4 ms·

I mean I don't disagree with you on principle, but you're almost asking to remove money altogether or any important limited resource. That's what ultimately ma

I mean I don't disagree with you on principle, but you're almost asking to remove money altogether or any important limited resource. That's what ultimately makes our society turn. If we could get to a true StarTrek replicator, then I think we're off to a good start!

pietrovismara 6y ago
No need to abolish money, it would be enough to guarantee housing, food, education and healthcare to everyone. Just remove the conditions for people to be blackmailed/taken advantage of.
- mdpopescu 6y ago
  Your name hints that you had that, just as I had. It didn't work out so well anywhere it was tried, but I'm sure the next time will be different. /sarc
  - pietrovismara 6y ago
    If you refer to the communist dictatorship in Romania, well that didn't work out, but to say it failed because of the will to guarantee the basic needs to everyone, that would be a gross misconception. Regarding Italy: We have social housing that is crippled by bureocracy and corruption, you have to wait years in line to get a flat, so I can't really say we guarantee that. We guarantee education, but we couldn't guarantee the same (good) level of education to everyone yet. Also we don't guarantee post high school education. If you need to work because you're poor and you don't have time to pursue a degree, that's mostly your problem. Food is not guaranteed either, although we have several monetary aids to partially reduce the issue. Healthcare is guaranteed, and excluding waiting times that are a bit long, I can say that healthcare really worked well for us. Nothing is perfect, but nobody is left to die because of preventable disease. No matter how poor you are, you will be treated. So I wouldn't say in Italy we ever experienced what I propose, just a tiny taste of it.
    - 1MoreThing 6y ago
      This gets at one of the core beliefs lots of people seem to have about socialism: that human nature means it will be implemented poorly. It's pretty hard to test that out, though, when one side of the political spectrum is so convinced it will happen that they devote a significant amount of political effort to making sure it happens, preventing us from ever finding out what a well-funded and run socialist experiment would look like in the US.
      - mdpopescu 6y ago
        Sure, the experiment failed everywhere / everyWHEN else, but we're special. /more sarcasm
        pietrovismara 6y ago
        Don't expect people to take you seriously if you just bring sarcasm tags and no factual arguments to the table...
        captainredbeard 6y ago
        Pointing out that there have been zero sustainable and non-authoritarian socialist entities EVER is a very strong factual argument, FWIW.
        pietrovismara 6y ago
        > socialist entities EVER is a very strong factual argument But it's false. Vietnam works for example, it even handled covid much better than other turbo capitalist powers. And every socialist experiment has been characterized by different approaches and circumstances. Rather than a factual argument, it's more an uninformed generalization, that sounds too close to the propaganda we are pushed on by media/politicians. Do you want a strong factual argument? Despite their claims, not a single capitalist nation has managed to solve poverty. And they won't ever, because without poverty there can't be the hierarchy much needed to force people to behave like cogs into the capitalist machine.
mdpopescu 6y ago
Money is a measure of importance. Without it you make it VERY hard to determine what to do next, or whether what you did so far is sustainable. For example, at the end of the current month I "spent" five chicken and twenty bushes of lavender (I live in the countryside :D) and acquired two dogs and fifty kilos of grain. Was that good? Can I keep doing the same thing next month, or should I change my "prices"? Do not dismiss money lightly, it's far more important than you might think.
- whakim 6y ago
  Societies which aren't/weren't heavily monetized (and did most of their transactions in kind) tended to not really understand most of the basic theories of modern economics. Merchants (like you just described) actually tended to be held in very low esteem precisely because they were applying the foundations of ideas like supply and demand - ideas that weren't well understood, and thus it just seemed like merchants were preying on you and providing nothing of value in return. tl;dr you can't just undo monetization but keep everything else intact.
- pietrovismara 6y ago
  On the contrary, I would say that money is a (admittedly sometimes useful) abstraction that detached us from the real value and scarcity of things. > Was that good? Only you can tell. Has your quality of life improved? Do you have what you need to live well? Then it was good, otherwise not. Money won't help you at all to understand this. Only you can tell the value something has for you. And I'm sure you do this already all the time. How many times were you advertised a great deal (in terms of price/product value) that you decided wasn't necessary? That was you overriding the value money gives to something. Even though just looking at the price it seemed like a great deal, you realized that maybe you didn't need a third washing machine.

