilization with the creation of currency. Is that really all civilization is? Money?

Of course, with that comes the idea that before civilization, societies were primitive, savage, or in their 'infant' stages. Despite complex social structures, religions, languages and cultures, societies without money are 'infantile'. To mature is to accept the current structure.

There still exist communities and societies that do not use currency. They are being ushered into the 'present' by neo-colonialism. They are not valued or counted as modern because they have survived without currency, when we are taught that societies can only prosper with a monetary system. They prove the lie, and that can't be allowed.

So, the Australian aborigines had neither society nor civilisation?
They most certainly have society. It's a tribal society, yes, but an organization of people banding together for benefit of some sort it most certainly is. But civilization is a whole other story. Civilization is civil administration. Governments, laws, roads, armies, the artificial things that take us out of nature. So, I guess that I'm saying aborinals don't have civilization.

Of course this was the situation before civilization. In the hunter-gatherer stage of human evolution, this was the natural system of exchange, there were no goods beyond basic goods of sustenance. People slept and ate whatever. They had equality in poverty.

How do you define poverty? Are you poor when you can feed yourself, clothe yourself, build a shelter, raise a family in peace? To me, this is riches beyond counting. We say that we can not find happiness with material things, but that is precisely what our system is set up to do. We are completely dependent on the market...people in the West have become so specialised that they can not rely on themselves anymore for survival. Is this prosperity? Or a sad dependence?

Poverty has always existed, but it was a poverty caused by natural disasters or disease...people still had the ability (if they survived) to come out of poverty because they had the skills to sustain themselves. Poverty was cyclical, not lifelong, as it is now.

Didn't we used to do that? It's called bartering.

They most certainly have society. It's a tribal society, yes, but an organization of people banding together for benefit of some sort it most certainly is. But civilization is a whole other story. Civilization is civil administration. Governments, laws, roads, armies, the artificial things that take us out of nature. So, I guess that I'm saying aborinals don't have civilization.
No, what you are describing is government and political systems. Civilization is more than this...it includes culture and knowledge and social systems. The nation state is what you are getting at, and you accept it as natural and evolutionary that nation states exist. That is simply because you were raised to believe it, and have never seen an alternative, which is no fault of yours.

Umm...you do know that we lived without money for a good thousands of years? Civilizations flourished under a well-known exchange of items known as bartering.
yes i do know, and also know a fair amount about money and its functions - i studied economics for 5 years, the last year being at uni degree level.

perhaps i didn't explain the concept fully. in the idea - which i have decided is definatley ultra-communist one - a person makes a good, like Andaluciae's shoes, and will give them to the carpenter for free - for nothing at all. this is because he knows that the carpenter will also finish the whatever on the shoemaker's house for free. this is not down to a strict - or enforced - Social Contract, but in the desire of each person in the society to work soley for the betterment of that society. society, as a whole would be better off if i produce these shoes", sort of thing. it just requires a rejection of greed and selfishness.
in a world of advanced technology and information communication, surely the goods and services of a society/economy could be allocated this way - though not by some unknowing, remote, central planning organisation, like a communist government - but by the people who need them. a government would be necessary but the people control what is produced, how to produce it (within regulations), how much to produce and the allocation of the G or S, due to the technology available. each person works and contributes their labour and their product to the whole, knowing that everything they need or desire will be provided for free by others.
unlike a centrally-planned communist (well socialist, the government collapses after the classes become one in communism) where the state often doesn't know what is demanded by the people, in this system the people are free to choose for themselves - using advanced information communications technology. a number of ways this could work is simply by requesting something in particular be made, if there are none already for giving; or there could be public polls & discussion boards (or the future equivalent) for the suggestion of things to produce.
sounds idealistic, and, yeah, it is.

yes i do know, and also know a fair amount about money and its functions - i studied economics for 5 years, the last year being at uni degree level.

perhaps i didn't explain the concept fully. in the idea - which i have decided is definatley ultra-communist one - a person makes a good, like Andaluciae's shoes, and will give them to the carpenter for free - for nothing at all. this is because he knows that the carpenter will also finish the whatever on the shoemaker's house for free.
What you are describing is not 'free'. The shoemaker is exchanging his work for the work of another, directly instead of indirectly through currency.

We all have to realize that as much evil money can do to a society, it is something needed greatly for progressive feats, imo. For example, the SpaceShipOne and the Ansari X prize, because of the $10mil. prize and recongnition, we were able to create personal private space ships at a much faster rate than having waited for NASA or another nation's space program to create it.

They most certainly have society.


But they had no money.

Money is ancient, and is a vital part of living in society.

Which is it: did they not live in a society, or is money not a vital part of living in a society?

What you are describing is not 'free'. The shoemaker is exchanging his work for the work of another, directly instead of indirectly through currency.
yes. and?

Just think about what you are saying here for a moment. BEFORE CIVILIZATION. You define then the birth of civilization with the creation of currency. Is that really all civilization is? Money?

Of course, with that comes the idea that before civilization, societies were primitive, savage, or in their 'infant' stages. Despite complex social structures, religions, languages and cultures, societies without money are 'infantile'. To mature is to accept the current structure.

There still exist communities and societies that do not use currency. They are being ushered into the 'present' by neo-colonialism. They are not valued or counted as modern because they have survived without currency, when we are taught that societies can only prosper with a monetary system. They prove the lie, and that can't be allowed.

Stepping over the line a little here. There do exist societies and cultures, even today, that have no concept of value. Thes are, without exception, natives of regions where survival is a matter of collecting what nature provides. They are basic hunter-gatherer societies.
As soon as you move beyond this, into a basic agrarian society, A problem is encountered. The labour of one person or small group has produced sufficient of particular good for the whole society. But these goods are of a limited type, and not sufficient to support the wellbeing of anyone by themselves (rice, for example). Now trading becomes necessary, and with it comes the concept of value. This concept leads to tokens that represent value, i.e. money.

A moneyless society is only really possible if either of two conditions is met.
Firstly money is unneeded if each person or family supplies all of their own needs. (hunter gatherer or future tech of some kind). Secondly money would be unneeded if the distribution of goods was dealt with by a central authority. (Centralised Communism).
Locally, in small communities, a pure form of communism may occurr, wherein each local family voluntarily helps support the other families in their community. This would mean that money would only be needed for those things thet the local community can not supply. But it would still be needed all the same.

In any case, it comes down to basic ideologies. Currency allows for the expansion and centralisation of resources and labour. This supports governments, which in turn, support more expansion, and eventually the nation state. It is the idea of wealth that is at the root of this debate...one model says, "the freedom to consume goods is the goal", and another says, "the freedom to be self-reliant" is the goal. Since the 16th century, and the massive expansion of the European influence over the rest of the world, we have followed one model over the other. That doesn't mean it was natural, or evolutionary. By now we have discarded the notion that all human socities develop in set stages.

Communism was the experimental alternative to this model, and an ideological war ensued. Now, the failure of communism (though never practiced in its pure form) is used as proof positive that an alternative to the current (rooted in history, yes) model is impossible.

In order to support the consumerist model, we must be lifelong consumers of goods. People who are self-reliant are not good consumers, nor are they good producers, because they usually produce just enough to consume themselves. Does this mean such a system is inefficient? Inefficient for whom? Do we NEED 130 kinds of shampoo?

yes. and?
I'm just saying...you say this is 'free'. I say, no, it's not.

And, cut. :p

In any case, it comes down to basic ideologies. Currency allows for the expansion and centralisation of resources and labour. This supports governments, which in turn, support more expansion, and eventually the nation state.

You seem to have missed the central point in modern capitalism here: like it or like it not, money itself is just another commodity.

Umm...you do know that we lived without money for a good thousands of years? Civilizations flourished under a well-known exchange of items known as bartering.
Which is just another system of currency in the end. More inefficient perhaps, but still currency.

..one model says, "the freedom to consume goods is the goal", and another says, "the freedom to be self-reliant" is the goal.
you forgot the other model: "support the greater good", like Spock said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one".

No, money is vitally important to THIS society...the global one that we are creating. Societies would continue to exist without currency...currency did not create society. Currency may measure work, but certainly not as accurately as a metre measures length. For example, the work a movie star does is not the same as the work a police officer does. How do you compare the two? There is no standard, as we now have one for measurement. The parallel doesn't fit.
Sure there is a standard to measure work. It's called the market. What you are paid is how the market values your services. Entertainers and athetes are sought after and in a limited supply. Thus, their sky-high value is established. We engineers aren't in such short supply, so we don't command quite the value. I think the measure works quite well.

Money is more easy then bartering. If one party doesn't have the goods the other party needs there is no deal. Money on the other hand solves that problem. But bartering still exists. Mainly in countries who have an unstable currency. Many 3rd world nations export agri cultural products in exchange for machines, cars, machineparts etc....for example. On an undividual level bartering is rather impractical.

In any case, it comes down to basic ideologies. Currency allows for the expansion and centralisation of resources and labour. This supports governments, which in turn, support more expansion, and eventually the nation state. It is the idea of wealth that is at the root of this debate...one model says, "the freedom to consume goods is the goal", and another says, "the freedom to be self-reliant" is the goal. Since the 16th century, and the massive expansion of the European influence over the rest of the world, we have followed one model over the other. That doesn't mean it was natural, or evolutionary. By now we have discarded the notion that all human socities develop in set stages.

Communism was the experimental alternative to this model, and an ideological war ensued. Now, the failure of communism (though never practiced in its pure form) is used as proof positive that an alternative to the current (rooted in history, yes) model is impossible.

In order to support the consumerist model, we must be lifelong consumers of goods. People who are self-reliant are not good consumers, nor are they good producers, because they usually produce just enough to consume themselves. Does this mean such a system is inefficient? Inefficient for whom? Do we NEED 130 kinds of shampoo?

A little off topic. Money is not identified with capitalism nor with consumerism. It is merely a token representing value. How you handle these tokens is another question all together, as is the the question of consumerism.
(It is, by the way, I think impossible for anyone born and raised in a large metropolitan center to become self sufficient there. It involves considerable investment of value tokens, to obtain the conditions of self sufficiency for a large proportion of the worlds population)

The problem with Pure Metal's system (and all economic systems have down-sides) is that even if it works, it doesn't encourage people to use their resources in the way society most values. Imagine that I am a great widget-maker and a terrible cog-maker; but I like making cogs more than I like making widgets. Furthermore, widgets are a highly valuable product (in terms of assisting survival and thrival), and cogs are only somewhat valuable. In Pure Metal's society, I would definitely make cogs, thereby wasting my widget making talent. In a society where people can gain wealth by trading what they produce (instead of giving it away in return for recieving a set amount of goods), I would make widgets because I would get higher pay for this.

Money is more easy then bartering. If one party doesn't have the goods the other party needs there is no deal. Money on the other hand solves that problem.


Really? In order to have an accceptable form of currency do you not need to have a state apparatus of some kind in operation? To me this would render bartering as the easier option.

Stepping over the line a little here. There do exist societies and cultures, even today, that have no concept of value. Thes are, without exception, natives of regions where survival is a matter of collecting what nature provides. They are basic hunter-gatherer societies.
As soon as you move beyond this, into a basic agrarian society, A problem is encountered. The labour of one person or small group has produced sufficient of particular good for the whole society. But these goods are of a limited type, and not sufficient to support the wellbeing of anyone by themselves (rice, for example). Now trading becomes necessary, and with it comes the concept of value. This concept leads to tokens that represent value, i.e. money.

A moneyless society is only really possible if either of two conditions is met.
Firstly money is unneeded if each person or family supplies all of their own needs. (hunter gatherer or future tech of some kind). Secondly money would be unneeded if the distribution of goods was dealt with by a central authority. (Centralised Communism).
Locally, in small communities, a pure form of communism may occurr, wherein each local family voluntarily helps support the other families in their community. This would mean that money would only be needed for those things thet the local community can not supply. But it would still be needed all the same.
Okay, I'll accept that, since we aren't going to go back to hunting and gathering any time soon.

However, the extent to which money has become a 'necessity' is what I have a problem with. Communities that are even MOSTLY self-sufficient are problematic in a model of a global economy. Self-sufficiency is a roadblock, not an asset in globalisation. Self-sufficient (mostly) communities don't consume enough OUTSIDE their communities. Communities and countries are being encouraged to produce goods in order to make money in order to buy things they once provided for themselves. Sensical? No, but necessary for this kind of global economy. I resist that, and I resist the idea that money is 'a hallmark of civilization', (coming from a culture that was introduced to money only a few hundred years ago), but more than that, I resist the idea that money has value in and of itself.

You seem to have missed the central point in modern capitalism here: like it or like it not, money itself is just another commodity.
Oh, I'm quite aware of that. I don't accept however that capitalism is inevitable or 'the best' system. (Then again, I don't think that of communism either)

(It is, by the way, I think impossible for anyone born and raised in a large metropolitan center to become self sufficient there. It involves considerable investment of value tokens, to obtain the conditions of self sufficiency for a large proportion of the worlds population)

Depending on your definition of 'self-sufficient', those people sleeping rough and eating out of dumpsters appear to have attained it.

