Secret Combinations Vs. Conspiracy Theories:

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 08 July 2011 - 09:05 AM, said:

If economics is about choice or how people choose to exchange things, I challenge anyone to state that almost anything is not about economics.

Change one word and you and I will be on the same page.

Economics isn't necessarily about choice or how people choose to "exchange" things. Economics is about choice or how people choose to "give and/or receive" things.

You don't have to "exchange" what you give for something else, and you can give because of charity instead of because you are getting some type of "exchange" in the deal... although if you count the good feeling you get by giving from charity, I suppoose you could count that as some type of "exchange".

Economics is indeed about exchange. Subsets of economics is how or what method people use to choose to give and receive. That is where the 'isms' come in.

That would be the equivalent of Paris Hilton saying "I didn't go to England, I went to London" (which she did say by the way).

Qu

ote

Charity in its truest form is the deire to give because one wishes to give.

It's about more than just wishing to give. It also involves seeing a need or desire somehow else has while being willing and able to provide that thing for them.

I often do things out of charity that I really don't want to do, except for wanting to fulfill that need or desire someone has.

For example, my sons are physically handicapped and not able to do a lot of yard work to maintain their yard in good shape, so my wife and I go over to help them because they would really like their yard to look nice. I don't do that yardwork because I want to do the yardwork. I do it because I want to help them, even though I'm not crazy about doing yard work

Wishing to give and or help..

If you do something out of charity that you do not want to do, then its not charity. However if you do something because you want to, then it is. You seem to be confusing things. You don't like yardwork but do like to help your son. If you enjoy helping and it gives you joy, then it is charity. If you don't, then you aren't being charitable. It seems to me you are tossing alot into the pot, but getting lost on your way to London. Charity is wanting to help someone. It isn't classified by the work you do, or who the person is, it is the desire alone. It is not economics.

Quote

One feels love, and whether that charity is received or not, the love of Christ still exists, it is an infinite resource. True charity is when one gives regardless of the return on investment, it can be rejected, wasted or destroyed, one continues to give because they desire to. There is no real exchange since the person who has charity has the product (love of Christ) and gives without an exchange or presumed exchange.

I agree with all that unless you count a good feeling you get from giving out of charity as something you get in exchange.

The good feeling existed before and still exists after, charity doesn't change. In fact, the good feeling you have after you help someone, should pretty much be the same good feeling you have before.

Quote

So charity, true charity is not economics since no exchange occurs.

It is economics, because it is a system involving the giving of goods and/or services.

In your example, the "good feeling" is an exchange. But it isn't charity when you expect something back. Charity is doing it without the thought of exchange, and the good feeling or driving force is the same before and after. No system is involved in charity, though you can implement systems in order to control scarcity.

[Ahab]

Economics is indeed about exchange.

It can be, but it isn't necessarily because you can "give" without receiving something from the person you give to, with it still be a system of economy.

Subsets of economics is how or what method people use to choose to give and receive. That is where the 'isms' come in.

That would be the equivalent of Paris Hilton saying "I didn't go to England, I went to London" (which she did say by the way).

I'm the one saying it's an economic system even when you don't get something back from someone in exchange. You seem to think it's not an economic system unless you get something back, but a system involving someone giving and another person receiving is still an economic system.

If you do something out of charity that you do not want to do, then its not charity. However if you do something because you want to, then it is.

In my example, what I want to do is help my sons, which involves doing yardwork which I don't really want to do.

I'm helping because I want to, but I don't want to do yardwork, even though that's what it takes to do what my sons want done, which is why I do it.

It's like your Mom doing your laundry out of charity because she wants to help you, even though she really doesn't want to do your laundry.

You seem to be confusing things.

You seem to think I'm confusing things, but I'm not.

You don't like yardwork but do like to help your son. If you enjoy helping and it gives you joy, then it is charity.

Yes, helping them gives me joy. Doing their yardwork doesn't.

If you don't, then you aren't being charitable.

I am.

It seems to me you are tossing alot into the pot, but getting lost on your way to London.

I'm not lost.

Charity is wanting to help someone. It isn't classified by the work you do, or who the person is, it is the desire alone.

I agree with all of that.

It is not economics.

It is and can be what an economic system is based on, though.

The good feeling existed before and still exists after, charity doesn't change. In fact, the good feeling you have after you help someone, should pretty much be the same good feeling you have before.

It doesn't, and it is.

In your example, the "good feeling" is an exchange.

My sons aren't the ones who are giving me that good feeling I get when I do something to help them, though. They do usually thank me, and I feel their gratitude, but even if they weren't thankful and I knew I was helping them even through they weren't grateful I would still get the feeling I get when I do something out of charity. It never fails.

But it isn't charity when you expect something back.

Right.

Charity is doing it without the thought of exchange, and the good feeling or driving force is the same before and after.

Yes.

No system is involved in charity, though you can implement systems in order to control scarcity.

Not right. Charity is used in celestial economics as the means to determine what to give and who will receive it.

If you don't see that now, maybe someday you will.

[Ahab]

Some more input from me, for those who are interested:

Look at the world right now and you should be able to see that there are millions of products which have already been made by people who worked to make them which the “owners” don’t want and would like to get rid of so they can get something else instead of those products.

Do you see that?

The owners of the products made or somehow got some other people to make some things they didn’t really want with hope that they would somehow be able to trade those things for some other things they really do want. What a bunch of nonsense! Why didn’t they just make or somehow get some other people to make what they really wanted in the first place?

Well, one reason some people do something like that is because they weren’t able to make or to somehow get some other people to make what they really wanted in the first place, so instead of trying to make or get other people to make what they really wanted they made something else while hoping to be able to somehow trade with someone else who would have what they really wanted. It’s a roundabout way of getting things done, but it somehow works out for some people.

So now we’ve got a bunch of products sitting around all over the place just waiting for somebody who wants them and has whatever it takes to be able to get them while people keep making things the owners don’t really want except to trade them for something else people make or do as their work.

Do you now understand that what those owners of those products really want instead of those products isn’t really money at all? Money is only a roundabout means to an end, and making money, to the extent we can make it, is just about as difficult as making the products or having someone else make the products people really want in the first place.

What most people really want is some type of goods or services which comes from the work of people, with most people being willing to work to make something, and with money simply being a roundabout means to an end we could get to without any of it since what we really want are the end products rather than the “middle” it sometimes takes to get those.

So let’s say for example that the owners of a large food corporation decided that instead of limiting themselves to accepting only money in exchange for their goods and/or services, or what I will now refer to as their “products”, they worked out an agreement with a lot of other companies/ corporations/ utility providers/ independent workers to accept their products in exchange for their products. That would mean that people not working for that particular food corporation would be able to trade for things made by that food corp and their workers, and vice versa, without any need at all for any money between them. It would be a co-op, with each worker entity remaining separate but united in a common goal to help provide all of the products desired among all of them.

Now let’s go even one step further. Let’s say the food corp and other companies/ corporations/ utility providers/ independent workers that agreed to that co-op system also didn’t require any kind of “equal” value of exchange, and sometimes they didn’t require any “exchange” of any products at all. On some occasions some involved in the co-op would just give things away to others in the co-op, without any exchange of products, and on other occasions some involved in the co-op would accept whatever was offered for their products without even trying to determine if what they were exchanging was of equal value. Their main goal was simply to try to produce whatever was desired by those who wanted to be a part of the co-op, with the co-op remaining open to others who wanted to join.

You’ll never find that kind of mentality in the dog-eat-dog world of conspiring evil men, which I refer to as money lovers, and yet all it really takes is a thing I refer to as charity.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 08 July 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

Economics is indeed about exchange.

It can be, but it isn't necessarily because you can "give" without receiving something from the person you give to, with it still be a system of economy.

That is an incorrect understanding of economics, which must include exchange. When you give something and feel good about it, there is still an exchange. It is important to understand in order to use the term "economics". No system is required to "give".

Quote

Subsets of economics is how or what method people use to choose to give and receive. That is where the 'isms' come in.

That would be the equivalent of Paris Hilton saying "I didn't go to England, I went to London" (which she did say by the way).

I'm the one saying it's an economic system even when you don't get something back from someone in exchange. You seem to think it's not an economic system unless you get something back, but a system involving someone giving and another person receiving is still an economic system.

Then you are incorrect on two levels. Consider that feeling good is an exchange of doing something for someone else. Secondly you are looking at the purely materialistic level, when economics itself isn't purely materialistic.

