[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 171 KB, 496x377, Geothermal_Plant_outside_of_Pyongyang.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
657249 No.657249 [Reply] [Original]

Thought experiment: If we lived in a society where energy/electric was freely available through renewable energies (geothermal, wind, solar, tidal, etc...), would money become pointless?

>> No.657256

People will always want to one-up each other, it's human nature. When all of our needs are taken care of and we can have all the mass produced goods we want, hand-made items will be back in vogue because they're unique. I think it'll go back to a bartering/trade system.

>> No.657262

Look into this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth,_Virtual_Wealth_and_Debt

>> No.657271

>>657256

How could one-upmanship be a thing in a society that doesn't require money to function. What would the point of it be? Theres nothing to intrinsically gain from being a better person other than sex, and as we see currently - the worst off, dumb, and unattractive people in society breed most.

>> No.657273

>>657249
No because we would worry about other things. Kind of like how air is free to breath and water so cheap to drink.

>> No.657279

Personally, this is how i see it. If there were electric cars which didn't have their patents owned by major oil/gas companies and we had free electric, money would become pointless.

With free electric people could grow their own food far easier. Actual farmers would increase the abundancey of their crops and food prices would dramatically reduce. As this abundance increased, the price of food would drop to the point where it is as freely available as air or water.

Without people having to worry about food anymore, housing would be built much more faster in response to a population boom. Suddenly housing prices fall dramatically. With major food retailers collapsing, the value of money drops to next to nothing.

>> No.657290

Am i somehow wrong or should i expect to be carted off by the NSA for saying this?

>> No.657292

>>657249

It costs money to build an run power plants and their distribution systems.

>> No.657297

Why would energy being hypothetically free (as other anon said, building and running powerplants) make the value of every single thing in the universe drop to zero?

>> No.657299

>>657292

With no monetary system, value would be placed in productivity. You could argue that people would just be lazy and stagnate, but people get bored of that. Theres only so much lying around you do before you want to create something.

Human ingenuity and productivity wasn't initially founded on money - it was through collective effort that people found solace. You think tribes in the amazon rainforest use money? No of course they don't.

People would only be valued for what they can provide for others. Laziness and sloth would be marginalized. Things would still get built, and people would still harvest resources. The Amish work on a similar model.

>> No.657301

>>657279
>sorry, i won't come to repair your house, because money is worthless now
>back in the day, i was a samsung consumer... now i don't care anymore because energy is free

Why do people buy bottled water, if tap water is free? Why do they buy Rolex when the sun (or their phones) can give them information for free? Why do they go to Starbucks while it's cheaper and quicker to make coffee at home?

>> No.657306

>>657297

Because food, housing, and warmth would become free. With free energy comes increased food productivity and abundance. Money is used for survival. When survival costs nothing, money is worth nothing.

>> No.657308

>>657297
Because a lot of people ITT are dumb?

>> No.657312

>>657301

Those are all materialistic things - i.e. survival. People use those items to signify their wealth and the fact that they're surviving better than others. There would be no need for products like this in an age where survival is guaranteed.

They would have no value.

>> No.657315

>>657306
But say you're the owner of a diamond mining facillity - now after a year you have 1000 diamonds. What would make you want those diamonds to change hands? Surely you wouldn't hold on to them forever.

Price = production costs + margin, if production costs are 0, then price = margin

>> No.657316
File: 58 KB, 534x361, haaahahaa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
657316

>>657249
it already is freely available

and you need money for the capital investment to utilize it

>> No.657319

>>657315

They'd have no value, just as gold had no value to the Native Americans.

If you have 1000 diamonds, you'd have 1000 diamonds. Their value now would be much much lower as demand for them would drop, because the value of money dropped.

Besides the only thing that gives diamonds value is the fact people buy them to signify wealth. In a society where wealth is pointless, diamonds become pointless.

Money is only worth anything because people need it for survival. When survival is free, money is pointless.

>> No.657322

>>657319
That's interesting, though kind of too complicated for me to comprehend for some reason.

Either way, thanks anon :3

>> No.657324

>>657316

At first you would yes. If you built enough plants that provide renewable energy, and then made the energy they produce free, the entire monetary system would collapse. The only thing that would stop it from happening is major non-renewable energy businesses holding patents for vehicles that operate on renewable energy.

>> No.657325

Essentially what you're attempting to get at is Marxs theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall

>>657315
If production costs reach near zero monopoly rights on control of intellectual property and ownership of scarce resources will become the prime political issues of the day; some form of rentier capitalism would have to emerge.

>> No.657326

>>657312
People don't buy bottled water for ostentatious reasons.

Also, food would only become free for those who want to become some kind of farmers. I prefer to pay for the service of having food delivered to me, instead of doing boring things to grow it.

>b-but farmers will grow food for free!!!

