Moneyless society : Would it benefit society?

[alxian]

capitalism is "person for profit"

 

people be damned.

[infamous]

capitalism is the person for profit

 

people be damned.

If, "capitalism is the person", then you say; "people be damned", sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. I believe if you'll think about it, the "people" in a capitalistic system have the same opportunity as the "person" to earn the profit if they will use some initiative.

[Qfwfq]

A couple of remarks about what has been said.

 

No money doesn't really mean no resources. You could start organizing a productive activity in a barter society Buffy, provided you have the necessary resources including anything tradeable for the labour. Incentive isn't necessarily in greenbacks. Jewels for the girls and whiskey can be and have often been incentivating. So can rice and flour. Money is simply easier to manage because it is standard.

 

Use of money is really just a straightforward evolution from barter.

 

Before symbolic cash, quite a recent thing which greatly enhances problems such as inflation, money was in coins of precious or semiprecious metals and the value was the actual value of the metal. No more no less.

 

Before actually minted coins the metals were used in whatever form and had to be evaluated at each deal, not only weighed but judged for purity. The old habit of biting gold coins comes from this. Obviously it was handy for merchants to use silver and gold as universal goods for barter, eventually came the brilliant idea of coins.

 

Even minting coins takes a recognized and trusted authority, it was at first but simply a standardization of quantities of metal, along with the sovereign's garantee. Just a step to further simplify barter.

 

This didn't happen uniformly across the known world. When minted coins were already circulating across Europe and Middle East, Scandinavians didn't yet have it and didn't consider it a guarantee, so they considered gold and silver coins exactly as bits of these metals. When offered coins by European traders they weighed them. When then trading them in their lands these coins would even be split as necessary instead of traded for lesser coins. Just like any bit of gold or silver used for trade.

 

If instead the question meant "without barter" it could only mean substisence economy, whether agricultural or hunter-gatherer or both.

 

If it meant "without resources" well, Aki, sorry, but people sure wouldn't be having much of a party!

[alxian]

Incentive isn't necessarily in greenbacks.

 

aka duress or slavery, or a yet more insidious term... volunteerism.. *shudders violently.

[lindagarrette]

 

Use of money is really just a straightforward evolution from barter.

 

Before symbolic cash, quite a recent thing which greatly enhances problems such as inflation, money was in coins of precious or semiprecious metals and the value was the actual value of the metal. No more no less.

 

Excellent point. In a free market economy, value would be reflected in price, but "virtual" money promotes focus on speculation, a different concept.

[CraigD]

I think it inevitable that we will someday be a cashless world. 'Cash' is just 'trading' for goods, we will always 'trade' but it will be a more direct trading, one good for another.

Your statement is contrary to the conventional view, which holds that there will always be trade, but that it has trended and will continue to become less, not more, direct.

 

I’ve some experience living in “experimental”, or “alternative” societies where “cash” or any kind is consensually prohibited. Much time and effort is spent in negotiation – eg: how much barley is a fair trade for a bicycle chain, or an hours worth of wood-chopping? While this was fun for a couple of months, most of the people I know who have tried it either gave up on the idea of trade altogether, embracing a “what’s mine is yours, what’s yours is mine” ethic, or secretly reembraced “standards of trade” – in other words, cash.

 

What is your rationale for the conclusion “we will always ‘trade’”? Have you evaluated them in term of the “scarcity” and “abundance” I describe in post #11?

[Qfwfq]

They call it electronic money, or electronic cash, dduckwessel.

 

aka duress or slavery, or a yet more insidious term... volunteerism.. *shudders violently.

I really fail to see your point Alxian.

 

If you get a few pearls in exchange for your labour, maybe even a diamond for a lot of labour, would that be slavery? :hihi: Barter is clumsy but it doesn't imply slavery.

[nkt]

Volunteerism works well in some circumstances. Self-organisation works better than anything else a lot of the time, it is more flexible and nicer for all involved. However, it will generally only work for a short time, as people lose the motivation to clean the toilets, etc. after a few days, and unless they are paid with food and other essentials at the right times, they will get upset and leave. They might just go do another task, or they might take a break, but they might become a parasite and simply claim to be working to get food, for example.

 

Qfwfq, getting a diamond isn't much use, unless you can trade it for something useful. It would be like having a £10,000 bearer bond and no hope for change - if you have to use it in a shop, you can empty the change draw, and the shop, but then what? You didn't get the full value of the diamond, and you can't carry all that food without other payment, plus, of course, anything fresh or frozen will rapidly spoil. So suddenly you lose say 25% of your wealth, and you have to become a shop-keeper!

 

In the situation where you aren't starving or thirsty, you can pick and choose, but if you were dying, you might be forced to barter that diamond for a few liters of water and a large meal.

 

And, of course, the only reason for diamonds being expensive is the enforced scarcity caused by De Beers, and you might find that your diamond wasn't really worth much any more! Sure, they are great for cutters and shiny things, but in daily life?

 

We are, of course, already seeing the effects of the change from a scarity to an abundance society.