Quote

If you do something out of charity that you do not want to do, then its not charity. However if you do something because you want to, then it is.

In my example, what I want to do is help my sons, which involves doing yardwork which I don't really want to do.

I'm helping because I want to, but I don't want to do yardwork, even though that's what it takes to do what my sons want done, which is why I do it.

It's like your Mom doing your laundry out of charity because she wants to help you, even though she really doesn't want to do your laundry.

Your example isn't really charity, you are helping your son, because he is your son. When you help someone without regard to family, without regard to even a feeling after the fact, without seeking any reward, then it is charity. You are confusing charity with familial love. While familial love is nice, its not charity.

Quote

In your example, the "good feeling" is the exchange.

My sons aren't the ones who are giving me that good feeling I get when I do something to help them, though. They do usually thank me, and I feel their gratitude, but even if they weren't thankful and I knew I was helping them even through they weren't grateful I would still get the feeling I get when I do something out of charity. It never fails.

By being your sons that is exactly what they do. Would you do it if they weren't your sons, or even people you knew? After all charity doesn't seek its own.

Quote

No system is involved in charity, though you can implement systems in order to control scarcity.

Not right. Charity is used in celestial economics as the means to determine what to give and who will receive it.

"Celestial economics" hmmm. No. You are imposing a system of charity, calling it 'celestial economics', but charity exists both inside and outside of any economic system. You are confusing charity with your view of economics. It doesn't play a part in economics. It is beyond economics.

The owners of the products made or somehow got some other people to make some things they didn’t really want with hope that they would somehow be able to trade those things for some other things they really do want. What a bunch of nonsense! Why didn’t they just make or somehow get some other people to make what they really wanted in the first place?

I am afraid I would have to go to the very basics, explaining the agricultural revolution, the difference between subsistence farming and surplus farming, the industrial revolution, the difference between subsistence manufacturing (cottage industry) and surplus manufacturing, economies of scale, production, risk, risk aversion, consumer anticipation as reflected in demand and supply, along with substitution, along with market efficiencies, along with the inefficiencies of a barter system, all of these things are part of the process that you dismissed in that one statement. I don't think I can write that much.

Suffice to say your interpretation of economics is not shared in academia to my knowledge, it isn't shared in private sector, and even in the public sector it appears unworkable. It isn't reflective of economics by any real standard that I have seen or studied. Now granted, I just have a degree in economics, and granted I worked for many years in the private sector, and have studied barter systems in Soviet eastern europe (because their ideals of communal economics were so inefficient people were forced to barter and money meant almost nothing look up the Soviet Russian word 'blat' sometime).

I suggest some books and lectures by Professor Peter Rodriguez of the Darden School of Business, mostly because I find him engaging and pragmatic. I enjoy his lectures.

To speak of economics there have to be some parameters by which all parties agree to, some equal understanding of economics that is a basic building block for dialogue. I am afraid you and I do not share the same definitions and so discussing the economic aspects is almost impossible since economics has to have some common basis in understanding with words having equal meaning to both parties. I am just not sure how you define anything since it meets no definition I am aware of. With that I will bow out.

[Ahab]

That is an incorrect understanding of economics, which must include exchange.

I suggest you take a more careful look at what economics is all about. I'm not going to keep arguing with you about this.

When you give something and feel good about it, there is still an exchange.

I know that, but the source of what I get by giving to my son isn't my son. I consider charity to be a gift from God, so when I feel good about giving to others even when they don't show me any appreciation, it is God who is helping me to feel good about what I am giving, and my intentions.

It is important to understand in order to use the term "economics".

When someone gives something which someone else receives, that is an example of economics. The details of why the person gave what he gave or if he got anything back out of it aren't what make it economics. All it takes is a giver and a receiver.

Then you are incorrect on two levels.

No, it's just that you (and others who agree with you) think I am wrong.

Consider that feeling good is an exchange of doing something for someone else.

Yes, I know that, but as I was saying, my son isn't the one who is giving that feeling to me.

Secondly you are looking at the purely materialistic level, when economics itself isn't purely materialistic.

I was including "feelings" in my talk of economics, so how can you possibly think I'm talking about it on purely a materialistic level???

Your example isn't really charity, you are helping your son, because he is your son.

It doesn't matter. Some people have sons they don't extend any charity to. The fact that he is my son is irrelevant, because I would do the same thing for anyone else I had charity for.

When you help someone without regard to family, without regard to even a feeling after the fact, without seeking any reward, then it is charity.

Bullshit. Jesus did and does what he did and does for us because he wanted and still wants to please our Father while also wanting to help all of us who he is helping. It doesn't matter that we are all family.

You are confusing charity with familial love. While familial love is nice, its not charity.

Charity can and should exist in families as well as anywhere else. It doesn't cease to be charity when the people you help are family.

That's enough from me for now.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Ahab

[zerinus]

That's pretty much the same thing as I said, when I said: Money, when used as money, isn't good for anything except to trade it for something else.

I recognize the fact that most goods and services have value, but money, when used as money, isn't good for anything except to trade it for some of those other goods or services.

Even when money is used to make some other money, it's still all good for nothing until you trade it for something else.

When gold or silver is used for something other than money (a medium for exchange), then it can be good for some things, but when used as money it's not good for anything other than to trade it for something else.

That would be true of any other commodity you produce. Let's suppose I had 5 acres of land, and I grew potatoes for a living. My 5 acres of land yielded 5 tons of potatoes at the end of the growing season. Those 5 tons of potatoes would not be of any use to me unless I exchanged it for something else. I couldn't eat it all, and I couldn't store it for long either or it would rot. So what is the difference between those potatoes and their equivalent value is silver or gold? In either case, I would have to exchange it for something else before it can be of any use to me.

Edited July 11, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Zerinus, you forgot one very important category: facts that support a particular theory, or in this case, a conspiracy theory. You still seem to be caught up in your idea that theory and facts are mutually exclusive. They aren’t.

For instance, the universal background radiation is a fact. It has been repeatedly measured by many disparate scientific groups and investigators. It is a scientific fact. It is also used as one of the factual pillars to support the Big Bang THEORY.

* * *

Then I didn't define my terms very clearly. "Conspiracy theory" is a colloquial term that is not defined in quite the same terms as a "scientific theory". "Conspiracy theory" in my vocabulary suggests a baseless belief in a "conspiracy" for which there is no credible evidence. Where there is credible evidence, then it stops being a "conspiracy theory" in my vocabulary, and becomes a plain "conspiracy".

Edited July 10, 2011 by zerinus

[Ahab]

That would be true of any other commodity you produce.

No it wouldn't, and it isn't.

Name one other thing that doesn't have any real value in itself and in which the only "pretended" value it has is that it can maybe, sometimes, be traded for something else of some real value.

You still don't seem to see that yet.

Let's suppose I had 5 acres of land, and I grew potatoes for a living.

Okay. You would then have some potatoes, which do have some real value, and you would have some land, which also has some real value.

Now what?

My 5 acres of land yielded 5 tons of potatoes at the end of the growing season. Those 5 tons of potatoes would not be of any use to me unless I exchanged it for something else.

Bull pucky. Your potatoes are good for food, for one thing.

Money doesn't usually taste very good to most people who eat it.

I couldn't eat it all, and I couldn't store it for long either or it would rot.

Yes, you could let it go to waste, but that doesn't mean potatoes don't have any real value in themselves.

Money, when used as money, doesn't have any real value in itself.

Maybe it would help if I offered an example to further explain what I mean when I say that:

Suppose you have some potatoes and you would like something else of real value, like some ketchup to go on them. Now let's also suppose that you don't have any ketchup nor do you have whatever it would take for you to be able to make some ketchup, including no friends who can show you how to make it while also giving you what you can make some ketchup with.

So what do you do?

Let's suppose you're walking around and/or talking to people while asking where you can get some ketchup and eventually somebody walks up to you who says: Hey, I don't have any ketchup, but for some of those potatoes I'll give you some of this here money with which you can buy some ketchup if you ever find any from someone who is offering some ketchup in exchange for some of this money. Suppose he also names a few places where he thinks some people "sell" ketchup, and at that point you say: Okay.

Now, you might suppose that the money represents some ketchup, but it truth it reality doesn't. In reality it represents nothing of any real value and only the possibility of maybe being able to trade some of that money for some ketchup, but the money isn't ketchup, in itself, and it doesn't guarantee that you'll get any ketchup. It's good for ketchup only if the person who has soem ketchup would rather have some money (again of no real value in itself) in exchange for some of his ketchup.

