Moneyless society : Would it benefit society?

[alxian]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Incentive isn't necessarily in greenbacks.

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

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

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.

[dduckwessel]

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.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by dduckwessel

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?

[dduckwessel]

Originally Posted by CraigD

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?

I was thinking more in terms of 'trading with cards' - cashless meaning, no actual cash but rather 'debit cards'. Prior to cash, human beings traded for whatever they needed, and it seemed to work quite well.

[Qfwfq]

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

Originally Posted by alxian

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? 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]

Originally Posted by nkt

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.

Originally Posted by nkt

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!