Maybe we all should just live Currency Free ?

[LightRider]

THE debate on Venus Project VS Voluntaryism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxjwBZjADiM

even better (and much more concise):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FDbZ4mbkC8

I have been trying to get Venus Project and Zeitgeist folks to write Ayn Rand style fiction for a couple years. In that, she was a genius and her writing is certainly as inspiring as it is depraved. Like Chuck Palahniuk and Hunter S. Thompson, she speaks to our fears and entertains us with a fantasy of what ifs with no actual scientific or historical foundation. "If you take the writings of Nietzsche and remove everything insightful, interesting, and funny, what's left are the writings of Ayn Rand." - Steve Gimbel

Peter Joseph has the subtlety of a Green Beret. He hits his audience on the head with a sledge-hammer of facts, accepted theories, and a logical roadmap to understanding the complex ties between human needs social structures. What he is doing is very important, but it only inspires people intellectually. We need an anti-Rand that speaks to the emotions of love (mutual reciprocity for the nihilists). I think that's what religions tried to do hundreds of years ago. Robert Heinlein was as close as we've had to an anti-Rand, but he was mostly a science fiction/fantasy writer.

The Venus Project is working towards producing a mass market film depicting life in a resource based economy. I've been urging them to accept bitcoin donations, but they are not responsive to such requests.

There have been many, many low budget films that have won the highest awards. The new $3-4k 35mm DSLRs can shoot A camera angle-of-view and have all the other lens settings as well. And they can be edited on a $400 laptop. All it takes is someone with more imagination than fear to tell world changing stories.

Agreed. There is an independent effort going on that is trying to do the same thing, and they ARE accepting bitcoin donations! Check it out at http://www.wakingupmovie.com/.

[1715396723]

1715396723

[1715396723]

1715396723

[1715396723]

1715396723

[cbeast]

THE debate on Venus Project VS Voluntaryism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxjwBZjADiM

even better (and much more concise):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FDbZ4mbkC8

I have been trying to get Venus Project and Zeitgeist folks to write Ayn Rand style fiction for a couple years. In that, she was a genius and her writing is certainly as inspiring as it is depraved. Like Chuck Palahniuk and Hunter S. Thompson, she speaks to our fears and entertains us with a fantasy of what ifs with no actual scientific or historical foundation. "If you take the writings of Nietzsche and remove everything insightful, interesting, and funny, what's left are the writings of Ayn Rand." - Steve Gimbel

Peter Joseph has the subtlety of a Green Beret. He hits his audience on the head with a sledge-hammer of facts, accepted theories, and a logical roadmap to understanding the complex ties between human needs social structures. What he is doing is very important, but it only inspires people intellectually. We need an anti-Rand that speaks to the emotions of love (mutual reciprocity for the nihilists). I think that's what religions tried to do hundreds of years ago. Robert Heinlein was as close as we've had to an anti-Rand, but he was mostly a science fiction/fantasy writer.

The Venus Project is working towards producing a mass market film depicting life in a resource based economy. I've been urging them to accept bitcoin donations, but they are not responsive to such requests.

There have been many, many low budget films that have won the highest awards. The new $3-4k 35mm DSLRs can shoot A camera angle-of-view and have all the other lens settings as well. And they can be edited on a $400 laptop. All it takes is someone with more imagination than fear to tell world changing stories.

Agreed. There is an independent effort going on that is trying to do the same thing, and they ARE accepting bitcoin donations! Check it out at http://www.wakingupmovie.com/.

I'll take a look at the sandbox and script. I don't like gimmickry like cryogenics any more than the static engine as a tool to suspend disbelief. This is supposed to wake people up, not make them believe in a possible world-of-tomorrow.

[MatthewLM]

The Venus Project is working towards producing a mass market film depicting life in a resource based economy. I've been urging them to accept bitcoin donations, but they are not responsive to such requests.

They should make a film about the soviet union. That would do it.

[cbeast]

The Venus Project is working towards producing a mass market film depicting life in a resource based economy. I've been urging them to accept bitcoin donations, but they are not responsive to such requests.

They should make a film about the soviet union. That would do it.

Trolololo

[evoorhees]

Many interesting ideas moving around in this thread. I'd like to further address this whole money thing... I realize there is a lot of arguments regarding "what is money" but I think that's a highly appropriate discuss for these forums, no?

