NationStates Jolt Archive

This is it. The third world. I've been saying this for some time now, but I haven't said it here yet. You can agree or disagree as much as you want, of course. I'll even explain why I feel that it fails badly in the third world. Money, in itself, is absolutely useless. You can't eat it, you can't build with it.... you can burn it for energy, but that's not going to last you five minutes. The third world shouldn't be trying to have money. it benefits nobody. What does it need? A barter economy. Goods for goods. There's a simple reason for this. Bringing goods into a country increases the amount that it can send back out. Bringing just money in is waste because they don't need it. What are they going to spend it on? They have little to no goods anyway. However, if say... food, coffee, etc, was exported in exchange for shovels, tractors, irrigation equipment, ploughs. That helps both sides. Next time, with the goods, you get a far bigger return. things like these are harder to be corrupted, that is, spent on a larger house for the current ruler. But for some reason, we keep on sending money when we buy these goods. We don't even send a fair amount... the only result is to ensure the status quo.

Whilst we only send money, or handouts of food, nothing will change. Of course the food needs to continue. Some DOES get through, and sowing crops where they are can take much effort. But I still don't understand the money... even if it was to get to the people it was for, what would it be used for? There's nothing to buy there because there is no industry established by bringing in a variety of goods, and that is the other failing of a monetary capitalist establishment in a third world country... it encourages the foolish specialisation in one type of export. Oil, Gas, Diamonds, Silver, Iron, whatever it happens to be. And when the veins start to run too deep, the gas and oil dwindles, what happens? Any little progress that has been made is lost. But yet we persist in the lunacy and madness of a monetary capitalist starting.


To further broaden my point, let's look at a basic trading history of Europe, shall we? In the beginning, we have the Phoenecians, we have the Celts (the tribes that make up the British, French and Spanish at this point), and we have the Minoans. In the beginning, all of these three peoples interacted with each other... but they didn't trade in money. Not for a long time. In fact, these peoples bartered their way to their vast wealth. The celts had their metalworking, tin, gold, etc, and the Minoans and the Phoenicians had their art, etc. They shared, and traded these goods, widening what each of them had, until they were ready for money. it was a natural occurance. From there, we have the minoan impact on the Greeks, where things escalated, the phoenicians dieing out though leaving Carthage behind, and the Celts being precisely as they were, more or less. Eventually, as these peoples flourished more, money began to become more commonplace. Now is when we begin to find Hellenic artwork on Celtic coinage, and on their vases and ornaments. We have a gradual working towards money as the number of goods for trade has increased, building, throughout the centuries until the EVENTUALLY get to us, who use money as the sole form of "official" exchange. Of course bartering trade for trade still exists, but it's only a small thing in comparison. But we're doing it all wrong. Even the Germans, after Versailles, were allowed to pay back their debt with coal, and various ores, instead of a purely monetary thing.

So there it is. This is why I feel that money is precisely what is stopping the third world from growing economically, and why I say that a barter, goods for goods, economy, is better for them, and by easy extention, (if we supply them with the ability to produce more, they will be able to, and the price will go down for what we would need to give them, eventually moving to such a degree where we can run a monetary system and progress from there, resulting in generally lower prices for all.)

*applauds*

I notice, however, that Socalist/Communist states arent doing much either. In most cases, they seem to be doing less.
I wont be specific, because I dont want to turn this into a 'OMG! (Country) is better than yours! Capitolist pig." thread.

Capitalism works in Europe, because it's already established. However, in the third world (like Africa) there is a strong barter tradition. Capitalism was a round peg jammed into a square hole by the Europeans. I forget which country it was (Tanzanai?) which instituted "African Socialism", kind of like socialism, but more suited to fit African traditions. It did work, but for all I know the guy heading it died and the country is now in Civil War.

It was a success, however. It wasn't quite capitalism, it wasn't quite communism, it wasn't quite barter economy.

I notice, however, that Socalist/Communist states arent doing much either. In most cases, they seem to be doing less.
I wont be specific, because I dont want to turn this into a 'OMG! (Country) is better than yours! Capitolist pig." thread.

I'm not sure how to respond to this.... there are no true communist countries in the world, they all have a kind of currency which really renders them, in effect, monetary capitalists to the third world countries. They deal in money. The socialist countries deal in money also. So naturally all would have the same effect as they're doing exactly the same thing wrong.

I'm not sure how to respond to this.... there are no true communist countries in the world, they all have a kind of currency which really renders them, in effect, monetary capitalists to the third world countries. They deal in money. The socialist countries deal in money also. So naturally all would have the same effect as they're doing exactly the same thing wrong.
So, your basicaly saying that this is a failure of the monitary system in general, not just the capitolist version?
I imagine theres a fuedal monarchy out there somewhere that isnt doing its fair share of third-world-helpingness :)

Capitalism works in Europe, because it's already established. However, in the third world (like Africa) there is a strong barter tradition. Capitalism was a round peg jammed into a square hole by the Europeans. I forget which country it was (Tanzanai?) which instituted "African Socialism", kind of like socialism, but more suited to fit African traditions. It did work, but for all I know the guy heading it died and the country is now in Civil War.

It was a success, however. It wasn't quite capitalism, it wasn't quite communism, it wasn't quite barter economy.


This is exactly what I'm saying! We're using the wrong solution to the problem. it's never going to work. We need to change the tack and go for a more barter based solution. Being pretty socialist I'd like them to see the light and not fall to the darkside :D but enough of that. Don't want to derail my own thread.

When you establish an economy, then you can establish money. The other way round is a proven failure. How many more years proof do we need?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

So, your basicaly saying that this is a failure of the monitary system in general, not just the capitolist version?
I imagine theres a fuedal monarchy out there somewhere that isnt doing its fair share of third-world-helpingness :)

no doubt... they tend to be poor themselves. The thing is, that you need to begin at the beginning, and end at the end. Now that's obvious enough to say, but money is the end. The height of a capitalist economy. And it cannot be used for someone at the bottom rung of the ladder. They won't have a use for it and all it'll do is hurt them in the long run.

Well you cant eat Salt so if their are any third world countries out there still using salt as a currency.......

If you had a European Council to oversee the Development of Africa Asia and South America then sure youd see a turn around but for some reason people dont want this.

You are not the first person to wonder this.

Read: The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, by Hernando DeSoto

It explains exactly why it fails in the third world.

(And before you get all down on him, he is from the third world.)

is what you are saying that we should just leave the 3rd world to themselves to develop as they will?

cant give them money, cant give them food, cant encourage them to develop an industry or 2 for export purposes. so we should .... what?

the 3rd world hasnt been served well by half-assed "westernization". we force a northamerican/european model on them in a one-shoe-fits-all theory that capitalism is the best solution for everyone. instead of growing crops for the local market, poor farmers grow bananas as a cash crop. or they move to the city and put the whole family, including the small children into factory work making just enough money to keep the lot of them from starving to death.

so what do you think would be the best approach for concern 1st world countries?

is what you are saying that we should just leave the 3rd world to themselves to develop as they will?

cant give them money, cant give them food, cant encourage them to develop an industry or 2 for export purposes. so we should .... what?

the 3rd world hasnt been served well by half-assed "westernization". we force a northamerican/european model on them in a one-shoe-fits-all theory that capitalism is the best solution for everyone. instead of growing crops for the local market, poor farmers grow bananas as a cash crop. or they move to the city and put the whole family, including the small children into factory work making just enough money to keep the lot of them from starving to death.

so what do you think would be the best approach for concern 1st world countries?


No no, I'm saying... let's use your example, a banana crop. What they need in return for their banana crop is 1: other food, as bananas do not make a balanced diet. Secondarily, whatever technological equipment one uses to better plant banana trees, and keep them watered, whether that be ploughs, irrigation, or what have you. I'm not an agriculturalist. We have exactly what they need. But we also encourage them to diversify their stock, by say giving them potatos, apples, oranges. Then next time instead of just having bananas, they have all that. Then livestock, etc. We build it up and up. And they'd be able to trade their surplus between themselves as it went... All we would need to do is be on hand when their leader gets uppity because also, lots of these countries aren't ready for a single leader yet, but are just communities with arbitrary borders. We see that in the numerous genocides, Zimbabwe, etc. Our role, aside from with trading practical goods with them, should be to ensure that they are left alone.

No no, I'm saying... let's use your example, a banana crop. What they need in return for their banana crop is 1: other food, as bananas do not make a balanced diet. Secondarily, whatever technological equipment one uses to better plant banana trees, and keep them watered, whether that be ploughs, irrigation, or what have you. I'm not an agriculturalist. We have exactly what they need. But we also encourage them to diversify their stock, by say giving them potatos, apples, oranges. Then next time instead of just having bananas, they have all that. Then livestock, etc. We build it up and up. And they'd be able to trade their surplus between themselves as it went... All we would need to do is be on hand when their leader gets uppity because also, lots of these countries aren't ready for a single leader yet, but are just communities with arbitrary borders. We see that in the numerous genocides, Zimbabwe, etc. Our role, aside from with trading practical goods with them, should be to ensure that they are left alone.
ok

in part perhaps because when you give a 3rd world country $10million for development, the leader of the country buys a bunch of guns and builds a new palace eh? that money just promotes corruption and poverty.

there is a charity where you can buy a family a cow or other livestock. maybe a goat? that one animal can make all the difference to a poor family trying to help themselves.

there are also micro banks that lend out an ambitious man or woman a couple hundred dollars to get some local business started. no $10milllion dam for the river, just $100 to start a bakery out of her house.

these are the kinds of developments that can help the people develop their own solutions to poverty.

Congratulations, you've just managed to completely insult anyone from a third world country. Maybe you'd like to suggest they need paint and brushes for their caves too?

You have grossly understated the wants, needs, capablilities and abilities of the citizens of hundreds of nations all in one thread.

Will your next thread also be about the superiority of western culture?

Congratulations, you've just managed to completely insult anyone from a third world country. Maybe you'd like to suggest they need paint and brushes for their caves too?

You have grossly understated the wants, needs, capablilities and abilities of the citizens of hundreds of nations all in one thread.

Will your next thread also be about the superiority of western culture?

It's clear that you had to turn this into an attack, as you had no real argument. Way to go.

I'd have to say you're not fully understanding the role money plays in the modern, globalised economy (which is radically different from past economies.) Remember, that money is a standardized value of something. When the developed world (third world is a cold-war era term that, when used today, is quite erroneous) gets money, they are able to purchase tractors, shovels, plows, irrigation equipment and the like at their own discretion. They get to decide what they need and then they buy it. And in a modern globalised economy, their order should be on site fairly rapidly. This works doubly well if the developing nation only spends some of it's money right off, then they have savings, which they can spend during the future, if a sudden need for new machinery or equipment or foodstuffs pops up.

I'd have to say you're not fully understanding the role money plays in the modern, globalised economy (which is radically different from past economies.) Remember, that money is a standardized value of something. When the developed world (third world is a cold-war era term that, when used today, is quite erroneous) gets money, they are able to purchase tractors, shovels, plows, irrigation equipment and the like at their own discretion. They get to decide what they need and then they buy it. And in a modern globalised economy, their order should be on site fairly rapidly. This works doubly well if the developing nation only spends some of it's money right off, then they have savings, which they can spend during the future, if a sudden need for new machinery or equipment or foodstuffs pops up.

True, but this doesn't work nearly as well as a barter economy. There's the shipping charges, then there's shipping times. And, even with the money, they won't be able to buy all they require.

A barter system is much better-suited for third-world countries, and rightfully so.

True, but this doesn't work nearly as well as a barter economy. There's the shipping charges, then there's shipping times. And, even with the money, they won't be able to buy all they require.

A barter system is much better-suited for third-world countries, and rightfully so.
Not necessarily, because in the event of a barter economy, the shipping will instead be paid for by the consumer, which means higher costs, and the demand curve will shift leftward, thus less will be demanded from the third world country, and it will acquire fewer tractors, farming equipment and the like.

I'd say a good comparison is what happens with sales taxes.

Now, if we were to send international aid to a third world country in the form of machinery and the like, then I'd be all for it. Keep the worthless dictators from buying guns.

Your barter economy is a good idea. People need goods, not money. And I can think of one or two improvements that could make your idea better.

Now say I turn up to a developing country with a shipload of shovels and want to buy for example, avocadoes. What happens if they don't have enoough avocadoes? Should I take half my shovels back home with me? No, I think it would be much easier for me just to give them them all the shovels and for them to write me an I.O.U. That way I won't have to waste time carting the shovels back. Then I can use the I.O.U. when I come back to the country or I can trade it with someone else. Now the person I trade the I.O.U. with may not want to buy avocadoes, so instead of making the I.O.U. for say 1,000 boxes of avocadoes we should instead work out some sort of points systems so the I.O.U. can be for say 100 Barter Points. Then anyone who goes to that country can use the I.O.U. to buy products from that country worth 100 Barter Points.

The only problem that I can see is that someone might try and forge my signiture on an I.O.U., so it may be neccessary for the government of the developing country to regulate the circulation of these I.O.U.s in some way and make them hard to copy.

But with these small improvments I think we can really make a barter economy work. Hurrah for the Barter Point system!

It wouldn't work.

You're all under the white-guilt dillusion that all of Africa's problems areall explainable by white intervention.

The problem with Africa, and most of the rest of the Third World isn't money, or capitalism, it is governance.

How can your barter economy work in countries where any thug with a party badge can confiscate anything he wants and sell it?

The Third World needs government that will respect people's rights (including the right to property, so socialism is out), allow free trade (something which the original poster hasn't accounted for, the impact of protectionism, both first world and third world), and finally, will invest in essential infrastructure and education.

No one will invest in a country without these.

It wouldn't work.

You're all under the white-guilt dillusion that all of Africa's problems areall explainable by white intervention.

The problem with Africa, and most of the rest of the Third World isn't money, or capitalism, it is governance.

How can your barter economy work in countries where any thug with a party badge can confiscate anything he wants and sell it?

The Third World needs government that will respect people's rights (including the right to property, so socialism is out), allow free trade (something which the original poster hasn't accounted for, the impact of protectionism, both first world and third world), and finally, will invest in essential infrastructure and education.

No one will invest in a country without these.

All countries are quite happy to invest in countries without a stable government. We in America go to great lengths to prevent the rise of stable governments. Whenever it looks like anyone is begining to establish what approaches stability we barge in and impose chaos, or military dictatorship, with our hand picked dictator.

Someone earlier mentioned that you have to begin at the begining and end at the end, and the end is money. Well the end is also stable democracy. To go from chaos to stability you need some sort of strong authority who comes into power through the people he's ruling. Then when the country becomes stable it will either realize how much cheaper it is to loosen the reins a little, and start instituting democratic reforms, or it will go through a bloody revolution and start the whole thing over again until it gets it right.

If western powers keep interfering then you get Bannana Republics. Places like Nicaragua where the people finally overthrew the military dictator that the US was friends with and then got relentlessly harassed by troops illegally funded by Reagan. As though civil war would make for a stable democracy.

The G8 doesn't like stability in 3rd world governments. If it did, there'd be more of them by now.

All countries are quite happy to invest in countries without a stable government. We in America go to great lengths to prevent the rise of stable governments. Whenever it looks like anyone is begining to establish what approaches stability we barge in and impose chaos, or military dictatorship, with our hand picked dictator.

Someone earlier mentioned that you have to begin at the begining and end at the end, and the end is money. Well the end is also stable democracy. To go from chaos to stability you need some sort of strong authority who comes into power through the people he's ruling. Then when the country becomes stable it will either realize how much cheaper it is to loosen the reins a little, and start instituting democratic reforms, or it will go through a bloody revolution and start the whole thing over again until it gets it right.

If western powers keep interfering then you get Bannana Republics. Places like Nicaragua where the people finally overthrew the military dictator that the US was friends with and then got relentlessly harassed by troops illegally funded by Reagan. As though civil war would make for a stable democracy.

The G8 doesn't like stability in 3rd world governments. If it did, there'd be more of them by now.

Yah, that's pretty much it. If you don't have stable property rights, then you can't have any kind of long term economy. Of course it's a whipsaw. The reason why the G8 destabilizes these places is because they don't respect property rights, at the same time you can never have stable property rights while you are being destabilized.

Probably if sweden was a third world country, the G8 would look to replace its government.

At the same time some countries do make the transition. South Korea for example.

I have read through the original post a few times and have skimmed the responces. If I repeat anything someone has already said, I'm sorry, I was just in a rush to reply.

Goods transfers as opposed to monetary transfers, in the case of unilateral transfers and as the basis of a whole economy, are a terrible idea. There are a number of particulars as to why exactly, but overall it can be said that it causes gross economic and Paredo inefficiency.

1) In the case of using goods for unilateral transfers:

This is perhaps the only reasonable situation where a goods transfer would be somewhat beneficial because it will be less likely to be reduced significantly by corruption, though corruption is a problem with the rule of law and not the economy so this move will not likely erradicate corruption.

The negative effect of a goods transfer in this case is fairly difficult to explain without the aid of graphs (curse the methods of economic instruction in our universities). Let's say that a hypothetical third world economy can produce x of wheat and y of milk. The rate at which it can produce wheat and milk depends on the resources expended. Imagine, if you please, a parabola representing the various combinations of the goods. Now this is only the possibility of what the country can produce, what it will actually produce depends on the intersection of the above function and another parabola which represents the utility of a certain combination of goods. The intersection represents a point where society can produce a certain amount of these goods and where the people gain a certain utility by having these goods. When you unilaterally transfer goods the production parabola changes. Let's say that you were to give that country a lot of wheat instead of money to produce it's own level of wheat and milk. Well then parabola becomes cut off and that part becomes a straight line representing the new lower limit of wheat. Depending on where the utility parabola intersects with the production parabola, this change of the production parabola might mean that only a lower utility parabola intersects with the new production parabola.

Therefore, by giving the third world country wheat instead of money, the people have less utility, less "happiness" if you will.

2) The above was a case of Paredo inefficiency. Another concern is economic inefficiency. This point is far easier to make. When you trade in the context of a free-market you need to have a price for your goods. The problem with a barter system is that you will exchange your good for another good instead of money. So, instead of a single monetary price you need many, possibly hundreds, of prices for your good as it will trade with other goods. Keeping track of a single price is difficult enough, keeping track of the supply and demand for nearly every good on the market is impossible.

If you employ such a system, you lose a great deal of resources and effort in simply pricing goods. The level of inefficiency is well neigh incomprehencible.

3) If a barter economy is employed, developed nations on a monetary system will simply not deal with third world nations considering the level of inefficiency in the barter system. This will effectively cut off developing nations from the developed world and their level of capital development will be attrociously low.

4) Finally I think there is a great misconception about the actual historical prescence of barter economies. This is taught in economics classes all wrong and I can understand the confusion. Allow me to end this misconception, at least on these boards for a short time:

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN ECONOMY, IN ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY AND MORE THAN LIKELY IN ALL OF UNRECORDED HISTORY, THAT HAS BEEN BASED ON A BARTER SYSTEM. THIS IS A LIE PERPETUATED BY LAZY ECONOMICS PROFESSORS!

Think about it, everyone will agree that barter is grossly inefficient and very much impossible where a lot of goods are traded. So why would any society stay in one? The answer is that no known society has.

Pre-monetary societies had economic systems that were based on redistribution and reciprocation. Yes goods passed hands, but they did not pass hand via a market. Instead, culturally determined rules of economic conduct dictated the passing of goods.

Barter has happened, without question. But it has occured as 'on the side' transactions for luxury, or speciality, goods. Allow me to repeat for emphasis, no economy has ever been based on barter.

This is it. The third world.

-snip-

So there it is. This is why I feel that money is precisely what is stopping the third world from growing economically, and why I say that a barter, goods for goods, economy, is better for them, and by easy extention, (if we supply them with the ability to produce more, they will be able to, and the price will go down for what we would need to give them, eventually moving to such a degree where we can run a monetary system and progress from there, resulting in generally lower prices for all.)

Money is nothing but a measure of a commodities value. It takes a barter system and makes it more liquid. Allowing for an easier and more efficient exchange of goods. Going from a monetary system to bartering does jack shit of what you've described and will do nothing but grind any progress a third world nation is making to a halt.

You are making the horribly incorrect notion that these countries are just trying to get money, for the purpose of money. They sell goods to generate cash so they can then take that cash and buy the goods they want, from multiple sources. Pay for services etc... Cash is what they need.

It is true that central banks and monetary systems set up by third world countries are likely to fail. That is the nature of money, it is only as valuable as the guarantee behind it, and third world governments are far too unstable to reasonably guarantee this money. What free trade and capitalism allows for, however, is the influx of established and stable currencies to flow into countries that do not have a stable economy. It is through nationalistic trade policies that these invaluable currencies become propped up over their actual value and fail.

I would say that capitalism itself has not failed third world countries, that irresponsible governments have. I do not imagine that any economic structure would succeed in third world countries with poorly developed economies and insanely centralized governments.

So, while you are correct that the capitalistic set ups of individual countries has failed in third world nations, if the government allows itself to become part of the global economy without profiteering by the government, then we could see these economies grow more stable.

Capitalism works in Europe, because it's already established. However, in the third world (like Africa) there is a strong barter tradition. Capitalism was a round peg jammed into a square hole by the Europeans. I forget which country it was (Tanzanai?) which instituted "African Socialism", kind of like socialism, but more suited to fit African traditions. It did work, but for all I know the guy heading it died and the country is now in Civil War.

It was a success, however. It wasn't quite capitalism, it wasn't quite communism, it wasn't quite barter economy.
I'll make little comment on the general theme of the thread, but I feel I can at least contribute something of value in response to this particular comment.

Tanzania was one of many nations to espouse 'African Socialism'; that is, non-Marxist (or non-scientific) socialism, adapted to African conditions. This pretty much exclusively entailed one-party systems, many with endemic corruption. However, Tanzania itself did pretty well under Nyerere thoughout the '70s. The problems were external. The Cold War environment triggered intervention from the US and USSR (plus Cuba, China, France, etc). Arms trading, regime-propping/toppling, financial backing, etc took place. African Socialism frequently transformed into either Marxist-Leninism or US-inspired capitalism.

Tanzania's unique and rather effective brand of socialism eventually succumbed to external factors (chiefly debt and resultant austerity measures), with Nyerere departing in the mid-'80s. A shame. It was by no means perfect, but he was really onto something and Tanzania did well out of his policies. The nation's not in civil war, incidentally, having been one of the more stable African states (also, its only military adventure was the entirely justifiable toppling of Uganda's Idi Amin).

The '90s heralded the end of the Cold War, the end of US and USSR support and the collapse of numerous distasteful regimes (US-backed Mobuto in Zaire - now Congo-Kinshasa, for example) as the Western powers transferred attention from a Cold War 'us and them' mentality to a more human rights-based philosophy.

Of course, this is of little consolation to those in Rwanda, Congo-Kinshasa, Sudan, the Central African Republic, etc, etc, etc.

Yes, African nations need developed nations to relax trade barriers. I disagree, however, that they should relax their own barriers. Protectionism is good for a developing economy.

All countries are quite happy to invest in countries without a stable government. We in America go to great lengths to prevent the rise of stable governments. Whenever it looks like anyone is begining to establish what approaches stability we barge in and impose chaos, or military dictatorship, with our hand picked dictator.

Wrong, some are, and only while the favoured government stays in power. There's no long term stability, and no long term profitability.

You're still pushing the "White man guilty for all the world's ills" myth.

"It is true that central banks and monetary systems set up by third world countries are likely to fail. That is the nature of money, it is only as valuable as the guarantee behind it, and third world governments are far too unstable to reasonably guarantee this money. What free trade and capitalism allows for, however, is the influx of established and stable currencies to flow into countries that do not have a stable economy. It is through nationalistic trade policies that these invaluable currencies become propped up over their actual value and fail.

I would say that capitalism itself has not failed third world countries, that irresponsible governments have. I do not imagine that any economic structure would succeed in third world countries with poorly developed economies and insanely centralized governments.

So, while you are correct that the capitalistic set ups of individual countries has failed in third world nations, if the government allows itself to become part of the global economy without profiteering by the government, then we could see these economies grow more stable."

Well said!

"Yes, African nations need developed nations to relax trade barriers. I disagree, however, that they should relax their own barriers. Protectionism is good for a developing economy."

Donkey bollocks. That sort of moronomics (a word I made up to describe socialist, statist, and protectionist economics) has kept nations poor for decades.

African Protectionism reduces incentive to buy African products, and reduces the volume of trade between Africa and the rest of the world.

Read this article about the impact of protectionism vs. Free Trade.

The article concerns the impact of protectionism in the Philipenes. vs. the total free trade policies of Hong Kong.

Reason: A tale of two countries - economic impact of Philippene protectionist policies and lack of protectionism in Hong Kong (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n2_v26/ai_15473461)

Also, read this .pdf

Trade Justice, or Free Trade? (http://www.globalizationinstitute.org/publications/tradejustice.pdf)

Having read all that, can you please explain to me why unfree trade is good for anyone?

Yes, African nations need developed nations to relax trade barriers. I disagree, however, that they should relax their own barriers. Protectionism is good for a developing economy.

African nations need to relax their own barriers. Protectionism is bad for a developing economy because it reduces the competition and generates inferior products. When you have a population held captive you don't need to make better shoes. You don't need to make better cars. You don't need to offer 500 different types of bread. Protecting an economy just leaves it an infant and when you do finally open it the local businesses simply get wiped out by foreigners.

Yes, African nations need developed nations to relax trade barriers. I disagree, however, that they should relax their own barriers. Protectionism is good for a developing economy.

I feel that accurate valuation of currency, labor, and goods are a necessity for a stable economy. The only way to insure accurate valuation of currency is to open the market up to substitute currencies.

I think the real problem is the abolishment of hard currency. There are few things in this world that you can be sure everyone will have an inexplicable desire for; gold and silver are two of them, as are diamonds.

Having paper money with no concrete backing may make sense in the developed world where there's just too much capital to be backed by traditional currency, but like Jordaxia said paper is just paper in developing countries. You need something that everyone will look at and say "I want one of those!" and for some reason throughout history gold and silver coins have brought that universal desire out in everybody.

