/sci/ - Science & Math

yes there was no money 10,000 years ago

Yes but not as well.

Money is like a shovel, it can be used to dig trenches but it can also be used to dig drainage ditches, it isn't inherently evil just because it is a tool used for various nefarious schemes and we'd be worse off without it

>>3449198
If there were a lot of people willing to produce food and give it away for free, probably.

No

Also Canada's is
"We're energy independent and we burn oil like mad cunts!! Flushing our 10 gallon tanks with springwater"

No, prices reflect scarcity and direct agents towards their most efficient use.

If we use robots to produce food and extract materials we could

>>3449209
And there was no large society like the entire planet

>I mean a large society like the entire planet

New World Order thread.

I've yet seen a description of a modern society that doesnt use some sort of currency or bartering. People have tried but it has always broken down into something being use as currency.

I like how in that photo Africa still hasn't accomplished anything.

>>3449311
frighteningly accurate

no because humans

instead of asking big questions ask little ones
would you be willing to work for products rather then pay for them>? such as you want a nice computer? ill give you one if you work at my factory and make 3 of them or supply the factory with food or another need

this is the only way i can see a society run without a currency but would it be efficient?

Does anybody really think that India will become a "research center"? We've brain drained off their best for over a century. India will never become a nice place to live, so smart people will continue to leave, ensuring that india never becomes a nice place to live.

>>3449338
You've thrown away all the gains from specialization and trade.

>Can a society work without money?
Probably not very well. Free trade and a central medium of exhange (money) is a very simple and elegant way to solve the problem of figuring out "what people want".

Please note that this is ONLY about trade. Economic policies that we commonly associate with our current economic system are not a fundamental part of that. You can have markets without the IMF, for instance.

>>3449198
If we don't have robots doing the mindless chores of blue collar workers by 2050 then the human raced failed

>>3449198

Nope.

>>3449338
>would you be willing to work for products rather then pay for them>? such as you want a nice computer? ill give you one if you work at my factory and make 3 of them or supply the factory with food or another need
>this is the only way i can see a society run without a currency but would it be efficient?

No. This is why we have money. I have to work at a computer factory if I want a computer? Say goodbye to specialization, now we all have to half-ass our way through jobs that used to be the dedicated pursuit of a few people.

This sounds worse than barter. At least with barter you can specialize.

>>3449347
im just suggesting it as an alternative to a society without currency of course i can go into detail with the whole maxist thing about employees owning there company but im just giving the op something to think about

>>3449353
And if we stop using markets just because the menial jobs are taken care of, we will also fail.

>>3449365
You should think about it more yourself. Specialization and trade gains are really, really fucking important.

Try this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

>>3449366
Well the whole point of money is to motivate people to do things they don't want to do

>>3449380
Is THAT how you view it? Holy shit. Maybe you should elaborate, because I just see it as a way of gauging whether I'm contributing to society effectively, and being compensated in return.

>>3449338
Wait, if everyone who wants a computer has to make 3 of them at your factory, where do all the surplus computers go? You stack 'em up in a warehouse or something?

>>3449389
substitute teacher mother made $3k last year full time teaching would be about 18k is she contributing to society effectively?

>>3449405
Is she working the same number of hours in those two jobs? Only the pay per hour is a measure of "effectiveness".

Ideally, the people contributing most effectively to the wellbeing of society are paid the highest salaries. Where this is not the case, the system is broken and needs fixing. No, not just by raising taxes or redistributing money. There is a REASON some people's contribution is undervalued, and some others overvalued.

>>3449419

This.

>>3449353
>
If we don't have robots doing the mindless chores of blue collar workers by 2050 then the human raced failed

this is something that we will have to face in the coming years. as robots handle more of the menial jobs, more and more of our workforce will be put out of their job. the irony is that if we are going to have a capitalistic society in the future we're going stop using robots.

>>3449419
(cont)
Thinking about it though, there's also a supply/demand issue. Just like water is vital but not very expensive because we have a large supply currently, teachers are vital but not extremely well-paid. If we want teachers to be well-paid, demand has to increase (standards can increase, meaning demand for BETTER and not just for MORE teachers), or supply has to go down.

If I want to improve society as much as I can, I want to find what I can do that produces the most profits. The idea is that free markets benefit those who offer value to others.

This system can be flawed when the assumptions of the system are violated, like when politicians can be paid to manipulate the market.

>>3449428

communism will be a reality if we use robots

>>3449428
> the irony is that if we are going to have a capitalistic society in the future we're going stop using robots.
Sorry, no. The same issue was brought up when machines began displacing textile workers, or later, replacing assembly-line workers.

If your job can be done more efficiently by a machine, it SHOULD be done by a machine. This doesn't mean you're homeless - it means you get paid to do something other than be a mindless machine. You find *better* work. And if you can't? We can have a social safety net. We can afford it, especially with so many things done by machines.

No, we can just have something like social democracy: universal healthcare and education, good unemployment benefits, and a capitalistic economy, with government stepping in to control monopolies which can't be avoided (like utilities).

