67 replies to this topic

[Jim Ohara]

So, then I have to ask myself, what purpose does money serve and what should it serve? I believe the purpose should be to promote merit in social transactions. To encourage ethical and beneficial behavior in a society by rewarding healthy transactions.

When you have lots of money it's more or less like not having money. The cost of things are irrelevant - you can just get what you want. I've been there a couple of times in the past, where I had alot of disposable income (oh those were the days). When you're in that situation, at least for me, you don't really want more or less than normal. You don't suddenly want to eat at the finest restaurants, or drink the most expensive drinks. You don't need every video game or toy. You just do what you'd do normally. Even if I had kids I don't think I'd buy them more or less than they needed. I know alot of very wealthy people who live their lives this way.

Problem is it's not for everyone. Some rich folks will use wealth for status, and so will want more and better everything. That ties in with self esteem issues I think, but self esteem problems seems to be the biggest issue impacting humanity. There's no solving folks with low self esteem, so you couldn't have a free and open society where money doesn't exist.

I don't think money has anything to do with controlling moral behavior.

[Steve Sensible]

See my point? Why would the first person in want all the bread when he couldn't sell it? With no money, there is no greed for money.

There was greed before there was money.

It's not as though money suddenly sprung into being one day - we developed the system because it's more convenient to have a universal currency than bartering. Without some kind of exchange system society couldn't function.

[Johnny Henning]

But - that goes to my point, what is the function of society since money itself seems fairly arbitrary and often the source of problems than the solution to them?

For me, the punitive nature of money - as in what happens when you don't have it or the fear of not having it - seems to be its most powerful and primary function, so then, does it follow that our society functions on fear and pain? That's sort of the immediate message of a monetary system.

[Ogul]

So, then I have to ask myself, what purpose does money serve and what should it serve? I believe the purpose should be to promote merit in social transactions. To encourage ethical and beneficial behavior in a society by rewarding healthy transactions.

However, in fact, as we all know, it often promotes exactly the opposite. It seems much more designed for social control - imposing a sort of implicit serfdom on all social transactions, aims and behavior for those who require it.

While I agree that the current methods of distributing money do not accurately enough reflect merit or need, a monetary system is still the best way of controlling supply and demand. Anything that is in a limited supply must be distributed, any money allows people to effectively "bid" on items, offering to pay a portion of their total worth in order to claim it, and those unwilling to offer that amount go without. For anything that isn't an absolute necessity, this is a basically fair model.

See my point? Why would the first person in want all the bread when he couldn't sell it? With no money, there is no greed for money.

He could trade it for other things that are in short supply. A truly moneyless system only works when nothing is in limited supply. Even in the best case scenarios, you'd have people like those that line up for Black Friday deals, swooping in and getting as much as they could of relatively rare goods as they become available, and then scalping them to latecomers for, in lack of money as a barter currency, something else of equal or greater value. Remember that we didn't always have money, we invented it specifically to make things easier.

When you have lots of money it's more or less like not having money. The cost of things are irrelevant - you can just get what you want. I've been there a couple of times in the past, where I had alot of disposable income (oh those were the days). When you're in that situation, at least for me, you don't really want more or less than normal. You don't suddenly want to eat at the finest restaurants, or drink the most expensive drinks. You don't need every video game or toy. You just do what you'd do normally. Even if I had kids I don't think I'd buy them more or less than they needed. I know alot of very wealthy people who live their lives this way.

That kind of depends on how much disposable income you have. I've been doing pretty good lately, more than I'm used to, and as you say, my habits haven't changed that much, but if I was suddenly making ten times what I currently make, for example, I would definitely buy a nicer car, nicer place to live, eat in fancy restaurants more often, that sort of thing. I mean, I'd still enjoy plenty of cheap stuff too, but I would make room for some luxury. If I was making enough money that a $4K per night hotel room was no more worry than a $50 per night room would be for me today, then I would do a lot more traveling and staying in such rooms. But it all depends on how much you have. I mean, if I won a million dollars I wouldn't go nuts with it, I could make that last me the rest of my life, but if I won 100 million, 99 of that would go shopping (after taxes).

[Jim Ohara]

But - that goes to my point, what is the function of society since money itself seems fairly arbitrary and often the source of problems than the solution to them?

For me, the punitive nature of money - as in what happens when you don't have it or the fear of not having it - seems to be its most powerful and primary function, so then, does it follow that our society functions on fear and pain? That's sort of the immediate message of a monetary system.

Which is worse - having no money or having no purpose in life? Plenty of people born into wealth that can last generations strive to work, build and do something with themselves. Even Paris Hilton has a job (she has fashion lines, perfumes and so on).

[Ogul]

But - that goes to my point, what is the function of society since money itself seems fairly arbitrary and often the source of problems than the solution to them?

