/sci/ - Science & Math

bump

Some of the questions were a bit lame, but I did it.

I've filled in the survey but some questions were a bit vague. For instance:

3. What role does money play in the advancement of technology?

-It helps with technological advancements.
-It slows down the progress of technological advancements.

Of course spending more money on funding research helps the technological advancements. You could also argue that the possibility of making money with new technology speeds up technological advancement. Finally, you could argue that the lack of funding slows down the advancements.
What is unclear is what is actually meant in the question.

Yeah sorry about the somewhat vague questions, I worked in a group, so yeah. Thanks though, I appreciate it.

Ill take it.

>>2944997
thank you kind sir. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

>>2945006

The questions were kind of weird, and hard to answer. But I did it.

>>2945013
Yeah, like I mentioned before, I had only so much say in the wording and such, so I apologize. Thank you for taking the time to take it though.

>>2945031

Sure thing.

bumping again.

>>2944825
Just filled out the survey. Can we see the results thus far?

>>2945130
Only 18 people have answered so far, so I'm not sure that's enough yet. I'm not so sure how to link the results. This is the first time I'm using survey monkey.

Took it.

#7 could have used a "none of the above" to make it a less loaded question though.

I'm not saying this is a mean way but it sounded like the people who wrote the questions really liked the Zeitgesit movies.

took it
also bump for OP

>>2945233
>I'm not saying this is a mean way but it sounded like the people who wrote the questions really liked the Zeitgesit movies.
LMAO. This is true.

I hated this question:
>What induces human beings to behave in self-preserving ways (ex: stealing) in our current monetary system?
I'm like, wait stealing is self-preserving? You sure about that, champ? What about when Lindsay Lohan does it? Did the monetary system make her do it?

OP here, thanks to those that have answered. Sorry again for the badly worded questions. thanks for tolerating.

On Zeitgeist, well I've seen the films, but I just simply wanted to know how people felt about our current economy. If it makes you any better, most people that have answered seem to be okay with the status quo.

>>2945330
*feel any better.

>>2945274

I agree. Tons of loaded questions, and questions that imply mutual exclusivity.

>>2945337
Sounds like polling as usual to me.

CONVENIENCE SAMPLING

I like the questions that keep mentioning "current monetary system", as though crime didn't exist before capitalism.

For the record, I think the current monetary system is fucking brilliant.

>>2945381
It seems that the majority of people seem to agree. With all the responses so far, most believe sticking with the monetary system is best.

>>2945388

Here is my problem:

The survey acts like it things there is such a thing as "the monetary system"

As if there was ever a time anywhere in the world where currency didnt exist.

This might sound really radical, but currency is a part of our biology. As long as people are social and specialize (which they will always do) people will be trading an negotiating, thus money will exist.

I also dont think its accurate to suggest there is a "system." The underlying behaviors of human beings are a constant. The policies implemented over human behavior are temporary. To change "the system" is impossible, because "the system" is human nature to begin with.

>>2945401
Bartering.

>>2945411

Bartering is an example of currency.

>>2945401
well now your arguing nature vs. nurture, and that really isn't the point of the survey.

>>2945417
*you're, sorry

>>2945417

Am I? I didnt really think I was, but if you had a survey that implied things that arent universally agreed on its still a bad survey.

>>2945413
All you're doing is redefining what currency is.

>>2945413
No, it isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency
>In economics, currency refers to physical objects generally accepted as a medium of exchange.

>>2945423
Well nature/nurture is not universally agreed upon. You have people that will argue both sides will valid reasoning.

>>2945434

Thank you.

>>2945437

I dont even think I was arguing about nature or nurture. I know I said its in our biology, but that wasnt my key point. I was just saying its inherent in people whether that is taught or genetic was irrelevant.

Im just saying, there are behaviors, and policy, and "the monetary system" is a behavior, not a policy. No government said "Okay, from now on we are using money"

I like /sci/ because things like this are asked. Yes, the survey was a bit odd, but it did make me think a bit. I've often said that i'm going to buy my own island and only allow some people on it. You know, social experiment and all that. But I only think a society with a small number of people can work without money.

>>2945444
...
Every time I have a conversation with somebody studying econ/business, I can't help but notice how they don't seem to be very bright.

