Monday, February 16, 2009
What's Money Good For?
This gentleman John Steinsvold emailed me this self-described utopian article, on the wonders of abolishing money. I told John I would post it here, so long as he agreed to go at least a few rounds in debate. I also assured him that I would keep any comments courteous. So by all means, tell John why you think he is wrong, but we don't want him feeling like this at the end.
For my part, I'll just criticize a few things and leave the heavy lifting to readers who care to cross swords with John.
Here John describes the alleged evils of society's reliance on money:
So my first question is, which of the above problems are due to money per se, and which are just related to simple acquisitiveness or greed? For example, right now a heroin addict might break into your house and swipe your wedding ring, in order to get the money with which to buy heroin. But OK, suppose there is no money. Won't the addict still want to steal my ring to trade for his heroin? Or are you proposing the abolition of trade itself, not just trading with a medium of exchange?
But let's get back to John:
I would like John to clarify his reasons for this belief. Of course the economy is physically capable of cranking out more necessities, but only if it produces fewer units of other type of goods. I.e. unless he is also going to accuse the capitalist system of wasting resources (and maybe he will take that tack), then in order to increase the amount of bread and milk produced, we will have to make due with fewer plasma screen TVs and yachts.
So now, if John agrees with me so far that more necessities will imply fewer "luxuries," then the question becomes: Why are the current people who bust their butt going to put in so many hours? It is true that many people currently acquire their wealth in order to wear as a badge of honor around their peers. But whatever their motivation, many of these people put in insane hours (at law firms, hedge funds, etc.).
In John's world, I imagine that most parents don't choose to put in 100 hour work weeks. So the total amount of focused labor is going to go way down. Is John still so sure that the basic necessities will all be easily produced?
To repeat my argument: It's not enough to look at "total output" right now, and realize that a slight change on the margins will allow enough of the necessities to be produced. Because one of the main things supporting the level of "total output" right now are the incredible hours and other energies some people devote to their jobs, when it is possible for them to amass far more wealth than their neighbors. These people might become poets in John's world.
My other big question for John is: why do you still have Congress in your world?! We're going to be so utopian and dreamy, that we're disposing of money in a few paragraphs--and yet you can't also imagine people interacting without an institution of organized violence?!
I should make clear that I am open to the possibility that a truly voluntary shift in people's perspectives might allow something that "looked like" the abolition of commerce. For the sake of argument, suppose I am so persuasive that I convert 99.9% of the world to Christian pacifism. Since no one supports the use of violence to achieve political goals, everybody stops voting. But new, despotic governments don't rise up in their place, because only 0.1% of the population is willing to use violence, and that's not enough people in any given country to really setup a system of exploitation.
So anyway, in this incredible world, there are no taxes or other government distortions with the economy. So there's unbelievable economic growth. But at the same time, you also don't have all of the things generating crime. (You don't have a drug war, government welfare systems, minimum wage laws, government schools, etc.) And because there is no threat of "war" (the people would forget what that word even meant after a few generations), everybody would be very very relaxed.
Now in that context, it is entirely possible in my mind that those people would be so incredibly wealthy and yet at the same time so spiritually strong, that from our perspective it would appear that they had abolished economic scarcity.
The theorems of economics would still be valid, they just would no longer be applicable. The very first assumption of economics is scarcity, the fact that consumers have unlimited desires but only limited resources.
However, in the idyllic world I am describing, perhaps desires would be so utterly different, and the material "production possibilities frontier" would be so incredibly large, that the blessed creatures of that era would no longer agree that people had "unlimited desires, limited resources."
But anyway, even if that were possible, it doesn't require the conscious abolition of money. That would happen naturally, as the deeper motivations of people changed.
For my part, I'll just criticize a few things and leave the heavy lifting to readers who care to cross swords with John.
Here John describes the alleged evils of society's reliance on money:
Needless poverty, unemployment, inflation, the threat of depression, taxes, crimes related to profit (sale of illicit drugs, stolen IDs, muggings, bribery, con artists, etc.), conflict of interest, endless red tape, a staggering national debt plus a widening budget deficit, 48 out of 50 states in debt, cities in debt, counties in debt, skyrocketing personal debts, 50% of Americans unhappy at their work, saving for retirement and our children's education, health being a matter of wealth, competing in the "rat race", the need for insurance, being a nation of litigation, being subject to the tremors on Wall Street, fear of downsizing and automation, fear of more Enrons, outsourcing, bankruptcies, crippling strikes, materialism, corruption, welfare, social security, sacrificing quality and safety in our products for the sake of profit, the social problem of the "haves" vs. the "havenots" and the inevitable family quarrels over money.
So my first question is, which of the above problems are due to money per se, and which are just related to simple acquisitiveness or greed? For example, right now a heroin addict might break into your house and swipe your wedding ring, in order to get the money with which to buy heroin. But OK, suppose there is no money. Won't the addict still want to steal my ring to trade for his heroin? Or are you proposing the abolition of trade itself, not just trading with a medium of exchange?
But let's get back to John:
Yes, everything will be free according to need. All the necessities and common luxuries will be available on a help yourself basis at the local store. Surely, this country is capable of supplying the necessities and common luxuries for everyone in this country many times over.
