5 ms·

> what makes one person work for another higher income [of goods and services] due to specialization, division of labor and goods/services liquidity. see: "Th

by swfsql 8y ago

> what makes one person work for another higher income [of goods and services] due to specialization, division of labor and goods/services liquidity. see: "The Story of Money and Trade" [10min] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFbHw7VsNlI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFbHw7VsNlI Forget about money, think of higher-folded exchanges. A restriction into direct exchanges (the lack of any kind of money) would prevent a tremendous amount of wealth creation: we would spend most of our time working on various basic goods, and when trading would be factually required, we would spend most of our time looking for a trade-want coincidence (I want what you have while you want what I have). To put into perspective, it could take me a couple of decades to buy a telescope from someone with a direct exchange only. Indirect exchange save us time. Time saved that we can spend with our loved ones, stuff like that. Even without a single type of "money", people engaged in dealing with indirect exchanges (trying to save other people's time) and profiting in return. That's how money emerges: a product for indirect exchange for indirect exchanges, some kind of higher indirect exchange product. And people took the risk of "reaching" such emerged consensus, some must have failed during that process (that exists constantly, even today -- on every single choice anyone make). Now, money combines perfectly with specialization and division of labor, they enhance each other. Starting from Stewart Mill (I think), each person from a group can be wealthier if that person engage in specialization and trade with others. That's it. If you want to impoverish a subset from a group of people, simply isolate their trading options without their consent. Tariffs etc simply prevent some wealth creation. This is easy to visualize nowadays: isolate a state, or a city, or a neighborhood, or a house, or a person from trading/specializing. > what is the role of money So the role of money is to move human effort and resources around towards urgent needs. When some disaster happens, like a tornado, the impacted place suffers from water, for one. The price tends to rise. What is this? That's a toot. It's an alarm trying to ring, signaling to profit-seekers that this is urgent. The higher it is, the more urgent it is. It's like a symptom asking for treatment. A higher water price DOES MAKE water appear in that place rapidly. People will tend to save on their consume, and water from nearby unaffected places will tend to be taken into the affected one, since profit-seekers can make a profit when doing so. (sure, the water may rise a little on areas nearby the affected place, since water would be exported from them and be imported into the affected place) -- and this process would unfold for each next area, until, without a ruler, water would simply arrive into the affected area and the water price would finally be allowed to drop. But that would be because that resource would not be SO urgent. Now, if I were an evil psycho, I'd simply outlaw water price increase. That's exactly what bureaucrats do. For this price and coordination thing, see: "What If There Were No Prices? The Railroad Thought Experiment" [6m40] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkPGfTEZ_r4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkPGfTEZ_r4

claudiawerner 8y ago
>higher income [of goods and services] due to specialization, division of labor and goods/services liquidity. My question was more oriented around the idea of how people are convinced to perform an action that they have no interest in doing. By "interest" I mean an affect from oneself rather than simply by direction of another. You're addressing the factors which come after that, which already assume the fact of employment. >A restriction into direct exchanges I never argued for this, and I don't think it's a good idea; money is inherent in capitalism and indeed necessary, but at the core of capitalism is the commodity and a "simple" commodity economy too. Those who direct criticism at money don't go far enough, they need to reach the level where we critique the commodity in general, the use and exchange value complex. >So the role of money is to move human effort and resources around towards urgent needs. Is this motivatation ethical? The fact that we have to use the system in which money "moves human effort" conveniently neglects to mention it does so completely uncritically (by most people) and most people regard it as a natural fact. In fact, it's a kind of fetishism. To me, the reason why people work for others in exchange for money is simple: firstly, we use Marx's idea of material reproduction, fulfilling the basal desire to survive (a 'sad' affect) and combine this with the more modern emphasis on consumption (a 'joyful' affect); these two affects work together to give us an incentive to work. But they are forms of control in the end. We shouldn't be asking ourselves about money (that is, if the alternative is simple commodity exchange), we should be asking ourselves about desire and conatus in post-capitalist society -- what would it look like?
- swfsql 8y ago
  > My question was more oriented around the idea of how people are convinced to perform an action that they have no interest in doing. {...} This is a voluntary exchange and an action. All actions, as Von Mises put it, aims to achieve a "happy" future. For being a voluntary exchange, both sides are moving towards this, what they (each one) believe, to be a "happy" future. For example, someone can work to pay for their kid's education, because the worker thinks this is the best way to reach the happiest future situation. >> A restriction into direct exchanges > I never argued for this Yes, it was not my intention to say you argued that. But I think it's elucidating to understand what money (and capitalism) is. >> So the role of money is to move human effort and resources around towards urgent needs. > Is this motivatation ethical? Yes, it is. All voluntary interaction are ethically good/correct. Also, defending oneself from involuntary interaction is also ethical. To see more on this, which I find very hard/complex, see Hoppe's "Argumentation Ethics", such as the one he explains in this video: "On Man, Nature, Truth, and Justice" [1h] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in3sacFHcck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in3sacFHcck > In fact, it's a kind of fetishism. It is not a fetish. It's humility to acknowledge that one don't know and don't pretend to know what everyone else knows (what they need, what they want to do or become), and the available tools, such as price indications, must be used for orientation. The opposite would be to participate in involuntary interactions and force people around, like totalitarians leaders/populations, such as in this "minimum working hours law". You can easily see that money is a coordination+relocation tool. Imagine that someone accumulates 10 billion dollars in cash. Then let's say this person burns all that cash. Now: is anyone poorer after that single event? The resources spread among society, did any of it got affected, at all? ..that's one way to separate money(cash) from wealth. > To me, the reason why people work for others in exchange for money is simple {..} Well, for this I recommend Hoppe's (again) essay "Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis": https://mises.org/system/tdf/9_2_5_0.pdf?file=1&type=document https://mises.org/system/tdf/9_2_5_0.pdf?file=1&type=documen... And also think more about that of specialization and division of labor. Participating on it does increase everyone's wealth. I know this would be "impossible" by marxist analysis, since wealth would be a zero-sum game, but this Adam Smith's view on cost/price/wealth was getting outdated by Carl Menger's subjective valuation of goods/services (and Marx was alive and quite young by then, during Menger's writings). > what would it look like? You are expressing "what if people wanted different stuff/goals", but this must always be left for each one themselves. Each must be free to choose. Now, I agree that there is a consumption impulsion unto society as a whole, but it's not from capitalism, but from the government. Central banking and forcing the usage of that ever inflating currency is basically melting people's money away, preventing savings and longer term thinking (on average). This induces consumption, a colossal amount of consumption. But again, that's on socialism (government), not capitalism.

