Links on abolishing money:

[tman_ndsu08]

See, even the socialists get it Grandpa.

Communism is dead.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Amuse I'd like to point out that supply and demand is the model used for establishing value. Suppliers are well aware that once a dependance on anything is established, value is regulated by supply and demand. If you want higer profits then choke the supply and establish the belief in scarcity. You and many others fall victim to this everyday through consumerism. Take a moment and ask yourself what things in your life you enjoy are wants and which are needs. Everyday we see advertisements on tv, newspapers, billboards, magazines and the internet things we are told we need and after a while we begin to believe the brainwashing. We grow more food per acre now then ever before, in fact our government pays farmers NOT to grow certain things in order to keep the market from being flooded there by keeping prices high. This IS fact. Other countries governments control their people by controling the food supply. This IS fact. We send food to other parts of the world to stem hunger but it is often never distributed to the people that need it but instead it goes to the wealthy and government people. This IS fact. We have vast oil fields in Alaska that are tapped but we don't use it because we would rather use up somebody elses first. Auto makers would be STUPID to keep making gas guzzeling autos if there was dwindeling oil supplies because they would quickly go out of business. Socitey is based on consumerism. Economies can't survive without consumerism but people can if they learn that there is little they need and can control their want.

What's wrong with that? Stabilizing our capitalist economy?

And about the ANWR, why not import oil at a rate 3 times cheaper than Europe at this moment for a long term deal, rather than accept a short term deal of guzzling oil in our growing sized SUVs and run out even quicker, thus making our imports on oil even MORE desperate?

And anyways, what does this have to do with scarcity, which is also a fact? Do trees not take a longer rate to grow than what we cut them down in? Isn't oil a limited feature? Or is it an unlimited resource that magically sprouts from the ground in your mind? How can you possibly think there is not a limit for the consumption of natural resources??

Are you going to answer any of these questions or go off topic some more?

[tman_ndsu08]

Ok, here's a question to the communists.

Do communists oppose free trade? IE, trade without regulation/taxes/tariffs.


Would you be opposed to a place where people would come together and bring things to trade? IE, a guy sets up a stand at this place with TVs and someone wants to trade him chickens.

Is there anything wrong with that?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

[quote=Amuse]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 That's absolute bullshit. Whole civilizations, the Anasazi, the Mayan, Easter Island, Mangreva, etc. have died out because of scarce resources. Before money, there was also a far greater amount of resources worldwide to begin with anyways. Before money, there wasn't 6.5 billion people on the planet. Scarcity is around the corner, but by the time it really hits, about the same time we hit 10 billion people, I'll be dying off anyways, so if no one cares now, neither do I. BUT, it does exist and will be a major issue and already is in many undeveloped nations, contradictory to the common notion that only developed nations have the worst environments. That is a false misconception.[/QUOTE Nobody knows what happend to the Anasazi or the people on Easter Island and other civilisations that died out did so becaused they refused to leave there home when nature dictated it was time to move on so your statment is speculative, The Mayans were mostly obliterated by the Catholics during their expansion into the "New World". As far as your belief that rescorces were greater before money that is misleading. When the pilgrims landed in America there was fewer wildlife populations then than there is now due to conservation. While it is true the buffalo were almost wiped out they now have grown to a very large population. Other species that have disappeard before conservation practices were implemented is unfortunate but we have survived without them and maybe our existance is less enjoyable without them but none the less species come and go so why should ours be any different? We are animals too.

Actually we know from Cook's journal that Easter Island had only half its sustainable trees in the 1700's. Now it is just about without any forests and half its animal population than 200 years ago. And that's with only half its population left. When Easter Island was really booming, during the 1400s-1600's, the large population consumed all their resources on the island. THAT is scarcity, and extinction I suppose also.

Also, your lack of historical knowledge is less embarrasing than your attempt to sound what your talking about. The Mayans faded away before the arrival of the Europeans into the New World. They might of had a 1000 people in the 1500's compared to their 100,000 people at the beginning of the first millenium. The lack of war with their only real neighbors at the time weak, the rather weaker Aztecs, left out any other possiblity other than environmental destruction of the mayan peninsula by a massing population on the central american area.

Read Jared Diamond's "Collapse" and you'll know what I'm talking about. He's one of the most well known environmental historians.

Do you have any evidence for your rather radical statement that there was more wildlife before the pilgrims arrived? Because I know after their arrival, I know of at least 10 species that are now extinct and 20 or so that are endangered. So I'm assuming that, too, is just sprouting from that head of yours.

