I love money...

[wyldwolf]

...I'm glad I have a little to feed my family and donate to causes I find worthy.

I wish I had more like http://www.prime-tass.com/news/72/opened/20030312/317686.asp">Jimmy Walter

[Birthmark]

1. Do you really?

Or do you merely love what society allows you to do with it? Sounds like the latter to me.

[wyldwolf]

3. Well, of course...

... money, wampa, rocks, beads... it isn't the physical object used for trade, it's what it represents.

If our "money" were icecubes, I'd still love having it.

[Birthmark]

4. So, it isn't the money.

If you could still accumulate all the nice things that you have without money, you'd not miss money at all.

[wyldwolf]

6. But that is fantasy...

... and I'm a realist.

To accumulate things, something must be given up in trade. There are all kinds of things that can be used as money. Money isn't necessarily the greenbacks or pocketchange you have.

Sex is money.
Work is money
rocks are money.
beads are money.

Money is a medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values.

Not to be confused with currency

[Birthmark]

9. Are you one of the realists...

...that thinks Mike Tyson's $400 million, which is more than all of the Nobel Laureate Physicists in the last X years (probably in all history), is an accurate measure of value to society? lol

Tell me, if the economy is not shared delusion, then upon what is it ultimately based.

[wyldwolf]

13. That is a silly argument...

I believe in the free market. If people want to support Tyson to the tune of $400 million and NOT the Nobel Laureates, that isn't Mike Tyson's fault. And it isn't meant as a measure of value to society beyond economics. Anything moral and ethical is personal and you obviously have a personal opinion . lol!!!

The economy a share delusion? LOL!

[Birthmark]

17. If the economy isn't a shared delusion...

...then it should be child's play to show upon what such an important aspect of our society is founded. Is there any rational basis underlying the economy? I submit that it is irrational.

[wyldwolf]

23. It is founded on...

...man's need to obtain the things that will sustain him. Child's play.

There really is no difference in PAYING someone to mow your lawn than trading a side of meat for the lawn work. In this case, the work on the lawn and the side of meat become money. Without which, we would all be left to our own devices. If I couldn't cut my own grass, and had nothing to trade to get the job done, the job would not get done.

The alternative would be to either learn to do it myself, which would result (if the analogy is society) a totally "every man for himself" society (classic conservativism) or rely on someone to do it for me with nothing given in return (classic socialism.)

Fortunately, liberalism (which invented regulated capitalism) is the happy medium.

[Birthmark]

28. Needed to sustain?

In your example, meat is definitely can fall into the category of need. However, lawn mowing clearly does not. You will not die if your lawn looks like a wheat field. You will not even be harmed.

"Need" plays a miniscule role in our economy. The word you are looking for is "want." "Want" is not rational. Your answer is insufficient to explain the basis of the economy.

[Rabrrrrrr]

29. So then you're going for an "every man for himself"

society. Lovely.

One guy has thirty-two sides of beef, more than he can eat. Another guy has no food, but is good at mowing a lawn. Meat guy can't trade for a lawn mowing cuz lawn mowing is a "want", not a "need", so meat guy sits back and says, "Ah, fuck it - if he can't feed himself, screw him."

you can replace mowing guy with "sculptor" or "musician" or "doctor" or "carpenter".

[Birthmark]

32. Is that what I'm saying?

Nice of you to tell me. :)

[wyldwolf]

30. You make a proclamation that my answer is insufficient?

A lawn was just an example. You know that but you're nit picking now because you're making less and less sense.

Trade out the lawn for needed medical attention, then, and you MAY see the light.

[Birthmark]

33. I see the light, alright.

And it's a candle flame in an inferno. How much of our economy is actually based upon need rather than want? Even medical care.

[wyldwolf]

35. Most of our economy is based on need.

...and even that which is based on want is still an individual's call. And you're really tap dancing around the issue now.

[Birthmark]

38. No tap dancing here.

You are simply wrong. Very little of our economy is based on need. I have a house chock full of crap that I don't really need. I want(ed) most of it, but don't need it.

