The Future of Money: None

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Castout

Man is infinite consciousness manifested as flesh and blood. The nature of man is divinity. The natural mode of being is non-duality.

Every political election tells me the opposite.

You can want to adress pragmatic reality by metaphysics, if you want. Maybe that is even noble to want, or not, I don't know.

But I live in this world laid out before my eyes, and just wishing does not get anyone anywhere in it. The acchieved completion of the deed is what counts. And thus, a strong sense for realism is of the essence, as is practical knowlege and competent skill.

BTW, I once was engaged for many years in social projects, in counseling and treatment, and teaching meditation, and I did it for free. I worked as a free teacher, as family counselor in unregular church community work (Yes, i know the irony: atheist me, and the church. Call it pragmatism from both sides), I even helped pout in tgraumata treatment for people from the Balkan war. But then somethign happened that changed my attitude on free aid. I realised that people took it for granted that a.) they got these "services", and b.) that they got them for free. They thought they had a natural claim for it, and their claims grew. Tjheir dependency, so they often thought, gave them claim, gave the rights over me and others. Their needs - are our commands...? That I took queer, especially when it were people from Germany, having lived in quite stable, secure and reasonably comfortable situations, materially.

Short time later I cancelled my last such personal engagement, and since then insist on getting paid for any work or help I should do for somebody not being a friend or family member. There aint no such thing as a free lunch, my friend. You want something of value from me? You give me something of equal value for me in return, or have soembody else paying me. Reciprocity. Can be linked direcly, or indirectly - but free lunches I do no longer provide. Stuff must cost. Services must cost. If somebody wants me to aid somebody else who cannot afford it - let the first somebody pay me then.

I do not need the money, I could afford to pick up these social and wellfare activities again and do them unpaid. But I do not want. Not wanting is possible.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Every political election tells me the opposite.

Yeah, agree.

It's just one big shame. God decides to sleep and have a dream and while dreaming He's forced to toil for much of the rest of his dream for money. The purpose of dreaming in the first place, to experience being is thus lost to making money. Humanity has created a somewhat nightmarish dream for God unless God dreams of becoming a human billionaire.

Perhaps God has a better dreaming in ET intelligent life and some of the unseen.

Perhaps this rather bad dreaming of becoming man ought to be ended sooner than later so God won't have worse dreams.

[Skybird]

Dreams are created by the brain dreaming. Don't hold the dream responsible for the brain's nature in the first.

The Bible says that man is made in God's image. What does this tell us about this God then, if we are made by his image? And how could this God then dare to punish us for wrongs he has built into us?




How the deitie'S nighmarish dream may end? Google for "big rip". To me the most likely of the three cosmological scenarios debated. And the most poetic one (but maybe I am just queer).

[Rockin Robbins]

Man is infinite consciousness manifested as flesh and blood. The nature of man is divinity. The natural mode of being is non-duality.

Not only is this meaningless psychobabble, holy cow, we have a new religion here, not dealing with man, but with some mythical, idealized creature that man has never been, is not now, and never will be. Money is freedom: the only true measure of societal likes and dislikes, the only honest vote, the only opinion poll that matters.

Remove money from mankind and you require ironfisted, completely oppressive and totalitarian government. Honeybees don't need money because they live in such a society. People, thank God, will never do so.

Money is a terrible thing. Like republican government, it is worse than anything except for all the alternatives. Money is freedom.

[Von Due]

The devil's advocate is on the phone, asking if someone can give a technical description of the mechanisms that force a society to have, exclusively, iron fisted, oppressive and totallitarian goverments, like we have today in parts the world where they do have money?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Von Due

The devil's advocate is on the phone, asking if someone can give a technical description of the mechanisms that force a society to have, exclusively, iron fisted, oppressive and totallitarian goverments, like we have today in parts the world where they do have money?

Please think a minute about the differences between coincidence, correlation and causality. That are three very different things.

----

Money is no tool of the devil to lead man on a wrong path. It is a ordinary commodity, it gets traded on the - hopefully free - market liek any other commodity. As an ordinary commocity like any other, it has a value, a price that market participants negotiate over. Money is bought by you when you sell stuff of your own, money is sold by you when you buy stuff you want. It is in the end nothing else but bartering. Money allows you to store "bartering value" that you possess, you must not barter the milk for something you do not want immediately after you have milked the cow, you must no barter the fish immediately for something that you do not need, else it starts to smell. You barter your milk and fish for money - and barter your money later for somethign different, once the situation is in your favour. With money you can sell your stuff even if during this deal you do not get from the other what you want. You take what the others gives you (money), go to somebody else who has what you want (but who did not want the stuff you wanted to barter), and then buy stuff you indeed want from him. Without this simple possibility, complex production chains would be impossible. Imagine what that would mean for building a civilization if nio complex trade chains and production would be possible!