Really? In order to have an accceptable form of currency do you not need to have a state apparatus of some kind in operation?
Yes. So what?
To me this would render bartering as the easier option.
Not realy. Since it would mean you would have to produce all kinds of things to exchange. And if theres one party that has goods you realy need/want and you have nothing to offer that is of value to that party your out of luck. Money on the other hand is always of value to someone.

you forgot the other model: "support the greater good", like Spock said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one".
Yes, an admirable sentiment. One that is not supported by the current model of capitalism, however. The needs of the many (the majority of humans are poor) can not be allowed to outweigh the needs of the few(those of us free to consume as we please in Western society).

I believe that self-sufficiency does not mean MYSELF ONLY SUFFICIENCY, but rather having the generalised skills (with some specialisation) to provide for yourself, your family, and your community.

I'm just saying...you say this is 'free'. I say, no, it's not.

And, cut. :p
sorry.... strangely angry for no reason :)
fine, in resource tems its not free, but nothing is because of (external) opportunity cost (external even allowing air not to be free)... eh? ah whatever :p
i suppose in a moneyless society everone would have to work only as long as everyone else (in terms of hours per day) as to not create this inbalance in the trade. there will still be inbalance as to the fact that the carpenter will spend many hours doing thing to the shoemaker's house, while the shoemaker (probably) spent fewer hours making the shoe. this is either seen as unfair or.... the fundamental point of all this... it can be seen as supporting the greater good. the shoemaker won't care that s/he's put in more hours to the 'trade' than the carpenter, but rejecting greed and selfishness means he won't care. this is partly because he will get everything he needs 'free' as well, thus overall the amount of labour put into all average trade will balance out roughly even, throughout his life.

However, the extent to which money has become a 'necessity' is what I have a problem with. Communities that are even MOSTLY self-sufficient are problematic in a model of a global economy. Self-sufficiency is a roadblock, not an asset in globalisation. Self-sufficient (mostly) communities don't consume enough OUTSIDE their communities. Communities and countries are being encouraged to produce goods in order to make money in order to buy things they once provided for themselves. Sensical? No, but necessary for this kind of global economy. I resist that, and I resist the idea that money is 'a hallmark of civilization', (coming from a culture that was introduced to money only a few hundred years ago), but more than that, I resist the idea that money has value in and of itself.

You are absolutely right to deny that the token has intrinsic value. This is a very warped idea that has been acquired along the way. The problem is when you do not have enough value tokens to obtain the goods you need. Then the value tokens in themselves become something of value to you. You will exchange future work to have the tokens now, to obtain the goods now. Hey presto, we have money lending, and with that the whole idea that money is valuable in itself.
What you should be fighting is the concept of interest payments, and the endless demand from the "economic analysts" for growth.

The thought of that is so bad. I dont know if you would be talking about trading goods for other goods, or just everyone gives something away. Either way would not work.

Depending on your definition of 'self-sufficient', those people sleeping rough and eating out of dumpsters appear to have attained it.

And they live without money. (Not my idea of a good life though)

Sure there is a standard to measure work. It's called the market. What you are paid is how the market values your services. Entertainers and athetes are sought after and in a limited supply. Thus, their sky-high value is established. We engineers aren't in such short supply, so we don't command quite the value. I think the measure works quite well.
Perhaps for you...on the bottom end are the vast majority of people who are unskilled labour, not necesarily by choice, but by situation (and lack of opportunity). It is their hard work that keep the wheels rolling, not the work of some actor, and not even the work of a few engineers (or teachers, let's put my profession in the mix too:)). If the majority of people did not work so hard, for so little, more resources would be 'squandered' on the many, rather than concentrated in the hands of the few.

A little off topic. Money is not identified with capitalism nor with consumerism. It is merely a token representing value. How you handle these tokens is another question all together, as is the the question of consumerism.
(It is, by the way, I think impossible for anyone born and raised in a large metropolitan center to become self sufficient there. It involves considerable investment of value tokens, to obtain the conditions of self sufficiency for a large proportion of the worlds population)
You're right, it is off the topic a little, but we are talking about a SOCIETY without money, not blaming money on any one ideology (ok, I did a little, but I'll stop:)). I don't think it's too far off to discuss how societies organise themselves around money (or not).

Jeez...you always make me work at my posts...I can never just rant...:)

Originally Posted by Sinuhue
If the majority of people did not work so hard, for so little, more resources would be 'squandered' on the many, rather than concentrated in the hands of the few.

I say this is not the problem. Almost any unskilled worker could have a factory or construction job (no one is completely unskilled), and these pay almost as well as (and sometimes better than) your job as a teacher. The problem is that the market is not allowed to act on its own to utilize the natural resources that everyone has.

Depending on your definition of 'self-sufficient', those people sleeping rough and eating out of dumpsters appear to have attained it.
Not quite. That is simply living with what you have. Those people do not have the skills to feed themselves (by feed themselve, I mean grow their own food, not have it provided for them second hand through the garbage), clothe themselves (make clothing, they must find or purchase it), or make their own shelter (again, other than finding materials or buying them). They are just as dependent on the market.

Self-sufficiency assumes access to natural resources, which is, as Alien Born said, not the reality for many city dwellers. HOWEVER, coming closer to self-sufficiency IS a possibility, with roof-top gardens, (assuming of course that pollution levels were dealth with enough to make what you grew safe to eat:)), harnassing solar or geothermal energy, and so on. It will never be complete self-efficiency for urbanites, but you can certainly become less dependent.

You are absolutely right to deny that the token has intrinsic value. This is a very warped idea that has been acquired along the way. The problem is when you do not have enough value tokens to obtain the goods you need. Then the value tokens in themselves become something of value to you. You will exchange future work to have the tokens now, to obtain the goods now. Hey presto, we have money lending, and with that the whole idea that money is valuable in itself.
What you should be fighting is the concept of interest payments, and the endless demand from the "economic analysts" for growth.
I'm exploring these ideas here, so forgive me if I sometime contradict myself (or seem to). I started off attacking the idea of currency, then accepting it as long as it wasn't a major focus, turning instead on the system that give money intrinsic value. You're right...once we beging to give that token value, it becomes bigger than a measurement tool...it becomes a commodity (as was mentioned before). When money can be bought and sold to MAKE MORE MONEY!!!???, things are a little warped.

or make their own shelter (again, other than finding materials or buying them).
You'd be suprised how comfy a few Sony boxes can be.

Self-sufficiency assumes access to natural resources, which is, as Alien Born said, not the reality for many city dwellers. HOWEVER, coming closer to self-sufficiency IS a possibility, with roof-top gardens, (assuming of course that pollution levels were dealth with enough to make what you grew safe to eat:)), .
Now imagine how much polution there would be if everyone was 'self sufficient' and had acces to natural resources with which he could do as he pleases.

You're right, it is off the topic a little, but we are talking about a SOCIETY without money, not blaming money on any one ideology (ok, I did a little, but I'll stop:)). I don't think it's too far off to discuss how societies organise themselves around money (or not).

Jeez...you always make me work at my posts...I can never just rant...:)

Rant away if you want, just it is easier for us if you rant between rant tags. (The first time I ever wrote a sentence that user the word rant three times!)

What suggestions do you have for large metropolitan centres, if we abolish money, and do not genetically engineer all people to be caring and generous and sharing in all aspects.

It appears to me that money follows the same basic rules as justice in Hume's philosophy. (i.e. angels have no need of it, there is no need of it in heaven and there is no need of it in a state of complete warring anarchy)

And they live without money. (Not my idea of a good life though)
The live without money and yet they are dependent on it. THAT is the sad thing. Put them out in the country, with all the natural resources they could ever use, and they would still not have the skills to provide for themselves. That is what bothers me. In the space of a few generations, we have lost the ability to make things, and homemade objects somehow have less value that those we can buy.

I don't see self-sufficiency or economic expansion as proper ends to an economic system. The point of any economic systems is to help humans survive and thrive. If specialization helps people thrive more, than it is better than self-sufficiency.

Self-sufficiency assumes access to natural resources, which is, as Alien Born said, not the reality for many city dwellers. HOWEVER, coming closer to self-sufficiency IS a possibility, with roof-top gardens, (assuming of course that pollution levels were dealth with enough to make what you grew safe to eat:)), harnassing solar or geothermal energy, and so on. It will never be complete self-efficiency for urbanites, but you can certainly become less dependent.

In most large connurbations, the vast majority of people live in little depressing boxes in large buildings. They do not have roof tops, nor is there enough land space to grow food for the population. In addition, the ownership of the land would come into question, with all the complicatons that ensue from this.
Major centres of population, (New York, Mexico City, São Paulo, London, Paris, anything bigger than a village in Japan) can not become anywhere close to being self sufficient. If they fall even a little short, we are still left with money.

I say this is not the problem. Almost any unskilled worker could have a factory or construction job (no one is completely unskilled), and these pay almost as well as (and sometimes better than) your job as a teacher. The problem is that the market is not allowed to act on its own to utilize the natural resources that everyone has.

That's IF there is a factory nearby...usually people need to leave their homes in order to move to the city. If everyone did this, no food could be produced. Millions of factories but no farms does not make for a good future:)

There can only be so many factories...and the only way to ensure limitless growth is to make sure there is limitless consumption. If everyone has enough widgets, no one will buy more. Factory out of work. But if you instil in people the idea that widgets need to be upgraded every year or so, and the old ones thrown out, boom...you make a few changes, and you never go out of business. However, limitless consumption must one day be limited by lack of resources...I'm not sure when we'll reach that point, but I don't look forward to it!

I think many of these posts miss the point ... money is simply a facilitator of barter - a 'taxable middle man' if you will. Whether money is used, or barter directly, the end result is the same - exchange of material commodity.

The key to removing barter is to remove the value of material commodity. In a 'star trek' scenario, technology is so advanced that most things can be had 'at will' - eg. holographic fantasies, food prepared by nanotechnology etc. The technology leads to a level of freedom where the value of material commodity is severely reduced.

If society gets to a point where everyone can have as much as his / her fellow neighbour, material values go out the proverbial window.

Our desire for material gain is an inbuilt instinctual tool, that tells us to acquire as many securities as possible, as soon as possible, because only when you have securities will you have security! The unfortunate element of this instinct is that it doesn't know 'enough is enough', so by default an individual will keep on wanting until some other stimulus tells him / her 'enough is enough' and he / she listens.

The only way to take material goods out of what can be defined as a security (by security as a noun I mean an entity that can be used in a fashion to protect the longevity / reproducability / happiness of its 'owner' in some way) is to remove their perceived value.

Once material goods have had their 'value' stripped, then we can get down to the business of defining what the new valued securities are.

You'd be suprised how comfy a few Sony boxes can be.

Now imagine how much polution there would be if everyone was 'self sufficient' and had acces to natural resources with which he could do as he pleases.
Granted...a smaller global population would be necessary for everyone to be self-sufficient. Not an option. Nonetheless, if people in rural areas were at least self-sufficient enough to be able to produce enough food to suppor themselves, AND sell (yes, for money, I know, my bad) their surplus to provide for their other NEEDS (not wants...that's another issue), then it would mean those people would be taking care of themselves, AND feeding the urban centres. Instead, farmers are increasinly marginalised, and end up moving to the city. Food prices are kept artificially low by the market (due in large part to the heavily subsidised agribusinesses of the West), and once self-sufficient people are now pressed into dependency. This is not a trend we should be encouraging...especially if you live in the city:) Without us farmer folk, you'd starve.

I don't see self-sufficiency or economic expansion as proper ends to an economic system. The point of any economic systems is to help humans survive and thrive. If specialization helps people thrive more, than it is better than self-sufficiency.

And if that specialization is in selling advertising space in a magazine dedicted to the futures trading market. This will help people thrive?

The point is that the financial services industry has got out of control and our society appears to be puttinng the cart before the horse.
Financial services should be just that, services for those members of the society who produce the goods that we need. Means of obtaining value for you surplus litters of suckling pigs.
They should not be a measure of whether our society is thriving or not. Nor should they dictate the goods that are produced.

What suggestions do you have for large metropolitan centres, if we abolish money, and do not genetically engineer all people to be caring and generous and sharing in all aspects.

It appears to me that money follows the same basic rules as justice in Hume's philosophy. (i.e. angels have no need of it, there is no need of it in heaven and there is no need of it in a state of complete warring anarchy)
Don't abolish money per se...just remove the focus from it...bartering even in urban centres is becoming more common...people giving free music lessons for car tuneups and so on. Its always been a part of the hidden economy. Let's encourage it a bit more without desiring a 'cut' (taxes) from it. You give me pizza a couple times a month, I paint your deck:) Naw, forget it, I hate pizza.

Learn how to make things. Value handmade things. Support local businesses. Pay more for things you can't make yourself...

