Money is an imaginary concept, but humanity is enslaved by it

[johnyj]

Lets just say if some people did not have money, they would be as useful as a wet tissue.

If I didn't have money, I could offer my skills to barter for other goods or services. This is what money fixes, it creates a field where everyone can play on.

The problem is when all your skills and what you have to offer gets automated by machines that are 100000% more efficient and cheaper than you.

And because human society is driven by fiat money, only those who can create large amount of fiat money can mass produce these robots and make majority of people lose their job, this is also a result of being fiat money's slave

Bitcoin does not change the ultimate result of machine replacing people. But it might change the centralized society like we have today, so that more people can afford a robot or two to do the work for them

[deisik]

Lets just say if some people did not have money, they would be as useful as a wet tissue.

If I didn't have money, I could offer my skills to barter for other goods or services. This is what money fixes, it creates a field where everyone can play on.

The problem is when all your skills and what you have to offer gets automated by machines that are 100000% more efficient and cheaper than you.

This would make no sense on a larger scale. Machines exist so that humans could switch their activity to something more interesting/rewarding. If all men would one day become unemployed, then there would be no market for the goods machines produce. So it is a self-balancing system with a feedback loop...

[johnyj]

Lets just say if some people did not have money, they would be as useful as a wet tissue.

If I didn't have money, I could offer my skills to barter for other goods or services. This is what money fixes, it creates a field where everyone can play on.

The problem is when all your skills and what you have to offer gets automated by machines that are 100000% more efficient and cheaper than you.

This would make no sense on a larger scale. Machines exist so that humans could switch their activity to something more interesting/rewarding. If all men would one day become unemployed, then there would be no market for the goods machines produce. So it is a self-balancing system with a feedback loop...

The self-balancing mechanism only happens decades ago, when you still had lots of demand for the whole society and lack of production capacity. When most of the production can be done by a few companies, majority of people will be out of job and income

It is true that if all the other people are unemployed, then how to sell the products that robots made? No worry, government will borrow a bit to hand out as food stamps and social security and keep majority of people living a just OK life. While robot companies and banks took large amount of resource and build their heaven island somewhere in Caribbean

[deisik]

Lets just say if some people did not have money, they would be as useful as a wet tissue.

If I didn't have money, I could offer my skills to barter for other goods or services. This is what money fixes, it creates a field where everyone can play on.

The problem is when all your skills and what you have to offer gets automated by machines that are 100000% more efficient and cheaper than you.

This would make no sense on a larger scale. Machines exist so that humans could switch their activity to something more interesting/rewarding. If all men would one day become unemployed, then there would be no market for the goods machines produce. So it is a self-balancing system with a feedback loop...

The self-balancing mechanism only happens decades ago, when you still had lots of demand for the whole society and lack of production capacity. When most of the production can be done by a few companies, majority of people will be out of job and income

It is true that if all the other people are unemployed, then how to sell the products that robots made? No worry, government will borrow a bit to hand out as food stamps and social security and keep majority of people living a just OK life. While robot companies and banks took large amount of resource and build their heaven island somewhere in Caribbean

What is the purpose of overcapacity? There is none, so it is profitable for governments that people should be employed to the full by any means (besides, employed people are less prone to social unrest). There is still much room for making the elites' lives better, even in the Caribbean. So no worry for the majority of humanity...

[johnyj]

What is the purpose of overcapacity? There is none, so it is profitable for governments that people should be employed to the full by any means (besides, employed people are less prone to social unrest). There is still much room for making the elites' lives better, even in the Caribbean. So no worry for the majority of humanity...

Overcapacity is a natural result of technology improvement, with each stage of technology improvement, large amount of people were thrown out of working force. Government has endless credit line so it does not matter if it is profitable or not

[johnyj]

Just remember some nice talk from Interstella:

"Because he knew how hard it would be to get people to work together to save the species,  instead of themselves or their children. Evolution has yet to transcend that simple barrier. We can care deeply, selflessly about those we know. But that empathy rarely extends beyond our line of sight."

Similarly, it is difficult to let people work together to change the world from fiat money's slavery, since their line of sight seldom extends beyond their salary and profit, not even mention fiat monetary system itself

[deisik]

What is the purpose of overcapacity? There is none, so it is profitable for governments that people should be employed to the full by any means (besides, employed people are less prone to social unrest). There is still much room for making the elites' lives better, even in the Caribbean. So no worry for the majority of humanity...