Aside from food, rudimentary shelter, etc., almost everything we buy is superfluous. Economics is a shared delusion based on nothing rational in the least. Who sells raw materials? How did they get right? How were labor costs calculated? And so on. They are all based upon silliness.

[wyldwolf]

39. I am simply wrong... ok... yeah, right....

... have a nice time in your fantasy world.

[Birthmark]

41. Actually...

...I'm tending towards dreamland. It's getting pretty late here.

However, you have claimed that the economy runs on necessity; I have claimed that it runs on wants. I'm comfortable with my position.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. I like it too

It represents that I get to eat, have an apartment, and take the occasional vacation and enjoy that bottle of scotch.

i think money is just fine. money worship, that's a problem.

[Birthmark]

5. No.

It causes others to let you have food, an apartment, take a vacation, and a bottle of scotch (which is nasty stuff.) ;)

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. I guess I'm not seeing the semantic difference

You're trying to achieve with that post.

(I like scotch, though - perhaps for you, a nice iced tea? Or a belgian beer?)

[wyldwolf]

8. yeah, me too...

I consider myself fairly intelligent but I just don't see his/her point.

[Birthmark]

12. Let me check my drawers.

I'm a boy - and what a boy!!! The serious answer is in the post(s) above. My apologies for going slowly, but I'm thinking this through as we go along. :)

[Birthmark]

10. Maker's Mark for me, please.

I'm saying that the money is superfluous. It is merely a scorekeeper's entry. The game doesn't change at all in its absence.

[wyldwolf]

15. Now THAT's funny!

"The game doesn't change at all in its absence."

The game, in it's absence, turns to poverty. Poor, or no, education. Etc.

I personally would not like my game to turn that way.

[Birthmark]

18. Really?

Against what would "poverty" be measured?

[wyldwolf]

24. Well, in money's absence (which is what we are discussing)

..povery would be measured in the inability to provide for yourself or to not possess the necessary means to provide for yourself.

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. Ah, good choice! I like Maker's mark

The game changes a lot once the scorekeeping is gone. Without it, we're back to bartering.

No, give me money. Simplifies the entire exchange of goods.

[Birthmark]

19. Why bartering?

Is this not based upon the idea of scarcity?

[Rabrrrrrr]

22. Get rid of money, what the hell do you have

to get products, other than bartering?

Anything else becomes money. Unless we go back to a truly make-your-own crap live a nomadic life and have only what you find kind of living. but even then, I bet you'd still find a way to put value on the person who makes a good tent, and say to them, "make me a nice tent, and I will gather food for you for as many days as it takes you to make the tent."

[wyldwolf]

25. I think what this guy is trying to get at is....

...we should ALL either rely on the invisible cloud being to take care of us, rely on the government to take care of us, or take care of ourselves AND NOT barter/sell our services or goods to anyone else.

I mean, really, what other could there be? He is either endorsing "every man for yourself and fuck everyone else" conservativism or a bastard version of socialism where nobody does anything but we get provided for by a larger entity.

Anything else is bartering or, money.

[Rabrrrrrr]

27. This is what I'm thinking

And I will ask, "What will the Maker's Mark company desire from you so strongly that they will be willing to give you bourbon for it?"

(not you, the spongebob guy, Birthmark)

[Birthmark]

31. What this guy is trying to get at...

...is that scarcity v. demand is what (ideally) determines a price. For instance, if cars were churned out at ten times the quantity they currently are the price would drop 90% - assuming a steady demand. If they were churned out at a billion times their current rate they would be functionally free.

We are currently in a position where we could produce very much more than we can consume, so any scarcity is artificially imposed. This will be a growing problem as more and more automation is introduced. Eventually, virtually everything will be done by machines. The only jobs left for humans will be art and science - and maybe not even them. This won't happen in my lifetime; but is almost certain by the time my great-grandchildren are grown. Capitalism will is ill-suited to such an environment. Money will be just as much an anachronism as trading skins.

You might as well face it.

[wyldwolf]

34. You've neglected one important aspect...

if cars were churned out at ten times the quantity they currently are the price would MIGHT drop 90% ASSUMING a steady demand. BUT the cost of the materials to manufacture them would either remain the same or increase as the resources were increasingly used.

