The Nature of Money
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2013, 06:51 PM
RE: The Nature of Money
My argument is that we waste 90% of our resources.

As I said in another thread:

"Humanity is like a bunch of apes fighting over a banana and smashing it to pieces during the fight, so nobody can have any."

Some of us are trying to find a better way.

For most: "that's the way things are, so what's your problem?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 08:14 PM
RE: The Nature of Money
(25-03-2013 06:51 PM)Zat Wrote:  My argument is that we waste 90% of our resources.

As I said in another thread:

"Humanity is like a bunch of apes fighting over a banana and smashing it to pieces during the fight, so nobody can have any."

Some of us are trying to find a better way.

For most: "that's the way things are, so what's your problem?"
Well, I don't accept the that's how it is argument and I don't advance it.

But I'm curious. How is it that you've concluded that money is the problem? You rightly observed that money is merely a tool to facilitate trade. Without it, you don't eliminate trade, you simply complicate trade. I think you did elide to the fact that some of the things we do with money are problematic but since you didn't go into detail, I'm not sure if you actually meant that money isn't the problem, what we do with it is... which would be a rational observation.


Are you agitating for a resource based economy?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 11:08 PM
RE: The Nature of Money
(25-03-2013 08:14 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  How is it that you've concluded that money is the problem?

Why is it that many considerations are often boiled down to "the problem"? Zat didn't label money "the problem", and I think Zat was thinking broader than that.

Maybe I've presumed too much, but I also think Zat was simply proposing we stop using money, regardless of whether we call the resulting economy "resource based" or anything else.

If that's the case, I'm in agreement with Zat. Cutting out money doesn't inherently complicate trade, and in many situations, simplifies it. Money's absence/presence is just one variable in our decided-upon economic structure which determines how simple or complicated trade is. If the whole system can be made to accommodate money's absence, that eliminates one resource entirely superfluous to survival, and thus simplifies the system at least in that regard.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 12:14 AM
RE: The Nature of Money
I used to do a lot of bartering for goods and services, but as my children got older and circumstances changed I've been forced further back into the world of hard currency. They are in their late teens and will self-sufficient in just a couple more years. I look forward to getting them on their way and moving back into that way of life. My son especially has learned the value of barter and the way things are going in this economy, I think it will serve him well. He will be even better at it than me.

"Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?"- David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 12:22 AM
RE: The Nature of Money
The desert island is a simplistic false analogy. Goods and services do not have the same relative value to any two people. There has to be some way to objectively measure relative value. Barter is fine for small local groups. Money is the best we got. Cook up a better way to value things relatively differently, and maybe you might have a point. Unless you can, your "money is bad" is bull, and whistling in the wind. Where did you take Econ 101 ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-03-2013, 12:49 AM
RE: The Nature of Money
(26-03-2013 12:22 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The desert island is a simplistic false analogy. Goods and services do not have the same relative value to any two people. There has to be some way to objectively measure relative value. Barter is fine for small local groups. Money is the best we got. Cook up a better way to value things relatively differently, and maybe you might have a point. Unless you can, your "money is bad" is bull, and whistling in the wind. Where did you take Econ 101 ?

I live in a small-town rural area and make a good wage. I have no illusion that I can "survive" by bartering, but it most certainly has a positive effect on my standard living and on those who I deal with. When done right, it's a win-win situation. Econ 101? I've taken a few years of post-secondary economics and business, but that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I agree with you -money is the best we've got. Barter is no way to run a complex economy but it can work very well in a secondary way for some.

"Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?"- David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 12:57 AM
RE: The Nature of Money
Bucky, I don't think Zatamon's desert island analogy implied anything about the relative value of goods and services.

Also, money is only an objective measurement of monetary value. Using that objective measurement still leaves us with a system based on subjective, relative value. Whatever we base trade on, we will always have a system based on subjective, relative value, because the system is our own chosen construct. One way being "better", "worse", "best" is a matter of ideals/preferences/values/ethics/morals/whatever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fat cat's post
26-03-2013, 05:35 AM
RE: The Nature of Money
(26-03-2013 12:57 AM)fat cat Wrote:  Bucky, I don't think Zatamon's desert island analogy implied anything about the relative value of goods and services.

Also, money is only an objective measurement of monetary value. Using that objective measurement still leaves us with a system based on subjective, relative value. Whatever we base trade on, we will always have a system based on subjective, relative value, because the system is our own chosen construct. One way being "better", "worse", "best" is a matter of ideals/preferences/values/ethics/morals/whatever.

And just who and how is THAT going to get decided ? By what SHARED SYSTEM ?
The problem with the desert island is he assumes they all will actually pitch in and do the same level of work. What if someone spends extra time to learn a special skill, and the beer drinking lazy guy does nothing. You want they all get the SAME thing ? It's simplistic nonsense.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 05:44 AM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2013 05:48 AM by Zat.)
RE: The Nature of Money
The objections to proposals for a world based on common sense are the following:

1. I don't want to live there
2. We could never get it going
3. Even if we could get there, it wouldn't last ('human nature')

All of these were answered, in detail, in my thread "Proposal for a New Social Contract" -- so I won't repeat them here.

Feel free to read it at: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...l+contract
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 07:40 AM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2013 08:08 AM by Heathen.)
RE: The Nature of Money
(26-03-2013 05:35 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 12:57 AM)fat cat Wrote:  Bucky, I don't think Zatamon's desert island analogy implied anything about the relative value of goods and services.

Also, money is only an objective measurement of monetary value. Using that objective measurement still leaves us with a system based on subjective, relative value. Whatever we base trade on, we will always have a system based on subjective, relative value, because the system is our own chosen construct. One way being "better", "worse", "best" is a matter of ideals/preferences/values/ethics/morals/whatever.

And just who and how is THAT going to get decided ? By what SHARED SYSTEM ?
The problem with the desert island is he assumes they all will actually pitch in and do the same level of work. What if someone spends extra time to learn a special skill, and the beer drinking lazy guy does nothing. You want they all get the SAME thing ? It's simplistic nonsense.
Please show me where you got the impression that I "assumed" any of that? I don't provide anything for lazy people and wouldn't expect anyone to provide anything to me if I was. The system you describe on your fictional desert island is akin to out of control socialism and you have assumed that this must be the case. A desert island without currency does not necessarily have to function as you describe it. It can also function as a hard line capitalist system, where the hard working and highly skilled are justly rewarded and the lazy and stupid starve. I'll even go further and suggest that my capitalist desert island could actually be a more fair system with currency taken out of the equation.

Please don't get too hung up on my use of the word; capitalist. The perfect word eludes me at the moment.

"Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?"- David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: