Money

[Dino]

What would happen if all money would dissapear and people only would be trading with for example art, so let's say a painting for grocery products for example, would the paintings become the same as money? Or is it then all based on opinions of a particular painting that determ the value?

 

[Strange]

Rather than carrying large and possibly fragile works of art around, people would start writing on bits of paper that they could be redeemed for a particular work. And then they would forget about the artworks and just use the paper as currency.

[Raider5678]

Just now, Strange said:

Rather than carrying large and possibly fragile works of art around, people would start writing on bits of paper that they could be redeemed for a particular work. And then they would forget about the artworks and just use the paper as currency.

I'd start a business on this premise right away.

I buy items in exchange for material objects.

You can also buy them back from me.

I'll have a currency set up in 2 weeks.

[Dino]

But, let's say that 80% of the population would start making their own paintings then the shop owner would have so much options of paintings, he would only choose the best ones and eventually those who are not good enough would stop making paintings and they would work again to earn paintings.

Please don't take this serious, just imagine. 

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Dino said:

But, let's say that 80% of the population would start making their own paintings then the shop owner would have so much options of paintings, he would only choose the best ones and eventually those who are not good enough would stop making paintings and they would work again to earn paintings.

Please don't take this serious, just imagine. 

Barter is an exchange of value, I'll give you a pig if you give me a third of a dead cow or 12 geese; money is just an easier way to exchange value when you only have one live cow or 6 chickens; art only has value if you have more cows, pigs chickens or geese than you need, otherwise it's only value is fuel for the fire.

[Silvestru]

26 minutes ago, Dino said:

But, let's say that 80% of the population would start making their own paintings then the shop owner would have so much options of paintings, he would only choose the best ones and eventually those who are not good enough would stop making paintings and they would work again to earn paintings.

Please don't take this serious, just imagine. 

I am so bad at painting that I would die or be forced to beg  Can I exchange a song for a painting so I can buy some bread?

[Janus]

35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Barter is an exchange of value, I'll give you a pig if you give me a third of a dead cow or 12 geese; money is just an easier way to exchange value when you only have one live cow or 6 chickens; art only has value if you have more cows, pigs chickens or geese than you need, otherwise it's only value is fuel for the fire.

After my dad retired he would, from time to time, barter out his services to local farmers.  Once it was laying the cinder block walls for of a out-building for a dairy farmer.  In payment, he got a calf, which we raised on the small bit of acreage that we had for the beef.  Another time he got a Guernsey heifer which we raised as a milk cow.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

I am so bad at painting that I would die or be forced to beg  Can I exchange a song for a painting so I can buy some bread?

If you're lucky, all art would be included as a valuable exchange currency. However, if we allow the extremist painters to put their minions into positions of power, eventually music, poetry, sculpture, and other art forms will decline in value, and only paintings will be deemed worthy.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

If you're lucky, all art would be included as a valuable exchange currency. However, if we allow the extremist painters to put their minions into positions of power, eventually music, poetry, sculpture, and other art forms will decline in value, and only paintings will be deemed worthy.

 

Of burning.

[Phi for All]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Of burning.

Um.            No.

The extremist painters, having more currency than anyone else, could fairly quickly disseminate the concept of worth-by-canvas, where the working class can only dream of owning a painting larger than their head. Homes would change so extremist painters could emphasize wall space rather than rooms with a piano, or niches for sculpture. 

As a capitalist society chooses more and more private solutions, extreme wealth is inevitable without regulation. If we substituted seashells for paintings, people who lived on the coast would suddenly become very wealthy. And some of those would be extremists, and they'd make sure that seashells were valued highly, to the exclusion of any other perceived wealth.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Um.            No.

The extremist painters, having more currency than anyone else, could fairly quickly disseminate the concept of worth-by-canvas, where the working class can only dream of owning a painting larger than their head. Homes would change so extremist painters could emphasize wall space rather than rooms with a piano, or niches for sculpture. 

As a capitalist society chooses more and more private solutions, extreme wealth is inevitable without regulation. If we substituted seashells for paintings, people who lived on the coast would suddenly become very wealthy. And some of those would be extremists, and they'd make sure that seashells were valued highly, to the exclusion of any other perceived wealth.

Only if seashells are edible.

Value is meaningless if we don't have enough to eat, a billion dollars can buy anything you want unless 2 billion dollars is the price of a loaf of bread.

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Only if seashells are edible.

???

Are cash or paintings edible? You're being more cryptic than usual.

Have it your way though. If food became the basis of our currency, the farmers are now the billionaires. And some of those will be extremists, and will force society to value food above all.

[dimreepr]

What is the value of money, if not the promise of need satisfied?

[Raider5678]

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What is the value of money, if not the promise of need satisfied?

I have a lot of people saying "Money is actually worthless paper. Why do we bother even using it?"

 

Now I know that's not what you're saying, don't take me the wrong way for saying that.

 

But money in and of itself is a very useful thing to have.

If we only bartered in the things that had an actual use, we would barter in many different things.

From metal to food, to medicine, to clothing, to cars, etc.

Ultimately, there will be a time where you desperately need something, but since nobody needs what you're trading, you can't get it.

Say you need medicine. Badly. But all you have is stockpiles of food because you just harvested everything you needed.

You go to get medicine, but nobody will trade with you because they don't need food. 

Ultimately, the fluctuations of value will be extreme, because some people will be more desperate than others.

While you might be willing to trade 5 pounds of food for the medicine, someone more desperate might be willing to pay 20 pounds of food for it.

But then someone with a twenty-foot roll of copper wire that the man selling the medicine needs much more than food.

So he takes the copper wire and you're stuck with your food, no medicine, and have wasted plenty of time.

 

And don't even get me started on how badly inequality would be. Do you realize how hard it is to trade houses for food/belongings? Most people would only get to rent with a monthly quota, while the landowners get a very easy living. They need only demand what they need.

And paying taxes as well. How would you do that? Collect a different item from each region?

And what about minimum wage? How is that decided when the value of items can fluctuate by 200% every hour, let alone 5% in 7 years.

 

 

The value of money is in its usefulness. You can look at the rarity of an item alongside with the usefulness.

Just because it has no practical use, doesn't make something not useful.

 

But there will always be the hippy who says there is no value to money and we should ignore it.

I'd rather not because those people have no idea what they're talking about.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Raider5678

[Dino]

I agree on the point that money is useful on how it is now, and I think it is the best to leave this topic as how it is, maybe in the future things might be diffrent, due to lack of resources. But that is the future, so let's leave this topic for now how it is.