47 ms·

Let me know when we reach post scarcity and no longer need a rationing device such as money.

sudosysgen 6y ago
People thought of this issue since 1870 and the solution they came up with is simply non-transferable rationing devices. In traditional Marxist terms this was labour vouchers but nowadays there are much better solutions. Marx himself wrote about this, in terms of primitive accumulation in socialism. For sure there are a lot of issues, but this isn't one of them. You could in theory have bribery in material terms, but this is much easier to trace than in money terms.
- edgyquant 6y ago
  My argument was with the idea that money will be gone as a rationing device. You can come up with alternatives but it’s the human nature that is the problem not the technology we use to ration resources. Let me know when this bug is fixed.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Well, that's not the problem we were talking about, is it? We were talking about the issue of bribery, which is made possible by the fungible nature of money.
    - edgyquant 6y ago
      Yes it is, namely this is the GP > Money is the one unpatchable zero-day for every platform and service on earth. To which the response was that Karl Marx had submitted a fix
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Yes, and? I think you missed a few steps. Someone then answered that bribery is still possible, and I answered again.
        edgyquant 6y ago
        I didn’t respond to the bribery comment I responded to the patch comment saying to let me know when scarcity is solved. I think it may be you who has added a step there, friend.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Money is not the only device that can translate relative preferences. Just because things are scarce does not mean that non-scarce tools such as software must be bent to monetary incentives that reduce their value.
        edgyquant 6y ago
        Any device that is used to ration is money though, there are other means to ration (the three we learn in Econ are beauty, brute force and first come first serve) but any device is by definition money since money is just a rationing device.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        No, money has many more attributes than just being used to ration. Importantly money must be fungible divisible and durable.
- imtringued 6y ago
  I don't really get it. How does this prevent people from holding onto foreign currency or gold?
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Who is going to sell you forex or gold for non-transferable tokens?
    - edgyquant 6y ago
      Non-transferable tokens aren’t going to be a successful replacement for money
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        In a capitalist economy certainly not.
        edgyquant 6y ago
        In any economy that isn’t post-scarcity dude, money wasn’t invented by capitalists nor was the idea of an exchange.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        No, modes of rationing and discovering preferential subjective values are necessary. That does not imply what is meant with money, which is infinitely durable, portable, fungible and uniform. Already rationing systems which do not fit the definition of money are being employed. For example in the post-pandemic period the PBoC has issued consumption tokens with an expiration date. You are simply confusing the idea of a scarce token with money. Money is in the former category but the former category is not money. The necessary function is to translate consumer preferences into numeric terms. For this fungibility and durability is not necessary.

People thought of this issue since 1870 and the solution they came up with is simply non-transferable rationing devices. In traditional Marxist terms this was labour vouchers but nowadays there are much better solutions. Marx himself wrote about this, in terms of primitive accumulation in socialism. For sure there are a lot of issues, but this isn't one of them. You could in theory have bribery in material terms, but this is much easier to trace than in money terms.

edgyquant 6y ago
My argument was with the idea that money will be gone as a rationing device. You can come up with alternatives but it’s the human nature that is the problem not the technology we use to ration resources. Let me know when this bug is fixed.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Well, that's not the problem we were talking about, is it? We were talking about the issue of bribery, which is made possible by the fungible nature of money.
  - edgyquant 6y ago
    Yes it is, namely this is the GP > Money is the one unpatchable zero-day for every platform and service on earth. To which the response was that Karl Marx had submitted a fix
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Yes, and? I think you missed a few steps. Someone then answered that bribery is still possible, and I answered again.
      - edgyquant 6y ago
        I didn’t respond to the bribery comment I responded to the patch comment saying to let me know when scarcity is solved. I think it may be you who has added a step there, friend.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Money is not the only device that can translate relative preferences. Just because things are scarce does not mean that non-scarce tools such as software must be bent to monetary incentives that reduce their value.
        edgyquant 6y ago
        Any device that is used to ration is money though, there are other means to ration (the three we learn in Econ are beauty, brute force and first come first serve) but any device is by definition money since money is just a rationing device.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        No, money has many more attributes than just being used to ration. Importantly money must be fungible divisible and durable.
imtringued 6y ago
I don't really get it. How does this prevent people from holding onto foreign currency or gold?
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Who is going to sell you forex or gold for non-transferable tokens?
  - edgyquant 6y ago
    Non-transferable tokens aren’t going to be a successful replacement for money
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      In a capitalist economy certainly not.
      - edgyquant 6y ago
        In any economy that isn’t post-scarcity dude, money wasn’t invented by capitalists nor was the idea of an exchange.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        No, modes of rationing and discovering preferential subjective values are necessary. That does not imply what is meant with money, which is infinitely durable, portable, fungible and uniform. Already rationing systems which do not fit the definition of money are being employed. For example in the post-pandemic period the PBoC has issued consumption tokens with an expiration date. You are simply confusing the idea of a scarce token with money. Money is in the former category but the former category is not money. The necessary function is to translate consumer preferences into numeric terms. For this fungibility and durability is not necessary.