Any physicists here? Money = Social energy

[Mo212]

I've got a new theory of money in my mind but I can't convert it to math (it's all visual). But if there are any mathematicians / physicists here, they could take the idea and run with it.

Basically what money is, is our ancestors converted the entire world (the commons) to money, and this is why concentration of wealth is now so alarming in my mind, once I figured out the true nature of $. It blew me away.

The big problem with weath centralization is artifacts of geometry, say you have a widget that everyone wants and you pay amount "X", then times x by the number of people (i.e. the whole world, etc) and suddenly you have an enormous political problem.

So I've figured out why rich people don't deserve their riches in the slightest. It's not merely profit, it's the geometry of population size that is one of the primary determinants of getting rich.

The two strategies boil down to:
-Taking a lot of money from a few (already rich)
-Taking a little bit from everyone (the most common)

For instance, take any person, no matter how skilled, and stick them on an island with the population of 30 people. Getting "rich" is impossible.

The wealth skews we see today are alarming.

Disclosure: I've read through every idealogy and ended up being non-idealogical, I realized that the world is not an idealogy it merely is and to understand it one must observe it, since time changes truth (i.e. before there were computers, etc,etc).

[lvl100]

The big problem with weath centralization is artifacts of geometry, say you have a widget that everyone wants and you pay amount "X", then times x by the number of people (i.e. the whole world, etc) and suddenly you have an enormous political problem

No shit Sherlock


For instance, take any person, no matter how skilled, and stick them on an island with the population of 30 people. Getting "rich" is impossible

Rich doesn`t mean a certain type of yacht or house. It means that you own more than those who surround you.
So instead making a commune, that guy starts a system where he exploits the others, he can still be very rich comparing to the others living standards( bigger house, free food, finest women, no work etc etc)

[Module]

No shit Sherlock
What a wonderful addition to the board you are.



Rich doesn`t mean a certain type of yacht or house. It means that you own more than those who surround you.
So instead making a commune, that guy starts a system where he exploits the others, he can still be very rich comparing to the others living standards( bigger house, free food, finest women, no work etc etc)
Finest women? Does having the finest women mean you have high living standards?
... What the fuck?

[lvl100]

What a wonderful addition to the board you are.

Ofcourse I am. Me and those who take an obvious truism and make it to sound like discovering of wheel like the first poster.


Finest women? Does having the finest women mean you have high living standards?
... What the fuck?

Yeah, your right, all those senile in their 70`s rich guys walking with all those gorgeous 20 and something old girls its the pure expression of love.
What the fuck i may ask myself, dont tell me its the first time you heard that the curent system encourages to think that a women can be like a Ferrari : its fun to drive and a good way to show off.

[Demogorgon]

This isn't really accurate. Wealth is probably best described by how much you can accumulate (or at least come into possession of). To get things you need income. The trouble with excessive wealth is the manner it is necessary to acquire this by.

There is a clear upper limit to the amount of income one can garner on the back of their own work. There is a literal physical barrier to personally producing more than a given amount of anything in a given amount of time. Therefore to gain extra wealth one must get it from another source than one's own work. That means skimming off profit from the work that others do. There's the problem with excessive wealth in a nutshell.

[gla22]

http://www.whale.to/b/images/capitalism.gif

This image is a rough approximation. It takes a certain amount of people to furnish the lavish lifestyle of the ruling class. It is like a pyramid. We want to destroy vertical hierarchy.

[Mo212]

This isn't really accurate. Wealth is probably best described by how much you can accumulate (or at least come into possession of). To get things you need income. The trouble with excessive wealth is the manner it is necessary to acquire this by.

But you haven't given an argument. So my argument still stands: Money can be treated akin to energy i.e. you need to extract enough energy to get access to x/y/z. You can use metaphorical stand ins to explain how money operates. For instance whenever you get enough money to access object x, a invisible door opens once you input the units of energy. We can think of monetary exchange like an electricity on an electric grid that opens a series of doors and paths to resources and people in a maze. As if it is opening a circuit (path).


There is a clear upper limit to the amount of income one can garner on the back of their own work. There is a literal physical barrier to personally producing more than a given amount of anything in a given amount of time. Therefore to gain extra wealth one must get it from another source than one's own work. That means skimming off profit from the work that others do. There's the problem with excessive wealth in a nutshell.

But this doesn't disprove anything I said, I said money was akin to energy, an energy accounting system essentially that determines access. i.e. you can treat money as if it is a form of energy and it makes much more sense to look at it this way and treat it this way.

