5 ms·

If you do not make money, you starve. Also, it's not just taxes - there are tens of trillions of dollars of outstanding dollar denominated debt. Millions of p

If you do not make money, you starve. Also, it's not just taxes - there are tens of trillions of dollars of outstanding dollar denominated debt. Millions of people and corporations have contractual obligations to deliver dollars. If they renege on those obligations, their creditors will seize very real assets (buildings, houses, etc).

jhancock 18y ago
no one that participates in this forum is in danger of starving due to lack of income. you could make zero money in the next year and not starve. someone will feed you. it is also highly improbable that anyone that reads HN would find themselves without a roof over their head by making zero dollars within the next year. these fears are highly overrated. the fears are real for others. and to build an economy around solving these problems is interesting.
- bokonist 18y ago
  Stop being pedantic. At some point everyone must trade their labor for goods other people produce. This transaction incurs taxes that you must pay in dollars, or you go to jail.
  - jhancock 18y ago
    not pedantic at all. I have not made a net income to be taxed in years (yes local governments have profited from transactional taxes; sales taxes). As a consequence, I have not starved to death (obviously) and am not writing this post from jail. However, I have provided much value to my community in terms of goods and services. If you were to come to my community and ask about me, you will find many that value my contributions to our local society. I believe now is a great time to think about alternate economies instead of holding steadfast to rules that govern the current domain.
    - Xichekolas 18y ago
      This situation works because you have something that substitutes for cash in your community... trust. Cash is a way to create trust between two parties that don't know each other. Without cash, if I walked into Best Buy for a TV, I'd offer to trade goods or services for it. Since Best Buy doesn't know me from Adam, they have no way to know whether I'll make good on my promise (they can't trust me), and so giving me the TV is a risk. However, Best Buy probably trusts the US Government to continue accepting dollars for tax payments, so dollars are valuable and trustworthy. If I give Best Buy some dollars, they are immediately useful in paying taxes. Likewise if I work for Best Buy, and there was no money, Best Buy would 'pay' me by providing everything I ask for up to a certain standard of living. I'd have to trust Best Buy not to abuse this situation. It's far easier to be paid in dollars, because I can trust that businesses I buy from will value dollars... because they can trust that the government will value dollars (for tax payments). The only way to survive without trust (either the real thing or via cash, which is really trust in a third party), is for everyone to be totally self-sufficient. Specialization is a huge economic boost, so giving it up means a lower standard of living for everyone. However, if everyone were truly self-sufficient, there would be no need to trade goods/services, and hence no need for trust or cash.
  - anewaccountname 18y ago
    >At some point everyone must trade their labor for goods other people produce. This transaction incurs taxes that you must pay in dollars, or you go to jail. If everyone just worked for non-profits focused on providing for people, that statement isn't true =P. Not exactly what you meant...
- pbrown 18y ago
  The problem with that logic is, if you don't work and have to rely on someone else to feed you, that means I have to work twice as hard to feed my family and now feed you. There's something wrong when 30% (soon to be 50%) of the population doesn't pay taxes, and expects the rest of us to provide for them, IMHO.
  - jhancock 18y ago
    I'm not proposing we all act as dilettantes and don't provide value to our communities. I work about 90 hours a week and do provide value. I simply prefer to have the money circulate in a tighter community.
  - redrobot5050 18y ago
    It follows the same logic as why its really easy to get your license back after a DUI in america: There's a reason to stay within the system and play by the rules. Which is cheaper than the alternative of you driving w/o a license or registration (or insurance) and seriously injuring someone and fleeing the scene. Welfare/Social Aid/Safety Net programs add value in the same way. By allowing an unemployed programmer to continue paying his rent, you prevent him from using his skills for evil. Or something along those lines. Likewise, there is "the law of unintended consequences" where we are finding that people born into welfare tend to stay on welfare. For their entire life. And bear children in welfare. Obviously that cycle is a problem. I think the safety net needs a through debugging and re-tuning to make it both more effective and more cost efficient. However, I still think its cheaper than the alternatives and their intended and unintended consequences.

jhancock 18y ago

no one that participates in this forum is in danger of starving due to lack of income. you could make zero money in the next year and not starve. someone will feed you. it is also highly improbable that anyone that reads HN would find themselves without a roof over their head by making zero dollars within the next year. these fears are highly overrated. the fears are real for others. and to build an economy around solving these problems is interesting.

bokonist 18y ago
Stop being pedantic. At some point everyone must trade their labor for goods other people produce. This transaction incurs taxes that you must pay in dollars, or you go to jail.
- jhancock 18y ago
  not pedantic at all. I have not made a net income to be taxed in years (yes local governments have profited from transactional taxes; sales taxes). As a consequence, I have not starved to death (obviously) and am not writing this post from jail. However, I have provided much value to my community in terms of goods and services. If you were to come to my community and ask about me, you will find many that value my contributions to our local society. I believe now is a great time to think about alternate economies instead of holding steadfast to rules that govern the current domain.
  - Xichekolas 18y ago
    This situation works because you have something that substitutes for cash in your community... trust. Cash is a way to create trust between two parties that don't know each other. Without cash, if I walked into Best Buy for a TV, I'd offer to trade goods or services for it. Since Best Buy doesn't know me from Adam, they have no way to know whether I'll make good on my promise (they can't trust me), and so giving me the TV is a risk. However, Best Buy probably trusts the US Government to continue accepting dollars for tax payments, so dollars are valuable and trustworthy. If I give Best Buy some dollars, they are immediately useful in paying taxes. Likewise if I work for Best Buy, and there was no money, Best Buy would 'pay' me by providing everything I ask for up to a certain standard of living. I'd have to trust Best Buy not to abuse this situation. It's far easier to be paid in dollars, because I can trust that businesses I buy from will value dollars... because they can trust that the government will value dollars (for tax payments). The only way to survive without trust (either the real thing or via cash, which is really trust in a third party), is for everyone to be totally self-sufficient. Specialization is a huge economic boost, so giving it up means a lower standard of living for everyone. However, if everyone were truly self-sufficient, there would be no need to trade goods/services, and hence no need for trust or cash.
- anewaccountname 18y ago
  >At some point everyone must trade their labor for goods other people produce. This transaction incurs taxes that you must pay in dollars, or you go to jail. If everyone just worked for non-profits focused on providing for people, that statement isn't true =P. Not exactly what you meant...
pbrown 18y ago
The problem with that logic is, if you don't work and have to rely on someone else to feed you, that means I have to work twice as hard to feed my family and now feed you. There's something wrong when 30% (soon to be 50%) of the population doesn't pay taxes, and expects the rest of us to provide for them, IMHO.
- jhancock 18y ago
  I'm not proposing we all act as dilettantes and don't provide value to our communities. I work about 90 hours a week and do provide value. I simply prefer to have the money circulate in a tighter community.
- redrobot5050 18y ago
  It follows the same logic as why its really easy to get your license back after a DUI in america: There's a reason to stay within the system and play by the rules. Which is cheaper than the alternative of you driving w/o a license or registration (or insurance) and seriously injuring someone and fleeing the scene. Welfare/Social Aid/Safety Net programs add value in the same way. By allowing an unemployed programmer to continue paying his rent, you prevent him from using his skills for evil. Or something along those lines. Likewise, there is "the law of unintended consequences" where we are finding that people born into welfare tend to stay on welfare. For their entire life. And bear children in welfare. Obviously that cycle is a problem. I think the safety net needs a through debugging and re-tuning to make it both more effective and more cost efficient. However, I still think its cheaper than the alternatives and their intended and unintended consequences.