On the definition of money:  Too often people think money "is" or "is not".  They say a dollar "is" money. Gold "is" money. Bitcoin "is" money. Or, they'll say gold "is not" money, or fiat "is not" money, or Bitcoin "is not" money, etc. Astonishingly, I've now heard that oxygen itself "is" or "is not" money. Enough of this silliness, money is not a binary condition, but rather exists on a gradient of utility.

Lay out all things in the world, from air to gold to steel beams, eggs, sand, human hearts, goat eyeballs, fighter jets, US dollars, and bitcoins... lay it all out in a row. While some might try to sort them into two piles, "money" and "not money," that is a fool's errand. Instead, all these things can be arranged in order of their usefulness AS money. In other words, each thing makes a superior money to something else, and each thing is an inferior money to something else as well. People don't need to agree on the specific arrangement, but it should be self-evident that such arrangement is not very difficult to do.

Precious stones are better money than sand (unless one lives where such stones are plentiful and sand is rare). Gold is better money than precious stones (because it's fungible/divisible/etc). Steel beams are worse money than cigarettes. Why? Because the value to weight ratio of cigarettes makes them far more convenient to be used as money (though steel is more durable, so perhaps you'd argue steel is the better money). Oxygen would be a terrible money wouldn't it? Because, simply, it's far too plentiful. How much oxygen would I ask you to trade me in exchange for my car? How would it be delivered and stored? Absurd!  

Do you see the point here? All things are money along a gradient of usefulness as money, and this gradient may differ in different geographic locations (on a planet made of gold, gold would be a terrible money). So if one dude is arguing that oxygen is money, and another argues the opposite - both should stop. Oxygen could be used as money, but it would suck for that purpose. That's the end of the argument. In the same way, USD can be used as money (and works very well for that purpose). Yet, it is still an inferior money to gold and bitcoin in my opinion, because it can be printed at whim. Once one has an understanding of the ordinal nature of all goods as potential money, then one can really appreciate why Bitcoin is so excellent for this purpose. It is a beautifully engineered good, almost perfectly suited for usefulness as money.

This whole argument hearkens back to the fact that money is intrinsic to barter - when you trade your eggs for a loaf of bread, and then use that bread to trade for a steak, you've used bread as money. Bread works okay as money, but it's not great (it spoils, has low value to volume ratio, etc). Thus, people who argue against money are arguing against exchange itself, as I have said before. To preclude money from society is to preclude trade.

And to say that society can exist without money is to say that nothing along that ordinal range of goods can ever be exchanged by anybody to anybody else. THAT is an absurd notion.

[evoorhees]

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?

+100

Anyone who worries about "robots stealing all the work" doesn't realize that it's not work we want, but production, and to the extent production can occur more efficiently, means more wealth for humanity. Furthermore, every time a robot is invented to do something humans used to do, the cost savings of that production frees up new capital to be put to better use elsewhere, and employment will likely be found in that new industry.

In 1700 almost everyone was a farmer. Machines completely changed that - and food is almost exclusively produced by robots now (what percent of the population still farms??). Yet, is everyone sitting around without work? And this is with a population increase of billions of people since the year 1700!! Where did that new work come from?

Machines, so long as they are profitably employed, will almost always create more new job opportunities than they destroy. If you want more people to have a job, you should hope for more machines, not fewer.

[evoorhees]

Do you know why there are always poor and starving people? It's because the poor and starving continue to procreate.

I also highly disagree with this. Each new person, when properly allocated as a resource, is a net-positive for production. Humans, on average, each produce more than they consume in resources. A world with twice as many people will be more than twice as wealthy, I assure you.  Indeed, how much wealthier has the world become with every doubling of the population?

Do not merely look at the mouths of people and assume they must be fed. Look also at the hands and mind, and realize they can produce and create.

[cbeast]

Do you see the point here? All things are money along a gradient of usefulness as money, and this gradient may differ in different geographic locations (on a planet made of gold, gold would be a terrible money). So if one dude is arguing that oxygen is money, and another argues the opposite - both should stop. Oxygen could be used as money, but it would suck for that purpose. That's the end of the argument. In the same way, USD can be used as money (and works very well for that purpose). Yet, it is still an inferior money to gold and bitcoin in my opinion, because it can be printed at whim. Once one has an understanding of the ordinal nature of all goods as potential money, then one can really appreciate why Bitcoin is so excellent for this purpose. It is a beautifully engineered good, almost perfectly suited for usefulness as money.
...
And to say that society can exist without money is to say that nothing along that ordinal range of goods can ever be exchanged by anybody to anybody else. THAT is an absurd notion.