pietrovismara 6y ago

No need to abolish money, it would be enough to guarantee housing, food, education and healthcare to everyone. Just remove the conditions for people to be blackmailed/taken advantage of.

mdpopescu 6y ago
Your name hints that you had that, just as I had. It didn't work out so well anywhere it was tried, but I'm sure the next time will be different. /sarc
- pietrovismara 6y ago
  If you refer to the communist dictatorship in Romania, well that didn't work out, but to say it failed because of the will to guarantee the basic needs to everyone, that would be a gross misconception. Regarding Italy: We have social housing that is crippled by bureocracy and corruption, you have to wait years in line to get a flat, so I can't really say we guarantee that. We guarantee education, but we couldn't guarantee the same (good) level of education to everyone yet. Also we don't guarantee post high school education. If you need to work because you're poor and you don't have time to pursue a degree, that's mostly your problem. Food is not guaranteed either, although we have several monetary aids to partially reduce the issue. Healthcare is guaranteed, and excluding waiting times that are a bit long, I can say that healthcare really worked well for us. Nothing is perfect, but nobody is left to die because of preventable disease. No matter how poor you are, you will be treated. So I wouldn't say in Italy we ever experienced what I propose, just a tiny taste of it.
  - 1MoreThing 6y ago
    This gets at one of the core beliefs lots of people seem to have about socialism: that human nature means it will be implemented poorly. It's pretty hard to test that out, though, when one side of the political spectrum is so convinced it will happen that they devote a significant amount of political effort to making sure it happens, preventing us from ever finding out what a well-funded and run socialist experiment would look like in the US.
    - mdpopescu 6y ago
      Sure, the experiment failed everywhere / everyWHEN else, but we're special. /more sarcasm
      - pietrovismara 6y ago
        Don't expect people to take you seriously if you just bring sarcasm tags and no factual arguments to the table...
        captainredbeard 6y ago
        Pointing out that there have been zero sustainable and non-authoritarian socialist entities EVER is a very strong factual argument, FWIW.
        pietrovismara 6y ago
        > socialist entities EVER is a very strong factual argument But it's false. Vietnam works for example, it even handled covid much better than other turbo capitalist powers. And every socialist experiment has been characterized by different approaches and circumstances. Rather than a factual argument, it's more an uninformed generalization, that sounds too close to the propaganda we are pushed on by media/politicians. Do you want a strong factual argument? Despite their claims, not a single capitalist nation has managed to solve poverty. And they won't ever, because without poverty there can't be the hierarchy much needed to force people to behave like cogs into the capitalist machine.

mdpopescu 6y ago

Money is a measure of importance. Without it you make it VERY hard to determine what to do next, or whether what you did so far is sustainable. For example, at the end of the current month I "spent" five chicken and twenty bushes of lavender (I live in the countryside :D) and acquired two dogs and fifty kilos of grain. Was that good? Can I keep doing the same thing next month, or should I change my "prices"? Do not dismiss money lightly, it's far more important than you might think.

whakim 6y ago
Societies which aren't/weren't heavily monetized (and did most of their transactions in kind) tended to not really understand most of the basic theories of modern economics. Merchants (like you just described) actually tended to be held in very low esteem precisely because they were applying the foundations of ideas like supply and demand - ideas that weren't well understood, and thus it just seemed like merchants were preying on you and providing nothing of value in return. tl;dr you can't just undo monetization but keep everything else intact.
pietrovismara 6y ago
On the contrary, I would say that money is a (admittedly sometimes useful) abstraction that detached us from the real value and scarcity of things. > Was that good? Only you can tell. Has your quality of life improved? Do you have what you need to live well? Then it was good, otherwise not. Money won't help you at all to understand this. Only you can tell the value something has for you. And I'm sure you do this already all the time. How many times were you advertised a great deal (in terms of price/product value) that you decided wasn't necessary? That was you overriding the value money gives to something. Even though just looking at the price it seemed like a great deal, you realized that maybe you didn't need a third washing machine.