The Concept of Currency

[HoneyRoastedPeanut]

All life is in competition with others, the more successful ones just have wider ranges of opposition.

Except it's not strictly competition in the way we are accustomed to thinking of it. If you consume something for food, shelter, etc., you are responsible for and dependent on the survival of that species to a degree, and are therefore responsible for the survival of its environment. This is a rule that many cultures have followed, but that ours does not acknowledge. You compete only insofar as it is required for your survival, and no other species besides human attempts to control the lives of others outside of their own species (they kill, but do not domesticate, enslave or assimilate).

Put another way, humans (although this is not universal to all cultures) are the only species that destroys its food's competition as well as its own. This activity is a result of the supposition that humans have authority over all other life forms on the planet to determine what is right and wrong for everything, which other animals do not display. When a behavior so fundamentally different from these unconscious 'rules of interaction' (my terminology) tries to justify itself using authoritative logic, you'll understand where I question the entire validity of the argument. Modern humans have managed to observe these rules for at least 990,000 years of our existence, and only in the last 10,000 has it been ignored and replaced with the rule of human dominion.

I also agree that the 'natural v unnatural' debate is circular and moot. Something being labeled 'natural' or not has nothing to do with how good of an idea it is (good for whom?), and everything must be judged by its own example. In this case, capitalism's threat to homeostasis is a very bad idea for the survival of our species and most others.

Sorry if I derailed this thread, but I feel all of these issues are at the root of the currency issue.

 

[Roger&Me]

The thing about currency is this: it was created to work for us; to make our lives easier, so that it would be simpler to acquire things you need to get on in this life.

But, instead of currency working for people; people are now working for currency. They are slaves to something we created to help us. Look at the effects that has had; the unpredictability of the stock market is just one example. I'm massively afraid of the stock-market, its like money run wild; its not even mathematically predictable, which is a creepy concept to me.

I certainly think, though, that its a natural human tendency to create currency; I've read case-studies of isolated economies that arose in prisoner-of-war camps in which they used cigarettes as their standardized form of currency -- simply because under a system of bartering, things just get too chaotic. There has to be some central measure of value that all other values are relative to. Otherwise, you would have to remember the relative value of one item versus the relative value of all other items in existence. The complexity would be mind-boggling; so, we simplify things by using a common unit of exchange.

 

[HoneyRoastedPeanut]

There has to be some central measure of value that all other values are relative to. Otherwise, you would have to remember the relative value of one item versus the relative value of all other items in existence. The complexity would be mind-boggling; so, we simplify things by using a common unit of exchange.

Why does there have to be a universal constant of value? Why can't everything be judged for itself in the individual situation in which it exists? Bartering only becomes mind-bogglingly complex if you try to enforce a fixed value to things, in which case there is a lot of data to memorize. Otherwise, the mind is free to not preoccupy itself with such notions, and when you get down to business it's not about maintaining these preconceptions but about both parties coming out of the deal happy.

If we tie ourselves psychologically to these ideas of fixed value it's no surprise when this behavior leads to wage slavery, because as much as we might hate that idea, the imperative for a monetary value system remains in our psyches, and therefore is upheld and justified.

 

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

Rodger&Me: Modern machinery was supposed to make things easy for us . . . very few ppl make clothes, food, necessities. As Karl Marx, bertrand Russell and Muammar Gadaffi observed, when there's an abundance, there's no reason to divvy (barter) and hoard.

Now, as U said, we're slaves to 30-year mortgages (U end up paying four times the cost of building the home), etc.

Then we have all the paper-pushing parasites like bankers, bookkeepers, salesmen, sales clerks, insurance companies, wall-street moneychangers, etc.

 

[Roger&Me]

I personally think that it would suck to have to barter. For lack of a more eloquent way to put it, having to barter for goods would be quite a bizarre and pragmatically unwise way to sell and acquire goods. I think in practice, some sort of fixed value monetary system is necessary.

And I wouldn't call bankers, salesman, etc. parasites. That's a horrible thing to say; most of them are just people trying to get by in this life. There's a few members of the financial elite that are criminals, I will admit that, but most people are just people living their life.