>>2945444
That's why I was saying it was impossible not to have some bad questions on the survey. Either way, there are going to be implications when on the subject of money.

>>2945444
The monetary system is a social institution regarding the existence and use of paper currency as a medium of exchange. It is not the same as a barter system, because money has properties which make it more suitable as a medium for exchange. In the modern economy the term 'monetary system' is also used to address the infrastructural behavior of international currency exchanges, banks, and Central Banks as well, since those things also influence the social institution of currency exchange.

Thus, talking about the monetary system and potential methods of changing it is neither fruitless nor trivial, because in effect the process of considering it is what brought about the changes in banking and financial institutions we are now used to. It's not magic, it's not "human nature", it's something we can influence and consider changes to.

>Bartering.
A pure barter system has never existed. When people get access to luxuries, the very first one they make is money. Before sex, before art. Prior to that, share or die is the rule.

>>2945459

I cant help but notice, that attacks on my character never have any direct connection to what I said, and I have to just sit around waiting for you to talk about what I said, and not who I am.

>>2945460

Alright. Anyway this was still a poor survey. Not to give OP a really hard time or anything.

>The monetary system is a social institution regarding the existence and use of paper currency as a medium of exchange

So what if we are trading coinage? Is that not money?

>In the modern economy the term 'monetary system' is also used to address the infrastructural behavior of international currency exchanges, banks, and Central Banks as well,

Alright, I think you are right. And it was my bad for saying dumb irrelevant stuff.

However I do think the monetary system, as in banking is a naturally occurring one.

>>2945468
When I hear most people say "the monetary system", they're talking about any type of money, not just paper based fiat currency. I have a feeling they'd also be against any kind of emergent money that comes about to make barter more efficient.

>>2945401
A currency system is not essential to human nature, but it is certainly essential to an interesting and quality way of life.

We can have a very small amount of specialization and technology with a barter system.

We can have virtually no specialization and virtually no technology beyond stone age technology with no barter system and no money system, living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. That's certainly within human nature, but it's not a very interesting way to live, imo.

>>2945413
You claim to be an economist and you think bartering is a kind of currency?

>>2945508

Yes I do.

>>2945489

I think he had a point that, you can refer to the banking system, as "the monetary system" or you can just refer to money as "the monetary system" which I think creates confusion. I think the two ideas are a lot more closely related than what /sci/ might think, but thats something we arent arguing about yet.

>>2945511

Damn I keep forgetting my trip

>>2945468
this.

The US monetary system has had several incarnations. The latest is the Federal Reserve system, which is just under 100 years old. I think it is one of the best monetary systems ever worked out, although a lot of conspiracy theorists will tell you it's the root of all evil, and then get started about the gold standard. Don't get me started about the gold standard.

The most important thing, historically speaking, in a monetary system is to separate the monetary authority (central bank or in the US the Fed) from the fiscal authority (the Legislature).

Yes I think bartering is a form of currency in that the value of something is measured in the value of another (arbitary) thing. I could say that Ferrari is worth 2 Porsches. It's super subjective but c'est la vie.

>>2945508
Paying for something using money is just an indirect form of barter. Maybe currency was an inadequate word, and it could have been said better as: money is an example of barter.

>>2945522

In my opinion, and in the opinion of one of my professors, the Alrich Vreeland act was a superior system to the federal reserve system, which was existed before the federal reserve act was established.

Also, I want to get you started about the gold standard.

My criticism of the federal reserve system is the following:

1. Its a contrived system of regions, membership and the federal reserve board.

2. It relies on human beings deciding the reserve rate. And human beings are prone to make mistakes when deciding these things.

3. Its centralized, and centralization and bureacracy breed corruption.

>>2945489
>>2945484
>>2945511

Yeah the word 'paper' was superfluous and incorrect. The money system is really about having a currency which is a store of value. Coin and precious metal currency is fine assuming we're talking about a standardized exchange system of some sort.

The fundamental innovation of such currency systems, though, is that they provided a means of storing value that had high liquidity and low carrying costs. Barter systems are always stickier because they depend on finding buyers and sellers, and the institution of a currency exchange system is what largely eliminated those problems.