Animals use all of these, yet they do not AFAIK use money. Placing an abstract value on resources is a reified (religious) notion and entirely unnecessary.

[evoorhees]

Do you see the point here? All things are money along a gradient of usefulness as money, and this gradient may differ in different geographic locations (on a planet made of gold, gold would be a terrible money). So if one dude is arguing that oxygen is money, and another argues the opposite - both should stop. Oxygen could be used as money, but it would suck for that purpose. That's the end of the argument. In the same way, USD can be used as money (and works very well for that purpose). Yet, it is still an inferior money to gold and bitcoin in my opinion, because it can be printed at whim. Once one has an understanding of the ordinal nature of all goods as potential money, then one can really appreciate why Bitcoin is so excellent for this purpose. It is a beautifully engineered good, almost perfectly suited for usefulness as money.
...
And to say that society can exist without money is to say that nothing along that ordinal range of goods can ever be exchanged by anybody to anybody else. THAT is an absurd notion.

Animals use all of these, yet they do not AFAIK use money. Placing an abstract value on resources is a reified (religious) notion and entirely unnecessary.

Who said anything about abstract value? All that is important is the exchange rate - meaning the price, which is merely a ratio of one good voluntarily traded for another good.  My 12 eggs traded to you for 1 loaf of bread, puts an exchange rate of 12 eggs/1bread, and thus the market price for a loaf of bread is 12 eggs.  There is nothing abstract about that, and I'll suggest that it is not "religious", and that it is in fact wholly necessary to establish a rate of exchange before an exchange can be made.

Try making an exchange without determining at what rate such exchange will occur, and I'll cede the point.

[cytokine]

Forgive me as I haven't read this entire thread, but I wanted to say something about money - and more specifically, Bitcoin.

The beauty of a viable independent currency is that it allows for the automatic emergence of complex order. Just look at all of the Bitcoin services that we already have, all created without any official authority or governing body.

However, if you're recommending an economy that is moneyless, I don't see how the complexity could exceed even a tiny threshold since a barter economy lacks the high-level abstractions that money provides. And if you argue that it could be done through governance you hit another wall: centralized power only works in meat-space, not in cyber-space.

So in summary, it is my opinion that without money we surely could not have any semblance of a micro-economy here in our little corner of the internet.

[cbeast]

Do you see the point here? All things are money along a gradient of usefulness as money, and this gradient may differ in different geographic locations (on a planet made of gold, gold would be a terrible money). So if one dude is arguing that oxygen is money, and another argues the opposite - both should stop. Oxygen could be used as money, but it would suck for that purpose. That's the end of the argument. In the same way, USD can be used as money (and works very well for that purpose). Yet, it is still an inferior money to gold and bitcoin in my opinion, because it can be printed at whim. Once one has an understanding of the ordinal nature of all goods as potential money, then one can really appreciate why Bitcoin is so excellent for this purpose. It is a beautifully engineered good, almost perfectly suited for usefulness as money.
...
And to say that society can exist without money is to say that nothing along that ordinal range of goods can ever be exchanged by anybody to anybody else. THAT is an absurd notion.

Animals use all of these, yet they do not AFAIK use money. Placing an abstract value on resources is a reified (religious) notion and entirely unnecessary.

Who said anything about abstract value? All that is important is the exchange rate - meaning the price, which is merely a ratio of one good voluntarily traded for another good.  My 12 eggs traded to you for 1 loaf of bread, puts an exchange rate of 12 eggs/1bread, and thus the market price for a loaf of bread is 12 eggs.  There is nothing abstract about that, and I'll suggest that it is not "religious", and that it is in fact wholly necessary to establish a rate of exchange before an exchange can be made.

Try making an exchange without determining at what rate such exchange will occur, and I'll cede the point.

You are coming from an a priori argument. You posit that price and exchange rate is not an abstract notion, yet would offer nothing but an ad populum argument. Markets themselves also are not necessary, therefore money is not necessary.

What I like about Bitcoin is that it exhalts and glorifies the abstraction to the point of being ridiculous and is therefor a near perfectly designed religion for money based economies.

[the joint]

Many interesting ideas moving around in this thread. I'd like to further address this whole money thing... I realize there is a lot of arguments regarding "what is money" but I think that's a highly appropriate discuss for these forums, no?