And a 15 year mortgage is a much smarter idea if you can afford it, you have higher monthly payments but your overall expenditure is much lower. 3

 

[HoneyRoastedPeanut]

Eh, I personally think it sucks that we have to either commit ourselves to wage slavery or circumvent the law in order to gain access to anything that has a price attached to it, which at this point is pretty much everything required for survival. What's more, I owe somebody (the government, my landlord, etc.) money whether I make any money or not, whether my job is enough to support me or not. To me that is extortion, and seems bizarre and pragmatically unwise for the great majority of people. It is, however, a very effective method of control for those at the top of the monetary pyramid.

 

[B9]

currency is essential. can you imagine a practical alternative?

alasdair

Well now there's a question. I could suggest that people simply did what was needed & took what was needed. However no doubts a valid point regarding incentives would be raised. This point is unaddressable in the current capitalist/consumerist based mindset we all inhabit. What might be worthwhile exploring would be a different system in which the value of capital was adjusted so it has less intrinsic value. Now then achieving this will be a very difficult task.

Capital as it affects the commoner ( you & I) is simply a means to greater consumption insofar as I can see - & that consumption is of itself potentially & actually negative in a personal, ecological & societal sense. The attitude that money, & the consumerism it built alongside itself, created is most definitely anti - social. It's all about getting what you can - despite the fact you have more than enough.

To that end, in order to revalue & maybe eventually do away with money I'd reckon we need to embrace another & radically different philosophy of living, not only in a societal sense but also in a personal sense.

I wouldn't claim to think I know the route out of this consumerist bind we find ourselves in BUT I think that relegating money from it's status as "the be all & end all" is the first step in such a venture. If we could learn to think differently about what we do & why we do it as individuals we would perhaps begin to see that far from being the liberating benign force of encouragement it's so often purported to be that in fact it can be as enslaving as any addiction, gambling is a good case in point here.
The addict cannot see past his/her own behaviours in many many cases, our society is addicted to money " we cannot manage without it", why tho ? Well because we are so used to it that's why, just the same as you can get so used to taking a drug on a regular basis.

So I ask myself ( yeah I'm thinking this as I type - as per usual ) what would the advice be to an addict who had racked up a deficit in health terms ( which I think is a neat enough analogy ).

You/we must find another way to be you/us, the ego must be suppressed in order to even begin to conceive of a system in which a non money based existence could begin to blossom.

The key to existing without money lies inside the collective & personal philosophy of us all.

Now this might sound like a non answer, but it strikes me that it is the only logical starting point to allow the possibility of such a change.

I think what's needed is possibly akin to some sort of a religious crusade in which the very nature of what we blindly choose to believe is possible is challenged.

The first practical step on this journey would be to decentralise food production. We are primarily a food based culture & altering this primary need would begin to address the question in the most effective way I can think of.


Related reading -> http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=312758

 

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

Yeah, B9 it would take a radical spiritual revival for civilisation to change (evolve) into a money-less society. The early Christians (Acts 4) and the Esseans, who were contemporaries of jesus (if he existed) "held all things in common" and the esseans "despised wealth and carried no money" like jesus admonished his disciples to do.

Communities would be designed for people with community cafeterias instead of having all these junk food stores accross the streets from eachother.

There wouldn't be built in obsolence (electric cars will never die, U can replace engine & batteries easy).

Eventually, if we're gonna evolve we've got to eliminate money. Now's the time we have the machines to make life easy, it's so strange that we hafta work so hard for so little.

Community or regional gardens would grow fresh food. Kids could work there, get in touch with nature and appreciate the planet we live on. Everyone could do a "rotation" of necessary work throughout their younger days like construction work, agriculture, factory work.

The incentive wold be making ppl happy, bulding a planet worthy of ur children to inherit instead of the debt (money) we're piling on them now with sooo much uncertainity and wars.

John Lennon had a song about it: IMAGINE! (A world without MONEY!)

