Jan 31, 17 / Pis 03, 01 12:15 UTC

Re: Eliminate the monetary system and here's why.  

As i said Brandon, it was the first link i found, theres a lot more.

I studied chemistry, so not the best when explaining Physics.

Its up to you to go and look for yourself,

Regarding to you, my job is done. Im not here to indocrinate anyone.

Its funny that you say science does not back me up and then you state aliens exist... Maybe i should say you to come back with the proof.. Those were your words... not mine...

Is this your post : - " What to do if ET stops by for a visit once our nation in space is up and running?" ??

Kind of seams you have double stardarts...


  Last edited by:  Frederico Mateus Monteiro Santos (Asgardian)  on Jan 31, 17 / Pis 03, 01 13:06 UTC, Total number of edits: 3 times

Feb 3, 17 / Pis 06, 01 02:10 UTC

Hello Fred, When have I ever said that aliens exist? Furthermore, since science supports that human life as well as animal and plant life exists what makes you think it does not support the existence of life from another world? Scientific discoveries regarding where life has been found on this planet, the ability of life forms to substitute out sunlight for chemical energy, and the ability of some life forms to survive conditions once thought to be totally inhospitable to life. All state quite clearly that life is a common occurence in environments that have the ability to support it and those environments do not exist solely on Earth!

Do yourself a favor and pull your head out of the sand already. There are billions of life forms on Earth alone everything from the microscopic to the truly massive and they inhabit every possible environment from the inside of rocks to the crushing ocean depths! To believe that no other world in existence hosts life is incredibly idiotic!

Feb 4, 17 / Pis 07, 01 22:48 UTC

You cannot eliminate money, because money is just the (effective) symbol of supply and demand. There will always be money, whether it's in the form of paper, metal, algorithms, or energy.

Feb 5, 17 / Pis 08, 01 02:46 UTC

You can eliminate money. Easily.

It's not an effective symbol of supply or demand, both of these predating the use of currency, and existing long after fictional resources are for some reason required. It's a symbol of control and opression, a fixture for greed.

When you start harvesting the vast resources that are just in this solar system - let alone when we're tapping others too - and to all reasonable perspective the supply of pretty much everything is at or near infinite - what actual purpose is there to money?

Feb 5, 17 / Pis 08, 01 04:48 UTC

No Eyer you can not easily eliminate money due to it having been woven into the fabric of life and business. Money makes obtaining the things you need and want possible and it can not be done without at this point. The only possible way a society could survive without a form of currency is for it to never have had one or for it to be fictional. Even if you have access to infinite amounts of resources, money will still be needed. Face it money is here to stay

Feb 5, 17 / Pis 08, 01 13:30 UTC

What would you actually need money for, tho?

Consider, launch a seed factory now. it expands an clones itself. The clone goes off to thelt, where it starts throwing resources back, and clones itself. That pair start throwing resources back, and clone themselves. The initial ones then start building processing facilities, whilst the other few clone themselves and start throwing back more resources.... Within a decade or two the amount of inbound resources are astronomical - pun intended - and this is happening if there's money involved or not. Automation.

There will be literally too much to handle. Lets pretend you attempt to sell it all - then you're left with a massive pile of money. What can you do with the pile of money? you don't need to spend it, as everything required is being thrown in at an exponentially expanding rate. Are you going to eat it? burn it? what purpose would this money possibly have?

The entire concept of money is as rediculous then as it is now. Yes, it's been woven into the "fabric of life and business" - but that's your fault for accepting this model and reinforcing it. Ignore my above rant based on raw logic, and consider if you would be capable of such - basic economic theory. When it comes to deciding a price for a good traditionally economists would be drawing a demand/supply graph - commonly two curves, one being supply, the other being demand and axis containing price and quantity. Commonly looking similar to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Supply-and-demand.svg/240px-Supply-and-demand.svg.png. Now select yourself something - anything - draw yourself a demand/supply graph. Now look at the price of a good when supply hits infinite.