On the definition of money:  Too often people think money "is" or "is not".  They say a dollar "is" money. Gold "is" money. Bitcoin "is" money. Or, they'll say gold "is not" money, or fiat "is not" money, or Bitcoin "is not" money, etc. Astonishingly, I've now heard that oxygen itself "is" or "is not" money. Money is not a binary condition, but rather exists on a gradient of utility. Lay out all things in the world, from air to gold to steel beams, eggs, sand, human hearts, goat eyeballs, fighter jets, US dollars, and bitcoins... lay it all out in a row. While some might try to sort them into two piles, "money" and "not money," that is a fool's errand. Instead, all these things can be arranged in order of their usefulness AS money. In other words, each things makes a better money than something else, and each thing is often inferior as money to something else  as well. People don't need to agree on the specific arrangement, but it should be self-evident that such arrangement is not very difficult to do.

Precious stones are better money than sand (unless one lives where such stones are plentiful and sand is rare). Gold is better money than precious stones (because it's fungible/divisible/etc). Steel beams are worse money than cigarettes. Why? Because the value to weight ratio of cigarettes makes them far more convenient to be used as money (though steel is more durable, so perhaps you'd argue steel is the better money). Oxygen would be a terrible money wouldn't it? Because, simply, it's far too plentiful. How much oxygen would I ask you to trade me in exchange for my car? How would it be delivered and stored? Absurd!  

Do you see the point here? All things are money along a gradient of usefulness as money, and this gradient may differ in different geographic locations (on a planet made of gold, gold would be a terrible money). So if one dude is arguing that oxygen is money, and another argues the opposite - both should stop. Oxygen could be used as money, but it would suck for that purpose. That's the end of the argument. In the same way, USD can be used as money (and works very well for that purpose). Yet, it is still an inferior money to gold and bitcoin in my opinion, because it can be printed at whim. Once one has an understanding of the ordinal nature of all goods as potential money, then one can really appreciate why Bitcoin is so excellent for this purpose. It is a beautifully engineered good, almost perfectly suited for usefulness as money.

This whole argument hearkens back to the fact that money is intrinsic to barter - when you trade your eggs for a loaf of bread, and then use that bread to trade for a steak, you've used bread as money. Bread works okay as money, but it's not great (it spoils, has low value to volume ratio, etc). Thus, people who argue against money are arguing against exchange itself, as I have said before. To preclude money from society is to preclude trade.

And to say that society can exist without money is to say that nothing along that ordinal range of goods can ever be exchanged by anybody to anybody else. THAT is an absurd notion.

I disagree with this, and I wrote an article about how money is demonstrably different from simple exchange.

As I wrote in my article, money is constructed through collective agreement.  As such, it has the effect of subjectively displacing the inherent value of other goods.  The example I used in the article was as follows:  I like guitars, and in 100 out of 100 scenarios I would prefer to own a guitar -- ANY guitar -- over a watch.  I have clocks everywhere and I don't need another one.  But if the watch is made of 24k gold, I'll take the watch over a guitar -- virtually ANY guitar -- any day.  Thus, something that is said to be money (i.e. gold) effects the value of something that is not money (e.g. a guitar; a watch).  

Now, let's say people that did not collectively agree that gold is significantly valuable.  You could try to argue that the guitar I own is money and that the watch some other guy is offering me is also money, but this is foolish.  

Employing gradients of usefulness to things that could potentially be used as money does not do anything to change whether something "is" or "is not" money.  You could take that loaf of bread and say it's money, and I will tell you it's not.  Who is right?  If you paid money for that loaf of bread, then you would be saying that you used money to buy money, which could then be used as money to buy more money.  THIS becomes absurd as then absolutely everything and anything can be used as (as you suggest) and IS (as you do not) money including oxygen.

This is how money functions:
Higher syntax (money) --> Determines subjective value of lower syntax (goods).
Or...
Money --> Determines subjective value of bread, guitars, watches, etc.

In a bartering economy:
Subjective value of lower syntax (goods) --> Determines subjective value of lower syntax (goods)
Or...
Subjective value of bread, guitars, watches, etc. --> Determines subjective value of bread, guitars, watches, etc.

Money functions on a separate level entirely apart from the value of the goods it determines.  A moneyless society simply means that you are removing the higher syntax and keeping the lower one.  In other words, you are removing collective agreement of value and reverting to individual determination of value.