 

Free things are far more common now than 20 years ago, as now we are all well fed, internet connected, and have time to post on boards such as these. We are now in an abundant knowledge society. What formerly took years of study, trust building, apprenticeship, etc. are now available to people in a few seconds via a search engine, along with enough details and the like to ensure that even just an interested party can find more than they could ever wish to know about almost any subject.

 

Of course, as I pointed out elsewhere, this effect is caused because we earn enough that we have free time and therefore freely contribute to forums and web pages without expecting anything more back than the occasional compliment, the chance to show how clever we are, the opportunity to hear our own voices, or the socially positive side of having a chat with friends, even if we then leave evidence of that talk for future generations to stumble upon.

 

If we were still working 15 hours a day down the pit to break even, we wouldn't be giving our knowledge away on here for free to strangers, we would be hopeing to charge a little for it (at least). The death of the web design market shows this is true and disruptive - there are no middle ground web designers any more. High end sites costs thousands, and low end sites are free templates or £20 favours. Nothing happens at the £500 mark any more, because there are so many people chasing so little work, and that's before we even mention outsourcing issues, where for £5 an hour (UK minimum wage is £4-20) skilled people in India will happily turn out web pages, databases and bespoke programs for you, then email the results once payment is transferred over.

 

In the end, money talks volumes about scarcity. Things needed fast cost more, things hard to get, make or move cost more. Modern manufacturing means that things rapidly become so cheap as to be meaningless, but then become rapidly scarce once the production lines stop.

[Qfwfq]

Qfwfq, getting a diamond isn't much use, unless you can trade it for something useful.

It can usually get you almost any of the coolest chicks in town. Why have gold and silver always been so expensive, do you think equally rare substances of no interest would have been equally precious? I don't see the point of your objection.

 

The rest of that paragraph is obvious, presumeably you hadn't read my post that Alxian was replying to but appearently hadn't understood. A £10,000 bearer bond can be handy for buying a car or anything worth more than that amount. It can be used by a merchant to pay for a large stock of wholesale.

 

When the Euro had just come into tender, a rather silly journalist over here wrote an article about the rather silly experiment he had done. He was going into little ordinary town cafès and ordering a cup of espresso, and then attempting to pay with a €500 note. Obviously few bartenders were willing to take it and give him his change, they more typically told him to go f. himself. He sure was a genius, wasn't he?

[nkt]

That wasn't the point of my post.

 

Bread is needed to live, diamonds and gold are not. Therefore bread has an intrinsic value, and gold does not. Scarcity and greed, combined with the status quo, make a small amount of gold worth more, combined with the ease with which it can be divided up, and the simple chemical fact that it holds it's "value" whilst bread goes mouldy.

 

After a few hours on a hot coach, a can of drink can be sold for far more than the wholesalers can.

 

Give the chick the diamond. Starve to death eating all the gold you can find. You might die rich.

 

If that journo had been starving and thirsty, and there was no money system, he would have starved some more, until he found someone willing to swap him the worthless paper (or diamond) for something that could save his life. Whether he would have gotten a good deal out of that scenario is an excerise for the reader.

 

Another thing I forgot to talk about is that with the end of scarcity, we find that 90% of people are actually worthless. They are no use for anything, not even cannon fodder, and simply drain the system. Yet they all expect the welfare state to support them to the tune of a big TV and a house. Most of the work is done by a few skilled people who use machines to multiply the effect they have thousands fold. We don't need gangs of navvies any more, as we use a single JCB and a dumper truck.

 

What use the masses?

[Qfwfq]

That wasn't the point of this whole thread nkt.

 

The title is about a moneyless society, not about surviving in the Sahara. Barter worked well for millenia before the first coins. These actually went against the fact that gold can be split up easily, and they sure weren't of small denominations. They were simply a handier standard than pieces of various sizes, for merchants and anyone dealing in large valuables. Up till the past few centuries the ordinary guy hardly ever saw money, only cereals and other necessities. Even clothes weren't a frequent purchase for many people. Minting coins didn't replace barter just from one day to the next.

 

Another thing I forgot to talk about is that with the end of scarcity, we find that 90% of people are actually worthless. They are no use for anything, not even cannon fodder, and simply drain the system. Yet they all expect the welfare state to support them to the tune of a big TV and a house. Most of the work is done by a few skilled people who use machines to multiply the effect they have thousands fold. We don't need gangs of navvies any more, as we use a single JCB and a dumper truck.

 

What use the masses?

Well, what are you waiting for? Kill them all! Every last one of them! Quit letting them suck your blood like that! :hihi:

[nkt]

That wasn't the point of this whole thread nkt.

 

The title is about a moneyless society, not about surviving in the Sahara. Barter worked well for millenia before the first coins. These actually went against the fact that gold can be split up easily, and they sure weren't of small denominations. They were simply a handier standard than pieces of various sizes, for merchants and anyone dealing in large valuables. Up till the past few centuries the ordinary guy hardly ever saw money, only cereals and other necessities. Even clothes weren't a frequent purchase for many people. Minting coins didn't replace barter just from one day to the next.