What do I propose...not sure...I'm just working on my own self-sufficiency for now...I'll let you know how it goes!

Don't abolish money per se...just remove the focus from it...bartering even in urban centres is becoming more common...people giving free music lessons for car tuneups and so on. Its always been a part of the hidden economy. Let's encourage it a bit more without desiring a 'cut' (taxes) from it. You give me pizza a couple times a month, I paint your deck:) Naw, forget it, I hate pizza.

Learn how to make things. Value handmade things. Support local businesses. Pay more for things you can't make yourself...


Gostei muito. :D

Originally Posted by Sinuhue
That's IF there is a factory nearby...usually people need to leave their homes in order to move to the city. If everyone did this, no food could be produced. Millions of factories but no farms does not make for a good future

The thing about capitalism is that it balances supply and demand of different products. If everyone moved from the country to the city to work in widget factories, like you said, there would be no farms. So farm products would be highly valuable, and people would move back out to the country to produce these. Of course, it doesn't happen like this (flying back and forth out of control); instead it reaches a balance in a more stable way. When people move from the country to the city to produce widgets, they do so until producing farm products pays more. Thus, society reaches a balance at which people are producing in the way that creates the maximum value.

The question about whether we will run out of resources is more valid, but I think it is in natural science's domain, not economics. If we run out of widget making material, we can always go back to nature. In the mean time, we are just producing as much as we can with what we have. Of course, it is the government's job to enforce rules to ensure that no one abuses the environment so that we can continue to do this, allowing most natural resources to replinish themselves.

Gostei muito. :D
De nada.

The thing about capitalism is that it balances supply and demand of different products. If everyone moved from the country to the city to work in widget factories, like you said, there would be no farms. So farm products would be highly valuable, and people would move back out to the country to produce these. Of course, it doesn't happen like this (flying back and forth out of control); instead it reaches a balance in a more stable way. When people move from the country to the city to produce widgets, they do so until producing farm products pays more. Thus, society reaches a balance at which people are producing in the way that creates the maximum value.



The economic model of suply and demand works for primary and manufactured goods. It fails rather badly for services and financial goods. How does it control the price of money? How does it control the exchange rates between currencies? If all there were was primary and secondary industry,then your arguments would make sense, but there is also the service sector to be considered. What about pensioners and the sick? Government, Military, Jouranalists, Teachers, Computer Programmers, The list goes on forever.
The model you are using is far too simplified.
Work related migration depends upon the image that the migratory population have of the situation, and not on the situation itself. The streets paved with gold syndrome, or the wonderful natural life. It is never a purely economic decision.

First off, I'm both impressed by the lack of sarcasm, as well as the intelligence both sides have brought forth, kinda like debate night at MENSA. :p

Basically, I'm for the idea of money because it sets a standard. Without money, there is no concept of overpricing or underpaying because no-one would know what the extremes would be. For example, a new video game costs approximately 75$ (Canadian, I think it is like $45 American). If this game were to be bartered, there would be no standard as to what it should cost, therefore allowing retailers to demand far more than is required. Under a bartering society, this same item could cost the equivalent of $125 and the buyer would be none the wiser if he or she percieved the game to be worth this amount of money.

The seperate concept of having no monetary value in society as a whole is a good one, for those who have read Animal Farm, you can see at the beginning of the book that the animals are happy without taxes and competition, and are fully willing to live with whatever they need to survive without being greedy. The only way for this idea to work in a modern and non-fictitious setting is that the entire world has become utopian in wealth and can afford to have people living purely for the sake of bettering themselves and the world. Alas, this world does not exist at present, and may never, but it is something that would be nice. As I type this, in order for a medical researcher to get their research funded, they need a grant, most likely from a phamaceutical company, which then uses whatever the research turns up to both make money as well as better mankind. While this idea of quid pro quo for medical research may seem materialistic, it does help get research funded. In a perfect world, all deserving research would be given due process, but there is simply not the money to make this happen.

Basically, what I am saying is that the idea of bartering in a modern world is unfeasible, that working to better yourself rather than for money is to be worked towards, and that even if in an unrealistic world things could be better than they are now, today is still pretty good.

Basically, I'm for the idea of money because it sets a standard. Without money, there is no concept of overpricing or underpaying because no-one would know what the extremes would be. For example, a new video game costs approximately 75$ (Canadian, I think it is like $45 American). If this game were to be bartered, there would be no standard as to what it should cost, therefore allowing retailers to demand far more than is required. Under a bartering society, this same item could cost the equivalent of $125 and the buyer would be none the wiser if he or she percieved the game to be worth this amount of money.

Wouldn't the undetermined nature of the barter value system actualy tend to make people offer only what they really thought an item was worth. If this is more than the supplier expected then both are happy, if it is less, then negotiation takes place until either a deal is made, or it falls through. The supplier would be free to decline any offer of course, but they could not pre-define the price.
This would end conspicuous consumption immediately. Sorry Nike.

The seperate concept of having no monetary value in society as a whole is a good one, for those who have read Animal Farm, you can see at the beginning of the book that the animals are happy without taxes and competition, and are fully willing to live with whatever they need to survive without being greedy. The only way for this idea to work in a modern and non-fictitious setting is that the entire world has become utopian in wealth and can afford to have people living purely for the sake of bettering themselves and the world. Alas, this world does not exist at present, and may never, but it is something that would be nice.

Angels or heaven, no need for money. In the case you describe, heaven.


As I type this, in order for a medical researcher to get their research funded, they need a grant, most likely from a phamaceutical company, which then uses whatever the research turns up to both make money as well as better mankind. While this idea of quid pro quo for medical research may seem materialistic, it does help get research funded. In a perfect world, all deserving research would be given due process, but there is simply not the money to make this happen.

The ownership of the result of supported research is one of the few cases of barter that still exists in the first world. The researcher has to persuade the funders that the product is one that the funder wants. No specific value is attached, the funder has to evaluate the worth to him.

Basically, what I am saying is that the idea of bartering in a modern world is unfeasible, that working to better yourself rather than for money is to be worked towards, and that even if in an unrealistic world things could be better than they are now, today is still pretty good.

How is today pretty good, when the value of those hard earned tokens that you have is determined by the market for the tokens themselves, and not by the work that you did?

Wouldn't the undetermined nature of the barter value system actualy tend to make people offer only what they really thought an item was worth. If this is more than the supplier expected then both are happy, if it is less, then negotiation takes place until either a deal is made, or it falls through. The supplier would be free to decline any offer of course, but they could not pre-define the price.
This would end conspicuous consumption immediately. Sorry Nike.

Angels or heaven, no need for money. In the case you describe, heaven.

The ownership of the result of supported research is one of the few cases of barter that still exists in the first world. The researcher has to persuade the funders that the product is one that the funder wants. No specific value is attached, the funder has to evaluate the worth to him.

How is today pretty good, when the value of those hard earned tokens that you have is determined by the market for the tokens themselves, and not by the work that you did?
First the negotiation thing, I LOVE Halo 2, it is fun. I might have paid more for it than I did, I would still be getting ripped off if the person selling it to me took advantage of this fact. If you read the first chapter of Jennifer Government, you can see that the nike shoes that are being made cost 5 cents to make, but are sold for over a thousand dollars. The consumer has no idea how to effectively quantify how much he or she should spend on a pair of shoes if there is no money, and this sort of thing would happen all of the time. People would get ripped off because they don't have an intrinsic knowledge of marketing, they only know that they really want their nikes, and that they will cost a lot.

For the heaven comment, thank you.

Bartering knowledge isn't exactly a good thing, unless that knowledge is being bartered for the greater good.

Finally, you say that the world isn't good today, but despite its problems, the idea of a shifting currency market is not what is going to screw us over in the end. Trying to uphold a global market in which the value of things is measured by how hard you work for them is difficult at best. It would either require a form of emmence and spaced out wealth that has never before been seen, or a technology to measure work ethic and show that to retailers that would be a bureaucratic nightmare to implement.

First the negotiation thing, I LOVE Halo 2, it is fun. I might have paid more for it than I did, I would still be getting ripped off if the person selling it to me took advantage of this fact. If you read the first chapter of Jennifer Government, you can see that the nike shoes that are being made cost 5 cents to make, but are sold for over a thousand dollars. The consumer has no idea how to effectively quantify how much he or she should spend on a pair of shoes if there is no money, and this sort of thing would happen all of the time. People would get ripped off because they don't have an intrinsic knowledge of marketing, they only know that they really want their nikes, and that they will cost a lot.

If you paid what you thought was the right value for something, how does this result in you being ripped off. The concept only applies if you consider items to have pre defined values. Does everyone who buys anything at auction get ripped off. On another day they might have bought cheaper. But then again they might not. Go watch the negotiations between buyers and sellers in a typical marrocan marketplace. This is bartering. No-one gets ripped off. The buyer offers an amount the seeler counter offers an amount until they agree.

As to the Nikes, these are status statements in the current culture. They say, look at me I can afford Nikes. Under a barter system noone will know what you traded for them. Instant loss of status for nike. They then become a good, that has a practical value, like any other footwear, and that is the only value they have.

Bartering knowledge isn't exactly a good thing, unless that knowledge is being bartered for the greater good.

What is wrong with bartering knowledge? That is what a doctor would do after all, or a programmer, or a teacher. If you know something and someone else wants to know it then it has value. No problem here surely.

Finally, you say that the world isn't good today, but despite its problems, the idea of a shifting currency market is not what is going to screw us over in the end. Trying to uphold a global market in which the value of things is measured by how hard you work for them is difficult at best. It would either require a form of emmence and spaced out wealth that has never before been seen, or a technology to measure work ethic and show that to retailers that would be a bureaucratic nightmare to implement.

If we could remove the concept of money as a commodity, then money would revert to representing work done. To do this we would have to make interest payments illegal, and mean it. It is never going to happen though.

Originally Posted by Alien Born
And if that specialization is in selling advertising space in a magazine dedicted to the futures trading market. This will help people thrive?

Advertising is valuable to society because it facilitates trade. It tells consumers where they can go and what they can do to trade for what they want.

Futures trading is valuable because it is investment for risky business. Although it is a zero-sum game in purely monetary terms, it is not so in terms of total value. Because of decreasing marginal utility, people tend to avoid risks. If a person has $20,000 and could possibly make a bet that would pay $100 dollars if he won and cost $100 dollars to lose, a rational person would not do this. The marginal value of goods decreases as you gain more of them. Therefore, losing money is worse than the good of gaining the same amount because the marginal utility of the money decreases. That is, the next one hundred dollars is never as good as the last. However, the more money people have, the more willing they will be able to take risks because the change in marginal utility decreases as people have more of a good or currency.
Futures trading involves products that will likely increase in value. However, owners of these products might not be willing to risk that they could decrease in value. By not selling the future right to his produce, a farmer risks a lot but could possibly gain much more. However, because of decreasing marginal utility, it is not worth it for him to risk this much. For a venture capitalist, however, this risk is good, because it will likely pay off, and it will not make much difference to him if it does not. Thus, futures trading allocates risk to those who value it the most (the least negative).

Originally Posted by Alien Born
The economic model of suply and demand works for primary and manufactured goods. It fails rather badly for services and financial goods.

Supply and demand work the same way for services as they do for physical goods. If I am a good pilot, and people value this service but it is in low supply, the pay for flying planes would be high, and I would probably do this. Thus people will be attracted to doing the services that will pay them the most in the same way that they are attracted to making the products that give them the most. Once again, capitalism balances the supply and demand of different goods (including services) by causing people to go into industries (service, construction, or whatever else) where they can best produce for society.
I agree with your assessment of currency trade. Government fixed exchange rates are much more stable. Other financial goods (like interest) do work according to supply and demand. Banks offering higher interest returns on accounts receive more money to invest, but it costs them more. Thus, financial institutions will balance the interest rate where the supply and demand meet, the price at which the companies receive money from investments equal to the opportunity cost of spending their resources (the interest they pay to account holders) elsewhere.

The problem with Pure Metal's system (and all economic systems have down-sides) is that even if it works, it doesn't encourage people to use their resources in the way society most values. Imagine that I am a great widget-maker and a terrible cog-maker; but I like making cogs more than I like making widgets. Furthermore, widgets are a highly valuable product (in terms of assisting survival and thrival), and cogs are only somewhat valuable. In Pure Metal's society, I would definitely make cogs, thereby wasting my widget making talent. In a society where people can gain wealth by trading what they produce (instead of giving it away in return for recieving a set amount of goods), I would make widgets because I would get higher pay for this.
good critisism.

can i just say that this topic has kinda wandered off into the realms of arguements over self-sufficiency, specialisation by process, bartering as an alternative to, and the function of, money (which are all very interesting topics reading your posts btw :) ). however, the original post wasn't about any of these (per se), but about using modern technology to have the people directly control their means of production and consumption, on a global scale, 'trading' their products (goods or services) for 'free', all working towards the betterment of the many, rather than the fulfilment of the individual. sorry, that sounded snotty, but ah well...
there need be no understanding of a goods' worth, as all goods (& services) are given freely to others, and from others to you.