I would like John to clarify his reasons for this belief. Of course the economy is physically capable of cranking out more necessities, but only if it produces fewer units of other type of goods. I.e. unless he is also going to accuse the capitalist system of wasting resources (and maybe he will take that tack), then in order to increase the amount of bread and milk produced, we will have to make due with fewer plasma screen TVs and yachts.
So now, if John agrees with me so far that more necessities will imply fewer "luxuries," then the question becomes: Why are the current people who bust their butt going to put in so many hours? It is true that many people currently acquire their wealth in order to wear as a badge of honor around their peers. But whatever their motivation, many of these people put in insane hours (at law firms, hedge funds, etc.).
In John's world, I imagine that most parents don't choose to put in 100 hour work weeks. So the total amount of focused labor is going to go way down. Is John still so sure that the basic necessities will all be easily produced?
To repeat my argument: It's not enough to look at "total output" right now, and realize that a slight change on the margins will allow enough of the necessities to be produced. Because one of the main things supporting the level of "total output" right now are the incredible hours and other energies some people devote to their jobs, when it is possible for them to amass far more wealth than their neighbors. These people might become poets in John's world.
My other big question for John is: why do you still have Congress in your world?! We're going to be so utopian and dreamy, that we're disposing of money in a few paragraphs--and yet you can't also imagine people interacting without an institution of organized violence?!
I should make clear that I am open to the possibility that a truly voluntary shift in people's perspectives might allow something that "looked like" the abolition of commerce. For the sake of argument, suppose I am so persuasive that I convert 99.9% of the world to Christian pacifism. Since no one supports the use of violence to achieve political goals, everybody stops voting. But new, despotic governments don't rise up in their place, because only 0.1% of the population is willing to use violence, and that's not enough people in any given country to really setup a system of exploitation.
So anyway, in this incredible world, there are no taxes or other government distortions with the economy. So there's unbelievable economic growth. But at the same time, you also don't have all of the things generating crime. (You don't have a drug war, government welfare systems, minimum wage laws, government schools, etc.) And because there is no threat of "war" (the people would forget what that word even meant after a few generations), everybody would be very very relaxed.
Now in that context, it is entirely possible in my mind that those people would be so incredibly wealthy and yet at the same time so spiritually strong, that from our perspective it would appear that they had abolished economic scarcity.
The theorems of economics would still be valid, they just would no longer be applicable. The very first assumption of economics is scarcity, the fact that consumers have unlimited desires but only limited resources.
However, in the idyllic world I am describing, perhaps desires would be so utterly different, and the material "production possibilities frontier" would be so incredibly large, that the blessed creatures of that era would no longer agree that people had "unlimited desires, limited resources."
But anyway, even if that were possible, it doesn't require the conscious abolition of money. That would happen naturally, as the deeper motivations of people changed.
Comments:
The Blackadder Says:
Is it wrong for me to see this article as a kind of reductio ad absurdum for a lot of criticisms of fractional reserve banking?
Speaking of which (wow, are my segues bad) have you seen this?
Is it wrong for me to see this article as a kind of reductio ad absurdum for a lot of criticisms of fractional reserve banking?
Speaking of which (wow, are my segues bad) have you seen this?
# posted by 
: February 16, 2009 at 10:53 PM
: February 16, 2009 at 10:53 PM
It's a nice vision, but it's not very realistic. Without a price system, there is no effective way to assess and signal the priority of any person's need. Individual producers could try to determine, individually, who should get what goods and services. Or a central planning system could determine that. The former case is hugely inefficient, and without profit it lacks motivation. And the latter case has been exposed, through the Soviet experiment, as being one of the worst economic systems imaginable.
The biggest mistake in this theory of a world-sans-money is that it sees the market as being purely competitive, and therefore wasteful compared to pure cooperation. But the market is not purely competitive. It is largely cooperative, with some competition between producers. When people engage in voluntary exchanges, both parties benefit, and that's as cooperative as possible.
The biggest mistake in this theory of a world-sans-money is that it sees the market as being purely competitive, and therefore wasteful compared to pure cooperation. But the market is not purely competitive. It is largely cooperative, with some competition between producers. When people engage in voluntary exchanges, both parties benefit, and that's as cooperative as possible.
# posted by : February 16, 2009 at 10:58 PM
: February 16, 2009 at 10:58 PM
There is always scarcity. The best material for power lines is gold. Its also great for decoration, as window tinting, and lubricants (especially in space where it doesn't breakdown or evaporate like oil). There is a reason why we don't use gold for powerlines. It's too bloody expensive, and copper works reasonably well. Take the price indicator away from gold though, and how do you decide whether a given gram is better utilized as a heat shield for a satellite, or in the circuitry of my cell phone? How are conflicts resolved between the power company and Lockheed aerospace?
Are bad things done with/for money? Sure. Are bad things done with/for love, or religion or anything else? Sure. Its not the fault of love, money or religion, its the fault of people. To abolish currency for the reasons stated is to say that we should abolish people. We should all just lay down and decide not to breath anymore.
Are bad things done with/for money? Sure. Are bad things done with/for love, or religion or anything else? Sure. Its not the fault of love, money or religion, its the fault of people. To abolish currency for the reasons stated is to say that we should abolish people. We should all just lay down and decide not to breath anymore.
# posted by : February 16, 2009 at 11:34 PM
: February 16, 2009 at 11:34 PM
I just discovered this blog through the Mises Institute, and added it to my roll. Looking forward to keeping up with it - we need all the good economists we can get (especially with Krugman pretty much leading the media crusade on economics). Good stuff.