Money is never a source of problems, it's a medium through which problems travel. The problems are things like greed and corruption, money is the exchange tool in such transactions, but it doesn't actually cause anything. If money didn't exist, those transactions would just use a different medium, like metals, jewels, food, whatever happened to be of value.

For me, the punitive nature of money - as in what happens when you don't have it or the fear of not having it - seems to be its most powerful and primary function, so then, does it follow that our society functions on fear and pain? That's sort of the immediate message of a monetary system.

Depends on where you live. In a just society, there should be a floor to poverty, a level at which you are guaranteed basic health care, basic food, basic housing, etc., so that you could live your entire life without money if need be. But there should be plenty of better stuff out there if you're willing and able to buy it.

Which is worse - having no money or having no purpose in life? Plenty of people born into wealth that can last generations strive to work, build and do something with themselves. Even Paris Hilton has a job (she has fashion lines, perfumes and so on).

Having no money is worse. Then comes having no purpose, and then comes having little money. Having little money is better than having no purpose, because you'd have enough ti live off of, but having no money means you're dead (in most places).

[Arjan Dirkse]

See my point? Why would the first person in want all the bread when he couldn't sell it? With no money, there is no greed for money.

True, but money provides some kind of order, I guess. What would be the alternative? Would it be based on charity?

Money is purchasing power. If I go out to get my daily food requirements with money in my pocket, I feel reasonably assured that someone will actually give me that bread, in exchange for the money of course. So that works pretty well. If we have to rely on charity, or people giving us something simply because we ask for it, i think we'd quickly end up in a pretty bad situation. What if they'd say no? If they decided not to give it because they feel we don't need it or deserve it?

There's a streak of greed that won't disappear when money disappears. People will try to accumulate stuff that is valuable, to get in a position of power. Bread is a bad example I admit, becuase it spoils after a coupel of days... But it would be something else. Maybe guns would become the next currency. Or trading cards.

[Johnny Henning]

Which is worse - having no money or having no purpose in life? Plenty of people born into wealth that can last generations strive to work, build and do something with themselves. Even Paris Hilton has a job (she has fashion lines, perfumes and so on).

If you have no money, then what purpose can you achieve in this society? There are a few potentially, but doing just about anything requires money to do it. Those are not contrasts. Money itself is often an impediment to pursuing any sort of higher purpose.

Depends on where you live. In a just society, there should be a floor to poverty, a level at which you are guaranteed basic health care, basic food, basic housing, etc., so that you could live your entire life without money if need be. But there should be plenty of better stuff out there if you're willing and able to buy it.

Yeah, that's sort of what I'm getting to as well - BUT I think that the fear of not having money is also reflected in the way our society has become so consumer based. A society that offers better "stuff" to buy is not really the best goal, but one where what is truly valued does not come with a price-tag and isn't better when it's on sale.

[Jim Ohara]

If you have no money, then what purpose can you achieve in this society? There are a few potentially, but doing just about anything requires money to do it. Those are not contrasts. Money itself is often an impediment to pursuing any sort of higher purpose.

Very few people have no money. Mostly the homeless. The poor have government services which provides for them and gives them opportunities to improve their lot in life. It's not easy but they're there. Children have all sorts of protections. The only people who really have no money are the homeless, but in part they've also checked out of society either by turning to drugs or having a mental illness that means they don't really function within society.

Lots of people have hardly any money. But then lots of good lives have come from people who started with hardly any money.

As to purpose in society, none of us should think we have a purpose to society. We have a purpose to ourselves and the people we care about. That's as far as society stretches for most of us, and within that group we just follow the wisdom of Theodore Logan and Bill S Preston.

[Johnny Henning]

I think just looking around, you'd see that far more compromised lives have come from people with little money. The Horatio Alger stories are myths - social mobility is still very, very difficult and increasingly so even in countries that have strong economic growth.

I find for myself and for my friends and family, though we have very good lives, they are based on neutralizing the downsides posed by money - not pursuing any opportunities and risks offered by the economic system.

I find that to be a far more common reaction to the power money has in our lives.

[brucegray666]

[Arjan Dirkse]

I think just looking around, you'd see that far more compromised lives have come from people with little money. The Horatio Alger stories are myths - social mobility is still very, very difficult and increasingly so even in countries that have strong economic growth.

I find for myself and for my friends and family, though we have very good lives, they are based on neutralizing the downsides posed by money - not pursuing any opportunities and risks offered by the economic system.

I find that to be a far more common reaction to the power money has in our lives.

Money has downsides, although mostly it comes down to the fact that we feel we don't have enough of it. I think we don't really notice the upsides of money anymore, but we'd notice it when money was abolished.