Imagine what the "Kingdom of God" Jesus talked about would be like. U think there will be insurance agents, realestate agents, cashiers, banks there?!

 

[treetop]

Does anyone else here feel petrified at the idea of currency?

Maybe we should phrase this "does anyone feel petrified at the idea of no currency?" I'm sure most people do. But what if it was not allowed? How would our economy function, if at all?

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I guess I don't have a problem with there being standards about how many blah blah blahs a somethingelse trades for. And I agree with Obyron -- that's all money really does. Money is just an abstract way to deal with something very concrete: how collectively 'valuable' and 'wantable' people find that item.

However, I do see your point too B9. I think advertisers, especially, are very good at getting people to sincerely believe that they will be better people with Product X. It takes a good education and upbringing to come to realize you're continually surrounded by groups that just want to stick a hand in your change jar, and to learn not to get lured in by promises of a better life. Though being able to make and manage a reasonable amount of money is definitely a matter of survival in our part of the world, it's by no means the only thing needed to have a fulfilling life. In fact, a lot of the things that make life worthwhile can't be bought with money: strong bonds with other people, a sense of adventure, a sense of inner peace. Not that people won't try to sell you all of these.

I find it helps a lot to seek out and surround myself with people who are not materially oriented: who live for experiences and relationships, not acquisitions. They're definitely there. But they may be shy.

 

[neonads]

The only realistic way of getting rid of currency is to also get rid of 98.3% of the worlds population to bring it back to 670BC. Who wants no currency and a 1 in 60 chance of seeing it in action? Not me, thank you.

 

[B9]

I think there may be an opportunity to attempt to effect real change in the near future. For sure the money moguls are already planning their comeback. I watched Alan Greenspan ( whose philosophy I revile) last night articulating how he sees the the future of finance "after this crisis has passed" - I feel it worth pointing out that this was billed as " the flaw in my philosophy" yeah rightio, thing is the philosophy of capitalism is fundamentally flawed yet "they" seem to believe ( & justifiably so given the all pervading cynicism/defeatism/lack of imagination shown by most folks) that there will be a comeback for financiers. Greenspan predicts that the myriad of financial instruments will be severly curtailed & regulated - I'm sure someone already pointed this out tho.

Once upon a time we had no money we were not even "aware of ourselves, we existed in a state of egolessness.
Then we became aware of "I", "me""mine" et cetera & from that I reckon our course was set to end up somewhere rather like here & now.
To presuppose that this is the pinnacle of human consciousness evolution is merely a product of a closed mindset.
The first person to speak about wanting to try to go to the moon was no doubt ridiculed & asked by the unimaginative to empirically demonstrate how this could be possible.
Of course all they could do was maybe feebly suggest a ladder or a flying machine, which hey they couldn't prove would work or how to build it, BUT they sold a dream - & hey presto it came true, which is simply unbelievable considering there was no practical solution at the time.....8)

So the question a world without money is not really that valid IMO.
A better question might be" what do we do first in order to move towards our goal of replacing the flawed concept of money"

Now when people wearing comfortably fitting cynicism suits cut from the very finest karmic materials money can buy ask questions like " what will replace money"? then you have to ask yourself if they were transported back in time, to when the inception of money was occurring, would they be asking " why the fuck would I believe in that stupid piece of metal" ?

The context makes the difference betweeen the abstract & the real.

MDAO I agree with your sentiments in the above post, however I do actually believe we could move forward & toward a world structured on different values & eventually without money & not necessarily settle for watered down & probably doomed to destruction quarter measures.

 

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

Neonads, IMO, the ideal world population would be 2-billion, which it was in 1946.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/666ismoney/2403628105/

We could begin the transition to a moneyless society through educating the children about how unnecessary it is . . . let the kids imagine! Teach them the logistics of how few people produce the necessities of life and how many paper-pushing "parasites" there are, who are functionaries of the money system who produce nothing! Show them money doesn't bring happiness. Show them the simple life. For instance, I living in my 17 x 24-foot guesthouse with lotsa windows and the curtains always open . . . even at night.