Yeah, good point, Bob, we need money to "incentivize" people to produce the current level of wealth.
"Today, only 50% of Americans enjoy their work. That will change. In a way of life without money, we will all be free to do the work we want to do or even love to do without any economic fear. [...]
Yes, there is very likely to be a shortage of people volunteering to do the more menial tasks. One option is to offer "perks". A perk can be of various forms such as front row season tickets to the opera or to his or her favorite sports team."
We are talking about 50% of all work (it can't all be menial can it?), a good part of which is probably essential to the wealth enjoyed by society. Mr. Steinsvold suggests compensating this kind of work with various scarce goods... But piggybacking on the reintroduction of scarce goods, the baneful ghost of commerce comes back to haunt his utopia. Imagine a situation where half of the population enjoy working and require no compensation, and the other half do not love to do their job and get the latest model sports car so they keep working.
Surely those who have no sports cars will be envious of those who do (that's the point, isn't it?). As they try to come up with ways to get access to one of these coveted conveyances, one springs to their mind immediately: they can claim that, well, no, actually, they don't enjoy working all that much. (They probably wouldn't even be lying. If you asked people whether they'd rather work or get paid the same to spend time at their leisure, you'd come up with percentages a lot higher than 50%.) So those guys need sports cars too. This displeases the floor cleaners: After all, they enjoy their jobs much less than dentists enjoy theirs.
You can see where this is going: in the end, you end up with a sophisticated system of perks given out to different groups of people. How would this system be structured? Most likely, you'd want to adjust the size of the perks so that there are enough workers for every type of job out there, in other words, they will be determined by supply and demand. You will have done nothing but reinvent the present system of labor compensation with a good dose of socialism and a gargantuan welfare state thrown in for good measure.
The only alternative, as proposed by Mr. Steinsvold, is forced labor. Given the 50% (and likely more) of today's labor that is not enjoyed by people, "to draft everyone once in their lifetime, to do a half year or so stint at a menial task" will, by far, not be enough. Over 20 years of forced labor for everyone seems more likely... and I hope we won't see Mr. Steinsvold defending that.
Yes, there is very likely to be a shortage of people volunteering to do the more menial tasks. One option is to offer "perks". A perk can be of various forms such as front row season tickets to the opera or to his or her favorite sports team."
We are talking about 50% of all work (it can't all be menial can it?), a good part of which is probably essential to the wealth enjoyed by society. Mr. Steinsvold suggests compensating this kind of work with various scarce goods... But piggybacking on the reintroduction of scarce goods, the baneful ghost of commerce comes back to haunt his utopia. Imagine a situation where half of the population enjoy working and require no compensation, and the other half do not love to do their job and get the latest model sports car so they keep working.
Surely those who have no sports cars will be envious of those who do (that's the point, isn't it?). As they try to come up with ways to get access to one of these coveted conveyances, one springs to their mind immediately: they can claim that, well, no, actually, they don't enjoy working all that much. (They probably wouldn't even be lying. If you asked people whether they'd rather work or get paid the same to spend time at their leisure, you'd come up with percentages a lot higher than 50%.) So those guys need sports cars too. This displeases the floor cleaners: After all, they enjoy their jobs much less than dentists enjoy theirs.
You can see where this is going: in the end, you end up with a sophisticated system of perks given out to different groups of people. How would this system be structured? Most likely, you'd want to adjust the size of the perks so that there are enough workers for every type of job out there, in other words, they will be determined by supply and demand. You will have done nothing but reinvent the present system of labor compensation with a good dose of socialism and a gargantuan welfare state thrown in for good measure.
The only alternative, as proposed by Mr. Steinsvold, is forced labor. Given the 50% (and likely more) of today's labor that is not enjoyed by people, "to draft everyone once in their lifetime, to do a half year or so stint at a menial task" will, by far, not be enough. Over 20 years of forced labor for everyone seems more likely... and I hope we won't see Mr. Steinsvold defending that.
Even without scarcity of goods there is scarcity of time. Why in the world would I spend my offspring's childhood WORKING when I could be playing with him and teaching, supposing all goods are available at a store (someone built for no reason)? Then, why in the world would I spend my grandchildren's childhood working? Why would I work an 8 hour day instead of a 7 hour day?
"We could all do the work we love..." A lot of work is work nobody loves as their first choice for what they do with their time. Who grows up WANTING DESPERATELY to dispense opera tickets or football tickets?
If these are the incentives/perks then they will be money if a large enough part of the population finds them desirable.
The problem isn't just "who takes out the trash" but "what gets done at all?" Greg nailed the coordinating effect of prices very well, I thought.
Efforts to create the man who can operate without prices invariably are homicidal.
Jim O'Connor
The Colony, Texas
"We could all do the work we love..." A lot of work is work nobody loves as their first choice for what they do with their time. Who grows up WANTING DESPERATELY to dispense opera tickets or football tickets?
If these are the incentives/perks then they will be money if a large enough part of the population finds them desirable.
The problem isn't just "who takes out the trash" but "what gets done at all?" Greg nailed the coordinating effect of prices very well, I thought.
Efforts to create the man who can operate without prices invariably are homicidal.
