weird money idea

[Pæs]

Hi everybody.  On my way home from sniffing glue I had a strange money idea. 

Wouldn't it be handy if all of our currency was chocolate coins

That way, if you wanted to buy chocolate but there weren't any stores open, you could eat your coins instead. Partially eaten chocolate coins would still be legal tender and their weight after nibbling would be used to determine current value.

Stores that accumulate lots of chocolate coins could melt them down into chocolate bars which they then sell for chocolate coins.

In some ways, it's a lot like falling in love.

I don't see a way, however, to resolve the problem of where to get the chocolate, other than buying it with chocolate of inequal value.

anyhow - weird idea - thought i'd share.

[Eater of Clowns]

Hi everybody.  On my way home from sniffing glue I had a strange money idea. 

Wouldn't it be handy if all of our currency was chocolate coins

That way, if you wanted to buy chocolate but there weren't any stores open, you could eat your coins instead. Partially eaten chocolate coins would still be legal tender and their weight after nibbling would be used to determine current value.

Stores that accumulate lots of chocolate coins could melt them down into chocolate bars which they then sell for chocolate coins.

In some ways, it's a lot like falling in love.

I don't see a way, however, to resolve the problem of where to get the chocolate, other than buying it with chocolate of inequal value.

anyhow - weird idea - thought i'd share.

I see no reason for these two ideas to be exclusive.

Why not make negative value chocolate coins?

[Resigned Obligatorily]

Negative inflation currencies can be useful in certain economic situations, where one wants to stimulate spending and punish hoarding...but this isn't exactly the same thing.

If the currency could be based on something that remains constant.
Theoretically, it could stay at a perpetual happy medium between the two extremes.

This raises a completely different question though. Why is hording bad?

When someone earns a bunch of money, they aren't exactly grabbing it from people and running to their hideout. The 'profit' was earned by first flowing through long chain of productivity.
Workers, taxes, satisfied consumers, and growth of the business' potential to repeat that process on a larger scale.

When citizens save money, their country then becomes stronger. When ever someone coasts from pay check to pay check they are opening their lives up to infinite possibilities of becoming drains on the system. Those lesser hoarders may not be what you were referring to.

If you are referring to the billionaire or possibly trillionaires.
There are so few of them: they are an abnormality. Their position is a sort of paradox in the monetary system.

Luckily, they are so far outnumbered that there really shouldn't be any need for laws to hold them down.
The power of the masses far out weighs their buying power. Laws specifically to hold people back would not be needed if everyone was simply aware and active. The people wouldn't have to dethrone and behead them. They could just obligatorily elect them as the poor people feeders.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

When citizens save money, their country then becomes stronger.

Wrong.  When money doesn't move, economies collapse.  Ask the Japanese about that, back in, say, 1989.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The reason "savings bonds" were invented was to get the money people were squirreling away under their mattresses back into circulation. Uncirculated money is the death of an economic system, just as much as uncirculated blood is the death of an animal system.

[Resigned Obligatorily]

When citizens save money, their country then becomes stronger.

Wrong.  When money doesn't move, economies collapse.  Ask the Japanese about that, back in, say, 1989.

I concede that point, to replace it with a question.
Could it be said that its all about balance?

If the citizens are either too broke, then their job becomes slavery.
They would have to do anything to not get fired. (extreme example) Boss says, "suck my dick"
If they hoard too much then there is no money flow.

Maybe there could be a basic savings cap. Enough to eat and be housed for the rest of their lives could be be a good limit perhaps?

(Note that unspent money is not loss, it is opportunity loss)

[Faust]

Could it be said that its all about balance?

Economically there is no balance, it's more of a cycle, with a different group on the shit end of the stick each turn it takes.

[Resigned Obligatorily]

The reason "savings bonds" were invented was to get the money people were squirreling away under their mattresses back into circulation. Uncirculated money is the death of an economic system, just as much as uncirculated blood is the death of an animal system.

Nice explanation. Choosing to take it one step too literal.

Essentially, the flow speed of cash has to be adequate to provide sustenance for our biological needs. The economy users can be patient and wait for the mattress fillers to spend their money, but not so patient that they die of hunger and weather exposure waiting for it.

Instant spending being too fast to rationally make a choice, and our biological needs creating a time limit.
Somewhere in between those two extremes has to be the correct speed of economic flow.

That is such a vague inconclusive conclusion, but I'm trying to find a common ground everyone can agree with.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I concede that point, to replace it with a question.
Could it be said that its all about balance?

I would instead say that it is all about skiing downhill on sheer ice.  You're FINE until you LOSE YOUR NERVE.

Fact:  With only one exception, all the recessions and depressions we've suffered in America (and there were a bunch, especially in the 1800s) were entirely caused by lack of public confidence.

[Resigned Obligatorily]

Could it be said that its all about balance?

Economically there is no balance, it's more of a cycle, with a different group on the shit end of the stick each turn it takes.

