Money

[Hoppe]

I was reading this thread in science: http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...pic=26756&st=20 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26756&st=20).

Many people claimed the worst invention ever was money. I just wanted to say that you are complete economic illiterates. Keep up the good work guys, do not pay any attention in class.

Never heard that money is a commodity like salt, wood, fish or grain? Or a means of exchange?

[Loknar]

People who think that are complete morons, civilization was founded on trade and commerce.

[Daniel Karssenberg]

Money is probably a good invention for the West, it too symbolises our eagerness to trade. However, I can understand some may say it has lead to exploitation.
If something works against your disadvantage, you wont like it. If you'd ask a 15th century noble, the worst invention would surely have been the crossbow.

[FatFreeMilk]

Yeah, they had money as an option to make a point. Seriously though, an invention? pfft.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Daniel [email protected] 9 2004, 10:12 PM
Money is probably a good invention for the West, it too symbolises our eagerness to trade. However, I can understand some may say it has lead to exploitation.

To have a generally accepted means of exchange (no government coercion here) is actually good for the whole of society. It's pretty difficult if you want bread but your baker doesn't want your sheep.

[Daniel Karssenberg]

You really dont have to tell me the advantage of a currency, I am with you on that. But most communists here DO have a point that certain people WILL use a CURRENCY thus MONEY to EXPLOIT others, at least if clear laws do not PREVENT them from doing so.

[Guest1]

Lack of currency does not lead to bartering. Bartering is stupid, and it's a shame there are some Leftists who resort to it before they learn about the true possibilities of moneyless society.

Look up gift economies and you'll catch my drift. That's where it's at.

And yes, money technically is an invention, we didn't always have it.

I wouldn't call it a stupid invention, in fact, I wouldn't even knock Capitalism in that way. It's something that was made necessary by the economic conditions of the time. It was just a useful way to organize society and we would not be here without either of them. Intelligent leftists understand that, but also understand that their role in human evolution is winding down. They may soon become hinderances to our development if they haven't already.

[Hoppe]

I have the impression that you cannot distinguish fiat-money from free market money, or gold, salt shells etc.


But most communists here DO have a point that certain people WILL use a CURRENCY thus MONEY to EXPLOIT others, at least if clear laws do not PREVENT them from doing so.

Yes, but these communist can also be seen as illiterate as they do not seem to grasp the fundamental nature of money.

[Hegemonicretribution]

"When the division of labour has been once thoroughly established, it is but a very small part of a man's wants which the produce of his own labour can supply. He supplies the far greater part of them by exchanging that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men's labour as he has occasion for. Every man thus lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial society."

Why people trade (above)
I am not illiterate.


"But if this latter should chance to have nothing that the former stands in need of, no exchange can be made between them."

Problem with bartering. (above)


"In all countries, however, men seem at last to have been determined by irresistible reasons to give the preference, for this employment, to metals above every other commodity. Metals can not only be kept with as little loss as any other commodity, scarce any thing being less perishable than they are, but they can likewise, without any loss, be divided into any number of parts, as by fusion those parts can easily be reunited again; a quality which no other equally durable commodities possess, and which more than any other quality renders them fit to be the instruments of commerce and circulation."

This is why money was chosen. (above)



How money came about was partially bourne out of neccesity and partially as a result of commn sense. Persnally not a bad idea. For me the problem is with the very first part. The way in which a man obtains the sum of his wants is by exchanging the surplus creation of his labour. However a large part of the surplus will be taken by those that own the means of prduction. People that quite probably do not contribute to the creation of goods or services in any way apart from being fortunate enough, to be wealthy enough, to continue being made wealthy at no expense of their own labour. This is where the dislike of money and inequality and abuse lies, perhaps not for everyone else but at least for me.

When money become a commodity that can be exchanged for any other it becomes very powerful. Once people get a sight of this they are easily corrupted. Whearas at one time success would have been the result of creating much f a god through hard work. It nw became abuot who could manipulate the system best, and obtain more money. This was a problem before obviously, but not to the same extent. Another problem is that money controls the influence of any industry. Some people are bound to find themselves disadvantaged as a result of a low value being placed on their labour. Before m,oney you could trade directly. But if a good is deemed worth little money then it can no longer be successfully traded.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 10:00 PM
People who think that are complete morons, civilization was founded on trade and commerce.
Civilization was also founded on slavery, colonization, and genocide. :rolleyes:

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 03:58 PM
Civilization was also founded on slavery, colonization, and genocide. :rolleyes:
Before man settled into cities, they were hunters and gatherers.

Then man learned to farm, then settled into communities as there was no need to hunt anymore.


With out farming, man wouldn’t have been able to reproduce by the millions.

Plus, with the extra crops these farming communities had, the traded with other communities.


That’s basically how civilization started.

I believing you're explaining the founding of Empire.

[Osman Ghazi]

That’s basically how civilization started.

I believing you're explaining the founding of Empire.


If 'civilization' started after the hunter-gatherers and the hunter-gatheres had slavery, colonization and genocide, (which they did) then those qualities must be the foundation of 'civilization'.