Maybe we all should just live Currency Free ?

[evoorhees]

@evoorhees - I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by "gifting". The fact that it's a gift makes it the opposite of a trade. To give a gift means you don't expect anything in return.

Tell me, how do I find the people who will gift me the components of a car, and who will gift me the service to build it? What wonderful act have I bestowed upon all these laborers that they will toil away on my behalf and yield my automobile?

"Gifting", in the sense that you mean it, could not even put a pencil in front of me. In fact, an entire community of 120 people living so graciously in their gifting-only community could never produce a pencil, let alone the computers being used by us all to engage in this conversation across thousands of miles instantly.

[1714903719]

1714903719

[1714903719]

1714903719

[1714903719]

1714903719

[acoindr]

@evoorhees - I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by "gifting". The fact that it's a gift makes it the opposite of a trade. To give a gift means you don't expect anything in return.

Tell me, how do I find the people who will gift me the components of a car, and who will gift me the service to build it? What wonderful act have I bestowed upon all these laborers that they will toil away on my behalf and yield my automobile?

"Gifting", in the sense that you mean it, could not even put a pencil in front of me. In fact, an entire community of 120 people living so graciously in their gifting-only community could never produce a pencil, let alone the computers being used by us all to engage in this conversation across thousands of miles instantly.

I agree. I didn't say I thought gifting could come even close to achieving what capitalism does, only what @jago25_98 meant by it.

[evoorhees]

I agree. I didn't say I thought gifting could come even close to achieving what capitalism does, only what @jago25_98 meant by it.

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

[Technomage]

A gift economy in modern context is mostly a supplement to the good producing capitalist economy. It can certainly get you a pen if someone wants to give you a pen. The production of the pen itself is unlikely to be very practical using gift economy methods. This is an important clarification, gift economy is a different layer of the economy, I don't think many think of it as a serious replacement for lower layers of the economy.

[acoindr]

A gift economy in modern context is mostly a supplement to the good producing capitalist economy. It can certainly get you a pen if someone wants to give you a pen. The production of the pen itself is unlikely to be very practical using gift economy methods. This is an important clarification, gift economy is a different layer of the economy,

I agree.

I don't think many think of it as a serious replacement for lower layers of the economy.

You haven't talked with many (naive supporters) from the Occupy movement.

[LightRider]

What do you do when 99% of all labor is "divided" into the responsibility of robots, automation and AI? What kind of economy do you expect to have then? Shall all 7 billion people continue to compete for the remaining positions of labor just to live? What kind of sickness are you people promoting who still cling to the ancient and useless ideas of pre industrial society and economic theory? Why don't you start recognizing what is actually happening and start participating rationally?

[SpontaneousDisorder]

What do you do when 99% of all labor is "divided" into the responsibility of robots, automation and AI? What kind of economy do you expect to have then? Shall all 7 billion people continue to compete for the remaining positions of labor just to live? What kind of sickness are you people promoting who still cling to the ancient and useless ideas of pre industrial society and economic theory? Why don't you start recognizing what is actually happening and start participating rationally?

How is this different from a Luddite fallacy?

[dvide]

What do you do when 99% of all labor is "divided" into the responsibility of robots, automation and AI? What kind of economy do you expect to have then? Shall all 7 billion people continue to compete for the remaining positions of labor just to live? What kind of sickness are you people promoting who still cling to the ancient and useless ideas of pre industrial society and economic theory? Why don't you start recognizing what is actually happening and start participating rationally?

If nobody works or needs to work because machines are doing everything then you're already living in utopia. What's the problem? Isn't that the whole goal of the Venus project you're so fond of? A fine goal, but the thing is without money you have no way to do economic calculation and so no rational way to allocate resources to where you're going to get the biggest bang for your buck. You get more scarcity, not a magical post-scarcity utopia.

[markm]

What humans are going to do in a world where robitics provide all goods/services if they are expected to justify their existence does seem to be a fair question. Are they all to become personal servants of the owners of the roots, doing arbitrary tasks for their amusement or something? Will it be a status symbol to be served by human bodyservants rather than robots? Are those who the rich do not consider attractive enough to be seen with to be deprived of sustenance or what?

-MarkM-

[the joint]

"For the first time, I was seriously realizing I could live totally moneyless."

Um yeah... because you hitch hiked off other people's generosity, and used clothing and tools created by the money-society you are pretending to reject. And then took a flight to Thailand and India, using a plane built by thousands of years of human ingenuity and progress which was enabled by trade and exchange, which was in turn facilitated by money... and then reported about it on a computer.

The dude is a 'tard. Wanna live off the grid? Fine, that's cool. But unless you're crafting tools from wood and stone and living in a shelter made of logs with clothes made from grasses and deer skins, then you're just fooling yourself.