Randomness dictating who gets the shit end?
Either through random genetic traits allowing you to have skills to pay the bills, or through actual randomness first come, first serve!! If a shit worker comes to the front of the line first, toooo baaaad!

[Resigned Obligatorily]

I concede that point, to replace it with a question.
Could it be said that its all about balance?

I would instead say that it is all about skiing downhill on sheer ice.  You're FINE until you LOSE YOUR NERVE.

Fact:  With only one exception, all the recessions and depressions we've suffered in America (and there were a bunch, especially in the 1800s) were entirely caused by lack of public confidence.

I think, therefore I am. (heard that quote on TV, not claiming to be a philosopher)
(but economically)
I think I am doing good economically, therefore I am doing good economically!
(But on a larger scale)
We think we are doing good economically, and therefore we are doing good economically.
(Emergency arrives)
We think we can unite and face this issue head, doing what is best for the most people and not stab at each other's backs, therefore we can face the issue head on without stabbing each other's backs.

(Ironic that our sustenance come from interacting with the economy, and the economy comes from our belief in it, if that was algebra, belief would equal sustenance, which is sort of what I said in the first sentence)

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The reason "savings bonds" were invented was to get the money people were squirreling away under their mattresses back into circulation. Uncirculated money is the death of an economic system, just as much as uncirculated blood is the death of an animal system.

Nice explanation. Choosing to take it one step too literal.

Essentially, the flow speed of cash has to be adequate to provide sustenance for our biological needs. The economy users can be patient and wait for the mattress fillers to spend their money, but not so patient that they die of hunger and weather exposure waiting for it.

Instant spending being too fast to rationally make a choice, and our biological needs creating a time limit.
Somewhere in between those two extremes has to be the correct speed of economic flow.

That is such a vague inconclusive conclusion, but I'm trying to find a common ground everyone can agree with.

I have kids, which means that sometimes I use analogies that are oversimplistic. But, yeah. The thing about money economies is that the more money circulates in them, the healthier they are. This is also why borrowing is better for an economy than saving; the more times money changes hands, the more useful it is in terms of the benefit people reap from it.

Look at it this way; money is actually a representation of work. When it changes hands, it is buying work of some kind in exchange for someone else's work. If you view it as a representation of work, when it isn't changing hands, what does that mean?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And, if you look at it that way, which is better for the economy; saving up today's work in order to spend it later, or exchanging all your work for someone else's work now, and in return, when you get old or otherwise lack the ability to work, those who are still capable of doing a lot of work take care of your basic needs?

[Faust]

Could it be said that its all about balance?

Economically there is no balance, it's more of a cycle, with a different group on the shit end of the stick each turn it takes.

Randomness dictating who gets the shit end?
Either through random genetic traits allowing you to have skills to pay the bills, or through actual randomness first come, first serve!! If a shit worker comes to the front of the line first, toooo baaaad!

Hrm, no I didn't say random I just said there isn't a balance, it's a complex multivariate system that has a lot of determining factors.

For instance we have had bad weather here for the last few weeks.
Bad weather means few fish caught which means fishermen get less money which means less money in an area, and less fish means more expensive fish which means more expensive food in hotels and restaurants (who tend to buy a lot of fish), higher expenses for hotels of restaurants means recouping cash which means less work hours to go around for staff which means harder working conditions or it means less options for tourists to eat which can mean negative reviews and less people coming.

Now apply this globally, built up of every little component and add in peoples greed, corruption and incompetence as well as the vaguely insane workings of government and you get a rough approximation of what is actually going on.
A system that appears random at a glance which is actually incredibly ordered by volatile.

[Resigned Obligatorily]

Look at it this way; money is actually a representation of work. When it changes hands, it is buying work of some kind in exchange for someone else's work. If you view it as a representation of work, when it isn't changing hands, what does that mean?

It means you're putting work into a time capsule.  Work gets teleported directly into the future.

In this future it could be worth more or less or the same as it was worth before.
The mattress equates to being a kind of a teleporter/shrink ray of randomness.

The time between being sent and being received has less money circulating.
Which, means the economy's circulatory system has less blood to pump.

Causing symptoms, not death. If symptoms persist, because society is a cowardly hypochondriac, it decides to amputate its own arms and legs so that it doesn't need to use as much blood.

The poor limbs suffer, while the brain and  a few random dangling parts have a party on a golden wheel chair.

And, if you look at it that way, which is better for the economy; saving up today's work in order to spend it later, or exchanging all your work for someone else's work now, and in return, when you get old or otherwise lack the ability to work, those who are still capable of doing a lot of work take care of your basic needs?

Out of the kindness of their own heart? Or would you take care of an old person till they passed, then you would inherit some sort of stale chocolate coin. Then when your old, someone who want that security would help you for your coin? (eating the chocolate would also be an option)

The idea is sound on principle, people are just too #%@#!$ (something too profane for words) to be trusted with the lives of a nice (or crotchety) old person for anything but their own personal gain. (Thats a generalization too, of course there are sweet lovely (insert gender oriented description here) moralfags too.