Maybe if rare resources were first exchanged for American gold, and the gold standard was then reintroduced into Third World economies, then it'd be a step towards global economic parity.

Of course that's exactly what the first world doesn't want though... :(

To my knowledge Khudros, most developing nations who choose to peg their currency do have something to back it up, U.S. dollar reserves. The problem comes in when they try to maintain a peg that is far too high and they run out of dollars to support their currency.

But anyway, stable currency or not is really not the problem with developing nations. There is the problem of corruption and government stability, as has been mentioned. But the problem is also in their underdeveloped legal and financial institutions. Developing nations are literally sitting on billions of dollars of wealth but are not taking advantage of it because their poor legal instituions do not allow for the identification and protection of private property and their financial institutions are too feeble to manage this potential wealth.

...

Tanzania was one of many nations to espouse 'African Socialism'; that is, non-Marxist (or non-scientific) socialism, adapted to African conditions. This pretty much exclusively entailed one-party systems, many with endemic corruption. However, Tanzania itself did pretty well under Nyerere thoughout the '70s. The problems were external. The Cold War environment triggered intervention from the US and USSR (plus Cuba, China, France, etc). Arms trading, regime-propping/toppling, financial backing, etc took place. African Socialism frequently transformed into either Marxist-Leninism or US-inspired capitalism.

Tanzania's unique and rather effective brand of socialism eventually succumbed to external factors (chiefly debt and resultant austerity measures), with Nyerere departing in the mid-'80s. A shame. It was by no means perfect, but he was really onto something and Tanzania did well out of his policies. The nation's not in civil war, incidentally, having been one of the more stable African states (also, its only military adventure was the entirely justifiable toppling of Uganda's Idi Amin).

...
I'd like to add a little with regard to Tanzanian ujamaa experiment. I do not think that Tanzania can be cited as an example of African socialism (qualified) success. It went from the largest African agriculture exporter to the largest importer of agricultural goods in Africa (apparently the collectivization was to blame). Nyerere himself admitted the failure of his policy.

BTW, Tanzania also took part in Mancham's overthrowal in Seychelles.

I'd like to add a little with regard to Tanzanian ujamaa experiment. I do not think that Tanzania can be cited as an example of African socialism (qualified) success. It went from the largest African agriculture exporter to the largest importer of agricultural goods in Africa (apparently the collectivization was to blame). Nyerere himself admitted the failure of his policy.

BTW, Tanzania also took part in Mancham's overthrowal in Seychelles.
Oops, thanks for the clarification. Yeah, I was writing late at night and was correspondingly a bit too rose-tinted in my analysis.

Donkey bollocks. That sort of moronomics (a word I made up to describe socialist, statist, and protectionist economics) has kept nations poor for decades.
Charming.

Sorry, but the links you provided - while interesting - are not convincing.

*applauds*
*Agrees strongly*

Your barter economy is a good idea. People need goods, not money. And I can think of one or two improvements that could make your idea better.

Now say I turn up to a developing country with a shipload of shovels and want to buy for example, avocadoes. What happens if they don't have enoough avocadoes? Should I take half my shovels back home with me? No, I think it would be much easier for me just to give them them all the shovels and for them to write me an I.O.U. That way I won't have to waste time carting the shovels back. Then I can use the I.O.U. when I come back to the country or I can trade it with someone else. Now the person I trade the I.O.U. with may not want to buy avocadoes, so instead of making the I.O.U. for say 1,000 boxes of avocadoes we should instead work out some sort of points systems so the I.O.U. can be for say 100 Barter Points. Then anyone who goes to that country can use the I.O.U. to buy products from that country worth 100 Barter Points.

The only problem that I can see is that someone might try and forge my signiture on an I.O.U., so it may be neccessary for the government of the developing country to regulate the circulation of these I.O.U.s in some way and make them hard to copy.

But with these small improvments I think we can really make a barter economy work. Hurrah for the Barter Point system!Do you realize that your 'barter points' are a form of money? What you're initially describing is a bank note that's payable in avocadoes they way US Federal Reserve Notes used to be payable in gold. The avocadoes themselves would be considered the hard currency, like gold. Then you sort of morph the idea into 'points' which sound more like fiat currency - paper money that's valuable because whoever prints it says so. The problem with your scenario is that it might not be a good idea for you to accept an IOU for your shovels because you don't know if you'll ever actually get your avocadoes. Using the point system, you might return in 3 months to find the avocadoes now cost twice as many points as they previously did.

If you keep playing out these sorts of scenarios in your head, you might begin to see the value that a reliable form of money can provide for an economy. Having paper notes that are redeemable in something is good start, but having a currency tied to an agricultural commodity would not be too good for economic stability. The money supply would be strictly tied to the production and consumption of avocadoes. Because of their difficulty to produce and greater difficulty to consume, rare metals like gold and silver make good money.

Battery Charger, I think Phylum Cordata had his tongue firmly in cheek.

In a side note; I find it endlessly amusing that in the eternal debate between protectionist/free market economic theories, the proponents of each can point to the same incident as proof that their theories work/their opponents doesn't.

The more free the trade the better it is, thus any obstruction by non-market (ie government) intervention is eventually going to be the cause of problems.

The more free the trade the more prone to breakdown it is, thus all the intervention by the non-market (ie government) prevents or reduces problems.

The third world debate is a perfect example of this. Which is the problem, free trade or the lack thereof?

Or perhaps neither idealology is perfect, and the answer lies somewhere else?

In a side note; I find it endlessly amusing that in the eternal debate between protectionist/free market economic theories, the proponents of each can point to the same incident as proof that their theories work/their opponents doesn't.

The more free the trade the better it is, thus any obstruction by non-market (ie government) intervention is eventually going to be the cause of problems.

The more free the trade the more prone to breakdown it is, thus all the intervention by the non-market (ie government) prevents or reduces problems.

The third world debate is a perfect example of this. Which is the problem, free trade or the lack thereof?

Or perhaps neither idealology is perfect, and the answer lies somewhere else?
I'll happily concede that. When I used the term 'protectionism' earlier, I had a fairy mild form in mind. I'm not dogmatically attached to it.

Me too-ish. I would definitely call myself a free-marketer, because freer markets are, almost by definition, more efficient, and inefficiency = waste = less wealth = poverty.

However, most systems recognise that barriers can sometimes be needed for fledgling industries. The EU, which is fairly merciless against governments in enforcing the free movement of goods within itself, and increasingly strict with cartels, will allow agreements that would otherwise be illegal if they're done for that sort of reason. It does make sense, because the free market isn't perfect.

What is good about the free market is competition. If you keep things free dogmatically then you end seeing companies use their economic strength to reduce competition, which is bad. So yes, sometimes we need tariffs in certain cases, but as a general rule, and as a general rule for a whole country, even a third world one, it won't be productive for them to keep up barriers.


As for getting rid of money, the subject of the first post - I cannot believe that was a serious suggestion. As was pointed out before, people in these countries have, believe it or not, actually moved past the stone age, and would probably rather not see their economies die a sudden, violent and painful death, and themselves suffer a rather more protracted one through starvation. When people are trying to earn money, they are probably (just a hunch) intending to exchange that in some way for, say, food, clothes, some kind of quality of life. So they aren't busy trying to earn money per se but, like the rest of us, trying to earn a living. Money is the best way we have of doing this without having to go round the whole village trying to barter all sorts of different things with different people and therefore having no time to do much productive. Did you ever notice that no civilisation or country ever blossomed without some sort of currency? I did.

"Charming.

Sorry, but the links you provided - while interesting - are not convincing."

In other words, my Karma flattened your Dogma, and you're still resusitating it.

Why were the articles unconvincing? Refute them. Make a conclusive defence of protectionism.

Good thoughts, keep em coming. ! But remember, there are other parts of the worls that are regarded as third world, like south america or eastern Europe. Consider them too. :D

Or we could, you know, leave Africa, and let them figure it out on their own like most -successful- cultures did.

You can't just force people in to our notion of progress. Let them choose it, or whatever else.

The problem with the barter system is pretty basic. Lets say that I am a...oh, I don't know...a chicken farmer. I need milk. No dairy farmers need chickens. No trade will happen. I will continue to need milk untill a dairy farmer decides he needs chickens. This is a very simplified example, but that is the basic problem. Money gives a concrete system of value with which to trade. Maybe I don't have a physical thing you need, but I have money, which you can then use for anything you need.



I think the real problem is the abolishment of hard currency. There are few things in this world that you can be sure everyone will have an inexplicable desire for; gold and silver are two of them, as are diamonds.


The problem with gold, silver, diamonds, platinum, and really, everything, is an issue of supply. If we were capable of mining all the diamonds in Russia, they would have nearly no value. Its like the difference between a rose and a dandelion. Dandelions are everywhere, so they are not wanted. Roses are "rare" (as far as flowers go) and so are in high demand.

Currency like a dollar or pound or lira can be controlled. Double the money supply, each individual amount will be worth half as much (it is a form of taxation in reality) A private citizen can't (well, they do, but in theory and mosly in practice) cant produce their own money. Only the government can do this. They could go and find their own gold.

If we were on the gold standard and the economy went into recession, we could boast money suppy by using the philosopher's stone.

The problem with gold, silver, diamonds, platinum, and really, everything, is an issue of supply. If we were capable of mining all the diamonds in Russia, they would have nearly no value. Its like the difference between a rose and a dandelion. Dandelions are everywhere, so they are not wanted. Roses are "rare" (as far as flowers go) and so are in high demand.

Currency like a dollar or pound or lira can be controlled. Double the money supply, each individual amount will be worth half as much (it is a form of taxation in reality) A private citizen can't (well, they do, but in theory and mosly in practice) cant produce their own money. Only the government can do this. They could go and find their own gold.Interesting. I would tell you that the problem with paper money is supply - the fact that governments can double the money supply. Anyone can try and mine gold, but nobody will ever double the amount of gold in supply. All paper currencies eventually become completely worthless. It's only a matter of time before the US Federal Reserve Note does so.

All paper currencies eventually become completely worthless.
Well, let's see. With an inflation target of 2.5% set for the central bank of a nation, it would take about 110 years for a buck to fall to one sixteenth of its starting value. But, and here's the trick. You just do what the Japanese do and not have cents. Just get rid of them. And then, in say another 170 years, just lop a couple of zeros off the end of your currency. You just call them "New Bucks." It's no biggy.

"Charming.

Sorry, but the links you provided - while interesting - are not convincing."

In other words, my Karma flattened your Dogma, and you're still resusitating it.

Why were the articles unconvincing? Refute them. Make a conclusive defence of protectionism.
Let's be honest here. You're quoting the Globalization Institute, a hardly impartial source. Likewise, the chances are that my sources will not be impartial. What good does this do either of us? I'm going to have look for a couple of papers and talks that can counter the views you posted, but I see little point.

I will say that the articles you posted were pretty lightweight, which surprised me somewhat.

Finally, your karma-dogma nonsense, while mildly entertaining in an 'I'm laughing at you for being an idiot' way, isn't helpful. I've already stated that I'm not a hardline protectionist and I'd appreciate it if you at least attempted to be civil.

"I will say that the articles you posted were pretty lightweight, which surprised me somewhat."

You can't be serious, your fact-free 'refutations' hardly tip the scales. You can make what ever unsubstantiated statements you like, but until you post something to back them, you're in no position to judge anything.

" I'm going to have look for a couple of papers and talks that can counter the views you posted, but I see little point."

So, why post before you have the papers?

"You're quoting the Globalization Institute, a hardly impartial source."

Style over substance fallacy. You've not shown that the source is wrong. You've not shown that you've even read it, with the possible exception of the title page. I would read a source you posted, but I won't hold my breath waiting for you to find one.

"isn't helpful"

And posting unsubstantiated rubbish with vague promises to find some evidence to back it, and post it sometime in the forseeable future is helpful?

"I will say that the articles you posted were pretty lightweight, which surprised me somewhat."

You can't be serious, your fact-free 'refutations' hardly tip the scales. You can make what ever unsubstantiated statements you like, but until you post something to back them, you're in no position to judge anything.

" I'm going to have look for a couple of papers and talks that can counter the views you posted, but I see little point."

So, why post before you have the papers?

"You're quoting the Globalization Institute, a hardly impartial source."

Style over substance fallacy. You've not shown that the source is wrong. You've not shown that you've even read it, with the possible exception of the title page. I would read a source you posted, but I won't hold my breath waiting for you to find one.
Bloody hell, that was quick. Look, I was posting to let you know that I'm paying attention to your comments.

Are you?

If so, you've not addressed what you disagree with.

I know you're not a hard-line protectionist, you merely (and please correct me if I'm wrong) favour protectionism in Third World countries to 'protect' infant industries.

As for civility, you're not in a position to ask that, telling me that I'm wrong, and producing nothing whatsoever to prove it is patronising.