Paper/FIAT money is no such commodity, and that is where the real problems come from, and that's why I say we do not even have a real money anymore - we have many people with illusions, that is the only reason why they give you material stuff and material value for your snippets of paper whose "value" get arbitrarily inflated and devalued by governments as they want it - to handle the immense debts they have managed to pile up high into the sky.

Once people understand this, you will see a massive bank rush, and collapse, and nobody will give you something of material value for your banknotes anymore. Banknotes without material securities backing them (every single one of them!) - are no money. They are fraud.

See Venezuela. Maduro too thought that money just can be printed and must not have material securities backing it - another brilliant smarthead in a long line of socialist brilliant smartheads all making the same mistakes over and over and over again. A money that is no commodity, has no material inherent value, and thus banknotes wihtout a material security backing every single one, are just notes of debt - again, without any securities backing them. Worthless gimcrack once the illusions have been busted. We have been there. Oh yeah, we have been there. Repeatedly. Globally, there have been 50 hyperinflations in the past 100 years, roughly. FIFTY HYPERINFLATIONS. Hyperinflation usually it is called when the MONTHLY inflation rate is above 50%.

So again: money is and needs to be an ordinary commodity, like any other. And it must be subject to market interactions, without interference by the state cartel. This is not understood, governments want to "control" it. And that is where all financial-economic evil of the present is coming from. A planned economy is similar to a planned economy - it just does not work. Prime example for a - failed again - planned money is the Euro, but this truith holds for ecery single paper money there ever has been since the Chinese tried it first in the 12th century: 30 years later that Chinese kingdom had a collapsed economy, and was almost destroyed by civil war and famine.

[Von Due]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Please think a minute about the differences between coincidence, correlation and causality.

It was stated in the post above mine that if we remove money from society, the result would be a society that required an iron fisted and so on goverment. I question whether or not it is required, as it was stated. Money have been around for less than 20,000 years. Societies have been around for 100s of 1000s of years. The Hadza people are very much alive today. Do they live in an oppressive society? What I am questioning is precisely correlation vs causation but also if the statement I referred to isn't rooted in the application of rules of one game to a fundamentally different game.

[dsawan]

well, I am of the opinion that money is good but for non-basic things. For food and rent, money should not be used for these two survival needs. Anything beyond, ie a car luxury etc money is needed.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by dsawan

well, I am of the opinion that money is good but for non-basic things. For food and rent, money should not be used for these two survival needs. Anything beyond, ie a car luxury etc money is needed.

Yeah, you have a good point. The downside of a completely money-less world is a stark reduction in variety. There wouldn't be 25 different sedan models, for example, there would probably be 1-3 models in each country which would be a shame. but with a modular design and ubiquitous 3D printing, we could still have variety in simpler things such as stereo sets, TVs, cellphones, etc but there would be less or much less variety for more advanced products. But perhaps cars would be considered a simple product in the future so we could still have a rich variety of them.

In the zero-marginal-cost video, the man is saying money is still needed but for much more sophisticated products.

But eventually, if we had a world government, money would ultimately hinder progress.

I'm very impressed by the creator of Star Trek who envisioned an advanced society without money. It dawned on him that StarTrek-like civilization (or an advanced space-faring civilization) would not have been possible with a money-age society. But there were also the Ferengis. That could also be our future model.

Obviously, many here can't see that but there is no need to be hostile. I just want ideas to be exchanged. To improve my understanding of the subject and yours too.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Castout

Obviously, many here can't see that

I just want ideas to be exchanged.

So you say, but when someone thinks your ideas are mistaken you come out with a statement like the one above. Telling people that you are right and if they can't see it then they just don't understand is not exchanging ideas, but as I said earlier, preaching. And when you preach at people, yes, sometimes they take it badly.

To improve my understanding of the subject and yours too.

To be honest, you don't post as if you want to improve your own understanding, but to convince others of your rightness. I understand you may not intend it that way, but that is the way you come across.

[Castout]

Preach, how? I believe I wrote in the beginning that I wished to have a discussion?

Skybird has been doing all the preaching...

The issue is being rude in one's post. It's alright to think the idea isn't workable. but you need to tell us why.

To say a money-less society would bring us back to the primitive age without elaborating why the person held on to such a belief isn't disagreeing. It downright says no, A is bad because A will lead to B without further explanation. it's presumption, one after another. No, your idea is bad, because my presumption is this (without elaboration/explanation). Not only that it devolved into attacking character....I mean what kind of low lives are some of the people here? Seriously?


Nowhere did I preach. I replied to your posts earlier to help try explain the idea I had in my mind to facilitate a better discussion yet people were turning hostile for no apparent reason, simply none. Nippelspanner is the most obvious one.

It's one accusation after another.

Do you even realize how easy some of you were led by one rude poster? Then many people adopted the same hostile tone?
The said poster even overtly try to escalate things by mentioning DEFCON 1....I mean what kind of rocks do you guys live under? Do you not have the decency of SELF-HONESTY? I feel I'm engaging with ISIS religious radicals here. Pack mentality is pretty much evident in some of you here. Such a shame. How do you even look up in the mirror and face yourself?

Now. I'm preaching.

Oh,wait I know the answer, you don't think about it when you see yourselves in the mirror. You never have the courage to face yourself. Ignorance is bliss.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by dsawan

well, I am of the opinion that money is good but for non-basic things. For food and rent, money should not be used for these two survival needs. Anything beyond, ie a car luxury etc money is needed.

?? How and why separating the two? Why not let people freely trade according to their desires, wishes and needs? And honestly, I think your idea would not, can not and never has worked.

Please reflect again on the excerpts I gave here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...6&postcount=75

Money is no special thing, just an ordinary commodity like so many others. Let peope barter it, and peopel then can freely trade to get what they want.

Possible however that you first have to work, have to produce, have to gain or already have to own something that is yours so that you can offer something when bartering. Because providing somebody a free ride is not what it is about.

What works against this are economic monopolies, and "planned/contrlled" money where states want to fix its value. Planned money, planned economy - it never has and never will work. It cannot, for it violates most profound market rules, which are as damant almst as natural laws. You cannot violate, twist, break or bend them and hoping you can get away with it.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Money is no special thing, just an ordinary commodity like so many others. Let peope barter it, and peopel then can freely trade to get what they want.

The problem with "trancendent" people is that they see everything, so have a compelling need to make everyone elses' choices for them in a benificent, merciful manner, of course.

[Nexus7]

Interesting topic
Unfortunately extremely complex and vaste in intent. Reading the latest articles two points are IMO "nodal": a consciousness of ordinary people in their use of capital, to help maintain diversity in the industry (avoid excessive build up of monopoles). Apple in first istance ang Google are de-facto at the very front in accumulating capital both in form of money and of knowledge (private information on their customers). IMO not deserved, and especially when taking Apple, the fruit of a very successfull marketing strategy. The real value of the sold items is just a minor share of their price.
Energy (electricity) at low cost if not free is a vision I like, together with the shift from fossil fuels to low emissions energy carriers (i.e. energy from the sun again, stored as hudrogen perhaps). Both shifts are huge and touch a massive number of infrastructures and people, if I had to predict when that shift would cross the edge of the mountain I'd say many decades :-(
Another major expectation is IoT and smart factories, highly automated factories that can order, produce, repair themselves and deploy to market with almost no personnel. Hurde here cybersecurity. Again, not the thing for tomorrow IMO :-(

What I consider it to be more tangible evolutions are: explosion of information fruability (internet based). And since I named companies I name Facebook here. If say 20 years ago this amount was 10 now it is 500(?). If 20 years ago the reliable/relevant information was 10% of the whole, being optimistic it remained that much. Doing the maths, the daily spam dosis was 10-1=9 while today it is 500-50=450. Not sure how much sense this makes, but one way or the other it is rather challenging to filter out the RELEVANT news

[ValoWay]

Originally Posted by dsawan

well, I am of the opinion that money is good but for non-basic things. For food and rent, money should not be used for these two survival needs. Anything beyond, ie a car luxury etc money is needed.

yea, once humans have figured out how to store energy effectively we're one step closer to real independence! If you can have as much power as u want a whole lot of things become pointless from a capitalistic point of view