world without money

[Area54]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

By definition, that's half the planet, and always will be

That depends upon whether you are using mean, mode or median. It is only necessarily true for the last.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

That depends upon whether you are using mean, mode or median. It is only necessarily true for the last.

He said average. We can safely assume he didn't mean mode and likely not median.

[Area54]

On 7/17/2020 at 9:38 PM, iNow said:

He said average. We can safely assume he didn't mean mode and likely not median.

Had he just mentioned average then I would agree, but he stated "by definition". My view is that if one seeks to  impart weight to a post by quoting definitions one had best ensure the definition is accurate. Pedantic? I suggest not.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

Had he just mentioned average then I would agree, but he stated "by definition". My view is that if one seeks to  impart weight to a post by quoting definitions one had best ensure the definition is accurate. Pedantic? I suggest not.

Well drat. You’re quite right. I was defining median, not average. Oh well. Thanks for the correction. 

I was wrong once before. It was a Tuesday, on a leap year... during a full moon.

However, in my defense, use of average almost certainly means that far more than half of the world will be below the number due to the massive asymmetries in wealth around the globe. So, in that sense the core point I was making in my reply only gets amplified by using average, not diminished. 

Cheers, and thanks again 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I was wrong once before. It was a Tuesday, on a leap year... during a full moon.

I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken. 😃

[Area54]

On 7/23/2020 at 12:34 AM, iNow said:

Well drat. You’re quite right. I was defining median, not average. Oh well. Thanks for the correction. 

I was wrong once before. It was a Tuesday, on a leap year... during a full moon.

However, in my defense, use of average almost certainly means that far more than half of the world will be below the number due to the massive asymmetries in wealth around the globe. So, in that sense the core point I was making in my reply only gets amplified by using average, not diminished. 

Cheers, and thanks again 

You are welcome. I challenged you on it, partly because the thread, which was silly to start with, seemed to have run its course and partly because I think, on a science forum, we should avoid "lay usage" of scientific terminology. The abuse of "theory" is the one that springs easily to mind, but there are others lurking around of which "average" is one.

The average bloke just doesn't seem to  get it.

[IDoNotCare]

This should have been done a long time ago. Money was originally useful, 2,000 years ago; as a universal form of barter.

Now however it's methods are mainly nefarious as a form of controlling, monopolizing and mishandling resources in general. A form of scarcity counting is devaluation of the value aka inflation. Saying that just because resources become scarce that money needs increase is just baseless and arbitrary. We need to use what's called a Resource Based Economy where electric power is valued over gasoline, etc.

[Ten oz]

On 7/3/2020 at 8:47 AM, Othmane Dahi said:

Hey guys,

I imagine a world without money. In this world you have the right to have whatever you want in a certain limit. For example, you have the right to have something to have breakfast but you have a list of combinations you have to choose from. In return, you have to do your mission too. 

What do you think? Is it a better world? Is it possible? WHY?

If you have any question about the world you are free to ask

Money is a fairly new concept/practice. Humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years without it. In the animal kingdom Humans are the only ones observed to be practicing a monetary system. So the world can definitively functions without it. Humans can function without it. So the answer to your question of whether or not it possible is Yes. However your other questions are more difficult to answer as they are subjective. What one thinks and what is considered better subjective.

What I think - the example of getting breakfast in return for doing something oneself, this for that, is too limited. Society is far more dynamic that a perpetual even exchanges could ever manage. Ultimately people do things for more abstract reason. People sacrifice for their families, show off to impress, are greedy, are lazy, etc, etc. One for one exchanges can't satiated the multi dimensions of what motives people. Money has a set value but still functions fairly abstractly as it can be sent long distances, saved, gained at increasing rates of return, one can borrow against the future, steal it, lose it, etc. The exchange isn't a linear one for one. So something more dynamic would need to replace money.

Is it a better world - I personally don't think so. Murder, rape, hatred, etc aren't ills created by money. While it may seem at times that things are perpetuated by money and greedy the archeological evidence implies humans have been killing each other since long before money.

 

[dimreepr]

Welcome back Ten...

I wonder, did you read the thread before your answer?

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Is it a better world - I personally don't think so. Murder, rape, hatred, etc aren't ills created by money.

Money has elevated many from poverty and many more from ignorance, so the question of a better world isn't so black and white, for instance the monetisation of money without checks leads to an ever increasing discrepancy of wealth, as we see today; but when the wealth is checked/regulated by the populous/government, we can shoot for the moon...

