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

[johnyj]

Another thought: This imaginary concept (money is a standard unit of value) is unconsciously used by even the most famous economists throughout their works, all their formulas and calculations are based on this simple assumption, which is just a wishful thinking

Similarly, all the science is based on two unconsciously accepted prerequisites: Space and time. Without space and time, there is no science.

Without money, there is no economics. However, unlike space and time, which we can not remove as prerequisites for the world, money can be avoided. The true economy theory should not use the concept of money, that will make it much easier to see the truth behind all economy activities: Desire

[freeyourmind]

We are still quite far from the type of automation that will allow for 5% employment.  Even if the majority of production is automated, there are still many other components of a goods producing business that may not be automated if they are competing in a relatively free market.  Procurement, logistics, marketing, sales, support, R&D, etc. would still require a human component without AI right?  Then there are service industries.

True, automation require a lot of R&D, and when complexity raised above certain level, the cost will be higher than the gain. In a highly  complex system, a small bug will cause days of delay in automated system, which could trigger a chain of reaction.

But anyway that is the trend, maybe not 5%, but 20%, there should be a framework that can be adjusted based on how much labor is needed to re-allocate the resource to those redundant people. Current solution is printing lots of money to create lots of useless job just to make people get something to do, not a bad idea but far from efficient

So there are a few issues keeping us from going towards this automated economic model.

1) We don't have enough people on the tech/r&d/engineering side currently, so we would need many more people to be educated (in or out of school) in coding, software development, robotics, engineering, etc.
2) What happens to the rest of the people that are useless in the new system?  They are the majority.
3) In this system, only companies that actually produce or optimize goods/services are useful - so things like financial services, which don't really produce anything but take a cut from everyone that does produce, will need to
4) How are resources distributed for production?  Ideally it should go to the most productive and beneficial options.  Then once goods are made, how are they distributed if the majority of the population doesn't make income?

We are currently so primitive compared to the type of world we're dreaming of...I mean like you said, we have the money printer going and engage in war.  Could you have any stupider people leading the world?  Once you've conditioned an idiot to think he's doing good by killing another person that he's never met, something's very wrong.  In the new world, that idiot would need to be programming a manufacturing robot. /end rant.

For the transition, I think the tech companies will have to set the stage and compete solely based on technological innovation.  Elon Musk is making a huge push for tech companies to expand into other industries, and I really think when you have brilliant minds, they can take over whichever industry they please. 

[johnyj]

We are still quite far from the type of automation that will allow for 5% employment.  Even if the majority of production is automated, there are still many other components of a goods producing business that may not be automated if they are competing in a relatively free market.  Procurement, logistics, marketing, sales, support, R&D, etc. would still require a human component without AI right?  Then there are service industries.

True, automation require a lot of R&D, and when complexity raised above certain level, the cost will be higher than the gain. In a highly  complex system, a small bug will cause days of delay in automated system, which could trigger a chain of reaction.

But anyway that is the trend, maybe not 5%, but 20%, there should be a framework that can be adjusted based on how much labor is needed to re-allocate the resource to those redundant people. Current solution is printing lots of money to create lots of useless job just to make people get something to do, not a bad idea but far from efficient

So there are a few issues keeping us from going towards this automated economic model.

1) We don't have enough people on the tech/r&d/engineering side currently, so we would need many more people to be educated (in or out of school) in coding, software development, robotics, engineering, etc.
2) What happens to the rest of the people that are useless in the new system?  They are the majority.
3) In this system, only companies that actually produce or optimize goods/services are useful - so things like financial services, which don't really produce anything but take a cut from everyone that does produce, will need to
4) How are resources distributed for production?  Ideally it should go to the most productive and beneficial options.  Then once goods are made, how are they distributed if the majority of the population doesn't make income?