A moneyless society is a society of starvation and utter poverty, and a world without trade, production, and exchange is a world without the leisure time one might desire for the purposes of reflecting on such fantastical notions as "a world without money."

Idiot, what makes you think a world without money is a world without trade, production and "exchange" ?

Calling someone a 'tard then come off as a completely idiot is priceless - (or should i say moneyless? )

A world without money IS a world without trade, production and exchange. Money is impossible to avoid when people trade with each other, for they begin by bartering, and soon discover that certain goods are most easily bartered for (grain becomes easier to trade than bicycles, even if the other person doesn't want grain for his own consumption). Thus, you quickly discover that certain goods in the barter economy become traded very commonly. And voila, that's called money.

In other words, in order to have an economy WITHOUT money at all, there would need to be a law that you could only trade for things you would personally consume or use, and nothing could be traded twice. If a society actually had those rules, I suggest that trade, production, and exchange would be rare, inefficient, and burdensome.

Thus, I think my point was a fair one. Without allowing for money, an economy is not an economy. Whether the money is grain, cigarettes, seashells, gold, pieces of paper with leaders' faces, or Bitcoins... money ALWAYS emerges when people trade with each other. Money is intrinsic to exchange - they cannot be separated.

Fair, if your definition of fair is utterly stupid.

First of all , "A moneyless society is a society of starvation and utter poverty" is completely false. You are pulling crap out of your ass.

While a moneyless world would make trading inefficient, it doesnt mean its an inferior world in anyway. Trading originally is a way to share resources and transfer wealth. Its now an exploitation of modern slavery. In a moneyless world, trading is not necessary.

Moneyless world is a world without production? really? You're such naive to think its money that gives ppl incentives to work and produce.

Inefficient to the point of starvation and utter poverty. I consider that inferior, but you're welcome to disagree with that judgement.

You did not address the point of my prior post - that money is intrinsic to exchange. If you are opposed to money, you are opposed to exchange, because money is just the name given to that good exchanged most commonly.

And please explain how "trading is an exploitation of modern slavery"?  When I trade my eggs to Bob in return for several loaves of bread, which of us was exploited? Also, was money involved... were the eggs money, or the bread? Has either of us done something wrong by agreeing to the trade? Now... what if instead of eggs I actually traded Bob a small bar of silver for the bread? Has exploitation occurred? Is silver money... or is bread? And one step further, what if the silver is cut into round circles. Is silver money yet? What if... I actually previously traded my bar of silver for a deposit receipt from a man who promised to guard the silver from bandits, and then I trade the receipt for the bread?  Any exploitation occurring yet? Did I use money?

My point is this: money is not anything weird or separate from barter. Money IS barter. It's just the name given to the most commonly bartered item. And again, if you're opposed to money, you must necessarily be opposed to barter, and thus trade, and thus exchange. And if so, you are condemning man to live with only what he is able to produce himself. This is a world of poverty and starvation, and if you don't think that's inferior, then we can disagree on that point.

The 'poverty' argument is circular.  The word poverty can mean different things (impoverished how?) but obviously if you define poverty as a lack of money, then you will always determine that a world without money is an impoverished one.   Would you suggest that it is impossible to not have any money but have ample food and shelter?

Money is NOT barter.  Bartering/exchanging is a process, money is not.  Money is not intrinsic to exchange.  "Hey, here's a stick I found on the ground.  I'll give you this stick if you give me that pebble."

By the way, there's a positive correlation between money and mental illness given that mental illness is more prevalent in industrialized nations. 

I've seen you say some brilliant things, but I must admit I'm pretty astonished to read your argument.

Money is what a GOVERNMENT says it is.  Silver is NOT money in any market and it hasn't been since blue-seal notes were utilized.  It is a commodity.  Legal tender notes and gold are money (gold is money because the government still allows debts to be paid with gold).  Take a silver eagle into a store and try to buy something with it.  You will find that you will receive face value for your coin and not the value of the silver content as suggested by commodity markets.

[asdf]

The 'poverty' argument is circular.  The word poverty can mean different things (impoverished how?) but obviously if you define poverty as a lack of money, then you will always determine that a world without money is an impoverished one.   Would you suggest that it is impossible to not have any money but have ample food and shelter?

How do you build a house without money?

You produce wool. The brick maker needs a jumper. So you trade. How many bricks can you get for a jumpers worth of wool? 3? 10? not enough to build a house. So what do you do.

The brick maker might need some eggs, but you don't make eggs. You can trade wool for eggs with the egg maker, then trade those eggs for bricks, but then eggs would be MONEY! And that's against the rules.

