What is Money really and what its faults and

Well back in the 60s and 70s, I saw a change coming and so started looking for alternatives. I started thinking about what would happen when this wicked corrupt hateful system collapses.

The Bible says that the day will come when people will throw their money into the streets, so thinking about that I saw that money has no intrinsic value and began to think about what does have true value.

Food itself is only of temporary value, being able to produce food is of immense value.

Knowledge is very valuable but only knowledge that would help you to survive without this system.

One movie I saw said; “when the streets run red, buy land”. So another valuable thing is land available for your use. Tools would also be valuable so the land can be worked and shelter can be made. Seeds to grow food are valuable. A source of water is valuable. Friendship and cooperation is valuable.

A child can understand that this system is not sustainable. It’s time for us to start thinking about what is sustainable. Where are the “economists” that are thinking about sustainability and a new economic system that is sustainable. Ask can money be useful in a sustainable economic system and if so how.

 

Money is something that we all recognize and accept as a medium of exchange.

The 1828 version of Websters dictionary defined it as:

1. Coin; stamped metal; any piece of metal, usually gold, silver or copper, stamped by public authority, and used as the medium of commerce. We sometimes give the name of money to other coined metals,and to any other material which rude nations use a medium of trade. But among modern commercial nations, gold, silver and copper are the only metals used for this purpose. Gold and silver, containing great value in small compass, and being therefore of easy conveyance, and being also durable and little liable to diminution by use, are the most convenient metals for coin or money, which is the representative of commodities of all kinds, of lands, and of every thing that is capable of being transferred in commerce.

2. Bank notes or bills of credit issued by authority, and exchangeable for coin or redeemable, are also called money; as such notes in modern times represent coin, and are used as a substitute for it. If a man pays in hand for goods in bank notes which are current, he is said to pay in ready money.

3. Wealth; affluence.

 

money is something that a capitalist society forces us to recognize and accept as a medium of exchange

 

how is that force when you accept the benefits surrounding it. its not force to use notes and get involved into trust scenarios. whether u know it or not, using what u think is your name, a title, actually is a trademark, franchise and benefit attaches you to the national debt. people need to understand more of what system they are operating under. this is not a knock on you btw..

 

All societies are capitalist, but you can still barter in some of the less developed areas of the world, but how would you purchase a house or an automobile, purchase a plane ticket, go to a movie, etc. without the use of some form of money? There's nothing at all wrong with the concept of money, and it worked quite well up until actions of Wilson 1913, Roosevelt 1933, and Nixon 1971.

 

do you use fed notes or use a title of any kind? if you do, you recognize international law...

 

lol ok I will try to elaborate more later today if thats ok

 

not at all. money is just energy. but its not the money, its the fact that there is a national debt and the US is operating under admiratly which has nothing to do with common law per se, but about trusts, estates and partnerships. since you are using a franchise, a title, you become attached to whatever liabilities are attached to that name. you say you are a resident and citizen, you just attached yourself to two entities known as the state of and the US as legal persons.

 

You can't really believe that.
instead of going for the hog, the king, or any other ruling system will create a way to get thier peice.
trade 6 chickens for a hog, give a 7th chicken to the king.

Shortly the poor will revolt?
That's very doubtful. It will take a long time for the poor to revolt. While it takes the poor tsome time to get frustrated and organize, the king has used the chickens to trade w/ other nations and has amassed an army.

I agree w/ your sentiment but I completely disagree w/ peoples' overall thinking that some other system of barter or non monetary economy is better. In the end, the injustices in one system will appear in others. In other words, it is not the systems that are poorly designed, it is various peoples' use of those systems.

ETA.
BTW, I've watched the Ascent of Money and have a pretty good understanding of the basis of our monetary system as well as it's history and that of our banking system.

 

Can you share w/ us how your non monetary system works and what its society looks like?

I need some concrete work done at my house.
How would I go about compensating the mason?
I have some things at home I no longer need.
A wooden chair, a set of dinner ware (forks, spoons, etc...) that my wife and I received as a wedding present.

 

Do we really need to go off on a tangent? While money in hand may serve to represent physical or mental energy expended, the use of it only provides us with a convenient means of trading with one another for goods or services. While I am a citizen of the U.S. I am not a resident, while my personage is legal irregardless of where I decide to live.

Try to adhere more closely to the thread topic, and I might agree that paper money can be a source of energy, at least so if set afire or are you just making a claim based on E=MC^2 ? But then the denomination of the paper bill becomes irrelevant as their relative weights are essentially the same.

See, isn't it much better to remain on topic?

 

This, IMO is at the heart of the current problem. Greed.
Which has little if nothing to do w/ a monetary system.