Yeah, who cares about animals. Let's kill them all besides one species, I mean we don't need them, we only need a few species to survive...anyways. Or we can kill them all indirectly and become vegetarians. See, you can care only about how we can survive, but I choose not to be that irrational and close-minded.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Amuse The Mayans were mostly obliterated by the Catholics during their expansion into the "New World".

Actually, the great Mayan civilization was gone nearly 500 years before the Spanish arrived. The best guess now is that they destroyed their own culture by destroying their environment. Deforestation of their region, leading to drought and crop failures, whereupon the various city/states fell upon each other in wars over the dwindling resources, and finally faded back into the forests as the simple tribes they started as.

Hmmm... you don't suppose there's a lesson here, do you?

.

[grandpa]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Grandpa, I like the idea to abolish money, I really do. Bu really, let's get a reality check. I looked at the websites. The first one was terrible and provided no framework for a new system better than capitalism. It just said how capitalists are bad people, we're corrupt, etc. like we would be great, perfect people in a money-free society. You must have little grasp on pre-history to understand the human nature. We're intellectual animals, you need to remember that.

I don't recall any one of those links saying people are perfect. Is that really the level of debate in today's world--that if somebody suggests an alternative it means peopel must be perfect? If that same standard were held for the status quo it would have to instantly be abolished.

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 The second website brought more of a challenge but it's far more Marxist than anything I've read so current. People would steal, loot, pillage, plunder, others property, food, families even! No, not because we're bad people but because we're scared. There's no order, it's chaos. We don't live in small villages with our own resources anymore, we have 6.5 billion people on this planet, with many many nations using up their resources. The abandonment of capitalism would scare everybody into protecting their own resources and chaos would ensue. It's so easy to see that this is a madman policy.

Capitalism scares everybody into protecting their resources, as there. It also routinely involves exploiting poverty stricken people. It brings out the worst in human nature, as does the state. Read, for example, the srict capitalists wuote sin this forum: Pure sadism as best. If people live in an environment where people must be feared, hated and held down in order to function, then that will be the society we'll have. However, if people are taught to value each other over abstract concepts and being owned, they will literally have less to conflict with each other over.

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Two thumbs down, sorry gramps.

If you insist. The organized chaos within the system we have works against those within it. If you work against the system, it works against you. If you work for the system, it is still working against you. That is where the nagative traits of human beings come from, more than anything else. We are constantly made into worthless things.
Any social scientist can tell you how racism exists because of social conditioning. The same is true of the status quo. It exists because we are conditioned into believing it must exist. Without the rigid, often deadly threats used to shape the human world we now know, people would more likely develop their lives naturally around a sense of true responsibility and community.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Amuse Scarcity is a falicy, enginnered by the powers to control and dominate society at large. Scarcity IS what gives money it's value. Before money there was barter and people traded goods or services for other goods or sevices needed.

Thank you. Bartering is certainly much more rational, as it is based on the value of the actual items being traded without outside values foisted onto them.
It encourages people to focus on naturally occuring problems in life, as opposed to placing hurdles in front of others.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 That's absolute bullshit. Whole civilizations, the Anasazi, the Mayan, Easter Island, Mangreva, etc. have died out because of scarce resources. Before money, there was also a far greater amount of resources worldwide to begin with anyways. Before money, there wasn't 6.5 billion people on the planet. Scarcity is around the corner, but by the time it really hits, about the same time we hit 10 billion people, I'll be dying off anyways, so if no one cares now, neither do I. BUT, it does exist and will be a major issue and already is in many undeveloped nations, contradictory to the common notion that only developed nations have the worst environments. That is a false misconception.

That is NATURAL scarcity, which is not being addressed by placing price tags on everything and selling things off.

Of course there are natural disasters (famines, plagues, floods, tsunamis, etc.).
And these situations should be dealt with. But the sadism inherent in capitalism does little to help us cope with these concerns. For example, a starving country isn't going to benefit by shipping its food supplies to the United States (as actually occurs--just look at Haiti). It will stay a starving country. The problem is not solved.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Amuse Finite resorces is also a falicy. It'a an idea sold to the general public by concerns wishing to over value their products or services for undue profit. We as individuals need to take more responsibility for ourselves with regard to "wants verses needs". Shelter, food and water are needs everthing else is a want. The most powerful addiction in the world is capitalist consumerism.

I'm not so sure about this one. Resources ARE limited.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I have no idea what immediately scare means. However, by definition, if there are not an infinite amount of resources, they're scarce.

Only if you believe unlimited demand smust be met. They mustn't. Hence, scarcity is only an economic term. However, if you take the more practical definition: "Hard to find; absent or rare," few things are anywhere near as scarce as they are made out to be.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 There is no such thing as overconsumption.