Feb 6, 17 / Pis 09, 01 05:10 UTC

You would need money for starting that first business, maintaining it, and it's continued operation. Or do you honestly believe that everything you would need to start a business, maintain it, and keep it operating would just be given to you for free? What? You are seriously blaming me for something I had no part in !!!? What a joke!, money has not become woven into everyday life and business through any fault of mine. It has because early humans invented that thing called trade. You know that concept where things of equal value are traded and money ended up becoming the thing that we modern humans rely on for that purpose! I do not need a graph of any sort to see the flaw in your logic, it is as plain as day

  Updated  on Feb 6, 17 / Pis 09, 01 05:18 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Feb 6, 17 / Pis 09, 01 08:12 UTC

You can eliminate money. Easily. [..] It's not an effective symbol of supply or demand, both of these predating the use of currency, and existing long after fictional resources are for some reason required. It's a symbol of control and opression, a fixture for greed. [...] When you start harvesting the vast resources that are just in this solar system - let alone when we're tapping others too - and to all reasonable perspective the supply of pretty much everything is at or near infinite - what actual purpose is there to money?

Money is going to exist no matter what you do to try and abolish it. Money will exist whether it's in the form of paper, metal, energy, or algorithms. Any attempts to systematically abolish it will only drive people into the black market, and rightfully so (as with the majority of black market actions). Each individual has the explicit right to decide his own investment.

  Last edited by:  Vincent Fincher (Asgardian)  on Feb 6, 17 / Pis 09, 01 08:18 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Feb 6, 17 / Pis 09, 01 08:29 UTC

Charles has a shop. Bob is a customer. Bob sees that in order to get 2 widgets he needs to make an appropriate offer in turn that Charles wants. Charles gives Bob a list of what he values his widgets being, so Bob decides to go out and get 2 of those items Charles needs, like say a bin of nails. Bob comes back with his bin of nails. Charles accepts the offer. That bin of nails was offered as the de-facto money, by both parties. Both Charles and Bob lost one thing of value, but they each got what they valued more. Yet some would have us abolish the concept of money? It is not ever going to happen, no matter how fantastical resources become, because at the end of the day money is strictly defined as a (circulating) medium of exchange - period. Money is a necessary concept of trade.

Feb 7, 17 / Pis 10, 01 22:44 UTC

I'd also like to add that money predates history by a substantial margin. It is at least as old as the first human proto-civilizations in the late Neolithic.

There are a lot of reasons to suspect that money is as natural as language for humans. This will sound like a strawman, but would you try to force people to abandon language because binary is more efficient and language has so many (specific, but not general) problems?

Feb 11, 17 / Pis 14, 01 16:45 UTC

Interesting essay about 'money' (http://seekingalpha.com/article/295877-aristotles-money-criteria-support-gold-precious-metals)

Aristotle (384 B.C.- 322 B.C.) philosophized about money, a medium of exchange and value in his life. He believed money should be used to commensurate goods and services and act as the ultimate equalizer. He realized the value of money in that it could be used to move away from a bartering society and allow for a more efficient and free flow of goods and services.

For example, if person A has a baked pie and person B has a chicken. If person B wants the pie and person A does NOT want the chicken, the two seem to be in a bit of a stalemate. However, if a form of value exists between the two so that person B can give something of universal value to person A, then they can trade that using a universal value instead. Then, maybe person A can use the universal value from person B to trade something in the future.

At the heart of the idea surrounding money, the purpose is to swap universal value back and forth even when both persons don’t match up on their desired goods and services at that point in time. So, Aristotle came up with 4 characteristics of this universal value (what we call money). The four absolutes of money include:

  1. Durable- the medium of exchange must not weather, fall apart, or become unusable. It must be able to stand the test of time.

  2. Portable- relative to its size, it must be easily moveable and hold a large amount of universal value relative to its size.

  3. Divisible- should be relatively easy to separate and put back together without ruining its basic characteristics.

  4. Intrinsically Valuable- should be valuable in of itself, and its value should be totally independent of any other object. Essentially, the item must be rare.

    [You might add to the traits list above: Consistent: A good money is something that always looks the same, so that it’s easy to recognize, each piece identical to the next. This is why we don’t use things like oil paintings for money; each painting, even by the same artist, of the same size and composed of the same materials is unique. It’s also why we don’t use real estate as money. One piece is always different from another piece.