I said I wasn't persuaded, not that you were wrong. Anyway, as an intro, here are World Bank figures for various indicators:

http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2005/wditext/Section1_1_1.htm

What I'd like to draw attention to is that, while the number of 'extreme poor' (less than $1 per day) are falling (looking at the period from around 1980 to the present day), the number of 'poor' (less than $2 per day) are not in any significant way. The reason why this particuar data is important is that this represents the period where the (neo)liberal consensus has prevailed and developing nations have been opening up their markets. In other words, this is an era of trade liberalisation. Now, at first glance, this would be suggestive of liberalisation bringing about a slight improvement for the world's poor. However, there is a significant caveat to this. Much of the improvement is due to China, a nation that has not adopted the liberal agenda. If you remove China from the indicators, the number of extreme poor is pretty much constant, while the poor are increasing.

Many analysts (such as Robert Wade and Thomas Pogge, not to mention UNCTAD) argue that the $1 a day indicator is meaningless, since the figure relates to 1985 measurements, and is equivalent to, for example, $0.51 in sub-Saharan Africa (when one takes into account the disparity in economic growth, etc between developed and developing nations). In addition, the figure was regarded as austere even in 1985.

Further sources (sadly, I can't trace all of these on the net):
UNCTAD - The Least Developed Countries Report (2002)
R Wade - Is Globalization Reducing Poverty and Inequality? (2004)
S Reddy & T Pogge - How NOT to Count the Poor (2002) - please see www.socialanalysis.org

The problem - and this is why I should have been more tentative in my earlier statements - is that analysis of the statistics at hand is difficult as the stats themselves are often dodgy (Nigerian politicians, for example, estimate the county's population as somewhere between 110 and 130 million).

It's sad (though understandable) that so many people get so angry and confrontational over this issue, because the economic systems are not, in themselves, 'unethical' or 'immoral' (unless you're an extreme socialist or objectivist). Most of us want the same thing: better lives for people all over the planet. We just disagree on what are the best ways to achieve this.

Peace and love, Disraeliland?

A quick note: apologies, I've not been very specific here. Ultimately, I have my opinions, which aren't sacred. Your articles aren't the first of their ilk that I've read and I don't dismiss them out of hand. They just run counter to other articles and data that I find more persuasive.

What I see in the source confirms my views.

According to the World Bank, poverty is declining more quickly in South Asia (India, and the sub-continent), East Asia, China, and Latin America, while it is increasing in sub-Saharan Africa.

The regions where poverty is declining practice, benefit from, or support free trade. Even China, which has expressed a desire to make an FTA with Australia.

sub-Saharan Africa practices extensive protectionism, and is subject to European protectionism.

Also, of all the parts of the world, Africa has the smallest trading volume.

In exports in 2000, Africa had just 2.3%, (South Africa has 0.5% of the world's exports)

For imports, Africa has 2% (South Africa had 0.5% of the world's imports)

So, when you take out the most developed, Westernised nation in Africa, you get 1.8% of imports, and 1.5% exports.

The regions with the greatest volumes of trade do not even show up on the World Bank source you posted.

Here is the source: WTO Stats (http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2004_e/its04_byregion_e.pdf)

There is a correlation between trade volume and economic state. I would go so far to say that there was causation.

I've posted you two sources showing Hong Kong's meteoric rise caused by Sir John Cowperthwaite's total free trade policy.

It must be pointed out that Hong Kong, when Cowperthwaite took over as Financial Secretary, was in a worse state than places in Africa because Hong Kong had no natural resources (unless you count a good harbour), no gold, no diamonds, very little arable land (very little land, come to think of it). They didn't protect their infant industries, as you seem to advocate, they let industries rise and fall as the market directed.

Cowperthwaite was also staunchly opposed to government intervention in the economy. He didn't even collect economic statistics for fear that others in the government might use them to influence the economy.

He made Hong Kong prosper like no other place has. No, that's wrong, he didn't make it happen, he allowed it to happen by making others keep their hands off.

I guess we simply interpret the statistics differently. I'll expand on my views a wee bit (and this necessarily gets somewhat abstract). I don't really question that free trade benefits some, even many nations. It doesn't, however, benefit all. Different nations, for numerous reasons (cultural, economic, political, social, etc) need different solutions. The problem with the liberal consensus, globalisation and the activities of the World Bank, WTO and IMF is that they all lead to or seek to impose a sort of one-size-fits-all philosophy.

sub-Saharan Africa practices extensive protectionism, and is subject to European protectionism.
Not convinced by this statement. Many of these markets have been extensively opened. I agree that European protectionism has been hugely detrimental to Africa, however. Please note that I've not at any point in this thread argued for protectionism in developed nations.

The regions with the greatest volumes of trade do not even show up on the World Bank source you posted.
Because they're not suffering from extreme poverty. I fail to see the why this is particularly relevant, though maybe I've misunderstood the point you're making.

In support of some protectionism (note that some of these are from in no way impartial sources, eg the World Development Movement):

'UK water company kicked out of controversial African water privatisation contract' (Tanzania)
http://www.wdm.org.uk/news/presrel/current/biwatertanzan.htm

'Water privatisation in Africa: how successful is it?'
http://www.id21.org/society/s3akb1g1.html

'There is no level playing field for Africa'
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol15no3/153pers.htm

'African economists insist on stronger industrial policy'
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol14no3/industr.htm

All of this reminds me that I need to get myself a copy of the Commission for Africa's recent report...

Or we could, you know, leave Africa, and let them figure it out on their own like most -successful- cultures did.

You can't just force people in to our notion of progress. Let them choose it, or whatever else.
I missed this before. An argument I have some time for.

If I may be allowed to interject in the Disraeliland/Ecopoeia debate...

I don't think either of you are being very convincing. You are throwing around random figures and value-based judgements ("some" protectionism, etc). If you are going to get anywhere in this debate you will have to develope a theoretical structure for your arguement and use figures to justify it. Numbers don't speak for themselves, no matter how clear their results might appear to you to be.

If I may be allowed to interject in the Disraeliland/Ecopoeia debate...

I don't think either of you are being very convincing. You are throwing around random figures and value-based judgements ("some" protectionism, etc). If you are going to get anywhere in this debate you will have to develope a theoretical structure for your arguement and use figures to justify it. Numbers don't speak for themselves, no matter how clear their results might appear to you to be.
Point taken and appreciated. That said, I'm probably not very convincing because I'm not very convinced. Like I said, the figures themselves are questionable.

Sadly, time is a factor in debates like this, plus some of us (ah, that would be me) are lazy and haven't been forced to apply structure to our views in a very long time. My fault for taking a crap science degree and not undertaking any 'meaningful' employment subsequent to that.

Actually, if you can get over the author of this thread calling third-world nations too primitive for cuurency, you still will conclude that he has it all wrong. The problem is not capitalism, the problem is not enough capitalism.

Moeletsi Mbeki, deputy chairman of the South African Institute of International Affairs, puts it in simple language;


"Economic growth in Africa, as in the rest of the world, depends on a vibrant private sector. African entrepreneurs, however, face daunting constraints. They are prevented from creating wealth by predatory political elites who control the state. African political elites divert private sector savings to finance their own consumption and to strengthen the repressive apparatus of the state. Unfortunately, Western aid continues to flow to the source of Africa's problems — the African governments."

At the root of Africa’s problems is economic mismanagement by the political elites that took over African countries in the 1960s. The elites saw government as a source of personal enrichment. One of the great pioneers of this scramble for power on the eve of Africa's independence, Ghana's Kwame Nkrumah, urged the emerging political elites, "Seek ye first the political kingdom and all else shall be given."

...the political elites use marketing boards, taxes, and regulations to divert private sector savings to finance their own consumption and strengthen the repressive instruments of the state.

In addition to bolstering their standard of living to Western levels, African political elites used the wealth created by the private sector to undertake loss-making industrialization projects that were not supported by the necessary level of technical, managerial and educational development. They also transferred vast amounts of money to overseas private bank accounts. All the while, they borrowed money from developed countries, leaving the African people with huge debt.

Development in Africa requires a new type of democracy — one that empowers not just the political elite but Africa's private sector producers as well. It is therefore necessary that peasants who constitute the core of the private sector in Africa become the real owners of their primary asset: land.

Moreover, peasants must gain direct access to world markets. Producers must be able to auction their own cash crops, including coffee, tea, cotton, sugar, cocoa, and rubber, rather than being forced to sell them, at heavily discounted prices, to state-controlled marketing boards.

http://ainashe.org/?p=155#comments

Disraeliland;

welcome to the forum, instead of using "quotes" when quoting use "[qoute=name]" and then at the end of their statement use "[/quote]" It will be easier to follow.

Make sure not to alter quoted statements, if they are exceptionally long and you are only responding to a small part you may 'snip' some of it, but be judicious not to change the meaning of their post.

Bozzy, don't twist my words, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Firstly, I did no such thing as say they were too primitive for currency. I said their economy was not developed enough for it. Two entirely different concepts. Don't try and dirty me with lies.

Secondly, you'll notice that I'm not saying destroy capitalism, it's all wrong, tear it down, etc, I'm saying that it's being done wrong. People seem to be assuming that the barter economy is in some way less capitalist than a non-barter one. That's wrong. it just doesn't have money. It trades goods for goods.

The simple fact of the matter is, unless we intervene in every one of those African states, their governments will always be a problem. Firstly, they DON'T HONOUR CHEQUES. This makes a cheque as useless as the bit of paper it is printed on. Secondly, what is a dictator/warlord going to do with a tractor? Not much. With money, he can equip his thugs, etc. The fact that these people are not safe to possess their money, and become potential victims because they have some, is a reason for abandoning currency. If someone trades what they have for what they need more of, there's far less potential for corruption. It also stops the dictator being able to use that money to arm his thugs to get more money. He's the only person that needs it. I'll ask you.


What will the average person in the third world do with money.
They have no access to markets, etc to buy what they need, and it will likely end up in the hands of the dictator.

What will they do with a shovel, seeds, irrigation equipment, ploughs?
Be able to produce whatever they chose to produce MORE EFFICIENTLY, with less risk of having it stolen from them by travelling governmental mobs.

Getting rid of currency doesn't help anyone. All it does is make it more difficult to do business. The government can still find ways (trade in foreign currency), but the people are stuck. Eliminating currency would therefore make the people less productive, but the government would not be terribly bothered. And ultimately, third-world problems begin and end with government.

Here is how that "tractor donation" thing would work out.

Scenario 1:

1) Caterpillar donates 1000 tractors to third-world country. Congratulated by first-world media. Honored by UN.
2) Government sells 1000 tractors on open market at below-market rates.
3) Government uses foreign currency collected from tractor sale to purchase AK-47s.

Scenario 2:

1) Caterpillar donates 1000 tractors to third-world country. Congratulated, honored, etc.
2) Tractors distributed to outlying villages.
3) Villagers shake heads. "The nearest gas station is 20 miles!" "My land is too hilly to use that thing!" "Does anybody know how to fix this thing?" "Where do I get new parts?" "I just need a new horse!"

Getting rid of currency doesn't help anyone. All it does is make it more difficult to do business. The government can still find ways (trade in foreign currency), but the people are stuck. Eliminating currency would therefore make the people less productive, but the government would not be terribly bothered. And ultimately, third-world problems begin and end with government.

Here is how that "tractor donation" thing would work out.

Scenario 1:

1) Caterpillar donates 1000 tractors to third-world country. Congratulated by first-world media. Honored by UN.
2) Government sells 1000 tractors on open market at below-market rates.
3) Government uses foreign currency collected from tractor sale to purchase AK-47s.

Scenario 2:

1) Caterpillar donates 1000 tractors to third-world country. Congratulated, honored, etc.
2) Tractors distributed to outlying villages.
3) Villagers shake heads. "The nearest gas station is 20 miles!" "My land is too hilly to use that thing!" "Does anybody know how to fix this thing?" "Where do I get new parts?" "I just need a new horse!"


You'll notice that reconsidering the fuel thing, the tractor tends to be missing, hopefully, from most of my comparisons. However, ploughs, shovels, and other, non-fuel reliant machines are still necessary.

Let's take a look at your scenario with money.

1: People sell their goods to various corporations, get the scrap of money they have agreed to recieve.
2: Gov't thugs turn up, take said money, and use the money to buy AK-47s.

It's the same result! The difference is, that it's not always going to be that someone will agree to buy goods from them, and it's just, in general, more difficult, awkward, and unrewarding to cart ploughs etc from some poor farmer, than his few dollars for selling what he could. it's not as if he can spend those dollars on anything anyway.

Bozzy, don't twist my words, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Firstly, I did no such thing as say they were too primitive for currency. I said their economy was not developed enough for it. Two entirely different concepts. Don't try and dirty me with lies.

If you confuse facts with lies that is not my issue, it is yours.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry?id=p0559600
[quote=dictioary]prim·i·tive
Anthropology Of or relating to a nonindustrial, often tribal culture, especially one that is characterized by a low level of economic complexity: primitive societies.


Secondly, you'll notice that I'm not saying destroy capitalism, it's all wrong, tear it down, etc, I'm saying that it's being done wrong. People seem to be assuming that the barter economy is in some way less capitalist than a non-barter one. That's wrong. it just doesn't have money. It trades goods for goods.

A lack of money is what differentiates a primitive economy from a developed one. Also, your thread title clearly suggests you feel capitalism is to blame.


The simple fact of the matter is, unless we intervene in every one of those African states, their governments will always be a problem. Firstly, they DON'T HONOUR CHEQUES. This makes a cheque as useless as the bit of paper it is printed on. Secondly, what is a dictator/warlord going to do with a tractor? Not much. With money, he can equip his thugs, etc. The fact that these people are not safe to possess their money, and become potential victims because they have some, is a reason for abandoning currency.

According to what source do you determine checks are not accepted?

What specific evidence makes you feel that abandoning currency is a better option than supporting democratic and economic reform? I provided my source, now you do the same.


If someone trades what they have for what they need more of, there's far less potential for corruption. It also stops the dictator being able to use that money to arm his thugs to get more money. He's the only person that needs it. I'll ask you. What will the average person in the third world do with money.
They have no access to markets, etc to buy what they need, and it will likely end up in the hands of the dictator.

If money is worthless, they why would the thugs or arms dealers want it? You are contrdicting yourself with reckless abandon. And what basis are you using to determine the needs of the "average person in the third world"? How is average determined? How are their needs and wants determined? Who does the determining and how?


What will they do with a shovel, seeds, irrigation equipment, ploughs?
Be able to produce whatever they chose to produce MORE EFFICIENTLY, with less risk of having it stolen from them by travelling governmental mobs.

Like, say, build a shovel shop that builds shovels. The could then sell them for, um, ploughs. Can you imagine what that cash register would look like?
Yes, it is ridiculous, and intended to illustrate, along with the rest of this and my last post, the ridiculousness of your premise.

Thinking point.

Should the first point of action be to remove the government and place a UN peacekeeping force to sustain peace and stop tribes resuming violence or someone attempting to ascend to the vacated power?

A lack of money is what differentiates a primitive economy from a developed one. Also, your thread title clearly suggests you feel capitalism is to blame.

Wrong! It says "Monetary Capitalism" That's capitalism based on MONEY. If I had said "capitalism" and only that, you would have a point. As it stands, you don't.

According to what source do you determine checks are not accepted?

What specific evidence makes you feel that abandoning currency is a better option than supporting democratic and economic reform? I provided my source, now you do the same.

My source? When did I claim to have a source where I was repeating all this information verbatim from? I never did. You can ask for a source, but you shan't recieve one. My specific evidence is that we currently do give money. And have for the last half a century.

And it's not working.

I'll admit that what I said about checques was repeated from somewhere that I can't remember and assumed was common knowledge.



If money is worthless, they why would the thugs or arms dealers want it? You are contrdicting yourself with reckless abandon. And what basis are you using to determine the needs of the "average person in the third world"? How is average determined? How are their needs and wants determined? Who does the determining and how?

No, another (deliberate?) misinterpretation. These people are in the employ of the government, and so have a more visible access to the gun market, which operates world wide. They (the gun market) sell them weapons because they ask for it. In the wider world, money is valuable so gun dealers want it. Money works there because you aren't dealing with isolated communities.


Like, say, build a shovel shop that builds shovels. The could then sell them for, um, ploughs. Can you imagine what that cash register would look like?
Yes, it is ridiculous, and intended to illustrate, along with the rest of this and my last post, the ridiculousness of your premise.

and that'd be great if these were western countries with big cities and not tiny communities seperated by hundreds, if not thousands of miles of desert with no need for money, just equipment that will allow them to survive. The money, and the luxuries will come later.

Since I have openly admitted that I have no source for my own musings, I'll ask you another question.

show me the proof of money working. Because I really don't see it. I'm suggesting an alternative that may or may not work. I feel it will, but it is untested. You're saying money will work, despite the fact that it is tested, and has failed.

Thinking point.

Should the first point of action be to remove the government and place a UN peacekeeping force to sustain peace and stop tribes resuming violence or someone attempting to ascend to the vacated power?

oh, of course, eliminating the corrupt officials and rulers would be a great step, if someone was to step up and do so! But nobody is, so I'm offering my thoughts on what should happen til someone does.

But surely none of these solutions can be put in place wiht the corrupt officals in charge as they will diplomatically and forcefully block any international action, covert, charitable or otherwise which threatens to reduce their power or their income ?

But surely none of these solutions can be put in place wiht the corrupt officals in charge as they will diplomatically and forcefully block any international action, covert, charitable or otherwise which threatens to reduce their power or their income ?

Way too difficult a question to answer. Naturally they would block, and most likely, we would accept their blocking. Hopefully someone would have the guts to ignore them, and do what needs be, even if that means clashing with their thugs.

In theory you could promote a people uprising like Nelson Mandela, but in doign so you become little more than a terrorist, identical to the radical muslim clerics which ae causing so many politions so much trouble at the moment. As they say, one mans freedom fighter is a another mans terrorist.

There must be some way of removing the government without becoming hypocritical to the fair ideals of future government.

In theory you could promote a people uprising like Nelson Mandela, but in doign so you become little more than a terrorist, identical to the radical muslim clerics which ae causing so many politions so much trouble at the moment. As they say, one mans freedom fighter is a another mans terrorist.

There must be some way of removing the government without becoming hypocritical to the fair ideals of future government.
Of course, there have been decent governments in Africa and elsewhere tat have nonetheless succumbed to Western... influence.

I covered western influence in a short and possible pointless discussion with Jordy earlier... unfortunatly Jolt was and is malfunctioning to the extent that i couldnt really be arsed to post it up on the boards.

Safe to say i do not suport the actions of western governments at all, and in fact lay upon them a large proportion of the blame for the conitnued situation, even more possibly than the governments in place in african states.

In support of some protectionism (note that some of these are from in no way impartial sources, eg the World Development Movement):

You've crossed wires/debates.

Utility privatisation is a different affair to trade policy, water privatisation is about the state selling some of its property, the aim being to improve service delivery and efficiency. Water privatisation has benefitted the UK, where operating costs have remained (more or less) constant, while services have improved.

The difference suggests that the problem is the developing world's general economic weakness, and government corruption.

Partnerships: A Survey of Water Privatisation (http://www.partnerships.nl/article-1026.3581.html)

Because they're not suffering from extreme poverty. I fail to see the why this is particularly relevant, though maybe I've misunderstood the point you're making.

You have misunderstood. In fact, you've put the cart before the horse. Poverty is not keeping them out of the market. What's keeping them out is protectionism, both first world and third world, and titanic levels of corruption.

I don't really question that free trade benefits some, even many nations. It doesn't, however, benefit all.

Evidence?

Free trade benefitted Hong Kong from the the early 1960's onwards. The differences between Hong Kong and Africa are as follows:
1) Africa has huge natural resources, Hong Kong has none
2) Hong Kong had been well governed, while Africa has had precious little good government
3) Hong Kong is a free trading nation

Where has free-trade (on both sides) failed nations?

Different nations, for numerous reasons (cultural, economic, political, social, etc) need different solutions. The problem with the liberal consensus, globalisation and the activities of the World Bank, WTO and IMF is that they all lead to or seek to impose a sort of one-size-fits-all philosophy.

I don't see how the imposition/retention of restrictions (for which I cannot see the benefit, and have already demonstrated the costs, remember the Filipina lady, the one who was a highly educated socila worker, who went to Hong Kong to get an 800% raise, by working as a maid) allows any sort of solution.

Should the first point of action be to remove the government and place a UN peacekeeping force to sustain peace and stop tribes resuming violence or someone attempting to ascend to the vacated power?

That depends opn how much theft and rape you want.

Thinking point.

Should the first point of action be to remove the government and place a UN peacekeeping force to sustain peace and stop tribes resuming violence or someone attempting to ascend to the vacated power?The first point of action for whom? To help people in Africa and other parts of the not-so-wealthy world, the primary thing that people in the west can do is to get our governments to stop giving and lending money to their governments. I have no earthly idea why "putting the UN in charge" is something anyone smart enough to speak any human language would ever suggest. The UN is filled with representatives of the various national governments of the world, including the very governments that should be "removed" as you so simplisticly put it. The UN doesn't support individual property rights, which exactly what these people need. And when the UN does take control of a country, the first order of buisness is disarming the ordinary population. This is a bad thing if you're not a fan of dictators.

It's all about control. The powerful western governments use foreign aid to keep less powerful governments happy and subserviant. Those governments use that aid to maintain control. The UN is an instrument of control that governments such as that of the Unites States use to coerce the governments of certain other contries to do whatever it is that whoever's in charge would like them to do. At the same time, the UN collectively uses the US as a tool of military might to enforce it's collective will on un-cooperative nations or peoples. Often, the interests of the various member states of the UN are very different from one another, but they pretty much all agree that they each wish to remain in power in the respective parts of the world. Basically, what you have is a series of symbiotic relationships between parastic organizations like the US government, EU governments, UN, World Bank, IMF, and several relatively weak national governments. The hosts for these parasites are the various slaves, serfs, subjects, conscripts, peasants, and taxpayers of the world.

No, another (deliberate?) misinterpretation. These people are in the employ of the government, and so have a more visible access to the gun market, which operates world wide. They (the gun market) sell them weapons because they ask for it. In the wider world, money is valuable so gun dealers want it. Money works there because you aren't dealing with isolated communities.You are never dealing with isolated communites. If people were actually living in isolated communites, no amount of foreign aid wither money or shovels or avocadoes would bring them anywhere near the standard of living that westerners are accustomed to. Anywhere you go in the world, you'll find some sort of money in use. If the people are wearing pants, they're probably using a modern currency like US Federal Reserve Notes.

I'm not sure how to respond to this.... there are no true communist countries in the world, they all have a kind of currency which really renders them, in effect, monetary capitalists to the third world countries. They deal in money. The socialist countries deal in money also. So naturally all would have the same effect as they're doing exactly the same thing wrong.

I wish people would stop using the word "true" when referring to countries. If one takes that point of view, then we are stuck in academia, and not real life.

For example, there are no "true" capitalist countries, either. No "capitalist" nation lacks social welfare, which is anathema to capitalism. Further, all have market controls and some non-privately owned industry/investment, which is also non-capitalistic.

This immediately invalidates the thread: since there are no capitalist countries, capitalism can't fail. QED.

I wish people would stop using the word "true" when referring to countries. If one takes that point of view, then we are stuck in academia, and not real life.

For example, there are no "true" capitalist countries, either. No "capitalist" nation lacks social welfare, which is anathema to capitalism. Further, all have market controls and some non-privately owned industry/investment, which is also non-capitalistic.

This immediately invalidates the thread: since there are no capitalist countries, capitalism can't fail. QED.

Well, I was really intending that people would use some sort of common sense.... there are no countries, to my knowledge, that follow the rules of communism, with their own modified rules. Most "communist" countries are simply dictatorships which use communist words, etc. They're not even a wee bit close to what Marx had intended, whereas capitalist countries do follow the basic concept of capitalism, with their own modifications so that it suits them. There's quite a bit of difference. But it really isn't the point of the thread.

Well, I was really intending that people would use some sort of common sense.... there are no countries, to my knowledge, that follow the rules of communism, with their own modified rules. Most "communist" countries are simply dictatorships which use communist words, etc. They're not even a wee bit close to what Marx had intended, whereas capitalist countries do follow the basic concept of capitalism, with their own modifications so that it suits them. There's quite a bit of difference. But it really isn't the point of the thread.

True, my point is just that all forms of government are their enactments, not how they read on the page. For example, the former CSSR was most certainly Communist, and Brazil is a Republic (and economically Capitalist). :)

You'll notice that reconsidering the fuel thing, the tractor tends to be missing, hopefully, from most of my comparisons. However, ploughs, shovels, and other, non-fuel reliant machines are still necessary.

Let's take a look at your scenario with money.

1: People sell their goods to various corporations, get the scrap of money they have agreed to recieve.
2: Gov't thugs turn up, take said money, and use the money to buy AK-47s.

It's the same result! The difference is, that it's not always going to be that someone will agree to buy goods from them, and it's just, in general, more difficult, awkward, and unrewarding to cart ploughs etc from some poor farmer, than his few dollars for selling what he could. it's not as if he can spend those dollars on anything anyway.

You're still making assumptions about what the people need. Do they really need shovels, or do they already have them? Should we be bothering to promote farming at all, or should we be encouraging a manufacturing industry instead?

There are real-world reasons why I ask these questions. One of the great failures of Castro's economic policy is he transformed the country to the production of cash crops which were already widely available on the cheap. And PJ O'Rourke tells of a British program to assist a developing African nation by converting them to raising peanuts. Not only was that market already well supplied, but it turned out the land was ill-suited to peanuts.

So, even when the government isn't stealing everything that doesn't get out of the way and shooting everything that does, developing nations aren't any better off. An outsider looking in and trying to determine what the people need is going to make some serious errors in judgement. It's better to let the people decide what they need. And that's where money comes in.

You did, after all, only address the one scenario, in which the government steals the donations. In that instance, the people are no better off nor worse off than if you'd donated tractors instead. But if the government does not steal the donations, then there are opportunities for public works projects that will build the infrastructure necessary to make tractors useful.