[evoorhees]

Do you see the point here? All things are money along a gradient of usefulness as money, and this gradient may differ in different geographic locations (on a planet made of gold, gold would be a terrible money). So if one dude is arguing that oxygen is money, and another argues the opposite - both should stop. Oxygen could be used as money, but it would suck for that purpose. That's the end of the argument. In the same way, USD can be used as money (and works very well for that purpose). Yet, it is still an inferior money to gold and bitcoin in my opinion, because it can be printed at whim. Once one has an understanding of the ordinal nature of all goods as potential money, then one can really appreciate why Bitcoin is so excellent for this purpose. It is a beautifully engineered good, almost perfectly suited for usefulness as money.
...
And to say that society can exist without money is to say that nothing along that ordinal range of goods can ever be exchanged by anybody to anybody else. THAT is an absurd notion.

Animals use all of these, yet they do not AFAIK use money. Placing an abstract value on resources is a reified (religious) notion and entirely unnecessary.

Who said anything about abstract value? All that is important is the exchange rate - meaning the price, which is merely a ratio of one good voluntarily traded for another good.  My 12 eggs traded to you for 1 loaf of bread, puts an exchange rate of 12 eggs/1bread, and thus the market price for a loaf of bread is 12 eggs.  There is nothing abstract about that, and I'll suggest that it is not "religious", and that it is in fact wholly necessary to establish a rate of exchange before an exchange can be made.

Try making an exchange without determining at what rate such exchange will occur, and I'll cede the point.

You are coming from an a priori argument. You posit that price and exchange rate is not an abstract notion, yet would offer nothing but an ad populum argument. Markets themselves also are not necessary, therefore money is not necessary.

What I like about Bitcoin is that it exhalts and glorifies the abstraction to the point of being ridiculous and is therefor a near perfectly designed religion for money based economies.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're talking about.

[evoorhees]

To preclude money from society is to preclude trade.

And to say that society can exist without money is to say that nothing along that ordinal range of goods can ever be exchanged by anybody to anybody else. THAT is an absurd notion.

I disagree with this, and I wrote an article about how money is demonstrably different from simple exchange.

As I wrote in my article, money is constructed through collective agreement.  

Money is not "constructed" and it is certainly not "constructed through collective agreement." When two people trade, they themselves agree are on the terms of the trade. When another set of people trade, they arrive at different terms. And yet a third pair of traders will arrive at a third set of trading terms. None of this is "collective", but rather a spontaneous occurrence. No two people who trade require the agreement on the value of their goods by anybody else. You have something I want, I have something you want, we come to an agreement and trade. No input from anybody else is needed.

As we see humans often trading with each other, we might notice that they tend to start using a common good for these exchanges. This good is not "collectively agreed on," but spontaneously arrived at along the course of many individual decisions. The name given to whatever people tend to trade with is money.

Your example of the gold watch and the guitar is a silly one. The reason you'd prefer the gold watch (which you don't want to use) over the guitar (which you do want to use) is because you can then trade the watch for a guitar + some bread, both of which you want. There is nothing weird about this - and it certainly doesn't indicate any nefarious property of money. I'd rather receive a helicopter than a car in exchange for my $20,000, even though I can't use the helicopter. Why? Because I can trade it again for still further goods - perhaps a car, and groceries for 50 years. In this case, I have used a helicopter as "money."

I simply do not understand what is so difficult or contentious about the idea that money is intrinsic to trade... Set 100 people in a room and give them random stuff. As they start trading with each other for things they want, they'll begin to value certain stuff for its usefulness in trading that stuff to others. It is impossible to avoid this phenomenon just as it would be impossible to avoid the phenomenon of those same people talking to each other. The only way to prevent money, or prevent talking, is to use coercive force against them.

What's the link to this article of yours, which tries to argue that money is demonstrably different from exchange?

[the joint]

To preclude money from society is to preclude trade.

And to say that society can exist without money is to say that nothing along that ordinal range of goods can ever be exchanged by anybody to anybody else. THAT is an absurd notion.

I disagree with this, and I wrote an article about how money is demonstrably different from simple exchange.

As I wrote in my article, money is constructed through collective agreement.  

Money is not "constructed" and it is certainly not "constructed through collective agreement." When two people trade, they themselves agree are on the terms of the trade. When another set of people trade, they arrive at different terms. And yet a third pair of traders will arrive at a third set of trading terms. None of this is "collective", but rather a spontaneous occurrence. No two people who trade require the agreement on the value of their goods by anybody else. You have something I want, I have something you want, we come to an agreement and trade. No input from anybody else is needed.