We understand the universe through metaphors anyway. (i.e. capital, production, labour, owner, worker, energy, work, thermodynamics, etc).

Take mathematics, you have a sphere, no how are you going to describe it? You need an abstract representational system to describe the shape, so mathematics would be a language of metaphors (equations) for describing geometry.

(from wikipeda)

Metaphor (from the Greek: μεταφορά - metaphora, meaning "transfer") is language that directly compares seemingly unrelated subjects. In the simplest case, this takes the form: "The [first subject] is a [second subject]." More generally, a metaphor is a rhetorical trope that describes a first subject as being or equal to a second subject in some way. Thus, the first subject can be economically described because implicit and explicit attributes from the second subject are used to enhance the description of the first. This device is known for usage in literature, especially in poetry, where with few words, emotions and associations from one context are associated with objects and entities in a different context.

A metaphor is generally considered to be more forceful and active than an analogy (metaphor asserts two topics are the same whereas analogy may acknowledge differences). Other rhetorical devices involving comparison, such as metonym, synecdoche, simile, allegory and parable, share much in common with metaphor but are usually distinguished by the manner in which the comparison between subjects is delivered.

[Decolonize The Left]

I've got a new theory of money in my mind but I can't convert it to math (it's all visual). But if there are any mathematicians / physicists here, they could take the idea and run with it.

I should like to preface my response with the fact that I am neither a physicist nor mathematician - but I do find your metaphor interesting and would like to explore it further.


Basically what money is, is our ancestors converted the entire world (the commons) to money, and this is why concentration of wealth is now so alarming in my mind, once I figured out the true nature of $. It blew me away.

I don't think the commons were converted to money, exactly, rather I believe the commons were segmented and distributed among individuals who could then trade them according to various monetary values.


The big problem with weath centralization is artifacts of geometry, say you have a widget that everyone wants and you pay amount "X", then times x by the number of people (i.e. the whole world, etc) and suddenly you have an enormous political problem.

I agree that this is one main problem of wealth centralization.


But this doesn't disprove anything I said, I said money was akin to energy, an energy accounting system essentially that determines access. i.e. you can treat money as if it is a form of energy and it makes much more sense to look at it this way and treat it this way.

In one way yes - but this is a socially accepted form of access. Not a form of access, period. For I can access the yacht club as a beggar if I wish, I need merely break a window and climb in. So you see that money is the current socially accepted form of access, and in this sense you can treat money in the metaphorical sense that you have done (but it is not the form of access, as there are many).


But you haven't given an argument. So my argument still stands: Money can be treated akin to energy i.e. you need to extract enough energy to get access to x/y/z.

This is problematic on one simple account. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in the universe remains constant no matter the change of form. Yet the total amount of money on the planet varies constantly. What this means is that the universe is a closed system, whereas the monetary system is open. But in terms of your analogy of "extracting enough energy to get ..." it is reasonably valid.

I should also like to propose that you are limiting yourself by only looking at material goods (for the moment). For 10 monetary units can purchase you X, but it cannot give you the satisfaction/enjoyment/excitement of Y (which may cost nothing).

- August

[Demogorgon]

But you haven't given an argument. So my argument still stands: Money can be treated akin to energy i.e. you need to extract enough energy to get access to x/y/z. You can use metaphorical stand ins to explain how money operates. For instance whenever you get enough money to access object x, a invisible door opens once you input the units of energy. We can think of monetary exchange like an electricity on an electric grid that opens a series of doors and paths to resources and people in a maze. As if it is opening a circuit (path).Perhaps I was not clear enough. Money is not like energy because it is not useful in of itself as it won't do anything on its own and is not convertible in the sense energy is. If you want to think of money in terms of a metaphor think of it more like water flowing round the economy. Of course, due to the banking system the amount of "water" is always increasing. Simply acquiring more money does not make you more rich, you need it to be able to acquire more goods and capital. Nor is the problem with money simply down to people getting more than others. Moderate variations don't actually have much effect. It is the way that some people acquire a lot of their money that is the problem.


But this doesn't disprove anything I said, I said money was akin to energy, an energy accounting system essentially that determines access. i.e. you can treat money as if it is a form of energy and it makes much more sense to look at it this way and treat it this way.

Well energy accounting doesn't really mean anything in practice. Anyway again your argument doesn't really make any sense.