Of course, donations really don't do much good, because the money just flows out again. If Tanzania receives international money to build a hydroelectric dam, they have to hire contractors from other countries to come build it. The heavy equipment comes from overseas. Most of the raw materials do likewise. At the end of the project you've midly enriched a handful of unskilled laborers and local businessmen in your home country, and the rest of the money has flowed right back out of the country again. And you still need to run a wire network to bring the power of the dam to the people.

And PJ O'Rourke tells of a British program to assist a developing African nation by converting them to raising peanuts.

Cabinia I'm not challenging your arguements. But for the love of all that you hold dear, please do not ever cite Eat the Rich, that book was nothing but the mad ramblings of a drunken tourist.

Hehe... even drunken tourists can make a valuable point, and if he can be funny while doing it, more power to him.

...Money, in itself, is absolutely useless. You can't eat it, you can't build with it.... you can burn it for energy, but that's not going to last you five minutes.
Money is useless? OK then, how about putting your money where your mouth is and getting off the internet? Nothing we see arrayed before us today--no single innovation or invention that we see before us would exist today if it were not for the creator's desire to fashion for himself a better life, one more abundant in resources and general well-being. Looking at human history, we can plainly see that human volition is the single greatest catalyst for change within the reality that we call earth. Money is the ticket you get for honoring and carrying out this volition; it enables us to trade it for the things we want or need. Money--like a shovel or a garden hoe is a tool. It's a tool for each of us to spend our lives as we see fit. Without it, we would be forced to trade more or less on the spot for whatever the other party happened to have on hand. Money allows us to initiate transactions with a third party for your--and their-- benefit.

Saying money is useless is like telling me life is useless. Money--being property-- is every bit an extension of the self--and thus of life--as the material goods you enshrine later in your post. The exchange of it is no different from the ploughs and shovels you seem to worship as somehow being more productive.

The third world shouldn't be trying to have money. it benefits nobody. What does it need? A barter economy. Goods for goods. There's a simple reason for this. Bringing goods into a country increases the amount that it can send back out. Bringing just money in is waste because they don't need it. What are they going to spend it on? They have little to no goods anyway. However, if say... food, coffee, etc, was exported in exchange for shovels, tractors, irrigation equipment, ploughs. That helps both sides.

Next time, with the goods, you get a far bigger return. things like these are harder to be corrupted, that is, spent on a larger house for the current ruler. But for some reason, we keep on sending money when we buy these goods. We don't even send a fair amount... the only result is to ensure the status quo.

Context dropping. Examine your premises here; on what concepts does money lie? Money, like I said earlier, is a tool, every bit a tool as irrigation equipment or tractors or melonballers or whatever else you care to name. Money as a concept lies on the fundamental desire [and need] for human beings to engage in trade. The concept of trade, in turn, appeals to the idea of 'mutual benefit,' without which no civilization or social interaction would exist. Knowledge--and thus concepts--are heirearchial. What you're doing here is removing the context of the concepts of "trade" and "mutual benefit" from the concept of "money" and thus also from the heirarchial nature of knowledge and concept formation, which is tantamount to standing on the fortieth floor of a skyscraper while dynamiting the first thirty-nine.

Whilst we only send money, or handouts of food, nothing will change. Of course the food needs to continue. Some DOES get through, and sowing crops where they are can take much effort. But I still don't understand the money... even if it was to get to the people it was for, what would it be used for? There's nothing to buy there because there is no industry established by bringing in a variety of goods, and that is the other failing of a monetary capitalist establishment in a third world country... it encourages the foolish specialisation in one type of export. Oil, Gas, Diamonds, Silver, Iron, whatever it happens to be. And when the veins start to run too deep, the gas and oil dwindles, what happens? Any little progress that has been made is lost. But yet we persist in the lunacy and madness of a monetary capitalist starting.
The problem here isn't the exchange of money [or lack thereof] it's the lack of equipment and knowledge as a result of a lack things to trade for it. People like to assume that all third world countries have the capacity to change their condition and become a world superpower. Do you really think Sudan or Senegal really has the resources necessary to trade up to a better circumstance? No economic advancement can be made without trade--even you seem to be admitting this in some capacity.

Add to this that most third world leaders are hardly rational people, and the problem grows exponentially. Third world countries, as a general rule, have little else to offer besides services rather than material goods or monetary compensation, which is why they're used largely for labor and little else. There are a few examples, however, of countries that are just horribly managed.

To further broaden my point, let's look at a basic trading history of Europe, shall we? In the beginning, we have the Phoenecians, we have the Celts (the tribes that make up the British, French and Spanish at this point), and we have the Minoans. In the beginning, all of these three peoples interacted with each other... but they didn't trade in money. Not for a long time. In fact, these peoples bartered their way to their vast wealth. The celts had their metalworking, tin, gold, etc, and the Minoans and the Phoenicians had their art, etc. They shared, and traded these goods, widening what each of them had, until they were ready for money.
The lack of a solidified currency here is not the issue; the concept of value, however, is. That said, you can't honestly be invoking the dark ages of Europe as some sort of Utopian ideal to which we should all strive. There's a reason it was called the Dark Ages, my friend. You'll notice how civilization made larger, more pronounced strides in the area of science and innovation after the concept of 'currency' was developed.

it was a natural occurance. From there, we have the minoan impact on the Greeks, where things escalated, the phoenicians dieing out though leaving Carthage behind, and the Celts being precisely as they were, more or less. Eventually, as these peoples flourished more, money began to become more commonplace. Now is when we begin to find Hellenic artwork on Celtic coinage, and on their vases and ornaments. We have a gradual working towards money as the number of goods for trade has increased, building, throughout the centuries until the EVENTUALLY get to us, who use money as the sole form of "official" exchange. Of course bartering trade for trade still exists, but it's only a small thing in comparison. But we're doing it all wrong. Even the Germans, after Versailles, were allowed to pay back their debt with coal, and various ores, instead of a purely monetary thing.
I don't see what this proves, and I see it as little more than a statement of the obvious--civiliaztion inevitably progresses and develops more complex working ideas.

So there it is. This is why I feel that money is precisely what is stopping the third world from growing economically, and why I say that a barter, goods for goods, economy, is better for them, and by easy extention, (if we supply them with the ability to produce more, they will be able to, and the price will go down for what we would need to give them, eventually moving to such a degree where we can run a monetary system and progress from there, resulting in generally lower prices for all.)
This is an oversimplification. What happens when a third world country trades only in shovels and tractors, then all of a sudden they have more shovels and tractors than they have workers? No one else wants them--obviously--because they were the people who traded them in the first place. With this equipment, the populace can sustain itself, but it can do little else. If the nations they're trading with happen to have more arable land or a larger workforce, than your third-world pityfest is right back at square one.

This entire argument drops the context of reality and assumes that people only want the basic things they need to live: food, water, and air. To remove money from the equation is to essentially remove the ability to purchase or procure anything else.

wow pretty comprehensive, but what about people mother theresa who devoted their whole life to the betterment of humanity, she was one person but she made a difference, same with florence nightingale, many more people did stuff (cant be bothered to research) without the thought of a monetary gain

Hehe... even drunken tourists can make a valuable point, and if he can be funny while doing it, more power to him.

It was definantly entertaining, I enjoyed the Sweden chapter the most, I laughed so much that I got strange looks from people riding the El train with me. And one of the middle chapters, where he reviews some economic concepts, was pretty decent for anyone who hasn't taken basic econ courses(1) (except for the part where he questions diminishing marginal utility, you know one of the reasons that the demand curve slopes down.)

The problem is his conclusion, free-markets and the rule of law promote the creation of wealth, is pretty obvious. But if I wanted to challenge him it wouldn't be too hard. His case studies were too convinient and a lot of his information, statistics, etc, are not cited.


(1) Just want to clarify, I meant it is good for a reader who hasn't taken econ courses.

one more thing, it isnt capitalism that is letting down the "third world" it's politics
no one leader willing to make the leap to make a substantial stand on the international stage, Africa is hardly helping itself is it? Zimbabwe used to be the breadbasket of africa but is now the population is oppresed and starving. This weeks saviour for an african country is next weeks dictator, they need political structure and democracy and the rest will follow

wow pretty comprehensive, but what about people mother theresa who devoted their whole life to the betterment of humanity, she was one person but she made a difference, same with florence nightingale, many more people did stuff (cant be bothered to research) without the thought of a monetary gain
Again, the concept of moeny is not really the issue here, the concept of value [which I'll remind you is the concept on which money rests] is. She valued something, and strove to further this value. In this context, money was not her desire, but value was.

so it's the value of help and charity which is the downfall on a fully concerted international effort to help out africa, people see the what's in it for me, the value of helping has dropped with every second person on the street is asking for aid, if it was made a higher priority then monetary capitalism in the west could really change the continent, creating, in time and with one hell of a lot of working capital antoher trading power in the world. so it is the value of help and charity is the problem not money

Money is useless? OK then, how about putting your money where your mouth is and getting off the internet? Nothing we see arrayed before us today--no single innovation or invention that we see before us would exist today if it were not for the creator's desire to fashion for himself a better life, one more abundant in resources and general well-being. Looking at human history, we can plainly see that human volition is the single greatest catalyst for change within the reality that we call earth. Money is the ticket you get for honoring and carrying out this volition; it enables us to trade it for the things we want or need. Money--like a shovel or a garden hoe is a tool. It's a tool for each of us to spend our lives as we see fit. Without it, we would be forced to trade more or less on the spot for whatever the other party happened to have on hand. Money allows us to initiate transactions with a third party for your--and their-- benefit.

Saying money is useless is like telling me life is useless. Money--being property-- is every bit an extension of the self--and thus of life--as the material goods you enshrine later in your post. The exchange of it is no different from the ploughs and shovels you seem to worship as somehow being more productive.

What can one actually do with money itself? If somebody cut you out a piece of paper exactly the same shape as a pound note, or more relevant to you, a dollar bill, what would you do with it? Absolutely nothing. It's valueless. The fact that we print some value on it gives it a value to us, that is you exchange it for a good or a service, which the recipient can then do likewise with. it's the good or the service which has value, the money is simply a way of mediating this. in itself, it has none.


I'll clear something up before I expand. I'm not saying that these countries should revert, now and for always, to a barter economy. That's the last thing I'd propose. However, I'm saying that there is no point going from the first step of establishing an economy (subsistence farming) to the last step in one big jump. it never works. However, I'm saying that there should be a logical progression from getting their land cultivated, under control, and habitable without struggling each day for life itself, to a monetary based free market. These countries need their own sustainable supply of goods for economic advancement. As it is, they lack this. When it is achieved, then they advance up whatever vertical diagram you choose, be it pyramid, ladder, or staircase.


conntext dropping. Examine your premises here; on what concepts does money lie? Money, like I said earlier, is a tool, every bit a tool as irrigation equipment or tractors or melonballers or whatever else you care to name. Money as a concept lies on the fundamental desire [and need] for human beings to engage in trade. The concept of trade, in turn, appeals to the idea of 'mutual benefit,' without which no civilization or social interaction would exist. Knowledge--and thus concepts--are heirearchial. What you're doing here is removing the context of the concepts of "trade" and "mutual benefit" from the concept of "money" and thus also from the heirarchial nature of knowledge and concept formation, which is tantamount to standing on the fortieth floor of a skyscraper while dynamiting the first thirty-nine.

Actually, the whole reason that I propose the removal of currency from these countries is to cause the introduction of varied goods into the country. As it stands, their resources trickle out, and money trickles in, usually into the pockets of a dictator who will most likely use it for something that really doesn't benefit the country at all. Things would be a lot smoother if they weren't there, but nobody is really sorting them out at all, and we really can't assume that without outside intervention of any sort, that they'll go away. They have a captive audience, so to speak. However, with more varied, and specific goods coming in that aren't money, there is a higher chance that at least some of it will get to its target. Part of the basis of removing money is to make the dictators reign, even if slightly, more strenuous. We've seen that money is not doing any good whatsoever in this regard. Besides, once these people have a more stable position, they can begin to take matters into their own hands. However, they are kept on their feet, and matters cannot improve. Besides, like I have said, the point is to build up to money. Not quite dynamiting the 39 floors below, but more like building them before you add the 40th, instead of trying to construct it on a foundation of thin air.


The problem here isn't the exchange of money [or lack thereof] it's the lack of equipment and knowledge as a result of a lack things to trade for it. People like to assume that all third world countries have the capacity to change their condition and become a world superpower. Do you really think Sudan or Senegal really has the resources necessary to trade up to a better circumstance? No economic advancement can be made without trade--even you seem to be admitting this in some capacity.

This is another foundation of my point. Through a barter economy you encourage the input of other goods, and expand their market. When you have enough goods to really necessitate currency, then it should be introduced. Like I said. I wouldn't imagine that this would be a permanent solution, but an interim until the economy has grown significantly enough to warrant money.

Add to this that most third world leaders are hardly rational people, and the problem grows exponentially. Third world countries, as a general rule, have little else to offer besides services rather than material goods or monetary compensation, which is why they're used largely for labor and little else. There are a few examples, however, of countries that are just horribly managed.

Of course. However money tends to flow in the leaders of these countries direction. The plan is to stabilise the country and circumvent the leader as far as possible, by expanding their pool of trade and allowing them to expand their own economic growth outside of any negative internal influences.