 

[Obyron]

The idea of a moneyless society smacks of a Communist ideal to me. What would people have to give up to live in a moneyless "utopia"? Playing guitar has enriched my life, but how could I afford that if there were no money, and I were simply subject to the whims of everyone else? Take the entertainment industry for example. If an artist wants to devote his life to painting, or if a lot of people like a band, or if a popular actor is in a new TV show... how do we compensate these people? Do we do it directly with goods and services? What if the recipient wants to be benevolent and pass these goods and services on to others as a show of love, or in return for giving them the training and inspiration that made them so good at what they do?

Or what if they don't want goods and services right now? It would be necessary to come up with a coupon or IOU system by which we can "remember" that this person is entitled to goods and services... and then you have money again!

Unless of course you are implying that there will be no more actors, guitarists, artists, compensation, or exchange of goods and services, and that we will all simply live agrarian lifestyles with no television, no Tivo, no cars, no society. If you'd like to see that dream in action, hop in a time machine and head back to the Dark Ages. It's not all it's cracked up to be.

Even if you eliminated cash overnight, it would be no time at all before someone came up with something new to quantify abstract value, whether they call it a "dollar" or not. I agree with you that people can learn to love simpler lives without giant houses and 27 cars, but that's a long way from advocating that there be no money at all. Good luck selling the "dream" of serfdom.

"Imagine no possessions" indeed.

 

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

The idea of a moneyless society smacks of a Communist ideal to me.

Yes, it is a Communist ideal . . . a true communist believes in eliminating money . . . socialism is supposed to be an intermediate stage between Capitalism & Communism.

What would people have to give up to live in a moneyless "utopia"?

Yes, there was no money in Saint Thomas More's "Utopia" either. (More was burned at the stake.) Give up the idea of building ur own castle with money-slaves.

Playing guitar has enriched my life, but how could I afford that if there were no money, and I were simply subject to the whims of everyone else?

"Afford"? Without $$$ U would have lotsa time to play ur guitar.

Take the entertainment industry for example. If an artist wants to devote his life to painting, or if a lot of people like a band, or if a popular actor is in a new TV show... how do we compensate these people?

There's lots of ways, like organizing a group of fans to build them a studio, like townspeople banned together to build cathedrals.

 

[B9]

I dislike the term communism - it smacks of past failures & a rigid inflexible way of thinking.

Decentralisation with a slant toward the communal but not effectively outlawing individualist pursuits would be my preferred first objective.

 

[Obyron]

And I suppose a luthier is just going to give me a quality instrument? Do I need to organize a group of townspeople to build him a house? If everyone is pursuing their dream since they're no longer slaves to money, where are we going to find plumbers to make sure our hypothetical luthier won't be shitting in an outhouse? Where am I going to get the "credit" with these folks to get them to help me building a house for this guy? What if he already has a house? I don't know how to help him grow roses as a gift for his wife. My examples may not be perfect, but I'm sure you can see where I'm going. Money already does all the things you seem to want people to do without money, it just allows us to do them as an abstraction.

When you spend 100,000 dollars on a home (your market may vary, blah blah), you have to understand that you earned that money doing whatever it is you do to get paid, say helping your boss make a deadline for a client. Your client earned that money by doing whatever it is they do, say, manufacturing and selling electronics. The people who bought those electronics earned their money doing whatever it is they do, whether it's playing guitar, or growing flowers, or being a plumber, or selling instruments. You are spending the fruits of their labors, which came to you through a circuitous chain of events that's too tedious to care about, and so we simplify it by abstracting it with money.

In the absence of money, an equivalent measure of value would just spring up to replace it. Prisoners don't have money so they trade cigarettes.

The problem with our system is not money, it's the criminal lengths people will go to in order to get it, and the class imbalance that ends up being caused by those who horde it and refuse to spend it. Money is the corpse of value. If you want to increase your wealth spend it. You have to spend money to make money, etc. etc. Reform the system, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The institution of money works just fine, but the problem is a relative few of the people who are exploiting others to get it.