You could make your own eggs, but the brick maker only needs a few for his lunch. So now you have 20 bricks. long way to go.

You just could make everything the brick maker desires until you have a house worth of bricks. But now you have, by definition, removed specialization from the economy.

You may have food and shelter, but it won't be "ample".

Money is NOT barter.  Bartering/exchanging is a process, money is not.  Money is not intrinsic to exchange.  "Hey, here's a stick I found on the ground.  I'll give you this stick if you give me that pebble."

yes, but as soon as I trade that stick for a leaf, that stick is money.

By the way, there's a positive correlation between money and mental illness given that mental illness is more prevalent in industrialized nations. 

That proves it!

I've seen you say some brilliant things, but I must admit I'm pretty astonished to read your argument.

Money is what a GOVERNMENT says it is.  Silver is NOT money in any market and it hasn't been since blue-seal notes were utilized.  It is a commodity.  Legal tender notes and gold are money (gold is money because the government still allows debts to be paid with gold).  Take a silver eagle into a store and try to buy something with it.  You will find that you will receive face value for your coin and not the value of the silver content as suggested by commodity markets.

If you define money as "what the government says it is" then sure, we can have a great economy without money.

It's funny that you are astonished by evoorhees argument, because I'm pretty sure you have no idea what that argument is.

[the joint]

How do you build a house without money?

You produce wool. The brick maker needs a jumper. So you trade. How many bricks can you get for a jumpers worth of wool? 3? 10? not enough to build a house. So what do you do.

The brick maker might need some eggs, but you don't make eggs. You can trade wool for eggs with the egg maker, then trade those eggs for bricks, but then eggs would be MONEY! And that's against the rules.

You could make your own eggs, but the brick maker only needs a few for his lunch. So now you have 20 bricks. long way to go.

You just could make everything the brick maker desires until you have a house worth of bricks. But now you have, by definition, removed specialization from the economy.

You may have food and shelter, but it won't be "ample".


yes, but as soon as I trade that stick for a leaf, that stick is money.

By the way, there's a positive correlation between money and mental illness given that mental illness is more prevalent in industrialized nations. 

That proves it!

I've seen you say some brilliant things, but I must admit I'm pretty astonished to read your argument.

Money is what a GOVERNMENT says it is.  Silver is NOT money in any market and it hasn't been since blue-seal notes were utilized.  It is a commodity.  Legal tender notes and gold are money (gold is money because the government still allows debts to be paid with gold).  Take a silver eagle into a store and try to buy something with it.  You will find that you will receive face value for your coin and not the value of the silver content as suggested by commodity markets.

If you define money as "what the government says it is" then sure, we can have a great economy without money.

It's funny that you are astonished by evoorhees argument, because I'm pretty sure you have no idea what that argument is.

1.)  Regardless of what you consider to be ample shelter, none of what you posted has anything do with the circularity of the  "no money = poverty" argument.

2.)  No, the stick is not money.  Seriously, are you going to go so far as to say that the oxygen you breathe is money because there was an exchange taking place between you and plants?

3.)  The comment about the correlation between mental illness and money doesn't 'prove' anything, nor was it intended to.  Actually, what I said was circular too -- mental illness is defined by industrialized nations and so naturally it is more prevalent in industrialized nations.  This was stated to demonstrate how the "no money = poverty" argument is absurd.

4.)  Money is what the government says it is because we do not have a free market.  The economy is governed.  Where money functions in a centralized economy, it is determined by the centralized authority.  If you want to go around calling sticks and oxygen money, then go for it, they can be money to you -- now go into a store and see what you can buy with them.

[asdf]

How do you build a house without money?

You produce wool. The brick maker needs a jumper. So you trade. How many bricks can you get for a jumpers worth of wool? 3? 10? not enough to build a house. So what do you do.

The brick maker might need some eggs, but you don't make eggs. You can trade wool for eggs with the egg maker, then trade those eggs for bricks, but then eggs would be MONEY! And that's against the rules.

You could make your own eggs, but the brick maker only needs a few for his lunch. So now you have 20 bricks. long way to go.

You just could make everything the brick maker desires until you have a house worth of bricks. But now you have, by definition, removed specialization from the economy.

You may have food and shelter, but it won't be "ample".


yes, but as soon as I trade that stick for a leaf, that stick is money.

By the way, there's a positive correlation between money and mental illness given that mental illness is more prevalent in industrialized nations. 

That proves it!

I've seen you say some brilliant things, but I must admit I'm pretty astonished to read your argument.