>>3449439
....
If you mean society being more *socialized*, sure. But communism? No, bad idea. The economic AND the political structures are a bad idea. Too much power in the hands of too few people, all while proclaiming to act in behalf of the public.
>>3449458
>No, we can just have something like social democracy: universal healthcare and education, good unemployment benefits, and a capitalistic economy, with government stepping in to control monopolies which can't be avoided (like utilities).

If we're going to use robots to do everything they will not be anything like the noisy energy guzzling robots we're familiar with, barring some miraculous new energy source we just don't have the resources to support them on the scale suggested.

kinda.

currency is useful to tell us how much something costs.

things like profit tell us how much demand there is for certain products. it notifies entrepreneurs.


i like money.

>>3449510
Well, they obviously won't displace manual labor if they aren't cost-effective.

The concept of money has to be re-defined. Right now it is an end unto itself, something that is traded, speculated upon, etc. If it actually represented something of real value, that would solve a lot of problems. Right now it is nothing more than a debt instrument, inflated and deflated depending on the whims of investors and governments. The problem isn't money, it is how the concept has been perverted.

The United States was formed, in part, to get out of the European banking system. The country was supposed to use only gold and silver for currency. It lost its Revolutionary War in 1913 with the formation of the Federal Reserve, which brought the nation back under the ownership of the international banksters.

>Give me control of a nation's currency and I care not who makes her laws.
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild

>It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
- Henry Ford

>>3449532
So do weapon and oil companies

>>3449458
>monopolies which can't be avoided

hahahahahahaha

>>3449544
and as long as we have an institution full of people that are easily bribed, those oil companies have us by the balls.

>>3449551
Can you imagine three entirely separate water mains running up to your house? Can you imagine that being a good idea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

>>3449540
I'm all for banking reform. But you seem to have a deep misunderstanding of fiat currency. Gold-backing currency doesn't make any more sense, and is far less flexible.

What, you think gold is inherently valuable? Why?

>>3449556
you left out the other half of the coin. blackmail! pics of a congressman with a hooker are cheaper and at least as effective as bag o' cash

>>3449458

if all menial work is automated there will be alot of people out of work. if we make education free and and allow them to educate themselves we end up with huge supply of workforce in other fields of work that the robots haven't taken over. in a capitalistic system this means that supply is much much greater than demand and such the value of every worker in those particular fields is lessened and thus they are paid less (to what extent is debatable). now the buying power of the people is lessened and the economy will shrink. now in no way am i advocating that we stop using robots, it's just that using them in our current system will undoubtedly force majority of the people into unemployment. it's the system that would need to change.

this is all speculative of course, we have no idea to what extent robots will take over our jobs. they may do everything from manufacturing to accounting or even take over our health care.

>>3449564
>What, you think gold is inherently valuable? Why?

cause heir beck siad so you terrist

>>3449577
If we are socialized enough that no one goes homeless or hungry, does it matter?

Besides, you are assuming that there is an end to useful human pursuits - that providing basic necessities is literally all humans can give each other.

But the service and entertainment industries show us an important break from this mindset. As long as there is anything humans want, there will be a job for providing it. And humans have an endless appetite for luxuries.

Don't worry. For as long as you are interested in contributing, there will always be things to be done, and we'll be socialized enough that the unemployed won't suffer anyway.

>>3449577
No, the buying power of the everyman and the economy grew, because robots are making more shit we want, and competition ensures that prices will be somewhat in line with costs.

>>3449611
This. The only thing I can imagine replacing us is strong AI that is superior to humans in every way. If there's any area where humans have an edge, humans won't be obsolete.

But at that point, we should probably go transhuman anyway.

>>3449657

but what if majority of the people are put out of work which is the question. there is a point where the automation will put all but very few out of jobs.

>>3449742
Markets clear - J B Say

>>3449742
yeah
That's why we said it will be a communist society basically

>>3449742
I don't think that's a good assumption. MANUFACTURING jobs will be scarce. But I don't see why the service and entertainment sectors will ever have a capacity limit.

But IF and to the degree that jobs are scarce, just increase unemployment benefits and they're still part of the economy (by purchasing).

>>3449754
Good unemployment benefits are not the same as revoking private property rights and giving the economy to a central bureaucracy.

>>3449805
Well you've revoked property rights on that money someone else made, was taken and was subsequently given to the unemployed guy. But yes, in principle, welfarist and regulationist systems are not necessarily socialist

>>3449831
>Well you've revoked property rights on that money someone else made, was taken and was subsequently given to the unemployed guy.
Agreed - taxes are a form of ceding property to government control. But I'm willing to pay higher taxes to make sure no one is hungry or homeless.

>>3449611

i am not saying that we shouldn't automate our jobs. im saying that if majority of the population is going to get money for free why should we even use money? it completely makes the point of money redundant.

>>3449564
There was very little inflation/deflation when the US was on the gold standard, but you are right, you can't eat it, wear it as clothing or use it to keep warm. It is merely a rare metal and it's scarcity gives it value.