Jim O'Connor
The Colony, Texas
# posted by : February 17, 2009 at 9:28 AM
: February 17, 2009 at 9:28 AM
These are all good points. And don't worry everyone, I wasn't going commie on you, I was just trying to show that I am willing to entertain notions of a "new man" etc. But I would like more from John on this. (I emailed him the link.)
In my essay:“Home of the Brave?”, I compiled a list Bob Murphy called “the alleged evils of society’s reliance on money”. He then wrote the following:
“So my first question is, which of the above problems are due to money per se, and which are just related to simple acquisitiveness or greed? For example, right now a heroin addict might break into your house and swipe your wedding ring, in order to get the money with which to buy heroin. But OK, suppose there is no money. Won't the addict still want to steal my ring to trade for his heroin? Or are you proposing the abolition of trade itself, not just trading with a medium of exchange?”
No, the problems mentioned are not due to money per se; it is how we use it. We are not moral enough. However, if we were to learn how to conduct our internal economic affairs without the use of a money (which my essay is all about), these problems would be greatly alleviated if not completely eliminated.
The problem with the use of money is that it discourages moral growth. For example, if we have a choice between being honest and economic gain, which do we choose? If corporations have a choice between producing a quality product or making a profit, which do they choose?
Bob Murphy used a heroin addict to illustrate a point. Today, drugs are sold by dealers to make money. As I envision a way of life without money, there would be very few drug addicts. Since all the necessities and common luxuries will be free on a help yourself basis at your local store, there would be little reason for anyone to resort to selling drugs.
In fact, over a million people are in jail today because of money (theft, bribery, drug dealing, etc.) In a way of life without money, these people would not be in jail. Instead, they would be using their skills, talents, artistic or athletic abilities to contribute to society.
Bob Murphy asked if I was “proposing the abolition of trade itself, not just trading with a medium of exchange?”
No, but why trade or barter if everything is free? However, I envision a lot of sharing. Tools, appliances, boats, cars and even works of art. Anything that can be shared will be shared. Togetherness will be the norm.
Bob Murphy mentioned greed as a problem in a way of life without money.
Yes, humans are built with greed. However, more important to humans are his well being and the welfare of his family and society in general. The reward that people inherently seek is image; it is respect and reverence from their community.
As I envision a way of of life without money, we will gain economic freedom in addition to and without infringement on our present freedoms. The ONLY common denominator between a way of life without money and socialism/communism/Marxism is economic equality which, in my opinion, we desperately need here in the USA. Economic equality will eliminate poverty. It will also eliminate materialism which warps our sense of value and corrupts our system. It will also reduce crime dramatically. Otherwise, our government will remain the same. The Democrats will still do battle with the Republicans. Our free enterprise system will still exist.
As promised, I will chip away at the rest of your questions. Be good.
John Steinsvold
“So my first question is, which of the above problems are due to money per se, and which are just related to simple acquisitiveness or greed? For example, right now a heroin addict might break into your house and swipe your wedding ring, in order to get the money with which to buy heroin. But OK, suppose there is no money. Won't the addict still want to steal my ring to trade for his heroin? Or are you proposing the abolition of trade itself, not just trading with a medium of exchange?”
No, the problems mentioned are not due to money per se; it is how we use it. We are not moral enough. However, if we were to learn how to conduct our internal economic affairs without the use of a money (which my essay is all about), these problems would be greatly alleviated if not completely eliminated.
The problem with the use of money is that it discourages moral growth. For example, if we have a choice between being honest and economic gain, which do we choose? If corporations have a choice between producing a quality product or making a profit, which do they choose?
Bob Murphy used a heroin addict to illustrate a point. Today, drugs are sold by dealers to make money. As I envision a way of life without money, there would be very few drug addicts. Since all the necessities and common luxuries will be free on a help yourself basis at your local store, there would be little reason for anyone to resort to selling drugs.
In fact, over a million people are in jail today because of money (theft, bribery, drug dealing, etc.) In a way of life without money, these people would not be in jail. Instead, they would be using their skills, talents, artistic or athletic abilities to contribute to society.
Bob Murphy asked if I was “proposing the abolition of trade itself, not just trading with a medium of exchange?”
No, but why trade or barter if everything is free? However, I envision a lot of sharing. Tools, appliances, boats, cars and even works of art. Anything that can be shared will be shared. Togetherness will be the norm.
Bob Murphy mentioned greed as a problem in a way of life without money.
Yes, humans are built with greed. However, more important to humans are his well being and the welfare of his family and society in general. The reward that people inherently seek is image; it is respect and reverence from their community.
As I envision a way of of life without money, we will gain economic freedom in addition to and without infringement on our present freedoms. The ONLY common denominator between a way of life without money and socialism/communism/Marxism is economic equality which, in my opinion, we desperately need here in the USA. Economic equality will eliminate poverty. It will also eliminate materialism which warps our sense of value and corrupts our system. It will also reduce crime dramatically. Otherwise, our government will remain the same. The Democrats will still do battle with the Republicans. Our free enterprise system will still exist.
As promised, I will chip away at the rest of your questions. Be good.
John Steinsvold
# posted by : February 18, 2009 at 12:22 AM
: February 18, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Money ENCOURAGES moral growth by making costs of different choices EXPLICIT.
How do those resources get to be "free at the local store?" Why fix something when there is a new one free at the local store? Why maintain something when there is a new one free at the local store?