No, but if we replaced money with barter right now, I'd do really well, since I have lots of stuff, whereas someone who doesn't have a lot of stuff might have real problems. Likewise, I would have problems finding people who want the items I have, in spite of the high value of them. I'm selling laser tubes and power supplies, and getting 10% of the new prices, even on the huge marketplace that is ebay. To do the same around the local town, I would have to accept almost nothing for them to get bread. It's almost the same as the diamond.

 

Money is a sound basis for mutal value extraction. Barter for the price of everything is not, and those with goods that are considered to be luxury goods are going to be worth nothing to some, and lots to others, and diamonds worth to a very few.

 

Well, what are you waiting for? Kill them all! Every last one of them! Quit letting them suck your blood like that! :lol:

Great idea. Carry on. :hihi:

 

Seriously, however, in a barter society, how would large goods be handled? Or things such as taxes? It's hard to take 10% (or 40%) or a diamond or a TV, and harder still to then give that to others so they can eat for free on welfare. People with no ability, no knowledge and no goods are going to be stuck. And there are plenty of them who have no work ethic at all. And sadly, they *are* society...

 

And what about subscription models? Posting a handful of grain a month for your magazine subscription? How about the stamps? Are they money?

[Qfwfq]

Now, let's see, you appear to be supposing two things and neither was specified in this thread.

 

1)That moneyless society meant localized economy. I have talked about the history of the whole thing, which spontaneously brought to currency, initially simplifying transactions for only some people. Back into this history, however, barter of arbitrary weights of gold and other precious items was working for both local and wide scale economies. There was certainly a difference between what big shots were exchanging and what the small fry were, and I said this even today. Do you read posts before replying to them? States were taking tributes in many forms. In the later medieval days, when farmers began to pay taxes to their lord instead of being his property, the most common form was a specific share of produce. The lords handled currency of course.

 

2)That the discussion was about suddenly removing the legal tender of money, without national banks taking it in for the value that it represents.

 

In any case, I don't think the world is going to go back to barter except in the event of catastrophy. As I said last week, the steps from pure barter to Credit and ATM cards have been a quite natural historic course toward handier means of negotiating deals and settling debts.

[nkt]

Now, let's see, you appear to be supposing two things and neither was specified in this thread.

Talking Moneyless society : Would it benefit society?

What are the pro's and con's of a society based on Money compared to a society not based on money?

 

KiZzI

 

1)That moneyless society meant localized economy. I have talked about the history of the whole thing, which spontaneously brought to currency, initially simplifying transactions for only some people. Back into this history, however, barter of arbitrary weights of gold and other precious items was working for both local and wide scale economies. There was certainly a difference between what big shots were exchanging and what the small fry were, and I said this even today. Do you read posts before replying to them? States were taking tributes in many forms. In the later medieval days, when farmers began to pay taxes to their lord instead of being his property, the most common form was a specific share of produce. The lords handled currency of course.

So how was that a moneyless society? In the times preceding that money for the lords to trade, it must have been far harder to move a ton of grain, 5000 cabbages with a shelflife of three days, and 250 sheep. And what do you swap them for? More of the same? After a three day journey at 7mph, those cabages aren't worth nearly as much as the locally grown fresh ones that aren't covered in road grim... This implies a localised economy.

 

That would seem to be a con to me, as requested by the OP.

2)That the discussion was about suddenly removing the legal tender of money, without national banks taking it in for the value that it represents.

 

In any case, I don't think the world is going to go back to barter except in the event of catastrophy. As I said last week, the steps from pure barter to Credit and ATM cards have been a quite natural historic course toward handier means of negotiating deals and settling debts.

Again, as the OP asked for pros and cons, I'm trying to explain the biggest con in a society such as ours, which you seem to not be getting. If you only have a large (or indivisible) inedible thing to trade, it becomes far less important the hungrier you get. The other issue is how do you get change. And if you do, how do you carry it?

 

The example of a magazine subscription was an amusing point. You could send eggs, I suppose, instead of grain, if they were worth more to the editors. :hihi:

[infamous]

Money is only a term to describe a medium of exchange. Whether it is made of paper or gold, whether it is a form of barter or any other type of exchange, it could still be called money even if it's only a digital record. Unless you want to live like a hermit and provide all of your goods and services for yourself independent of any help, some form of exchange is neccessary in a civilized society. Get used to it.................................

[Qfwfq]

Money is only a term to describe a medium of exchange. Whether it is made of paper or gold, whether it is a form of barter or any other type of exchange.................................

It's called money if it's denominated in some standard amounts. A pound was once the value of a pound of silver.

[nkt]

That's true. "Money" only means something when there is a standard (or set of standards) for it. That might be by mass or purity or size or whatever, but today it is generally the words printed on it. Or even just the words themselves, by mutual... well, not consent, exactly, more like status quo, as with things like the PayPal or NoChex systems.

 

Hence, as spheres of influence decline, trading money can become a barter in and of itself, as those on the edges or outside the sphere of one currency often charge more of it than they otherwise could. Of course, with the global money system as it is now, this doesn't go on so much. (Only hotel change shops really get away with it!)