Overcapacity is a natural result of technology improvement, with each stage of technology improvement, large amount of people were thrown out of working force. Government has endless credit line so it does not matter if it is profitable or not

Yes, but technology improvements still don't make producers better off per se (and it is not government that pushes forward technological innovation). You still need effective demand to get profit out of these improvements. But how can this be made possible if large amounts of people are thrown out of working force (and don't get employed somewhere else)? New manufacturing processes always shake up the labor market, but as we see that human population grew exponentially since the Industrial Revolution with the standards of living ever improving, we can only make one inference, that is, advanced production turns out to be creating more jobs in the end...

Could you explain this by just "government having an endless credit line"?

[aso118]

Just remember some nice talk from Interstella:

"Because he knew how hard it would be to get people to work together to save the species,  instead of themselves or their children. Evolution has yet to transcend that simple barrier. We can care deeply, selflessly about those we know. But that empathy rarely extends beyond our line of sight."

Similarly, it is difficult to let people work together to change the world from fiat money's slavery, since their line of sight seldom extends beyond their salary and profit, not even mention fiat monetary system itself

Fiat money's slavery is not bad at all. We work hard to earn more money, but this is invested in real assets.
If the current monetary system is not going to change in our lifetime, why bother with it?

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Just remember some nice talk from Interstella:

"Because he knew how hard it would be to get people to work together to save the species,  instead of themselves or their children. Evolution has yet to transcend that simple barrier. We can care deeply, selflessly about those we know. But that empathy rarely extends beyond our line of sight."

Similarly, it is difficult to let people work together to change the world from fiat money's slavery, since their line of sight seldom extends beyond their salary and profit, not even mention fiat monetary system itself

Fiat money's slavery is not bad at all. We work hard to earn more money, but this is invested in real assets.
If the current monetary system is not going to change in our lifetime, why bother with it?

Lol working hard is a scam. You are working hard and making peanuts so other people work smart/have luck and make millions out of you with 1% of your effort.

[johnyj]

Just remember some nice talk from Interstella:

"Because he knew how hard it would be to get people to work together to save the species,  instead of themselves or their children. Evolution has yet to transcend that simple barrier. We can care deeply, selflessly about those we know. But that empathy rarely extends beyond our line of sight."

Similarly, it is difficult to let people work together to change the world from fiat money's slavery, since their line of sight seldom extends beyond their salary and profit, not even mention fiat monetary system itself

Fiat money's slavery is not bad at all. We work hard to earn more money, but this is invested in real assets.
If the current monetary system is not going to change in our lifetime, why bother with it?

Exactly, and many people might have a similar view as you. You'd rather working 20 years to get a house, and contribute enough interest to bank so that they can also buy a house with the flip of a pen

[Beliathon]

Same as religion, monogamy, gender, nationalism, authority obedience, capitalism, and so on. If you take a person's mind, they will give you their body.

[Hazir]

Just remember some nice talk from Interstella:

"Because he knew how hard it would be to get people to work together to save the species,  instead of themselves or their children. Evolution has yet to transcend that simple barrier. We can care deeply, selflessly about those we know. But that empathy rarely extends beyond our line of sight."

Similarly, it is difficult to let people work together to change the world from fiat money's slavery, since their line of sight seldom extends beyond their salary and profit, not even mention fiat monetary system itself

Fiat money's slavery is not bad at all. We work hard to earn more money, but this is invested in real assets.
If the current monetary system is not going to change in our lifetime, why bother with it?

Lol working hard is a scam. You are working hard and making peanuts so other people work smart/have luck and make millions out of you with 1% of your effort.

That is the sad part. You can be decent hard working man but without right environment and luck you will be probably working like a mule and earning peanuts. But in reality satisfaction lies in the effort, not in the attainment, full effort is full victory. Acquiring money is not ultimate goal of humans.

[SargeR33]

Lets just say if some people did not have money, they would be as useful as a wet tissue.

If I didn't have money, I could offer my skills to barter for other goods or services. This is what money fixes, it creates a field where everyone can play on.

The problem is when all your skills and what you have to offer gets automated by machines that are 100000% more efficient and cheaper than you.

Well not really, someone must make those machines. Someone must maintain those machines. The only reason we simplify these tasks is to move on to other tasks.

[deisik]

Lets just say if some people did not have money, they would be as useful as a wet tissue.

If I didn't have money, I could offer my skills to barter for other goods or services. This is what money fixes, it creates a field where everyone can play on.

The problem is when all your skills and what you have to offer gets automated by machines that are 100000% more efficient and cheaper than you.

Well not really, someone must make those machines. Someone must maintain those machines. The only reason we simplify these tasks is to move on to other tasks.

In fact, the only reason why we (actually, producers) simplify these tasks is to make more profit by introducing more efficient production. Though I agree in general, the end result is essentially the same, i.e. we move from less interesting tasks to more interesting ones...

[Nicolas Dorier]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_JkazmhSpE says all.

[BillyBobZorton]

Lets just say if some people did not have money, they would be as useful as a wet tissue.

If I didn't have money, I could offer my skills to barter for other goods or services. This is what money fixes, it creates a field where everyone can play on.

The problem is when all your skills and what you have to offer gets automated by machines that are 100000% more efficient and cheaper than you.

Well not really, someone must make those machines. Someone must maintain those machines. The only reason we simplify these tasks is to move on to other tasks.

It's going to take what, 1% of the population to maintain and make those machines. What is the rest of people going to do? most people will simply not be needed in the future, including us.. but maybe we are all dead by then.

[deisik]

Lets just say if some people did not have money, they would be as useful as a wet tissue.

If I didn't have money, I could offer my skills to barter for other goods or services. This is what money fixes, it creates a field where everyone can play on.

The problem is when all your skills and what you have to offer gets automated by machines that are 100000% more efficient and cheaper than you.

Well not really, someone must make those machines. Someone must maintain those machines. The only reason we simplify these tasks is to move on to other tasks.

It's going to take what, 1% of the population to maintain and make those machines. What is the rest of people going to do? most people will simply not be needed in the future, including us.. but maybe we are all dead by then.

The economic history of the world reveals that division of labor leads to increased productivity with each technological paradigm shift (through deeper utilization of resources), but at the same time requires more and more people with ever narrowing specialization. Therefore your fears are mostly unfounded...

[abyrnes81]

Money isn't really the problem, it is how people tend to overvalue it over any other things. It is the greed of people that enslaves his kind, and money is just a medium on where Man can exhibit his greed.

Like George Carlin says << the World are fine, the people are fuc**ed>> and I think he has right. The problem here isn't the money but the people and for the moment there isn't a valid solution.

It was people who invented the idea of money - a universal exchange medium that can exchange anything, and when that ability holds over time, it also becomes a store of value

The problem comes when some economists look at the fact that money is never consumed, and regard it as merely a token of exchange, then they had the idea of producing this token out of thin air to just meet the demand for exchange. This in turn gives the purchasing power of newly created money to money creator for free, thus the money creator step by step becomes the largest slaveholder, and they try to create any crisis that can make them print more money

It is the fact that some of the people can get money for free created slavery. If money creator need to pay equal amount of value to create money, just like a gold miner or bitcoin miner do, then there is no slavery, producing money will be the same as any other business

As I said, the problem is the people not the money. If tomorrow I want to print 100 dollars I can't , isn't it? I didn't choose this economic system, and I will fight until the death.

[beber456]

Debt is the real problem ? lol

[johnyj]

Yes, but technology improvements still don't make producers better off per se (and it is not government that pushes forward technological innovation). You still need effective demand to get profit out of these improvements. But how can this be made possible if large amounts of people are thrown out of working force (and don't get employed somewhere else)? New manufacturing processes always shake up the labor market, but as we see that human population grew exponentially since the Industrial Revolution with the standards of living ever improving, we can only make one inference, that is, advanced production turns out to be creating more jobs in the end...

Could you explain this by just "government having an endless credit line"?

Indeed good questions. I think it is about a saturated market. Difficult to deal with

50 years ago,  when people are still relatively poor and had lots of demand, you need to accelerate the production to fulfill those demands, and productivity can not increase dramatically overnight, so you need lots of people involved to speed up the production

But now when almost everything is done, existing production capacity can satisfy the demand, and it is constantly increasing in efficiency, as a result, more and more people are laid off

The demand is still there, it is even more. However, production are centralized to a few multinational enterprises, the supply is not done by millions of people collectively, but by only a few thousand people. It is this concentration of production removed many people's income, so that even they have strong demand, they can not consume due to no income

Those enterprises first made huge profit, then start to get worse, since their potential customer do not have enough income, that reduced their sale. And when they have less sale, they will fire more people, worsen the situation

So you have to find a new demand area that can absorb those excessive labor force and give them enough income to restart the economy. Unfortunately, it seems most of human's demand are just fulfilled. When I go to a super market, I'm always amazed by so many things that seems useless

So far, as part of the solution, government can borrow a lot of money to run large construction projects, could be long term and expensive projects like a bridge from Florida to Cuba  

Those projects will never generate any meaningful return, so it will just be a huge expense, created millions of jobs for a while, but since government can borrow money endlessly, this is not a big deal

Maybe in future, 90% of people will be participating this kind of government projects, like researching new robot, new medicine, new power plant, new base on Mars...