Now ask yourself what the person with ketchup wants if he doesn't really want money for his ketchup, and you may be surprised to find out that what he really wants is some potatoes.

So what is the difference between those potatoes and their equivalent value is silver or gold? In either case, I would have to exchange it for something else before it can be of any use to me.

No, because silver and gold also have some real value in themselves. Not much good use, maybe, but at least there are some good things which silver and gold are good for, like using gold to conduct electricity and using both to make something look pretty and shiny.

Money, on the other hand, is good for absolutely nothing except to trade it for something else.

It's the quintessential "middle man" in monetary systems which could easily be cut out if both parties (the givers and receivers of goods and services which have some real value) were willing to cut out the middle man.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Ahab

[zerinus]

No it wouldn't, and it isn't.

Name one other thing that doesn't have any real value in itself and in which the only "pretended" value it has is that it can maybe, sometimes, be traded for something else of some real value.

You still don't seem to see that yet.

Okay. You would then have some potatoes, which do have some real value, and you would have some land, which also has some real value.

Now what?

Bull pucky. Your potatoes are good for food, for one thing.

Money doesn't usually taste very good to most people who eat it.

Yes, you could let it go to waste, but that doesn't mean potatoes don't have any real value in themselves.

Money, when used as money, doesn't have any real value in itself.

No, because silver and gold also have some real value in themselves. Not much good use, maybe, but at least there are some good things which silver and gold are good for, like using gold to conduct electricity and using both to make something look pretty and shiny.

Money, on the other hand, is good for absolutely nothing except to trade it for something else.

It's the quintessential "middle man" in monetary systems which could easily be cut out if both parties (the givers and receivers of goods and services which have some real value) were willing to cut out the middle man.

Thank you, but you are right that I don’t get it. I still don’t see the difference. Let’s suppose that I am a potato grower, and I have a neighbour who is a gold miner. We both have honorable and respectable jobs, and each of us produces something that has an intrinsic value, but useful for different purposes. Each of us produces something that unless it can be exchanged for something else, would be of little use to the respective producers. My excess potatoes would be of no use to me unless I exchanged it for something else; and his excess gold would not be of any use to him unless he exchanged for something else. So from that point of view there is no difference between our two products.

There are some other interesting differences between our two different products, however. His product, because of its scarcity and difficulty to obtain, has a high value-to-volume ratio. A very small amount of it has the same value as all of my 5 tons of potatoes! Another difference is that his product never rots! That makes his product ideal to be used as a medium of exchange. I can exchange all of my excess potatoes for its equivalent value in gold, and then use that gold in my own time to exchange for whatever else I need. I can even save some of it for a rainy day—as advised by the Church! I cannot see how there can be anything immoral about using something as a medium of exchange.

With regard to “middlemen,” I don’t see any problem with that either. They serve a useful role in the chain of supply and demand. I can get rid of all of my 5 tons of potatoes all at once by selling it to a middleman, which means that I don’t have to worry about finding twenty different end-users who may be interested in buying my product. He specializes in finding end-users, so he lifts that burden from my shoulders, and gets a cut of the price for his services, which I am quite happy for him to have because he saves me the hassle. And none of this would be possible without a medium of exchange such as silver or gold—or paper money for that matter, which is the same kind of thing. I simply cannot see having a medium of exchange to facilitate trade and the exchange of goods can in any sense be “immoral”.

Edited July 11, 2011 by zerinus

[Ahab]

Thank you, but you are right that I don’t get it. I still don’t see the difference.

The difference between... what now??? Let's try to make this as clear as we possibly can.

The difference I'm talking about is the difference between something of some real value, in itself, and something that doesn't have any real value, in itself.

"Money" has no real value in itself, and whoever came up with it wanted to be able eto trade for something with no real value for something with some real value.

Once you understand that, you'll then be better equipped to see who actually came up with the idea of using something called "money".

Let’s suppose that I am a potato grower, and I have a neighbour who is a gold miner. We both have honorable and respectable jobs, and each of us produces something that has an intrinsic value, but useful for different purposes. Each of us produces something that unless it can be exchanged for something else, would be of little use to the respective producers.

Potatoes don't need to be traded for something else to be of some real value, and neither does gold.

Money, on the other hand, is absolutely good for nothing at all UNLESS you can trade it for something else of some real value.

Do you see the difference yet?

My excess potatoes would be of no use to me unless I exchanged it for something else; and his excess gold would not be of any use to him unless he exchanged for something else. So from that point of view there is no difference between our two products.

The fact that excess potatoes or gold may be of no use to the one who has the excess doesn't mean the excess has no value, though.

All you have to do is share your excess with others for them to be able to benefit from those products, while money is good for nothing at all unless it is traded for something of some real value.

There are some other interesting differences between our two different products, however. His product, because of its scarcity and difficulty to obtain, has a high value-to-volume ratio.

It's not how scarce something is which makes it valuable, though.

What makes something valuable is how useful it is, in itself, and money has no intrinsic value at all.

A very small amount of it has the same value as all of my 5 tons of potatoes!

Only in a world where a shiny metal is considered to be more valuable than something that can be eaten.

If I had tons of both, I would use the potatoes for food and the gold for covering things just to make them look pretty while considering the food to be more valuable than the decor.... at least while I'm in a world where food is needed to keep people alive.

Another difference is that his product never rots!

Yeah, but it will never be good for food, either.

That makes his product ideal to be used as a medium of exchange.

Heh, you're still talking about a medium of exchange as if a medium is necessary, when it isn't.

Someone has really sold you on the idea that money is valuable, somehow, and I'm beginning to wonder if you'll ever be able to get past that, somehow.

I can exchange all of my excess potatoes for its equivalent value in gold, and then use that gold in my own time to exchange for whatever else I need.

Only if the person with the food wants that shiny metal, instead.

Imagine the two of you on a deserted island way out in the ocean somewhere while this guy keeps trying to sell you on the idea that you should trade some of your potatoes for some of his gold. Would you do it, just so you would then have some gold? I'd share with the guy just to try to help keep him alive, but there's no way I'd ever consider some shiny metal to be more valuable than food in a situation like that, even if he kept trying to tell me how valuable it was as a reflector to try to signal a plane or a ship that just might be nearby.

Food is one of the first necessities of life in this world, and a shiny metal comes in way behind a lot of other things that I find to be a lot more useful.

I can even save some of it for a rainy day—as advised by the Church! I cannot see how there can be anything immoral about using something as a medium of exchange.

I think the guy with the gold wouldn't have to spend more than a day without a potatoe if he was on a deserted island with you.

You might even trade him all of your potatoes for all of his gold, but then what would you do for some food?

With regard to “middlemen,” I don’t see any problem with that either. They serve a useful role in the chain of supply and demand. I can get rid of all of my 5 tons of potatoes all at once by selling it to a middleman, which means that I don’t have to worry about finding twenty different end-users who may be interested in buying my product. He specializes in finding end-users, so he lifts that burden from my shoulders, and gets a cut of the price for his services, which I am quite happy for him to have because he saves me the hassle. And none of this would be possible without a medium of exchange such as silver or gold—or paper money for that matter, which is the same kind of thing. I simply cannot see having a medium of exchange to facilitate trade and the exchange of goods can in any sense be “immoral”.

To get to the heart of the matter I think it would be more beneficial to you if you imagined things on a more basic level.

Food, or shiny metal? Which is more useful to you? If you had to make a choice between either, and live with the choice that you made, which would you choose if what you got was what you had to settle for?

I know money seems to make sense, in this world, but I wouldn't trade anything of real value for it unless I was sure I could get something else I really wanted to have, otherwise the "medium" would fail to get me the "end" produce that I really wanted.

[zerinus]

The difference between... what now??? Let's try to make this as clear as we possibly can.

The difference I'm talking about is the difference between something of some real value, in itself, and something that doesn't have any real value, in itself.

"Money" has no real value in itself, and whoever came up with it wanted to be able eto trade for something with no real value for something with some real value.

Once you understand that, you'll then be better equipped to see who actually came up with the idea of using something called "money".

Potatoes don't need to be traded for something else to be of some real value, and neither does gold.

Money, on the other hand, is absolutely good for nothing at all UNLESS you can trade it for something else of some real value.