by swfsql 8y ago

claudiawerner 8y ago

>higher income [of goods and services] due to specialization, division of labor and goods/services liquidity. My question was more oriented around the idea of how people are convinced to perform an action that they have no interest in doing. By "interest" I mean an affect from oneself rather than simply by direction of another. You're addressing the factors which come after that, which already assume the fact of employment. >A restriction into direct exchanges I never argued for this, and I don't think it's a good idea; money is inherent in capitalism and indeed necessary, but at the core of capitalism is the commodity and a "simple" commodity economy too. Those who direct criticism at money don't go far enough, they need to reach the level where we critique the commodity in general, the use and exchange value complex. >So the role of money is to move human effort and resources around towards urgent needs. Is this motivatation ethical? The fact that we have to use the system in which money "moves human effort" conveniently neglects to mention it does so completely uncritically (by most people) and most people regard it as a natural fact. In fact, it's a kind of fetishism. To me, the reason why people work for others in exchange for money is simple: firstly, we use Marx's idea of material reproduction, fulfilling the basal desire to survive (a 'sad' affect) and combine this with the more modern emphasis on consumption (a 'joyful' affect); these two affects work together to give us an incentive to work. But they are forms of control in the end. We shouldn't be asking ourselves about money (that is, if the alternative is simple commodity exchange), we should be asking ourselves about desire and conatus in post-capitalist society -- what would it look like?

swfsql 8y ago
> My question was more oriented around the idea of how people are convinced to perform an action that they have no interest in doing. {...} This is a voluntary exchange and an action. All actions, as Von Mises put it, aims to achieve a "happy" future. For being a voluntary exchange, both sides are moving towards this, what they (each one) believe, to be a "happy" future. For example, someone can work to pay for their kid's education, because the worker thinks this is the best way to reach the happiest future situation. >> A restriction into direct exchanges > I never argued for this Yes, it was not my intention to say you argued that. But I think it's elucidating to understand what money (and capitalism) is. >> So the role of money is to move human effort and resources around towards urgent needs. > Is this motivatation ethical? Yes, it is. All voluntary interaction are ethically good/correct. Also, defending oneself from involuntary interaction is also ethical. To see more on this, which I find very hard/complex, see Hoppe's "Argumentation Ethics", such as the one he explains in this video: "On Man, Nature, Truth, and Justice" [1h] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in3sacFHcck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in3sacFHcck > In fact, it's a kind of fetishism. It is not a fetish. It's humility to acknowledge that one don't know and don't pretend to know what everyone else knows (what they need, what they want to do or become), and the available tools, such as price indications, must be used for orientation. The opposite would be to participate in involuntary interactions and force people around, like totalitarians leaders/populations, such as in this "minimum working hours law". You can easily see that money is a coordination+relocation tool. Imagine that someone accumulates 10 billion dollars in cash. Then let's say this person burns all that cash. Now: is anyone poorer after that single event? The resources spread among society, did any of it got affected, at all? ..that's one way to separate money(cash) from wealth. > To me, the reason why people work for others in exchange for money is simple {..} Well, for this I recommend Hoppe's (again) essay "Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis": https://mises.org/system/tdf/9_2_5_0.pdf?file=1&type=document https://mises.org/system/tdf/9_2_5_0.pdf?file=1&type=documen... And also think more about that of specialization and division of labor. Participating on it does increase everyone's wealth. I know this would be "impossible" by marxist analysis, since wealth would be a zero-sum game, but this Adam Smith's view on cost/price/wealth was getting outdated by Carl Menger's subjective valuation of goods/services (and Marx was alive and quite young by then, during Menger's writings). > what would it look like? You are expressing "what if people wanted different stuff/goals", but this must always be left for each one themselves. Each must be free to choose. Now, I agree that there is a consumption impulsion unto society as a whole, but it's not from capitalism, but from the government. Central banking and forcing the usage of that ever inflating currency is basically melting people's money away, preventing savings and longer term thinking (on average). This induces consumption, a colossal amount of consumption. But again, that's on socialism (government), not capitalism.