Moderated Money/inequalities - Part 3 / Poll - willing to work for free?

[Gaetan]

Don't forget, that's money who makes people rich or poor.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Remember, it's the number of people in a household that determines if a family is big of small.

Look, I too can make ambiguous statements using undefined measurements to determine subjective quantity/quality.

Who is richer, one person with an income of 50k/yr, one couple with an income of 75k/yr, or a 3 person family that gets tax credits to have an income of 90k/yr?

 

[Leftus]

Don't forget, that's money who makes people rich or poor.

Is it inches that make someone tall or short?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Don't forget, that's money who makes people rich or poor.

Don't forget, it's birthdays that make people old or young.

Let's abolish birthdays and live forever.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

But when money will be abolished the loans that squeeze your neck will break off, won't you feel more safe not being a slave anymore.

I have 1 loan. I'm not currently paying it back because I'm not earning enough. In the year 2034 it will be fully written off no matter how much (if any) of it I pay. If I move abroad it will be written off in 6 months.

I don't feel pressured by my loans.

 

[bruto]

I would add that while of course our definition of "rich and poor" depends on the existence of money, simply because money has been a cultural constant for millennia, I do not think that eliminating it will change the tendency of people to compete for power and influence and domination over others. A major reason why rich and poor exist now is not the fault of money itself but of the machinations of people who discriminate and dominate and use non-financial means to guarantee that wealth goes to the "right" place. Eliminating money just means they'll need other symbols of domination - be it wives or cattle or slaves or skulls on the fenceposts or simply some certification of approval. An impecunious noble has always had a greater share of certain kinds of power than a rich commoner.

Money has certain advantage in that, being an intermediary in the struggle, it can be regulated and controlled in ways that will not be possible if we remove the mediation and try simply to regulate human nature.

All of which is not to say that many aspects of our society and our economy are not deeply flawed and in need of great overhaul. The potential for taming economic inequity has been traditionally unmet. Others, in other threads, have attempted (with limited success, I think) to address the reification of money (considering it a thing in itself, rather than as a means to do something), and the consequent phenomenon of people seeking money for its own sake or for its symbolic value rather than for its inherent value as a fungible medium of trade. That's an interesting issue, but I suspect that if money did not exist as a medium of trade, people would still seek some symbolic emblem of status other than money. If the coalition of the corrupt and cupidinous cannot stand above the rest of us by having more money than they can use they'll find some other way to do it, and I'm not sure I want to stick around and find out what lethal and oppressive means they'll invent to do it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

An impecunious noble has always had a greater share of certain kinds of power than a rich commoner.

That's an interesting point. I might say "always had" rather than "has always had". Being "noble" traditionally meant being related to the land-owning classes, and that meant privilege because land, whether you farmed it directly or rented it out, was the basic source of material wealth. Tradesmen or merchants might get rich, but they didn't own the means of wealth production. Of course the industrial revolution tipped that balance away from the landowners as that wasn't where the real profits were any more.

 

[Leftus]

Don't forget, that's money who makes people rich or poor.

"I do not care if the guy is yellow or black, or if he has stripes like a ******' zebra. I'm the manager of this team, and I say he plays. What's more, I say he can make us all rich. And if any of you cannot use the money, I will see that you are all traded."

- Leo Durocher on Jackie Robinson.

Money, not altruism, helped Baseball break the color barrier.

 

[bruto]

That's an interesting point. I might say "always had" rather than "has always had". Being "noble" traditionally meant being related to the land-owning classes, and that meant privilege because land, whether you farmed it directly or rented it out, was the basic source of material wealth. Tradesmen or merchants might get rich, but they didn't own the means of wealth production. Of course the industrial revolution tipped that balance away from the landowners as that wasn't where the real profits were any more.

True enough, but I think even a landless noble had a certain political privilege, as well as a social standing, that was unavailable to commoners. Even though material wealth has many undeniable advantages, class can count for something, including much of the time, an advantage in acquiring wealth. Without money the economic advantage of class might be eliminated, but not necessarily class itself.

I think Gaetan has taken to heart the maxim that money is the root of all evil, whereas I believe it is often only the route.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's the love of money that's the root of all evil.

Money's probably a bit pissed off that people keep misquoting that.

 

[abaddon]

Don't forget, that's money who makes people rich or poor.

No money is merely a way to keep score. If money is eliminated, a different method of measurement will take it's place.

You have simply chosen "who can grab the most stuff" as your preferred unit of measure.

 

[Gaetan]

I would add that while of course our definition of "rich and poor" depends on the existence of money, simply because money has been a cultural constant for millennia,

That's the syndrome of Stockholm, being under that prison system for thousand years people are afraid to get rid of it and look for freedom.

I do not think that eliminating it will change the tendency of people to compete for power and influence and domination over others. .

The system of money is a system that ease up all that if you have more fire arms in circulation more people will be killed because it's easy to use it to kill some body.

 

[bruto]

That's the syndrome of Stockholm, being under that prison system for thousand years people are afraid to get rid of it and look for freedom.



The system of money is a system that ease up all that if you have more fire arms in circulation more people will be killed because it's easy to use it to kill some body.

I realize English can be a problem sometimes but that last part is pretty difficult to parse.

It sounds as if you believe making firearms free will make them go away. Changing the way that guns are acquired will not make it less easy to kill someone with them. A gun kills whether it's bought with illegal drug money, stolen, or free.

If you can't flaunt your power and prowess with bling and money, it just might be easier to do it by being the most ruthless killer around. Be careful what you hope for.

 

[Gaetan]

I have 1 loan. I'm not currently paying it back because I'm not earning enough. In the year 2034 it will be fully written off no matter how much (if any) of it I pay. If I move abroad it will be written off in 6 months.

I don't feel pressured by my loans.

When you have been in prison since you were born it is hard to appreciate what it's like to be free.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

When you have been in prison since you were born it is hard to appreciate what it's like to be free.

Perhaps civilization is overrated.

Gaetan, the problem you have in persuading people to accept that your idea is a good one is not that they can't imagine what would happen. It's that they can imagine.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The problem is gaetan that removing money would only make sense in a post scarcity world. If star trek style matter replicators were invented then sure, there is no need for money because we can generate everything we need in abundance so there is no want.

The problem is we don't live in that world. There is a limited amount of resources available to everyone, so it has to be rationed in some way. The best way to ration resources is to have a method of exchange for them. I do work growing apples and you trade me something that you have produced for my apples. This is how a barter economy started out. I want Jack's pigs and he wants my apples so we work out how many apples would be equal to a pig and we swap.

The problem with barter economies is that they only work in the smallest scale. I can trade you my apples for a pig, but my country can't do that. My country can't simply take my apples and give me nothing in order to get pigs from another country because then I'm out with no compensation. Therefore a convenient method of exchange was created. That was called money.

Money is simply a convenient and understood method of exchange for goods and services. That's all.

The problem you have gaetan is that you are not proposing any methods of balances to fight corruption. Sure, there is corruption within modern economies, but you can't remove it just but getting rid of money.

Let's say we abolish money today. Ok, so what is to stop someone who wants to from taking more food than me out of the collective pool? What is to stop him from refusing to work?

In fact let's go into that in more detail. We have a person, let's call him John Smith. John works as an it specialist in a nondescript office. He wakes up one morning and finds that a visionary leader with an adorable duckling as his symbol has taken over his country, and in his first act, abolished money.

John is worried, without money, how will he pay for food from the store? He has to go shopping today because his cupboard is getting low on food and to be frank, he needs more shampoo. So after work he goes to the store. He asks one of the store workers how he's supposed to get food now theres no money. He gets told hey, don't worry! You can take whatever you need. The store isnt a store anymore, it's a food allocation building.

Ok, thinks john, so he takes what he wants and leaves. He goes into work the next day and asks his boss how hes getting paid, afterall there's no money now. His boss says hey, dont worry! You dont get paid because everyone can take what they want from the food distribution buildings and live in a nice house. No money, so no need to worry about hunger or shelter!

So john goes home and thinks. He never liked his job anyway, and since he feels a bit under the weather, he takes the day off. He realises he forgot to get something at the store though! So he goes back in. Hes nervous because he hasnt been to work, but when he arrives he just takes what he wants and leaves. No one tries to stop him. None of these people know he skipped work.

So he stops going entirely. He spends his days reading and his nights hanging out with a few friends. Next week rolls around and he realises he needs more food. So he goes to the store again. Hes really worried now, hes done no work for a week! Surely he can't get food now?

So gaetan, what is to stop him? What about the week after? The month after? How about next year? Money has been abolished and he still needs to eat. What is to stop him from never working again?

Let's move past that one now, and say that he has always lived in a nice house. It's not a mansion, but its comfortable and roomy. Suddenly, while john is half way through moby dick one day, theres a knock on the door. John opens it to a tall, well built stranger. The stranger says he wants the house. In fact hes come to take possession of it right now, and if john doesn't hand over the keys and move out, this man will beat john to a pulp and simply take the house from him.

What is to stop him?

The police? What if they have decided they don't want to risk their lives dealing with nutters anymore so they're no longer working?

See its stuff like this that's the issue. If you could adequately answer these concerns I'm sure more people would be receptive to your ideas. If you had a concrete, logical plan for how to organize society people would hear you out and some might even support you.

But you don't have that. You don't have any answers to these questions. You don't have any kind of plan for how to organize society. You have literally zero idea of how anything would work, you just insist, more and more aggressively that it would work but you never once explain how, and I think that's because you cannot explain.

 

[Gaetan]

People will realize that they have to work if they ought to have free goods in the market, i am not worry about that. In case they forget medias and the community will tell them.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

If someone has to work, then it's not free.

 

[abaddon]

People will realize that they have to work if they ought to have free goods in the market, i am not worry about that. In case they forget medias and the community will tell them.

Compulsory labour is called slavery. You are proposing a system of slavery.

 

[bruto]

Compulsory labour is called slavery. You are proposing a system of slavery.

Oh yes but it's without money so it's beautiful and pure. Social order will be maintained by bluebirds with bayonets.