Money is what a GOVERNMENT says it is.  Silver is NOT money in any market and it hasn't been since blue-seal notes were utilized.  It is a commodity.  Legal tender notes and gold are money (gold is money because the government still allows debts to be paid with gold).  Take a silver eagle into a store and try to buy something with it.  You will find that you will receive face value for your coin and not the value of the silver content as suggested by commodity markets.

If you define money as "what the government says it is" then sure, we can have a great economy without money.

It's funny that you are astonished by evoorhees argument, because I'm pretty sure you have no idea what that argument is.

1.)  Regardless of what you consider to be ample shelter, none of what you posted has anything do with the circularity of the  "no money = poverty" argument.

2.)  No, the stick is not money.  Seriously, are you going to go so far as to say that the oxygen you breathe is money because there was an exchange taking place between you and plants?

3.)  The comment about the correlation between mental illness and money doesn't 'prove' anything, nor was it intended to.  Actually, what I said was circular too -- mental illness is defined by industrialized nations and so naturally it is more prevalent in industrialized nations.  This was stated to demonstrate how the "no money = poverty" argument is absurd.

4.)  Money is what the government says it is because we do not have a free market.  The economy is governed.  Where money functions in a centralized economy, it is determined by the centralized authority.  If you want to go around calling sticks and oxygen money, then go for it, they can be money to you -- now go into a store and see what you can buy with them.

1.) What I posted was an attempt to show that without money, there is a huge impediment to trade. Since free trade is what creates wealth, there will be allot less of it. Of course, you differ on the definition of money...

2.) Money is just a medium of exchange. So, yes; the stick is being used as a medium to exchange a pebble for a leaf. If you have an alternate definition, please present it clearly. Otherwise we are just going to argue over definitions.

3.) Sorry, I know. I was just being a dick.

4.) Yeah, we don't have a free market. This is why the world is so fucked.

I don't think we could have produced this advanced society without the efficiencies attributed by money (as I define it). The earth could never support this population without the technology that the market has produced.

[the joint]

Asdf,

Ironically, I posted this today which correlates very well.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79755.msg884319#msg884319

[MarketNeutral]

The stick example mentioned by a few people is actually close to truth. For hundreds of years, tally sticks were used as money.

[the joint]

The stick example mentioned by a few people is actually close to truth. For hundreds of years, tally sticks were used as money.

Yep.

[MarketNeutral]

The three characteristics of money are:

1. Store of value
2. Medium of exchange
3. Unit of account

There have been occasional variations and exceptions throughout history, such as fungibility being an aspect of money, or money lacking a store of value function, which is common among fiat currencies. The earliest money was fiat unit of account money in ancient Mesopotamia. Ancient Egypt had gold ingots for units of account and stores of value, but there was no gold medium of exchange. Coins came much, much later, probably in ancient Lydia.

[the joint]

The three characteristics of money are:

1. Store of value
2. Medium of exchange
3. Unit of account

There have been occasional variations and exceptions throughout history, such as fungibility being an aspect of money, or money lacking a store of value function, which is common among fiat currencies. The earliest money was fiat unit of account money in ancient Mesopotamia. Ancient Egypt had gold ingots for units of account and stores of value, but there was no gold medium of exchange. Coins came much, much later, probably in ancient Lydia.

Then oxygen it is.

1.)  Store of value --> without it, you die; oxygen provides energy.
2.)  Medium of exchange -->  yep, inhale/exhale
3.)  Unit of account -->  O2.

Surely, money is more than these 3 things.

[MarketNeutral]

Money is what a GOVERNMENT says it is. 

No, that's what currency is.

And it's not that simple.

The definition of money is something debated among monetary scientists. There are two consensus opinions of what money is: either my aforementioned 3 aspects, or that "money is that which extinguishes debt," which precludes modern currency (but not some historical currencies).

Bitcoin is interesting not because it is deflationary or digital or decentralized, but because, unlike all modern currencies, bitcoin is not borrowed into existence.

[MarketNeutral]

The three characteristics of money are:

1. Store of value
2. Medium of exchange
3. Unit of account

There have been occasional variations and exceptions throughout history, such as fungibility being an aspect of money, or money lacking a store of value function, which is common among fiat currencies. The earliest money was fiat unit of account money in ancient Mesopotamia. Ancient Egypt had gold ingots for units of account and stores of value, but there was no gold medium of exchange. Coins came much, much later, probably in ancient Lydia.

Then oxygen it is.

1.)  Store of value --> without it, you die; oxygen provides energy.
2.)  Medium of exchange -->  yep, inhale/exhale
3.)  Unit of account -->  O2.

Surely, money is more than these 3 things.

Not sure if trolling or.....

Basically, you're confusing an economy with breathing.

I would explain this, but I think it's self-evident.