In fact the productivity is already enough high for most of the people to retire early, but due to the existance of money and exchange, this can not be done

Imagine an island with two people Bob and Alice. Bob is very smart and can produce 10 times more products per year than Alice. In today's monetary system, we suppose that Bob will earn 10 times more money than Alice (Money is used as a unit of value)

But that is simply not possible, because Bob's income can only come from his sale to Alice, and Alice have much less productivity thus much less income. As a result, Bob's income is limited by how much Alice can spend

The current solution is government charging heavy tax on Bob and give them to Alice so that she can buy more Bob's products. It also means that Alice get more income than her production, because of Bob's high productivity

Or, government take loan to run infrastructure projects, give Alice enough income to buy Bob's products

Anyway, the core of the problem is: High productivity people can not fully utilize their efficiency due to low demand from low productivity people. Unless they give up some of the productivity for free, there is no way to reach 20% employment

If Bob is not profit oriented, he can max out his production thus maximize the social wealth, but he won't have enough motivation to do so, since redistributing his products to Alice is more like a donation. Money is that motivation: If Bob can exchange all his production into money, he has some motivation to produce more, since money will store value and delay his consumption until a later time. Unfortunately, since Alice have little access to money, Bob can not make money by himself alone

[Nicolas Dorier]

If Bob is not profit oriented, he can max out his production thus maximize the social wealth, but he won't have enough motivation to do so, since redistributing his products to Alice is more like a donation. Money is that motivation: If Bob can exchange all his production into money, he has some motivation to produce more, since money will store value and delay his consumption until a later time.

The rational solution for Bob, is to spend 10 time less time at work than Alice, so he maximizes effort/money.
Government intervention or not, it would not change the rational decision.

[twiifm]

We are still quite far from the type of automation that will allow for 5% employment.  Even if the majority of production is automated, there are still many other components of a goods producing business that may not be automated if they are competing in a relatively free market.  Procurement, logistics, marketing, sales, support, R&D, etc. would still require a human component without AI right?  Then there are service industries.

True, automation require a lot of R&D, and when complexity raised above certain level, the cost will be higher than the gain. In a highly  complex system, a small bug will cause days of delay in automated system, which could trigger a chain of reaction.

But anyway that is the trend, maybe not 5%, but 20%, there should be a framework that can be adjusted based on how much labor is needed to re-allocate the resource to those redundant people. Current solution is printing lots of money to create lots of useless job just to make people get something to do, not a bad idea but far from efficient

So there are a few issues keeping us from going towards this automated economic model.

1) We don't have enough people on the tech/r&d/engineering side currently, so we would need many more people to be educated (in or out of school) in coding, software development, robotics, engineering, etc.
2) What happens to the rest of the people that are useless in the new system?  They are the majority.
3) In this system, only companies that actually produce or optimize goods/services are useful - so things like financial services, which don't really produce anything but take a cut from everyone that does produce, will need to
4) How are resources distributed for production?  Ideally it should go to the most productive and beneficial options.  Then once goods are made, how are they distributed if the majority of the population doesn't make income?

We are currently so primitive compared to the type of world we're dreaming of...I mean like you said, we have the money printer going and engage in war.  Could you have any stupider people leading the world?  Once you've conditioned an idiot to think he's doing good by killing another person that he's never met, something's very wrong.  In the new world, that idiot would need to be programming a manufacturing robot. /end rant.

For the transition, I think the tech companies will have to set the stage and compete solely based on technological innovation.  Elon Musk is making a huge push for tech companies to expand into other industries, and I really think when you have brilliant minds, they can take over whichever industry they please. 

Oh please.  Elon Musk can't even make Tesla profitable.  Have you ever looked at their financials?  Terrible

[twiifm]

We are still quite far from the type of automation that will allow for 5% employment.  Even if the majority of production is automated, there are still many other components of a goods producing business that may not be automated if they are competing in a relatively free market.  Procurement, logistics, marketing, sales, support, R&D, etc. would still require a human component without AI right?  Then there are service industries.

True, automation require a lot of R&D, and when complexity raised above certain level, the cost will be higher than the gain. In a highly  complex system, a small bug will cause days of delay in automated system, which could trigger a chain of reaction.

But anyway that is the trend, maybe not 5%, but 20%, there should be a framework that can be adjusted based on how much labor is needed to re-allocate the resource to those redundant people. Current solution is printing lots of money to create lots of useless job just to make people get something to do, not a bad idea but far from efficient

So there are a few issues keeping us from going towards this automated economic model.

1) We don't have enough people on the tech/r&d/engineering side currently, so we would need many more people to be educated (in or out of school) in coding, software development, robotics, engineering, etc.
2) What happens to the rest of the people that are useless in the new system?  They are the majority.
3) In this system, only companies that actually produce or optimize goods/services are useful - so things like financial services, which don't really produce anything but take a cut from everyone that does produce, will need to
4) How are resources distributed for production?  Ideally it should go to the most productive and beneficial options.  Then once goods are made, how are they distributed if the majority of the population doesn't make income?

