Could it work without money?

[The_Hamster_King]

@nilum

What is fact is things are more profitable if we make them scarce.

But most things aren’t like diamonds. They’re scarce because there really aren’t enough to go around, NOT because someone is hoarding them.

What you seem to be missing is that given that scarcity is an inherent property of the universe, SOMEONE or SOMETHING has to make the hard decisions about how scarce resources get allocated. So if you don’t like the current system of allocation you need to come up with a new one and demonstrate its viability.

Feudalism, for example, was a viable allocation system. A local tough guy would control everything near his fortress and use his personal sense of fairness to provide his peasants what they needed. And he had an interest in not trashing the place too badly because if he did the other nearby tough guys would move in and take over. It sucked for the individual peasants, but it successfully solved the problem of who controlled what in Europe for a thousand years.

What is the ZM solution to the allocation problem? A giant computer? That’s just stupid.

[suranyi]

@begbert2

What if I want to sell it, and retain the value in a form I can use easily later?

See the thing is, in that society, the gigantic computer makes all those decisions about who gets what, all in “the best interests of humanity.”

The computer is not human, so it isn’t biased like all real humans are. Its decisions are completely objective and guaranteed to be correct.

Supposedly.

[John_Mace]

@Cisco

Or maybe there were few of them because they lived in harmony with the environment.

The reason there were so “few” of them is that by the time Europeans arrived in most of Continent, disease had already spread and killed many of them. The Americas were much more heavily populated in pre-Columbian times than most people think.

There is plenty of evidence of Native American societies collapsing because of environmental degradation, btw.

[begbert2]

@The_Hamster_King

But most things aren’t like diamonds. They’re scarce because there really aren’t enough to go around, NOT because someone is hoarding them.

What you seem to be missing is that given that scarcity is an inherent property of the universe, SOMEONE or SOMETHING has to make the hard decisions about how scarce resources get allocated. So if you don’t like the current system of allocation you need to come up with a new one and demonstrate its viability.

Feudalism, for example, was a viable allocation system. A local tough guy would control everything near his fortress and use his personal sense of fairness to provide his peasants what they needed. And he had an interest in not trashing the place too badly because if he did the other nearby tough guys would move in and take over. It sucked for the individual peasants, but it successfully solved the problem of who controlled what in Europe for a thousand years.

What is the ZM solution to the allocation problem? A giant computer? That’s just stupid.

Scarcity can easily be solved if you slaughter the needy humans until there are surplusses of everything. Of course, to do this you’d need the thing making your decisions to be untroubled by the emotions and attachments that interfere with the strict rationality of human decision-making.

[nilum]

@begbert2

What if I want to sell it, and retain the value in a form I can use easily later?

Okay. If it’s a good which is available to everyone… value is… probably low. Who is going to buy it?

If it’s a good which was available during capitalism and post capitalism you want to sell it, it would be worth the same still and could still be purchased with whatever currency for whatever value you agree upon with that other person. But more than likely a post-capitalist society would have a good that’s more durable and cheaper (free) so there is still probably a low chance you will sell it during a post-capitalist era. Not that you would need the money. But since you assume you’ll need it at a later time I assume you think the system will fail. So for that good you own, you still have to compare it to the free alternatives that were made readily available to everyone.

It’s only going to sell if that good is superior, and it most likely won’t be. If the good is superior the value wouldn’t necessarily, but value could go up if someone wanted that product badly enough. So you could trade it for whatever currency they had (which during the post capitalist era would be worthless paper… just in case you need it for the future - assuming that worthless paper is still worth something then as well).

What becomes interesting though is if you look at property. Like I said you pretty much own it as you dictate who lives there with you etc… In cases where you have a particular piece of property someone else wants… you could trade it for money, but again it’s worthless paper in this case. You could trade it for anything even something very obscene. Is that something we’re trying to avoid… yes, but again this is appealing to the wants and not the needs of the people. If you want something a house badly you could do what needed to be done, or you you could be satisfied with the home you own.

I personally don’t think people are going to be wrestling for property assuming other needs are met. And maybe the first generation, but the second could definitely adapt to a culture where material possession is not the measure of a person.

Another sticky situation is in cases of marital disputes. Obviously a counselor would be involved, and unfortunately things like this do require a bit of litigation. A problem for family psychologists to solve I guess.

