User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 29

Thread: Money versus barter?

  1. #13
    Volcanic Erupter BlackSheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    13,160
    Threads
    98
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: Charlatan View Post
    Well, with the lack of money, people can no longer be rich to the ends they are now. this means wealth redistribution is a obvious outcome. if the person learns a trade, they can always offer a better deal on it, as every sale becomes personal. Today we find people window shopping - why not have it so that you carry your goods with you and then 'barter a better deal?'

    The system of barter is the most simple. it is better because it fluctuates the price depending on what the people have, and how much they have of it. this means that everyone can get what they need, and often more importantly to them, want. It is easier because the actual deal changes from person to person, depending on their needs and the wealth of the dealer. So, if someone wants to buy a wheel barrow, and they have five hundred head of corn, they may give less to the wheel barrow merchant than their whole crop, but, then the next person comes in with a spade, and wants either of the things! This resource redistribution, often sought by first world countries, will actually 'keep everyone in pocket.'
    Um how does anything you said respond to my post?

    As far as what you do say, it is all just reiteration of what you have said before. I fail to see how it makes sense or how it demonstrates any benefit over money.
    The storys been told a million times,
    but it's different when it's your life

  2. #14
    blasphemer grandpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    21,590
    Threads
    700
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Blacksheep, money and debt are a type of social stratification, which is why I consider them ultimately bad. Alternatives? How about an economy owned by all its producers and consumers, with tasks performed on a not-for-profit basis? The point is, without government assistance, many aspects of the economy would lose people as repeat customers -- those without any money would be homeless, or perhaps even dead. I don't think either condition (state socialist or laissez-fair capitalism) is an absolute must.

    As there's really nothing else to say, I'll move on for now.

    Grandpa h.
    Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.

  3. #15
    Volcanic Erupter BlackSheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    13,160
    Threads
    98
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: grandpa View Post
    Blacksheep, money and debt are a type of social stratification, which is why I consider them ultimately bad.
    While I agree wealth contributes social stratification, which I am not a fan of, it does not require money. Wealth can exist without money. I do realize money makes the accumulation much easier.

    Quote Quote by: grandpa View Post
    Alternatives? How about an economy owned by all its producers and consumers, with tasks performed on a not-for-profit basis?
    That would be communism. So far has not worked out well, but even communist states use money.

    Quote Quote by: grandpa View Post
    The point is, without government assistance, many aspects of the economy would lose people as repeat customers -- those without any money would be homeless, or perhaps even dead. I don't think either condition (state socialist or laissez-fair capitalism) is an absolute must.
    I am not for a extreme capitalist system. I am very much for a capitalist system with powerful safety nets. I am also open to other forms of communism, but I would need some convincing there.

    This debate is about money vs barter. Honestly I don't see barter being better in almost any way and all the points you raised don't really deal with the point.
    The storys been told a million times,
    but it's different when it's your life

  4. #16
    blasphemer grandpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    21,590
    Threads
    700
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: BlackSheep View Post
    While I agree wealth contributes social stratification, which I am
    not a fan of, it does not require money.
    Wealth can exist without money.
    I do realize money makes the accumulation much easier.





    It's not just the existence of paper money, metal coins and imaginary credits, but the way they are intended to be used. They are intended to be used for social stratification.
    Countless cultures has some variation on this phenomenon:
    "...I do not see why varnavyastha should be singled out
    with special virulence. It is simply that some
    countries have made greater progress in doing away with systems like
    feudalism (which was held to be reflection of cosmic hierarchy) and
    slavery (backed by the story of Noah and his sons) while India is
    starting to catch up.
    Ramendra Nath argues that Gita too teaches every caste to do their
    Dharma..."
    http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ertohindu.html

    So it's not that I'm paranoid about money, or think you're some NWO artist working
    for Bush or Obama (or whatever). There is a long history of authoritarian culture imposing class values upon people, and money is a very good tool for social control. If a person didn't care about the money they make, or could make, the system would indeed take steps to punish them for their supposed mistake and stupidity. The system goes about creating "accounts" and additional sets of categories to divide people along class lines. I don't see that as being totally benevolent.
    Quote Quote by: BlackSheep View Post
    That would be communism.
    So far has not worked out well, but even communist
    states use money.





