A world without money.

[Reincarnate]

Re: A world without money.

I'm amused by the idea that if you abolished currency you'd be "left" with the barter system. You do realise that money -is- the barter system still, we've just allowed a way for two people who don't actually have something the other one wants to deal by providing a universal intermediate step they can trade to anybody.

Yup yup -- which is why this discussion is just silly. Removing money doesn't suddenly make everything "free." Completely stupid way to look at it.

Removing money doesn't improve squat -- you're just removing liquidity, which comes at a cost. Money saves us money (there is a value to our monetary system) and lowers transaction costs by its very existence.

The only caveat is that we operate under a fiat system where we "accept" that the dollar is worth its value, backed by the faith and credit of the government.

[devonin]

Re: A world without money.

Yup, trading goods in hand for goods in hand is the only way to make sure that you're actually getting what you think you're getting, but the opportunity cost to trade my eggs for your wheat when you don't want eggs is ridiculously high.

We've all seen episodes of sitcoms where someone has to do the absurd chain of trades to get the one thing you wanted at the beginning. Hell, we've all done fetch quests in video and computer games, and we know how annoying it is.

The entirety of what money represents economically is the abilty to a) acquire goods when you don't have goods the other person wants and values equally and b) to stockpile resources in order to acquire something you couldn't ordinarily get in one transaction. Beyond that, it's not -like- bartering, it -is- bartering

[mhss1992]

Re: A world without money.

What bothers me about money is that it's not directly proportional to the true value of things. As I see it, it creates lots of stupid and unnecessary limitations.

I think that things could still work better without an exchange system but with a different credit system. Like this: as a normal citizen, you would have access to basic stuff like food, water, school, etc. But with limitations. In order to gain more privileges, you'd have to work and, depending on the utility of your work (which would have to be debated) gain a certain ammount of credit that would be recorded in some database. However, this credit would not be exchangeable. It would lower if you committed crimes or stopped working for a long time, but would only increase if you kept working (since you wouldn't really exchange it for anything).

Everyone would be given the same opportunities. No one would be born rich or poor. The government would have to provide stuff for people until a certain age, before they needed to start working.

The only problem is that something like this would only work if a large enough independent group of countries decided to do the same.

Money saves us money

I do know what you mean, but, still...

[Reincarnate]

Re: A world without money.

What bothers me about money is that it's not directly proportional to the true value of things. As I see it, it creates lots of stupid and unnecessary limitations.

I think that things could still work better without an exchange system but with a different credit system. Like this: as a normal citizen, you would have access to basic stuff like food, water, school, etc. But with limitations. In order to gain more privileges, you'd have to work and, depending on the utility of your work (which would have to be debated) gain a certain ammount of credit that would be recorded in some database. However, this credit would not be exchangeable. It would lower if you committed crimes or stopped working for a long time, but would only increase if you kept working (since you wouldn't really exchange it for anything).

Everyone would be given the same opportunities. No one would be born rich or poor. The government would have to provide stuff for people until a certain age, before they needed to start working.

The only problem is that something like this would only work if a large enough independent group of countries decided to do the same.



I do know what you mean, but, still...

It's not a perfect system -- utility is a personalized concept, and prices reflect willingness/demand and its interplay with supply. The problem isn't with money though -- it's, differentiation of consumer demand profiles. I might be willing to exchange with you ten apples for your ten oranges, but someone else may want eleven or twelve -- others may not want anything from you at all. Therefore, the "value" of something is dependent on the market. Also throw into the mix the idea that identifying true value is not always easy. Our perception of value is oftentimes not perfect -- we don't always have all the information (and even when we do, it's hard to calculate), and our desires for additional profits pushes things further up the chain whenever we can get away with it.

Again though, this isn't a problem with money in itself, although problems CAN occur when you start ****ing with monetary policy (for instance, messing with the money supply over the long run and causing undesirable levels of inflation). Paying off your debts by simply printing more money doesn't necessarily SOLVE the underlying problem. It just buys you time.

