Why money at all?


  • dyamanakadyamanaka New MexicoMember Posts: 11
    Just my thoughts...

    The idea of a "DL" system mentioned from your link sounds great. Unfortunately, we are hindered by 2 realities.

    1. Human Nature: People are driven by incentives. It can be fame, wealth, power, greed, and survival. In a utopian world where only (need = survival) exists, that system would work.

    2. Finite Resources: Everything we consume requires resources and time to produce. A population cannot grow beyond its own production. New technologies increase our production, allowing global population to grow... but resources are still limited.

    That's why we have not evolved into a Star Trek Economy. If we survive our own self-destructive nature, maybe someday.
  • borgaufborgauf Member Posts: 2
    As I did mention, incentives are no different in the DL. How could they be? Just because the "safety net" is a bit bigger would not kill incentives. But then the social welfare system -- state-funded this and that -- has been growing for decades, with no end in sight. Just because we don't live in a Charles Dickens hell-hole London doesn't mean we aren't incentivized to accomplish things or want more than what the welfare state gives us.

    AFA finite resources, DL is totally realistic about FR. Every endeavor in the DL system has to be the "most with the least," resource-wise. A majority of the economy would be based on making that a reality It's today's economy that isn't resource realistic. Take oil for example. A continually dwindling finite resource remains steady or sinking in price? That is to say, in "real dollars" oil prices have clearly no relationship with the actual oil supply. Oil prices are based on availability, not the absolute geologic supply. Other finite resources aren't priced any more sanely, I'm afraid. The money-based capitalist system simply uses something up and expects the "markets" to create incentives in the nick of time to save us. Sort of like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, then expecting a parachute salesman to suddenly arrive with a great deal.

    DL would address one of the main problems with today's capitalism: all the weird baggage using currencies bring. For example, inflation is purely a symptom of money. Inflation is where a currency is devalued because supply is tight, forcing up prices. But isn't that a bit crude? In a DL system, a shortage is purely a logistical issue. Nobody's "buying power" needs to be eroded just because of a shortage. In DL you would simply fix the shortage, not weaken the currency. There are many other problems that currency use creates that have nothing to do with the actual supply and demand economy.

    Asking people to consider DL is a bit like asking them to stop sleeping in beds but to sleep standing up. It's that radical and weird. But just look at economics from a computer's standpoint: They don't care about anything but data and logistics. When a POS system records a "sale," it sends that info over to the supply chain. It doesn't care if the item "sold" was "bought" or simply given away. But in a totally networked DL system, the person who took the item was allowed to because he/she was involved with the system which included that consumer item.

    No incentives? For certain goods and services you'd have to be involved in the system at the level that would allow you to have a more choice thing. Obviously.

    I guess I'm saying money -- any sort -- is an information system with baggage. Currencies are inferior to a system that handled the information of supply and demand directly. How often have you heard "There's no money for that" even though there's clear need, want, and resources? The Secretary of Energy just said in a speech that we need to spend upwards of 1 trillion a year for the next thirty years on alt.energy to get a handle on global climate change. Is that going to happen? No. But is there a need? Of course! Money is the ultimate middle-man slowing, stopping what really needs to happen. Sure, it's great at bling (iPhones, BMWs etc.), but what about one of the most important issue going: alternative energy? Sorry, no money. Or my favorite: "The markets aren't ready. . . "

    But maybe I'm totally wrong. After all, if the government can hand out 80 billion a month to Wall Street (quantitative easing), then maybe it'll hand the DoE its 1 trillion for alt.energy. :-|
  • dyamanakadyamanaka New MexicoMember Posts: 11
    I agree with your concerns. Alternative Energy is also very big on my list.

    If a community can agree to support a DL system, more power to them.

    Corrupt leaders, devaluing, abusing, and manipulating the currency is the problem. I don't think it's the currency itself. We don't have capitalism, we have corporatism, heading towards fascism.

    This is why crypto currency is so appealing to many. Because it removes the hand of bad managers.

    Maybe I'm wrong, and one day people will realize we are ALL stuck on this planet together.

  • SatCaSatCa Member Posts: 29
    edited March 2014
    People don't trust each other.
  • CamdocCamdoc Member Posts: 4
    Very interesting read. Certainly, it is too big a step for us at this point, but a worthy goal for the future.

    Some of your observations and assumptions about money are based on characteristics of fiat money, or what Bernard Lietaer calls "Yang Money". Bernard was one of the architects of the Euro, who now is a proponent of complementary "Yin" currencies. Yin currencies foster community and abundance, whereas Yang currencies (all national currencies) foster scarcity, isolation and consolidation into a few hands at the top of the pyramid.

    I made a powerpoint presentation of these principles at https://www.dropbox.com/s/6bwgnisinlslazr/The Soul of Money v3.1.pptx if you are interested. And I designed a Ethereum-based global currency system using these same principles.
Sign In or Register to comment.