In fact the productivity is already enough high for most of the people to retire early, but due to the existance of money and exchange, this can not be done

Imagine an island with two people Bob and Alice. Bob is very smart and can produce 10 times more products per year than Alice. In today's monetary system, we suppose that Bob will earn 10 times more money than Alice (Money is used as a unit of value)

But that is simply not possible, because Bob's income can only come from his sale to Alice, and Alice have much less productivity thus much less income. As a result, Bob's income is limited by how much Alice can spend

The current solution is government charging heavy tax on Bob and give them to Alice so that she can buy more Bob's products. It also means that Alice get more income than her production, because of Bob's high productivity

Or, government take loan to run infrastructure projects, give Alice enough income to buy Bob's products

Anyway, the core of the problem is: High productivity people can not fully utilize their efficiency due to low demand from low productivity people. Unless they give up some of the productivity for free, there is no way to reach 20% employment

If Bob is not profit oriented, he can max out his production thus maximize the social wealth, but he won't have enough motivation to do so, since redistributing his products to Alice is more like a donation. Money is that motivation: If Bob can exchange all his production into money, he has some motivation to produce more, since money will store value and delay his consumption until a later time. Unfortunately, since Alice have little access to money, Bob can not make money by himself alone

Robinson Crusoe fallacy.

If they are only 2 people or even a hundred people.  They are going to collaborate not compete if they want to survive

[doggieTattoo]

I always thought it was incredible how someone changed the mind of the masses to use this flimsy piece of paper, that holds no true use to its name to being the most dominant trade item in the world.  Think about it, You literally can't do anything to money except destroy it and trade it, and it has no use beyond what we make it.  Same goes with bitcoin though, they are not actually worth anything to our survival, but they have this invisible worth and we all kind of just accept it. 

[freeyourmind]

Oh please.  Elon Musk can't even make Tesla profitable.  Have you ever looked at their financials?  Terrible

On a thread where there is criticism given to a our monetary system and money itself, and your input about an example for technological innovation and automation is about money and profits, then you likely missed the point.

Tesla is not profitable and doesn't plan to be profitable for the next few years.  They are having to invest in infrastructure to grow production capacity and distribution, which Tesla has explicitly mentioned takes precedence to being profitable.  He mentioned they're making about 25% gp, which is very profitable for the auto industry.

You've made it clear that you're not a fan of Tesla, but no one needs you to be one.

[twiifm]

Oh please.  Elon Musk can't even make Tesla profitable.  Have you ever looked at their financials?  Terrible

On a thread where there is criticism given to a our monetary system and money itself, and your input about an example for technological innovation and automation is about money and profits, then you likely missed the point.

Tesla is not profitable and doesn't plan to be profitable for the next few years.  They are having to invest in infrastructure to grow production capacity and distribution, which Tesla has explicitly mentioned takes precedence to being profitable.  He mentioned they're making about 25% gp, which is very profitable for the auto industry.

You've made it clear that you're not a fan of Tesla, but no one needs you to be one.

I trade TSLA regularly and I know their financials well.  Elon Musk is not someone I want anywhere near our financial system.

First if all the guy is a stock manipulator.  He might be a brilliant engineer and maybe even a great showman/ marketing hype man.  But all he does is pump his stock before a debt raise and dump it when it gets too frothy.  You know he did a $3B convertible w Morgan Stanley for his so called "gigafactory". They timed a pump where MS did an upgrade w a $300 price target.  And like a few days later they announced the raise and dumped the stock from $265.  If I was an investor, I'd be pissed.



LOL if you believe Tesla has 25% margin w NON-GAAP

[johnyj]

If Bob is not profit oriented, he can max out his production thus maximize the social wealth, but he won't have enough motivation to do so, since redistributing his products to Alice is more like a donation. Money is that motivation: If Bob can exchange all his production into money, he has some motivation to produce more, since money will store value and delay his consumption until a later time. Unfortunately, since Alice have little access to money, Bob can not make money by himself alone

Robinson Crusoe fallacy.