[Ten oz]

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Welcome back Ten...

I wonder, did you read the thread before your answer?

Money has elevated many from poverty and many more from ignorance, so the question of a better world isn't so black and white, for instance the monetisation of money without checks leads to an ever increasing discrepancy of wealth, as we see today; but when the wealth is checked/regulated by the populous/government, we can shoot for the moon...

I have not read the whole thread. It is why I only answered the OP. As such perhaps my response was redundant.

Discrepancy of wealth isn't unique to monetary systems in my opinion. Nearly all animals that live in groups have hierarchical structures where individuals receive treatment which can be described as preferable. That isn't to say inequity is a good thing. Rather it is to say it is a natural impulse. Perhaps one Humans are capable of developing beyond. Perhaps one Humans should develop beyond. All the same one not created by money.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

All the same one not created by money.

Are you sure? 

How are you able to reply?

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Are you sure? 

How are you able to reply?

Opinions aren't certainties but I am reasonably comfortable in my view.

Tools existed long before money.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Tools existed long before money.

Indeed, but the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone's... 😉

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone's... 😉

Stone tools were the limit to what was created without money. At a minimum math had to exist first. Otherwise how would any of the money get counted. 🧐

[dimreepr]

29 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Stone tools were the limit to what was created without money. At a minimum math had to exist first. Otherwise how would any of the money get counted. 🧐

‘A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.’ - Douglas Adams

[MigL]

Money is a tool, and monetary systems are institutions.
Tools can be used irresponsibly, and institutions can be used by unscrupulous people to take advantage of others.
So, is the problem with money and its institutions, or with unscrupulous people ?

Good to read your opinions again Ten oz.
Welcome back buddy.

[IDoNotCare]

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Money is a tool, and monetary systems are institutions.
Tools can be used irresponsibly, and institutions can be used by unscrupulous people to take advantage of others.
So, is the problem with money and its institutions, or with unscrupulous people ?

Good to read your opinions again Ten oz.
Welcome back buddy.

Well if it can be used irresponsibly than Murphy's law says it will be used irresponsibly so the whole idea is whacked imho

[iNow]

1 minute ago, IDoNotCare said:

the whole idea is whacked

I have no interest in trading rice and cows for help building a shed or in exchange for a few hours of internet access with someone who still says whacked in 2020. You may just starve given your recalcitrance, especially since the ability to barter begins with the ability to form trusting bonds. At least money reduces this type of friction and allows for enhanced survival by greater numbers, but you obviously are blind to this (and surely a great many other things too long to list). 

[IDoNotCare]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

I have no interest in trading rice and cows for help building a shed or in exchange for a few hours of internet access with someone who still says whacked in 2020. You may just starve given your recalcitrance, especially since the ability to barter begins with the ability to form trusting bonds. At least money reduces this type of friction and allows for enhanced survival by greater numbers, but you obviously are blind to this (and surely a great many other things too long to list). 

The question is should you even do this and that, and why. Not do you have enough money to do it. Money takes away from reason, you do it because you were given imaginary incentive to do it.

Edited August 5, 2020 by IDoNotCare

[MigL]

The internet can be used irresponsibly as well; by people who post crap.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

you do it because you were given imaginary incentive to do it

Rubbish. We do things because of dopamine and serotonin. End program. Money is a tool which enhances the odds of receiving the effect of both. 

[IDoNotCare]

Just now, iNow said:

Rubbish. We do things because of dopamine and serotonin. End program. Money is a tool which enhances the odds of receiving the effect of both. 

And yet the whole point is to rise above our basal urges.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, IDoNotCare said:

And yet the whole point is to rise above our basal urges.

Word salad. Will you kindly elaborate and prepare an actual meaningful meal with the words you choose in your next response? 

[IDoNotCare]

For instance, instead of throwing money to help endangered animals what they really need is someone to protect them or adopt them and feed them, the money actually does nothing by itself. By itself it may not even give incentive.

[iNow]

Where and how does one obtain all of the equipment and support required to offer that protection without money, and what of the food? Wouldn’t those animals be less endangered if the people hunting them had other steady sources of income and security?

Thanks for the neg rep, though. Your understanding of the rep system here makes abundantly clear the fact that you DO understand how transactions and arbitrary systems of value work. 🙄