You just forget their experience and their time, which is not free. Also add the remuneration of all the middlemen before you can buy your food. Suddenly it's not free anymore, and all your system collapses.

Not even talking about processed food of all kinds, which will remain pricey.

>> No.657333

>>657326

Land wouldn't have value either. It would be in a persons best interests to have as many people living near with them as possible, as to provide a service that they can't do as theyre already providing others a service.

Person 1 grows food for 4 people
Person 2 provides warmth for 4 people
Person 3 provides mechanical support for machinery
Person 4 provides water for 4 people.

>> No.657339

>>657326
The point is production costs and distribution costs reach near zero throwing everything out of wack. The magnitude of necessary human labor in such a system would also diminish, resulting in a concentration of wealth in fewer hands with the populace detached from the means of acquiring money.

>> No.657347

>>657319

of course gold had value to Native Americans, just not as much as it did to the Spaniards. Native Americans were using gold for decorations and such, and as long as you have use for something and there's a limited supply of it, it will have value.

Tl;dr you don't know wtf you're talking about

>> No.657362 [DELETED] 
File: 15 KB, 553x351, ne.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
657362

>>657324
>If you...made the energy they produce free, the entire monetary system would collapse
you'd need money to pay to replace broken down equipment every so often, let's say a solar panel costs $100 and lasts 20 years on average, it will cost $0.50 a year

ignoring that

if I wanted a light bulb to use the free energy I'd still need money to buy it, free energy doesn't mean free minerals, free labor, free transport services

ignoring all that

if everything were free, people would consume more and more until it starts to put a strain on resources, if not because they are so greedy then because they want to utilize resources as much as possible for noble goals like colonizing mars and doing so as efficiently as possible so they don't need to chop down the rainforests

for this they will need a mathematical model of the value of different resources, reducing it down to a single metric

$

>> No.657365

>>657339
Production costs would still be high for anything that's extremely processed, or high quality, or natural non-food items, or any service really (not everyone is a 4chan NEET who will entertain you for free).

>>657333
Not interested in your system, I'll pay good money not to be part of this shit.

>> No.657369
File: 12 KB, 412x295, thisiswhattheybelievehere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
657369

>>657324
>If you...made the energy they produce free, the entire monetary system would collapse
you'd need money to replace broken down equipment every so often, for example a solar panel costing $100 and lasting 20 years on average will cost $5 a year

ignoring that

if I wanted a light bulb to use the free energy I'd still need money to buy it, free energy doesn't mean free minerals, free labor, free transport services

ignoring all that

if everything were practically free people would consume more and more until it starts to put a strain on resources again, if not because they are such frivolous spenders then because they want to utilize resources as much as possible for noble goals like colonizing mars and doing so as efficiently as possible so they don't need to chop down the rainforests

for this they will need a mathematical model of the value of different resources, reducing it down to a single metric

$

far from being your enemy, money is actually what you want, a way to do things more efficiently, getting as close as possible in the real world to your unrealizable goal of everything being free

>> No.657387

>>657249
No.

>> No.657421

>>657387
/thread

>> No.657426

>>657369

If energy was free, it would be far more beneficial to mechanize all manufacturing and distribution, putting a large percentage of the population out of work. If only 10% of the population actually hold money, it just changes hands between them in exchange for goods/services, making it valueless.

If me and you were in a hot room slowly filling with water. I'm short and skinny and you're tall and fat. I pay you $10 to open the high window, that i can't reach. Then you pay me $10 to climb down through a grate to open a drainage hatch. What was the point of swapping the $10?

The only thing would cost would be repairs and raw materials. However, money would only be useful in exchange for luxury goods. Luxury goods are used to signify wealth. When the idea that wealth is pointless comes around, people stop buying luxury goods, making them valueless. Suddenly that top 10% has a bunch of worthless paper. Seeing as the people who worked these jobs would have very little use for money, they'd request services or goods in return.

Your attractiveness to the opposite sex becomes whatever it is you can provide for others. Your importance in a community is what your worth.

>> No.657435

>>657249
There's no such thing as 'freely available'.

>> No.657440

>>657365

Its not "my system", its a thought experiment on the implications of free energy. I'm not suggesting that we should do this right now, i'm just interested in the theory of it.

>> No.657444

>>657279
You have that wrong. If more houses are needed then the price goes up, not down.

>> No.657448

>>657440
Free energy will only mean things become slightly cheaper. Someone needs to pay the workers to maintain the grid, pay for repairs, they'll demand a profit etc. etc.

This isn't some socialist utopia.

>> No.657449

>>657435

>Government or rich philanthropist builds a bunch of power plants
>Patent for electric car becomes open for public use
>Government/philanthropist eventually produces enough power through renewable energies that they power an entire nation.
>Doesn't charge for use.

