Could it work without money?

[begbert2]

@nilum

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.

Debating’s tough, ain’t it?

@nilum

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.

How do you persuade the orderly to come to work? It’s easier and safer for him to stay home. It’s not noble-seeming work like sitting around telling people what they can or can’t have or do.

I do agree that in a society where scarcity has largely been eliminated, there would probably be fewer crimes - poverty and want are incentives for actions of that type. But there would still be some crime, regardless.

[DocCathode]

Let’s see if I have this right

An expert (rather than a jury of their peers) decides guilt, sentences some one to treatment (which I admit may be an improvement over jail) and people (essentially the new police) use physical force or the threat of force to make people go the treatment facilities and stay there.

So your perfect world without cops and laws would have cops, laws, and defacto prisons.

[Mangetout]

Tickets are sold out for ZM’s forthcoming event in New York.
Yes, it says sold.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Cisco

Show me.

The Anasazi of New Mexico

On average, the early Puebloans occupied their villages only for a generation before they abandoned them, perhaps as a result of resource depletion (for instance, wood, game, wild plant foods); environmental calamity (especially extended drought); social disintegration (political fractures or factional feuds); outside threats; or some combination… . .

By the middle of the 12th century, possibly as a result of some combination of drought, overpopulation, depleted resources and discredited political and religious leadership, the Chaco Phenomenon collapsed. The population scattered, probably in a series of migrations. . . .

By late in the 13th century, the Mesa Verde system collapsed, and the population migrated to new areas. . . .

But by the end of that fateful 13th century, most Kayenta villages, too, had collapsed. The population scattered, moving into new areas.

A lot of the Pueblo peoples of New Mexico lived on the edge of environmental disaster, maintaining populations that strained and overextended their lands so that any environmental problem would destroy them.

[msmith537]

@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.

Things become more VALUABLE when they are scarce. That is not the same as profitable. And when things become valuable it creates incentives for people to find other sources or substitutes.

That is the self-correcting mechanism of the market.

As I said before, it isn’t my job to teach you economics where your college professor apparently failed. But I suggest you read up onprofit maximization. For any good or service there is an ideal amount to be provided that maximizes profit. As I said before, economics is about making choices. And as a product becomes more expensive, people are forced to choose how much they really need it.

[nilum]

@begbert2

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.

It wouldn’t really be worthless as long as you and others felt it had value right? Isn’t that the point of fiat currency. Go to town with it. Make up your own.

So you want to be able to accept visa for your blow jobs etc. First I find it funny that you want to be able to sell your body for money that you wouldn’t need. Think about it. Why are their prostitutes? Because it’s an easy way for a female to make money. Though it comes with negatives and not all women in prostitution want to be prostitutes they could be forced into it or really feel like someone of their ‘class’ has no other viable option.

What you are saying though is that how do we handle unique goods that we create to then barter for other unique goods. Well, I say fine. Lets let you guys have your credit. Why not. We’ll even make up a mini bank for you etc. It’s still isn’t going to catch on enough and in fact it will show the true disease of what money is. As it will be the only way to buy sex, buy overpriced crap, and to horde works of art. Congrats. You’ve made your point very clear.

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.

It’s not my plan, but I have been giving my opinions and ideas. I’m not an expert in all fields which is what I would need to be to adequately defend every topic. It’s much easier to point out a problem than to come up with a solution. I’ve addressed this in other posts. handwaving? It’s an honest concession that i wouldn’t know, but an expert in that field would.

In this system do we expect a nuclear physicist to be handy with a scalpel? If a surgeon was asked about a fission he might have the general idea, but not know all the crucial details.

[begbert2]

@nilum

It wouldn’t really be worthless as long as you and others felt it had value right? Isn’t that the point of fiat currency. Go to town with it. Make up your own.

So you want to be able to accept visa for your blow jobs etc. First I find it funny that you want to be able to sell your body for money that you wouldn’t need. Think about it. Why are their prostitutes? Because it’s an easy way for a female to make money. Though it comes with negatives and not all women in prostitution want to be prostitutes they could be forced into it or really feel like someone of their ‘class’ has no other viable option.