[foilman8805]

Re: A world without money.

I find it kind of dumb that the top paid CEO of a company makes as much money as the 7th top paid NBA player. What is the NBA player getting paid to do really? Entertain? People loot and steal because they don't have the money. If they only stepped back and actually thought, if they don't loot or steal, they wouldn't have to loot or steal in the first place. People don't think this way, it's called ignorance and stupidity

Sure, the NBA player is pretty heavily overpaid, but when you made this analogy you definitely didn't realize how much CEOs are overpaid as well, especially in the United States.

[mhss1992]

Re: A world without money.

It's not a perfect system -- utility is a personalized concept, and prices reflect willingness/demand and its interplay with supply. The problem isn't with money though -- it's, differentiation of consumer demand profiles. I might be willing to exchange with you ten apples for your ten oranges, but someone else may want eleven or twelve -- others may not want anything from you at all. Therefore, the "value" of something is dependent on the market. Also throw into the mix the idea that identifying true value is not always easy. Our perception of value is oftentimes not perfect -- we don't always have all the information (and even when we do, it's hard to calculate), and our desires for additional profits pushes things further up the chain whenever we can get away with it.

Again though, this isn't a problem with money in itself, although problems CAN occur when you start ****ing with monetary policy (for instance, messing with the money supply over the long run and causing undesirable levels of inflation). Paying off your debts by simply printing more money doesn't necessarily SOLVE the underlying problem. It just buys you time.

I guess someone could try to create a value system based on the ammount of work needed to produce things...

What about that suggestion, non-exchangeable credits?
It might still not reflect the true value of things, but it could be a more fair and safe system.

E.g: with 10000 credits, you can own a small house, a car and a computer. You'll gain 200 credits every month if you keep working. Does it seem possible?

[devonin]

Re: A world without money.

Sure, the NBA player is pretty heavily overpaid, but when you made this analogy you definitely didn't realize how much CEOs are overpaid as well, especially in the United States.

Though I certainly agree that professional athletes are overpaid in the absolute sense, they -do- have a perfectly valid justification to be paid more per year than would be maybe more proper for what they do.

Professional athletes start training for their career as young as 3 or 4 years old, and basically have to dedicate their entire upbringing to that sport. By the time they are 17-19 (depending on sport) and old enough to be drafted into a professional league, they've spent more years on their 'education' than Doctors, and have as few as 10 years of prime conditioning in which to live out their career.

In that 10 years they basically have to make 45 years worth of income, because once they can't cut it as a professional athlete anymore, the majority of them have no education in another field, and very few transferable skills. And at any time, the wrong kind of injury can invalidate the entire course of their life, leaving them with nothing.

Mostly they retire onto their profits, or just slowly work their way down the existing leagues for another 10 or 15 years making dramatically and progresively less money.

I mean, it's their free choice to get into a career where the training takes more years than the career does, but if we're going to incentivise professional athleticism, it makes sense that they've got to earn their entire life's salary over the ten or fifteen years they actually have proper earning power.

[Reincarnate]

Re: A world without money.

Let me put it this way, guys: How many athletes do you know of are actually good enough to participate with the others in the NBA? And, after you answer that question, consider this: After all profits are acquired, how do you appropriately divide said profits?

Athletes are paid what they are because of the fans. Without so much fan appeal -- without so many people watching/getting tickets to the games and reading/writing/caring about the players -- they wouldn't get paid what they do. You might be busting your ass off at your 9-5, but consider how much revenue pro players bring in and just how many people are being entertained at the same time. Further consider the advertising revenue and the profits generated to sponsors, etc.

It's all the result of market forces and value addition. You might sit back and say "Gah! These CEOs are paid so much! These NBA players are paid so much!" but you also have to consider that these guys are adding lots of value. The problems come in when, say, a particular player isn't really leveraging the skill that got them there (someone getting paid a ****load for a game they didn't really do squat in) or when a player gets greedy and jacks up salary demands past what market equilibrium/reasonable thresholds would imply (a sort of moral hazard -- the salary is meant to be seen as an investment of your value addition. You shoudn't get lazy just because you know the reward is coming, but this is why so many firms get into variable compensations and bonuses based on value addition on top of a given base). It's easy for the average joe to get pissed off at some NBA player who puts in a matter of hours in and reaps millions... but hey, if you think you're good enough to play alongside these guys, feel free to try it.