If they are only 2 people or even a hundred people.  They are going to collaborate not compete if they want to survive

We are talking about high productivity here, with the help of technology, Bob does not need to cooperate with Alice, but he need Alice to buy his products with money, this is a strange but prevail culture on this planet

Two people's island is just a metaphor, it involves the basic elements in today's society: Production, exchange and consumption. In such a society, each one must find his customer to sell his products/services, a model of two person is enough to represent the whole society

[johnyj]

I always thought it was incredible how someone changed the mind of the masses to use this flimsy piece of paper, that holds no true use to its name to being the most dominant trade item in the world.  Think about it, You literally can't do anything to money except destroy it and trade it, and it has no use beyond what we make it.  Same goes with bitcoin though, they are not actually worth anything to our survival, but they have this invisible worth and we all kind of just accept it.  

What people really care is not the money, but the things that the given money can buy. You can have some other kind of securities like bond, stock or option, but you can not bring any of these securities to a restaurant and order a pizza. The universal acceptance in commercial is the key for money. Since fiat paper is guaranteed by law to settle debt throughout the whole country, it automatically become the best form of money domestically

In fact, if something is universally accepted in commercial, it will automatically become some sort of money to clear the debt between different entities, even without government/central bank backing

An example is restaurant/supermarket coupon, often used as a replacement for fiat money in a small area. These coupons have a valid period, before they expires, they must be used to redeem the product/service from the issuer. And they become useless if the issuer went down . For fiat money, they are valid until the government went down, obviously much longer than those coupons, but still not as long as bitcoin or gold

[deisik]

I always thought it was incredible how someone changed the mind of the masses to use this flimsy piece of paper, that holds no true use to its name to being the most dominant trade item in the world.  Think about it, You literally can't do anything to money except destroy it and trade it, and it has no use beyond what we make it.  Same goes with bitcoin though, they are not actually worth anything to our survival, but they have this invisible worth and we all kind of just accept it. 

What people really care is not the money, but the things that the given money can buy. You can have some other kind of securities like bond, stock or option, but you can not bring any of these securities to a restaurant and order a pizza. The universal acceptance in commercial is the key for money. Since fiat paper is guaranteed by law to settle debt throughout the whole country, it automatically become the best form of money domestically

Most people think the same, but the reality is not quite that. In most jurisdictions the law guarantees that with the national currency (called legal tender in this case) you can only pay taxes and debts to the state. This means, for example, that a buyer may not insist on settling accounts in "legal tender" with a seller ("the right of a seller to refuse doing business with")...

[freeyourmind]

I trade TSLA regularly and I know their financials well.  Elon Musk is not someone I want anywhere near our financial system.

First if all the guy is a stock manipulator.  He might be a brilliant engineer and maybe even a great showman/ marketing hype man.  But all he does is pump his stock before a debt raise and dump it when it gets too frothy.  You know he did a $3B convertible w Morgan Stanley for his so called "gigafactory". They timed a pump where MS did an upgrade w a $300 price target.  And like a few days later they announced the raise and dumped the stock from $265.  If I was an investor, I'd be pissed.

I'm not sure what the relevance of your response is.  The thread is criticizing the financial system itself, and I brought up Tesla as an example of great technological innovation. 

LOL if you believe Tesla has 25% margin w NON-GAAP

Please share your source and non-GAAP margin numbers for Tesla with us instead of using analogy.  For the past 6 quarters, Tesla has had >25% margin reported.  You do understand that non-GAAP allows more flexibility in reporting than GAAP does right?

[deisik]

Oh please.  Elon Musk can't even make Tesla profitable.  Have you ever looked at their financials?  Terrible

On a thread where there is criticism given to a our monetary system and money itself, and your input about an example for technological innovation and automation is about money and profits, then you likely missed the point.

Tesla is not profitable and doesn't plan to be profitable for the next few years.  They are having to invest in infrastructure to grow production capacity and distribution, which Tesla has explicitly mentioned takes precedence to being profitable.  He mentioned they're making about 25% gp, which is very profitable for the auto industry.

Just imagine a break-through in the capacitance of energy storage devices (something like cheap tritium batteries). The required infrastructure is already there, and all of a sudden Tesla becomes profitable and far ahead of the pack!

[twiifm]

I trade TSLA regularly and I know their financials well.  Elon Musk is not someone I want anywhere near our financial system.

First if all the guy is a stock manipulator.  He might be a brilliant engineer and maybe even a great showman/ marketing hype man.  But all he does is pump his stock before a debt raise and dump it when it gets too frothy.  You know he did a $3B convertible w Morgan Stanley for his so called "gigafactory". They timed a pump where MS did an upgrade w a $300 price target.  And like a few days later they announced the raise and dumped the stock from $265.  If I was an investor, I'd be pissed.

I'm not sure what the relevance of your response is.  The thread is criticizing the financial system itself, and I brought up Tesla as an example of great technological innovation. 

LOL if you believe Tesla has 25% margin w NON-GAAP

Please share your source and non-GAAP margin numbers for Tesla with us instead of using analogy.  For the past 6 quarters, Tesla has had >25% margin reported.  You do understand that non-GAAP allows more flexibility in reporting than GAAP does right?

I misread your post.  I thought you were saying tech guys should make economic policy or that they will somehow more important than finance.

I hope you realize Tesla only exist because of the finance industry.  They sure arent selling any cars to that that valuation.

They don't calculate their margins like other car companies so their numbers are misleading.

BTW TSLA closed $185 on Fri.  Hope your not long

[freeyourmind]

I misread your post.  I thought you were saying tech guys should make economic policy or that they will somehow more important than finance.

I hope you realize Tesla only exist because of the finance industry.  They sure arent selling any cars to that that valuation.

They don't calculate their margins like other car companies so their numbers are misleading.

BTW TSLA closed $185 on Fri.  Hope your not long

I was responding to another post about theoretically having automation of labour, that would only require 5% employment.  That would require a huge push in R&D, which would need to be driven by tech guys, because who else can do it?

Tesla was privately funded until 2010 I believe.  So throughout the financial crisis, when they came very close to bankruptcy, the government didn't loan or grant Tesla anything.  In 2010 they received a government loan, which has already been repaid in full, with interest.  Then I believe they received another loan to expand their production capacity, and tax cuts from Nevada from building the gigafactory over there.

So the problem with Tesla right now, is their production capacity.  They were only able to do ~33,000 cars in 2014, and will approximately double that in 2015.  But still, they are a drop in the bucket in global car sales.  So it's going to take a few years at the current momentum to be a big player in the industry.

Their GAAP financials will be normal COGS subtracted from revenues...what are you speaking of that's misleading?  They have a lot of automation, and literally form the body out of raw sheets of aluminum, so their production facility is pretty efficient.  Check out the videos if you're interested.

Yeah, I'd like to pick up some TSLA shares at this point, but all my USD are invested right now.  I'm Canadian, and I don't want to convert CDN to USD right now because the exchange rate is ridiculous.  I'll need to sell off some GOOG shares to free up some USD, but I missed the boat at $570+ a couple days ago.  TSLA is a super volatile stock, because it's valuation is based on bets about the company well into the future - so very speculative. 

[twiifm]

I misread your post.  I thought you were saying tech guys should make economic policy or that they will somehow more important than finance.

I hope you realize Tesla only exist because of the finance industry.  They sure arent selling any cars to that that valuation.

They don't calculate their margins like other car companies so their numbers are misleading.

BTW TSLA closed $185 on Fri.  Hope your not long

I was responding to another post about theoretically having automation of labour, that would only require 5% employment.  That would require a huge push in R&D, which would need to be driven by tech guys, because who else can do it?

Tesla was privately funded until 2010 I believe.  So throughout the financial crisis, when they came very close to bankruptcy, the government didn't loan or grant Tesla anything.  In 2010 they received a government loan, which has already been repaid in full, with interest.  Then I believe they received another loan to expand their production capacity, and tax cuts from Nevada from building the gigafactory over there.

So the problem with Tesla right now, is their production capacity.  They were only able to do ~33,000 cars in 2014, and will approximately double that in 2015.  But still, they are a drop in the bucket in global car sales.  So it's going to take a few years at the current momentum to be a big player in the industry.

Their GAAP financials will be normal COGS subtracted from revenues...what are you speaking of that's misleading?  They have a lot of automation, and literally form the body out of raw sheets of aluminum, so their production facility is pretty efficient.  Check out the videos if you're interested.

Yeah, I'd like to pick up some TSLA shares at this point, but all my USD are invested right now.  I'm Canadian, and I don't want to convert CDN to USD right now because the exchange rate is ridiculous.  I'll need to sell off some GOOG shares to free up some USD, but I missed the boat at $570+ a couple days ago.  TSLA is a super volatile stock, because it's valuation is based on bets about the company well into the future - so very speculative.  

