What would happen if people collectivley decided that money/currency has no value in itself, and abanded it?

[NaturaNaturans]

I am really curious about this. Any thoughts?

[Maddie]

4 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

I am really curious about this. Any thoughts?

 

Then we would go back to bartering like we did in the stone age. 

[NaturaNaturans]

13 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Then we would go back to bartering like we did in the stone age. 

That wasnt limited to the stoneage my Friend, first coins was taken in use 600bc

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

Widespread looting

[Maddie]

1 minute ago, Pak_Satrio said:

Widespread looting

 

I would imagine that society collapsing would precede people abandoning money. I'm thinking a post apocalyptic type scenario.  

[old3bob]

Fiat money has always been more or less a lie...and sooner or later collapses.  We can keep printing paper but 33-34 trillion bucks in debt is the reality...

[NaturaNaturans]

I made a little summary on a history forum, where i made the same thread. Thought people here might have a little different perspective however. Anyway:

 

 

Scimmed trough some chapters of "A little history of economics" by Niall Kishtainy in order to add some context and flesh to the conversation:



Economics is the study of how societies utilize their resources. Although this is an oversimplification, wealthy societies are successful in producing goods and services, while poorer ones are not. This has nothing to do with laziness, and everything to do with the effective use of resources. Resources are limited, but people's desires are not. Therefore, individuals have to make choices and prioritize their needs based on the costs associated with them.

People work for money, in order to afford what they want, and then we have the financial sector aswell as the goverment as fundemental partipicants of the modern economic system. The modern field of economics was born with capitalism. Pre-capitalism, people relied on working the land, either for themself or for a land lord, hunting and gathering as well as trade and reciprocity. With the first civilisations, we saw division of labour and social hierachies.

For Plato, the ideal economy was not one of markets, but one where people did what they where "born/meant" to do (the whole bronze, silver and gold souls thing). Society should ideally be a close polis/city state ruled by a philosopher king. Wisdom should be pursuied, the wise should rule and pursuit of wealth was viewed with discust. Kings and soldiers (gold and bronze) should not be allowed private property, in fear that it would corrupt them and lead to competition and distrust. Aristotle agreed with this sentiment, but feared that sharing everything would lead to even more competition. People should exchange goods for goods. Money could be a helpfull tool in this regard, but commerce and wealth herding was in his opinion still dubuous and unatural. Money lending was even more disgusting.

"the type of character which results from weath is that of a prosperous fool"
Aristotle

We see similar sentiments by medival christian thinkers. I am sure everyone here knows why only jews did banking in Europe. Then we have the rise feudalism, where the economy was centered around relationship and hierachy (God - king - land lords/nobility - peasants. But still, it was not about profit and greed was despised. The correct selling price for food was not "how much can i possibly get for this" but rather "what is fair".

With developments in technology and a change in attitude, Venice created the first Eruopean, commercial empire since antiquity. At the beggining of the 11th century the pope said that no merchant could ever enter heaven, by the end of it, a merchant with called Homobonus was made a saint.

Somewhere around 1500-1800 mercantalism arose. Basic idea is that a country should export more than they export, and this could be done achieved by interventions like tarrifs. This would bring in precious metals, witch was considered the measure of wealth at the time. The state played a significant role in regulating and controlling trade, often granting special privileges and monopolies to certain merchant companies. In return, these merchants supported and financed the state's economic and colonial endeavors. The state would issue charters and grants to merchant companies, giving them exclusive rights to trade in specific regions or commodities. These companies, such as the British East India Company or the Dutch East India Company, were given significant powers and authority to carry out trade, establish colonies, and even wage wars in certain cases. Mercantalism is often considered the precourser of capitalism.

The word "physiocrat," translated from French to English, means "rule by nature." They originated in 18th-century France, an authoritarian agricultural society where the third estate was heavily taxed and mercantilism was the prevailing economic policy. Mercantilism regarded the amount of precious metals as a measure of a country's wealth, and trade barriers as a means to maximize it. By ensuring that the country exported more than it imported, they also secured a positive flow of precious metals (favorable trade balance). Therefore, domestic production was also protected from foreign competition. Trading privileges were common.

The physiocrats turned this almost upside down. For them, all value stemmed from the harvesting of nature. By increasing the surplus of agriculture, a society became richer. They considered regulations, high taxation of farmers, and trading privileges as an evil, precisely because it ate away at the aforementioned surplus. This "hands-off" idea has been described as "laissez faire," which can be translated to "allow to do."

Francois Quesnay described a model where the surplus from agriculture created ripple effects in society at large. The farmers (the productive class) paid rent to landowners. The landowners (the unproductive class) traded with craftsmen (the sterile class), who in turn bought grain from the farmers.

The physiocrats are praised for moving away from money and gold as a measure of wealth. However, their view was somewhat narrow, as value was limited to the harvesting of nature, and not the total production of goods and services (GDP) that is often used today.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I havent yet touched upon full out capitalism and marxisim, which would be the natural continuation, but to be honest, I got a little tired. Maybe later.

[Maddie]

1 minute ago, old3bob said:

Fiat money has always been more or less a lie

 

What are most things if not perception? Money has value only because everyone agrees it does. Same with anything that has value. It is because enough people perceive something having value, it then works as a medium of exchange. 

 

Same could be said for almost anything. What is a country really? Enough people agree that everything and everyone on this side of an imaginary line are a certain country and follow certain rules and so it happens. Perception is everything.  

