flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > future society ~ moneyless

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
@sleepsleep: yes that is true that it is used in more loans, that is why depressions happen (they deposit the interest, because deposits are used for loans), but if people stopped lending, then the banks would simply start to buy stuff from people or take away things if they couldn't pay their loans. The interest is merely a "I give you % of my work, because of your services (the bank's services)".

Azu wrote:
And how does taxing help with that? Taxing just means taking the money back away from the citizens after they've earned it from you through hard work.. you don't end up with any more money than you started with, just unpaid labor!
Think of a loan: what you get must be paid back. All money in circulation is a loan -- the first one comes from the government. It has to pay it back, yes to ITSELF (or rather, to the Fed, which is the central private bank in the US).

When the government CREATES money, which is actually a digital account, (the Fed actually does it) it also issues a treasury bond with it, which says that the amount it issued has to be paid back to the Fed (to destroy the money). The interest the Fed gets is rebated I think, but let's not complicate this further.

Of course people take loans if they expect to be able to pay it back, which means they must have some income. The government's income is taxes.

When the government creates money, that is not "free money", because a loan is not "free money". What is free, however, are taxes, but that's how governments work.
But the taxes come from the people.
And the people have the money created by the government.
It is a closed loop.
The only money they can tax is the money they gave to them, which is the loan.
So where can they get money to pay the interest?
I got the rest of your post about the money recirculating, but I am stuck on the tax part.

_________________
Post 02 Dec 2009, 03:10
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
That's the thing! The interest is not destroyed money! Neither in normal bank loans or government loans!

The Fed can use that money for stuff, for example, to get something from the gov for instance (or to get from people, who in turn are taxed!) (or it is rebated, I don't know the exact term used for it).

e.g: gov pays interest 1 year earlier (interest is paid before principal), the Fed uses it as profit and buys something from citizens -- the money gets taxed again and the gov gets back the interest so it can pay the principal, so to speak (of course this is not as fast a process as I make it, but it's for illustrative purposes).

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 02 Dec 2009, 04:07
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Oops.



Now I get it.

Thank you.
Post 02 Dec 2009, 04:11
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
no prob, I had quite a difficulty understanding it myself, I only did so recently (past weeks, really!).

EDIT: of course, the government doesn't have to wait for one bond to expire, it issues many others in the meantime -- that's how money "appears" to be 'permanent' instead of just a temporary debt. (like I said people think in a very small picture and day-to-day lives so for them that's the apparent effect).

It also can't issue any arbitrary large amount because it has to have some credibility to pay it back. If taxes are very low, it's likely the Fed won't give it very high sums -- it's like a beggar going to a bank and asking for 1 million dollars... no sane bank would lend him that money Smile
Post 02 Dec 2009, 19:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17247
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Okay so money is debt, fine, but it seems just a bit of semantics there. In reality money is what stimulates people to do work for others. So a society without money has no stimulation for people to do or make anything and progress halts, we fall into the dark ages, and become a bartering-based civilisation.
Post 12 Dec 2009, 11:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8864
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

In reality money is what stimulates people to do work for others

that could be dark age method....

Quote:

So a society without money has no stimulation for people to do or make anything and progress halts

but if without money to stimulate others, but others still want to do something, does this mean evolution occurs?

Quote:

we fall into the dark ages

maybe we escape dark ages and moving toward golden age Smile
Post 12 Dec 2009, 11:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
Hi,

My idea of a future moneyless society:
http://en.technocracynet.eu

Short story: Energy Accounting. Replace earned money with equally distributed energy credits, representative of production capacity of the whole system. Just as freedom-of-choice-making as money, but fair.

Hm.. now I've combined two of my hobbies... now you can 1d3nt1fy me... oh no...

LP,
Jure
Post 12 Dec 2009, 23:11
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
Okay so money is debt, fine, but it seems just a bit of semantics there. In reality money is what stimulates people to do work for others. So a society without money has no stimulation for people to do or make anything and progress halts, we fall into the dark ages, and become a bartering-based civilisation.
But it's not money per se that motivates them, it's the stuff that money can do -- and the fact that people accept it when they "give away" some products. This is important, because a moneyless society could have for example, distribution supplies according to percentage of work. It doesn't have to be "everyone equal".

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 13 Dec 2009, 00:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
Borsuc wrote:
revolution wrote:
Okay so money is debt, fine, but it seems just a bit of semantics there. In reality money is what stimulates people to do work for others. So a society without money has no stimulation for people to do or make anything and progress halts, we fall into the dark ages, and become a bartering-based civilisation.
But it's not money per se that motivates them, it's the stuff that money can do -- and the fact that people accept it when they "give away" some products. This is important, because a moneyless society could have for example, distribution supplies according to percentage of work. It doesn't have to be "everyone equal".

Why do people want to mix communism("distribution supplies") with capitalism("doesn't have to be 'everyone equal'")? They are both good systems when operated by trust worthy people, but when mixed you end up with a screwed up economy like America's right now. We're bailing out big banks(Communism) and allowing poor people to be homeless(extreme Capitalism).
Anyway, I think money is better because it allows you to get what you want, not whatever "distribution supplies" happens to be. Nobody's even mentioned services, they're 70% of US economy. How would you compensate someone for services without $? Keep in mind, that giving them your "distribution supplies" is just like using money, except money is better because it is universally accepted.
Post 13 Dec 2009, 04:53
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Alphonso



Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 294
Alphonso
IMHO Money is Control, if you want a money less society then you would probably have to find another form of control.

