3 ms·

A fish doesn't understand the water it swims in. Have you truly thought about what the "some issues" of money in todays society truly are. What are the true cos

A fish doesn't understand the water it swims in. Have you truly thought about what the "some issues" of money in todays society truly are. What are the true costs? What did we, as a society, lose? Here's an example. Just a few hundred years ago, many (most?) transactions were not via money, but via person to person interactions. These interactions were the binding connection points in the society. The people you would interact with , depend apon, and be depended apon, etc. These have been ripped away and we've been given a very poor substitute. It's a drug. A quick fix and a substitute for true wealth. Need a shirt, go buy a shirt with no idea how, where, when, or why it was made and no connection to the ecological damage that it most probably contributed. Acquiring a shirt, back in the day, could involve many local interactions and could help further strengthen your local economy and society.

luckylion 6y ago
> These interactions were the binding connection points in the society. They were also terribly inefficient. If you had apples, I wanted apples and had chickens but you didn't need chickens, but would love some potatoes, we'd now have to go and find somebody that would complete the chain at the right time, for the right amount. That quickly gets annoying, so we might say "ah, whatever, you're going to need chickens some day in the future, how about I just give you a paper that guarantees to you that I will give you three chickens when you bring back that paper to me?" and that's just fine. Now, next week you want some honey, and the bee keeper will trade for chickens, but you really don't want to keep running back and forth and transport the chickens around town, so you just give him the note and he will come to me and get the chickens. We've now created a currency, albeit a simple one, backed by chickens. Money is such a currency, it just makes trading more efficient. I'm all with you that local economies and intricate webs of relationships are important, but I disagree that they're so important that it makes sense to run after a shirt for days. Yes, sure, you'll meet plenty of interesting people, talk to old friends etc etc, but at some point you have to raise your chickens and fix your roof, you can't spend all of your time doing side quests for barter items.
- minerjoe 6y ago
  > They were also terribly inefficient. "They" -- we would have to nail down what you are referring to as I doubt that you or I know about all the previous economic systems or if it is even fair to lump them all together. And we'd have to figure out what "inefficient" means here and if it is even a bad thing. I'd love some "inefficiency" in todays chasing after god money -- clear-cutting old growth forests, fracking massive expanses of untouched land, fast fast fast FAST. Better get out of the way or we'll call in TigerSwan and the like because you're getting in the way of "efficiency". Your story about the apples is nice, but it is a story that probably has little resemblance to some of these systems. Many of the systems did not operate like the mythical barter system that is told to young aspiring economists. At all. Tribal gift economies. Not chasing after shirts for days, but playing your role in the small society and having all of your needs met.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    I was using "they" to refer to bartering economies without currency as a value placeholder, where you personally would exchange one item for another. > And we'd have to figure out what "inefficient" means here and if it is even a bad thing. That depends on what you want to achieve. Feeding a large population? Advancing human progress? Not working 18 hours a day in back breaking labor? Art? Knowledge? You'll want efficiency. That's not an argument for unsustainable resource usage as in cutting down forests, fracking etc, it's about using human time efficiently. > Not chasing after shirts for days, but playing your role in the small society and having all of your needs met. With "your needs" being very basic because there is practically nothing advanced. I don't think that "back to a simpler life" is going to be the answer. The Amish are doing it (but not really, they do use the surrounding health care system etc), but very few others even try. And those societies that have not yet achieved the comforts of an advanced modern society are usually quite happy to exchange the simpler life for a better, longer one.
    - minerjoe 6y ago
      Yea, thats what I'm trying to point out. Tribal gift economies were not "barter economies". Pretty insulting to those cultures to ignore their art and knowledge. Many would argue, me included, that their art was ,in many ways, superior and they possesed knowledge in subjects much deeper and nuaced than our "modern" culture posesses. Your "18 hours a day back breaking labor" betrays an ignorance of the amount that people in many of those culutures had to work to survive. If you think having most of the planet staring at flashing lights and working 40+ hours a week (unhappy and uncertain) to further a system that is rapidly destroying everything of true value on this planet, "advancement", then we'll just have agree to disagree.

luckylion 6y ago

> These interactions were the binding connection points in the society. They were also terribly inefficient. If you had apples, I wanted apples and had chickens but you didn't need chickens, but would love some potatoes, we'd now have to go and find somebody that would complete the chain at the right time, for the right amount. That quickly gets annoying, so we might say "ah, whatever, you're going to need chickens some day in the future, how about I just give you a paper that guarantees to you that I will give you three chickens when you bring back that paper to me?" and that's just fine. Now, next week you want some honey, and the bee keeper will trade for chickens, but you really don't want to keep running back and forth and transport the chickens around town, so you just give him the note and he will come to me and get the chickens. We've now created a currency, albeit a simple one, backed by chickens. Money is such a currency, it just makes trading more efficient. I'm all with you that local economies and intricate webs of relationships are important, but I disagree that they're so important that it makes sense to run after a shirt for days. Yes, sure, you'll meet plenty of interesting people, talk to old friends etc etc, but at some point you have to raise your chickens and fix your roof, you can't spend all of your time doing side quests for barter items.

minerjoe 6y ago
> They were also terribly inefficient. "They" -- we would have to nail down what you are referring to as I doubt that you or I know about all the previous economic systems or if it is even fair to lump them all together. And we'd have to figure out what "inefficient" means here and if it is even a bad thing. I'd love some "inefficiency" in todays chasing after god money -- clear-cutting old growth forests, fracking massive expanses of untouched land, fast fast fast FAST. Better get out of the way or we'll call in TigerSwan and the like because you're getting in the way of "efficiency". Your story about the apples is nice, but it is a story that probably has little resemblance to some of these systems. Many of the systems did not operate like the mythical barter system that is told to young aspiring economists. At all. Tribal gift economies. Not chasing after shirts for days, but playing your role in the small society and having all of your needs met.
- luckylion 6y ago
  I was using "they" to refer to bartering economies without currency as a value placeholder, where you personally would exchange one item for another. > And we'd have to figure out what "inefficient" means here and if it is even a bad thing. That depends on what you want to achieve. Feeding a large population? Advancing human progress? Not working 18 hours a day in back breaking labor? Art? Knowledge? You'll want efficiency. That's not an argument for unsustainable resource usage as in cutting down forests, fracking etc, it's about using human time efficiently. > Not chasing after shirts for days, but playing your role in the small society and having all of your needs met. With "your needs" being very basic because there is practically nothing advanced. I don't think that "back to a simpler life" is going to be the answer. The Amish are doing it (but not really, they do use the surrounding health care system etc), but very few others even try. And those societies that have not yet achieved the comforts of an advanced modern society are usually quite happy to exchange the simpler life for a better, longer one.
  - minerjoe 6y ago
    Yea, thats what I'm trying to point out. Tribal gift economies were not "barter economies". Pretty insulting to those cultures to ignore their art and knowledge. Many would argue, me included, that their art was ,in many ways, superior and they possesed knowledge in subjects much deeper and nuaced than our "modern" culture posesses. Your "18 hours a day back breaking labor" betrays an ignorance of the amount that people in many of those culutures had to work to survive. If you think having most of the planet staring at flashing lights and working 40+ hours a week (unhappy and uncertain) to further a system that is rapidly destroying everything of true value on this planet, "advancement", then we'll just have agree to disagree.