The needs of the many (the majority of humans are poor) can not be allowed to outweigh the needs of the few(those of us free to consume as we please in Western society).
eh? why not? :confused:

I'm exploring these ideas here, so forgive me if I sometime contradict myself (or seem to). I started off attacking the idea of currency, then accepting it as long as it wasn't a major focus, turning instead on the system that give money intrinsic value. You're right...once we beging to give that token value, it becomes bigger than a measurement tool...it becomes a commodity (as was mentioned before). When money can be bought and sold to MAKE MORE MONEY!!!???, things are a little warped.
it gets more warped once banks are introduced into the mix. they literally make money - not profit, but actually create new money through their actions, which they keep. no wonder banks are so fuckin rich!

There can only be so many factories...and the only way to ensure limitless growth is to make sure there is limitless consumption. If everyone has enough widgets, no one will buy more. Factory out of work. But if you instil in people the idea that widgets need to be upgraded every year or so, and the old ones thrown out, boom...you make a few changes, and you never go out of business. However, limitless consumption must one day be limited by lack of resources...I'm not sure when we'll reach that point, but I don't look forward to it!
a very good post, well said. the economic truth in favour of consumerism, then the sad-but-true truth of the real world. this consumerist dream can't last forever - things need to change at some point.

As I type this, in order for a medical researcher to get their research funded, they need a grant, most likely from a phamaceutical company, which then uses whatever the research turns up to both make money as well as better mankind. While this idea of quid pro quo for medical research may seem materialistic, it does help get research funded. In a perfect world, all deserving research would be given due process, but there is simply not the money to make this happen.
ah but you see, in a moneyless society, the researcher wouldn't need a grant to get his/her work done, as there is no money. he wouldn't expect to get any particular (pecuniary) reward back from his/her job, immediatley, but instead recieve payment, in a way, by getting all the goods & services s/he needs in life for free as well. s/he contributes to the betterment of mankind and society by his/her research (which the pharmaceutical company then gives away), and society pays him/her back by providing everything that is needed or wanted.
the people control the means of production, but it is ordered and organised - unlike the market, and also unlike centrally-planned communism, as it is not planned by one central, arbitary administrative body, but directly by the people saying that 'more of this is needed', or 'we have surplus of good X at our factory, we should make something else', using complex modern information-communications technology

The key to removing barter is to remove the value of material commodity. In a 'star trek' scenario, technology is so advanced that most things can be had 'at will' - eg. holographic fantasies, food prepared by nanotechnology etc. The technology leads to a level of freedom where the value of material commodity is severely reduced.

If society gets to a point where everyone can have as much as his / her fellow neighbour, material values go out the proverbial window.

Our desire for material gain is an inbuilt instinctual tool, that tells us to acquire as many securities as possible, as soon as possible, because only when you have securities will you have security! The unfortunate element of this instinct is that it doesn't know 'enough is enough', so by default an individual will keep on wanting until some other stimulus tells him / her 'enough is enough' and he / she listens.
quite. greed is only too natural, but that doesn't make it right, or a good thing. i say we don't need 'star trek's' advanced level of technology to achieve the moneyless society - it could be done in the near future, as we have both sufficient technology (or will do) and, globally, produce far more than we need. once again i'll bring up my holiday in california when we drove through a valley that, according to tourist information (a highly respectable source ;) ) is so fertile it produces enough food each year to feed 94% of the world's population.
if greed were no longer an issue, and people did actually work for the greater good, we could divide up the resources of the world more equally and nobody would mind.
this is beyond a communist society in my opinion, as there is no central planning... perhaps this is a branch of 'technological' anarcho-communism? either way, this society could be argued to be 'enlightened' as Buddhism says
To achieve nirvana one must extinguish the belief in a separate self that gives rise to cravings, desires, and attachments.
The path to enlightenment includes loving-kindness and compassion, moral conduct, charity, wisdom, and meditation
and Buddah achieved enlightenment - nirvana - through this.
just threw that in at the end for a bit of difference... ;)

Early Sparta went without money for centuries. Slavery and total isolationism was the price to be paid. Their history is rather more interesting though than usually believed. Do check it out.

A world without money is impossible at this stage, unless somehow we all acheive total nirvana or something like Judgement Day happens and the survivors all live in paradise.
Even in the late stone age there was a barter system in place.

bump

*runs off*

Not an option. Nonetheless, if people in rural areas were at least self-sufficient enough to be able to produce enough food to suppor themselves, AND sell (yes, for money, I know, my bad) their surplus to provide for their other NEEDS (not wants...that's another issue), then it would mean those people would be taking care of themselves, AND feeding the urban centres.
Without large businesses there would be to much goods on the market to make any money off of it. To many producers competing for customers. Which means they would have to undercut their competitors and in the end would go bankcrupt. Good for the customer though.
Example:
John and Sam both have a video store. They get along fine.
Then John decides to promote his business by lowering his prices from $4 to $3. Sam loses half his clientel. So he decides to undercut John by 50 cents.
John lowers his prices again. So does Sam. In the end both go belly up.
Instead, farmers are increasinly marginalised, and end up moving to the city. Food prices are kept artificially low by the market (due in large part to the heavily subsidised agribusinesses of the West), and once self-sufficient people are now pressed into dependency. This is not a trend we should be encouraging...especially if you live in the city:) Without us farmer folk, you'd starve.
Yes. Bad trent. But the truth simply is we don't need that many farmers anymore today. With all the modern technology nowadays. And the subsidising at least in part is also to protect the consumer from greedy producers. How would you like to $5 for a loaf of bread? I know I wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Pure Metal
can i just say that this topic has kinda wandered off into the realms of arguements over self-sufficiency, specialisation by process, bartering as an alternative to, and the function of, money

The reason the topic diverted to this is because this is the nature of money. Money is simply a tool of trade. Whether a society without money is desirable depends on the way that money involves itself in trade. Money allows people to specialize because it makes trading more fluid. In a society with money, a person can make nothing but shoes and sell these shoes to hundreds of people. In doing this, he gains greater ability in making shoes, so that he will make them more efficiently. At the same time, all other people become more skilled at their specializations, so that everyone can produce more total goods. However, specialization sacrifices self-sufficiency.
In a society without money, trade is not as fluid because the shoe-maker might want cheese, but maybe the cheese-maker doesn't want shoes. Money is something that they both value because they can exchange it for anything either of them want. However, because people specialize to produce more goods and make more money, they are not able to make everything they want. A society without money would require people to be more self-sufficient, which some economists might conclude is more valuable.

*big snip*
I agree with your assessment of currency trade. Government fixed exchange rates are much more stable. Other financial goods (like interest) do work according to supply and demand. Banks offering higher interest returns on accounts receive more money to invest, but it costs them more. Thus, financial institutions will balance the interest rate where the supply and demand meet, the price at which the companies receive money from investments equal to the opportunity cost of spending their resources (the interest they pay to account holders) elsewhere.

There is a lot to discuss in the first part of your post, but this thread is specifically about society and money, so I will restrict myself to this.

You state that interest works according to supply and demand. This would be good, if it were true. Interest, in the entire western world, is a political tool, operated and controlled for political ends. The supply and demand laws of economics have absolutely no effect on it. The amount over the base rate that the banks and such charge is a function of supply and demand, for the small investor. The large investor (pension funds etc.) is freed of this by the banks needing the reserves to underwrite lending. If the financial institutions, i.e the central banks, were free to set their own interest rates, then they would set it at the point of equal return, I agree. However they are not free to do this.

My real concern is with the concept of interest, as being the driving force behind money as a commodity. If loans were interest free, then two things would occurr. No more loans, no more making money just by having money. The money would have to become active capital to generate a return. Money then reverts to being a representation of work done or productive resources owned.

Originally Posted by Alien Born
My real concern is with the concept of interest, as being the driving force behind money as a commodity.

I definitely agree with the part of your post where you stated that interest rates would balance without government interference. We disagree on whether they serve any purpose. Just because a good reaches an equilibrium price doesn't mean that it should be legal to trade it. Nuclear Weapons would reach an equilibrium price if people could trade them in a free market. However, it is not worth if for society to allow people to make this trade.

You say that loan trading serves no purpose because it creates no wealth of itself, but rather it allows people who own money not to need to create wealth. I disagree that loan trading creates no wealth. It creates value the same way money does, by making resources in society more fluid. A bank loans money to a home buyer because the bank will get more money in return. The home buyer pays this interest because the bank allows him to live in the home while he is repaying the loan.
Without interest, the trade for the home would never occur. Instead, the bank facilitates trade by loaning money to the buyer. Therefore, people can buy expensive products like homes. Interest is the catalyst that allows this to happen. Without it, the real estate industry would only have a few buyers, and only a few people would own homes.

Beyond that, in any industrial or post-industrial society with production of a good occuring at one place (a factory) the distribution and recompense would be an absolute logistical nightmare in a barter system.

I definitely agree with the part of your post where you stated that interest rates would balance without government interference. We disagree on whether they serve any purpose.

Agreed then. Supply and demand laws apply only when the commodity is unregulated.

Just because a good reaches an equilibrium price doesn't mean that it should be legal to trade it. Nuclear Weapons would reach an equilibrium price if people could trade them in a free market. However, it is not worth if for society to allow people to make this trade.
I don't think that I ever argued that all goods should be unregulated. I agree with your position here. (There was thread about freedom of information, where I raised a similar point).

You say that loan trading serves no purpose because it creates no wealth of itself, but rather it allows people who own money not to need to create wealth. I disagree that loan trading creates no wealth. It creates value the same way money does, by making resources in society more fluid. A bank loans money to a home buyer because the bank will get more money in return. The home buyer pays this interest because the bank allows him to live in the home while he is repaying the loan.

Please be a little more careful in your reading. I said that loan trading does not produce any goods. It clearly does not add to the Primary or Secondary production of a nation. I was arguing that without interest the only way of obtaining a return on capital is by investing in primary and secondary industries, or services. However, I do argue that it does not produce wealth, it merely redistributes it. The production of wealth takes place in the extraction of material or the transformation of such material. Not in the lending of value tokens at interest.
I did note that I considered that we are stuck with interest. People no longer work in communities to build their own and each others homes. People do not want to save to but later, they would rather buy first and pay much more in total. The government could lend money at no interest for home purchase, but it is against the establishment'sa interests for this to happen.


Without interest, the trade for the home would never occur. Instead, the bank facilitates trade by loaning money to the buyer. Therefore, people can buy expensive products like homes. Interest is the catalyst that allows this to happen. Without it, the real estate industry would only have a few buyers, and only a few people would own homes.

How does tying up a large proportion of your income in mortgage repayments facilitate trade. It actually restricts trade. The real estate industry was alive, well and healthy, long before we invented the modern banking system, and it only represents a tiny fraction of the total of commercial activity if if it did collapse.
My arguments are directed against money being a commodity. This is the root cause of inflation, the reason why individuals seek monetary gain in preference to doing what they do best.

Your example of the shoemaker, earlier, is a little too simplistic. Let us look at this shoemaker in modern society. He makes shoes very well. That is his gift and talent, It is something that he likes to do, and would do if it were viable. However, there are a few thousand people, in a far off land where the cost of living is much lower, who hate making shoes, but have no land to farm, or boats to fish with, or market to sell their paintings etc. So they make shoes for this foreign company that pays them, by their standards a subsitence wage. This is of course about 50 time less than the company would have to pay the shoemaker. So the shoemaker can produce some shoes of his own, fighting against the economy of scale and the cost of living gradient that advantage the company, or he can go and do something else. Organise numbers on pieces of paper for the same company, so that they can see that it is bettwer to employ the people abroad. He hates doing this, there is no satisfaction for him, his talent is being neglected, but what choice does he have.

Now, if we get rid of money as a commodity, what happens. The cost of living gradient would disappear. (It is held artificially by the use of reserve currencies etc. which become irrelevant with non commodity money). The salary diferential wuld eventually disappear as the work done to make a pair of shoes is the same anywhere in the world. (Remember money now represents work done, nothing more.) Now our shoemaker can be happily productive. making shoes. And the Phillipine lover of accounting, can do the accounts.

Originally Posted by Alien Born
I don't think that I ever argued that all goods should be unregulated.

I didn't make my statement because I thought that you believed this. My point was to let you know that I understand that regulation is sometimes a good thing. I thought that you might not know that I understood this.

However, I do argue that it does not produce wealth, it merely redistributes it.