Money isn't really anything in of itself, it is important in terms of what it buys. It saves us having to directly exchange goods. It speeds up the economic process and also can act as an incentive to produce more if more money comes into the system. Similarly it can heavily slow down the economy if for whatever reason the resources to do something are there but the money isn't (Capitalism's fucked up credit system means that this is constantly the case).

Anyway you can't think of money as energy or try to explain the economy with physics. You wouldn't use chemistry to explain history, so there is no point in using physics to explain the economy.

[Mo212]

(Note: I had my post shitwashed twice by the system logging me out, so it may not be perfect, my first post was perfect, so I've tried to reconstruct everything in it's bastardized form for the 3rd time)
I don't think the commons were converted to money, exactly, rather I believe the commons were segmented and distributed among individuals who could then trade them according to various monetary values.You just proved my point: Some people segmented (enclosed the commons that people wanted access to or was worth something in terms of basic needs). You don't have to enclose the entire earth to convert the commons to money, all you need to do is prevent access to basic needs to the majority of the earths people and get them to accept your system of exchange, by preventing them from breeding by restricting access to food, and socializing them in a particular way.
In one way yes - but this is a socially accepted form of access. Not a form of access, period. For I can access the yacht club as a beggar if I wish, I need merely break a window and climb in. So you see that money is the current socially accepted form of access, and in this sense you can treat money in the metaphorical sense that you have done (but it is not the form of access, as there are many).But you're ignoring the social architecture of a society, i.e. enforcement, mindshare, idealogy, values, etc. That essentially coerces people under threat of fine, jail, violence, and social stigma, etc. This coercian and/or indoctrination CREATES the social architecture. This architecture is like a series of dams which control social and economic mobility. Some of these dam like structures generally serve the primary purpose of retaining money, while other structures such as things akin to floodgates, levees, and dikes are used to prevent the flow of money into specific regions. Essentially much like an energy circuit, don't you think? :)So the population does the bulk of creating and enforcing it with the cops for the 'real bad apples'. So people enforce the social architecture of the energy system. Just because you are not prevented from access, doesn't mean there is not consequences for breaching the social architecture (i.e. not acknowledging money as a medium of exchange for example and just taking everything without paying, breaking through the dam or one of the gates). Because social relations breakdown as soon as everyone simply takes what they want without disregard for the psychology of property (basically animal territoriality).
This is problematic on one simple account. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in the universe remains constant no matter the change of form. Yet the total amount of money on the planet varies constantly. What this means is that the universe is a closed system, whereas the monetary system is open. But in terms of your analogy of "extracting enough energy to get ..." it is reasonably valid.Money is a representation of all the actual value (time, space, matter, energy, etc) in a given society, it matters not what the value of that money is, say we had one dollar, we could divide it into millions or trillians of pieces and issue coinage/paper dollars as physical media of exchange, and it would still not change the value of the commons money represents.All the money supply does is change who has legal access to x,y and z, given a social architecture. The net energy or value money represents is still there, lets not forget this crucial point. So yes money does behave very much like energy. When we talk about money supply, all we're talking about is WHO has access to media of exchange (paper money, electronic money, etc), the net energy hasn't changed.
I should also like to propose that you are limiting yourself by only looking at material goods (for the moment). For 10 monetary units can purchase you X, but it cannot give you the satisfaction/enjoyment/excitement of Y (which may cost nothing).- AugustYours satisfaction/enjoyment/excitement does cost something (i.e. the time spent enjoying something is time you're not spent working or enjoying something else, etc). Technically it costs something, in ultimate terms.But anyway now you're talking about a psychological economy, and of these there are many.

[Module]

Ofcourse I am. Me and those who take an obvious truism and make it to sound like discovering of wheel like the first poster.
So somebody tries thinking out something by themselves as opposed to reading it in a book - you don't insult them, you smug prick.
People are here to learn, and to discuss ideas in an open and relaxed environment. If you're not going to do it politely then you should fuck off.