Do you see the difference yet?

I think we are beginning to narrow down our differences. As I see it, 5 grams of gold has as much intrinsic value when it is used as “money” as when it is freshly dug out of the mine. I see no difference between the inherent value of the commodity regardless of how it is used.

The fact that excess potatoes or gold may be of no use to the one who has the excess doesn't mean the excess has no value, though.

That is right. It has intrinsic value. And that intrinsic value wouldn’t disappear if either commodity was used as a medium of exchange.

All you have to do is share your excess with others for them to be able to benefit from those products, while money is good for nothing at all unless it is traded for something of some real value.

I think that the distinction that you are now making between what you call “money” and something of “real value” is an arbitrary or artificial one. 5 grams of gold does not stop having “intrinsic value” just because it happens to be used as “money,” or as I prefer to call it, a “medium of exchange”.

It's not how scarce something is which makes it valuable, though.

In economic terms, its value is determined by how much it is in demand, not how scarce it is. If nobody wanted it (i.e. was willing to exchange it for something else of value), it would have no value at all.

What makes something valuable is how useful it is, in itself, and money has no intrinsic value at all.

See above.

Only in a world where a shiny metal is considered to be more valuable than something that can be eaten.

Don’t forget that you don’t run the world, and you don’t decide what is valuable and what is not; and your opinion of what is of worth in the world and what is not, counts for very little. If enough people in the world think a shiny piece of metal is of sufficient worth that they are willing to exchange it for something else of value, then that is the real value of it in the world—regardless of whether you agree with what the rest of the world thinks or not.

If I had tons of both, I would use the potatoes for food and the gold for covering things just to make them look pretty while considering the food to be more valuable than the decor.... at least while I'm in a world where food is needed to keep people alive.

You do live in a world in which food is needed to keep people alive; and if enough of those same people think that shiny piece of metal is of enough value that they are willing to exchange it for something else of value, then it has value; and the fact that you disagree with the rest of the world on that issue counts for little.

Yeah, but it will never be good for food, either.

So what? Its economic value is not determined by whether it can be eaten or not, but by whether other people want it enough to be willing to exchange it for something else of value. The fact that you may not agree with them on that is beside the point.

Heh, you're still talking about a medium of exchange as if a medium is necessary, when it isn't.

It depends on what kind of economy you live in. If you live on a desert island with just five people in it, with no contact with people outside, then I agree, a medium of exchange wouldn’t be necessary. But in a sophisticated economy of the modern world, it appears to be very necessary.

Someone has really sold you on the idea that money is valuable, somehow, and I'm beginning to wonder if you'll ever be able to get past that, somehow.

You are right, I doubt that too!

Only if the person with the food wants that shiny metal, instead.

If you lived on a desert island with just five people in it, I am sure you would be right; but the truth is that we don’t.

Continued . . . /

Edited July 12, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

Imagine the two of you on a deserted island way out in the ocean somewhere while this guy keeps trying to sell you on the idea that you should trade some of your potatoes for some of his gold. Would you do it, just so you would then have some gold? I'd share with the guy just to try to help keep him alive, but there's no way I'd ever consider some shiny metal to be more valuable than food in a situation like that, even if he kept trying to tell me how valuable it was as a reflector to try to signal a plane or a ship that just might be nearby.

In that kind of economy I am sure you would be right. But the fact remains that we don’t live in that kind of economy; and the value of a product is determined by its demand. Why it is in demand is irrelevant. The fact that it is in demand gives it economic value.

Food is one of the first necessities of life in this world, and a shiny metal comes in way behind a lot of other things that I find to be a lot more useful.

I think the guy with the gold wouldn't have to spend more than a day without a potatoe if he was on a deserted island with you.

You might even trade him all of your potatoes for all of his gold, but then what would you do for some food?

See above.

To get to the heart of the matter I think it would be more beneficial to you if you imagined things on a more basic level.

I think that is a fundamental mistake you are making. You are thinking in terms of a very primitive economy, and think that it is somehow superior to the complex economy which we live in. You want to take us back to a world even more primitive than the world of horse and buggy. The world you are describing would have no cars, no aeroplanes, no telephones, no TVs etc. You may think that is a good idea, but I doubt you will find many people who would agree with you. You want to take the world back into the Stone Age. Perhaps you have been watching too many Flintstones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q1iH0L0LCQ

Food, or shiny metal? Which is more useful to you? If you had to make a choice between either, and live with the choice that you made, which would you choose if what you got was what you had to settle for?

Like it or not, that is not the kind of world we live in.

I know money seems to make sense, in this world, but I wouldn't trade anything of real value for it unless I was sure I could get something else I really wanted to have, otherwise the "medium" would fail to get me the "end" produce that I really wanted.

I wasn’t quite able to make sense of that. I give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. As it happens, money is what makes this world go round; and since I live in this world, I live by its rules.

Edited July 12, 2011 by zerinus

[Ahab]

zerinus,

I think you agree with me on the point that money doesn't have any real value, even though you do not see that yet, and now I'm going to make my point so simple to understand that I'm pretty sure you will see it this time. My apologies for not thinking of this earlier.

When you get some money, what do you do with it? Do you keep it as the end product that you really wanted to end up with in the first place, or do you instead trade it for something else of some real value?

Suppose you had a million dollars (money) and you just kept it in a bank account along with all of the interest that it earned annually without ever taking any of it out to trade it for something else. That money wouldn't be doing you any real good, would it?

Suppose also that all of that money passed down to your heirs and they also just kept it in a bank account without ever taking any of it out to trade it for something else? That money wouldn't be doing them any real good, either, would it?

Perhaps now you'll understand what I mean and have meant when I say: Money is absolutely good for nothing at all UNLESS you trade it for something else.

Now on to another point that I have been trying to use the first point to build on: How we could all do without money as a "medium" of exchange.

When you think of any transaction between people involving money, try thinking about it as having 2 ends with money being in the middle and with both ends having something of some real value.

For example, suppose you work to make some money so you can get something you really want.

One one end is you working with someone paying you some money, with the work you do being something of some real value, and the other end is someone else working to produce something you want to exchange that money for... like some groceries, and a house of some kind, and a car, and some other things that have been made by some other people who have done some kind of work, including the land we all live on which was created by our Father in heaven who used some materials to build it.

Everything, including money, was made by somebody else who did some kind of work to make it, and when you work you are exchanging your work for some product that is the result of someone else's work.

It's just that money is the only thing that has no real value, in itself, except to trade it for something else of some real value... which is one of the reasons someone made some of it in the first place.

But suppose we didn't use money and instead we just came up with a way to share the things we work to make without the use of any money... or any medium of exchange. I know it would require some kind of accounting system, but do you really think it would be any more complex that the rules we now live under which govern the use and distribution of money, including taxes? I really don't think it would, because I can already envision a way that everything would be able to be exchanged without the use of any money.

But, still, there is a better way than even that way, and that way is to base our "giving" of goods on something called "charity" while having no real desire to get something of "equal" value to someone else's work as long as all of us get something for our work that we want.

... which, for me, in the end, does not include money, since the only thing I use money for is to either trade it for something I really want or to just give to other people so they can get something they really want.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Ahab

[LeSellers]

suppose we didn't use money and instead we just came up with a way to share the things we work to make without the use of any money... or any medium of exchange. I know it would require some kind of accounting system,

Your "accounting system" is nothing except a far more cumbersome system of money.

As it is, we carry our accouting system in our wallets. I perform one unit of labor (which is not evaluated as to its worth by me, but by the person I made better off). He decided that he was X better off, and paid me X-y (the y being the amount he is still better off after having paid me). He's happy, I'm happy. I use it to buy something else (which could be someone else's labor or a hot dog). That purchase is worth X+z to me (but X-y to the vendor) and I am better off by z (and he by y). It is in this way that money makes exchanges easier (and thus increases total well-offedness), because the guy who hired me had no hotdogs, which is what I wanted, so I would not have made him better off on my way to buy the dog.

You still do not know what money is.

Lehi

Edited July 12, 2011 by LeSellers

[Ahab]

Your "accounting system" is nothing except a far more complex system of money.

No, it's simply a system to show some goods and/or services people are offering in exchange for someone else's goods and/or services. There is no "medium" in the middle of the exchange with no point other than to exist as the "medium" of the exchange, unless you count the system itself which could be as simple as a bulletin board or as complex as an internet website. The point is, people would be able to work to produce some goods and/or services without there needing to be someone with something "special" called "money", thus, no "unemployed" who really wanted to do some kind of work to produce some kind of goods and/or service.

