-
I worked for a software company right out of college that as soon as I got wind of my software being used in the Iraq War, I quit. Don’t do anything against your beliefs. Not worth the money. Money is a tool of control.
-
Money is a tool of control.
Actually, money is just a medium of exchange.
Someone may be able to use it to control someone, but that doesn’t mean money itself is inherently flawed, evil, or oppressive.
-
You are right that money is a medium of exchange, but that’s a secondary effect. Actually money as we use today was designed to be oppressive. It’s purpose is to provision the government with resources. First you establish a tax that can only be paid in the currency you create. Then you spend the currency so people have the money to pay the tax. Suddenly you have people willing to work for you and give you their private resources.
Money is a tool. It is designed. It has a primary purpose. The fact that it is a medium of exchange between private persons is a secondary effect.
-
Money is a tool. It is designed. It has a primary purpose. The fact that it is a medium of exchange between private persons is a secondary effect.
I can’t tell if you’re trolling, but you’re looking suspicious there.
But no seriously. Money is fundamentally just a medium of exchange. If you have an apple and John has an orange, but you don’t both want what the other has, then you can’t trade!
That’s where a medium of exchange, i.e. “money” comes in handy. If you don’t want John’s orange, but you’re willing to accept some money in exchange for your apple, then you can trade with John.
You’re right in that money has a “primary purpose”, but it’s just to facilitate trades between people. It’s not a “secondary effect”, whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean.
Fiat currencies certainly are bullshit, and it’s bullshit that we’re forced to use them. But that’s not related to what I just explained.
-
Not trolling. This is a real view. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism
While most economists favor your view, most scientists like anthropologists favor the Chartalist view. I favor it because it’s based on evidence vs conjecture.
-
I favor it because it’s based on evidence vs conjecture.
Really? What evidence is that?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money
I assume @mempko is referring to gift economies and debt. Even commodity money, when it arose, was often a mixed basket of useful goods (haha, I’m so punny) and transient.
-
Chartalism in Macroeconomics is a theory of money which argues that money originated with states' attempts to direct economic activity rather than as a spontaneous solution to the problems with barter
But:
As early as 9000 BCE both grain and cattle were used as money
Isn’t it clear that “Chartalism” is nonsense? What evidence was mempko supposedly talking about?
Don’t just link me to something that may or may not contain something related to the evidence that may or may not exist.
-
I Am Not An Archaeologist / Historian / Anthropologist:
Isn’t it clear that “Chartalism” is nonsense?
AIUI, both are nonsense. The evolution of money wasn’t and isn’t so linear. wrt. the “grain and cattle” point, the state / army direct economic activity argument works something like this:
You’re an army marching through the lands. Do you: a) have an increasingly long and vulnerable supply chain? b) get the locals to feed you. Option B, without devolving into Rape and Pillage, is full of wins because it transitions well into becoming the local state state nee monopoly of violence. Thus, you give a bunch of tokens to your soldiers, and tell the locals that at the end of the month they need to pay up X tokens of lose their heads. Voilà: money.
That narrative goes along with spread of agriculture and agricultural civilization. Read: grain and rice kingdoms. Our world has been pretty well conquered by kingdoms and their descendants (the modern state), so I think the Chartalists argue regardless of various historical non-state monies (gift economies, debt and reputation economies, etc.) that’s the reality we live in now.
-
Thus, you give a bunch of tokens to your soldiers, and tell the locals that at the end of the month they need to pay up X tokens of lose their heads. Voilà: money.
It’s difficult to imagine how people would not have started trading with a medium of exchange before some invaders had that idea, if it ever happened.
We can’t really prove it either way, but that doesn’t mean “both are nonsense”.
-
If we’re talking about Chartalism, then AIUI the argument is the locals used debt and trust. Money-cash-barter and such was for the very rare trade with external parties. And even then, usually they tried pulling those parties into the local system.
Given the incredible documented variation of trade systems throughout human history, yeah, I doubt there’s an ur-Philosophy for the non-existent ur-Money. As you noted, it’s difficult to imagine how people would not have figured money out many times over, IMHO, for many different reasons.
-
If we’re talking about Chartalism, then AIUI the argument is the locals used debt and trust. Money-cash-barter and such was for the very rare trade with external parties.
That would have been awfully convenient for proponents of Chartalism $X thousand years later.. but it just doesn’t make sense.
Why would people only use a medium of exchange with external parties, when it would make trade within their own community much easier too? The obvious answer is: they wouldn’t.
They’d happily trade using a medium of exchange whenever possible, because it’s the simplest and easiest way.
-
Why would people only use a medium of exchange with external parties, when it would make trade within their own community much easier too? The obvious answer is: they wouldn’t.
Because it didn’t make trade within their own community easier. Moreover, going back to the original position about the primacy of money as a tool for oppression, its use hurt social cohesion.
I recommend Debt: The First 5000 Years for a pop-accessible perspective that cites its sources. Crooked Timber (left-learning) had a “seminar” with both additional criticism and support.
-
Because it didn’t make trade within their own community easier.
It’s eminently obvious that it does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence_of_wants
But alright, I’ve had enough of explaining things that don’t actually need to be explained.. and of being trolled with plausible deniability.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Glad you asked. Fully automated space communism.
No but seriously, you likely experience one every day at work. When a coworker asks you for something, you don’t say “how much you giving me”. You usually just do it.
Lots of theories of alternatives. Their are debt systems (you do this, so I owe ya),Communist systems (your work place), paracon, etc
-
When a coworker asks you for something, you don’t say “how much you giving me”. You usually just do it.
Might it be because you’re not at your workplace to trade with your co-workers?
-
The exchange is a trade, however, just as in agrarian societies neighbors would exchange products and thus have a more balanced diet. For example, if I grow apples and you keep bees, I might trade some apples for honey. It’s a reciprocal relationship without formal accounting.
-
-
-
-
Bartering is one. It has side effect of building the people skills you need to get better opportunities in the first place. There’s been a resurgence of it on Craigslist they call “swaps” these days. I remember one story where, after 10-20 swaps, one person had gone from something trivial to a car. Exceptional case but shows the potential. Average case is what you’d expect: get something worth around time, effort, money, etc you are giving tweaked up or down with persuasion.
-
-
-
-
I think the bigger topic is who owns the side work? If it was performed using company resources (which it seems very likely in this case it was), most IP contracts, and state laws say it belongs to the employer.