You're talking about almost instant impoverishment and starvation.
People came up with money because it solved a problem -- coordination of efforts over time. You seek to completely destroy this coordination with the hypothesis of the Star Trek replicator which requires no inputs at all.
How do those resources get to be "free at the local store?" Why fix something when there is a new one free at the local store? Why maintain something when there is a new one free at the local store?
You're talking about almost instant impoverishment and starvation.
People came up with money because it solved a problem -- coordination of efforts over time. You seek to completely destroy this coordination with the hypothesis of the Star Trek replicator which requires no inputs at all.
# posted by : February 18, 2009 at 9:55 AM
: February 18, 2009 at 9:55 AM
People aren't economically equal. People aren't equal at all. Attempts to make them so wind up involving lots of dead bodies.
Some people value leisure relatively more. With money they are free to make that trade off because they are then free to have more leisure time and less claim on produced goods. Without money their lack of production reduces the relative scarcity of produced goods for those who value produced goods more.
Jim O'Connor
The Colony, TX
Some people value leisure relatively more. With money they are free to make that trade off because they are then free to have more leisure time and less claim on produced goods. Without money their lack of production reduces the relative scarcity of produced goods for those who value produced goods more.
Jim O'Connor
The Colony, TX
# posted by : February 18, 2009 at 10:04 AM
: February 18, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Is the neurosurgeon's time available free at the local store? How does this happen? How many hours a day does he put in? How is his time allocated between people who have a bruise on their head vs those who have a defect requiring surgery? How did he decide to be a neurosurgeon instead of a paper mache artist? Does the neurosurgeon value his leisure time? If those desiring his time value it more as a neurosurgeon than he values his leisure time as a paper mache artist how do they express that? Begging? At what point does he go home and get some sleep? Is the neurosurgeon's time really in any sense "equal" to the lay-about with no unique skills?
The "if only money would go away" crowd aren't unhappy with money, they are unhappy with the fact that there are hard choices to be made in life, choices that involve opportunity cost. They imagine that by eliminating the most obvious indicator/measure of that cost they'll eliminate the choice/cost itself. No such luck. Not "counting the cost" means you'll not learn from your mistakes, which means mistakes will abound.
Jim O'Connor
The Colony, Texas
The "if only money would go away" crowd aren't unhappy with money, they are unhappy with the fact that there are hard choices to be made in life, choices that involve opportunity cost. They imagine that by eliminating the most obvious indicator/measure of that cost they'll eliminate the choice/cost itself. No such luck. Not "counting the cost" means you'll not learn from your mistakes, which means mistakes will abound.
Jim O'Connor
The Colony, Texas
# posted by : February 18, 2009 at 10:15 AM
: February 18, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Another oops...
"Without money their lack of production reduces the relative scarcity of produced goods for those who value produced goods more."
Obviously, that should be "Without money their lack of production INCREASES the relative scarcity of produced goods for those who value produced goods more."
Should have finished my coffee. Speaking of which, without money how do I decide whether to have the coffee which requires 4 minutes of labor/resource input or the one which requires 15 minutes of labor/resource input? Won't I always go for the 15 minute one? Won't this require more labor/resources be devoted to coffee production and less to house, corn or gas production? How are these trade-offs determined absent money? I like these other things, too. Now I can't express my relative preference for gas, corn, pencils, coffee, houses because there are no explicit prices...
Jim O'Connor
The Colony, Texas
"Without money their lack of production reduces the relative scarcity of produced goods for those who value produced goods more."
Obviously, that should be "Without money their lack of production INCREASES the relative scarcity of produced goods for those who value produced goods more."
Should have finished my coffee. Speaking of which, without money how do I decide whether to have the coffee which requires 4 minutes of labor/resource input or the one which requires 15 minutes of labor/resource input? Won't I always go for the 15 minute one? Won't this require more labor/resources be devoted to coffee production and less to house, corn or gas production? How are these trade-offs determined absent money? I like these other things, too. Now I can't express my relative preference for gas, corn, pencils, coffee, houses because there are no explicit prices...
Jim O'Connor
The Colony, Texas
# posted by : February 18, 2009 at 10:23 AM
: February 18, 2009 at 10:23 AM
The "won't money go away" crowd are in the same boat as the people who hide the dead bodies from Iraq and our other foreign adventures, "if we don't/can't count the costs then they don't exist."
Jim O'Connor
The Colony, Texas
Jim O'Connor
The Colony, Texas
# posted by : February 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM
: February 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM
John,
Last comment from me -- money arises spontaneously through voluntary interactions among people as they live their lives and seek to solve their problems. Money is superior to barter. Barter is superior to no trade at all. Eliminating money AND barter destroys civilization. This is what you are advocating, though you may not realize it.
All attempts to stop money from arising require coercion. The more serious the government is about suppressing market prices the more violently it must back up its edicts.
If you want to buy a little piece of land and try out your system on it solely with volunteers, go for it. Just don't look for coerced help when it fails.
Jim O'Connor
The Colony, Texas
Last comment from me -- money arises spontaneously through voluntary interactions among people as they live their lives and seek to solve their problems. Money is superior to barter. Barter is superior to no trade at all. Eliminating money AND barter destroys civilization. This is what you are advocating, though you may not realize it.
All attempts to stop money from arising require coercion. The more serious the government is about suppressing market prices the more violently it must back up its edicts.