As it is, we carry our accouting system in our wallets. I perform one unit of labor (which is not evaluated as to its worth) by me, but by the person I made better off. He decided that he was X better off, and paid me X-y (the y being the amount he is still better off after having paid me). He's happy, I'm happy. I use it to buy something else (which could be someone else's labor or a hot dog). That purchase is worth X+z to me (but X-y to the vendor) and I am better off by z (and he by y). It is in this way that money makes exchanges easier (and thus increases total well-offedness), because the guy who hired me had no hotdogs, which is what I wanted, so I would not have made him better off on my way to buy the dog.

Yeah, I know, and that's a very primitive system in comparison to the kind of system I can envision.

It's time to take a step up now, rather than clinging to this monetary system the world is using which clearly doesn't work for everybody.

You still do not know what money is.

You still think I don't, when I do.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Ahab

[LeSellers]

No, it's simply a system to show some goods and/or services people are offering in exchange for someone else's goods and/or services. There is no "medium" in the middle of the exchange with no point other than to exist as the "medium" of the exchange, unless you count the system itself which could be as simple as a bulletin board or as complex as an internet website. The point is, people would be able to work to produce some goods and/or services without there needing to be someone with something "special" called "money", thus, no "unemployed" who really wanted to do some kind of work to produce some kind of goods and/or service.

Indeed, your system is the money in your hypothetical economy.

You see, that's what money functions as in the real world economy: it's a system of account whereby you know I have produced something that yet another person valued (and which made him better off). You do not need to know this person to know that the whole economy is better because of what I did for him. Therefore, you can know that giving me what I want in exchange for that accounting chit will make the world better off, too, because now that you have made me happier, the next person in the chain will be happy to accept it in trade for what you want.

Yeah, I know, and that's a very primitive system in comparison to the kind of system I can envision.

You're trying to re-invent the wheel, but you are insisting on using a vastly more complex and cumbersome method of accomplishing what we already do simply and smoothly right now with money.

It's time to take a step up now, rather than clinging to this monetary system the world is using which clearly doesn't work for everybody.

The system you are proposing would not be better in any way, and would be far more burdened with administrative costs than a real money system (i.e., gold and silver, or other commodities we could all agree on using as the medium of exchange).

You are not improving the lot of most people.

You still think I don't [know what moeny is], when I do.

You have yet to demonstrate this knowledge. You seem to be proposing the exchange of the modern golf ball for a sack crammed full of feathers, à la XVI Scotland.

Lehi

Edited July 12, 2011 by LeSellers

[Ahab]

Indeed, your system is the money in your hypothetical economy.

No, because it only shares ideas about how to get something for those who want do to the work that is required to get it.

You see, that's what money functions as in the real world economy: it's a system of account whereby you know I have produced something that yet another person valued (and which made him better off).

No, because you could have stolen that money from someone or got it by selling him drugs or something else which actually did him some harm instead of leaving him better off.

You do not need to know this person to know that the whole economy is better because of what I did for him.

Yeah I do, otherwise I'd just be turning a blind eye to the fact taht you have some money or taking your word for how you got it.

Many people do that, you know. All that matters to some people is whether or not you have any "money".

You're trying to re-invent the wheel, but you are insisting on using a vastly more complex and cumbersome method of accomplishing what we already do simply and smoothly right now with money.

It doesn't have to be complex, and I doubt that anything could be more complex and cumbersome than the monetary system most people are using right now.

For some examples of simple situations involving the "exchange" of some goods and/or services, try these on for size:

I offer to give someone a cookie if they agree to brush their teeth after they eat it.

OR

I offer to do the labor required to build someone a house if they agree to help in the labor required to build my own house.

OR

I offer to someone's landscaping services for a month if they agree to give me some seeds and plants to create my own garden on my own land.

OR

I offer to do the labor required to cut some timber into some firewood if they agree to let me have some timber to make some lumber.

OR

I teach someone how to do something they don't know how to do if they agree to be a friend and help teach me some things that I don't know.

In none of those examples is any exchange of money required, and there is no money involved in those sitations because there is no "medium" of exchange.

They all involve a direct trade of my labor for someone else's labor (which is a service) or some other service or product.

The system you are proposing would not be better in any way, and would be far more burdened with administrative costs than a real money system (i.e., gold and silver, or other commodities we could all agree on using as the medium of exchange)

Think again. You still don't see what I can see.

You are not improving the lot of most people.

Yes I am, and without any money I could improve the lives of more people than I'm already doing.

You have yet to demonstrate this knowledge. You seem to be proposing the exchange of the modern golf ball for a sack crammed full of feathers, à la XVI Scotland.

Lehi

If you'd pay more attention to what I'm saying I think you'd get a lot more out of what I am saying than your own bad ideas, brother Lehi.

I'm here to help you and I can do it without using any money.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Ahab

[LeSellers]

No, because it only shares ideas about how to get something for those who want do to the work that is required to get it.

You were talking about an accounting system. Stay on track, please.

The same system (bulletin board or web site) already exists on supermarket walls and on Craig's List.

Moreover, your system advertised things that had already been produced offered for sale. That implies, rather strongly, too, that the producer (or current owner) didn't want what he'd made. That seems to meet one of the criteria you had established as being an evil thing.

you could have stolen that money from someone or got it by selling him drugs or something else which actually did him some harm instead of leaving him better off.

Yeah I do [have to know the person from whom you had received your money], otherwise I'd just be turning a blind eye to the fact taht you have some money or taking your word for how you got it.

Here you are projecting your view of what makes people better off onto other people. Although I have no experience of my own to draw from, I am reasonably sure that a drug addict considers himself much better off when he has drugs than when he does not.

I am not trying to say that, objectively, he is better off. But "better off" in any reasonable terms must mean better off in the eyes of the person who is considering the trade.

I didn't explicitly note this, but moral trades cannot involve theft or fraud. If I have money for this discussion, I received it legitimately. Even in your hypothetical world, however, there is no guarantee that the thing I propose to trade to you is legitimately mine to trade away. We're not talking the Celestial Kingdom here. You're trying to shoehorn your "Charity model" into the current Telestial world as I recall.

And, even if I had stolen it, there was, at some point, a value traded to get it. The fact that I was not the one who produced it does not eliminate the value that money represents. It makes me a thief, to be sure, and it impoverished my victim, but it does not affect the rest of the economy.

Many people do that, you know. All that matters to some people is whether or not you have any "money".

That's precisely because money represents, in nearly all cases, the fact that the person holding it has done something useful. We want money because of what it will get us, as you correctly conclude. But I guarantee that it's much less cumbersome to carry a pocketful of gold and silver coins to the marketplace to buy a pair of shoes than it is to find a shoe-selling individual who wants my carrots, and that it would take, not a pocket, but a wheelbarrow, to carry them.

It doesn't have to be complex, and I doubt that anything could be more complex and cumbersome than the monetary system most people are using right now.

How many pounds of sugar you are willing to trundle around while you are looking for a shoe seller who really wants sugar in trade for his shoes?

That would be cumbersome.

For some examples of simple situations involving the "exchange" of some goods and/or services, try these on for size:

I offer to give someone a cookie if they agree to brush their teeth after they eat it.

I don't like cookies. You don't have fluffy bunny slippers to bribe me with, but that's what I really want. My teeth go unbrushed.

I offer to do the labor required to build someone a house if they agree to help in the labor required to build my own house.

Why on earth would he agree, since, as far as I know, he has no need for a house, having built one already himself, and he does not know that you have the skills to build the one he doesn't need or want anyway?

I offer to someone's landscaping services for a month if they agree to give me some seeds and plants to create my own garden on my own land.

OR

I offer to do the labor required to cut some timber into some firewood if they agree to let me have some timber to make some lumber.

OR

I teach someone how to do something they don't know how to do if they agree to be a friend and help teach me some things that I don't know.

This is all highly speculative. It requires the unlikely conjunction of the other person's supply and your need, and his need and your supply. That just does not work very well.

You want a computer. You have land available to grow vegetables on. I have a computer, but I also have land on which I grow my own vegetables. Why would I want to trade? You have nothing I need.

In none of those examples is any exchange of money required, and there is no money involved in those sitations because there is no "medium" of exchange.