Yeah, your right, all those senile in their 70`s rich guys walking with all those gorgeous 20 and something old girls its the pure expression of love.
What the fuck i may ask myself, dont tell me its the first time you heard that the curent system encourages to think that a women can be like a Ferrari : its fun to drive and a good way to show off.That's patriarchy not capitalism.
You might as well have said high living standards on a hypothetical island with 30 people includes "the finest black slaves".
An economic system like capitalism does not specifically differentiate between two people as human beings.
Women are not a commodity that owning 'the best' makes the owner 'rich', or means that they have high living standards.
You've implied in your examples that women are something for one to compare to those around them on the basis of 'wealth' - you're ignoring that women can (and do) get rich by exploiting others within capitalism, you've presumed that those around this capitalist are all men by treating women as a comparable commodity within this hypothetical system.
Having the "finest women" means nothing in terms of living standards.
Free food, biggest house, no work are all related to production and distribution, acquired through capitalist exploitation - women are not.
Women function as part of the capitalist system as individuals and the commodification of social relationships between men and women specifically as women comes from a specific sort of social structure, not the capitalist system.
Either that was a stupid misunderstanding of social discrimination or a gross display of sexism on your part. I'll hope it's the former.

[Mo212]

Ofcourse I am. Me and those who take an obvious truism and make it to sound like discovering of wheel like the first poster.

In all the economic literature, have you ever seen money referred to and studied as energy? I haven't. So yes this is obviously something new that no one in academia as of yet has taken very seriously, or if they have had such thoughts they haven't really grasped it's nature. I imagine only visual thinkers and people with a physics background could really understand what I'm getting at.

You assume you have the intellect to even grasp the complexity of the system I see in my head, that's pretty miraculous considering I've only given the most basic outline of my ideas. I've been working on some of them in private but it's all visual, if I had the money I would hire a mathematician / physicist to decode it for me. Since I am doing advanced geometric math, and math is the abstract representational system we use to describe the different geometries of the world.

If I could show you in realtime in 3D what the market looks like using trope analysis, then you'd understand it better. Because it's quite obvious you don't get the core of what I am getting at.

[lvl100]

Sorry for being jumpy earlier , but :


Money is a representation of all the actual value (time, space, matter, energy, etc) in a given society, it matters not what the value of that money is, say we had one dollar, we could divide it into millions or trillians of pieces and issue coinage/paper dollars as physical media of exchange, and it would still not change the value of the commons money represents First of all , energy has an objective nature , while money have subjective nature.
An atom of hydrogen (or rather the energy within) have a constant value. That`s reasonably easy to insert it into a theory.

Now, from the start we can say that " Money is a representation of all the actual value" its far fetched becouse money its a human`s creation, so therefore cant have a constant value. (value, not phisical numbers)

Whats the real value of an apple ? Objective i can make an equation to find his real indestructible and everlasting energy. So i can say that apple worth 1000 Kj, here or on Mars.
But i`m a human so the value of that apple it will be 10 cents at the farmer and 100$ for a eskimos at north pole.
Money are probably one of the most volatile creations of mankind, becouse they usualy are a manifestation of value. And value can differ so much from the point A to the point B , that would render useless any scientific constant (as energy) equations based on it.

Now, those kind of mathematical theories exist already. People are using right now complex forms for predicting economical, social etc changes.
But those equations are based on variables.



......

Dude fuck the theory, just open your TV or look better around you on the street. But enough with the offtopic, theres a whole forum category for that.

[Mo212]

Sorry for being jumpy earlier , but :

First of all , energy has an objective nature , while money have subjective nature.
An atom of hydrogen (or rather the energy within) have a constant value. That`s reasonably easy to insert it into a theory.

Now, from the start we can say that " Money is a representation of all the actual value" its far fetched becouse money its a human`s creation, so therefore cant have a constant value. (value, not phisical numbers)

Whats the real value of an apple ? Objective i can make an equation to find his real indestructible and everlasting energy. So i can say that apple worth 1000 Kj, here or on Mars.
But i`m a human so the value of that apple it will be 10 cents at the farmer and 100$ for a eskimos at north pole.
Money are probably one of the most volatile creations of mankind, becouse they usualy are a manifestation of value. And value can differ so much from the point A to the point B , that would render useless any scientific constant (as energy) equations based on it.

Now, those kind of mathematical theories exist already. People are using right now complex forms for predicting economical, social etc changes.
But those equations are based on variables.

You obviously didn't understand I word I said. I said money = Social energy, I did not say Money = MC^2, I said money behaves very much like energy, please notice the subtle differences.

[lvl100]

ok, define "social energy" please, `cause after googling it seems to have a lots of meanings and many of them dont fit here.

[Luís Henrique]

Finest women? Does having the finest women mean you have high living standards?
... What the fuck?

Can we no longer describe situations of oppression or commodification without being accused of being favourable to such oppression or commodification?

Luís Henrique