It's not an arbitrary innovation, but still very much a technological one. It led to the development of commerce and finance as we know it, but ultimately it is still something we can take steps to alter if it isn't getting the job done. i.e. we can innovate further. As a particular example Keynes was fond of the idea of adding a small tax to held money, basically an extra carrying cost on liquidity, because he felt that there was a bit of an irrational preference for liquidity which was harmful to investment. Changes like that are certainly feasible, but things like "let's go back to the gold standard!" or "let's abolish money altogether!" are just anarchist fantasies and utopianism.

>>2945537
But that's not what currency means. Currency is specifically something WITHOUT intrinsic value that can be used as a medium for exchange of value.

>>2945542
Again, let's use words for what they actually mean. Barter is the direct exchange of goods and services. Money is an indirect medium for the exchange of value of goods and services.

>>2945554

Then our current system is not a monetary system because we dont have any standard.

Im about to make a big post which I think will be relevant to what you have to say.

No, it isn't. Barter means direct exchange, i.e., that nothing intermediary (money) is being exchanged.

>>2945545
I wish I had time to engage you on this right now, but I don't.

>>2945542

Yeah, Im going to elaborate on this by listing a series of hypothetical tiers

1. A community of people, where each person is specialized and provides some good or service for the community. There is no standard and each individual has to negotiate with each other individual in the system.

The problems here are that if you produce a certain good, like shoes, and the demand for shoes change, you are out of luck. You depend on the whole of society, and society is volitile. If you want food, and you have shoes, and no one wants shoes, you are fucked.

Thus we lead to #2

2. A community of people, where each person produces their own good or service. Except now, there is a general standard. There is a good that is universally recognized as having value by most people, over a great duration of time, probably one of stable value.

In this circumstance, lets say, the standard is nails (like it used to be in Scotland) the shoe maker makes shoes and sells them for nails, which he has no value for, but he acknowledges as having value to the other members of society. This way he can acquire and store value. He has something he knows he can use in the circumstance he is hungry, and cant convince someone to give him food for his shoes.

The difference between 1 and 2 isnt that 2 isnt bartering. Its still trading goods. Its just much of the demand for the standard is generate by people who just want to store value, and not by people who want to use the good.

>>2945591

Maybe some other time. If you bring it up to me later. Id love to talk about it. I actually have to go too.

>>2945592

3. Same thing, people specialize in a community and trade. Except now they arent trading the physical good. The standard is often difficult to move. Like Gold in high quantities is difficult to move around. Tobacco Leafs, which were once used as currency, are difficult to move because they are fragile and sensitive to temperature and humidity. Rather than trading the physical good. The good is stored in a neutral location (the bank) and people trade receipts that entitle you to a certain amount of that good. When you want that good you go back to the bank and turn in your paper contract that claims you own a certain amount. This is where the fractional reserve system is created (but I wont talk about that)

The difference between 2 and 3 is that the good is taken out of the hands of the people, and rather than just trading it around physically, you are trading ownership of it.

4. The value of the paper money is disconnected from the standard, and the value is determined by the banks themselves. This is what we have today.

Im posting this because you guys keep descriminating between bartering and currency, and the current banking system. And the difference really doesnt exist. Its just that one naturally, and gradually moves into the next.

Currency is just bartering, except people always barter for the same thing for the universal convienence of it.

>>2945573
I'm assuming you're confusing standardization of the institution of exchange (i.e. things like standardized coining practices or rules for printing of bills, things that can evolve over time but still provide enough regularity for participants to not lose faith in the currency) vs. having a standard of exchange which I assume is what you're going to argue for.

This survey seemed incredibly biased.

Do you believe that money is the downfall of our society?

What?!

>>2945607
You might be right, but I still dont understand the difference between those two ideas you presented.

>>2945605
>Im posting this because you guys keep descriminating between bartering and currency, and the current banking system. And the difference really doesnt exist. Its just that one naturally, and gradually moves into the next.

The fuck it does. You could make an argument for trade and negotiation being natural, but the modern banking system? Fuck no.