[Johnny Henning]

Good place to bring up this new film http://www.rottentom..._progress_2011/

Probably shouldn't post Ebert's entire review but it makes the best points:http://rogerebert.su...VIEWS/120509996

After Rome, debt began to be treated as more durable, and the result was a steady suctioning of wealth to the top. In modern times, that process has been speeded up by the rise of the idea of a corporation, which exists for one purpose: to maximize its own profits.

One of the most efficient means of making money is to create debt. In the buildup to the recent economic collapse, we saw that starkly demonstrated by Wall Street traders who knowingly sold worthless mortgages to their customers, while at the same time creating that debt by encouraging consumers to sign mortgages they had no realistic means of repaying. The traditional banker who wanted to know how you would repay your mortgage was replaced by a new breed that gleefully sold you mortgages it knew you couldn't repay. They made profits on your interest, and then foreclosed on your principal.

"Surviving Progress," a bone-chilling new documentary, argues that the world has financed an unsustainable growth rate by essentially encouraging whole nations to take out unpayable mortgages on their own futures. Brazil is given as an example. Enormous loans are given to the nation, which cannot meet the payments, and is then encouraged to liquefy its own natural assets — the rainforests. When the assets are gone, the wealth will have been taken out in the same process, and corporations will leave behind a drained nation and move on to another loan customer.

All but a very few of us are in debt. We exist as entities who borrow money and spend the rest of our lives making interest payments on a debt tally that never seems to budge. Whatever wealth we have, in labor, property or cash, is suctioned to the top.

That is the basic fact being referred to by the current term "the 1 percenters," and why we are "99 percenters." We exist to have our wealth moved up the economic chain out of our reach.

[arjan]

A house is a possession. You have to either buy it or pay the owner for the right to use it.

You might as well say that we shouldn't have to pay for clothes or household goods.

Yes, I might. But for one; that doesn't free up all that much cash and secondly there are actual livelyhoods depending on the sales of clothes and household goods.

Where do you think the rent money goes?

Some goes into new buildings, some goes into renovation and upkeep, for sure, but from my experience there are MASSIVE profit margins going on there. I've had a temp job at one of the biggest housing corporations in the Netherlands and my boss was about to be kicked out for some reason and he was surprisingly open about the whole thing. And no Ogul, the money definitely didn't recycle back into society in this case, as they were almost going bankrupt from having too little cashflow, while meanwhile having 5 billion Euro's worth of rent money stuck in bonds on the stock market. I think most of these guys are just like bankers, just using money to make more money.

Personally, I've already taken my money from the big bank I used to be a client at, to a smaller, local bank (who also actually invest in a better world and are transparent about their finances) and I don't see why we as a society, or each unique nation, couldn't do the same to the housing corporations. All we need is a large majority and some new laws.

If we had, as you suggest, a socialized housing system, then how would that work? Everyone lives in drab, identical block housing? Or who gets mansions and who gets one-room apartments is determined entirely by random lottery? It wouldn't make any sense.

Everyone would get to stay where they live now. Sure, that's still not as egalitarian as I'd like, but it still has the upside that we as a people get to decide what do with the money. How much we spend on new buildings, upkeep and all the other stuff I mentioned, would be up to us. If you feel you need a bigger house, you can file a request to a very well supervised and financially transparent comittee who then will decide if you have good cause.

[Johnny Henning]

Another interesting news item related to this:http://www.dailymail...John-Terry.html

Squatters move in to £7.5m mansion with swimming pools, cinema and nuclear bunker eyed by Johnny Depp and John Terry

‘Me, my wife and another person were offered £500 pounds between us to leave quietly. The place was unsecured and unlocked and there is no damage to the property.
‘It is a smashing house. We just camped out in the room, played cards in our sleeping bags and had a few sandwiches.

Take notice: The squatters have refused the leave the property - despite claiming to have been offered £500 to get out
‘We stayed there because our friends were squatting and they phoned us offering a place because we are homeless.
‘The police came but left in the morning. They said there was nothing they could do because it was a civil matter.’

Pirates of the Caribbean actor Depp, 48, and Chelsea captain Terry, 31, have both shown an interest in buying the property.
The 22,000sq ft property has a 100-yard lake, seven kitchens, 17 bathrooms, 14 reception rooms, ballroom, tennis court, spa, sauna and steam room, and orangery.

It also comes with a 225-yard par three golf hole, gym, billiards room, bespoke bar, panic room with bank vault doors and an underground tunnel.

The squatters had taped up legal warning posters around the house referring to Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

[Jim Ohara]

Some goes into new buildings, some goes into renovation and upkeep, for sure, but from my experience there are MASSIVE profit margins going on there. I've had a temp job at one of the biggest housing corporations in the Netherlands and my boss was about to be kicked out for some reason and he was surprisingly open about the whole thing. And no Ogul, the money definitely didn't recycle back into society in this case, as they were almost going bankrupt from having too little cashflow, while meanwhile having 5 billion Euro's worth of rent money stuck in bonds on the stock market. I think most of these guys are just like bankers, just using money to make more money.

