Money--cold hard cash--was probably used first by different peoples or groups for trading, once various commodities (certain minerals like flint, pigments and other materials important to various rituals and adornments, but also surplus food, livestock, etc) began to be controlled, or transported at least, by those with access to them, and which others also wanted to use. Once the idea of tradeable worth was established, a symbolic representation of that value was probably inevitable.

Later, when civilisations sprang up, and rulers adopted some divine source of inspiration for their leadership, money, as a symbolic form of exchange or trade, took on new meaning: rulers adopted their own, individualised currency (stamped with an image).

Money became a token of both the idea of a set or standard value, and of the acceptance of a ruler's authority (render unto Caesar). A ruler established authority (to some extent) with their own recognised coinage.

Most early coins were effectively tokens of the power and authority of an emperor, or ruler, with absolute authority, including authority as the sole creator and distributor of currency--it was also an idea of the control of trade with a standard, accepted monetary "value".

Of course, once value was abstracted in this way, to allow a standard for assigning worth to things, and to cement the idea of acceptance of a ruling figurehead, the stuff itself became a commodity.

This could have been the biggest mistake we ever made, because it allows for the "creation" of wealth, by accumulating symbolic forms of it. Money was once worth its weight in gold, but has for a long time been worth only what a bank or government says it's worth--the actual worth is significantly less than the "face" value.

So having a big stack of the stuff means, because it's commoditised, it can be put to use--lent out at interest--to make more, rather than using it for any valid trade, exchanging it for goods.

Money should only be transactional, not accumulable. But the perceived requirement by the elite ruling class, for a symbolic form of that rule, as outlined above, means we were probably stuck with the idea from the start.

We also seem to be moving away from real, to imaginary money--nowadays all you need is a plastic card with a magnetic stripe to trade with. Maybe cold, hard cash will disappear eventually, and get replaced with some concept of credit.

Can we do without the stuff, has it ever really existed, or has it only ever represented the value of a trade (and we cling to it because we need the reassurance of some authority figure)?

Considering the fact that the definition of money is simply the representation of goods or services, if you think that you can establish a system that allows for individuals to continue to represent their ownership over goods and services without having to use physical objects to do as such, then why not?

Or if everyone else thinks money is kind of redundant (not just me).
But, without a reference (like gold), for tradeable value, things could get dicey. Or would things be better with a local value system, rather than the current global one?

Or instead you could simply rely on a system of trading goods and/or services directly for other goods and/or services that you request?

Or instead you could simply rely on a system of trading goods and/or services directly for other goods and/or services that you request?

{heavy sigh}

This idea is something like a perennial weed that keeps popping up in our lawn from time to time.

It's a totally unworkable concept in today's world. Back when there was only perhaps a million people per continent (and well dispersed) it might have worked well - but not with a population much greater than that.

Tell me: exactly what would you, as an individual, offer in terms of goods/services for a vehicle that cost $25,000 under our current money system?

And what form of payment would someone - let's say an X-ray technician or doctor or nurse at a hospital - receive for a week's work?

I made the comment to point out the flaw in such thinking.

Though if you really wanted me to answer, the x-ray technician could be given food and shelter for their services.

I made the comment to point out the flaw in such thinking.

That's good to know - thanks.

Though if you really wanted me to answer, the x-ray technician could be given food and shelter for their services.

Obviously unworkable. What about their other needs and those of their families - things like clothes and transportation? Are they supposed to bater their food for that? They would spend the majority of their time bartering without enough left over to do actual work.

And you didn't address the question about getting a car. How could that possibly work? Oh, right - it couldn't.

Point being that it's a concept/idea who's time is long past.

Ah you didn't let me respond and bring up the idea that the garment worker would need to obtain food, thus could trade clothes for food with the x-ray tech.

This stuff just reminds me of communism, it makes sense on paper, but as soon as you apply reality to it, it falls apart. You'd have to deal with questions of, how do you co-ordinate the movement of food from one individual to another before the food goes bad? What does the poor dairy farmer do?

ABS how would a oncologist pay for a car for example?
he has to find someone with a) the car he wants and who wants to get rid of it and b) has cancer?????

don't be rediculas

Ah you didn't let me respond and bring up the idea that the garment worker would need to obtain food, thus could trade clothes for food with the x-ray tech.

Heh! I didn't stop you from responding - you could have written ten pages if you liked.

This stuff just reminds me of communism, it makes sense on paper, but as soon as you apply reality to it, it falls apart. You'd have to deal with questions of, how do you co-ordinate the movement of food from one individual to another before the food goes bad? What does the poor dairy farmer do?

That is correct - and there are FAR too many examples/glitches to bother listing.

ABS how would a oncologist pay for a car for example?
he has to find someone with a) the car he wants and who wants to get rid of it and b) has cancer?????

don't be rediculas

True.

As a total aside, did you find the information you wanted on wheat farmers? If so, I missed the post somehow.

Bah, after thinking about this thread I just remembered that we are going to be talking about the communist manifesto again in my current philosophy course :(

Hopefully we can spend time on his other writings instead.

Money should only be transactional, not accumulable. But the perceived requirement by the elite ruling class, for a symbolic form of that rule, as outlined above, means we were probably stuck with the idea from the start.

We also seem to be moving away from real, to imaginary money--nowadays all you need is a plastic card with a magnetic stripe to trade with. Maybe cold, hard cash will disappear eventually, and get replaced with some concept of credit.

Can we do without the stuff, has it ever really existed, or has it only ever represented the value of a trade (and we cling to it because we need the reassurance of some authority figure)?