>>2945592
I'll agree in principle with #1 & #2, and say that the gripe I have with #2 is mostly around the semantics of the word 'barter.' In my view 2 is no longer a barter system because (to use, I think, Ricardo's terms) the use-value of the nail is irrelevant to value it possesses in exchange. Its value is more or less purely in its exchange-value, which I should hasten to note is not set to any standard. The only thing this process standardizes is the terms of the exchange of value in nails. The value of those nails will fluctuate wildly if nail-makers begin to make nails simply to flood the market with currency, etc. Here the stability of the currency is tied to the physical difficulties of producing the nails or by other means of keeping the supply under control.
>>2945605
As for #3 and #4, it should be noted that with the shift to promissory notes for goods like gold and tobacco the significance of the trade balance in combating inflation between countries meant that the only way to influence the stability of ones currency relative to another country was to have a superior trade balance, and also to build up reserves of raw goods. In all 3 scenarios there isn't anything sacred or immutable about the currency, the only important feature is that the institution of money as a store of value is maintained by the features of the system and whatever commodity the currency is 'tied' to.

>>2945428
nope. Currency is an agreement among people that something has value. Period.

>>2945777
Trips cant be wrong. lock the thread

http://www.trtam.com/the-book
Read this ebook, (free, but not quite complete) and then ask your questions. You will be blown away at how our monetary system works.

i'm 12 and what is this?

# the metal or paper medium of exchange that is presently used
# general acceptance or use; "the currency of ideas"
# currentness: the property of belonging to the present time; "the currency of a slang term"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

pick one and deniggerify yo'selves

What the hell is this survey for? Introductory Marxist studies?

hmm, the internet ate the 2nd half for a bit, here it is:

In #4, however, you seem let your own distaste for fiat money overwhelm your argument. Money is no longer tied to a commodity, and thus it can be considered 'fiat' because the money supply is "controlled" by the central banks/banking system. The trick here is the word "control." The control that banks (both Central and otherwise) have over the money supply is entirely dependent on the 'rules of the game' rather by the laws and institutional realities of the "monetary system" which are things we can ultimately change or influence through policy/behavior/etc. Ideally, we have to ask ourselves precisely what sorts of control we are talking about and also what we want the currency to accomplish, and make adjustments accordingly. Personally, I agree that there are major flaws in the current monetary system both in the properties of money and in the banking/finance system.

Finally, to say that currency exchange is just bartering is to ignore, once again, the properties that currencies must possess to be useful as stores of value. Most commodities do not have the same kind of excessive liquidity as currencies do, or they have tremendous costs associated with holding them (see your Tobacco and Gold examples), and so it is useful when talking of the use of currency as a store of value and in exchange for goods and services to distinguish a 'money system' from 'bartering.'

>>2945624
Hopefully the above made the distinction clearer.

>>2945777
Sloppy terminology! Have you considered a career in economics?

How about letting me put in no answer for question 7?

>>2945787
Looks like a bunch of conspiracy theorist garbage. Stick to mainstream economics.

>>2945800
Sloppy terminology! Have you considered a career in economics?

How so? Are you looking for a convoluted, inelegant definition? Have you considered a career in politics?

How the hell can we still be in disagreement over what 'currency' means?

>>2945787
funny.

>>2945800
>Money is no longer tied to a commodity, and thus it can be considered 'fiat' because the money supply is "controlled" by the central banks/banking system

The money supply can and is controlled by central banks even when not under a fiat currency . It's just harder.

>>2945816

Are you implying that the other dude's definition was elegant? It was terribly vague.

>>2945723
Yes, fiat currency is a natural progression from a commodity based money system like salt, or cattle, or gold. Commodity based money has huge shortcomings, such as supply issues that can bring down economies like what happened with gold in the 30's. Or when the economy simply outgrows the supply of your chosen commodity, such that you're inflating its value by using it as money, and so essentially using it as a fiat currency anyone, but unfairly taxing the people who want to actually consume that commodity. Fiat currency is the natural step as soon as an economy is large enough and a government is strong enough to establish it.

>>2945860
Yup, you can make it illegal to own said commodity...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

>>2945878
How is it wrong?

>>2945895

Well, for starters, you've used the term "something" in a definition. Not going for a good start right there.

>>2945884
"hoarding", not "owning". A difference exists. And such actions were creating deflationary pressure and affecting financial markets.

>>2945912
would the words "any thing" be more to your liking?