As we see humans often trading with each other, we might notice that they tend to start using a common good for these exchanges. This good is not "collectively agreed on," but spontaneously arrived at. The name given to whatever people tend to trade with is money.

Your example of the gold watch and the guitar is a silly one. The reason you'd prefer the gold watch (which you don't want to use) over the guitar (which you do want to use) is because you can then trade the watch for a guitar + some bread, both of which you want.

I simply do not understand what is so difficult or contentious about the idea that money is intrinsic to trade... Set 100 people in a room and give them random stuff. As they start trading with each other for things they want, they'll begin to value certain stuff for its usefulness in trading that stuff to others. It is impossible to avoid this phenomenon.

What's the link to this article of yours, which tries to argue that money is demonstrably different from exchange?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79755.0

The article indirectly demonstrates that money is different from simple exchange, but the intended purpose of the article is to identify a fundamental flaw with money as I described above (i.e. it displaces subjective value).

In your example about 100 people in a room, "collectively agreed on" and "spontaneously arrived at" appear synonymous despite the apparent linguistic contradiction.  Regardless, if and when the phenomenon of labeling certain things as more valuable occurs, a higher operative syntax is created in tandem which effects the perceived value of all other goods.  A man standing in the room of 100 holding a loaf of bread will find himself changing his perceived value of that loaf of bread as he now begins to consider others' valuation of it.  And, I bet it won't even matter how hungry he is...this becomes a secondary concern.  This is why people risk stress/jail/death for money -- there is a higher syntax at work influencing their decisions of which they are largely unaware.

[the joint]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79755.0

The article indirectly demonstrates that money is different from simple exchange, but the intended purpose of the article is to identify a fundamental flaw with money as I described above (i.e. it displaces subjective value).

In your example about 100 people in a room, "collectively agreed on" and "spontaneously arrived at" appear synonymous despite the apparent linguistic contradiction.  Regardless, if and when the phenomenon of labeling certain things as more valuable occurs, a higher operative syntax is created in tandem which effects the perceived value of all other goods.  A man standing in the room of 100 holding a loaf of bread will find himself changing his perceived value of that loaf of bread as he now begins to consider others' valuation of it.  And, I bet it won't even matter how hungry he is...this becomes a secondary concern.  This is why people risk stress/jail/death for money -- there is a higher syntax at work influencing their decisions of which they are largely unaware.

I seem to remember that in the story of King Lear, the king's youngest daughter vowed never to marry, for she would have to divide her love and devote part of it to someone other than her father. Clearly she was confusing two somewhat different concepts which happened to share the same name.

Similarly, there's money, which, to keep things simple I'll define as: a useful tool to facilitate exchanges of 'stuff'. A consequence of exchanging stuff is that another concept arises, called: 'price'. Money and price are two different ideas. Do they have to co-exist? Perhaps not. Maybe a society could use a rudimentary system of tokens, but still be too primitive to have developed arithmetic. Conversely, perhaps a society could have excellent notions of pricing, but never thought of any "special token" to facilitate transactions.

I find it interesting and have to agree that most people readily defer thinking about yet another concept: 'value',...

"how much are these shoes worth? 80 bucks." Not how much do they cost, or what is their price? But what are they worth.

Is it intellectual laziness? Indoctrination? Lack of education? Complete faith in a market's ability to determine 'fair value'? I would suggest that it's a combination of all of those factors, and perhaps a few others. However, since the concepts are different, I disagree with your complaint that money displaces subjective value. For example, I am capable of imagining both concepts at the same time. And I disagree the conclusion that money is therefore flawed. Money is just the tool. Humans are at fault if they don't use it properly.

If you click the link that I posted to the article I wrote and read through my responses to others' critiques, you will find that I clarify the point to mean that this displacement of value is something that we do have control over, but many of us choose to relinquish that control and submit to the concept of "value" as constructed through multiplied propagation.  In other words, whereas you (and pretty much anyone else) can separate these concepts and evaluate them differently, on the whole it is a largely unconscious process, and people are largely unaware of how money influences their interpretation of value -- we allow ourselves to be influenced by it.

I agree money is just a tool, and to that extent I concede money is not necessarily flawed.  On the other hand, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which some other form of money including Bitcoin, gold, or anything else, would not create this negative influence (I still contend that its influence is a negative one).  So, while money itself may not be flawed, I would suggest that allowing it real-world application is a flawed decision with negative consequences.  The article I wrote calls into question whether the benefits that money has in a global economy are worth the negative consequences.