Money, if it was reduced to a "transactional value", and somehow not extended to a "accumulable" value, then we wouldn't be rich unless we owned a lot of stuff. Possibly then we wouldn't throw so much of it away all the time. In fact, an economy relies on the consumption of commodities, that "disappear" and are replaced with new commodities. We haven't dealt with the "disappear" bit so well, but there's money to be made dumping much of it in places that people don't get much say about it all.

So, if instead there was a more "sensible" way of dealing with it, or if the commodity didn't disappear. I don't know, it just seems more rational than allowing the value of a trade, which is what money really is, to become something that controls its own "existence", like it does (and because of the need for authority and guarantee); take away one of those aspects--the "existence" of symbolic cash. What would happen?

MOD HAT, this is more suited to B&E so i will move it

Money should only be transactional, not accumulable. But the perceived requirement by the elite ruling class, for a symbolic form of that rule, as outlined above, means we were probably stuck with the idea from the start.

We also seem to be moving away from real, to imaginary money--nowadays all you need is a plastic card with a magnetic stripe to trade with. Maybe cold, hard cash will disappear eventually, and get replaced with some concept of credit.

Can we do without the stuff, has it ever really existed, or has it only ever represented the value of a trade (and we cling to it because we need the reassurance of some authority figure)?

Money, if it was reduced to a "transactional value", and somehow not extended to a "accumulable" value, then we wouldn't be rich unless we owned a lot of stuff. Possibly then we wouldn't throw so much of it away all the time. In fact, an economy relies on the consumption of commodities, that "disappear" and are replaced with new commodities. We haven't dealt with the "disappear" bit so well, but there's money to be made dumping much of it in places that people don't get much say about it all.

So, if instead there was a more "sensible" way of dealing with it, or if the commodity didn't disappear. I don't know, it just seems more rational than allowing the value of a trade, which is what money really is, to become something that controls its own "existence", like it does (and because of the need for authority and guarantee); take away one of those aspects--the "existence" of symbolic cash. What would happen?

No, we cannot really do without it. There's no other system in existence or that could be created that would be more efficient - especially with global economics.

What would you replace it with? Something like saying week's labor or the value of a car was X number of oxen or chicken? Or some other arbitrary valuation system name like Y number of "baubles" or whatever? And if so, what is the difference between that and the current system?

I made the comment to point out the flaw in such thinking.

Though if you really wanted me to answer, the x-ray technician could be given food and shelter for their services.

Here is a paper you might find interesting

http://129.3.20.41/eps/it/papers/0405/0405007.pdf

Money was once worth its weight in gold, but has for a long time been worth only what a bank or government says it's worth--the actual worth is significantly less than the "face" value.
No, money is worth whatever people are willing to give you for it. That has always been true, both before and after the world left the gold standard. The government or a bank does not establish the value of a dollar. They only establish that a dollar is, in fact, a dollar. The value of that dollar is entirely up to the market.


Money should only be transactional, not accumulable. But the perceived requirement by the elite ruling class, for a symbolic form of that rule, as outlined above, means we were probably stuck with the idea from the start.
I'm always amused by people who seem to think that dollars "don't really have value" because they aren't backed by gold. Where did the value of the gold come from? Gold had value because everyone agreed it had value. If everyone agrees that dollars have value (and everyone does), then dollars also have value. There is nothing more intrinsically valuable about gold than about paper dollars, or electronic dollars.

And by the way, what the heck does "money should only be transactional, not accumulable" mean? Are you saying I shouldn't be able to save money?

futher more i would MUCH rather have $100 note in my pocket (ok I WISH) than $100 worth of gold and DEFINITLY more than half a cow

The government or a bank does not establish the value of a dollar. They only establish that a dollar is, in fact, a dollar. The value of that dollar is entirely up to the market.So a bank "only" establishes that the dollar, in fact exists. Or they guarantee to redeem it (for its gold value), you mean?

As to the market worth of money itself. This is because money is also a commodity, and has worth itself as a commodity (like by shuffling its worth around among other currencies and trying to find a stable one, or whatever). It's like a kind of fuel for the market.

But is it actually needed? Because used goods are considered to be trash or refuse, or an inevitable by-product, that allows business to assume that a resource will be depleted or exhausted, there is no economical rationale behind recovering any used product from the consumer "organism".
Overall, the system is wasteful, part of the waste is the way the system works. It works because of value, and because value can be stored or accumulated, and used as is to make more value (it can be traded as a commodity, for foreign capital, which might have more worth).
It's the capitalist ideal: capitalise on everything (of value), but don't assume there is any value in the negative aspects (pollution, environmental degradation, depletion of valuable resources), rather ignore them and leave them out of any economic model.

Money accounts for the value of everything, including itself, within a capitalist "open market" system. Except it doesn't account for what it costs (unless to itself, eventually, if a market collapses).
what the heck does "money should only be transactional, not accumulable" mean? Are you saying I shouldn't be able to save money?Not sure. But if the way it was used, or what it represented changed, so you could no longer trade US dollars for other dollars (except US dollars). Make money exchangeable for goods. Do away with money markets and have a credit system.

Or is there something about the existence of real, tangible symbolic cash that we simply can't do without? What will eventually happen to it, and will we need it in future, or do we need it now (apart from the ripoff fees that banks sting your account with when you do)?

If it goes, and there's only numbers in computers, how will certain transactions--illegal ones especially-- be made? Will there always be markets with a need for cash. and will we always need a cash market to determine the value of the stuff?