Tell that to someone with an eating disorder.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 What is genuine scarcity?

Something that is hard to find, absent or rare.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Money is just a place holder. It's nothing more than a symbol. I could carry bricks of gold around, but that's a pain in the ass, don't you think?

You do not have to carry around money by absolute necessity. You do so because you will be ostracized for not having money.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Money itself has no more value than the paper it's printed on.

I agree, which is one reason it's an irrational means of exchange.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Things have value, not money. And things aquire value from supply and demand.

And money does not adequately reflect the value of something, as it is an irrational way of granting value to something. Value can NOT be adequately measured, as value is relative and inadequate.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 As I just said, I could carry around bricks of gold, but they're very heavy. Have you ever held one?

Gold too would be an irrational means of exchange.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Our money is fiat money, yes. But so what? Would you rather carry around things of value instead of agreed upon symbols of value. IE, would you rather carry around TV's than money?

You don't ahve to carry around what you are trading with you at all times. For example, somebody is giving me a 200 pound piano soon. She isn't lugging it around with her at all times.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 So you understand the idea, then? Trust me, they thought this out long and hard several hundred years ago.

Violence, hatred and irrational phobias are driving this phenomenon you so embrace.
So some thinking certainly is involved, but not the kind of thinking that should be--or could be involved to keep people down.

Grandpa h.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa Only if you believe unlimited demand must be met.

If something is free, then unlimited demand must be met.

Tell that to someone with an eating disorder.

As long as they have the money to pay for it, they aren't overconsuming.

Something that is hard to find, absent or rare.

Something valuable, in other words.

Gold too would be an irrational means of exchange.

Gold is one of the best means of trade because everyone values it.

Value is not intrinsic. Value is determined after you've traded it.

Quote by: grandpa For example, somebody is giving me a 200 pound piano soon. She isn't lugging it around with her at all times.

She's giving it away for free.

That's not trade.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Sonart . Human beings are social animals. We survive in nature by banding together in social groups for mutual defense and provision. We hunted more successfully in cooperative groups, we defended ourselves better in cooperative groups, we raised families more successfully in cooperative groups. For millenia, the basic group was the tribe, and everyone knew everyone else. (even today, research has determined that most humans are comfortable with an immediate circle of no more than about 120 close family, friends and co-workers) Within that tribe, everyone was expected to contribute whatever they could to the survival of the tribe. Those capable of contributing more than average -- the best hunter, the shaman, the healer, etc. -- received extra value for their extra contributions. A larger share of the hunts and gathers, special clothes, the cosiest parts of the cave, etc. As societies became more complex, the distribution of individual value based on their contributions to the group became more complex. The accumulation of cattle or horses or goats or shares of the crops or wives. Those of less value to the group received less value from the product of the group. What one needed to make their lives comfortable and secure could be bartered for trading what your skills could create of value -- food, clothes, minerals, services -- with the things of value someone else could provide. But as societies became even MORE complex, barter becomes troublesome. If I'm an artisan or a trainer of horses or a scribe, not everyone that has what I need necessarily needs what I have to offer. At some point it becomes necessary to develop an abstract but universally accepted currency of intrinsic value, so that if I offer my skills as an artisan to an architect, I don't have to expect them to pay me in food or clothes or that new, hi-tech bronze chisel that I've been drooling over. They can provide me with units of value -- gold, wampum, cowery shells, whatever -- in whatever amount we've agreed is worthy of my contribution. I can then go to whatever specialist -- the metalsmith, for instance, who's the only person capable of making those nifty new chisels -- with whatever units of currency we've agreed is equal to the value of his creating that chisel... so the he can go to the wood collectors for the extra fuel for his hearth, so that they can go to the goat herders for a weeks supply of milk, etc. etc. As societies become even more complex, the units of currency become more abstract... after all, there's only so much gold or cowery shells ...just as long as everyone agrees on the value of the currency. And thus here we are today, exchanging the agreed value of our contribution to our social group -- like, y'know, being a really good football player :rolleyes: -- for an agreed equivelent value of currency which we can then use with anyone anywhere to trade for what we need, without having to directly barter x amount of football skills or aircraft maintainance for a quart of milk. .