Same goes for actors, hedge fund managers, etc. You can have relatively small groups with extreme profits -- you just have to benefit a LOT of people with your tentacles of influence.

[Reincarnate]

Re: A world without money.

I guess someone could try to create a value system based on the ammount of work needed to produce things...

What about that suggestion, non-exchangeable credits?
It might still not reflect the true value of things, but it could be a more fair and safe system.

E.g: with 10000 credits, you can own a small house, a car and a computer. You'll gain 200 credits every month if you keep working. Does it seem possible?

Your system doesn't solve anything. How is saying "with 10,000 credits you can buy a house" any different from saying "with X dollars I can buy a house" -- only now you're limiting what people can buy as a way to keep resources at bay?

[Rubin0]

Re: A world without money.

I don't think human beings can exist without some sort of barter system. Money is just a refined way people have treaded for goods and services since the beginning of our species. If it weren't dollars, it would be shells, or something shiny. Even other primates have primitive form of barter systems. I scratch your back if you scratch mine. I'll give you this banana if you pick out the bugs from my fur. It's just the way we intelligent mammals role.

[Stewie7Griffin]

Re: A world without money.

Sure, the NBA player is pretty heavily overpaid, but when you made this analogy you definitely didn't realize how much CEOs are overpaid as well, especially in the United States.

They may be overpaid, but I believe they should be paid way more than the NBA players. Not to bump up their salary, but to dumb down the NBA's salary.

[mhss1992]

Re: A world without money.

Your system doesn't solve anything. How is saying "with 10,000 credits you can buy a house" any different from saying "with X dollars I can buy a house" -- only now you're limiting what people can buy as a way to keep resources at bay?

You didn't pay attention. You can own one house, but your credits won't go down. You'll still have 10000 credits if you get the house. The number of credits only says what your privileges are.

[Reincarnate]

Re: A world without money.

You didn't pay attention. You can own one house, but your credits won't go down. You'll still have 10000 credits if you get the house. The number of credits only says what your privileges are.

You didn't pay attention. Your system doesn't solve anything. What do you think credit *is* to begin with?

[mhss1992]

Re: A world without money.

And I bet you'd give that answer to any system I proposed.

The difference is that there would be no direct exchange. Your privileges would be based on your credit level, but there would be no paper to give others when you acquired something. Perhaps a card like an ID would be enough.

Most basic services would be free, research would be free and there would still exist an incentive for work. There would have to be boundaries due to material limitations, but still, why wouldn't it be better?

[Reincarnate]

Re: A world without money.

And I bet you'd give that answer to any system I proposed.

If the system doesn't solve anything, then yeah, I'm going to say it doesn't solve anything.

The difference is that there would be no direct exchange. Your privileges would be based on your credit level, but there would be no paper to give others when you acquired something. Perhaps a card like an ID would be enough.

Most basic services would be free, research would be free and there would still exist an incentive for work. There would have to be boundaries due to material limitations, but still, why wouldn't it be better?

It doesn't matter how you word this stuff. You cannot handwave costs by just making random assumptions and redefining things.

You're basically saying "Work X amount and you'll have a score increase -- and this score determines what you can buy." We hit a score of 100,000 or something and now we can buy a house. It doesn't matter that this variable isn't "exchangeable." If you're going to say "these are all the items you can achieve with this score," then it's the same as if we had a monetary system where we could pay a dollar amount equal to the sum of the prices of the items in question.

Renaming the system to be in terms of "nonexchangeable credits" doesn't get us anywhere. It's still an exchange -- we're exchanging goods and services. The utility increase of my work output results in an ability to purchase the outputs of others. Only now you're basically limiting what people can actually have.