Money occupies a funny place in our society right now. It is simultaneously the most important aspect in the lives of almost every person, and yet in a very real way, it does not exist. By that, I do not mean that the money in your wallet doesn't exist; in a physical and tangible sense, very clearly it does. But just as truly, the amount of money in the world today is a meaningless sum. There is no rational or reasonable basis for it; the ability for banks to simply imagine money into being has taken the entire concept, and rendered it meaningless. The amount of physical money in existence is completely divorced from the amount that we, as a society, believe exists.
What makes this funnier still is that we don't even have a real picture of where this imaginary money exists. I just want to repeat that; on a global scale, we don't know what money does exist and what money doesn't. Certainly, there's some pretty good ideas, but when it comes to pinning down exactly what is and isn't real, nobody can tell you.
John Lennon encouraged us to imagine a world without money. Well. That ship has sailed. The collapse of communism, supposedly, was the nail in the coffin of such an idealistic dream. Why, if we don't have money, what would we buy? Surely, all human progress is driven by the need for cash; or really for personal gain. If there was no incentive for innovation, then there'd be no reason for people to make new things; everyone would simply wallow in laziness and our glorious consumer society would collapse in on itself.
But look at the world we're living in. The actual innovators, the inventors and the artists, the creative individuals, don't make the money in the process anyway. That honour goes to the people who play the game, the businessmen, distributors, corporations. Whilst it is certainly true that the innovators make a certain amount of money (and in the case of the lucky few, as in any industry, sometimes a lot of money), to say that this is the primary driving force behind the great innovations of our time seems to me to be a major leap of logic. Money doesn't buy innovation. The human drive to create, discover, and explain cannot be attributed purely to greed. It does, however, churn out products to be consumed; it ensures that heavily processed entertainment which is seen as 'safe' continues to be spat out. It brings us the canned sandwich and the Snuggie.
Money is the root of all evil, but at the same time, it penetrates every inch of our lives. Without it, the ability to live in the most basic ways is restricted. The cost of food and shelter continue to spiral higher and higher, whilst the illusionary money that we've made up poisons what could laughably be called our real economy.
The game is rigged, and ensures that when things do start to collapse, the 'real' money will be concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite. This, at a time when our planet is starting to send us real and undeniable signals that the fun times are over; when the most basically necessary resources of food and shelter are coming under growing threat.
Yet we cling to our illusory money, because what other choice is there? Throwing it away on an individual level is impossible, attempts to work as a collective, self-sustaining community will be crushed by the state or by their own internal issues. Only a radical use of political will to seize that money, redistribute it, and reorganize the entire global economy could see us through this without the vast bulk of humanity suffering, our creative and scientific talent stifled, our collective societies brought to a stumbling halt as the next generations try to figure out how to deal with this entirely man-made problem.
And isn't that the joke? A great man once said, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."
We wouldn't have it any other way.
But when you're this deep in, there's nowhere left to fall! :lulz:
Dok,
Knows that patently isn't true.
One of my favorite ways of describing the value of money in the modern world is that it is now only backed and supported by the collective delusion of the people who are using it.
I really liked this OP.
What makes you think redistribution would solve anything and that we wouldn't end up right back where we are now given enough time?
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 29, 2011, 06:30:51 PM
One of my favorite ways of describing the value of money in the modern world is that it is now only backed and supported by the collective delusion of the people who are using it.
It was the same under the gold standard.
What makes me mad is that I'm sure, every single person every way up the food chain believes they can't enact real change.
The man on the street
knows he can't change anything; he's too busy trying to survive day to day, and it isn't like politicians give a shit even if he tried.
CEOs
know they can't afford to change their practices; if they did, they'd lose their stockholders and their competitors would get an advantage.
Stockholders
know they can't stick with businesses that don't behave in the accepted fashion; those are doomed to failure.
Politicians
know that they can't try and change the economy radically for so many reasons; they'll lose their backers and then they won't be in office to enact their other, important changes. Or else, if they did, businesses would just fly elsewhere and leave nothing behind. Because it is better to let leeches suck your blood dry than risk they go to another victim, I suppose.