What you are saying though is that how do we handle unique goods that we create to then barter for other unique goods. Well, I say fine. Lets let you guys have your credit. Why not. We’ll even make up a mini bank for you etc. It’s still isn’t going to catch on enough and in fact it will show the true disease of what money is. As it will be the only way to buy sex, buy overpriced crap, and to horde works of art. Congrats. You’ve made your point very clear.

I give you paintings, haircuts, advice, sex, and land (which you provided yourself) - and ALL you respond to is the sex. Remember what I said about handwaving? Yeah. You’ve made the worthlessness of the position you support very clear.

ETA: And I’ll add that the problem isn’t just I want value for my advice - people want my advice too! I can’t talk to everyone; do I force them to duke it out for who gets to be first in line? (Pistols are free - at least the fights’ll be short.)

@nilum

It’s not my plan, but I have been giving my opinions and ideas. I’m not an expert in all fields which is what I would need to be to adequately defend every topic. It’s much easier to point out a problem than to come up with a solution. I’ve addressed this in other posts. handwaving? It’s an honest concession that i wouldn’t know, but an expert in that field would.

In this system do we expect a nuclear physicist to be handy with a scalpel? If a surgeon was asked about a fission he might have the general idea, but not know all the crucial details.

In this debate, the question of how still-scarce goods and services are handled is key. If you don’t understand that, you don’t have a position at all.

[nilum]

@DocCathode

Let’s see if I have this right

An expert (rather than a jury of their peers) decides guilt, sentences some one to treatment (which I admit may be an improvement over jail) and people (essentially the new police) use physical force or the threat of force to make people go the treatment facilities and stay there.

So your perfect world without cops and laws would have cops, laws, and defacto prisons.

No not at all. There would still be a jury. I stated that earlier. I just said that it would have have to be decided by an expert on criminal defense on how we would set up such a system.

Honestly the jury trials have made many mistakes. but I suppose it could be used yes. At least until AI was sophisticated enough. I’d rather an AI capable of processing all evidence logically without bias be the one to decide my fate personally.

[The_Hamster_King]

You still haven’t addressed the problem of my hypothetical smelting plant.

Without money, who decides whether the ingots are used to make bicycle wheels or aluminum siding?

[XT]

@nilum

In this system do we expect a nuclear physicist to be handy with a scalpel? If a surgeon was asked about a fission he might have the general idea, but not know all the crucial details.

In your system without money, how would a surgeon exchange his specialized services with a nuclear physicist? Or a plumber? Or a network engineer? Why should I work on their network if I don’t need to have surgery? Why should the nuclear physicist do theoretical work that expands human knowledge if he doesn’t need a plumber next Tuesday? Or do you plan to force us all to work for the good of society? How do you set the value of our respective work…or do we all just work for exactly the same rewards? Do we all live in the same type of house, eat the same type of food, drive the same kind of car (do we all even still get those things, or are we going back to being hunters and gatherers or something)? If so, what’s my incentive to become a network engineer or doctor, instead of something easy and fun, like computer gaming tester or wet tee-shirt judge?

What about if I want a house on the beach…how do I get it? Do I have to go before a board or something? And who decides? How are the decisions reached?

-XT

[nilum]

[quote=“begbert2, post:167, topic:531956”]

I give you paintings, haircuts, advice, sex, and land (which you provided yourself) - and ALL you respond to is the sex. Remember what I said about handwaving? Yeah. You’ve made the worthlessness of the position you support very clear.

I responded to the art hording and useless junk (because I find things like rare collectors items to be junk).

as far as all your points. haircuts… there is going to be someone who will do it at no cost… i am sure your haircuts aren’t that great. advice… no one would need to come to you and pay for your advice… i mean that’s what the internet is for. sex? sure someone might, but what exactly would you be bartering sex for. what would be such a valuable commodity to you when everything else is available at no charge that you would sell your body. That makes NO SENSE. If it happened it would be very rare, and all it does is reinforce the moral ambiguity of materialism and wealth. You might even be able to sell your children for sex I’m sure. That happens today. Today of course it’s for money… in your case it would be to force a counterargument.

In this debate, the question of how still-scarce goods and services are handled is key. If you don’t understand that, you don’t have a position at all.

I think there are some valid arguments. Certainly ZM is aware of real scarcity otherwise they wouldn’t see the need to develop a computer that makes decisions based on resources available. The point is efficiency of those materials. Do we use those materials in the most logical way possible. Steel to make a bunch of decorative swords, or steel to make girders for a new school… I’d pick swords.

[XT]

@nilum

No not at all. There would still be a jury. I stated that earlier. I just said that it would have have to be decided by an expert on criminal defense on how we would set up such a system.

Who decides who the ‘expert’ is…and on what basis? Lawyers? Professors of law in colleges? Politicians? A mixed panel? Who has the final say…and on what basis? Which viewpoint of the law? What kind of checks are placed on the ‘expert’? What kind of term does he or she serve, and who rates their performance, and, again, on what basis…and what rewards or penalties does the person incur based on that performance, and again, who decides?

And, having arrived at a suitable candidate, how do you entice said ‘expert’ into actually taking the job? You aren’t going to pay them, so what do you propose to exchange with them in order to get them to do this job for you? And do you base the rewards (assuming you are giving them anything) on their performance? Expertise? Willingness to do the job? What?

-XT

[Cisco]

@Captain_Amazing

The Anasazi of New Mexico

A lot of the Pueblo peoples of New Mexico lived on the edge of environmental disaster, maintaining populations that strained and overextended their lands so that any environmental problem would destroy them.

I’ve studied the Anasazi. Most of what you posted are hypotheses, of which there are others. And think about it: if they depleted an area’s resources, and then moved, what does that make them? Migratory, aware of their impact, constantly moving to allow an area to bounce back. This is hard land (I live in the southwest), and it takes a strategy like that to survive here. It’s extremely unlikely that they ever “destroyed” an area to such an extent that it wasn’t healthy again within a couple of seasons.

[nilum]

@The_Hamster_King

You still haven’t addressed the problem of my hypothetical smelting plant.

Without money, who decides whether the ingots are used to make bicycle wheels or aluminum siding?

I have lots of questions to answer… and I’ve tried my best to keep up. You’d almost think I was getting paid. :dubious:

from a post capitalistic standpoint I’d use whatever benefited the most people, prioritizing maintaining and protecting shelter over leisure activity.

Whose to say that once we add more machines to the equation to make mining and smelting more efficient that we could produce enough to meet all demands.

if you’re asking me from a capitalistic standpoint… the same. To me money isn’t what’s important.

But for you it’s probably who pays the most.

[XT]

@nilum

from a post capitalistic standpoint I’d use whatever benefited the most people, prioritizing maintaining and protecting shelter over leisure activity.

Again, who decides what a ‘benefit’ to ‘society’ is…and on what basis? How do you quantify ‘most people’? Why does ‘maintaining and protecting shelter over leisure activity’ take precedence…and, again, who decides this? For that matter, who decides what ‘leisure activity’ entails, or how important or unimportant it is to society?

Whose to say that once we add more machines to the equation to make mining and smelting more efficient that we could produce enough to meet all demands.

Because who would figure out how much of any given product or service is needed? How many ingots? Based on what priority? ‘Shelter’? for who? What type? How much? Balanced against what other factors? Folks got to eat…so, food production? What kinds of food, what priorities, on what basis? Maximum number of people fed? Maximum amount of food that can be logistically distributed? Maximum calories per person? Greatest good?

if you’re asking me from a capitalistic standpoint… the same. To me money isn’t what’s important.

Really? Then you won’t mind sending all you have to me, right? And all your other possessions which are equally unimportant to you…right? I’ll send you my paypal info after the discussion…

-XT

[Mangetout]

@nilum

Whose to say that once we add more machines to the equation to make mining and smelting more efficient that we could produce enough to meet all demands.

That’s far too big and uncertain a ‘maybe’ to allow your point to be even worth considering. What if we can’t add enough machines to make everything abundant?

if you’re asking me from a capitalistic standpoint… the same. To me money isn’t what’s important.

But for you it’s probably who pays the most.

It’s a bit more subtle than that - at the moment, cost attenuates demand. The bicycle manufacturer rations his demand to fit his available purchasing budget and buys smaller amounts more regularly - making it possible for the other customers to get a look in.

[nilum]

In your system without money, how would a surgeon exchange his specialized services with a nuclear physicist? Or a plumber? Or a network engineer? Why should I work on their network if I don’t need to have surgery? Why should the nuclear physicist do theoretical work that expands human knowledge if he doesn’t need a plumber next Tuesday? Or do you plan to force us all to work for the good of society? How do you set the value of our respective work…or do we all just work for exactly the same rewards? Do we all live in the same type of house, eat the same type of food, drive the same kind of car (do we all even still get those things, or are we going back to being hunters and gatherers or something)? If so, what’s my incentive to become a network engineer or doctor, instead of something easy and fun, like computer gaming tester or wet tee-shirt judge?

What about if I want a house on the beach…how do I get it? Do I have to go before a board or something? And who decides? How are the decisions reached?

-XT

Nothing is expected in return, but most of what we think of as jobs will be replaced by machines capable of doing them better (just like what happened in the car industry). The point is to make people more free to solve problems, instead of fix the plumbing.

Incentive I explained earlier. The desire to help people. Obviously you probably enjoyed working with computers before you chose your field. So are you saying you would have no interest in doing what you do if say you could create a better school network for kids, all while still getting everything you needed and wanted?
If not you don’t have to. Maybe you didn’t want to work in computer and wanted to do something else. Education would be freely available to anyone to get to work in any field.

As far as driving the same car. I addressed that earlier. There is no reason there couldn’t be choice, but even today we are somewhat limited on what we really want. Most of us want an android or iphone. Most of us want the moster powerful intel cpu, and others want the most powerful amd (I know there are differences between what constitutes as power). The point is we want the best of what is out there. And it’s not to say we couldn’t have variations or customizations. I think that would be a natural part of the system. I think for most people they just think uniform everything, but that’s not the idea.

I talked about my particular ideas on property. I think it would be first come first server. If you decide to move you can move wherever you want, but have to release your house to the next in line. That’s not to say you can’t vacation and keep your home. You could visit somewhere and fine you like it there the best.

Who decides who the ‘expert’ is…and on what basis? Lawyers? Professors of law in colleges? Politicians? A mixed panel? Who has the final say…and on what basis? Which viewpoint of the law? What kind of checks are placed on the ‘expert’? What kind of term does he or she serve, and who rates their performance, and, again, on what basis…and what rewards or penalties does the person incur based on that performance, and again, who decides?

And, having arrived at a suitable candidate, how do you entice said ‘expert’ into actually taking the job? You aren’t going to pay them, so what do you propose to exchange with them in order to get them to do this job for you? And do you base the rewards (assuming you are giving them anything) on their performance? Expertise? Willingness to do the job? What?

-XT

I touched on it. Though again these are my opinions.

The ZM actually states that people will be problem solvers. The idea is to get a group of people interested in solving a certain task. They don’t use the term expert… as far as I can tell this would have to come later as people aren’t spontaneously going to be cross-specialists. If someone doesn’t perform they just don’t contribute. Nothing is taken note of, but I am sure some people would probably desire the person to move on to a different task or help in a different way. He’s not required to.

My idea is to have experts that are already prominent in their respective fields and have them come up with a standard curriculum to teach about the subject and come up with standardized tests. And while these people would function as our initial committee they would also be professors to some extent.