Bond money isn't exactly removed from circulation though. It's used for loans that covers payrolls, investments and other beneficial things. There's not really a reason to the property owners to pay more into the upkeep of the buildings than is necessary, nor should they lower the prices below fair market rates because they happen to be very profitable.

[arjan]

Is it that time of the month again?

Huh. I must be slagging off.

I often wonder - I mean look at our physical behavior and what we do every day. Go to work, or go to school, get a job, get a house, have kids, retire, pick up groceries, read books and see movies.

Then I think, if you removed money from all this activity, it wouldn't necessarily change anything. I mean, just from a physical perspective - a perspective based on the actual requirements for any action to take place - money doesn't do anything. You don't need money to physically put gas in your car. You don't need money to physically build anything or grow any food or enter any establishment. The money has no physical purpose.

So, then I have to ask myself, what purpose does money serve and what should it serve? I believe the purpose should be to promote merit in social transactions. To encourage ethical and beneficial behavior in a society by rewarding healthy transactions.

However, in fact, as we all know, it often promotes exactly the opposite. It seems much more designed for social control - imposing a sort of implicit serfdom on all social transactions, aims and behavior for those who require it.

Pretty much where I'm coming from and I've searched quite a while for the best angle for on how to effectively break this to the broader public and I think this might be it... And I'm not gonna sell it like this, I believe know how most people work by now. They want something that immediately benefits them. In this case they'd immediately get more money and more control, so those are the things I'll be putting up front, if you guys don't prove me wrong.

Everybody wins. (Except Garjones, who may have to give up something for the cause. :P)

[Ogul]

And no Ogul, the money definitely didn't recycle back into society in this case, as they were almost going bankrupt from having too little cashflow, while meanwhile having 5 billion Euro's worth of rent money stuck in bonds on the stock market.

A bond is still participating in the economy, if you purchase a $10,000 municipal bond, for example, that's $10,000 that that municipality has to spend on projects and payroll.

Personally, I've already taken my money from the big bank I used to be a client at, to a smaller, local bank (who also actually invest in a better world and are transparent about their finances) and I don't see why we as a society, or each unique nation, couldn't do the same to the housing corporations. All we need is a large majority and some new laws.

"Housing corporation?" What's that?

Everyone would get to stay where they live now. Sure, that's still not as egalitarian as I'd like, but it still has the upside that we as a people get to decide what do with the money.

So, what, apartments would become rent controlled, ancestral housing? What happens when parents have two or more children? Who gets their home and where does the other one live? Or what happens when people with a nice home die without any heirs? Or what happens when the studio apartment that suited you just fine as a struggling single guy is a bit small for a highly successful father of three? Or what happens when a perfectly serviceable building suffers damage or natural decay that renders it unlivable? There need to be plenty of methods for mobility.

If you feel you need a bigger house, you can file a request to a very well supervised and financially transparent comittee who then will decide if you have good cause.

I can't imagine that not falling apart.

[Arjan Dirkse]

It's been done before, kind of a communist idea. You'd have to come up with an enormous regulatory body to assign housing privileges, which would be prone to corruption.You'd probably end up with everybody living in something like Soviet style apartment blocks. When people don't have some sense of ownership of the houses, it's also very likely they'll fall into disrepair.

"Housing corporation?" What's that?

Most of the public housing in the Netherlands is owned by woningbouwverenigingen. I think that's what my namesake means by housing corporation.

[Ogul]

It's been done before, kind of a communist idea. You'd have to come up with an enormous regulatory body to assign housing privileges, which would be prone to corruption.You'd probably end up with everybody living in something like Soviet style apartment blocks. When people don't have some sense of ownership of the houses, it's also very likely they'll fall into disrepair.

Yeah, which was kind of my point, You could certainly set up such a thing, even come up with some really snazzy rules for how it's meant to operate, but in practice it just sounds like something where human nature would ruin the whole thing.

Most of the public housing in the Netherlands is owned by woningbouwverenigingen. I think that's what my namesake means by housing corporation.

Huh. According to the wiki is sounds like that's mostly for subsidized low-income housing stuff. I definitely could see no-rent housing specifically for low-income public housing. Basically just have a free "floor" for rent, for the cost of "$0 per month" you could get a small one room, shared bathroom sort of housing. Then, each additional ammenity would have a small cost associated, so if you wanted to move up to a place with several rooms, including a private bathroom, etc., that would mean paying extra each month. That's more or less how the housing market works, except that the floor is higher than zero, and the upcharge for amenities is a bit more variable.