5 ms·

Absolutely correct. And more to the point, it's impossible to live "without money." Money is not a possession, it's simply a measure of wealth. And this: Wh

Absolutely correct. And more to the point, it's impossible to live "without money." Money is not a possession, it's simply a measure of wealth. And this: When something hurts, I put my hand on it and say to myself I have the power to heal myself and the pain goes away.”

alexandros 17y ago
That bit and the spirituality angle indeed was unsettling but I posted this here maily because of the 'service/goods bartering' angle which seemed like a cool hack.
- Tichy 17y ago
  Why do you consider it a hack? It seems less efficient than money in the end. Money is the cool hack.
  - alexandros 17y ago
    because it (re-)introduces a social element to the exchange. It may not be for everything and everyone, but it would give me a sense of enjoyment to exchange e.g. some computer-repair services for something else I need in my neighborhood. Nevermind that I would get to actually interact with the people around me. Definitely a feature not inherent in money.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      Fair enough, although I don't think money prevents people interacting and trading locally. Not sure if forcing them to do so is a good thing. Or rather it depends - for people like the woman in the article it is probably a good thing, because she excels at social interactions. If her world order would become the norm, the people less skilled in social interactions would lose out. So it is not fighting for a better world - it is just everybody fighting for a world order in which they have the best cards on their hands. That said, if you open a PC repair service, the likelihood that the hairdresser in your neighborhood would come to you with PC problems seems high. If you don't offer repair services in your neighborhood right now, I wonder why not? My guess would be that your computer skills are probably more valuable than what you could earn with repair services (typically better paid than haircuts, so would you be willing to exchange 1:1?).
      - jimbokun 17y ago
        "Or rather it depends - for people like the woman in the article it is probably a good thing, because she excels at social interactions. If her world order would become the norm, the people less skilled in social interactions would lose out." Yep, as an introvert, this is the part that would terrify me about adopting such a lifestyle.
  - UncleOxidant 17y ago
    The problem is that in a recession like we are in now, money can be difficult to come by. But your skills are just fine. And you still have stuff that can be exchanged for other stuff. Bartering clubs were quite popular in the 70's and early 80's when the economy was bad for this very reason. Wouldn't be surprised if they become popular again.
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    Money allows a lot of worth to be removed from the system without any positive input and a huge amount to be removed solely on the basis of improved liquidity. Suppose I have chickens I sell at £5, outside forces reduce the value of that £5 such that chickens are now worth £10. If previously a haircut was £5, and is since I cashed up now £10 (inflated the same as the chicken did) then because I use money I've lost 50% of the value of my chicken; simply by using money. If I swapped that chicken for a future haircut then it wouldn't matter what inflation does or the charges banks put on transactions or how competitors try to low-ball the hairdresser out of existence. I get a haircut, they get a chicken.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      You can not escape the speculation, though. Either you speculate on money losing value, or on gaining value (or staying the same in value). In your example, if you sell the chicken for 5$ and through outside forces haircuts become so cheap that they only cost 1$, using money is better for you. Also, the equivalent to outside forces devaluating the money would simply be the hairdresser dieing or moving away - then he got your chicken for free, because you can not call in your future haircut anymore. At least with money, you can still go to another hairdresser.
  - ugvbjhygvb 17y ago
    Not necessarily I want to cut your hair and it would take me 15mins. But in order for you to pay me $10 I need a company, and liability insurance, and medical cover, and a business license, and an accountant and a GST/VAT account. So I have to charge you $20 to cover the inefficiency
    - Tichy 17y ago
      I don't think that is true in general. First, you can not evade tax laws just by not using money. What if all companies decided to pay their employees only in "things" instead of money, should they all really be exempt from taxes? Like instead of earning 2000$, you would earn "a new TV and a Microwave, and 10 haircuts". It doesn't work that way. (Debate about the usefulness of taxes elsewhere please - the fact is atm the government wants our money/part of our production. It is not a result of the existence of money). Also, you don't need to have a business if your exchanges are below a certain threshold, at least not in Germany. I am fairly certain it has to be similar in the US.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
shaunxcode 17y ago
What is important here though is that they are removing the concept of an "accepted market value" for these services/goods. There is direct interaction between the provider and consumer with out mediation which determines the subjective value for both parties. I wonder what marx thinks about that?
- jerf 17y ago
  Not really. You can't get away from "accepted market value". It falls out of a small handful of simple axioms. See something like section 2 of http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_ToC.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_ToC... , which shows (in several steps) how money falls right out of the way people have different valuations for different things. Barter economies are degenerate cases of market economies, where the transactions costs are higher due to the nonliquidity of the currencies actually being used. This is not a story about a beautiful proof of how money isn't necessary, it's proof that the money-based economy is rich enough to support not-100%-efficient sub-economies as effectively parasites on the main economy. Still true, but a lot less faux-beautiful. Money is still there, just swept under the rug so everybody can feel warm fuzzies about not using money. Note that this is a separate issue from asceticism; market economies aren't incompatible with owning stuff, rather than stuff owning you, and bartering doesn't enforce asceticism.
  - shaunxcode 17y ago
    The way I see it is there are definitely still markets - it's just that each relationship between person A and person B is a unique market with unique market values for goods and services. "MarketSpace" A->B would actually be different than B->A - so a theoretic ideal situation would be where "arbitrage" ends up benefiting both parties because of their relative markets. Example: I can re-build volkswagen/porsche engines. While the market value for this is roughly 1.5k usd in labor I would gladly do it in exchange for you staining my arcade cabinet - a service with a roughly 300-500 usd value.. I would feel like I was getting a killer deal and so would you. Is that "degenerate" because it is not optimizing exploitation or do you mean that in another sense of the word?
rdtsc 17y ago
There was a story a while ago when IRS went after someone who was fixing their friends' and neighbours' cars and didn't ask for money in return. He was retired and he liked working on cars and he did it for free. IRS claimed he should have reported it as income. In respect to money being a measure of wealth, was he "theoretically" becoming wealthy and acruing "good will". Later by changing his mind and asking for favors from his neighbors he could "cash in" his "good will" but avoid paying income and sale taxes on it.
- xinsight 17y ago
  How did the IRS get on this guy's case? There's no paper trail. I find it hard believe that one of his friends or neighbours went to the IRS and said, "This guy fixed my car and didn't charge me! You'd better investigate him."
- Tichy 17y ago
  I'd say those bartering services are definitely a gray area or illegal because they avoid the taxes. But that they even caught on to the accrued good will seems impressive. Edit: don't shoot the messenger, I did not create the laws
  - dunstad 17y ago
    Taxes are for money, not good will. You created a law taxing friendly favors.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      I think you are wrong. Ask a lawyer, though (and again, I did not create the law). Trading is friendly, too, btw. In a good trade, both parties are happier after the trade.