Somewhere in the chain someone is spending money (which is the point here, right?). And the consumer, assuming your analogy is accurate, is STILL spending money, though 90% less.

We may be in a position where we could produce very much more than we can consume but, of course, natural resourse would become depleted faster - driving up their cost.

Capitalism may be ill-suited for your Star Trek society, but that isn't the case now.

You might as well face it.

[Birthmark]

36. Time to leave the 18th century!

"BUT the cost of the materials to manufacture them would either remain the same or increase as the resources were increasingly used."

Really? Who will be doing the selling? The machines? lol

"Somewhere in the chain someone is spending money (which is the point here, right?)."

Nope. There won't be any money.

"We may be in a position where we could produce very much more than we can consume but, of course, natural resourse would become depleted faster - driving up their cost."

Only the resources on Earth will be used up. We can ransack Mars just easily and cheaply for humans - assuming there's no life there.

"Capitalism may be ill-suited for your Star Trek society, but that isn't the case now."

Capitalism doesn't work well now. Do you know how many times capitalism has partially or totally broken down? It's appalling! The strength of capitalism isn't efficiency, but in diversity.

[wyldwolf]

37. It is the 21st century...

...the original discussion was on the manner and form of money, not some star trek pipe dream. You entire argument has broken down into wishful thinking.

UNREGULATED capitalism doesn't work well. Economic socialism (which you're proposing) works less well.

[Birthmark]

40. I'm proposing nothing.

I am making a prediction. It's really not much of a prediction since it is inevitable. It is a fact that producers are always attempting to reduce costs. It is a fact that technology is getting smarter. The logical conclusion is that machines will be intelligent enough to handle all repair, manufacturing, and administrative functions. A producer would be a fool not to use them. When that happens, either money or human beings become useless baggage. I think that most people will choose money.

And I believe we have broken down into two discussions at this point. Probably my fault, but I *did* warn you that I was thinking this through as I went along. :)

[Rabrrrrrr]

42. Perhaps if you had been clear since the beginning

That you aren't talking money at all, but are talking about a future world that is either a Terminator-esque dystopia in which machines have taken over and killed humanity or otherwise in which humans no longer exist, or an equally ugly world in which humans are still here but do nothing because of machines, and that you were basing your entire argument about the evils of money (not commerce, not currency) on the fact that it won't be necessary in the future because either humans will all be dead or machines will be diong everything, then perhaps our argumetn might have worked better, and we could have, instead of arguing about the merits of money, argued about the likely falsity of your futuring scenarios and the false premises upon which they are based.

I'm still completely lost in what you have been tyring to sy here. Did I get it right in the above paragraph? That because machines are becoming smarter, we'll end up never needing money or any other kind of economic exchange, nor will we ever need to work, and whatever we need will be miraculously placed in front of us or made available to us somehow for absolutely free, assuming humans still exist?

If so, you are wrong.

If not, please be clear on what you mean.

[thermodynamic]

14. In the way we've set up society, I tolerate money

I need it so I can live in an apartment, eat, drink, and be merry.

I still believe that if society based itself on co-operation to make itself a better place instead of playing favoritism to the greedy, we'd be a lot better off and we wouldn't have ANY of the problems we're in: Crime, dependence on oil caused by oil companies' preserving their pitiful monopoly, and so on...

Does all of this make me a commie liberal pinko? Damn straight it does! :D

[Birthmark]

20. Communism is nonsense

At least as it has been practiced. Frankly, that dictatorship of the proletariat idiocy is a nonstarter.

That said, the changes that are coming to society will impose an economy not unlike communism. No way around it. :)

[wyldwolf]

26. Sounds to me as though you are endorsing some bastard form of...

...socialism where we don't have to worry about anything and some big entity will take care of us.

I perish the thought.

[flyingfish]

11. The love of money is the root of all evil

Send your evil to me so I can dispose of it.
Cash or money orders.
No personal checks or credit.
Thank you.

[Birthmark]

21. I will immediately...

...send you all my roots.