Your cashless "utopia" will never succeed. However, we have a very real chance at making meaningful reforms in the current system to make things a lot better for the lower class. I think it's funny you trot out More to back up your ideas, since the practical outgrowth of his work was its influence on Karl Marx, and we see how well Marxism has worked out in practice. It's one thing to write about a cashless utopia where all property is owned in common, and quite another thing to make it work. All it takes is ONE person who is not honest, who has an oversized ego, who can think of ways to abuse the system, and you get Stalin, Ceausescu, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, Qaddafi (you know, back in his international terrorist, Carlos the Jackal-loving days).

As an aside, it amuses me that you note in one breath that More wrote about a cashless utopia, and immediately add that he was burned at the stake. You seem to be conflating these two issues to gain a martyr for your cause. In reality More was beheaded, not burned at the stake, and it's because he made an enemy of Henry VIII and refused to sign the Act of Succession proclaiming Anne Boleyn queen of England-- not because he disagreed with that in principle, but because the Act contained several Anti-Papal clauses. He martyred himself for religious belief, and THIS is why he was Sainted (he's the patron saint of lawyers and lawmakers). It had nothing to do with Utopia.

I've made my point loud and clear, and I'm not going to derail this thread just to argue with you, since we've been down that road before on other topics. I will cede to you that a Utopia would be an ideal society, but it also requires a couple billion ideal men and women to make it work, and there's a desperate shortage of those. We can work to make people better, and we can work to improve society, but we're several thousand years away from the possibility of a FLAWED Utopia, much less a perfect one. In this respect, More's Utopia is a model we can strive for, not a list of instructions we should follow verbatim and expect their institution to suddenly transform human nature for the better.

 

[neonads]

Goddess - I plucked that figure from a fairly thin line of reasoning. There were 100 million people in 670BC, the time of the first coin in Lydia, Turkey. My assumption is that the limits to barter began to show themselves around this time so a return to a barter system will de-catalyse (and paralyse) our economies until we reach a similar point.

B9 - How would you temper individual risk/reward with collectivism? If the former is not outlawed, would it not draw more and more people to it?

 

[ebola?]

My take:

1. I'm more annoyed by currency than afraid of its consequences.
2. Currency has existed for the minority of human history, and fiat currency in particular is very new. Why would we think that currency is 'natural', or that it will endure for all future time?
3. In itself, currency is ethically ambiguous. Put to use in capitalism, currency has wrought injustice (by and large). However, this is because under capitalism, currency functions primarily to animate capital, leading to further developments in class-based exploitation (spreading across the globe and to new realms of labor). Currency needn't do this. In fact, I can imagine various 'market socialisms'.
4. I don't think that currency developed out of barter, particularly because I'm pretty sure that NO human culture ever operated economically primarily through barter. Rather, I think that currency developed out of attempts to extend the scope of 'credit', that is, agreements that someone owes someone else some work, or an 'equivalent'.
5. I think that a still technologically developed post-currency society might be possible, and I would like to work toward an attempt. I also think that experiments in market-socialism and mutual aid will lead the way toward this. As for alternatives to currency, I find a gift economy the easiest to think about, and I consider central economic planning impossible (and at worst a tool of domination). But any number of economic systems are possible. . .

I certainly think, though, that its a natural human tendency to create currency; I've read case-studies of isolated economies that arose in prisoner-of-war camps in which they used cigarettes as their standardized form of currency -- simply because under a system of bartering, things just get too chaotic. There has to be some central measure of value that all other values are relative to. Otherwise, you would have to remember the relative value of one item versus the relative value of all other items in existence.

Your example proves little. These prisoners all came from cultures with currency...of course they'd invent a new currency in its absence.

ebola

 

[Lady Codone]

Money is worthless. It's the THINGS money can buy, the power and influence, that give it its power. With enough money, you can travel the world, live in a ginormous home, have all the latest technology, designer clothes, pay politicians and people high up in the corporate world to do favors, and be the envy of your (shallow) friends. Without it, you're malnourished, homeless or living in a tiny dwelling, can't afford a good education or any luxuries, and have little say-so in the world.

At least in the capitalist world as we know it here in America.