And because everyone buys into the illusion, and
know that nothing can change, nothing
can change.
I'm not sure where the maximum limit to how far we can fall is, Dok. I'm sure we'll leave a pretty crater when we hit though.
Quote from: Disco PickleWhat makes you think redistribution would solve anything and that we wouldn't end up right back where we are now given enough time?
I don't know.
I do know that the current situation is untenable. I place this blame squarely on the shoulders of the systems which have encouraged it; the global financial world, the existence of stock markets and the ability of banks to conjure money from nothing and then make that money 'real' by socializing it when they run into the hard limits of it.
I have no idea what would stop it going back the same way given time. I don't think it is possible to extricate ourselves from this system at all, realistically.
Like I said at the end; we wouldn't have it any other way. We're bound by these self-made chains, limiting the creative potential of our species in order to pursue imaginary profit and material gain. Because we value those things more highly than establishing a basic level of comfortable survival for our fellow man, or exploring the wonders of the universe for their own sake.
Problem is, the entire system is a trap.
The Joe on the street wants to see big returns on his IRA/401K.
The CEO knows he has to make short-sited decisions to realize those returns, to keep his job and get his bonus.
The CEO outsources jobs to do so.
Joe is now out of work.
With no consumer base, the system crashes.
And at no point will or CAN anyone do anything to stop it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 06:31:30 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 29, 2011, 06:30:51 PM
One of my favorite ways of describing the value of money in the modern world is that it is now only backed and supported by the collective delusion of the people who are using it.
It was the same under the gold standard.
Well yes, but you couldn't walk into a bank vault and press some buttons and make new gold instantly.
Pretty big difference.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 29, 2011, 06:47:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 06:31:30 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 29, 2011, 06:30:51 PM
One of my favorite ways of describing the value of money in the modern world is that it is now only backed and supported by the collective delusion of the people who are using it.
It was the same under the gold standard.
Well yes, but you couldn't walk into a bank vault and press some buttons and make new gold instantly.
Pretty big difference.
But you can't eat gold, and you CAN sell more than exists.
Also, if something physically happens to the gold, you're FUCKED. We had a depression in the 1850s because of that.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 06:48:16 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 29, 2011, 06:47:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 06:31:30 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 29, 2011, 06:30:51 PM
One of my favorite ways of describing the value of money in the modern world is that it is now only backed and supported by the collective delusion of the people who are using it.
It was the same under the gold standard.
Well yes, but you couldn't walk into a bank vault and press some buttons and make new gold instantly.
Pretty big difference.
But you can't eat gold, and you CAN sell more than exists.
Also, if something physically happens to the gold, you're FUCKED. We had a depression in the 1850s because of that.
Not sure how not being able to eat gold factors into it.
And yep, fractional reserve banking has been a bane on humans since it was conceived.
Hell, banking, or at least usury has been a bane on humans since it was conceived.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 29, 2011, 06:54:32 PM
Not sure how not being able to eat gold factors into it.
It's just an arbitrary counting method, just like fiat currency. It's just another way of putting the books before reality.
In 1850 and today, there was nothing wrong with the means of production. The shops/factories were operational, farms were still capable of producing food, etc. But since the numbering systems got all fucked up, we were unable to DO anything, despite the actual state of affairs.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 29, 2011, 06:54:32 PM
Hell, banking, or at least usury has been a bane on humans since it was conceived.
Except that banking is the only way we know of to be able to generate wealth fast enough to keep up with the population. Unless you'd prefer to see a return to cottage industry.
Quote from: Doktor HowlProblem is, the entire system is a trap.
The Joe on the street wants to see big returns on his IRA/401K.
The CEO knows he has to make short-sited decisions to realize those returns, to keep his job and get his bonus.
The CEO outsources jobs to do so.
Joe is now out of work.
With no consumer base, the system crashes.
And at no point will or CAN anyone do anything to stop it.
That's pretty much it.