I disagree with this. Interest facilitates trade, creating value. For example, I value a certain home at $300,000 (it helps my survival and thrival this much). It costs $120,000, but I cannot afford this, even though I value it more than this. However, I can afford to pay $587.48 monthly. This would cost $211,492.80 total over 30 years. So I have a consumer surplus of $88,507.20. The bank that loans me the money (and thus buys the home) values it at $150,000 (the amount they paid plus opportunity cost). Therefore, the bank has a surplus of $61,492.80. The person who sold the home to the bank values it less than $120,000 (opportunity cost, because he or she could buy another home with this). This person's surplus will be around $30,000 (the amount he or she values the new home more than the old one). The total surplus for all parties involved is $180,000.
Notice that this is an increase in value. I value the home at $88,507.20 more than I pay for it. The bank values the money at $61,492.80 more than the home. The old home owner values the money he or she received at $30,000 more than the home. Without interest this would have never occured. By facilitating this trade, interest helped to create value by allocating the house to the person who valued it more.

Originally Posted by Alien Born
People do not want to save to but later, they would rather buy first and pay much more in total.

People do not want to save to buy later because sometimes this is a waste of money. Having a mortgage on a home (which is impossible without interest) is much better for many people than trying to save the money to buy the home while also paying for an apartment. When people don't waste this money, they invest in the goods of primary and secondary industry (they buy more for themselves).

Uh, welcome to last century. Communism does not work, folks. End of thread.

The reason the topic diverted to this is because this is the nature of money. Money is simply a tool of trade. Whether a society without money is desirable depends on the way that money involves itself in trade. Money allows people to specialize because it makes trading more fluid. In a society with money, a person can make nothing but shoes and sell these shoes to hundreds of people. In doing this, he gains greater ability in making shoes, so that he will make them more efficiently. At the same time, all other people become more skilled at their specializations, so that everyone can produce more total goods. However, specialization sacrifices self-sufficiency.
In a society without money, trade is not as fluid because the shoe-maker might want cheese, but maybe the cheese-maker doesn't want shoes. Money is something that they both value because they can exchange it for anything either of them want. However, because people specialize to produce more goods and make more money, they are not able to make everything they want. A society without money would require people to be more self-sufficient, which some economists might conclude is more valuable.

the alternative to using money is not necessarily bartering, but simply giving your produce away to whoever needs it. people seem to miss this - the society and people could still be specialised by process, but still not use money OR bartering as a method of exchange

You state that interest works according to supply and demand. This would be good, if it were true. Interest, in the entire western world, is a political tool, operated and controlled for political ends.
sorry, not quite true. in the UK, the Labour government seperated control of interest rates from the chancellor/govt, and placed control in the hands of the indipendent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England (our central bank). thus interest rates cannot be used by the government for political gains anymore.
also, interest rates are affected by supply and demand, but directly - it takes the external actor (the MPC) to change the rate. Consumption too high due to excessive spending and an overheating economy? Demand is too high. so, the MPC takes the action of raising the base rate to encourage saving. thus supply & demand and interest rates are, technically
sorry about that, i studied economics for 5 years and like to be precise in economic analysis :headbang:

Uh, welcome to last century. Communism does not work, folks. End of thread.
thread's not dead ^ ;)

I disagree with this. Interest facilitates trade, creating value. For example, I value a certain home at $300,000 (it helps my survival and thrival this much). It costs $120,000, but I cannot afford this, even though I value it more than this. However, I can afford to pay $587.48 monthly. This would cost $211,492.80 total over 30 years. So I have a consumer surplus of $88,507.20. The bank that loans me the money (and thus buys the home) values it at $150,000 (the amount they paid plus opportunity cost). Therefore, the bank has a surplus of $61,492.80. The person who sold the home to the bank values it less than $120,000 (opportunity cost, because he or she could buy another home with this). This person's surplus will be around $30,000 (the amount he or she values the new home more than the old one). The total surplus for all parties involved is $180,000.
Notice that this is an increase in value. I value the home at $88,507.20 more than I pay for it. The bank values the money at $61,492.80 more than the home. The old home owner values the money he or she received at $30,000 more than the home. Without interest this would have never occured. By facilitating this trade, interest helped to create value by allocating the house to the person who valued it more.

The whole point is that if you value the property as being worth 300,000 units (I am not american, so I object to the US$ being presumed to be the currency, it is not universal) and pay anything less than this, then you have done well, but the seller is loosing out. If some of this diference goes towards financing costs then the seller is even further prejudiced. No net gain of value whatsoever occurs here. Simply the negotiation of the value of the property was poorly conducted by the seller and they lose. The value that the bank gains, does not appear from nowhere, it is deducted from the value received by the seller. As I said, redistribution, not generation.

Tjhe concept that loans have to be made at interest is what is at stake here. I am not objecting to the lending of money, I am objecting to charging a premium for lending money. It would easily be possible for construction companies or governments (local, regional or national) to lend money at zero cost for home purchase.

People do not want to save to buy later because sometimes this is a waste of money. Having a mortgage on a home (which is impossible without interest) is much better for many people than trying to save the money to buy the home while also paying for an apartment. When people don't waste this money, they invest in the goods of primary and secondary industry (they buy more for themselves).

How is giving money to a bank not a waste of money. Saving is better in general. See my previous post with regard to house purchases. I was referring more to borrowing to take a vacation, or to buy a new car etc. than the mortgaging of property.

thread's not dead ^ ;)


Indeed. It seems reactionism never goes out of style.

t
sorry, not quite true. in the UK, the Labour government seperated control of interest rates from the chancellor/govt, and placed control in the hands of the indipendent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England (our central bank). thus interest rates cannot be used by the government for political gains anymore.
also, interest rates are affected by supply and demand, but directly - it takes the external actor (the MPC) to change the rate. Consumption too high due to excessive spending and an overheating economy? Demand is too high. so, the MPC takes the action of raising the base rate to encourage saving. thus supply & demand and interest rates are, technically
sorry about that, i studied economics for 5 years and like to be precise in economic analysis :headbang:


The MPC, however, is guided by the targets set for monetary performance. Who, one asks, sets these goals? From where I sit it appears that these goals have to be political in nature. It may be that they fit into the broad political consensus of the center/ center right that has a hegemony on politics in Europe. But this is still a political target. Interest rates are not purely determined by the market. That is a fact, I believe. As sauch they have to be determined by something else. Economic theories are always politically weighted. i.e to the left or right in economic terms, so if these determine the targets, then the targets are politically defined, If it is not politics or economics that determine the targets, then I am at a loss as to what could do so.

Early Sparta went without money for centuries. Slavery and total isolationism was the price to be paid. Their history is rather more interesting though than usually believed. Do check it out.

You beat me to it!

Actually, I wouldn't call the Spartans of "Pre-Athenian dominated Greece" to have been isolated, just that they lived in such a structured society that the whole manner of life broke down when they had to interact to advance their society past the bronze age.

Simply, their model failed as their world got larger; the same way Native American societies did. The Aztecs and the Six Nations, for example both had currency as they grew.

The Spartans simply could not expand to challenge the Athenians (or even the Corinthians... etc) fast enough. Spartan society simply could not trade and adapt new ideas like their Athenian counterparts. Too much structure.

Indeed. It seems reactionism never goes out of style.

No, thinking is what never goes out of style, one day, if you are very lucky, this might just sink in.

No, thinking is what never goes out of style, one day, if you are very lucky, this might just sink in.

Yeah okay, whatever you say Paolo. I'll just go into my corner and sulk now, eh? Feh. Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch, and all that.

Didn't we used to barter...a pig for a bag of cabbages or whatever a pig used to bring...and didn't we invent coinage so we didn't have to lug those pesky wriggly pigs around? Why is money bad exactly?

The MPC, however, is guided by the targets set for monetary performance. Who, one asks, sets these goals? From where I sit it appears that these goals have to be political in nature. It may be that they fit into the broad political consensus of the center/ center right that has a hegemony on politics in Europe. But this is still a political target. Interest rates are not purely determined by the market. That is a fact, I believe. As sauch they have to be determined by something else. Economic theories are always politically weighted. i.e to the left or right in economic terms, so if these determine the targets, then the targets are politically defined, If it is not politics or economics that determine the targets, then I am at a loss as to what could do so.
i did not argue that interest rates are ever purely determined by the market, merely that there is indeed a technical link between interest rates and supply & demand, controlled by the MPC. The MPC does have to meet government targets (inflation between 1.5% and 3.5% p.a.) but can act indipendently within that restriction. thus interest rates are still politically motivated, but not entirely so (in the UK) - this was simply my objection to your point that:

Interest, in the entire western world, is a political tool, operated and controlled for political ends.
its not wrong (by any means) but, at least for the UK, its not quite right.

moot point, really :p

/drops pig/

Dammit!.....

Didn't we used to barter...a pig for a bag of cabbages or whatever a pig used to bring...and didn't we invent coinage so we didn't have to lug those pesky wriggly pigs around? Why is money bad exactly?

There are a lot of reasons, most of them have been given in this thread.
For me, it is primarily because money became a commodity in itself, allowing non productive portions of society to become successful, demanding greater productivity and more effort from the productive sector just to keep what they already had.

Didn't we used to barter...a pig for a bag of cabbages or whatever a pig used to bring...and didn't we invent coinage so we didn't have to lug those pesky wriggly pigs around? Why is money bad exactly?

Money is a tool used by the bourgeoisie to supress the working people! Raise the red banners! Hang the capitalists! Free vodka for all, and hail Stalin, our glorious leader!

Didn't we used to barter...a pig for a bag of cabbages or whatever a pig used to bring...and didn't we invent coinage so we didn't have to lug those pesky wriggly pigs around? Why is money bad exactly?

the alternative to using money is not necessarily bartering, but simply giving your produce away to whoever needs it. people seem to miss this - the society and people could still be specialised by process, but still not use money OR bartering as a method of exchange
good question though, why is money bad? simple but i hadn't specifically considered it before....

It would appear I have opened a can of worms...

....a can of worms is about equivalent to 3 1/2 carrots

It would appear I have opened a can of worms...

....a can of worms is about equivalent to 3 1/2 carrots
:p

can i trade you some pigs instead?

edit: seeing how you dropped yours ;)

I don't think money is bad...it's just blamed alot...the old man was mugged for his wallet (rather than pig)..blah blah....it's the people who are corrupt, not the folding stuff or the jingly pieces...if you like I can look after your money for you and that way you won't be corrupted...

.....MWAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!

:p

can i trade you some pigs instead?

edit: seeing how you dropped yours ;)


Ok.....I have the can of worms, but it's been opened and I think a few have escaped......I might have a bananananana here too...it's a green one which as you know is worth more

in star trek, unfortunatley the catalyst for their utopian, Rousseau-esque, moneyless society is the 3rd world war in the latter half of the 21st century, in which approxamatley 600 million people died. yes i am a nerd (but i just watched first contact :) )

(I don't know if this has been answered some pages back)
Uh no. The creation of Replicators ended the moneyless society. Once you can start replicating nearly anything from food to shirts to tables.. Money is rather useless.

Energy is their source of barter now (Trilithium) which is used to create anti-matter in their anti-matter engines.

I don't think money is bad...it's just blamed alot...the old man was mugged for his wallet (rather than pig)..blah blah....it's the people who are corrupt, not the folding stuff or the jingly pieces...if you like I can look after your money for you and that way you won't be corrupted...

.....MWAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!

The desire for more than you have would not go away if we did away with money. I t would not free us from crime and theft and mugging etc. What it would do is remove the institutionalised robbery that is the banking system.

Think about how banks work in most of the world (the UK is a lot better than almost anywhere else). What happens?
You open an account, receive a check book and/or an ATM/Debit card, maybe a crewdit card. For these little pieces of paper and plastic, which are noe the means by which you can access your money, the bank charges you a fee. To send you a statement of how much money you have, the bank caharges a fee. OK, you pay the bank to use its services you say to yourself, isn't that fair?

No, it is not. What you are actually doing, when you deposit money in a bank, is providing the bank with the raw materials, the supplies it needs, for it to run its main business. This is, of course, lending money at interest. For every unit of money you deposit the bank can lend between seven and ten units (this depends on the default statistics). So one unit, provides seven units lent, at interest which provides about half a unit of profit for the bank at the end of the year. (150% return on investment is pretty damn good).

So banking is, as far as I am aware the only industry where the members of that industry can charge both for the services supplied and charge their suppliers of the raw materials as well.

This is the second most profitable con scheme of all time (losing only to organised religion).

I'm going to bring up my efficiency problem again, just for kicks. I mean, after all, money is just a standardization, a measure of labor (when I say labor I don't just mean like hourly wage, but skills, intellectual capabilities, training, etc.) that is standardized in worth. And the amount of money is negotiated.

So, now we have a metric for measuring labor, we also have a manner to store labor for a later date. So as to allow for purchases to be made in whole, as opposed to in pieces, as would be in a barter economy.

We also have a fairly efficient distribution system with money. It's commonly visible in the US and other industrial and post-industrial nations. Beyond that, money allows for long distance trades, such as with eBay and Amazon.com.

Another important thing is that money is flexible, it can be used universally. It is fungible like gold. It can be passed on as representation of something else.