Devise any system and the greedy will expoloit it for their own personal gain.

To eliminate this, it is not just the system we need to look at and find weaknesses but rather humanity and human nature that needs an adjustment.

 

why does anyone need to own anything?

 

IMO, the banking system and the way it makes loans makes sens conceptually. The way it has been implemented has been guided by greed.

Let's say the car dealer didn't want chickens but was willing to accept them as payment - or let's even say he did want chickens.
What next, now you (who happens to be a chicken farmer) give him 350 chickens and get a car.

But what happens to your chicken farm?
Your productivity has just been diminished. Not a good thing at all. You might now have a problem feeding your family, but, you've got a new car.

This is not very different from taking out a loan to buy a car.

There's also the aspect of how long it takes someone to acquire enough goods (that other's want or willing to accept) to trade in a barter system.
Would it take a farmer one year to save 350 chickens so when they have been traded his farms productivity is not diminished? Would it take one month? Or 5 years?
IDK, but these things have to be considered otherwise the velocity of money can be very drastically effected.

 

It's your choice to make if you want, but most of us don't. But if you wish to procure something other than the discards of others, it would be wise to earn some money, don't you think?

 

wow. what did the application look like for you to be a citizen or what bona fide evidence do you have to prove that you are?

 

What does that have to do with the thread topic?

 

yes....yes...i understand what you're saying. i'm not going to get into a multiquote exercise. i am putting forth information that i am confident can lead to discussion. your points 'make sense' in a macrocosm. as fodder for discussion, when you reduce the matter of 'money and economies' to local matters, the large conceptual issues generally disappear. i'm using chickens and rockers as examples of 'what can go wrong without money', and to show why money was created and made sense for the common man. for the 'ruler', money made sense from another perspective. all the economists are now is rationalizers for rulers...bernanke is simply a tool of the government to avoid a collapse...or to try to avoid one. is he really managing commerce? inadvertently, he is. i don't know if he understands the effect his manipulations have on commerce and society, or if he cares.

look at the thread title....'and what is wrong with it' (shit, i can't even see the title on this screen, but i'm not a detail person, anyway, unless they are my details that i have to use). what is 'wrong' with money is that it is manipulable. what is 'right' with money is that it is manipulable. a general system of 'value' which is widely recognized is necessary to have commerce at more than a local level if we do not wish to have small knots of middle ages fiefdoms. money is not the root of evil; the greed for power is the root of evil.

when i go into a store to buy something, i have no huge issue with 'money'. when i look at how the monetary system is managed, i have a huge issue with 'money'. note the difference. to make this a little clearer (i'm sure you have the understanding of this, but i'm not sure it's clear to any other reader)...at the local level...no one really gives a damn about the velocity of money. not such that they would understand the term....at the local level, if Sam owes Bill $20, that is the velocity they are interested in...'where's my $20?'. it's the difference between the fisherman trying to catch his supper on the river, and the high level government hydrologist who is trying to manage the flow of the river such that barges can get supplies 1,000 miles up it. the issue can also be characterized as the person with the large view doesn't give a carp about any individual (unless they are his wife, children, whatever); the fisherman will bring his catch to his wife or whomever to cook.

if you watched the whole 'Ascent of Money', why not share with the group some perspectives you gained from it? if i could get 20% of the adult population to view that series, i think it could change the economy. i think the economy desperately needs changing...something along the lines of what Dave Ramsey advocates might save us some trouble in the future.

OWB, i recall a story from economics about the Weimar Republic. a man went in the store to buy something....at that time, inflation was so bad, he had brought a wheelbarrow to the store to carry his money in....had wads of bills in it. when he came out, the wheelbarrow was gone, and the bills had been simply dumped out on the sidewalk. i have never met anyone who knows if this is a true story-i think it's an economist's legend, perhaps.

and one last thought for today....this made me laugh...

should money be outlawed? as a tool, it is responsible for more wars, more killing than perhaps anything except 'power'. what would take the place of money if it were outlawed? do a mental exercise and think about that if you wish.

 

well since money is such a general term, i am trying to find out what kind of money we are talking about. and then what kind of accounting system, attachments and legal ramifications that follow therewith. something as simple as money is a broad concept and to try and simplify it maybe doing the thread a disservice. now isn't the thread what is money?

 

Just because you wish not to own much doesn't mean everyone thinks the same.

On another note money is a great trading medium and simplifies trading for goods. The problem is we no longer have the gold standard so our money has no backing anymore. Money just makes trading a lot simpler, if we didn't have money I would have to make multiple trades just to get one thing. Well with money I only have to make one trade to get what I want/need.