alexandros 17y ago

That bit and the spirituality angle indeed was unsettling but I posted this here maily because of the 'service/goods bartering' angle which seemed like a cool hack.

Tichy 17y ago
Why do you consider it a hack? It seems less efficient than money in the end. Money is the cool hack.
- alexandros 17y ago
  because it (re-)introduces a social element to the exchange. It may not be for everything and everyone, but it would give me a sense of enjoyment to exchange e.g. some computer-repair services for something else I need in my neighborhood. Nevermind that I would get to actually interact with the people around me. Definitely a feature not inherent in money.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    Fair enough, although I don't think money prevents people interacting and trading locally. Not sure if forcing them to do so is a good thing. Or rather it depends - for people like the woman in the article it is probably a good thing, because she excels at social interactions. If her world order would become the norm, the people less skilled in social interactions would lose out. So it is not fighting for a better world - it is just everybody fighting for a world order in which they have the best cards on their hands. That said, if you open a PC repair service, the likelihood that the hairdresser in your neighborhood would come to you with PC problems seems high. If you don't offer repair services in your neighborhood right now, I wonder why not? My guess would be that your computer skills are probably more valuable than what you could earn with repair services (typically better paid than haircuts, so would you be willing to exchange 1:1?).
    - jimbokun 17y ago
      "Or rather it depends - for people like the woman in the article it is probably a good thing, because she excels at social interactions. If her world order would become the norm, the people less skilled in social interactions would lose out." Yep, as an introvert, this is the part that would terrify me about adopting such a lifestyle.
- UncleOxidant 17y ago
  The problem is that in a recession like we are in now, money can be difficult to come by. But your skills are just fine. And you still have stuff that can be exchanged for other stuff. Bartering clubs were quite popular in the 70's and early 80's when the economy was bad for this very reason. Wouldn't be surprised if they become popular again.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  Money allows a lot of worth to be removed from the system without any positive input and a huge amount to be removed solely on the basis of improved liquidity. Suppose I have chickens I sell at £5, outside forces reduce the value of that £5 such that chickens are now worth £10. If previously a haircut was £5, and is since I cashed up now £10 (inflated the same as the chicken did) then because I use money I've lost 50% of the value of my chicken; simply by using money. If I swapped that chicken for a future haircut then it wouldn't matter what inflation does or the charges banks put on transactions or how competitors try to low-ball the hairdresser out of existence. I get a haircut, they get a chicken.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    You can not escape the speculation, though. Either you speculate on money losing value, or on gaining value (or staying the same in value). In your example, if you sell the chicken for 5$ and through outside forces haircuts become so cheap that they only cost 1$, using money is better for you. Also, the equivalent to outside forces devaluating the money would simply be the hairdresser dieing or moving away - then he got your chicken for free, because you can not call in your future haircut anymore. At least with money, you can still go to another hairdresser.
- ugvbjhygvb 17y ago
  Not necessarily I want to cut your hair and it would take me 15mins. But in order for you to pay me $10 I need a company, and liability insurance, and medical cover, and a business license, and an accountant and a GST/VAT account. So I have to charge you $20 to cover the inefficiency
  - Tichy 17y ago
    I don't think that is true in general. First, you can not evade tax laws just by not using money. What if all companies decided to pay their employees only in "things" instead of money, should they all really be exempt from taxes? Like instead of earning 2000$, you would earn "a new TV and a Microwave, and 10 haircuts". It doesn't work that way. (Debate about the usefulness of taxes elsewhere please - the fact is atm the government wants our money/part of our production. It is not a result of the existence of money). Also, you don't need to have a business if your exchanges are below a certain threshold, at least not in Germany. I am fairly certain it has to be similar in the US.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]