Let's have another example of the failings of a barter economy. I make slacks, and my neighbor grows corn. I happen to need some corn, so I offer my neighbor some slacks in return, but he just got some slacks for some corn somewhere else. And unfortuneately for me, he is the only person around here who grows corn. Now if the society had money, then this problem is solved, as he can use the money for anything else that he wishes, he can go buy a teakettle with it, he can do whatever with it, unlike if I were to trade him corn for slacks.

The inefficiency of an industrial or post-industrial economy in a currencyless society is also problematic. A market with currency solves this problem, the distributor can see where the most money is being spent on a good, and send more there, but in an economy without that, there is no report-up to the distrbutor, so he could just keep sending loads of the goods to a place where they aren't needed. Now, of course opinion polling could be used, but that's really a hassle and tough to pull off.

So, I'm tired. I'm rambling, I hope this makes sense.

The inefficiency of an industrial or post-industrial economy in a currencyless society is also problematic. A market with currency solves this problem, the distributor can see where the most money is being spent on a good, and send more there, but in an economy without that, there is no report-up to the distrbutor, so he could just keep sending loads of the goods to a place where they aren't needed. Now, of course opinion polling could be used, but that's really a hassle and tough to pull off.


I am just going to tackle this one point for now. (I have to think a lot more about the others)

The distributor sees where the money comes from, only by seeing the number of orders for that product from that region under the current system. (Centralised accounting rather destroys the geographical relationship between sales and revenue). So under a barter system this would be no different. Stock control and distribution logistics systems would still have to interface, as they do now. No polling required.

(I don't know if this has been answered some pages back)
Uh no. The creation of Replicators ended the moneyless society. Once you can start replicating nearly anything from food to shirts to tables.. Money is rather useless.

Energy is their source of barter now (Trilithium) which is used to create anti-matter in their anti-matter engines.

How does someone gain possession of a replicator? Or are there myriad public replicators on every street corner?

How does someone gain possession of a replicator? Or are there myriad public replicators on every street corner?

I think it was technology given by the Vulcans or the humans finally invented it. Not too sure. And in the Star Trek TNG Universe, their like vending machines.

It doesn't exist btw. Scientist currently are having a hard time moving electrons & protons together to create atoms. We're still a long long long long way away. If not we'll be combining electrons to Lead, and creating GOOOOOOLD. :D

What a replicator just do is change energy into matter. So it can be anything you want it to be. Hence, Communism is possible, because it eliminates the question of scarcity of resources.

(I don't know if this has been answered some pages back)
Uh no. The creation of Replicators ended the moneyless society. Once you can start replicating nearly anything from food to shirts to tables.. Money is rather useless.

Energy is their source of barter now (Trilithium) which is used to create anti-matter in their anti-matter engines.
ok fine, whatever. i was simply using star trek as a common point of reference for the concept i was trying to describe.

and i've never heard of the federation actually bartering with trilitium (sure its not dilytium?) though (but then im not a trekkie, just a fan ;) )

And, quite frankly, money just plain works. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have sprung up in several locations independent of one another. That's really one of the big arguements in favor of money.

ok fine, whatever. i was simply using star trek as a common point of reference for the concept i was trying to describe.

Yeah I know. Just trying to be a smarty Pants. :D

The desire for more than you have would not go away if we did away with money. I t would not free us from crime and theft and mugging etc. What it would do is remove the institutionalised robbery that is the banking system.
the desire to have more - greed - won't go away with the removal of money. it must be removed through a shift of emphasis away from the individual and the self, to an emphasis placed on your community, your society, and all other people.
i find this idea highly compelling, but largely because i cant think of any specific things about which i object. any objections to this notion from anyone else?

as for banks... they are 'evil', eh? as i have said in this thread already, i forget the specifics & dynamics, but banks are the only economic actor - aside from the government - that actually produces money. while the government produces (more) money to alleviate economic problems, banks keep all the money they create as profits.

Yeah I know. Just trying to be a smarty Pants. :D
well thats ok by me :p

I'm going to bring up my efficiency problem again, just for kicks. I mean, after all, money is just a standardization, a measure of labor (when I say labor I don't just mean like hourly wage, but skills, intellectual capabilities, training, etc.) that is standardized in worth. And the amount of money is negotiated.

So, now we have a metric for measuring labor, we also have a manner to store labor for a later date. So as to allow for purchases to be made in whole, as opposed to in pieces, as would be in a barter economy.

We also have a fairly efficient distribution system with money. It's commonly visible in the US and other industrial and post-industrial nations. Beyond that, money allows for long distance trades, such as with eBay and Amazon.com.

Another important thing is that money is flexible, it can be used universally. It is fungible like gold. It can be passed on as representation of something else.

Let's have another example of the failings of a barter economy. I make slacks, and my neighbor grows corn. I happen to need some corn, so I offer my neighbor some slacks in return, but he just got some slacks for some corn somewhere else. And unfortuneately for me, he is the only person around here who grows corn. Now if the society had money, then this problem is solved, as he can use the money for anything else that he wishes, he can go buy a teakettle with it, he can do whatever with it, unlike if I were to trade him corn for slacks.

The inefficiency of an industrial or post-industrial economy in a currencyless society is also problematic. A market with currency solves this problem, the distributor can see where the most money is being spent on a good, and send more there, but in an economy without that, there is no report-up to the distrbutor, so he could just keep sending loads of the goods to a place where they aren't needed. Now, of course opinion polling could be used, but that's really a hassle and tough to pull off.

So, I'm tired. I'm rambling, I hope this makes sense.

the alternative to using money is not necessarily bartering, but simply giving your produce away to whoever needs it. people seem to miss this - the society and people could still be specialised by process, but still not use money OR bartering as a method of exchange
bartering is far inferior to using currency as a means of exhange. specialisation of labour is far more desirable and efficient than (subsistance-style) producing everything you need.
a world without money needn't resort to bartering or require people to live a basic subsitance lifestyle.
your point about money being a measure of labour. in a world without money, this standardisation wouldn't exist and (instead of bartering) when you GIVE your products away to anothers who need them, you will be repayed in the long term (as opposed to short-term labour-value reconsiliation, as seen with bartering) as you will be given products made by others for free as well - products which they had to provide their labour to produce. accross a lifetime, the labour you put in is balanced out by the amount of labour you recieve through consuming the products of others. there is therefore no need for any standardisation of value - of labour, goods and services, or wealth.

this requires a change of fundamental human behaviour. human nature has not always been the same and changes throughout history; there is no reason why the way we are now is, in fact, true or real human nature - thus how we are now needn't be how we are in the future. thus, with malleable human nature, the current emphasis - or goal - of people; to be greedy, to attain 'things', to have more material goods than others as a standard of wealth and success, need not be 'human nature'. human nature could be changed through education over a long time-frame to instill less emphasis on greed, selfishness and material aquisition, and put in its place an emphasis on working for the benefit and advancement of all. it sounds ridiculous as it is unconcievable in today's world, but with malleable human nature it is not impossible to achieve in the long run (hundreds of years).
once this change has been realised, the moneyless system above could be instigated and none (or few) of the objections raised today would be relavent, as our 'human nature' is inherently more greedy than this system would allow (or visa-versa).
hope that made some sense to somebody, it turned into a bit of a (clarifying) rant ;)

bartering is far inferior to using currency as a means of exhange. specialisation of labour is far more desirable and efficient than (subsistance-style) producing everything you need.
a world without money needn't resort to bartering or require people to live a basic subsitance lifestyle.
your point about money being a measure of labour. in a world without money, this standardisation wouldn't exist and (instead of bartering) when you GIVE your products away to anothers who need them, you will be repayed in the long term (as opposed to short-term labour-value reconsiliation, as seen with bartering) as you will be given products made by others for free as well - products which they had to provide their labour to produce. accross a lifetime, the labour you put in is balanced out by the amount of labour you recieve through consuming the products of others. there is therefore no need for any standardisation of value - of labour, goods and services, or wealth.

this requires a change of fundamental human behaviour. human nature has not always been the same and changes throughout history; there is no reason why the way we are now is, in fact, true or real human nature - thus how we are now needn't be how we are in the future. thus, with malleable human nature, the current emphasis - or goal - of people; to be greedy, to attain 'things', to have more material goods than others as a standard of wealth and success, need not be 'human nature'. human nature could be changed through education over a long time-frame to instill less emphasis on greed, selfishness and material aquisition, and put in its place an emphasis on working for the benefit and advancement of all. it sounds ridiculous as it is unconcievable in today's world, but with malleable human nature it is not impossible to achieve in the long run (hundreds of years).
once this change has been realised, the moneyless system above could be instigated and none (or few) of the objections raised today would be relavent, as our 'human nature' is inherently more greedy than this system would allow (or visa-versa).
hope that made some sense to somebody, it turned into a bit of a (clarifying) rant ;)
Well, I understand it, but I don't agree. I'll have to work backwards, from yours, so, we're going to see the arguement kind of going in a hump shape.

First you challenge that human nature has changed over the years. I contend that it has not changed. We still live in hierarchical societies, we still have a need for civil and military enforcement, we still have the same greed and corruption that has existed since the beginning of society. And fear is still a motivating factor, not beneficience.

Democracy may be seen as some sort change, but I'd also contest that it isn't. It's just making a system that existed previously more transparent. Can you truly tell me that any despot, no matter how powerful, never bowed to public opinion. Democratic means have just made it so that the influence is somewhat more direct.

In fact, the only things that have changed are the levels of comfort and knowledge and the concentration and extension of power. Even some of the most important "paradigm shifts" are based in a desire for self improvement. Take the Protestant Reformation, one of the motivating factors was German nationalism, and such.

As such, I contend that human nature has not changed one whit, we are still the same basically as the unfortuneate farmer tending his fields in ancient Mesopotamia.

And from that, we come to the fact that I do not believe that a society with the group over the individual would work. Sure, people have sacrificed themselves for stuff, but it was never for society. It was always for the glory of a king, or for a chance to get into heaven, or gold, or their family, or whoever. People have never sacrificed themselves for a society.

As such, it becomes clear that I do not believe that an egalitarian society is even remotely possible.

"In America, you have Presidents on your money. In Soviet Russia...we have no money!"

I've got five words for you lot: "....from my cold, dead hands!"

This requires a change of fundamental human behaviour. human nature has not always been the same and changes throughout history; there is no reason why the way we are now is, in fact, true or real human nature - thus how we are now needn't be how we are in the future. thus, with malleable human nature, the current emphasis - or goal - of people; to be greedy, to attain 'things', to have more material goods than others as a standard of wealth and success, need not be 'human nature'. human nature could be changed through education over a long time-frame to instill less emphasis on greed, selfishness and material aquisition, and put in its place an emphasis on working for the benefit and advancement of all. it sounds ridiculous as it is unconcievable in today's world, but with malleable human nature it is not impossible to achieve in the long run (hundreds of years).

Uhmmm? I have never heard of a shift in the basic driving motivation of humans. We have always wanted to be the biggest, best, most powerful, most seuccessful of our kind. How this is measured has, at times varied. From being the best with a longsword at one time, to being the best on the stock market at another, but the basic principle has always been the same, abnd it is not very likely to change.
So what you are arguing has to be that how we measure success has to change. Perhaps from being the wealthiest SOB in the world to being the nicest all around general good guy. This may be achievable if the basic partner choosing criterion of women changes from "the most able to support me in the luxury to which I would like to become accustomed" to "the most likely to respect me as a person and appreciate the things I bring with me to the realationship". This is, by the way, slowly happening, it is just that most of us men have not realised it yet, so we are still showing off our financial muscles.

once this change has been realised, the moneyless system above could be instigated and none (or few) of the objections raised today would be relavent, as our 'human nature' is inherently more greedy than this system would allow (or visa-versa).
hope that made some sense to somebody, it turned into a bit of a (clarifying) rant ;)

It made some sense yes. I still hold that we will need money in the sense of work value tokens, even if only to make life difficult for the antisocial freeloaders that are bound to exist in any society.

And from that, we come to the fact that I do not believe that a society with the group over the individual would work. Sure, people have sacrificed themselves for stuff, but it was never for society. It was always for the glory of a king, or for a chance to get into heaven, or gold, or their family, or whoever. People have never sacrificed themselves for a society.

As such, it becomes clear that I do not believe that an egalitarian society is even remotely possible.

Whilst agreeing that human nature does not change, (see my previous post for how this does not eliminate Pure Metal's system) I have to disagree concerning the placement of the group over the individual.

Throughout most of human history, the individual was almost a null concept. A person was identified by his or her role in a fixed societal structure, and their actions were directed toward the benefit of that structure. The peasant, in feudal society did not think of himself as being abused or mistreated, his life was his lot, the one given to him by God, (or the gods if non/pre christian). What he did was for the greater glory of the powers that be. Not out of fear as Thomas Hobbes for example would have it, but out of a belief that things were as they were supposed to be. The same applied to the merchant classes, and to the aristocracy. No questioning of who am I? What shall I do with my life? These questions were meaningless.
The notion of the individual, as someone that could desire something different, appeared with the reformation. This was the real Lutherian revolution. Forget all that Protestant/Catholic schism stuff. The invention of the individual was the real revolution.
Even after this, when small local communities have been isolated from the instruments of state (banks, government, taxation etc.), basic communitarian communism has nearly always arisen. People help their neighbours, who in turn help them. Look at the Spanish civil war for clear examples.
The individual is not a god to which the human race has always prayed.