I don't want to derail this thread too much but (1) they count lease as a sale.  (2) they count ZEV credits towards revenues.  Non GAAP shows revenues inflated like 40% over GAAP

Tesla is an investment banks wet dream.  A charismatic CEO willing to use Twitter to pump the stock and legions of brainwashed investors.

Do you own a TSLA or know anyone who owns one?  

How do you think they raised $3B of debt recently?  CEO misleading about Panasonic investment, big China push timed w a pump upgrade from Morgan Stanley.  Did you know they already burned through half of that money only actually spending $50M on factory?

Now investors imagination run wild about pivot to home battery biz??

CEO says production constrained while drop in Q4 deliveries due to bad weather and people on vacation?? WTF??  I would not call him a liar, but you cant take anything this guy says seriously.

Its your money but IMO TSLA is a short.  It took long enough for the momo to wear off

I dont like GOOG technicals short term either if that means anything

[freeyourmind]

I don't want to derail this thread too much but (1) they count lease as a sale.  (2) they count ZEV credits towards revenues.  Non GAAP shows revenues inflated like 40% over GAAP

Tesla is an investment banks wet dream.  A charismatic CEO willing to use Twitter to pump the stock and legions of brainwashed investors.

Do you own a TSLA or know anyone who owns one?  

How do you think they raised $3B of debt recently?  CEO misleading about Panasonic investment, big China push timed w a pump upgrade from Morgan Stanley.  Did you know they already burned through half of that money only actually spending $50M on factory?

Now investors imagination run wild about pivot to home battery biz??

CEO says production constrained while drop in Q4 deliveries due to bad weather and people on vacation?? WTF??  I would not call him a liar, but you cant take anything this guy says seriously.

Its your money but IMO TSLA is a short.  It took long enough for the momo to wear off

I dont like GOOG technicals short term either if that means anything

We have derailed the shit out of this thread dude.

Leasing should count as revenue, because it is revenue, just not all upfront.  EV tax credits are from the government, but Tesla should still count that as revenue.  If they didn't count it as revenue, then they wouldn't be liable for paying tax on that income.

I don't own a Tesla, but my friend has a P85.  I used to live in the suburbs where I had a very car/motorcycle-centric life, but I'm in the core of downtown near the subway line and can work from home, so I barely drive these days.  But if I had a lifestyle that required a lot of driving, I'd love to have a Tesla.  Price tag is pretty steep for me though.  I'd rather put that money towards my home.  The Model 3 will be interesting though, as it will be significantly cheaper.

I'm not sure about the loans or spending that you're referencing, so can't comment on that.  Which factory are you talking about though?  The cost gigafactory is around $5 billion.

Tesla is a different type of investment for me, but I don't have a whole lot invested.  I trade Canadian banks and telecoms taking into consideration technicals, but I like the concept of Tesla more than I like it as a vehicle for returns.  I like that they're making a push on EV and have some consciousness towards the environment.  I like that they're making that push through technological innovation rather than propaganda.  I like that they're taking a stand against having dealerships force themselves into the auto industry to take a cut, whether or not you need their help with sales.  I don't see any other automakers doing anything remotely revolutionary.  They've committed free lifetime charging via the supercharger network.  Elon's end goal isn't profitability, and I like that. 

[twiifm]

Haha yeah it's totally derailed.  The topic is hogwash anyways.  Saying we are enslaved by money is like saying we are enslaved by food because without eating we'd die.  Or we are enslaved by education because we need knowledge to have a functioning society.

[johnyj]

Haha yeah it's totally derailed.  The topic is hogwash anyways.  Saying we are enslaved by money is like saying we are enslaved by food because without eating we'd die.  Or we are enslaved by education because we need knowledge to have a functioning society.

Please check the meaning of slavery. By definition, slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master. Since central banks completely own and control every newly created fiat money, and in turn those money is going to exchange for all your products/services, you are a slave of central bank

Food, education etc is different, because unlike central bank creating money out of nothing, no one can get the initial ownership of food and education without putting similar worth of work/resources. The exchange for food is normal commercial activities, the relationship between you and food producer is just business partner, but the relationship between you and central bank is slave and master