The Future of Money: None

Skybird · 04-22-17, 05:09 AM

I hinted at the technical function that money has. Just demonising it on grounds of troubled emotions, or declaring people as psychologically inhibited, will not get you around certain factual needs and tehcnical chgallenges in the real world that you cannot avoid. Its not as if money has been "invented" by man just for fun or boredom. Mone yis neither a tool of evil wickedness, nor is it just a creation of random chance. From science, technology, physics, biology, we learn that function dictates form. Have a form that fails, and the fuction cannot be met.

You can leave it to just imagining you were not hungry, but nevertheless: you still need to eat at times. If you don't, you starve - even when you hold out and still imagine that you are not hungry and that eating is not necessary.

Its currently en vogue a bit to declare money obsolete since there are so many debts and some states already have started to collapse under their economic mismanagement in the past decades. The debts should be made disappearing by declaring money as obsolete. Others try to fight the debts by wanting to force people to chnage the format of money from paper snippets they cna carry out of reahc by the ECB and the government, to a digital format that makes it impossible to evade plundering and stealing by the state (not even mentioning the lacking security against ordinary hacking criminals). Lst century they waged war on a gold-standard for money, to weasel around state spendings that could not be paid for (Vietnam). Now they wage war against the result fo that: the "paper-standard".

There are so many insane follies en vogue today. Genderism. Cultural non-identity. Unlimited relativism. Money-lessness. To me it all shows how far beyond our cultural climax we already are.

The real problem with money and the need to earn it is that we still stick to a model of sopciety wherte earning money is a must in order tomake your living, but many jobs get lost to automatization or shifti89ng them to other contionents, so that there are lesser opportunities for the crowd to earn money with jobs of lower qualification. That we import migrants as crazy currently, also has a problem, a dimension that maybe is more relevant than the strawman argument that demographic developments and shrinkign, overaging societies must be compensated for (if jobs get lost, we maybe should expect to be better off in the future if less people actually need to to look for job). That has somethign to do with the fact that there is far more state bonds, than there are stock holdings. And somebody must buy these ever inflating ammounts of worthless state bonds, else they canot maintain the illusion of that states mantain their spending on sustainbable levels. And so people get imported additonally to serve as biond-buyers, if not as "investors"

then at least as insurred emplyes whose pensions and insurrance secfurities to dominant lewvels base of fonds that are forced by the state cartel to base on buiynf state bonds.

As I said earlier, our money system is totally corrupted and rotten. That does not mean that the function of money is not necessary. It only means that we have abused it. The status quo is no argument against the token named "money", it only is an argument against the crowd allowing political elites to abuse the system and make their living and fame by damaging the system of money, since decades. Which, in the end and if ulook close enough at it, is an argument against today'S understanding of state - and democracy - itself. Individualism and collectivism are antagonists, and their conflicting natures do not get settled by reason and rational argment, but simply by raw force and its implementation according to the law of the strongest.

Now there you would have a point worth to go after, where you would have my support. But being against money? That is like wanting to end wars by being against knives.

P.S. For a brief overview on how money came into the world, why it is needed, what it does and why they try to de3stroy good money, there still is this marvellous and brief introduction by M. Rothbard: What has government done to our money, that explains the historic origin and the modern times in a fashion easy to understand, and brief. It can be legally downloaded for free here: L-I-N-K

Should be mandatory read in schools' higher classes.

04-22-17, 05:09 AM	#9
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,645 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	I hinted at the technical function that money has. Just demonising it on grounds of troubled emotions, or declaring people as psychologically inhibited, will not get you around certain factual needs and tehcnical chgallenges in the real world that you cannot avoid. Its not as if money has been "invented" by man just for fun or boredom. Mone yis neither a tool of evil wickedness, nor is it just a creation of random chance. From science, technology, physics, biology, we learn that function dictates form. Have a form that fails, and the fuction cannot be met. You can leave it to just imagining you were not hungry, but nevertheless: you still need to eat at times. If you don't, you starve - even when you hold out and still imagine that you are not hungry and that eating is not necessary. Its currently en vogue a bit to declare money obsolete since there are so many debts and some states already have started to collapse under their economic mismanagement in the past decades. The debts should be made disappearing by declaring money as obsolete. Others try to fight the debts by wanting to force people to chnage the format of money from paper snippets they cna carry out of reahc by the ECB and the government, to a digital format that makes it impossible to evade plundering and stealing by the state (not even mentioning the lacking security against ordinary hacking criminals). Lst century they waged war on a gold-standard for money, to weasel around state spendings that could not be paid for (Vietnam). Now they wage war against the result fo that: the "paper-standard". There are so many insane follies en vogue today. Genderism. Cultural non-identity. Unlimited relativism. Money-lessness. To me it all shows how far beyond our cultural climax we already are. The real problem with money and the need to earn it is that we still stick to a model of sopciety wherte earning money is a must in order tomake your living, but many jobs get lost to automatization or shifti89ng them to other contionents, so that there are lesser opportunities for the crowd to earn money with jobs of lower qualification. That we import migrants as crazy currently, also has a problem, a dimension that maybe is more relevant than the strawman argument that demographic developments and shrinkign, overaging societies must be compensated for (if jobs get lost, we maybe should expect to be better off in the future if less people actually need to to look for job). That has somethign to do with the fact that there is far more state bonds, than there are stock holdings. And somebody must buy these ever inflating ammounts of worthless state bonds, else they canot maintain the illusion of that states mantain their spending on sustainbable levels. And so people get imported additonally to serve as biond-buyers, if not as "investors" then at least as insurred emplyes whose pensions and insurrance secfurities to dominant lewvels base of fonds that are forced by the state cartel to base on buiynf state bonds. As I said earlier, our money system is totally corrupted and rotten. That does not mean that the function of money is not necessary. It only means that we have abused it. The status quo is no argument against the token named "money", it only is an argument against the crowd allowing political elites to abuse the system and make their living and fame by damaging the system of money, since decades. Which, in the end and if ulook close enough at it, is an argument against today'S understanding of state - and democracy - itself. Individualism and collectivism are antagonists, and their conflicting natures do not get settled by reason and rational argment, but simply by raw force and its implementation according to the law of the strongest. Now there you would have a point worth to go after, where you would have my support. But being against money? That is like wanting to end wars by being against knives. P.S. For a brief overview on how money came into the world, why it is needed, what it does and why they try to de3stroy good money, there still is this marvellous and brief introduction by M. Rothbard: What has government done to our money, that explains the historic origin and the modern times in a fashion easy to understand, and brief. It can be legally downloaded for free here: L-I-N-K Should be mandatory read in schools' higher classes. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 04-22-17 at 05:26 AM.