Society is not more complex. In fact, the message is simple: "Use money or you are not human." It's a fairly straightforward message, proving all of your flowery talk as just that.
Somehow, to fear, hate, threaten and despise people over irrational values makes one more advanced? I don't think so. But this kind of reasoning--or lack thereof, seeing a sto how voices of reason and variation from the system are rigidly opposed--is inherent in the system. I am to believe that to have money makes one advanced. No, what it does is symbolize obedience. Under such conditions, only if one obeys the rigid, domineering and conniving value system of capitalism are we able to get rid of hurdles placed in front of us. And if we obey good enough, we'll believe these hurdles are necessary for social advancement, so we can see those with power as benign for removing them. The easier and saner way to live, however, is to get rid of the hurdles and re-define advancement in purely rational terms--meaning survival, compassion and a sense of purpose.

People can value things without being forced to do it and without being under someone else's boots. You have been conditioned to believe otherwise--hence, you feel you are advanced while I am somehow living in the "stone age" for rejecting financial brutality.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Compugasm But if you abolish money, we'll have to barter? That's an even worse situation. I am to pay for internet with chickens? UPDATE: Ok, i read the first source: OMG, you're dreaming. Yeah, people love inserting peg A into slot B for 8hrs a day... oh, shared work system... I meant 3hrs a day. They won't stick around Flint Michagan to make widgets, and wipe asses for the good of society. I agree, people won't pursue wealth, but they'd sure like to lay on beach in Maui until they die. It's not even worth discussing this topic.

You don't have to pay for the internet with chickens. That is a patently false argument.

As for housing, people have an incentive to live in houses. Hence, they have an incentive to either build a house or move into a currently vacant house.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Ok, here's a question to the communists. Do communists oppose free trade? IE, trade without regulation/taxes/tariffs. Would you be opposed to a place where people would come together and bring things to trade? IE, a guy sets up a stand at this place with TVs and someone wants to trade him chickens. Is there anything wrong with that?

What's with all the chicken references? That sounds to me like poisoning the well----using cute language to belittle an opposing viewpoint.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Sonart . Actually, the great Mayan civilization was gone nearly 500 years before the Spanish arrived. The best guess now is that they destroyed their own culture by destroying their environment. Deforestation of their region, leading to drought and crop failures, whereupon the various city/states fell upon each other in wars over the dwindling resources, and finally faded back into the forests as the simple tribes they started as. Hmmm... you don't suppose there's a lesson here, do you? .

I'm sure there are lessons there, but none of them would have anything to do with capitalism. Deforestation is a process that does not know what money is. Food growth does not require us to plant coins in the earth. And human actions do not require money out of absolute necessity. Even capitalism does not absolutely require force, but does currently in order for anyone to take it seriously.

Capitalist society is constantly destroying the environment, polluting our lungs and contaminating our water.
I don't know where you are getting your arguments from.

Is there some capitalist Bible of inanity somewere where people get all their ideas from?

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 If something is free, then unlimited demand must be met.

That makes zero sense. If soemthing is free, it does not mean the demand for it is unlimited. And even if that were true, the demands for it would not and could not be met.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 As long as they have the money to pay for it, they aren't overconsuming.

This also makes no sense. If somebody eats so much they become sick, they are too overconsuming.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Value is not intrinsic. Value is determined after you've traded it.

Value is an abstract concept, hence, it cannot be adequately measured before, during or after a trade. Values are constantly in flux because they are determined by the mind.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 She's giving it away for free. That's not trade.

The point was, even if I had traded something for it, neither of us would have had to carry it around with us at all times. Money does not mean things never need to be transported.

Your arguments thus far have been completely irrational. It sounds harsh, but it's true.
You just can't cope with anarchist philosophy because it poses serious questions about abstraction and class distinctions. In other words, it is too much of an honest social science.

Grandpa h.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Ok, here's a question to the communists. Do communists oppose free trade? IE, trade without regulation/taxes/tariffs. Would you be opposed to a place where people would come together and bring things to trade? IE, a guy sets up a stand at this place with TVs and someone wants to trade him chickens. Is there anything wrong with that? What's with all the chicken references? That sounds to me like poisoning the well----using cute language to belittle an opposing viewpoint.

So you're against free trade?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: grandpa And even if that were true, the demands for it could not be met.

Thus, scarcity.

If somebody eats so much they become sick, they are too overconsuming.

I wasn't talking about literal consumption.

Can someone overconsume on TVs?

Values are constantly in flux because they are determined by the mind.

Quite right. What's worth $100 to someone might only be worth $10 to someone else.

The object for the seller is to find a person who is willing to buy at the price he wants.

neither of us would have had to carry it around with us at all times.

What proof is there that the thing you are trading for exists, then?

The person you're trading with will have to come all the way over to your house to see it, or you'll have to bring it with you to show him.

Again, money is more useful.