    I do not advocate state communism, or a communism wherein a man is living against his will. I am an anarcho-communist, or a libertarian communist. I believe you have the job, not that the job should have you. I realize that, under most circumstances, you must turn to others for things of value, not only to yourself and your own immediate gratification.

    Quote Quote by: BlackSheep View Post
    I am not for a extreme capitalist system.
    I am very much for a capitalist system with powerful
    safety nets.
    I am also open to other forms of communism, but
    I would need some convincing there.


    This debate is about money vs barter.
    Honestly I don't see barter being better in almost any
    way and all the points you raised don't really deal
    with the point.


    I don't want to be absolutist here. During an economic downturn, the capitalist system actually can take steps to remedy the situation, simply by giving more wealth to its workers and consumers. But I am sorry. That possibility doesn't mean the system is all that legitimate. It only means it could give more as a form of revolution insurance. Really, we should just cut out the middleman and have free connumisn in the workplace, so we don't have to plead to capitalist owners to have a heart.

    Maybe I'm missing certain details of the original post, but I don't know exactly what you're unconvinced about.

    I do see state bureaucrats crating convoluted and unnecessary situations like the following:
    "..We must make sure that our programs support
    reorientation of defense facilities,
    rather than unwittingly underwriting the development or export of
    weapons of mass destruction. So we must see what works, adapt, and
    build upon the successes.
    To truly succeed, however, we must not be afraid of building
    something big..."
    http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/cong...80522-iran.htm

    By the way, please tell me how "all the points I raised don't really deal with the point." They do. Money is plainly part of the procedure of social control and manipulation, perpetrated by bankers, corporations, kings, landlords, politicians, priests, etc.

    Grandpa h.
    Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.

  5. #17
    Volcanic Erupter BlackSheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    13,160
    Threads
    98
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: grandpa View Post
    It's not just the existence of paper money, metal coins and imaginary credits, but the way they are intended to be used. They are intended to be used for social stratification.
    Countless cultures has some variation on this phenomenon:
    "...I do not see why varnavyastha should be singled out
    with special virulence. It is simply that some
    countries have made greater progress in doing away with systems like
    feudalism (which was held to be reflection of cosmic hierarchy) and
    slavery (backed by the story of Noah and his sons) while India is
    starting to catch up.
    Ramendra Nath argues that Gita too teaches every caste to do their
    Dharma..."
    http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ertohindu.html

    So it's not that I'm paranoid about money, or think you're some NWO artist working
    for Bush or Obama (or whatever). There is a long history of authoritarian culture imposing class values upon people, and money is a very good tool for social control. If a person didn't care about the money they make, or could make, the system would indeed take steps to punish them for their supposed mistake and stupidity. The system goes about creating "accounts" and additional sets of categories to divide people along class lines. I don't see that as being totally benevolent.




    I do not advocate state communism, or a communism wherein a man is living against his will. I am an anarcho-communist, or a libertarian communist. I believe you have the job, not that the job should have you. I realize that, under most circumstances, you must turn to others for things of value, not only to yourself and your own immediate gratification.





    I don't want to be absolutist here. During an economic downturn, the capitalist system actually can take steps to remedy the situation, simply by giving more wealth to its workers and consumers. But I am sorry. That possibility doesn't mean the system is all that legitimate. It only means it could give more as a form of revolution insurance. Really, we should just cut out the middleman and have free connumisn in the workplace, so we don't have to plead to capitalist owners to have a heart.

    Maybe I'm missing certain details of the original post, but I don't know exactly what you're unconvinced about.

    I do see state bureaucrats crating convoluted and unnecessary situations like the following:
    "..We must make sure that our programs support
    reorientation of defense facilities,
    rather than unwittingly underwriting the development or export of
    weapons of mass destruction. So we must see what works, adapt, and
    build upon the successes.
    To truly succeed, however, we must not be afraid of building
    something big..."
    http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/cong...80522-iran.htm

    By the way, please tell me how "all the points I raised don't really deal with the point." They do. Money is plainly part of the procedure of social control and manipulation, perpetrated by bankers, corporations, kings, landlords, politicians, priests, etc.