They all involve a direct trade of my labor for someone else's labor (which is a service) or some other service or product.

Exactly. Good luck! You are not going to find cookies held by someone who wants you to brush your teeth, no skills to build a house needing skills to build a house, nor land and seeds, nor any of the things you list with any regularity so you can make these trades when you need to make them.

without any money I could improve the lives of more people than I'm already doing.

You'll have to show me, because in this world of scarce resources, including time and skills, there is no way to accomplish what you are dreaming of. It cannot happen because there is no reliable means of allocating those resources to their highest and best uses. Your plan would result in more want and much more waste than anything we have today.

If you'd pay more attention to what I'm saying I think you'd get a lot more out of what I am saying than your own bad ideas, brother Lehi.

Were I one to give you the power over me this statement could engender, I'd be offended. As it is, I have to laugh at your pompousness.

One, I am listening. You are not addressing the key concern: scarcity of resources. You cannot work around that one with Charity. We do not live in the celestial Kingdom yet. When that happens, I'm all for your plan.

Two, nothing you have said addresses the fact that, in order to work, this plan requires that all buyer and all sellers must be in close proximity and that there is a perfect matching of needs and resources to meet them in that neighborhood.

Three, this proposal does not allow for people to save and build up "capital" so they can create other things than what can be consumed immediately (or soon, anyway). Nor does it allow people to use their savings to assist others with the promise of an increase in that savings. In other words, it ignores the "time value" of any resource. People will always prefer something today over that exact same thing later. I will not give you fifty carrots today in exchange for fifty carrots next June. I'd be better off eating the carrots myself now, and growing more next year.

I'm here to help you and I can do it without using any money.

Except, you are not "here". I don't know where you are, but you have no "place utility" as far as I am concerned. If you wanted to help me, it would cost you (something) to get here before you could turn the first shovelful of dirt. But, if you sent me $100 dollars, I could hire a high school kid to dig my trench. The cost of sending the money is, in today's modern world, essentially nothing.

Money is convenient, it serves many purposes that other system cannot even begin to address, and it is, even in the corrupt forms we have today (central bank notes), a useful form of value storage. I know what a dollar is worth but I do not know how good your carrots are. I do know, however, that they will be no good at all next June.

Lehi

[Ahab]

You were talking about an accounting system. Stay on track, please.

To go back to my original words, what I said was that we would need a way to share the things we work to make without the use of any money. In other words, we would need some kind of system to let other people know what we have to share and what it would take to get those things. I apologize if my thoughts weren't made perfectly clear to you at the outset.

The same system (bulletin board or web site) already exists on supermarket walls and on Craig's List.

Well what do you know. I never said anything about needing to create something new, or from scratch.

Moreover, your system advertised things that had already been produced offered for sale.

I wouldn't use the word "sale" since the exchange wouldn't require the use of any money, and I think "sale" implies some money needs to be used or involved.

I'm also not limiting the exchange to products that have already been produced, nor necessarily to what some people would think of as a "product". I'm also including "services" for exchange, such as when someone offers a "job" to someone in exchange for money, but in this case without the use of any money.

In short, some people would be offering their services or some products made from their services in exchange for someone else's services or some products made from their services... and all of this without any "money" or "medium" being involved.

That implies, rather strongly, too, that the producer (or current owner) didn't want what he'd made. That seems to meet one of the criteria you had established as being an evil thing.

I was talking about people who make tons and tons of things they don't really want for themselves, like how the owners of Ford motor company make a lot of cars they don't really want for themselves, except to exchange those cars for some other things that the owners really want. I don't think doing something like that is evil, though. I just think it's a bunch of nonsense! Why don't they just make or get other people to make the things they really want to have, instead?

Here you are projecting your view of what makes people better off onto other people. Although I have no experience of my own to draw from, I am reasonably sure that a drug addict considers himself much better off when he has drugs than when he does not.

Of course I'm projecting my own view about things, and the truth is that a drug addict is not better off by being addicted to drugs than he would be without those drugs or the addiction.

I am not trying to say that, objectively, he is better off. But "better off" in any reasonable terms must mean better off in the eyes of the person who is considering the trade.

I'm speaking more in objective terms here, rather than just what someone "thinks" of as being better off. If someone "thinks" he is better off and I can see that he isn't, I'm simply going to say that he isn't, rather than trying to pacify him or make him think that I think his bad "thinking" is right.

I didn't explicitly note this, but moral trades cannot involve theft or fraud. If I have money for this discussion, I received it legitimately.

Heh, yeah, sure. Most thiefs will try to tell me the same thing rather than admit to their guilt of having stolen something.

Try to be a little more real.

\Even in your hypothetical world, however, there is no guarantee that the thing I propose to trade to you is legitimately mine to trade away.

I know, which is why buyers are advised to beware... and that can easily apply to traders as well.

We're not talking the Celestial Kingdom here. You're trying to shoehorn your "Charity model" into the current Telestial world as I recall.

Yes, and I"m specifically talking about how to give and receive things without needing to use any money.

And, even if I had stolen it, there was, at some point, a value traded to get it. The fact that I was not the one who produced it does not eliminate the value that money represents. It makes me a thief, to be sure, and it impoverished my victim, but it does not affect the rest of the economy.

Yes it does, because if something can be stolen from someone and become the possession of someone else who has not done something of some real value to earn it, it affects the whole system and exposes a weakness within it.

That's precisely because money represents, in nearly all cases, the fact that the person holding it has done something useful.

Something useful isn't necessarily something of any real value, though. I can see that money is useful, but I can also see that money has no real value, in itself.

We want money because of what it will get us, as you correctly conclude. But I guarantee that it's much less cumbersome to carry a pocketful of gold and silver coins to the marketplace to buy a pair of shoes than it is to find a shoe-selling individual who wants my carrots, and that it would take, not a pocket, but a wheelbarrow, to carry them.

True, but why would someone trade a pair of shoes for some silver or gold if that isn't something that he really wanted? If I had a pair of shoes, and I didn't want any silver or gold, I would be offering to trade those shoes for somethign that I really wanted, rather than just for something else that I could trade with. Silver and gold would do me no good unless that was what I really wanted.

How many pounds of sugar you are willing to trundle around while you are looking for a shoe seller who really wants sugar in trade for his shoes?

I think you should first ask IF and if so how much sugar I would trade for some shoes. It could be that I already know how and am easily able to make my own shoes.

That would be cumbersome.

It would depend on how much sugar I was carrying, if I was.

I don't like cookies. You don't have fluffy bunny slippers to bribe me with, but that's what I really want. My teeth go unbrushed.

Your loss, not mine. They are your own teeth, and now I have an extra cookie.

Why on earth would he agree, since, as far as I know, he has no need for a house, having built one already himself, and he does not know that you have the skills to build the one he doesn't need or want anyway?

I was thinking the offer would probably only appeal to someone who didn't already have a house, and if he wanted to know that I could do it, all he would have to do is ask for references and then go look at those houses.

This is all highly speculative. It requires the unlikely conjunction of the other person's supply and your need, and his need and your supply. That just does not work very well.

Most economic exchanges work on the same principles, and the only exception I know is where there doesn't need to be any "exchange" for some product or service.

You want a computer. You have land available to grow vegetables on. I have a computer, but I also have land on which I grow my own vegetables. Why would I want to trade? You have nothing I need.

Then maybe I would have something else that you wanted or needed, or someone else would agree to the trade.

Not all stores carry all products, you know. Sometimes you have to shop around for a little while.

Exactly. Good luck! You are not going to find cookies held by someone who wants you to brush your teeth...

I think you're neglecting to think about my Mommy and Daddy... and my Grandparents, and just about anybody else who loves me and who also has some cookies.

... no skills to build a house needing skills to build a house...

... many people would like to build their own house, like I have done, without the use of any money.

... nor land and seeds, nor any of the things you list with any regularity so you can make these trades when you need to make them.

Most of those trades only need to be one time only deals, a person could stay on a piece of land in a house they built which has a nice garden for a lifetime.

You'll have to show me, because in this world of scarce resources, including time and skills, there is no way to accomplish what you are dreaming of.

People who do it for money are doing it, and with that money they are getting and doing all of the things that I mentioned.

The only twist I'm adding to the picture is the idea of doing it all without the "medium" and instead doing it for the "end" products, direcdtly.

Someone does something and in exchange they get money with which they go out and find what they really want from someone who will trade it for money.