If you want to buy a little piece of land and try out your system on it solely with volunteers, go for it. Just don't look for coerced help when it fails.
Jim O'Connor
The Colony, Texas
# posted by : February 18, 2009 at 11:10 AM
: February 18, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Without money, there will be almost no trade between people. Without trade, there is no division of labor; and without the division of labor, we all must revert to being hunter/gatherers or farmers. It really is that simple.
A more moral man? Were we more moral before we discovered trade and and indirect exchange? No. Will we be more moral when we revert to the stone age? No.
The more tenuous one's survival is, the less scope one has for the consideration of the well-being of others.
A more moral man? Were we more moral before we discovered trade and and indirect exchange? No. Will we be more moral when we revert to the stone age? No.
The more tenuous one's survival is, the less scope one has for the consideration of the well-being of others.
# posted by : February 18, 2009 at 11:14 AM
: February 18, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Any proposal for the improvement of society that is premised on the necessity for humans to change, as opposed to changing the system within which humans operate, will at best be a failure, and at worst result in a society more inhumane than the current.
J.R.
J.R.
# posted by : February 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM
: February 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM
To the anonymous commenters: There is an option to label your comment with whatever name you wish (Name/URL). It requires no registration.
# posted by : February 18, 2009 at 2:01 PM
: February 18, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Thanks for your comments. I shall not try to answer all your comments; but I will try to give a give a better picture of a way of life without money as I envision it.
Perhaps the administration of a way of life without money is the biggest problem. In my essay, I proposed a network of economic bodies. These economic bodies will coordinate the economic traffic in our nation. They will interact with each other as much as modern technology will allow. A balance of supply and demand will be achieved taking every conceivable factor into consideration including conservation and our environment as well as the needs of the people and their craving for luxuries. IN SHORT, THESE ECONOMIC BODIES WILL BE COORDINATING WHAT IS NOW OUR FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM TO FULFILL THE ECONOMIC NEEDS OF OUR NATION. The amount of bureaucracy required will be considerable; but, in my opinion, will be a whole lot less than the mess we have today.
Today, the word "work" implies a means to "make a living". In a way of life without money, the meaning of the word "work" will change completely. Work will become a stairway to learning, creating and achieving our goals in life without any economic fear.
The best way to motivate people is to allow them to do the work they love to do. One of the goals of a way of life without money is to provide everyone with the opportunity to find a match between their abilities and the opportunity to serve society. If training is necessary, a free education is provided. Every effort will be made for each individual to find the work they love doing. There will be no pressure. I believe everyone has an ability or talent they want to use for the benefit of society.
Today, only 50% of us are happy at our work. It is truly sad. In a way of life without money, we will all be completely free to choose the work we love to do. We will be free to "follow our bliss" as Joseph Campbell put it. Perhaps the success of a way of life without money hinges on people being able to find something they love to do! Perhaps the key to a rewarding life is gaining the proper balance between work and pleasure!
Yes, some sort of measuring device (in the absence of money) would be convenient to measure efficiency or to evaluate how much material and labor it takes to build a car, house, plane or a tank. How do we know the value of something if we don 't have some sort of measuring device to use in place of money?
First, I don’t think this is an insurmountable problem. Americans can be ingenious when they have to be. It will be a challenge to our accountants & economists. Today, we use money as a standard of value. As I envision a way of life without money, we can still use this system although no money is exchanged. For example, You need a raincoat. You walk into a store and select one you like with the help of a clerk who is happy to assist you. Perhaps the tag on the coat may read: "This raincoat would have cost you $79.00 in year 2009". At least, we could still use the prices of today as a starting point. Hourly labor rates, cost of raw materials, etc. We would then have to adjust or perhaps come up with a new scheme altogether.
What about services? Let's take the worst case scenario. You have a leak in your plumbing. Today, you fear for your pocketbook. In a way of life without money, you call up your local plumber, he comes over and fixes it for nothing. All he wants is a smile from you. No, I am not in a dream world. There are people who love being plumbers and love to be needed.
All the necessities and common luxuries will be available on a help yourself basis at your local store. Now, suppose a cabin cruiser was available for distribution. Who should get it? Who has the highest priority? The most obvious answer is a family with children living near the water. If there is more than one family that could use a cabin cruiser, perhaps they could share it. I suggested in my essay that a local board elected by the people in the neighborhood such as a school board could solve the problem of who has the highest priority. If the people are not satisfied with the performance of a member of the board or if favoritism is suspected, the member could easily be voted out in the next election. Corruption would be held to a minimum since there would be no dollar bill to be waved around to gain favoritism. We will not have the rampant corruption we have today.
Getting back to the economic bodies which I proposed to control the economic traffic in the USA, it is essential that a balance of power is maintained. These bodies will be empowered and controlled by Congress from above. The media, as it does today with government officials, will monitor the individual performance of each member from below. If the public is not satisfied with the performance of a member of an economic body, a method must be devised to have him or her replaced. This could accomplished simply by voting. Also, remember that the almighty dollar will not be around to be waved to gain favoritism. (I am thinking of our present day lobbyists.)
I believe that once the American people become aware of the literally fantastic advantages that a way of life without money has to offer, there will elect the Congressmen who will make a way of life without money a reality. Laws will have to be enacted etc. I must admit however, the transition from our present economy to a way without money is frightening; It may be the toughest part; but Americans can be ingenious when they have to be. A tremendous amount of organizing, planning, educating the people on their new way of life, getting the administrative bodies in place and set to go, etc.