[Cisco]

@John_Mace

The reason there were so “few” of them is that by the time Europeans arrived in most of Continent, disease had already spread and killed many of them. The Americas were much more heavily populated in pre-Columbian times than most people think.

There is plenty of evidence of Native American societies collapsing because of environmental degradation, btw.

Show me.

[DocCathode]

Nilum I ask again

How would experts be chosen?

How would their decisions be enforced?

[nilum]

@The_Hamster_King

But most things aren’t like diamonds. They’re scarce because there really aren’t enough to go around, NOT because someone is hoarding them.

Medicine is not the same way? Look at how expensive some medicines are until a generic version comes out. You’re saying that those prices aren’t based on a contrived scarcity? Sure it’s a monopoly too, but what do you do in those cases. Keep prices high as if the item was scarce.

[nilum]

@DocCathode

Nilum I ask again

How would experts be chosen?

How would their decisions be enforced?

I would imagine that the first people chosen are well known in their specific field. And we might have these people design some sort of test or course study for those interested in joining.

The worst case you get someone like me who doesn’t know anything… I’m pretty much worthless to the cause and would be left behind and I would seek further education.

Enforced how? People who vandalize, threaten, murder, rape, molest, verbally assault will receive the proper rehab. This is based on criminal psychologists’ decisions on how to treat these people.

People who wish to own large planes and trains will have to take it up with transit experts who will probably say No.

People who wish to own priceless antiques and paintings will have a similarly tough time with a panel of artists and archaeologists.

Bribe them?! Maybe… but you’d have to bribe all of them… at the same time.

Enforced otherwise? There is no enforcement. These other people are solving problems… do you really enforce a better computer? No you design it.

[DocCathode]

@nilum

Enforced how? People who vandalize, threaten, murder, rape, molest, verbally assault will receive the proper rehab. This is based on criminal psychologists’ decisions on how to treat these people.

How do you make these people stay in treatment?

[The_Hamster_King]

@nilum

Medicine is not the same way? Look at how expensive some medicines are until a generic version comes out. You’re saying that those prices aren’t based on a contrived scarcity? Sure it’s a monopoly too, but what do you do in those cases. Keep prices high as if the item was scarce.

Certainly in some circumstance artificial scarcity is created within our current system. Sometimes it’s through a monopoly or cartel, sometimes it’s with a patent.

However, in general the scarcity that limits the availability of different resources is NOT the result of some sort of hoarding or market collusion. It’s because there just isn’t enough stuff.

Here’s a hypothetical: Say you work at an aluminum plant. All day long it processes bauxite into aluminum ingots. There are a fixed number of ingots it can manufacture over the course of year.

You’re approached by a bicycle factory. They’d like to use all your ingots to make bicycle rims. You’re also approached by a siding maker. They’d like to use all your ingots to make siding for houses.

How do you decide how to allocate the limited number of ingots you make? You can’t give both parties all they want – you don’t have enough. You have to pick one over the other. How do you pick? And if you don’t pick, who does?

Literally millions of little allocation decisions like this are made by businesses every day. What system are you going to put into place to deal with this problem?

[Captain_Amazing]

@Cisco

Were Native Americans lazy and selfish? Are the indigenous tribes that survive to this day lazy and selfish? Are the Amish lazy and selfish? So many things that people accept as “human nature” are really just the hegemony of the current dominant global culture.

The Amish use money. The Native Americans didn’t really until Europeans got there, relying mostly on barter before that, but when Europeans did get to America, Native Americans started using beaver pelts and wampum as standards of exchange.

And Native Americans, indigenous tribes, and the Amish are just as lazy and selfish as the rest of us.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@nilum

If any of you are familiar with the Zeitgeist movement, you know one of their principle goals is a society without the need for money.

Are you serious?!

That movie makes less sense than Easy Rider. And money is just a simple interchangeable means of doing trade. You do realize that money was originally introduced by private enterprises and not some national or global conspiracy, right?

[begbert2]

@nilum

Okay. If it’s a good which is available to everyone… value is… probably low. Who is going to buy it?

If it’s a good which was available during capitalism and post capitalism you want to sell it, it would be worth the same still and could still be purchased with whatever currency for whatever value you agree upon with that other person. But more than likely a post-capitalist society would have a good that’s more durable and cheaper (free) so there is still probably a low chance you will sell it during a post-capitalist era. Not that you would need the money. But since you assume you’ll need it at a later time I assume you think the system will fail. So for that good you own, you still have to compare it to the free alternatives that were made readily available to everyone.

It’s only going to sell if that good is superior, and it most likely won’t be. If the good is superior the value wouldn’t necessarily, but value could go up if someone wanted that product badly enough. So you could trade it for whatever currency they had (which during the post capitalist era would be worthless paper… just in case you need it for the future - assuming that worthless paper is still worth something then as well).

What becomes interesting though is if you look at property. Like I said you pretty much own it as you dictate who lives there with you etc… In cases where you have a particular piece of property someone else wants… you could trade it for money, but again it’s worthless paper in this case. You could trade it for anything even something very obscene. Is that something we’re trying to avoid… yes, but again this is appealing to the wants and not the needs of the people. If you want something a house badly you could do what needed to be done, or you you could be satisfied with the home you own.

I personally don’t think people are going to be wrestling for property assuming other needs are met. And maybe the first generation, but the second could definitely adapt to a culture where material possession is not the measure of a person.

Another sticky situation is in cases of marital disputes. Obviously a counselor would be involved, and unfortunately things like this do require a bit of litigation. A problem for family psychologists to solve I guess.

I get three things out of this.

1. Firstly, you think that nobody will value what I want to sell. I don’t think this holds - I might be Picasso. You have yet to convince me that some people won’t value the original of something over the inexpensive copy. Or maybe I sell haircuts, or advice, or sex, or land, or something else that the fabricators aren’t coughing up properly yet.
2. Secondly, you declare that money will be worthless, perhaps because the money supply will so vastly exceed the demand for it established by the few goods and services still being traded on the open market. Or perhaps because you’ve decided money’s worthless without thinking about it. Regardless, what you’re saying here is that people won’t be able to find something to pay me with for my paintings or haircuts or blowjobs. My response to this is you’re forcing us back to barter - which inarguably is a step down, because it impedes people getting what they want if they can’t make an equal exchange of something similarly scarce enough that I feel I’m getting my earned value.

Now, admittedly, with universal fabricators it would be tough to establish a system of standardized monetary exchange due to the ease of counterfeiting. This isn’t a good thing, though.
3) Thirdly I notice that you actually recognize that this sort of problem exists, with respect to land - but then you handwave it away. Handwaving doesn’t strike me as a very reliable problem-solving approach. If that’s what you’re relying on I’m dubious about your ability to face and deal with problems in your plan in general.

[Mangetout]

@nilum

People who wish to own large planes and trains will have to take it up with transit experts who will probably say No.

People who wish to own priceless antiques and paintings will have a similarly tough time with a panel of artists and archaeologists.

It sounds like you’re saying that we make everybody equal by preventing them all from ever doing anything grand or interesting. This alone will stifle creativity and bring about the collapse of innovation that your new world absolutely requires in order to work.

The people that want to do the grand and interesting things are also often, not coincidentally, the folks who drive us onward.

Even given the best possible starting conditions we can achieve today (which, despite your handwaving, just aren’t anywhere near what you need), your new world would collapse because of apathy, frustration, castration of ambition within a generation at most. Then it would re-invent money and the concept of ownership in order to try to drag itself out of a new dark age.

[DocCathode]

Does anyone else find it strange and disturbing that Iteration X seems to actually exist?

[Cisco]

@Captain_Amazing

The Amish use money. The Native Americans didn’t really until Europeans got there, relying mostly on barter before that, but when Europeans did get to America, Native Americans started using beaver pelts and wampum as standards of exchange.

A lot of Amish have let our culture seep in, little by little over the years, but there are still communities of Amish (and similar, who have dropped the term ‘Amish’ for precisely those reasons) that do not use money. They sustain themselves to a great degree, and when someone in the community needs help, they help them. No questions, no griping, no contracts, etc. The exchange is that when they need help, they’ll be helped. If you haven’t heard of these communities, it’s because they don’t want you to.

@Captain_Amazing

And Native Americans, indigenous tribes, and the Amish are just as lazy and selfish as the rest of us.

It really depends on how you define selfish and lazy. And greed. “Selfish” is an extremely problematic term philosophically, so let’s not even go there; I don’t think I’ve said it in this thread and I apologize and take it back if I did. Indigenous tribes and Amish don’t have landlust to the degree we do, and they don’t obsess over material goods and a constant treadmill of “progress” the way we do. You’ll never find closets and garages and rooms and storage units full of unused “stuff” just hoarded for hoarding’s sake in an indigenous or Amish tribe, the way you would in hundreds of millions of American, European, and modern Asian households.