    Aristotle should have mentioned, but it wasn’t relevant in his age, because nobody would have thought of it…it can’t be created out of thin air. (http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/weekend-edition-doug-casey-on-why-gold-is-money)]

    Note: Finally, Fiat paper currencies (digital of course is included) are convenient for stabilizing economies and redistributing wealth. But, fiat currencies miserably fail Aristotle’s fourth and most important principle, the intrinsic value principle. No fiat currency is intrinsically valuable and all are at the mercy of its issuer. History tells us time and time again that these currencies tend to be produced more and more and the supply rarely contracts. It comes as no surprise that no fiat currency has ever lasted more than a few hundred years at best.

    The Denarius (Rome’s currency) slowly reduced its coinage from 94% to .05% silver content over a period of about 170 years. By the time the Roman Empire collapsed, no one accepted the Denarius as a medium of exchange.

    Weimar Germany (1913-1923)- The “mark” currency eventually ended in hyperinflation that completely collapsed any resemblance of an economy.

    Argentina (1932)- The world’s 8th largest economy eventually experienced considerable inflation.

    “Tequila Hangover” (1994)- The Mexican Peso tumbled and Latin America suffered for the better part of a decade.

    Zimbabwe (2008-2008)- hyperinflation.

    Until such time that we become so flush with resources we must accept that we have to deal with money, lest you wish to just hand over your day's toils to any and all whom come by with a desire.

    In the near term it is the medium of exchange and it is the way we value products, resources and services. A more reasonable conversation would be what form of sound money should we use and how do we put controls on our government and ourselves to maintain fiscal discipline, equity and thrift until that day of abundance?

Feb 11, 17 / Pis 14, 01 17:32 UTC

Fiat currency has a manufactured rarity, which makes it intrinsically valuable, with the added bonus of having a value that can't be manipulated by a shortage or surplus of some raw material.

Feb 11, 17 / Pis 14, 01 20:38 UTC

Fictional things have intrinsic value because they're rare? The value of this imaginary resource cannot be manipulated?

Okay then. I have a magical tiger rock. It looks like rock I picked up out of the garden, with a hole thorugh the middle, but it's really magical - it keeps tigers away. The whole time I've kept that near I've never seen a single tiger so it has to work. Rare doesn't come into it, I've not seen another one anywhere. They don't even make these in China.

I'll swap you this rock of fictional value, for say, that house - something of recognisable worth.

What could possibly go wrong? That sounds like something we can base some long term operations around. There's no flaws in this.

Seriously, history predates money. You can peg down money traversing into common use thanks to the words like "salary" which comes from the latin, salerium - salt - from when they paid wages in salt, a prized comodity in that age. Sure you could potentially argue some tribes used seashells and cultures like the Aztec used the likes of cocca beans but that's not entirely predating history... That's still quite in the middle of history. And not quite "money", either just currency and still tied to a tangible resource of physical - not enforced - scarcity.

Yes, to start an initative akin to my previous spiel one may require finances by virtue of existing in such a restrictive economy - it may even require maintainence, but that could be made to pretty much take care of itself. Pretty critical when you're planning on running it 1.2AU » 2.2AU away, considering. But you can abuse the restrictive economy model surrounding to make that pay for it, if you're cunning. It's the very fact you're relient on such a flawed model which means you're to blame - no more than anyone else doing the same thing admittedly, and that is pretty much everyone. Long story short, things don't change by doing the same thing everyday. And you clearly would need a graph because basic economic theory seems to escape you.