The biggest problem I see with a money controlled society is greed. So what other type of control could you use that would be better as I don't think at this stage in time we're ready for an uncontrolled society? Uncontrolled society = Anarchy.
Post 13 Dec 2009, 10:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17247
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
You don't need money for control. In the long distant past the people in control were the land owners. And in many respects that is still true today.
Post 13 Dec 2009, 10:06
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17247
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Oh, also, greed is there regardless of whether it is manifested through money or something else. The greedy will always be greedy, we don't need money for that.
Post 13 Dec 2009, 10:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Alphonso



Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 294
Alphonso
Umm, may be my understanding of control is different to yours.

Money works on a reward system. You work, you get money how can that not be a form of control? Pay people enough that they can enjoy a few things in life but not enough that they can give up working, is that not control?

As for greed, sure you can have it without money but the subject here is money or rather no money Smile

In hindsight may be I should not have mentioned the greed, but at the time I was thinking about how certain stock brokers influenced the financial market in a way to make billions and at the same time cause currency crisis and financial ruin for others.
Post 13 Dec 2009, 11:13
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17247
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
I don't think money is the source of control. Money is just a mechanism of resource allocation. People in control are the people with the most resources. Land is a limited and finite resource. Regardless of how much money in inflated, revalued, reissued, destroyed and whatever -- the land is still there as a resource even with no money.

Your example of greed with stock manipulation is not about money. Stocks are not money, they are stocks. Stocks can be transferred to others with exchange for money but that doesn't mean stocks are money.
Post 13 Dec 2009, 11:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Alphonso



Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 294
Alphonso
revolution wrote:
I don't think money is the source of control.
Not the source but a source.
revolution wrote:
Money is just a mechanism of resource allocation.
Leave out the just and I will agree with that.
revolution wrote:
Your example of greed with stock manipulation is not about money.
It's called currency speculation and how could it not be about money.

Also I would disagree about stocks not being money since they are a commodity which can be changed for money.

Money - Definition
Post 13 Dec 2009, 13:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17247
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Money is the mechanism of exchange. But that does not mean the things that are exchanged are also money. Money by itself is quite useless unless we can exchange it for resources.

I can also exchange cars, houses and dogs for money but that does not mean these things are money. Stocks are no different, you can exchange them for money, but that doesn't make stocks equal to money.
Post 13 Dec 2009, 13:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8864
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i would say, people can use "money" to control a person.
very simple sort of real life example, you can watch it in money talks. 18+
we can use "money" to direct a person to do something that s(he) probably wouldn't do.

but this "control" is useless if that person is without greed.

Quote:

IMHO Money is Control, if you want a money less society then you would probably have to find another form of control.

ok, so now assume a moneyless society must also has some kinda control towards the population.
but if control mechanism exists, that would divide population into basically 2 major group, those who can control, and those who under controlled. then could a money less society exists under such situation?? idk.
Post 13 Dec 2009, 13:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17247
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
sleepsleep wrote:
i would say, people can use "money" to control a person.
very simple sort of real life example, you can watch it in money talks. 18+
we can use "money" to direct a person to do something that s(he) probably wouldn't do.

but this "control" is useless if that person is without greed.
But that is not control, that is giving the person an option: accept the money and do task X or don't accept the money and I will try to find someone else to do task X. The person has the choice to accept the money, or not. Control -- real control -- is very different, I tell you to do task X and you then do it, regardless of any monetary (or other resource) exchange.
Post 13 Dec 2009, 14:08
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
@revolution: there you make the flaw again. Smile

Money is not the mechanism of exchange or a product of exchange, like barter. Money is debt. There is a difference. Money is not representative of how much you are "worth" or how much your total production is "worth". If people built their products and had no money in circulation, does that mean their products are worth 0, seeing as all of them have 0 money?

No, instead, people go and take a loan when they want to buy something or exchange. Basically this means that they get it for free for a certain time frame. In translation, of course, it's not free, they're in debt. It's like going to your neighbor and telling him that you need to borrow a product from him and you'll give it back later.

This "product", being money, is universally accepted product (e.g: like food, but of course only one universal type of food).

But there's a catch, you have to pay it back. You can do this in multiple ways:

  • Be productive with what you just bought
  • If what you bought is not productive (i.e entertainment), then you can repay your debt by working for the only other guy with money in town: the guy you bought from
  • Give the guy you bought from something he wants in exchange for the money you originally had. In this example with limited money, this is CLOSEST to barter!


This is, of course, so that you can repay your debt.

You see, at NO point money was a "storage" product, like say, your DVD collection. It was simply a "note" telling the bank that "I owe you X, will repay you back". When it exchanged hands you started, in a manner of speaking, to owe your labor (or products) to the person you bought from. After all, you need that money you just gave away back to repay your debts... Only in the third example it is close to barter, the others are far away from any barter analogy.

of course, that person from which you buy from can also give your money back out of generosity... so money has nothing to do with "worth" Razz
Post 13 Dec 2009, 16:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
But that is not control, that is giving the person an option: accept the money and do task X or don't accept the money and I will try to find someone else to do task X. The person has the choice to accept the money, or not. Control -- real control -- is very different, I tell you to do task X and you then do it, regardless of any monetary (or other resource) exchange.
If you are starving and are not allowed to get or hunt your own food because of "private property", it is control in any way of the word.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 13 Dec 2009, 16:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.