I'm not necessarily saying that I think money is a bug. It might be a feature. But the "market's invisible hand" relies on people being more motivated by their wealth stash than their behavior. If everyone chose to keep doing the same physical actions they're doing today except we stopped swapping money, nothing observable in reality would change; people would die at the same rate, food would be stored at the same rate, etc.
"The economy" is in reality a giant standoff where every member of the standoff would just stop maintaining society unless they get paid for it. The grocer could theoretically choose to continue to man the store 12 hours per day, and then the doctor could theoretically choose to treat the grocer when he gets sick, and the truck driver could theoretically choose to ship the medication from the plant to the hospital, and the floor worker could theoretically choose to...
In the end, aren't all the money and ledgers are just a way to simplify the ridiculously complex trades required to make modern society work? We don't want to have to exchange sacks of rice and live chickens when we see the doctor and he doesn't want to have to get those chickens converted into barley or whatever it is the medical supply company owner wants this week.
If you remove this signal, you don't just remove a threat of stagnation. You also remove efficiency signals to curtail under-valued work. Just as easily, the participants could do other absurd things instead. The grocer could keep performing shelf-stocking actions while the shelves and back storage area are empty. The doctor could decide they prefer to drive around in an empty delivery truck, while the truck driver decides to sit in the clinic and talk to patients about the weather. Etc.
I'd argue that the typical diffuse ownership structures you find in most consumer-facing businesses today has the same effect, if not as absolute. The people who see the economic signals and they people with on-the-ground knowledge are split up: a sort of business logic hemispherectomy.
“Only money that goes out of date like a newspaper, rots like potatoes, rusts like iron, evaporates like ether, is capable of standing the test as an instrument for the exchange of potatoes, newspapers, iron and ether. For such money is not preferred to goods either by the purchaser or the seller. We then part with our goods for money only because we need the money as a means of exchange, not because we expect an advantage from possession of the money. So we must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange." — Silvio Gesell, “The Natural Economic Order”
This describes inflation, in so many words. That's why central banks targeting a low level inflation is an excellent idea - it makes people spend money, rather than save. Spending can include investment to stave off inflation's effects - which, in turn, makes for increases in productivity over all.
Nobody has found a better way, though they often try.
> "The economy" is in reality a giant standoff where every member of the standoff would just stop maintaining society unless they get paid for it.
That's an immutable fact of human nature. Even cradle to grave propaganda doesn't change it. It's much better to swim with that current than against it.
This I agree with.
> That's an immutable fact of human nature. Even cradle to grave propaganda doesn't change it.
This I disagree with. Past societies saw far more social cohesion at points than our modern one. Especially on certain smaller scales, people were more willing to assist one another in the act of remaining alive without being compensated financially.
For instance- many people now think it would be unreasonable to help a friend move without some form of reward (money, food, etc.) This sort of value exchange for reward would be considered disrespectful in many past cultures and even some present cultures. Unwillingness to work without immediate reward not an immutable fact of human nature.
> Unwillingness to work without immediate reward not an immutable fact of human nature.
Yeah, it is, as no society has managed to make that work as an organizing principle. Even the Israeli kibbutzen have failed. Altruism rarely extends beyond family and close friends, and even then, it isn't reliable.
Of course, if you're too cheap over too long a period, people may stop doing favors for you.
I’ve never thought about it this way before, and it’s a pretty profound quote.
For example, we still don't know if the workers who build the pyramids were slaves or freemen. Kind of a big deal for that society.
One of the hard problems here is what to specialize in and to what extent. This is a hard problem to solve even in a static economy, and even harder if circumstances keep changing...
The "standoff" description seems to assume a static economy. If circumstances change, maybe we as a society need a grocer for only 4 hours a day but could use an extra half-shift truck driver. But how to discover that?
I do know that several things going on currently will make it more impossible to discover: increased financialization of commodities, outsourcing, destruction of culture via removal of differentiating markers, etc. If any society is going to discover the half-shift truck driver economy, they're going to be one that is almost entirely self-sustaining and committed to perpetuation of itself, not one that is leveraged up to the eyeballs, suffers from a total lack of manufacturing expertise within its component citizens, and relies on cheap foreign labor to make everything.
>not necessarily saying that I think money is a bug. It might be a feature.
Yup, looks to me like the problem is not the existence of money, rather its nonexistence.
Financial problems don't actually occur when there is no lack of money.
I agree that retirees are wholly dependent on others to work for them and therefore I recognize their right to save for retirement. However, if your investment/savings turn out to be worthless then that is on you. It's better to signal these failures as soon as possible so that people are aware of the risk.
Think about it this way. You acquire "healthcare coupons" during your working age and then all the businesses accepting "healthcare coupons" have shut down. The coupons are worthless. Yet when you replace "healthcare coupons" with money, people insist that even if there aren't enough workers to work in healthcare, that money must maintain its value and they should even be owed more than they saved even though there is nobody to provide those services. This is why inflation is a necessary evil. It tells you what's really going on in the world. People will present inflation as theft but the truth is that your money is losing its value because it should be losing its value.
Just because e.g. gold is free of inflation doesn't mean that there will be healthcare services waiting at the start of your retirement to accept that gold. It's just pure speculation.
No, but the retirees who depend on the income from bonds packaged from those debts will be screwed. Also, cars might not vanish but they do depreciate regardless of whether money exists. That's still a cost incurred by the rental company even though no money changes hands when it happens.
Ultimately the car companies were overleveraged and were forced to exit before their "positions" in cars became profitable. There's nothing short of the state propping you up that can solve that.
Even the Soviet Union had money and had to deal with economical realities. One of the reasons they collapsed was because of increasing grain production deficits causing an imbalance of trade. You can't legislate your way out of the market because the market's invisible hand will always show eventually, even if you can stave it off via state control of everything.