Money, once rendered without purpose, should have no sensible place in existence. I'll concede it may take several generations for the larger population to actually realise this has no purpose, least of all in a post scarcity economy. When there's a stack of everything you can't get rid of fast enough, having a stack of money as well isn't a significant advantage. Human time will still be "valuable" as automation isn't likely to be able to solve every problem, but this can be exchanged for other things, like opportunity. Take for example how most civillians get themselves flying commercially - After obtaining a license they whore themselves commonly to a small airline to build up the flight hours. It's the flight hours that matter to them, not the paycheque. All other concerns accounted for, I'd wager most will do it just for flying the plane. They actually like doing this, thusly are eager. You should be able to swap what needs to get done with the experience gained from doing it, because people are doing it because they want to, not becuase they have to. Bob can order two widgets from Charles, because Charles makes some nice widgets. Charles shouldn't need to "charge" for this, as anything he needs to do it should already be in abundance, or readily available. And this is just from harvesting - a stage almost assuredly to be reached in order to actually provide the facilities in which Charles and Bob live, or the facilities that will be required to support it long term. Good luck attempting it lift it from the surface of the Earth - it doesn't consider things like the teams of scientists working on a real life "replicator" or othersuch schemes. Just existing technologies and taking what's floating about "aimlessly" and repurposing. The resources of this tiny planet are nothing on the available scale of the solar system. Just the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, and the Oort cloud is more than we can think about using for quite some time. Charles should gain reward in that it is recognised he makes the best widgets, he should like making widgets or he'd not of started and instead done something he'd like to do. Besides, I'm sure once one has been made it can be scanned and machines can produce more. Which is actually how most things are likely to take place.

As for money being a necessary component of trade, not really. Trade existed before money. Shouldn't be doing things because you'd want to make money, look around you for the mess this causes - mostly by people doing things because they have to, not because they want to - should do things because you'd like to do it. The end product should then be what money cannot buy. Passion. When you do things to make money, you end up limiting yourself drastically. This impacts the output drastically. A wonderful example here is the traditional car. Generally built to make money, the corners cut to make more money, etc etc leaves a product that never quite will be what it could be. The Bugatti Veryon wasn't built to make money, it was built to make a statement: look what we can really do. It cost a lot more to build - let alone design and research - than it retailed for. Look at the difference between that and most other cars. It's what happens when you do something as good as you can do it, as opposed to do it as cheaply as possible. Granted, in the current environment money is a defacto requirement for most things(ignoring things like the "one red paper clip" and other cunning) but think about products from your favorite firms, and start thinking what would be if the people that made that was given everything they wanted, and allowed to build what they really wanted to build... "A free base of scientific knowlege" more than suggests open source, removing the requirement for compensation/reward for contributions, it's just about taking care of everything else for them to do it which is pretty much inevitable in order to realistically account for having somewhere for them to do it.

Feb 12, 17 / Pis 15, 01 06:38 UTC

First of all Tfoster, Thank you.

I understand your point of view.

You are forgetting that we are still a "Nation" under the lines, that must adhere to international Laws to get registered as an "actual" Nation. this means we need a monetary system.

I believe the best way is a 2 system nation with a 2 system currency. 2 system currency = "credits" nation wide currency in Asgardia + outside currency kept by government to buy resources

In case you need to travel to another nation you can ask for an exchange to the government, not actually creating more money etc etc avoiding lose of value etc etc etc etc eventually out the monetary system etc etc that works using devaluation.

Even if automation could make life "easier" it is always needed people to fix those machines. Automation its not the answer.

Feb 12, 17 / Pis 15, 01 23:43 UTC

Listen Eyer, It isn't me that is reliant on the current model regarding currency that is the issue, it is SOCIETY as a WHOLE relying on the current model regarding currency that is the issue. As long as people in general continue to place an over importance on money, it will continue to exist regardless of how much of a given resource is available. Society will not switch over to the model you have suggested as far as currency is concerned. Unless, unless there is some economic catastrophe that destroys the power grid making the banking systems useless.

I mean, the expenses businesses and individuals face prohibit the acceptance of anything but a physical currency for goods and services rendered. Also, the system you have suggested assumes that everyone will have a skill that someone else requires which is not the case. It also does not take into account any disasters which may occur making some skills completely useless! The system you suggested requires too many things to go right in order for it to work properly.

Besides, the type of system you have suggested only works before the advent of a physical currency not after. Thanks to physical currencies people do not need to learn trades like carpentry and so on to obtain what they want. They can learn less labor intensive skills like business managment and earn the money they need. Which makes things much easier for all parties involved, both parties will get what they want and it takes far less time than trading services for services or goods for services!