shaunxcode 17y ago

What is important here though is that they are removing the concept of an "accepted market value" for these services/goods. There is direct interaction between the provider and consumer with out mediation which determines the subjective value for both parties. I wonder what marx thinks about that?

jerf 17y ago
Not really. You can't get away from "accepted market value". It falls out of a small handful of simple axioms. See something like section 2 of http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_ToC.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_ToC... , which shows (in several steps) how money falls right out of the way people have different valuations for different things. Barter economies are degenerate cases of market economies, where the transactions costs are higher due to the nonliquidity of the currencies actually being used. This is not a story about a beautiful proof of how money isn't necessary, it's proof that the money-based economy is rich enough to support not-100%-efficient sub-economies as effectively parasites on the main economy. Still true, but a lot less faux-beautiful. Money is still there, just swept under the rug so everybody can feel warm fuzzies about not using money. Note that this is a separate issue from asceticism; market economies aren't incompatible with owning stuff, rather than stuff owning you, and bartering doesn't enforce asceticism.
- shaunxcode 17y ago
  The way I see it is there are definitely still markets - it's just that each relationship between person A and person B is a unique market with unique market values for goods and services. "MarketSpace" A->B would actually be different than B->A - so a theoretic ideal situation would be where "arbitrage" ends up benefiting both parties because of their relative markets. Example: I can re-build volkswagen/porsche engines. While the market value for this is roughly 1.5k usd in labor I would gladly do it in exchange for you staining my arcade cabinet - a service with a roughly 300-500 usd value.. I would feel like I was getting a killer deal and so would you. Is that "degenerate" because it is not optimizing exploitation or do you mean that in another sense of the word?

rdtsc 17y ago

There was a story a while ago when IRS went after someone who was fixing their friends' and neighbours' cars and didn't ask for money in return. He was retired and he liked working on cars and he did it for free. IRS claimed he should have reported it as income. In respect to money being a measure of wealth, was he "theoretically" becoming wealthy and acruing "good will". Later by changing his mind and asking for favors from his neighbors he could "cash in" his "good will" but avoid paying income and sale taxes on it.

xinsight 17y ago
How did the IRS get on this guy's case? There's no paper trail. I find it hard believe that one of his friends or neighbours went to the IRS and said, "This guy fixed my car and didn't charge me! You'd better investigate him."
Tichy 17y ago
I'd say those bartering services are definitely a gray area or illegal because they avoid the taxes. But that they even caught on to the accrued good will seems impressive. Edit: don't shoot the messenger, I did not create the laws
- dunstad 17y ago
  Taxes are for money, not good will. You created a law taxing friendly favors.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    I think you are wrong. Ask a lawyer, though (and again, I did not create the law). Trading is friendly, too, btw. In a good trade, both parties are happier after the trade.