3 ms·

So how would you spend this hypothetical wealth? The abstract concept of money is what allows the development of a highly specialized economy. Greater specializ

So how would you spend this hypothetical wealth? The abstract concept of money is what allows the development of a highly specialized economy. Greater specialization leads to greater productivity, and hence increased wealth.

yters 19y ago
Spending is a misnomer. If the things you would spend your money on are part of the very system of wealth you contribute to, then you don't need money. This is what we're seeing with the web.
- mercurio 19y ago
  I don't understand your point. Are you talking about some sort of digital bartering system? And what exactly is the "overhead" of using money (I hope you aren't referring to the fact that it has to be earned)?
  - yters 19y ago
    No, the overhead is in the charging and tracking of money. If your system is dynamic and fine grained enough, then it can cost just as much to maintain the financial representation of what is happening as the event itself. Thus, you don't really make anything. A very hypothetical example: say you have millions of simultaneous users all over the world who are constantly, but unpredictably, using your web service. The value of all these people using your service together is very high. However, since people use the service irregularly, charging them a significant amount would make it not worthwhile for them to use your system, and you lose your crowd. On the other hand, the amount that you could reasonably charge them is so small that it would only cover the cost of transaction, and would make the psychological overhead great enough that you would again lose your crowd. So, overall, it is best to not charge anything, and instead extract value in other ways, such as demographic information mining.
  - deleted 19y ago
    [deleted]
- dualogy 19y ago
  "If the things you would spend your money on are part of the very system of wealth you contribute to, then you don't need money." Better to talk about currency than money. You are right, its place is where what you want to consume and what you (want to) produce are different goods. I don't see why the web would change that basic principle. You may contribute your expertise to Hacker News, an open source project and a couple of Wikipedia pages. But surely you don't want to consume only your own products. But maybe the producers of your desired "goods" (whether purely informational bits and bytes or real physical apples or oranges) derive no direct benefit from your aforementioned products. You will necessarily arrive at some medium, whether you call it credits or miles or dollars.
yters 19y ago
Also, on your specialization point, there is great value found in integration. I don't know if you are a _n_x programmer, but the level of integration among all the specialized tools makes it a much more valuable system (at least for a programmer) than a balkanized Microsoft box. You also see this realization in the current trend of Services Oriented Architectures, which is basically the UNIX philosophy writ large.

yters 19y ago

Spending is a misnomer. If the things you would spend your money on are part of the very system of wealth you contribute to, then you don't need money. This is what we're seeing with the web.

mercurio 19y ago
I don't understand your point. Are you talking about some sort of digital bartering system? And what exactly is the "overhead" of using money (I hope you aren't referring to the fact that it has to be earned)?
- yters 19y ago
  No, the overhead is in the charging and tracking of money. If your system is dynamic and fine grained enough, then it can cost just as much to maintain the financial representation of what is happening as the event itself. Thus, you don't really make anything. A very hypothetical example: say you have millions of simultaneous users all over the world who are constantly, but unpredictably, using your web service. The value of all these people using your service together is very high. However, since people use the service irregularly, charging them a significant amount would make it not worthwhile for them to use your system, and you lose your crowd. On the other hand, the amount that you could reasonably charge them is so small that it would only cover the cost of transaction, and would make the psychological overhead great enough that you would again lose your crowd. So, overall, it is best to not charge anything, and instead extract value in other ways, such as demographic information mining.
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
dualogy 19y ago
"If the things you would spend your money on are part of the very system of wealth you contribute to, then you don't need money." Better to talk about currency than money. You are right, its place is where what you want to consume and what you (want to) produce are different goods. I don't see why the web would change that basic principle. You may contribute your expertise to Hacker News, an open source project and a couple of Wikipedia pages. But surely you don't want to consume only your own products. But maybe the producers of your desired "goods" (whether purely informational bits and bytes or real physical apples or oranges) derive no direct benefit from your aforementioned products. You will necessarily arrive at some medium, whether you call it credits or miles or dollars.

yters 19y ago

Also, on your specialization point, there is great value found in integration. I don't know if you are a _n_x programmer, but the level of integration among all the specialized tools makes it a much more valuable system (at least for a programmer) than a balkanized Microsoft box. You also see this realization in the current trend of Services Oriented Architectures, which is basically the UNIX philosophy writ large.