3 ms·

> 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 econ

> 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.
- scarface74 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 Many historians believe that a bartering economy never existed. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-...

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.
scarface74 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 Many historians believe that a bartering economy never existed. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-...