Wow… I’ve been doing this for hours. I am getting tired. Very sleepy.

Sorry this isn’t a concise or thoughtful response. But look at when I started this… I haven’t slept all night.

[Rand_Rover]

Ah, so, in other words, a big-ass pie high in the sky. Puff puff give, please, you are messing up the rotation.

[nilum]

@xtisme

Again, who decides what a ‘benefit’ to ‘society’ is…and on what basis? How do you quantify ‘most people’? Why does ‘maintaining and protecting shelter over leisure activity’ take precedence…and, again, who decides this? For that matter, who decides what ‘leisure activity’ entails, or how important or unimportant it is to society?

OK 1 more…

I wouldn’t be the decision maker that was just my logic in deciding. ZM plans to leave it up to an AI.

Because who would figure out how much of any given product or service is needed? How many ingots? Based on what priority? ‘Shelter’? for who? What type? How much? Balanced against what other factors? Folks got to eat…so, food production? What kinds of food, what priorities, on what basis? Maximum number of people fed? Maximum amount of food that can be logistically distributed? Maximum calories per person? Greatest good?

my opinion again: calories per person.

I think you’re more worried about scarcity than you need to be. The idea is to use technology to overcome the scarcity that we assume there is.

Really? Then you won’t mind sending all you have to me, right? And all your other possessions which are equally unimportant to you…right? I’ll send you my paypal info after the discussion…

-XT

I’m a poor working class type guy. I don’t have anything you would want. But I offer my own time all the time to charity to do what I can for my community as I mentioned earlier.

i tell you what… there was a guy in this thread who wanted me to help him dig a trench, but I told him he needed more than just me. You up for it?

[Delayed_Reflex]

@Mangetout

That’s far too big and uncertain a ‘maybe’ to allow your point to be even worth considering. What if we can’t add enough machines to make everything abundant?

Yes, I’d like to see some answers from the OP on what assumptions he makes regarding the feasibility of this dream. Can a society theoretically exist where money is not needed? IMO, yes, in a post scarcity environment. Is that possible in the foreseeable future? Not even close.

If I am reading things correct, nilum, you think that:

1) Virtually every undesirable but necessary task that you pay people to do can be done by machines

2) We have the ability to make these machines,which means:
[ul]
[li]We have the intelligence to be able to design these machines[/li][li]We have the raw material and energy to make these machines[/li][li]We have the desire to design and make these machines in the first place[/li][/ul]

I haven’t put too much thought into 1), but it seems conceivable in a sci-fi sort of way. However, ALL of the requirements under 2) are questionable.

In order for 1) to come to fruition, we will need to have machines that can manufacture themselves, maintain themselves, harvest all the raw materials for their manufacture and maintenance, diagnose and fix their own problems, transport themselves to where they are needed, and probably a bunch of other things that I can’t think of right now.

How easy do you think such a system is to design? Do you think if all the scientists and engineers on the planet dropped what they were working on right now and dedicated their time to this project it would be easily solved? I would be amazed if it would be possible to accomplish in a millenium, much less a lifetime. Until you can convince people that it is imminently solvable (within their lifetime), you’ll never pull them away from a paying job to volunteer to work on this project. And if you think this can be solved on people’s spare time, then why worry about a money-based economy while this system is being worked on?

Is there enough steel on this earth to make all the machines that would be required for such a scheme? How long would it take to create all the power sources needed to supply such an enormous technical infrastructure? How quickly do you think machines are able to make other machines? Do you have any idea just how many machines are required to replace all undesirable jobs?

If you can’t achieve 1), you will always need to provide people with incentives to do an undesirable, but necessary task - AKA pay them. Steps along the way mean jack-all - even if machines did all the farming, mining, manufacturing, cleaning, serving, teaching and all you had to do was troubleshoot problems and fix broken ones - you’d have to convince people to spend time doing that rather than something they enjoy. I am guessing that you assume that enough people will volunteer to do that that it won’t be a problem. That’s a pretty big assumption that has no basis whatsoever.