Originally Posted by Alien Born
The whole point is that if you value the property as being worth 300,000 units (I am not american, so I object to the US$ being presumed to be the currency, it is not universal) and pay anything less than this, then you have done well, but the seller is loosing out.

Different people don't necessarilly value the same good at the same amount. Consider decreasing marginal utility. The value of the next unit of a good is always lower than the value of the unit before it, past a certain point. For instance, one house is good, but what are you going to do with 300 houses? Construction companies make houses more effeciently (with fewer resources) than a person would make them on his or her own. Thus, they can sell a house to a person for less than that person would need to make it himself (including time missed from other profitable work). However, the construction company charges more than their costs in making the house. Therefore, both parties benefit because the buyer gets the home for less than he or she values it, and the sellers sell it for more than they value it.
Banks do not value homes as much as families do. However, most families cannot afford homes on their own. Therefore, banks buy homes and sell them to the families at interest. Both parties benefit. The family values the home more than the money they are paying (including the interest), otherwise they wouldn't agree to pay that much, and they would make the home for themselves if they really wanted it. The bank sells the home for more than it values it.

It would easily be possible for construction companies or governments (local, regional or national) to lend money at zero cost for home purchase.

I disagree that this would be easy, or even possible. The lender has to charge interest because by giving up their right to have the full payment now, they are giving up what they would gain by investing it elsewhere. If lenders had to charge 0% interest, no one would lend any money for anything, including homes because they could get a better return on their investment elsewhere. There would not be as many home owners despite the fact that families value houses so much more than banks or construction companies.

How is giving money to a bank not a waste of money

Well, Bank One has totally free checking. In fact, they pay me interest on my savings account. And I don't ever have to carry cash again (thus less chance of losing it or getting robbed), because I have a check card that pretty much every business will accept. They can afford to pay me interest and have totally free checking because they use the money "in the float" (in accounts but not being used right now) to lend, and they receive payments on these loans enough so that they can give the money back to those who save in the bank whenever they ask for it. Pretty much every bank here has this free checking now, because those that don't won't get any business (unless they offer some other service). Thus, every body entering the deal gains (again!). I get a free place to store my money. The bank gets a source to make loans. Potential home buyers get a way to buy the houses they want, and home sellers get good money for property. Yay capitalism!

Different people don't necessarilly value the same good at the same amount. Consider decreasing marginal utility. The value of the next unit of a good is always lower than the value of the unit before it, past a certain point. For instance, one house is good, but what are you going to do with 300 houses? Construction companies make houses more effeciently (with fewer resources) than a person would make them on his or her own. Thus, they can sell a house to a person for less than that person would need to make it himself (including time missed from other profitable work). However, the construction company charges more than their costs in making the house. Therefore, both parties benefit because the buyer gets the home for less than he or she values it, and the sellers sell it for more than they value it.

We agree up to here. Fine.

Banks do not value homes as much as families do. However, most families cannot afford homes on their own. Therefore, banks buy homes and sell them to the families at interest. Both parties benefit. The family values the home more than the money they are paying (including the interest), otherwise they wouldn't agree to pay that much, and they would make the home for themselves if they really wanted it. The bank sells the home for more than it values it.

Banks, as far as I was aware, are not generally in the property speculation business. They do not, in general, buy homes. Banks are in the usuary business, yes they lend money for profit. Where homes are concerned this loan is secured against the value of the property. The property belongs to the mortgagee, not to the bank, but the bank has lien (I think it is formally called this anyway) over the property. This means that if you do not pay the bank, they can seize your property, your house, as a substitute for the non payment.
Banks do not sell homes. Property builders or private individuals sell homes. As I said before, the person that loses out in an interest based propewrty transaction is the seller. The buyer is willing to pay X, the seller receives X-Y. Y goes to the bank, for no apparently justifiable reason.


Zero interest loans
I disagree that this would be easy, or even possible. The lender has to charge interest because by giving up their right to have the full payment now, they are giving up what they would gain by investing it elsewhere. If lenders had to charge 0% interest, no one would lend any money for anything, including homes because they could get a better return on their investment elsewhere. There would not be as many home owners despite the fact that families value houses so much more than banks or construction companies.

So car manufacturers would not give zero interest loans over five years for you to buy their products. But they do actually do this. Why can the same system not apply to house manufacturers. Local government could certainly do this, as could an association of construction industries. All these have an interest in individuals buying homes. None of these have an interest in the seller giving a portion of the value of the property to the banks.
Think again please.



Well, Bank One has totally free checking. In fact, they pay me interest on my savings account. And I don't ever have to carry cash again (thus less chance of losing it or getting robbed), because I have a check card that pretty much every business will accept. They can afford to pay me interest and have totally free checking because they use the money "in the float" (in accounts but not being used right now) to lend, and they receive payments on these loans enough so that they can give the money back to those who save in the bank whenever they ask for it. Pretty much every bank here has this free checking now, because those that don't won't get any business (unless they offer some other service). Thus, every body entering the deal gains (again!). I get a free place to store my money. The bank gets a source to make loans. Potential home buyers get a way to buy the houses they want, and home sellers get good money for property. Yay capitalism!

Some few banks, around the world are catching on to the fact that we are wising up to the con game. The big four in the UK, you inform me that Bank One in the USa does this, ands presumably others do there as well. All I can say is that here in Brazil, banks cut deep into your flesh every which way they can.
I have nothing against capitalism whatsoever. In fact I believe that interest charges are anti capitalistic. You have a lump sum of money. what should you do with it. Well currently you have three choices really. Secure fixed rate interest accounts. No benefit to the society here. No new jobs, no increase in production, no increase in the general standard of living. Invest in the stock market. Now this is slightly better as a portion of the capital is made available to industry and there is some effect on production etc. However a large portion is skimmed off by stockbroking fees etc. The benefit is that the risk is spread. Thirdly ther is venture capital or business start up investment. Here the capital is directly applied to create an increase in the number of jobs, the productivity of the nation etc. Which of these thre is more capitalist, which is less. To me the banking system is a hinderance and weight on capitalism.

Capitalism does not need money as a commodity, it does need work value tokens to be efficient.

Well, I understand it, but I don't agree. I'll have to work backwards, from yours, so, we're going to see the arguement kind of going in a hump shape.
good, you don't agree. means more arguement ;)
ps: i dislike debating in a 'quote-by-quote/point-by-point' way but i guess we're going to have to...


First you challenge that human nature has changed over the years. I contend that it has not changed. We still live in hierarchical societies, we still have a need for civil and military enforcement, we still have the same greed and corruption that has existed since the beginning of society. And fear is still a motivating factor, not beneficience.
i agree with the writings of Jean-Jaques Rousseau, who was one of the first to argue that human nature has had one fundamental change in human history, and has been still changing since. he argued that man, in a State of Nature, without the constructs of society would be very different from you or I inside society today. in the State of Nature, a hypothetical or pre-history situation, there is no society or government. It is partly from Rousseau that i draw my conclusion that human nature has changed over time. here's a piece from a recent essay i did on the subject:

Rousseau argued that Locke and Hobbes had made a fundamental mistake, believing they took ‘civil’ (or politicised) man with all his sociological, contemporary programming, and placed him in the State of Nature where there was no social or political structure and resources that could never match need.
...
For Rousseau, man in the State of Nature has no desires but to fulfil his most basic instincts – to be sheltered, fed, watered and to procreate. There is no Hobbesian desire for power, no Locke-esque ownership of land; in Rousseau’s arguments there is no scarcity of resources and man has no need to fight for what he wants, or to abide by moral laws as human contact is not competitive. This argument is best summed up in Rousseau’s words: “I see [man in the State of Nature] satisfying his hunger under an oak tree, quenching his thirst at the first stream, finding his bed at the foot of the same tree that supplied his meal; and thus all his needs are satisfied (Rousseau:1987:40)” Man is thus living an amoral life, free of the need for reason and without competition
hence man's nature has changed.
Socialists such as Owen and Marx argue that man's nature changes according to situation or circumstance and thus human nature is malleable - this i agree with. you could take a child of any 'class' of parentage (rich, poor, republican, democrat) and instil in that child views and ideas, through education, that are completley opposite to those held by its parents. you could teach the child to always strive for the greater good - for the good of the many - over the good of the one, for instance. socialists argue for this point, and many (communists) go on to vindicate a subsequent violent revolution. i'm not saying this, merely that human nature is changable and over the long-term, through education (and a 'national scheme for the formation of character'), human nature can be changed to shun greed and accept the moneyless society.

Democracy may be seen as some sort change, but I'd also contest that it isn't. It's just making a system that existed previously more transparent. Can you truly tell me that any despot, no matter how powerful, never bowed to public opinion. Democratic means have just made it so that the influence is somewhat more direct.
democracy is simply the same system that existed previously, just made more transparent?
firstly, this isn't an arguement about democracy. it isn't even necessarily about capitalism (by extention it is of course). secondly, it depends where you draw the lines. if a system is constantly changing, day by day, towards something else, this is going to have a different meaning than one which goes through distinct phases. i would argue that human history has, indeed, been a series of such phases. the last phase would have been the medieval feudal phase - with an all powerful monarchy, and serfs owned by landed aristocracy. how is our current system simply a 'more transparent' version of that?
has human nature not changed since then? the serfs working the land, did they desire little in the way that we do now? did they desire the greedy aquisition of material goods, did they desire travel, or to look good/beautiful/fashionable, or did they have much simpler goals? was their nature different to ours? their situation, their circumstance, is certainly different to ours - why should we take them to think, behave and desire the same things that we do today? has our human nature not changed at all?


<snip>

And from that, we come to the fact that I do not believe that a society with the group over the individual would work. Sure, people have sacrificed themselves for stuff, but it was never for society. It was always for the glory of a king, or for a chance to get into heaven, or gold, or their family, or whoever. People have never sacrificed themselves for a society.

As such, it becomes clear that I do not believe that an egalitarian society is even remotely possible.
fair enough, you are most welcome to your opinion. however, ( ;) ) you are confusing contemporary man with the ideal. you are putting man of today - with today's ideas, beliefs, desires and motivations - into the hypothetical future moneyless situation. no wonder it wont work! the whole point is that it could work IF human nature - or, more succinctly, desires and motivation - were to be changed.
if you still believe human nature to be unchangeable, then i can at least understand your objection to the idea.

(I don't know if this has been answered some pages back)
Uh no. The creation of Replicators ended the moneyless society. Once you can start replicating nearly anything from food to shirts to tables.. Money is rather useless.

Energy is their source of barter now (Trilithium) which is used to create anti-matter in their anti-matter engines.

They also have a rather silly understanding of evolution in Star Trek in which people "evolved" to the point that freeing them from the burden of subsistence-seeking they still choose to work for the satisfaction of doing so. Just like many people write for a hobby without trying to publish. Star Trek has humans who choose to run a cafe as a hobby, sweep floors as a hobby, join the military as a hobby etc.

They whole series is predicated on the idea that inventions are the result of human evolution, not just engineering.

Uhmmm? I have never heard of a shift in the basic driving motivation of humans. We have always wanted to be the biggest, best, most powerful, most seuccessful of our kind. How this is measured has, at times varied. From being the best with a longsword at one time, to being the best on the stock market at another, but the basic principle has always been the same, abnd it is not very likely to change.
So what you are arguing has to be that how we measure success has to change. Perhaps from being the wealthiest SOB in the world to being the nicest all around general good guy. This may be achievable if the basic partner choosing criterion of women changes from "the most able to support me in the luxury to which I would like to become accustomed" to "the most likely to respect me as a person and appreciate the things I bring with me to the realationship". This is, by the way, slowly happening, it is just that most of us men have not realised it yet, so we are still showing off our financial muscles.
well you've read Hobbes i see, so you know of the State of Nature. see my previous post for Rousseau's arguements, backing my 'human nature/driving force has changed' point of view. is it not possible that we only act in our competative, greedy way because this is how the artificial construct of 'society' has made us act? this is how we are brought up to act, behave and desire, and success is the commonly accepted driving force behind our lives simply because it is, and has been for a long time. this does not necissarily make it our human nature or indeed the only driving force that can motivate us - if your example holds true (that we strive to be successful simply to gain primitive mating rights) then this is intrinsically another thing that motivates people. some people strive simply for success, others are motivated to be sucessful to gain the rewards that come with such success.

however, it is worth noting that even if a drive to be sucessful is inherent in human nature, this, firstly, does not mean a society based on the many over the individual is necissarily negated. and secondly, MONEY is the generally accepted measure of sucess in today's society. can this honestly be concieved as the only measure of sucess there may be - past or future? in a future moneyless society, there would be other idicators of sucess; such as intellectual achievement (first off my head), or job held (moneyless does not necesarily mean no division of labour, or hierarchy).

your idea of changing motivation of success is an interesting one and i sure hope it hurries up and changes already - all of us 'nice guys' are still having a hard time (well i am :( )

-snip just for the purpose of saving space-
First off, I disagree with most of the contract theoreticians who use the state-of-nature arguement, as a state of nature never existed. People (and beyond that, we see the same thing in most other primates as well, of course using this is very weak, but it's to illustrate a point) have always formed social groups as ways of protecting the individual and his interests. People never went around happily just eating fruit and visiting streams, there never was a world where people were happy.