The lack of a solidified currency here is not the issue; the concept of value, however, is. That said, you can't honestly be invoking the dark ages of Europe as some sort of Utopian ideal to which we should all strive. There's a reason it was called the Dark Ages, my friend. You'll notice how civilization made larger, more pronounced strides in the area of science and innovation after the concept of 'currency' was developed.

oh no, I'm most certainly not advocating them as being a glorious age (though technically the period I refer to was pre-classical, and not the dark ages) but rather that the reason we have money today is because of them. There is no doubt that things speed up because of currency, etc, however, the European nations had to go through such times, so we established our trade, through mixing goods with each other. When we had progressed, money became necessary, and so it was introduced, and things moved on from there. We're trying to take an economy that has never dealt with this, and skip them several stages ahead to a modern capitalist economy.


I don't see what this proves, and I see it as little more than a statement of the obvious--civiliaztion inevitably progresses and develops more complex working ideas.

Which is exactly my point! Unless you progress and develop these ideas yourself, they are very very difficult to import in. This progression is necessary to creating a working state and economy.


This is an oversimplification. What happens when a third world country trades only in shovels and tractors, then all of a sudden they have more shovels and tractors than they have workers? No one else wants them--obviously--because they were the people who traded them in the first place. With this equipment, the populace can sustain itself, but it can do little else. If the nations they're trading with happen to have more arable land or a larger workforce, than your third-world pityfest is right back at square one.

Once they have traded to such a level, they will be able to develop further. Like I keep saying, this not a permanent solution at all, but merely to facilitate further economic growth by getting the hard part out of the way first (in other words, the basic necessities for survival, which they need a lot more than the newest video game console. Once, however, they have secured their own food, water, and basic necessities, then they move onwards to the more un-necessary amenities. You can't have all the good stuff without the basic foundations, surely?



This entire argument drops the context of reality and assumes that people only want the basic things they need to live: food, water, and air. To remove money from the equation is to essentially remove the ability to purchase or procure anything else.

No, it's purely so that they can develop the basic things in significant abundance to move forward quickly. Once such a step is complete, then , as I said, the other stuff comes naturally.

A bunch of stuff
I thought I was going to have to resopnd to this point by point, but much of it relies on the same basic concepts so I think I can more or less spearhead all of them with a few general statements:

First, this post is wildly different from your first; it seems to me like you're changing your premise altogether. At first you tell me that momey is useless, and then you turn around and say it isn't, and that a barter economy is only a temporary solution. Forgive me for not having read the entirety of your thread; if you have been saying this elsewhere I obviously haven't seen it.

However, if this is a 'temporary solution' as you put it, then that idea should be invoked as a central concept within the context of your first post. In it, you basically state that money has more or less no value, and that the third world needs a bater system to save itself from... well, itself. There's no arguing that the third world needs fertilizer, ploughs and tractors, but nowhere is it stated in your initial premise that the barter system by which they would get these things isn't a permanent workable solution.

That said, switching to a barter economy for these people now would cause many more problems than it would solve. By getting rid of their money, you're basically making them a lot poorer than they already are. The fact of the matter is, the rest of the world has money already, and economic progression has continued more or less without the Third World. Without money, they wouldn't be able to trade for these things in the first place; they would have to be given to them. This is an entirely different concept.

Still, a lot of the things you're saying here do make sense; it's a pity none of these ideas were touched upon at first. No one is really expecting much money from the third world in the first place, which is why they already receive a lot of surplus shit from us and other countries. Hell, a number of countries are considering absolving debt from third world nations anyway.

A lot of the problem here can be pinned on environmental radicals who talk nations like Zambia into rejecting tons of US grown gene-altered corn. A lot of us are already trying to help these folks, only to be snubbed by these dickless bastards who want us to turn back the clock on agricultural progress. These are the same people who don't realize that it is impossible to grow enough food on existing farmland [using current methods] to feed the entire planet; progress must be made somewhere or else roughly 2 billion folks in these countries won't have food. They're already dying in record numbers for this very reason.

A lot of the problem here can be pinned on environmental radicals who talk nations like Zambia into rejecting tons of US grown gene-altered corn. A lot of us are already trying to help these folks, only to be snubbed by these dickless bastards who want us to turn back the clock on agricultural progress. These are the same people who don't realize that it is impossible to grow enough food on existing farmland [using current methods] to feed the entire planet; progress must be made somewhere or else roughly 2 billion folks in these countries won't have food. They're already dying in record numbers for this very reason.

You write a good reply Melkor, but then you include this obviously slanted crap.

Have your considered that gene-altered plants might not be safe for consumption? Have you considered that agriculture is a heavily protected industry across the world? If we were to allow farmers, well... agribusiness, to compete internationally we would see more food at cheaper prices.

Why this blame the enviromentalists rant? Is it because it's easy?


Jordaxia,

Have you even considered my point that there has never been a successful barter economy in recorded, and likely unrecorded, history?

No economy can work on barter. It is too inefficient, actual trade will be reduced to practically zero. This is a pointless debate.

This is it. The third world. I've been saying this for some time now, but I haven't said it here yet. You can agree or disagree as much as you want, of course. I'll even explain why I feel that it fails badly in the third world. Money, in itself, is absolutely useless. You can't eat it, you can't build with it.... you can burn it for energy, but that's not going to last you five minutes... (and etc)

I must say that as an ardant supporter of capitalism I let out a small groan when I saw the heading for this thread, but in the end I agree with you. That's somthing that had not dawned on me (granted I don't spend a lot of time considering third world contries). Allow me to applaud you on a well thought out and well presented argument that people on both sides of the fence should sit up and take notice of.

You write a good reply Melkor, but then you include this obviously slanted crap.

Have your considered that gene-altered plants might not be safe for consumption? Have you considered that agriculture is a heavily protected industry across the world? If we were to allow farmers, well... agribusiness, to compete internationally we would see more food at cheaper prices.
All of these concerns are well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that without gene-altered crops, nearly a third of the world's population will be without food. Do you see 2 billion folks volunteering to die of starvation so we can avoid using GE crops? On what basis is this risk that it's 'not safe' for consumption based? Have you considered that every time we have cross-bred plants for faster growth or larger yields we were, in effect, altering their RNA? It's the same concept. The GE food health-risk scare is a hoax. It has no rational basis in scientific fact from what I've seen. GE opponents generally argue "We don't know what it will do!" but fail to provide any compelling evidence beyond that.

By the same token we could refuse all innovation because we are ultimately unaware of its long term effects.

Why this blame the enviromentalists rant? Is it because it's easy?
No, because it's true, at leat to an extent. I did, in fact say they were part of the problem, rather than the entire problem as you seem to be assuming. I'm sorry, but I just can't condone some Greenpeace asshole talking a third world nation out of tons of food that would otherwise feed the starving people therein. Go to Somalia sometime and ask any one of the malnourished folks there if they would not eat GE foods.

This is an oversimplification. What happens when a third world country trades only in shovels and tractors, then all of a sudden they have more shovels and tractors than they have workers? No one else wants them--obviously--because they were the people who traded them in the first place. With this equipment, the populace can sustain itself, but it can do little else. If the nations they're trading with happen to have more arable land or a larger workforce, than your third-world pityfest is right back at square one.

Not really because if they are trading some resource that they have access to (ie coffee or wheat or crack :p ) then they won't trade for more of a tool or resourse than they need at the moment. If the item is given to them then why would it hurt them to have a few extras of somthing strewn around.


This entire argument drops the context of reality and assumes that people only want the basic things they need to live: food, water, and air. To remove money from the equation is to essentially remove the ability to purchase or procure anything else.

Right now these people only need to be concerned with basic survival needs. If you are dead then it's hard to produce anything at all. Back at the dawn of human civ people were only concerned with survival. It took a while but we did eventually grow to beable to produce luxuries too but basic needs must always come first. The same holds true for the poor nations of the world today, they need to stablize before they can hope to grow. I grew up in a poor family living in a rich neighborhood and town (though I would have been rich by third world standards) so I have an idea of what it is like to want all the nice things the people around you have. The point is that these nations should be patient and get themselves stable before they start the long process of becoming modern nations with good economies. They can't expect to become the US or Japan (or UK or Germany or ________ fill in you favorite economicly sound nation here) overnight

Gang, I was referring, in that latter part, cheifly to Jordaxia's assertation that "money is useless."

At the time, it seemed like the crux of his argument; but he seems to have retracted that premise.

show me the proof of money working. Because I really don't see it. I'm suggesting an alternative that may or may not work. I feel it will, but it is untested. You're saying money will work, despite the fact that it is tested, and has failed.

Umm, do you really want to pursue that very general assumption?

No, not really. Apply common sense and put in the the pretext of the third world at the moment where money has been sent for a long time now. Then read the other posts and see what I mean without picking out the smallest points that go against basically what I say and, in context, actually make sense.


Unless you want to deliberately construct your entire argument out of mistranslations you appear to be striving to find.

Gang, I was referring, in that latter part, cheifly to Jordaxia's assertation that "money is useless."

At the time, it seemed like the crux of his argument; but he seems to have retracted that premise.

**tosses MU a Scooby Snack**

It has no rational basis in scientific fact from what I've seen. GE opponents generally argue "We don't know what it will do!" but fail to provide any compelling evidence beyond that.

I'm sorry, it seemd to me that you were only stating an opinion that, for all I knew, was uninformed. It seems though that you have looked at the issue. I would appreciate any linkable evidence you have, I'm not calling you out I'm just curious.

But anyway, I don't want to argue with you on this. It seems silly to argue with someone on what a cloud looks like when we are both in the company of someone who insists the sky is falling down. (...zing?)

Well, any linkable evidence I have could also be found by running a google search on "GE Crops." Most of my deductions in this area has to do with the fact that I don't turn into a cow when I eat a flank steak or I don't start growing seeds when I eat an ear of corn. The alarmists will be quick to the draw with statements like "Well, but they're putting rat genes in lettuce and fish genes in tomatoes," but that's not exactly the case. They do move those genes around in labs to see how they work, but none of the freaky experimental crops such as these are actually meant to be food crops.

GE crops happen to be the most heavily regulated crops on the market, they're regulated by the FDA [obviously], the EPA [if there's a pesticide involved] and the USDA. It is a common claim of Greenpeace activists that these crops are not regulated at all and reach the market with no testing. Talk about compelling arguments.

No, not really. Apply common sense and put in the the pretext of the third world at the moment where money has been sent for a long time now. Then read the other posts and see what I mean without picking out the smallest points that go against basically what I say and, in context, actually make sense.
I still don't see why you're arguing that money is the root of the problem, when I thought we'd already agreed that the real problem is government.

There also seems to be a serious misunderstanding of the nature of the economy, giving me cause to wonder if you have socialist leanings. Socialism is based on an underlying assumption that wealth is finite and requires distribution. The free market teaches us tha wealth can be created. A third-world nation needs to use its resources to create its own wealth in order to develop into prosperity. Until it learns to do so, any outside contributions simply flow right back out to purchase all the things they can't create themselves.

Barter economies prevent growth. It would be a case of one step forward and 1500 years back.

I still don't see why you're arguing that money is the root of the problem, when I thought we'd already agreed that the real problem is government.

There also seems to be a serious misunderstanding of the nature of the economy, giving me cause to wonder if you have socialist leanings. Socialism is based on an underlying assumption that wealth is finite and requires distribution. The free market teaches us tha wealth can be created. A third-world nation needs to use its resources to create its own wealth in order to develop into prosperity. Until it learns to do so, any outside contributions simply flow right back out to purchase all the things they can't create themselves.

Barter economies prevent growth. It would be a case of one step forward and 1500 years back.


Because there is nothing we can do about the government whilst nobody is doing anything about it, so we can cut the gov't right out of the debate, it isn't going to change anytime soon.

You needn't wonder if I have socialist leanings. I do.
The difference is that I also believe that capitalism is a simple, and can be an effective way of doing things... but my political leanings are not really the topic of discussion.

What I am saying is, that with a barter economy, you cause an influx of raw goods, which enable the people to use them, to stabilise their own condition, that is, secure an adequate supply of food and water, and then advance to the more optional amenities when such necessities are dealt with.

It's simply re-establishing the logical chain of economic progression which fails if you miss out huge links and go from a non-existent, dependent economy to a western style monetary capitalist economy in a single stroke.

It's simply re-establishing the logical chain of economic progression which fails if you miss out huge links and go from a non-existent, dependent economy to a western style monetary capitalist economy in a single stroke.

Well you have ignored my first responce, on page 2 or 3 I believe, and my subsequent comments. I am not sure how to get your attention. How about...



THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SUCCESSFUL BARTER ECONOMY IN RECORDED HISTORY, AND MOST LIKELY IN UNRECORDED HISTORY!

Because there is nothing we can do about the government whilst nobody is doing anything about it, so we can cut the gov't right out of the debate, it isn't going to change anytime soon.
Except that you're missing a vital point. If you want to do away with money in a third-world nation, you'll need the government's support. They are, after all, the ones who print the money, and influence what it is worth.

I don't suspect you'll have much success.