VS

Someone does something and in exchange they get what they really want in the first place.

There is no need for the "medium" if you can trade for the end product in the first place.

It cannot happen because there is no reliable means of allocating those resources to their highest and best uses. Your plan would result in more want and much more waste than anything we have today.

In my plan, as you call it, more people would be working because there wouldn't need to be anyone with "money" to pay others for working. Instead, all anyone would need to have is something else, other than money, that people really wanted and were willing to trade for... either some kind of product or some kind of service including the service needed to make some product.

Btw, I started using bold text for your quotes because the system said I reached my quote limit.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Ahab

[Ahab]

One, I am listening. You are not addressing the key concern: scarcity of resources.

Resources are scarce, to the extent they are scarce, whether or not we use money or charity to determine how to share our resources… which, namely, are “natural” resources (the things God provided for all of us when he created this planet along with what he put on/in it for us) and the things we all make by doing some kind of work with those resources.

You cannot work around that one with Charity.

You cannot work around that one with money, either. Money doesn’t make anything less scarce than it is, and money also doesn’t “add” anything of any real value to any of our resources. Money just puts something in the middle between all of us and all of our resources, particularly in favor of those who have it vs those who have not, and with the money lovers getting and keeping most of the money while giving as little out as they can.

We do not live in the celestial Kingdom yet. When that happens, I'm all for your plan.

I’m talking about a better way to live until then without showing favoritism to those who have something as worthless in itself as “money”.

Two, nothing you have said addresses the fact that, in order to work, this plan requires that all buyer and all sellers must be in close proximity and that there is a perfect matching of needs and resources to meet them in that neighborhood.

There you go using “monetary” terms again, like “buyers” and “sellers”. Can you really not think in terms of those who have something to give and those who will receive what is given? Why is money so pervasive in all of your thinking? Do you even realize how much of your thinking is in terms of money?

And No, the givers and the receivers wouldn’t necessarily need to live in close proximity to each other, although there are certain advantages to that. Local areas could still trade with more distant areas to get resources that aren’t as available in their own local areas as well as trading what is available among them.

Three, this proposal does not allow for people to save and build up "capital" so they can create other things than what can be consumed immediately (or soon, anyway).

Sure it does. It’s just that you haven’t been giving as much thought to my ideas as you could have been.

Here’s a challenge for you: Come up with a scenario in which someone received something they didn’t use money to get and where what they got was shared among a lot of people, instead of only for the receiver’s own personal gain.

I’m willing to offer an example of like that but I think you might get more out of it if you think of one yourself.

Nor does it allow people to use their savings to assist others with the promise of an increase in that savings. In other words, it ignores the "time value" of any resource.

Just because somebody gets something without having to use any money to get it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the option of using it in any way he can use it right now, either for himself or for other people. If I gave you something for free you would still be able to use it for anything you can now use it for if you had to trade some money to get it.

People will always prefer something today over that exact same thing later. I will not give you fifty carrots today in exchange for fifty carrots next June. I'd be better off eating the carrots myself now, and growing more next year.

Yes, but the question is how much do they value it and would they be willing to trade something of value for something else that also has some real value?

If you had 50 carrots and I offered you either a basket of green beans or an egg laying chicken for 25 of your carrots, you could make that trade if you wanted to make it even if you weren’t getting any money along with the deal.

Except, you are not "here". I don't know where you are, but you have no "place utility" as far as I am concerned. If you wanted to help me, it would cost you (something) to get here before you could turn the first shovelful of dirt.

There is more power in information than you seem to realize. I don’t have to be there, with my body, to help you. You would just have to pay attention instead of mentally falling asleep when you listen to me.

But, if you sent me $100 dollars, I could hire a high school kid to dig my trench. The cost of sending the money is, in today's modern world, essentially nothing.

You could also offer a high school kid something other than $100 to dig a trench for you.

Ask him what he would use $100 for, if he had $100, and then see if you have that to offer to him instead? The $100 won’t be of any real value to him unless he can somehow trade it for something other than the money, and that is what he really wants in the first place.

Money is convenient, it serves many purposes that other system cannot even begin to address, and it is, even in the corrupt forms we have today (central bank notes), a useful form of value storage. I know what a dollar is worth but I do not know how good your carrots are. I do know, however, that they will be no good at all next June.

I know what a dollar is worth, too… nothing at all unless someone really wants that dollar in exchange for their products and/or services.

Carrots, on the other hand, can be eaten right way… umm, umm good… as well as canned or frozen for eating later or using some of them for their seeds to grow some more carrots.

And btw, have you ever noticed how money is usually valued only in comparison to other people’s money, like how dollars are compared to euros or francs or pesos? I think it’s because if they compared it to something with some real value, like a loaf of bread or something like that, we would be able to see something some people don’t really want us to see… like how we can’t “buy” as much with it as we once were able to.

[zerinus]

When you get some money, what do you do with it? Do you keep it as the end product that you really wanted to end up with in the first place, or do you instead trade it for something else of some real value?

Suppose you had a million dollars (money) and you just kept it in a bank account along with all of the interest that it earned annually without ever taking any of it out to trade it for something else. That money wouldn't be doing you any real good, would it?

Suppose also that all of that money passed down to your heirs and they also just kept it in a bank account without ever taking any of it out to trade it for something else? That money wouldn't be doing them any real good, either, would it?

Perhaps now you'll understand what I mean and have meant when I say: Money is absolutely good for nothing at all UNLESS you trade it for something else.

Fair enough—except that if I just kept growing potatoes, and never exchanged them for something else, they wouldn’t be of any use to me either.

Now on to another point that I have been trying to use the first point to build on: How we could all do without money as a "medium" of exchange.

When you think of any transaction between people involving money, try thinking about it as having 2 ends with money being in the middle and with both ends having something of some real value.

For example, suppose you work to make some money so you can get something you really want.

One one end is you working with someone paying you some money, with the work you do being something of some real value, and the other end is someone else working to produce something you want to exchange that money for... like some groceries, and a house of some kind, and a car, and some other things that have been made by some other people who have done some kind of work, including the land we all live on which was created by our Father in heaven who used some materials to build it.

Everything, including money, was made by somebody else who did some kind of work to make it, and when you work you are exchanging your work for some product that is the result of someone else's work.

It's just that money is the only thing that has no real value, in itself, except to trade it for something else of some real value... which is one of the reasons someone made some of it in the first place.

That is the first point of disagreement. Nobody “made money” as “money”. “Money” is just a commodity like any other, with the difference that it has certain properties that makes it suitable to be used as a medium of exchange.

But suppose we didn't use money and instead we just came up with a way to share the things we work to make without the use of any money... or any medium of exchange. I know it would require some kind of accounting system, but do you really think it would be any more complex that the rules we now live under which govern the use and distribution of money, including taxes? I really don't think it would, because I can already envision a way that everything would be able to be exchanged without the use of any money.

You haven’t convinced me that such an alternative method exists that is as efficient or convenient as money, or a medium of exchange. I can think of some examples. If I wanted to buy a house for example, its value would be far greater than what I could exchange for it by working just a few days. It would typically require years of work for me to compensate for the value of a house. In today’s world I would take out a mortgage from a bank to buy a house, and then pay off that mortgage over a period of working years. How would I be able to do that without the use of money?

Another way of solving that problem (especially if I didn’t like borrowing) would be to work for several years and save enough of the fruit of my labors until I have saved enough to be able to exchange it for a house. Again, how would that be possible without the use of money?

Another example is the need for a “middle man”. I am a potatoes grower in Idaho, and you are a potato eater in Utah. The only thing I want to worry about is growing good quality potatoes on my farm in Idaho. I don’t want to have to worry about how you are going to get hold of it in Utah. I would rather let somebody else take care of that. You are also in the same situation as I am. All you want to worry about is going to your local grocery store in Utah, and obtaining good quality potatoes in the quantity you want to eat. You don’t want to worry about where it comes from or how it got there. You would rather let somebody else worry about that. There are people who worry about it, and do a good job of it, so you don’t need to worry about where your potatoes came from; they are the middlemen. Your local grocery store is a middleman. The wholesaler to sells it to him is a middleman. There are probably three or four middlemen between me and you which make my potatoes available to you. Without them the system wouldn’t work. And without a convenient means of exchange it wouldn’t work either.

I am sure I could come up with more examples if I sat and thought about it. The main difference between us seems to be that you are thinking in terms of an extremely primitive economy, and I am not.