    Grandpa h.
    Do you think Barter would be superior?
    The storys been told a million times,
    but it's different when it's your life

  6. #18
    Brett Nortje Charlatan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cape Town South Africa
    Posts
    6,618
    Threads
    849
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    73
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: BlackSheep View Post
    Do you think Barter would be superior?
    Yes, it would, because then you have the option of changing your profession easily, or between your skills, to meet the demands. if the market suffers, the business suffers, as it is 'clumsy', because it only serves a few or one product. this is the problem with specialization - yes that is the actual point i am arguing - that specialization hampers flexibility and wealth equality.
    !! Don't fear the reaper !!

  7. #19
    Volcanic Erupter BlackSheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    13,160
    Threads
    98
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: Charlatan View Post
    Yes, it would, because then you have the option of changing your profession easily, or between your skills, to meet the demands. if the market suffers, the business suffers, as it is 'clumsy', because it only serves a few or one product. this is the problem with specialization - yes that is the actual point i am arguing - that specialization hampers flexibility and wealth equality.
    Well, I was asking grandpa, but lets address this.

    So now you are saying barter is better as it inhibits specialization which is harmful?
    Specialization is older than money and does not require money. In fact without specialization there would be no changing of profession. Profession assumes specialization.
    The storys been told a million times,
    but it's different when it's your life

  8. #20
    Brett Nortje Charlatan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cape Town South Africa
    Posts
    6,618
    Threads
    849
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    73
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: BlackSheep View Post
    Well, I was asking grandpa, but lets address this.

    So now you are saying barter is better as it inhibits specialization which is harmful?
    Specialization is older than money and does not require money. In fact without specialization there would be no changing of profession. Profession assumes specialization.
    Yes, that is true, but a man or woman that can do many things within their business, like a baker fixing a bicycle and charging for it... that would allow the person to do as they wish nearly, leading to job satisfaction and more money spread across the world.
    !! Don't fear the reaper !!

  9. #21
    Volcanic Erupter BlackSheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    13,160
    Threads
    98
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: Charlatan View Post
    Yes, that is true, but a man or woman that can do many things within their business, like a baker fixing a bicycle and charging for it... that would allow the person to do as they wish nearly, leading to job satisfaction and more money spread across the world.
    Um, I thought you were arguing that money was bad and now you want more spread across the world?
    The storys been told a million times,
    but it's different when it's your life

  10. #22
    Brett Nortje Charlatan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cape Town South Africa
    Posts
    6,618
    Threads
    849
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    73
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: BlackSheep View Post
    Um, I thought you were arguing that money was bad and now you want more spread across the world?
    no, not money, assets. assets to trade or use for the person.
    !! Don't fear the reaper !!

  11. #23
    Volcanic Erupter BlackSheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    13,160
    Threads
    98
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: Charlatan View Post
    no, not money, assets. assets to trade or use for the person.
    So are you changing your statement "that would allow the person to do as they wish nearly, leading to job satisfaction and more money spread across the world"?

    If so I disagree. Barter makes trade more difficult and people are less inclined to make things they are going to have more difficulty to barter for other things. These products are much harder to transport and break down to trade for less valuable things.

    It seems to be you are simply making claims that have no support.
    The storys been told a million times,
    but it's different when it's your life

  12. #24
    Brett Nortje Charlatan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cape Town South Africa
    Posts
    6,618
    Threads
    849
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    73
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: BlackSheep View Post
    So are you changing your statement "that would allow the person to do as they wish nearly, leading to job satisfaction and more money spread across the world"?

    If so I disagree. Barter makes trade more difficult and people are less inclined to make things they are going to have more difficulty to barter for other things. These products are much harder to transport and break down to trade for less valuable things.

    It seems to be you are simply making claims that have no support.
    Yes, all those things amek it harder, but, there will be no poverty.
    !! Don't fear the reaper !!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •