Can physical currency ever work?

[aworldsman]

I'm a total novice when it comes to economics and communism - if this is way off-base just tell me and I'll dig into some literature before I start hypothesizing :).


Based on observation and my understanding of past societies, it seems like any community with an economy based on scarcity is bound to fail. By that, I mean any economy that employs a scarce material like gold or silver as a representation of wealth. A physical currency.


It seems like a physical currency has historically induced:

1) Hoarding
2) Banks

From hoarding comes a emphasis on quantitative aspects of life and a total ignorance of qualitative aspects. Empathy and compassion evaporate in favor of competition and selfishness.

From banks comes representative currency (like paper receipts) for the sake of convenience. There arises incentive to debase this representative currency to redistribute wealth at the flick of a switch (or at the printing of a bill). This transition to fiat currency leads to collective corruption, increasingly imbalanced distribution of wealth, exploitation of the populace, and eventually the collapse of the currency and social order.

I just feel like there's a guaranteed path to corruption with any material form of wealth. It seems like emotional intelligence is the key to a healthy economy - an economy based on compassion, ability, and need.

What do you think?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Have you considered purely electronic currency?

[aworldsman]

I have.

I've considered an economy based on "thanks", references, and recommendations. I'm actually building a web application right now that's serving the purpose of this belief - that giving people social incentive to contribute positively and constructively to their communities will somehow help our cause, by shifting the incentive to contribute from monetary incentive to social incentive.

But I don't think people should contribute their energy to a community for recognition or pride. I think that's as dangerous as rewarding with money. I want the incentive to shift from monetary to social and then to spiritual. People will contribute because helping those in need is a self-evident and indisputable requirement for life. At this point, there's no need for counting or tracking contribution; it becomes as natural as breathing air.

An underlying assumption behind this theory is that the physicality of currency leads to the accumulation of a symbol, which is fueled by a desire to be desired, and loved. When someone stockpiles gold and shiny cars and influence, he becomes desirable, which leads to admiration and sex. My elementary understanding of corruption leads me to believe that corruption itself is only a manifestation of our need to procreate. It's the devilish side of our genome.

I think another way to catalyze this "incentive evolution" is to work with sex. Lead women along this path first, so they punish the gluttons of power with crossed legs and reward the leaders of compassion with open arms (and legs too ;) )

Maybe that's just a disillusioned, misinformed pipe dream. I'm smokin' it until something better comes along. :thumbup1:

[DeBon]

If a worker has an abundance of food, a pleasing wardrobe, good health, adequate housing, and a useful education, what's the point in having a currency to begin with?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If a worker has an abundance of food, a pleasing wardrobe, good health, adequate housing, and a useful education, what's the point in having a currency to begin with?

Because most people aspire to more than a system of welfarism handed down by some patronising technocrat.:thumbup1:

[aworldsman]

Doesn't welfare imply the existence of a state? And who says resources have to be handed down, why not just shared?