>>2945860
Well, sure. I mean in a sense when you have currency tied to a commodity all you have is an extra layer of restriction against the influence the banks have over the money supply. 'Fiat' currency really just means that the interference of the commodity is removed.

>>2945925
reminds me of the Katrina photos of the black guys "looting" and the white guys "acquiring supplies"...

>>2945933
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Note my previous post about hoarding gold exhausting the central bank's supply of gold and in turn causing deflation.

Planet Money is so awesome. Here's their recent show on the death of the gold standard.

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=133874462&amp
;m=133878359

>>2945954
But, according to your federal reserve, deflation is the devil. I guess defaulting on interest only home loans is the new hoarding gold

>>2945940
Niggas can't survive without Air Jordans yo

>>2945973
aint dat da trooff

>>2945972
Yes. They don't like deflation. That was the point.

So after reading the whole thread, I'm thinking about just redoing the entire survey, since so many faults were pointed out. If I do, I'll try posting it here again, possibly tomorrow. Thanks to everyone who responded though.

>>2945998
I don't think anyone likes deflation.

>>2946136
Deflation is great if you like buying stuff. Foreign goods become cheaper.

Also, agree with above critiques on survey. In general, it's hard to answer such open ended questions with multiple choice. You should ask more, but more specific, questions to get a sense of how people feel about the answers.

>>2946254
OP here. Yes, I'll be using a Likert Scale pretty much revamping every question to be more precise. The major problems were the choices and wording, so I feel this would fix both problems.

Question 2's answers are a bit conflicting. People are greedy because they want more power, so both answers work.

lolhighschool survey

>>2946254
No it's not. Unless you have a pile of money buried in your back yard. Deflation is no good if you rely on a job to have to buy things. Deflation is basically an economy screeching to a halt.

>*5. What is more important for human survival?
>money
>basic necessities (food, water, etc...)
>other
Great question. Excuse me while I pour myself a bowl of coins and drink molten gold.

>>2946406
price stickyness of wage, not of other things

at least learn the wrong answers before you regurgitate them

>>2946433
Try to speak in sentences if you want people to understand you.

>>2946433
Don't be retarded. Deflation means people will be losing their jobs regardless of any stickiness of their wages.

>seeing as how you are all rational thinkers

He actually thinks there's rational people on /sci.

laughinggirls.jpg

>>2946463
Well I don't come on here often, but I thought it'd be the best board to come to, since /sci/ in general should be void of irrationality. Oh well, I'm remaking the survey right now.

>>2946487

>Well I don't come on here often

See, there's your problem.

>but I thought it'd be the best board to come to, since /sci/ in general should be void of irrationality

That's what you think. All you have to do is mention the words "God" or "religion" on here. Any semblance of rationality vanishes and the board becomes /b within seconds.

Even when that doesn't happen, there are still tons of people posting ridiculous ideas on how to scientifically remake society that have no basis in reality.

>>2946487

This board stopped being irrational ever since /new/fags and actual Christians (not trolls, yes I'm as surprised as you are) started coming here.

/sci/ should be renamed /rpp/ - Religion, Politics, and Philosophy

>>2946500
I know that mentioning religion is pretty much frowned upon here, and as for your last point, that's the main reason why I am revamping my survey. My group members are just gonna have to deal with it. If it hadn't been for you guys, I wouldn't have seen how bad this survey really was, and for that I thank you.

>>2946507

A lot of religionfags come to /sci looking for a fight, but there are still plenty of other times when posters here make cheap, unprovoked attacks on Christians. I'm sorry, but if atheist trolls are going to invade a board and turn it into /dawkins (what they've done to /sci in essence), they get what they deserve.

Regarding the other point, there are plenty of Mongoloids saying things like "Oh, if we put scientists in charge and had a society based around science, the world would be a better place."

Wouldn't work. Scientists can't run anything. If they did, they'd be politicians or businessmen.

>>2946507
>yes I'm as surprised as you are
exposed as a typical /sci/ troll

Aw damnit, so many things to reply to. So many posters probably not here anymore.

>>2946760

>>2946522 here. I'll gladly answer any questions you may have.

>>2945800

Anything could be currency, its just somethings are better at being it than others. I am not ignoring that at all.

>>2946780

I find you to be incredible agreeable

>>2946800

>I find you to be incredible agreeable

Fair enough.