[old3bob]

3 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

What are most things if not perception? Money has value only because everyone agrees it does. Same with anything that has value. It is because enough people perceive something having value, it then works as a medium of exchange. 

 

Same could be said for almost anything. What is a country really? Enough people agree that everything and everyone on this side of an imaginary line are a certain country and follow certain rules and so it happens. Perception is everything.  

 

true in a lot of ways but then there is that which has a lot of across the board intrinsic value and which mankind has also fought hard for or against one another.

[Maddie]

5 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

true in a lot of ways but then there is that which has a lot of across the board intrinsic value and which mankind has also fought hard for or against one another.

 

For sure. I'm not arguing that people do not value things. My point is name one thing that has value to people that isn't perception? 

[SirPalomides]

If it was collectively decided then there must be a genuinely autonomous/ decentralized social structure in place. In which case we're looking at libertarian communism along the lines described by Peter Kropotkin. 

[blue eyed snake]

potable water, food, cords of wood , 4 walls and a roof to make a fire in.

 

sorry, that's four things.

 

chop wood, carry water

[Unota]

Value would probably be determined by personal necessity, rather than based off of a nation-wide economy that fluctuates around the stock market or something. Like in bartering systems. I'm not sure how exactly that would effect the entire world, though, to operate only off of bartering instead of currency. It would be more difficult to hold influence and power over the flow of resources and commodities. But I think that there will always be people that try to do that.

 

I don't know about other places, but here, and in other rural areas, bartering is pretty common. I've noticed a decline over the years, because people have less trust now in other people than in official businesses or industries. They act like any watermelon or pepper you try to give them out of kindness, because you have too many this year, is poisoned. (As if the ones sold at walmart or some other main-brand store, coated in pesticides is any better.)

 

I do a lot of favors, chores, I trade vegetables from my own garden when I have too many, or chicken eggs. I rarely need to buy anything that I 'want,' because I can always get it from someone else by doing something for them.

 

For necessities, though, my life is still controlled by the market, and I have to make choices between things like car insurance over having health insurance because they are priced so ridiculously compared to anything I could possibly produce, sell, or trade myself.

 

I'm not sure how people could still be provided these things, though, if there was no currency. I am not sure how you could compare something like the 'right to car insurance' each month, to say...eggs? Maybe car insurance would not be required in the first place, because someone could just as easily offer repairs for something from you in return. But, what if you don't have anything or a service you can provide that they would want? Would you just be without a vehicle now? Or what about other similar extreme circumstances? You would probably have to have government provide safety measures in case of things like that happening, I suppose?

 

It could potentially be better, or worse, considering how it was implemented. Unfortunately, I think that terrible people often find themselves in positions of power, and ruin everything no matter what. It's fun to think about for a moment, though. Sorry if this is a bit ignorant. I don't care much for the economy. I am also in too much of a hurry to think too deeply about it, we are getting a cold front overnight, and I have to go back out for more firewood. Maybe I will check back later.

[old3bob]

2 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

For sure. I'm not arguing that people do not value things. My point is name one thing that has value to people that isn't perception? 

 

I agree with blue eyed snake about those things for basic needs and survival. and I'd add clothing, more livable land per climate, some medicine, and people with basic skills for same.

Edited January 12 by old3bob

[Maddie]

2 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

I agree with blue eyed snake about those things for basic needs and survival. and I'd add clothing and some medicine along with people with basic skills for same.

 

I didn't even realize he was responding to me lol. 

 

Just because something is necessary for survival does not mean it is not perceived though. In order to gather survival basics one has to both perceive they need these things and also perceive what they need to get to meet these perceived needs.

 

I'm probably going to get at least someone saying "but wait survival needs aren't perceptions they are real needs" to which I would respond, how do we know what reality is if now via perception? 

[old3bob]

seeing people starve, freeze, or very ill

[Gerard]

Knowing how much humans are attached to their PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE and the deep state of FEAR most humans live:

 

Total collapse of society.

[Nungali]

18 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

I am really curious about this. Any thoughts?

 

Trade   ...  and the collapse of 'civilisation as we know it '  .

[NaturaNaturans]

3 hours ago, Nungali said:

and the collapse of 'civilisation as we know it '  .

Does this excite you?

[SirPalomides]

https://libcom.org/article/anarchist-communism-introduction

[Nungali]

9 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Does this excite you?

 

No .  It sounds like one giant hassle to me, even though I am better placed than most for such a scenario  .... I am very comfortable at the moment .

 

Civilization can collapse all it wants  ..... after I am gone .

[Barnaby]

On 12/01/2024 at 7:56 PM, SirPalomides said:

If it was collectively decided then there must be a genuinely autonomous/ decentralized social structure in place. In which case we're looking at libertarian communism along the lines described by Peter Kropotkin. 

 

Dig it

[Cobie]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

… I am very comfortable at the moment …

 And that’s how you know you’ve grown old! 
 

 

Edited January 13 by Cobie

[Nungali]

53 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 And that’s how you know you’ve grown old! 
 

 

 

No ... that is indicated by personal  physical  'uncomfort' .   The 'comfort' I was  talking about is 'civilizational ' .

 

 

[Cobie]

OP: “What would happen if people collectivley decided that money/currency has no value in itself, and abanded it?”

 Nothing would happen. Due to a technicality, nothing needed to be abandoned.  
 

 

Edited January 13 by Cobie