You needn't wonder if I have socialist leanings. I do.
The difference is that I also believe that capitalism is a simple, and can be an effective way of doing things... but my political leanings are not really the topic of discussion.
No, they're not the topic. I was just curious because some of the argument led me to intuit socialist influence, and I wanted to know if I was on or off the mark. It helps me to know where you're coming from.

What I am saying is, that with a barter economy, you cause an influx of raw goods, which enable the people to use them, to stabilise their own condition, that is, secure an adequate supply of food and water, and then advance to the more optional amenities when such necessities are dealt with.
A barter economy creates an influx of raw goods? How does that work?

And besides, it was my understanding that developing countries lack finished goods, and that their own raw goods are their best economic resources to trade for them.

It's simply re-establishing the logical chain of economic progression which fails if you miss out huge links and go from a non-existent, dependent economy to a western style monetary capitalist economy in a single stroke.
Capitalist markets have to evolve. They aren't created in a single stroke. Case in point, it took the United States over 200 years to develop into a manufacturing powerhouse. And except for a few years of naval blocade in the middle, they had economic freedom the entire time.

Today, people expect miracles, based on the examples of post WWII Western Europe and Japan. Of course, they conveniently forget that those places had democratic governments, a skilled labor force, pre-existing infrastructures (power, roads, harbors, rails, etc.), and heavy assistance from the US. A backwater African country divided by tribalism faces far greater challenges.

Well you have ignored my first responce, on page 2 or 3 I believe, and my subsequent comments. I am not sure how to get your attention. How about...



THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SUCCESSFUL BARTER ECONOMY IN RECORDED HISTORY, AND MOST LIKELY IN UNRECORDED HISTORY!


Oopsie daisy.

Now that you DO have my attention :D you may have my response. I actually believe I attempted a response to this but it looked as if I was contradicting myself. Have at thee and all that anyway.

There have been plenty of successful barter economies in recorded history, if you regard the success of the barter economy as opening up a viable gateway to further economic growth, as I do. A barter economy in this example, as I have since made clear *since not doing so in the first post* is nothing more than a stopgap measure until such times as the state of such communities and the state at large can support further growth. Since most of these places lack their own self-sufficiency, or even a good stab at it, of food and water, these must be the first priorities. And that means in dealing in agricultural equipment to expand these and bring more goods into the country. As it stands, they do not have their own market so money has a limited value. When, however, they have reached a stage where their internal market is big enough for it, they are not living off purely subsistence farming and charitable food donations, then you introduce money, as the barter economy has done its work.

There have been plenty of successful barter economies in recorded history, if you regard the success of the barter economy as opening up a viable gateway to further economic growth, as I do.

No, not a one. Allow me to quote the appropriate section of my first responce.


4) Finally I think there is a great misconception about the actual historical prescence of barter economies. This is taught in economics classes all wrong and I can understand the confusion. Allow me to end this misconception, at least on these boards for a short time:

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN ECONOMY, IN ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY AND MORE THAN LIKELY IN ALL OF UNRECORDED HISTORY, THAT HAS BEEN BASED ON A BARTER SYSTEM. THIS IS A LIE PERPETUATED BY LAZY ECONOMICS PROFESSORS!

Think about it, everyone will agree that barter is grossly inefficient and very much impossible where a lot of goods are traded. So why would any society stay in one? The answer is that no known society has.

Pre-monetary societies had economic systems that were based on redistribution and reciprocation. Yes goods passed hands, but they did not pass hand via a market. Instead, culturally determined rules of economic conduct dictated the passing of goods.

Barter has happened, without question. But it has occured as 'on the side' transactions for luxury, or speciality, goods. Allow me to repeat for emphasis, no economy has ever been based on barter.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SUCCESSFUL BARTER ECONOMY IN RECORDED HISTORY, AND MOST LIKELY IN UNRECORDED HISTORY!

The Spartans were the only successful state without currency, and thus a sort of proto-Communism.

How were goods distributed in Spartan society?

The Spartans could distribute goods among themselves without resorting to currency, but their method of acquiring trade goods (pillage and tribute) is frowned upon in modern society.

How were goods distributed in Spartan society?

By the state. The Spartans had a dual monarchy (two kings), and a kind of Senate made up of ex-military men (I think 28). Everyone was given the same red robe and went barefoot when a youth. There was no wealth per se, and all men were soldiers and farmers. Tradesmen were more uncommon than in other Greecian city-states, and merchants virtually unknown as an occupation. All trade with other cities (Corinth, Athens, et al) was in barter.

Having banned currency/coinage, the Spartans didn't usually accept monetary payment.

The Spartans could distribute goods among themselves without resorting to currency, but their method of acquiring trade goods (pillage and tribute) is frowned upon in modern society.

Well, that may or may not be the case, but that isn't the point I am trying to make.

The Spartans may not have had currency, but lack of currency does not mean barter. I would bet that the Spartans had a redistributive system where the government collected resources, from the helots let's say, and distributed it to the populace according to station and function.

This isn't barter.

Barter is trade without currency. And I maintain that there has never been a known, and likely any unknown, society to have functioned on barter.

By the state...

Well there we go. Sorry Markreich, I didn't see your responce as I was posting. Refer to my pre-emptive responce above. :D

A Spartan king tells an Athenian merchant he will accept 25 fine swords in exchange for 6 barrels of wheat.

or...

A Spartan king tells an Athenian merchant he will accept 25 fine swords in exchange for 6 silver coins.

What's the difference? None. Currency just makes it easier. The merchant has to trade the wheat in order to get the things his family needs to survive. He can either take six barrels of wheat home, and drag it through the marketplace trying to trade so much of it for a chicken, and so much for olive oil, and so much for wine, and so much for spices, and so much for fabric, and so much for thread, and so much for mending a broken cooking pot... or he can just sell it for currency and carry some loose change into the marketplace to buy what he wants. Then the people who provide him goods and services can spend the money on things they want and need, rather than worrying what they're going to do with all that wheat. Currency also means that the merchant doesn't have to worry whether the chicken seller needs wheat or not. If someone had recently paid him in wheat and he had more than he wanted already, he might just refuse to do business with the merchant, in which case the merchant has no meat to bring home to the table.

Bartering just makes everything take more effort and time, ultimately damaging productivity and stifling growth.

A Spartan king tells an Athenian merchant he will accept 25 fine swords in exchange for 6 barrels of wheat.

or...

A Spartan king tells an Athenian merchant he will accept 25 fine swords in exchange for 6 silver coins.

What's the difference? None. Currency just makes it easier. The merchant has to trade the wheat in order to get the things his family needs to survive. He can either take six barrels of wheat home, and drag it through the marketplace trying to trade so much of it for a chicken, and so much for olive oil, and so much for wine, and so much for spices, and so much for fabric, and so much for thread, and so much for mending a broken cooking pot... or he can just sell it for currency and carry some loose change into the marketplace to buy what he wants. Then the people who provide him goods and services can spend the money on things they want and need, rather than worrying what they're going to do with all that wheat. Currency also means that the merchant doesn't have to worry whether the chicken seller needs wheat or not. If someone had recently paid him in wheat and he had more than he wanted already, he might just refuse to do business with the merchant, in which case the merchant has no meat to bring home to the table.

Bartering just makes everything take more effort and time, ultimately damaging productivity and stifling growth.

Not only that, but after I (say) split your firewood, I want hot food and some beer, not necessarily five bushels of apples and a goat with a bowel problem... :(

Well, that may or may not be the case, but that isn't the point I am trying to make.

The Spartans may not have had currency, but lack of currency does not mean barter. I would bet that the Spartans had a redistributive system where the government collected resources, from the helots let's say, and distributed it to the populace according to station and function.

This isn't barter.

Barter is trade without currency. And I maintain that there has never been a known, and likely any unknown, society to have functioned on barter.

Actually, it's still barter. :)
* All trade with other cities (Corinth, Athens, et al) was in barter. Wine for wool, grain for ochre, whatever.

* The government doled out goods (as necessary, but this was rare... which is how "Spartan" came to mean "austere") according to one's service to the state and production. So you might get the better cup or hunting knife or whatnot... for your service. Ergo, trade w/o currency.

The Spartans are the only known society (not a tribe!) to have functioned on barter.
Most Native Americans had currency, be it in the form of "wampum", elk bones, silver/gold, special oyster shells, whatever. Aboriginals are a nation, but never formed a political state/society. All known African tribes valued gold.

Congratulations, you've just managed to completely insult anyone from a third world country. Maybe you'd like to suggest they need paint and brushes for their caves too?

You have grossly understated the wants, needs, capablilities and abilities of the citizens of hundreds of nations all in one thread.

Will your next thread also be about the superiority of western culture?
(yawn....)

Markreich,

I didn't say that there were no barter transactions at all. Sure there has been barter trade, but on specialty goods.

So my question is. When sparta got it's wine from Athens and it's wool from Corinth, how did they get distributed to the people of Sparta?

I'm guessing through the same distribution channels that staple goods were passed through. The economy isn't based on barter, they just took advantage of it for rare goods they could not produce on their own.

Jordi is advocating a full barter economy, not just in trade but in function throughout all levels of the economy. No known society has managed that, due to the reasons I listed in my reply on page 3-4.

Markreich,

I didn't say that there were no barter transactions at all. Sure there has been barter trade, but on specialty goods.

So my question is. When sparta got it's wine from Athens and it's wool from Corinth, how did they get distributed to the people of Sparta?

I'm guessing through the same distribution channels that staple goods were passed through. The economy isn't based on barter, they just took advantage of it for rare goods they could not produce on their own.

Jordi is advocating a full barter economy, not just in trade but in function throughout all levels of the economy. No known society has managed that, due to the reasons I listed in my reply on page 3-4.

Quite literally, the Spartans doled it out off a cart to each house. All citizens got an equal share, since they all had roles in the state. (Women with children, men with farming and warfare).

It's barter, since goods are being exchanged an no money is changing hands, as they'd banned currency. :)

Right. And (I HOPE!) Jordi must realize that barter can only work in a small state with a low level of technology. I'm just pointing out that the only example of it ever working was well over two thousand years ago, and it failed against the wealth of Athens.

yeah but they could have kicked athens butt in a straight fight

yeah but they could have kicked athens butt in a straight fight

Er... they failed to, mostly because the Athenians bought allies. In reality, there's no such thing as a "straight fight". That's why we have fencing and boxing and martial arts.

It's barter, since goods are being exchanged an no money is changing hands, as they'd banned currency.

Again, when the Spartans traded it was barter. But when they took those goods home and dolled them out it wasn't barter, it was an authoritative redistributive economic system.

But anyway, I don't really what to keep drawing this point out, I think the topic is dead.

I guess I just like to have the last word. :D :mp5:

yes im like that too

Again, when the Spartans traded it was barter. But when they took those goods home and dolled them out it wasn't barter, it was an authoritative redistributive economic system.
I would have to say that, based on the information presented here, the Spartan system was indeed barter. No matter how they dealt internally, all their external business was conducted via barter. However, that trade would have been useless to the merchants, except that they could turn the bartered goods into currency at the next market. A merchant who sells a load in one city will usually purchase a new one for the return trip to maximize profits. The Spartans just saved him the trouble of purchasing a load for the return trip. However... if he couldn't have turned that Spartan load into currency at the other end, it wouldn't be worth the bother.

Now consider applying this model to modern times. Let's say Tanzania orders 1500 miles of electrical cable to upgrade power infrastructure to outlying villages. The merchant in this case does not make the delivery, he hires a shipping company. When the ship makes delivery, the Tanzanians in turn make 60 tons of coal ore available for delivery as payment. The ship turns around and delivers the coal ore (which requires more than one trip), minus a portion to cover the shipping cost, to the cable company. And now both companies have to turn to the market to find a buyer for all that coal. And they have to find someplace to store it while they do.

You're going to find that the cable company and the shipping company will decide the hassle is more than it's worth, and refuse to do business with Tanzania.

I would have to say that, based on the information presented here, the Spartan system was indeed barter. No matter how they dealt internally, all their external business was conducted via barter.

The Spartan system, the one that Spartans experienced daily, was redistribution. The state traded by way of barter, but the goods received were distributed by the channels previously mentioned.

To say that their system was based on barter, barter would have to be the most common mode of good distribution. It was not. It happened, I never denied that. But how did soldier X and wife Y get wheat to eat? From the government. How did they get wine and wool? From the government.

It's not barter. They used barter, but it wasn't the basis for their economy.

You're going to find that the cable company and the shipping company will decide the hassle is more than it's worth, and refuse to do business with Tanzania.

Exactly what I said in my first responce on this thread.

Last. :D

The Spartan system, the one that Spartans experienced daily, was redistribution. The state traded by way of barter, but the goods received were distributed by the channels previously mentioned.

To say that their system was based on barter, barter would have to be the most common mode of good distribution. It was not. It happened, I never denied that. But how did soldier X and wife Y get wheat to eat? From the government. How did they get wine and wool? From the government.

It's not barter. They used barter, but it wasn't the basis for their economy.



Exactly what I said in my first responce on this thread.

Last. :D

As said before, it's barter, since their services (soldiering, farming, spinning cloth, whatever...) were traded for the wheat.