3 ms·

Not a good source, I know, but... my Latin teacher in high school. I've added some relevant reading to my list, when I run across it again I'll comment here. E

Not a good source, I know, but... my Latin teacher in high school. I've added some relevant reading to my list, when I run across it again I'll comment here. Even without the Romans, look at how the US banking system works. Money enters circulation when people are granted loans--loans which are issued based on the banker's belief that the debtors' endeavors will succeed. If the technology for providing these necessities improves to the point where it is believed that they're easy to provide (some may argue that it already has), then we can create new money based on collective support for that goal. This money could be more legitimate than what you get from a banker, because it is backed by activity which obviously benefits the people. By contrast, when you accept a dollar you have no way of knowing whether the loan that put it into circulation was for activity that helps you or harms you. Collective trust in bankers is pretty shaky, and yet it still seems solid enough to keep the current system afloat. Collective support for solving the basic-needs problem would be a much sturdier foundation for a monetary system. The point is, "there aren't enough resources for that"-style argument only works for resources like metal or water or labor... things that we can't create from thin air. Money is created from thin air to meet the needs of the system. If there's enough collective willpower to get something done, a lack of money can't stop it because we can just change the way money is created in support of the desired activity.

satvikpendem 2y ago
Money is not really created out of thin air, rather, it is a physical manifestation of value. If you just create money out of thin air or reallocate it not based on what people value but by some other metric, the money itself will lose value. Such is the case with inflation. Money is not tangible, yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't real, merely that it's a simulation of the underlying mechanics of people's desires. And that is why I don't believe in your idea, because I don't believe that people actually care much for each other, certainly not enough to base monetary policy around that.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  When comparing the alternatives: - money based on which loans bankers will grant (e.g. the status quo) - money based on ensuring that people's basic needs are met such that they're able to take on more economic risks with their free time (re: starting businesses and such) What do you suppose the merits of the former are? It's not about altruism, it's just about what works best. I think there's a lot of evidence to be found by just looking around that the former isn't working especially well. The only thing holding the latter back is buy-in, and if things continue to deteriorate there will have to come a point where giving it a try makes more sense than continuing to base our money on arbitrary decisions made by people we don't trust.
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    > It's not about altruism, it's just about what works best. I think there's a lot of evidence to be found by just looking around that the former isn't working especially well. This is not how logic works. Saying that one system is not working well (which is, again, debatable, see how China and Japan grew in the last 75 years) is not evidence for another system working better. Ultimately you seem to have a naive view of the world and not much understanding of macroeconomics. I will have to point you to a textbook because I cannot explain it all from this level of understanding.
    - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
      I have only taken two economics classes, so you're right about the naiveté. But it's hard to get excited about continuing such study when so many signs point to status-quo macroeconomics being a mechanism for harming the many to benefit the few. We're facing down a probable future where large swaths of the planet will be uninhabitable due to a deteriorating climate, and the only thing macroeconomics has to say about it is: > Look at all of the growth we've achieved, high-five guys!
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        Well if you come from a third world country like I do and see first hand just how well capitalism works when lifting your family up from literal slum-like conditions to something middle class, you would understand why people say "high five, guys!" Does it have its problems, sure, but one cannot deny its effects. Every system has its flaws, it's just that certain systems like capitalism actually do what they say they'd do.

satvikpendem 2y ago

Money is not really created out of thin air, rather, it is a physical manifestation of value. If you just create money out of thin air or reallocate it not based on what people value but by some other metric, the money itself will lose value. Such is the case with inflation. Money is not tangible, yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't real, merely that it's a simulation of the underlying mechanics of people's desires. And that is why I don't believe in your idea, because I don't believe that people actually care much for each other, certainly not enough to base monetary policy around that.

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
When comparing the alternatives: - money based on which loans bankers will grant (e.g. the status quo) - money based on ensuring that people's basic needs are met such that they're able to take on more economic risks with their free time (re: starting businesses and such) What do you suppose the merits of the former are? It's not about altruism, it's just about what works best. I think there's a lot of evidence to be found by just looking around that the former isn't working especially well. The only thing holding the latter back is buy-in, and if things continue to deteriorate there will have to come a point where giving it a try makes more sense than continuing to base our money on arbitrary decisions made by people we don't trust.
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  > It's not about altruism, it's just about what works best. I think there's a lot of evidence to be found by just looking around that the former isn't working especially well. This is not how logic works. Saying that one system is not working well (which is, again, debatable, see how China and Japan grew in the last 75 years) is not evidence for another system working better. Ultimately you seem to have a naive view of the world and not much understanding of macroeconomics. I will have to point you to a textbook because I cannot explain it all from this level of understanding.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    I have only taken two economics classes, so you're right about the naiveté. But it's hard to get excited about continuing such study when so many signs point to status-quo macroeconomics being a mechanism for harming the many to benefit the few. We're facing down a probable future where large swaths of the planet will be uninhabitable due to a deteriorating climate, and the only thing macroeconomics has to say about it is: > Look at all of the growth we've achieved, high-five guys!
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      Well if you come from a third world country like I do and see first hand just how well capitalism works when lifting your family up from literal slum-like conditions to something middle class, you would understand why people say "high five, guys!" Does it have its problems, sure, but one cannot deny its effects. Every system has its flaws, it's just that certain systems like capitalism actually do what they say they'd do.