If we convert to a way of life without money, all debts would be forgiven. People with mortgages would now own their own homes. Skyrocketing credit card debts would be forgiven. Our national debt, which is in the trillions, would be forgiven since we owe most(?) of it to ourselves. Thus, our grandchildren will not be saddled with an enormous debt.
Today, one in five children in the USA goes to bed hungry at night. We are many trillions of dollars in debt. We live in fear of depression, inflation, inadequate medical coverage and losing our jobs. I believe the usefulness of money is over.
Take care,
John Steinsvold
"If we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Perhaps the administration of a way of life without money is the biggest problem. In my essay, I proposed a network of economic bodies. These economic bodies will coordinate the economic traffic in our nation. They will interact with each other as much as modern technology will allow. A balance of supply and demand will be achieved taking every conceivable factor into consideration including conservation and our environment as well as the needs of the people and their craving for luxuries. IN SHORT, THESE ECONOMIC BODIES WILL BE COORDINATING WHAT IS NOW OUR FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM TO FULFILL THE ECONOMIC NEEDS OF OUR NATION. The amount of bureaucracy required will be considerable; but, in my opinion, will be a whole lot less than the mess we have today.
Today, the word "work" implies a means to "make a living". In a way of life without money, the meaning of the word "work" will change completely. Work will become a stairway to learning, creating and achieving our goals in life without any economic fear.
The best way to motivate people is to allow them to do the work they love to do. One of the goals of a way of life without money is to provide everyone with the opportunity to find a match between their abilities and the opportunity to serve society. If training is necessary, a free education is provided. Every effort will be made for each individual to find the work they love doing. There will be no pressure. I believe everyone has an ability or talent they want to use for the benefit of society.
Today, only 50% of us are happy at our work. It is truly sad. In a way of life without money, we will all be completely free to choose the work we love to do. We will be free to "follow our bliss" as Joseph Campbell put it. Perhaps the success of a way of life without money hinges on people being able to find something they love to do! Perhaps the key to a rewarding life is gaining the proper balance between work and pleasure!
Yes, some sort of measuring device (in the absence of money) would be convenient to measure efficiency or to evaluate how much material and labor it takes to build a car, house, plane or a tank. How do we know the value of something if we don 't have some sort of measuring device to use in place of money?
First, I don’t think this is an insurmountable problem. Americans can be ingenious when they have to be. It will be a challenge to our accountants & economists. Today, we use money as a standard of value. As I envision a way of life without money, we can still use this system although no money is exchanged. For example, You need a raincoat. You walk into a store and select one you like with the help of a clerk who is happy to assist you. Perhaps the tag on the coat may read: "This raincoat would have cost you $79.00 in year 2009". At least, we could still use the prices of today as a starting point. Hourly labor rates, cost of raw materials, etc. We would then have to adjust or perhaps come up with a new scheme altogether.
What about services? Let's take the worst case scenario. You have a leak in your plumbing. Today, you fear for your pocketbook. In a way of life without money, you call up your local plumber, he comes over and fixes it for nothing. All he wants is a smile from you. No, I am not in a dream world. There are people who love being plumbers and love to be needed.
All the necessities and common luxuries will be available on a help yourself basis at your local store. Now, suppose a cabin cruiser was available for distribution. Who should get it? Who has the highest priority? The most obvious answer is a family with children living near the water. If there is more than one family that could use a cabin cruiser, perhaps they could share it. I suggested in my essay that a local board elected by the people in the neighborhood such as a school board could solve the problem of who has the highest priority. If the people are not satisfied with the performance of a member of the board or if favoritism is suspected, the member could easily be voted out in the next election. Corruption would be held to a minimum since there would be no dollar bill to be waved around to gain favoritism. We will not have the rampant corruption we have today.
Getting back to the economic bodies which I proposed to control the economic traffic in the USA, it is essential that a balance of power is maintained. These bodies will be empowered and controlled by Congress from above. The media, as it does today with government officials, will monitor the individual performance of each member from below. If the public is not satisfied with the performance of a member of an economic body, a method must be devised to have him or her replaced. This could accomplished simply by voting. Also, remember that the almighty dollar will not be around to be waved to gain favoritism. (I am thinking of our present day lobbyists.)
I believe that once the American people become aware of the literally fantastic advantages that a way of life without money has to offer, there will elect the Congressmen who will make a way of life without money a reality. Laws will have to be enacted etc. I must admit however, the transition from our present economy to a way without money is frightening; It may be the toughest part; but Americans can be ingenious when they have to be. A tremendous amount of organizing, planning, educating the people on their new way of life, getting the administrative bodies in place and set to go, etc.
If we convert to a way of life without money, all debts would be forgiven. People with mortgages would now own their own homes. Skyrocketing credit card debts would be forgiven. Our national debt, which is in the trillions, would be forgiven since we owe most(?) of it to ourselves. Thus, our grandchildren will not be saddled with an enormous debt.
Today, one in five children in the USA goes to bed hungry at night. We are many trillions of dollars in debt. We live in fear of depression, inflation, inadequate medical coverage and losing our jobs. I believe the usefulness of money is over.
Take care,
John Steinsvold
"If we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
# posted by : February 18, 2009 at 11:15 PM
: February 18, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Hi John,
I can understand why you wouldn't want to answer the objections listed here directly. They are all of the practical considerations which have collapsed every other plan like yours in history.
If you want to see a bureaucracy at work, look at government which spends into endless money holes to satisfy the vanity of the bureaucracy until it collapses the structure of production. This is what you are suggesting. Only you want to avoid the accounting by eliminating the method of accounting so it is impossible to tell if the real costs of a project outweigh the benefits.
The best way to motivate people is the threat of starvation. That is reality. How do we motivate people to be garbage collectors by learning? The "work" I love to do is read. However, there is already an oversupply of people who love to do that as well, so how do we direct some people away from reading and into the less elevated pursuits? Oh, we FORCE them via a central planning board. Lovely. Instead of letting people voluntarily trade off income for what they want to do with their time according to their own desires and goals you're going to compel them to do what the planning board wants. Who gets to be on the planning board? How do we remove incompetent members of the planning board? How do we tell which members of the planning board are incompetent?
Heretical Christian sects tried these plans in the past and the results weren't pretty. Lots of compulsion, starvation, death.
Star Trek is not a valid theory of society. Star Trek's society isn't even self-consistent.
I can understand why you wouldn't want to answer the objections listed here directly. They are all of the practical considerations which have collapsed every other plan like yours in history.
If you want to see a bureaucracy at work, look at government which spends into endless money holes to satisfy the vanity of the bureaucracy until it collapses the structure of production. This is what you are suggesting. Only you want to avoid the accounting by eliminating the method of accounting so it is impossible to tell if the real costs of a project outweigh the benefits.
The best way to motivate people is the threat of starvation. That is reality. How do we motivate people to be garbage collectors by learning? The "work" I love to do is read. However, there is already an oversupply of people who love to do that as well, so how do we direct some people away from reading and into the less elevated pursuits? Oh, we FORCE them via a central planning board. Lovely. Instead of letting people voluntarily trade off income for what they want to do with their time according to their own desires and goals you're going to compel them to do what the planning board wants. Who gets to be on the planning board? How do we remove incompetent members of the planning board? How do we tell which members of the planning board are incompetent?
Heretical Christian sects tried these plans in the past and the results weren't pretty. Lots of compulsion, starvation, death.
Star Trek is not a valid theory of society. Star Trek's society isn't even self-consistent.
# posted by : February 19, 2009 at 9:21 AM
: February 19, 2009 at 9:21 AM
How will your society be able to tell when it makes sense to replace something instead of fix it? There is no cost accounting. Everything is "free". How will your society know whether the right way of making a car is mass production or hand assembly by custom fitted parts? You have no way. There is no way for consumers to express their preferences. They have to lobby the central planning boards and beg for the goods they desire in the quantities and proportions they desire. How will a central planning board manage the production of pencils, which require millions of input factors? How many products ARE there in an economy? How many variables and interactions between variables can a single person conceptualize at a time? How will a planning board manage millions of not fully understood interdependencies which already manage themselves in a market price system?
You seek to completely destroy implicit and distributed cooperation to replace it with explicit and centralized cooperation, creating huge bottlenecks and concentrated points of failure.
Yours is the recipe for a stone age existence.
You seek to completely destroy implicit and distributed cooperation to replace it with explicit and centralized cooperation, creating huge bottlenecks and concentrated points of failure.
Yours is the recipe for a stone age existence.
# posted by : February 19, 2009 at 9:33 AM
: February 19, 2009 at 9:33 AM
I am still waiting for the explanation for how raincoats get made, or the food gets grown, or the sewer mains get fixed.
Nothing produced by the hand of man is free, John, nothing. You seem to recognize this at some level when you speak of "perks" as incentives to do the less agreeable tasks that need to be done in order for there to not be scarce goods and services.
Do you even recognize that some goods and services will be in a shorter supply than is required to fill the demand at a zero price? If not, then there really is no reason to continue this discussion since only one of us is connected to reality.
I can't quite get past the niggling feeling that our collective legs are being pulled.
Nothing produced by the hand of man is free, John, nothing. You seem to recognize this at some level when you speak of "perks" as incentives to do the less agreeable tasks that need to be done in order for there to not be scarce goods and services.
Do you even recognize that some goods and services will be in a shorter supply than is required to fill the demand at a zero price? If not, then there really is no reason to continue this discussion since only one of us is connected to reality.
I can't quite get past the niggling feeling that our collective legs are being pulled.
# posted by : February 19, 2009 at 3:51 PM
: February 19, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Yancey,
I've heard some of the things these "scarcity free" people believe, and this isn't the most ludicrous. This may be a hoax, but there is plenty of historical evidence that this guy is relatively mainstream among the genre.
Unfortunately they learned the wrong lesson from 50 years of apparent prosperity and think because they didn't have to work much to produce it nobody will have to work much to keep it going.
Post a Comment
I've heard some of the things these "scarcity free" people believe, and this isn't the most ludicrous. This may be a hoax, but there is plenty of historical evidence that this guy is relatively mainstream among the genre.
Unfortunately they learned the wrong lesson from 50 years of apparent prosperity and think because they didn't have to work much to produce it nobody will have to work much to keep it going.
# posted by : February 19, 2009 at 7:26 PM
: February 19, 2009 at 7:26 PM Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]