But, still, there is a better way than even that way, and that way is to base our "giving" of goods on something called "charity" while having no real desire to get something of "equal" value to someone else's work as long as all of us get something for our work that we want.

... which, for me, in the end, does not include money, since the only thing I use money for is to either trade it for something I really want or to just give to other people so they can get something they really want.

Charity is not the issue from my point of view, but the logistics of running a complex economy. Charity can work just as well with money as without money.

[Ahab]

That is the first point of disagreement. Nobody “made money” as “money”. “Money” is just a commodity like any other, with the difference that it has certain properties that makes it suitable to be used as a medium of exchange.

When I'm talking about money I'm talking about legal tender, zerinus, not what some people use AS money when trying to use some alternative medium of exchange.

Think in terms of dollar bills and coins made by the US Treasury, as well as francs and euros and other kinds of money like that.

I'm not talking about how people can sometimes use something like cigarettes AS money, which is what you seem to be thinking of.

And yes, money, itself, is made by people who are authorized to actually make the money, and if you were to try to make it yourself it would be counterfeit.

You haven’t convinced me that such an alternative method exists that is as efficient or convenient as money, or a medium of exchange.

Any direct trade of goods and services for other goods and services would be a suitable example.

When money is involved, first there is a trade of some goods or services for money and then the person with the money goes and finds something to do with it. In the mean time, though, all he has is some money in exchange for those goods and services he once had. Money which isn't doing him any good at all until he finds someone to trade him something for that money. Then, when he finds someone who will trade some goods and services for that money, the guy who accepts the money then has nothing but that money in exchange for the goods and services that he once had.

Do you really mean to tell me you don't see the inefficiency in such a system? Why not trade directly for some goods and services with the goods and services you have to offer? Money doesn't do you any good at all until you trade it for something else of some real value.

I can think of some examples. If I wanted to buy a house for example, its value would be far greater than what I could exchange for it by working just a few days.

It depends upon how much you value your work, I suppose. There are some people who make enough money to buy a house by just singing a song for a few minutes.

It would typically require years of work for me to compensate for the value of a house.

If you valued your own work more, other people might value it more too.

In today’s world I would take out a mortgage from a bank to buy a house, and then pay off that mortgage over a period of working years.

See the example above for what some other people are doing in todays world.

How would I be able to do that without the use of money?

You could do some kind of work in which someone would give you a house for the work you are doing.

... enough for now. Bye bye.

[zerinus]

When I'm talking about money I'm talking about legal tender, zerinus, not what some people use AS money when trying to use some alternative medium of exchange.

Think in terms of dollar bills and coins made by the US Treasury, as well as francs and euros and other kinds of money like that.

I'm not talking about how people can sometimes use something like cigarettes AS money, which is what you seem to be thinking of.

And yes, money, itself, is made by people who are authorized to actually make the money, and if you were to try to make it yourself it would be counterfeit.

I was talking about the basic principle of it. That is how “money” started as money. Money was nothing more than “silver and gold” once upon a time (e.g. Genesis 13:2; Acts 3:6). “Legal tender” developed as a result of the need for governments to “standardize” it, which is a good thing; just as weights and measures are standardized, which is a good thing: “We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society” (D&C 134:1).

Any direct trade of goods and services for other goods and services would be a suitable example.

When money is involved, first there is a trade of some goods or services for money and then the person with the money goes and finds something to do with it. In the mean time, though, all he has is some money in exchange for those goods and services he once had. Money which isn't doing him any good at all until he finds someone to trade him something for that money. Then, when he finds someone who will trade some goods and services for that money, the guy who accepts the money then has nothing but that money in exchange for the goods and services that he once had.

Do you really mean to tell me you don't see the inefficiency in such a system? Why not trade directly for some goods and services with the goods and services you have to offer? Money doesn't do you any good at all until you trade it for something else of some real value.

Because it is not an efficient way of doing it—if not an impossible way of doing it. How would I be able to trade my 50 tons of potatoes for a car (assuming they were of equal value) for example? Of what use would 50 tons of potatoes be to a car dealer?

It depends upon how much you value your work, I suppose. There are some people who make enough money to buy a house by just singing a song for a few minutes.

That is a red herring. You know very well that those are exceptions, not the rule.

If you valued your own work more, other people might value it more too.

So your system works only for the rich, not for the poor.

See the example above for what some other people are doing in todays world.

You could do some kind of work in which someone would give you a house for the work you are doing.

You are not doing too well to convince me I am afraid. Good luck with your next try.

Edited July 13, 2011 by zerinus

[Ahab]

I was talking about the basic principle of it. That is how “money” started as money.

It started with someone getting the idea that they could exchange someone of no value in itself for something that has some real value. That's the principle behind it, and that's how it started.

Money was nothing more than “silver and gold” once upon a time (e.g. Genesis 13:2; Acts 3:6).

Silver and gold have some real value, though, but money, in itself, really doesn't except for someone who thinks it does.

Try thinking of it this way. When people traded somethng for gold or silver, it was more of a barter system where people traded some goods or services with real value for a product that had some real value when they traded for gold or silver. Money, in itslef, though, in todays terms, doesn't really have any real value except for someone who thinks it does.

So your system works only for the rich, not for the poor.

My system works for everybody who wants to trade something of some real value for something else of some real value.

In my perspective,people who trade something of real value for money have the wool pulled over their eyes in thinking the money has some real value, when in fact it really doesn't.

You are not doing too well to convince me I am afraid. Good luck with your next try.

I'm done trying now. Bye bye.

[zerinus]

It started with someone getting the idea that they could exchange someone of no value in itself for something that has some real value. That's the principle behind it, and that's how it started.

I don’t see that. The way I see it is that the concept of money started with the idea of using a commodity with high value-to-volume ration (like gold) as a convenient medium of exchange. Here is a typical example of a commodity like silver used as a medium of exchange:

Genesis 23

:

12 And Abraham bowed down himself before the people of the land.

13 And he spake unto Ephron in the audience of the people of the land, saying, But if thou wilt give it, I pray thee, hear me: I will give thee money for the field; take it of me, and I will bury my dead there.

14 And Ephron answered Abraham, saying unto him,

15 My lord, hearken unto me: the land is worth four hundred shekels of silver; what is that betwixt me and thee? bury therefore thy dead.

16 And Abraham hearkened unto Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant.

The silver has an intrinsic value which makes it suitable as a medium of exchange. It wasn’t decided by the fiat of some government, but by convention among merchants and traders. How else could Abraham have paid for the land if it hadn’t been with silver? It would have had to have been something else of value like sheep, or goats, or camels, or something else; and whatever else Abraham had used to pay for the field, Ephron would still have had to exchange it for something else so it could be useful to him. So what difference would it have made whether for the field to have been paid for with sheep, or with silver, or with gold (called “money”)—except for the greater convenience (far greater convenience) of it?

Silver and gold have some real value, though, but money, in itself, really doesn't except for someone who thinks it does.

If you are referring to “legal tender” like “paper money,” you would be right if economic order completely collapsed, which is not an impossible scenario; but then people would have more things to worry about than their money. When the end of the world comes, I am sure people will have no further use for their money.

Try thinking of it this way. When people traded somethng for gold or silver, it was more of a barter system where people traded some goods or services with real value for a product that had some real value when they traded for gold or silver. Money, in itslef, though, in todays terms, doesn't really have any real value except for someone who thinks it does.

If you had something of value for sale, and you insisted that it should be paid for in gold rather than dollar bills, I am sure it could be done. But why should anyone want to do that, when they can use their dollar bills to by gold if they wanted to anyway?

My system works for everybody who wants to trade something of some real value for something else of some real value.

Except that it would be an extremely inconvenient (if not impossible) way of doing it. You didn’t answer my question how I could exchange my 50 tons of potatoes with a car (assuming they are of the same value) for example. Of what use would 50 tons of potatoes be to a car dealer?

In my perspective, people who trade something of real value for money have the wool pulled over their eyes in thinking the money has some real value, when in fact it really doesn't.

Well it has made the world go round since society existed. All the prophets have dealt with money in their economic interactions. Jesus dealt with money. He was a carpenter, and how else would people have paid Him for His services except with money? Perhaps He would have done the work for a poor widow without money; but as a rule he would have been paid for His work with money. I really don’t understand what objections you can have (moral or otherwise) to a convenient (if not essential) economic tool such as a medium of exchange called money.