What drives me mad is that last bit. Nobody can do anything to stop it. But why? The system is fucking
broken, why can't we do anything to fix it?
And then you look at why, and it comes down to the fact that the people who are in a position to fix it, actually are doing pretty damned nicely out of the mess they make.
And you try to explain this to people, and you either get a laugh "Oh Demolition Squid, that can't be right, we wouldn't let that carry on." Or, "Well yeah, but I can't do shit about that, stop depressing me." Or written off as an idealistic idiot for thinking that things should be better; because this system of rampant greed is what made us great! And if you can't make yourself great, you're a lazy idiot.
I mean, you'd think, as we see crash after crash and it becomes clearer and clearer that the system IS a damn trap, people would want to stop throwing themselves into it. But no.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on August 29, 2011, 07:05:45 PM
What drives me mad is that last bit. Nobody can do anything to stop it. But why? The system is fucking broken, why can't we do anything to fix it?
Because capitalism has become a
religion.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 06:58:20 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 29, 2011, 06:54:32 PM
Not sure how not being able to eat gold factors into it.
It's just an arbitrary counting method, just like fiat currency. It's just another way of putting the books before reality.
In 1850 and today, there was nothing wrong with the means of production. The shops/factories were operational, farms were still capable of producing food, etc. But since the numbering systems got all fucked up, we were unable to DO anything, despite the actual state of affairs.
I'm not arguing for a gold standard. Never have actually. I was trying to illustrate the difference when a computer can be used to instantly create or destroy "money" compared to the time before that was possible.
That distinction applies to paper currency as well. You still had to print the stuff and move it into a bank vault eventually before it could be said to be a deposit.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 06:59:34 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 29, 2011, 06:54:32 PM
Hell, banking, or at least usury has been a bane on humans since it was conceived.
Except that banking is the only way we know of to be able to generate wealth fast enough to keep up with the population. Unless you'd prefer to see a return to cottage industry.
Only by enslaving ourselves can we create what we need to survive.
What a racket.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 29, 2011, 07:08:00 PM
Only by enslaving ourselves can we create what we need to survive.
What a racket.
Enslaving ourselves?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 07:09:21 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 29, 2011, 07:08:00 PM
Only by enslaving ourselves can we create what we need to survive.
What a racket.
Enslaving ourselves?
Money as Debt.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 29, 2011, 07:11:05 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 07:09:21 PM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on August 29, 2011, 07:08:00 PM
Only by enslaving ourselves can we create what we need to survive.
What a racket.
Enslaving ourselves?
Money as Debt.
Money is just a method of counting, DP. The debt comes from people wanting to use the counting system to buy loads of unnecessary shit, like aircraft carriers and patriotic little wars over basically nothing.
I was working on another post, but... I can't work out multi-quotes, because I am dumb, and now I'm curious about this:
Quote from: Doktor HowlMoney is just a method of counting, DP. The debt comes from people wanting to use the counting system to buy loads of unnecessary shit, like aircraft carriers and patriotic little wars over basically nothing.
Could you explain this?
If the systems of production are fundamentally sound, why is it necessary to introduce a counting system into the equation? I feel like I'm missing a piece of the puzzle, here.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on August 29, 2011, 07:19:01 PM
I was working on another post, but... I can't work out multi-quotes, because I am dumb, and now I'm curious about this:
Quote from: Doktor HowlMoney is just a method of counting, DP. The debt comes from people wanting to use the counting system to buy loads of unnecessary shit, like aircraft carriers and patriotic little wars over basically nothing.
Could you explain this?
If the systems of production are fundamentally sound, why is it necessary to introduce a counting system into the equation? I feel like I'm missing a piece of the puzzle, here.
Because we are primates, and money is the counting system
that tells us which bananas we personally own. We are unable to function without this, for the same reason Chimpanzee packs are unable to function without territory.
I have a theory that this was partly why the Roman Empire collapsed. Because you just can't do Arithmetic in Roman numerals. They couldn't make sheets of paper big enough to work it all out on.
... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs.