All I understand about fiat paper currency is that it is created out of nothing by banks, borrowed by governments to be paid back with interest. It is the vehicle the banksters use to acquire real assets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99DYh8Zpkpw
Money as Debt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU

I would like to see a world where people do what they love, take only what they need and give what they can without threat or bribe. Greed is the problem, not money. Too bad I won't live a thousand years.

Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2wqSDupcxY
>The acquisition of material wealth is no longer a driving force in our lives.
- Captain Jean-Luc Picard
Can I skip to the 24th century now, pleeze?

>>3449861
How else to regulate consumption of individuals while simultaneously comparing the relative demand for and scarcity of resources? Money rocks, only campus commies don't understand this.

>>3449861
Money is a way to allocate resources. Even if all jobs are automated, and you can get whatever you want "for free," without working, there will still be a limited supply of goods. So you get a certain amount of money for free and you use that to buy the things that you want.

>>3449864
I'm sure everybody would love to be the captain of a galaxy class starship with a full crew of various archetypes of hotties, but guess what, we can't do that for everybody. Only the best of the best get the opportunity to do really cool shit, oh wait, just like capitalism.

>>3449861
>it completely makes the point of money redundant.
Money and trade are how we calculate "what people want", and "what we should do". Price of eggs goes up because supply is low? Hey, I better make more eggs!

It's an elegant solution that doesn't rely on the understanding of a few human minds. The global economy cannot fit within a single human's comprehension.

>>3449884
This. I'm fine with universal stipends, but we shouldn't throw out money and markets.

>>3449864

>mfw this made me realize that women are the cause of all our problems because there would be no reason to secure a superior status via greed if not for the fact that women find that attractive

>>3449957

>mfw your sorry ass wouldn't exist without the co-existance of women

>mfw you believe all women are attracted to wealth

>mfw you believe female attention is the sole reason for the existance of greed

>mfw I could go on and on but I've already pretty much proven what a gigantic retard you are

>>3450002

>mfw I could go point by point and show you why you are in fact the retarded one, but I wouldn't wish to tax your feeble woman brain

>>3450020

>mfw you actually believe that you could have existed without the existance of women

>>3450031

>mfw I never said that and your overtly fallacious assumptions only go to prove my point about how retarded you actually are

I think money is inevitable.

>mfw my face is a face

>>3450047

>mfw you accuse me of being assumptious while assuming yourself that I am a woman

>mfw you are yet to refute any of my points

>mfw you haven't yet because you can't

>mfw when my face is a different face

>>3450065

>>mfw you accuse me of being assumptious

Assumptious isn't a word. You wanted presumptuous. Men know stuff like that, y'see.

>>3450065

>mfw I took an educated guess about you being a woman and seeing as how you didn't immediately refute it I'm going to say it is safe to assume that notion is correct

>mfw it would be pointless to attempt to refute your points as women are irrational

>mfw you're still a woman and likely a ugly one

>mfw assumptious

>>3450075

> Native English-speaking people know stuff like that, y'see.

Fixed that for you. No need to thank me.

>>3450080

> mfw 'educated guess'

> mfw you still thinking I'm a woman

> mfw I was right, you can't refute my points and are trying to get away from that fact

>>3449209
then they invented it because it made business easier derp

>>3450096

>mfw your sorry ass wouldn't exist without the co-existance of women

I never said otherwise. And even more to the point, we wouldn't have existed without bacteria, doesn't mean I have to like bacteria.

>mfw you believe all women are attracted to wealth

For the most part. Exceptions don't disprove the rule.

>mfw you believe female attention is the sole reason for the existance of greed

A large factor. Perhaps avarice would be more apt.

There are you happy you dumb cunt? Now go write furiously in your livejournal about how men suck.

>>3450117

> For the most part. Exceptions don't disprove the rule.

[citation needed]

> A large factor. Perhaps avarice would be more apt.

[citation needed]

> mfw my educated guess about you being a complete retard has proven to be correct

>>3450142

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoKA-a5vEEc

As for the second one it's just a logical link of causation, if you can't figure that than you're more retarded than I thought.

>mfw when angsty teens/man-children ITT rely on pictures to convey their point

>>3450159

>2011
>complaining about use of images on an IMAGEBOARD

I seriously hope you don't do this...

>>3450151

>mfw you give me the link to a goddamn youtube video from discovery channel

Well, at least it's better than your second point for which you don't even have a youtube video

>>3450167
>2011
>Using an image board as a forum

>>3450170

>mfw you rely solely on appeal to authority to gain new knowledge

I'm done, like I said women are irrational, I should've never started in the first place.

"Do not argue with an idiot. [They] will drag you down to [their] level and beat you with experience."

>>3450187
using the 2011 meme
thisshitrightherestopit.jpg

>>3450159
>mfw when the closet homosexual uses mfw and complains about people using images

>>3450194

> mfw you rely on youtube videos to gain new knowledge

> mfw I agree on your second point

> mfw you're running away from a discussion you cannot win but try and appear not like a dog running away with its tail between its legs by posting a supposedly witty quote

Come back anytime you want to lose a discussion again. I'd be happy to serve.