Sure they'd lose money due to employee wages and whatnot, but eventually the dividends from the ridiculous increase in manufacturing would see a phenomenal return in wages. The first country to provide free energy to its citizens will be the most economically powerful nation on the Earth, overnight.

>> No.657455

>>657449
How old are you?

>> No.657486

>>657455
Not old enough to arrive at logical conclusions. His leaps of reasoning are virtually religious in magnitude, and the entirety of his faulty premises land squarely on full fledged unrelated non sequiturs.

>> No.657488

>>657486
>Not old enough to arrive at logical conclusions. His leaps of reasoning are virtually religious in magnitude, and the entirety of his faulty premises land squarely on full fledged unrelated non sequiturs.

If you talk like that in real life, 99% of people around you are itching to give you one square in the face. Just saying.

>> No.657490

>>657488
I wasn't talking; I was typing. Want me to use smaller words or type slower for you?

>> No.657492

>>657488
confirmed for socialising with idiots all day long

>> No.657498

Something has value because it's available in a finite number.

As long as you can't make something from thin air some form of currency or another will exist.

Free energy will not render money pointless.

>> No.657519

Haven't read the thread too much tldr

The answer is no:
The reason is called "the coincidence of wants"

It's how money was invented in the first place.

>> No.657593

>>657299

They need food and shelter. Jackasses who don't contribute to survival are probably ostracized if not abandoned or killed.

>> No.657606
File: 778 KB, 683x4608, trade.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
657606

>>657426
>If only 10% of the population actually hold money, it just changes hands between them in exchange for goods/services, making it valueless.
Why does it matter if it exchanges hands between 700 million or 7 billion people? There were only 60 million people in ancient rome yet they had money. Why do you think that is?

>What was the point of swapping the $10?
If it is just 2 people trading you don't need money, they can just talk and negotiate something, but when A trades with B, B trades with C, C trades with D, D with E, E with F, F with G etcetcetera until Z trades with A and none of them have ever met before, then money comes in handy.

>The only thing would cost would be repairs and raw materials.
I suppose you could live in an Amish commune or something. However most communes end up as failures. Are you willing to go full Amish?

>Luxury goods are used to signify wealth.
Video games are a luxury. Not all luxuries are used to signify wealth.

>they'd request services or goods in return
What if they want nothing in return? Why not give them money so they can request something in return from someone else?

>Your importance in a community is what your worth.
What if my community hates me because I am a black man? The community doesn't decide what is moral and immoral.

>> No.657627

>>657279
>population boom

No. Having fried chicken and Apple Jacks for free does not mean everyone has more kids since cost of feed is not the largest barrier for people who want to have kids.

>> No.657635

>>657498
Star Trek covered this like what, 60 years ago?

>> No.657638

No why would it? You'd still need things like food, clothes and also things you'd want to buy like TVs and stuff. Without money, those things needed to be traded against each other directly and I don't want to have to send two goats and a cow to Amazon just get a flatscreen tv.

>> No.657648

>>657627

depends for whom. Maybe for sophisticated city slickers, but not for salt of the earth yokels in a trailer park

>> No.657651

>>657249
Am I going to barter for prostitute poon? I think not.

>> No.657667

Can't automate code. Code is used in the computers that control the machinery that convert energy into work. White people will inherit the Earth. Prove me wrong.

>> No.657672

>>657667
You can automate code generation, you just won't know when its wrong, and how to debug it. As for any type of advanced primates inheriting Earth, in the long run, I kindly doubt it. A few more Fukushimas, or power struggles and its all over.

>> No.657783

>>657249
It's not energy that must be free, it is natural resources: land, water, etc.

>> No.657788
File: 1.48 MB, 1800x1200, cash.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
657788

>Thought experiment: If we lived in a society where energy/electric was freely available through renewable energies (geothermal, wind, solar, tidal, etc...), would money become pointless?
The correct answer is no. As long as people wish to exchange goods and services, money will never be pointless.

>> No.657796

>>657249
>freely available through renewable energies (geothermal, wind, solar, tidal, etc...)
it's not free. it takes money to build those machines, maintain the machines, maintain the grid, etc. etc. I could go on obviously. Since people would pay money to have these services delivered, as they do today, they would still need some form of currency to do so.

>> No.657949

>>657249
>would money become pointless
No, but you could run your vibrating dildoes and buttcoin mining rigs for as long as you want

>> No.658752

>>657271
Fueling your ego.

Something communist/zeitgeist/hippie/leftists ignore.

People don't care about people they don't know unless they are in their line of sight.

>> No.658758

>>657333
And what will you do with people that can't support others?

There are more of those than not.

>> No.658767

>>657426
Luxury goods are used to signify wealth.

But that's wrong bitch.

Ever heard of the instinct to appear better than everyone else to improve your SOCIAL STATUS
Social status is all anyone ever really cares about.
And why do they care about this?
To get laid. (and survive but that is easy)