-- Robert Firth
Damn that Robert Firth! Stealing my theory, and calling it his own!
:? We also had no zero, for centuries after that. And now you have three of your very own!
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 08:33:44 PM
Damn that Robert Firth! Stealing my theory, and calling it his own!
:? We also had no zero, for centuries after that. And now you have three of your very own!
That's just the illusion of more zeros caused by inflation.
Ah, I see. Sneaky. 3x0=0 kinda thing?
As an aside, the biggest hope I have that there might be change was in the riots.
It proves that there is a point where people who have nothing, no reason to trust in the system, will turn against it given the first sign of an opportunity.
That sort of thing forces people who do have something to lose to sit up and listen.
It looks like the government are going to royally fuck up even trying to address the underlying causes, which means that the next time it happens, it'll probably be bigger. I suspect that we're going to see a lot of authoritarian attempts to clamp down, and as more people suffer for it, more violence, which will lead to more jackbooting...
It is probably hopelessly optimistic to believe that anything good might come out of it, but I can dream. The trouble is, the media is determined to portray the rioters as purely thugs and criminals, without spending much time trying to communicate to people why these individuals are thugs and criminals. I hope that eventually, there'll come a point where people start to ask that question. I'm not holding my breath.
30 years ago, when Charles and Diana got married, there were riots. This year when William and wossname got married, there were riots.
Solution? Easy. Ban Royal weddings. Job done, innit?
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 10:33:42 PM
30 years ago, when Charles and Diana got married, there were riots. This year when William and wossname got married, there were riots.
Solution? Easy. Ban Royal weddings. Job done, innit?
Or have more of them.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 11:43:33 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 10:33:42 PM
30 years ago, when Charles and Diana got married, there were riots. This year when William and wossname got married, there were riots.
Solution? Easy. Ban Royal weddings. Job done, innit?
Or have more of them.
I'm easy, either way. I'm quite conducive to the idea of a well organised riot. (Not like the shambles we've just had) I'd prefer not to encourage those fucking Windsors to breed anymore though. That really does send out the wrong signals.
Quote from: BadBeast on August 30, 2011, 12:03:19 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 11:43:33 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 10:33:42 PM
30 years ago, when Charles and Diana got married, there were riots. This year when William and wossname got married, there were riots.
Solution? Easy. Ban Royal weddings. Job done, innit?
Or have more of them.
I'm easy, either way. I'm quite conducive to the idea of a well organised riot. (Not like the shambles we've just had) I'd prefer not to encourage those fucking Windsors to breed anymore though. That really does send out the wrong signals.
Balls. Your nation has been in decline ever since you allowed your chinless ear waggers to begin dying off.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 30, 2011, 12:04:07 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 30, 2011, 12:03:19 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 29, 2011, 11:43:33 PM
Quote from: BadBeast on August 29, 2011, 10:33:42 PM
30 years ago, when Charles and Diana got married, there were riots. This year when William and wossname got married, there were riots.
Solution? Easy. Ban Royal weddings. Job done, innit?
Or have more of them.
I'm easy, either way. I'm quite conducive to the idea of a well organised riot. (Not like the shambles we've just had) I'd prefer not to encourage those fucking Windsors to breed anymore though. That really does send out the wrong signals.
Balls. Your nation has been in decline ever since you allowed your chinless ear waggers to begin dying off.
That was because they started hybridising with those fucking Lizards. Incompatible plasm. They used up Princess Margaret in spare parts attempting in vain to keep the poor old Queen Mum alive. Luckily they still have a few of her eggs, being looked after by the Ravens in the Tower, but fuck knows if they're viable. Soon, they'll announce that that new Princess
will be pragnent, and they'll try and hatch one of the fuckers. If it's another monster, they'll let her keep her own baby, and dump the hybrid in Loch Ness. Again. If it's a successful cross, they'll feed Kate's real baby to it, and raise another Reptoid Prince, like Philip.
#All in all, which is worse? Dynastic Reptoid Royals, or a bit of Rioting? I can't make my mind up.