And if you think Amish or hunter/gatherer tribes are lazy, go live with one of them for a week. I would be willing to bet that cases of obesity in those societies are so rare that they are essentially statistical anomalies, barring of course island peoples, whose obesity is evolutionarily explainable.

By the way, I’m not arguing for the Zeitgeist Movement (which reminds me of a movement I had this morning), or a society without money. I don’t know if that’d be a good thing or not. I tend to think it probably would, but I don’t have all the answers. But it’s certainly not impossible for me to envision it. I never throw my hands up in the face of a potentially positive change and say “human nature is shit, it’ll never happen.” Humans are young. Society is young. We have a lot more potential than most of us give ourselves credit for.

[XT]

@nilum

What is fact is things are more profitable if we make them scarce. IE diamonds. Hmm a system in which there is inherent benefit from depriving people… nope sounds fine.

I’ve skimmed through this whole thread (mainly snorting and chuckling the whole time, granted), but I think that this is the crux. Something being scarce doesn’t automatically make an item or service valuable. Spotted Owl droppings aren’t inherently valuable, even if they are relatively scarce. What makes something valuable is, at the core, when people value it. You can’t divorce people from placing arbitrary values on things, and without being able to do that, you aren’t going to be able to make ‘it’ work without ‘money’…or without the ability for people to exchange something of value (be it work, bits of metal or paper, or large, 10,000 ton disks of stone) for something of what they consider equal in value. It’s not going to happen, as should be obvious (to everyone but Zeitgeist, the OP and a few delusional hold out communist types), since we’ve seen exactly how that works out…namely, it doesn’t. In fact, they never even got close to being able to do away with money, since people will always want to exchange something of value for something of value.

This has nothing really to do with people being ‘greedy and selfish’, which is a hoot…it’s like trying to disparage fish for being ‘water breathers, the dirty bastards!’. I think that people who say that they don’t value anything and thus don’t wish to see anyone exchange anything of value for something perceived to be of equal value are the the outliers, to be honest. The one’s who are serious about it are, sadly, either delusional, out of touch with reality, or they have something missing. Happily, I don’t think that many who SAY this actually BELIEVE it…not inside. They just basically figure that the rules will be different for them, comes the revolution…or they realize that while they may talk about doing away with money and exchange of value for value, it’s not really ever going to happen. The most they could do is to push it back to an underground black market or hidden barter system…a shell game of misdirection and re-qualification and definition of terms.

I don’t know where on this spectrum the OP falls, but having seen him in other debates I could perhaps make a rough speculation on that…but will refrain. The point though is that, no, we can’t just arbitrarily do away with the concept of ‘money’, or the underlying need of real humans to want to exchange value for value. Even assuming magic pony technology that gives us replicators to make or food and print up our clothes and electronics all in our houses, there will STILL be a desire for people to exchange value for value…it will simply shift from exchanging bits of paper for a new iPod to some other form of exchange. Perhaps people will exchange software designs for a kicking new replicated sweater vest for the value of 35 minutes of work on an expert system shifting pudding from a plant in Tokyo to London (or perhaps sexual favors or something else :p). Whatever you call it, it’s still an exchange of value for perceived value, and that’s basically all ‘money’ is, in the end.

-XT

[nilum]

@DocCathode

How do you make these people stay in treatment?

Hmmm… how would I personally. I don’t know.

In many posts I’m expected to give the solutions when all I am is trying to defend to the best that I can an idea that makes sense to me.

Again I’m trying not to go outside my expertise yet various posts are asking me to do that is if I would be somehow in charge of any of this. I am providing examples of my own ideas in place of what an actual expert would say.

So take anything I say with a grain of salt.

To go outside my expertise once again, I would say that people would probably be forced into treatment. Maybe that have a different answer but that’d what I think would happen.

Who does it. The psychologist would mandate it. Physically how? You could have a orderly or someone who is assigned to assist who is physically capable of restraining someone if necessary. I mean you don’t want someone who is a very ill who is homicidal to be out and about.

I still think that with this system there would be less violent crimes.

[carm]

@nilum

Enforced how? People who vandalize, threaten, murder, rape, molest, verbally assault will receive the proper rehab. This is based on criminal psychologists’ decisions on how to treat these people.

What, you’re gonna brainwash people not to be people?