Let's face it, scarcity has always been a problem. During the winter, the foods that tribal humans lived off of were scarce, people died, starvation was rampant, so as to facilitate the survival of the individual we formed agrarian societies, we developed agriculture. People grew different crops, some crops were easier to grow than others. We We didn't change our nature, we just changed the method we did stuff. I do not see any biological or anthropological evidence for a change in human nature.

I was using the arguement of democracy as to show that, in reality, what has changed is the way of doing things, not people. That's all.

And the charge that you can take a person from no matter what background and teach them about stuff, in my opinion, just doesn't work. I know plenty of people who were indoctrinated by various beliefs their entire lives, and they still don't believe a word of it. Take for example Todd*. He was born and raised Catholic, but, by the early years of high school he had turned atheist all on his own. Without any outside pressures, as North Canton (my hometown) was a town with a mainly Christian population, his parents were Catholic, and he only had basic broadcast television up until the junior year of high school. So, what brought this about? No idea. Possibly an internal dislike for religion and interest in secular humanism. It was ingrained into him.

Now, don't take this anecdote as evidence beyond anything that, no matter your level of indoctrination, you still have natural leanings to something else. But, I'm charging that everyone has natural leanings that will overcome the most thorough indoctrination. And I believe that greed and jealousy and sloth when survival allows for it are all ingrained into everyone's psyche, no matter how much you try to repress it, you'll just have it haunting your subconscious.

Freud's piece on property is very, very, very interesting, I might add. It's from Civilization and Its Discontents. In fact....


The existence of this inclination to aggression, which we can detect in ourselves and justly assume to be present in others, is the factor which disturbs our relations with our neighbor and which forces civilization into such a high expenditure (of energy.) In consequence of this primary mutual hostility of human beings, civilized society is perpetually threatened with disintegration. The interest of work in common would not hold it together; instinctual passions are stronger than reasonable interests.

That's my position as well.



*name changed to protect the innocent

They also have a rather silly understanding of evolution in Star Trek in which people "evolved" to the point that freeing them from the burden of subsistence-seeking they still choose to work for the satisfaction of doing so. Just like many people write for a hobby without trying to publish. Star Trek has humans who choose to run a cafe as a hobby, sweep floors as a hobby, join the military as a hobby etc.

They whole series is predicated on the idea that inventions are the result of human evolution, not just engineering.
And if my understanding of evolution is correct, such a shift would actually require a physiological change. Which, would take thousands of years. And would only reach that point after surviving the chance selection of that characteristic over the others.

well you've read Hobbes i see, so you know of the State of Nature. see my previous post for Rousseau's arguements, backing my 'human nature/driving force has changed' point of view. is it not possible that we only act in our competative, greedy way because this is how the artificial construct of 'society' has made us act? this is how we are brought up to act, behave and desire, and success is the commonly accepted driving force behind our lives simply because it is, and has been for a long time. this does not necissarily make it our human nature or indeed the only driving force that can motivate us - if your example holds true (that we strive to be successful simply to gain primitive mating rights) then this is intrinsically another thing that motivates people. some people strive simply for success, others are motivated to be sucessful to gain the rewards that come with such success.

Being a student of the good scotsman, David Hume, I have my problems with Rousseau. (See the history of the meeting between the two, look at Hume's work and then look me in the eye and tell me that you honestly believe that Rousseau was not plagarisng.) and I disagree strongly with the "nature red in tooth and claw" scenario of Hobbes. However Hume, and many others argue that human nature is a basic constant. Your quote, which I have extracted from says:
For Rousseau, man in the State of Nature has no desires but to fulfil his most basic instincts – to be sheltered, fed, watered and to procreate. *snip* This argument is best summed up in Rousseau’s words: “I see [man in the State of Nature] satisfying his hunger under an oak tree, quenching his thirst at the first stream, finding his bed at the foot of the same tree that supplied his meal; and thus all his needs are satisfied (Rousseau:1987:40)” Man is thus living an amoral life, free of the need for reason and without competition
This does not refer at all to human nature. It refers to human behaviour under conditions of surplus. Hume also makes this point, when discussing justice. Our nature is to strive to meet our basic needs. The same as the nature of any other living entity. Where ther is a surplus, ther is no strife. where there is not enough we have competition and conflict, which we resolve by social structures (justice, money etc.) Rousseau does not deny, at any time , that the drive to be successful is a constant part of human nature. This drive is, of course the drive to survive and procreate. Any other definition of sucessful is culturally constructed, and not a necessary part of our nature.

however, it is worth noting that even if a drive to be sucessful is inherent in human nature, this, firstly, does not mean a society based on the many over the individual is necissarily negated. and secondly, MONEY is the generally accepted measure of sucess in today's society. can this honestly be concieved as the only measure of sucess there may be - past or future? in a future moneyless society, there would be other idicators of sucess; such as intellectual achievement (first off my head), or job held (moneyless does not necesarily mean no division of labour, or hierarchy).

This is a rephrasing of what I was saying. We agree.

your idea of changing motivation of success is an interesting one and i sure hope it hurries up and changes already - all of us 'nice guys' are still having a hard time (well i am :( )

It gets better when the girls get older and wiser. I promise it does. I used to have a hard time with women, those times are long in the past.

Originally Posted by Alien Born
Banks, as far as I was aware, are not generally in the property speculation business. They do not, in general, buy homes. Banks are in the usuary business, yes they lend money for profit. Where homes are concerned this loan is secured against the value of the property. The property belongs to the mortgagee, not to the bank, but the bank has lien (I think it is formally called this anyway) over the property. This means that if you do not pay the bank, they can seize your property, your house, as a substitute for the non payment.

However, this loan has the same effect that the bank is buying the property and then reselling it at interest. It is the bank's money (the loan) that buys the home in the first place. So although the mortgagee owns the property, he or she must repay the bank for the money that paid for it. This is what I meant. I did not mean that banks invest in property. However, they do tend to loan people money to buy houses more than they do for other purposes.

Banks do not sell homes. Property builders or private individuals sell homes. As I said before, the person that loses out in an interest based propewrty transaction is the seller. The buyer is willing to pay X, the seller receives X-Y. Y goes to the bank, for no apparently justifiable reason.

If it was not a good deal for the property owners, why would so many of them make this deal? In a free economy, why would they screw themselves? They're the ones who own the property. Why don't they sell it at 0% interest, instead of selling through the bank? Are people who sell property idiots (seeing as how most of them make their deals this way)?
I think they would be idiots not to sell property this way. Car manufacturers can sell cars at 0% interest over 5 years because this makes enough of a positive difference on demand for cars that it makes up for the loss of the opportunity to re-invest the money in their business. Demand for homes is more inelastic, and the amounts borrowed and time to repay (about 14 years at 0% interest for 120,000), make it unprofitable for property owners or construction companies to wait to get their money. They are better off getting their money sooner and reinvesting it in their business.
Because construction companies can reinvest more in their businesses when they get their money sooner, banks help the economy by giving them the money they want immediately and allowing them to build more homes. If banks did not exist, property owners and construction companies would only sell homes for cash (no credit), or they would charge the interest by themselves because it would be unprofitable for them to have to wait for their money. Instead, property owners don't have to worry about these options (the first would decrease demand, the second would make them work outside of their specialty) because banks specialize in loaning money.
I don't know how it works in Brazil, but in America almost everyone is satisfied with the real estate market, which is one of our strongest. And it is this strong because it is allowed to function mostly by itself. The government doesn't have to illegalize interest, just make laws against loan-sharking.

Well, I don´t have any money and my ISP is very mad at me because of that.

Charles, It appears that you and I have irreconcilable differences over the functional utility of lending at interest. You appear to believe that without this people would not be able to acquire their own homes, which is, in your view, something they shoulld be able to do.
I on the other hand, beleive that there are alternative mechanisms by which house pourchase can be made without interest being involved.

One fundamental point is, that if there is no interest, then receiving your revenue now, or five years from now, or fifty years from now makes no difference. The initial stages of any transformation would be difficult, as there is an ingrained miondset that less cash now is better than more cash in the long term. This mind set derives from the concept of interest.
If the full payment for the hose is not made in a lump sum, but in fixed regular installments, then this capital is still going to be at work in the national picture. No the constructor does not have it, but he will have it, and it is worth as much to him in the future as it is now. He loses nothing.
The only loser is the parasitic institution that generates no wealth whatsoever. The arguments that you have provided for banks generating wealth all assume a difference between current value and future value. Without interest, no such difference exists. Can you see that? If not we are going to have to agree to differ.

Originally Posted by Alien Born
The arguments that you have provided for banks generating wealth all assume a difference between current value and future value. Without interest, no such difference exists. Can you see that? If not we are going to have to agree to differ.

Even without interest, there is a difference between current value and future value. The difference comes from expected profits (not interest). If (in a society without interest) I give you the choice between having money now and having the same amount later, you should choose having the money now, and not just because of impatience. This is because you can expect to make profits of a certain percentage over certain periods of time. A construction company would take money they get now and invest it in more workers or raw material now, make more money by the end of the year, which they can invest in more workers or raw materials for the next cycle (even though it doesn't work in discrete cycles like this, but you get the picture). If they had to wait even one year to get the same amount of money, they would lose the chance to make the profit they could have made with that money in the first year. Thus they would not have as much money by the end of the year to invest in more. Then they would not have as much to invest the next year, etc. No matter how long you waited, they would never catch up. The graph below assumes that the company can make a modest 4% profit per year, not from interest but from doing their business.
Year| Money now| Money at the end of the year| Difference in return
1.____120,000_______0_________________________na
2.____124,800_______120,000___________________4,800
3.____129,792_______124,800___________________4,992
4.____134,983.68____129,792___________________5,191.68
5.____140,383.03____135,983.68________________5,399.35

As you can see, the difference in return for these two options keeps on growing. In the long run, the company has less and less than it would have had to invest in expansion, and thus to build more homes, which have real value. This difference comes merely from expected profits, not from interest. Companies charge interest because they could really expect to get profits from investing their money, but the fact that they have their money loaned to you keeps them from doing this. Interest is your payment that allows them to loan to you instead of making a profit elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Alien Born
Being a student of the good scotsman, David Hume, I have my problems with Rousseau.

I bet no one can guess my favorite Philosophe.

I bet no one can guess my favorite Philosophe.
Uhhh...Hobbes! That's it! I can tell from the fact that you have the letters H-o- - -e-s, you thought you were so clever...Leaving out those B's, but it is certain that my superior intellect was able to figure this one out! :D

(for the clueless, I'm just joking)

Originally Posted by Andaluciae
Uhhh...Hobbes! That's it! I can tell from the fact that you have the letters H-o- - -e-s, you thought you were so clever...Leaving out those B's, but it is certain that my superior intellect was able to figure this one out!

With that powerful logic, you could decipher the Bible code! :D

With that powerful logic, you could decipher the Bible code! :D
I do! On a daily basis!

sorry its been a few days (or has it? i dont know)... this thread should really die but i couldn't let this slip ;)

ps: i happen to like Rousseau's work :) but im not familiar with Hume's - an arguement for when i'm more educated perhaps ;)
This does not refer at all to human nature. It refers to human behaviour under conditions of surplus.
by saying that 'this is human nature under condition x, y or z', you are actually saying that human nature does, in fact, change. actually, by saying that human nature changes according to surroundings/environment, you are agreeing with certainly Owen, if not Marx too.

Our nature is to strive to meet our basic needs. The same as the nature of any other living entity. Where ther is a surplus, ther is no strife. where there is not enough we have competition and conflict, which we resolve by social structures (justice, money etc.)
logically, i agree that there may be an 'underlying human nature' - to meet one's needs, but this is somewhat an animalistic notion. if we were not to use our intellect to do more than simply meet our needs, we would be like animals. when there is plenty, like Rousseau's State of Nature, we can act like animals, if we so wish. when we are constrained by scarcity of resources, we must change our behaviour to try and meet our basic needs under these conditions. human nature - or perhaps behaviour would be a more appropriate term - changes. if we did not use our intellect again, we would become savages competing for the scarce resources. i believe that we can use this intellect to covercome the animalistic tendancy towards competition and conflict, by changing human nature/behaviour.

i say we give this one a rest - we're spiraling into some pretty pointless arguements here :p