Quote from: K-Dog on Jan 24, 2024, 09:54 AMYou are not thinking like a Marxist.  Change is the constant of the universe not stasis.  All you are doing is making my point and stating that change exists.  And since it exists, a planned economy would be better at producing a money supply that holds value than what we have now.  Just saying it can never hold constant value is McFearson type negative thinking. (do nothing, it all is pointless, we all gonna die) Obviously some systems work better than others.  Get comfortable with change and make the right kind.

No, your point was that money is a constant source of value.  I refuted that point, I didn't make it.  I also demonstrated why it doesn't hold value with real world examples.  I didn't just "say" it can't hold value.  If you can demonstrate some money from history that did hold value constant or you can create some that does, feel free to enlighten me.

Is this negative thinking?  No, it's just an observation of the characteristics of money in the real world, and one of the numerous reasons I don't see money as a useful solution to the problems we have.  I would set up a resource based economy with rationing.  It would you will be happy to note have to be a planned economy to make sure resources are allocated properly and not wasted on stupid stuff like Space Vacations on a Bezos rocket.  This might actually be a positive application of AI.

In addition I would eliminate all nation-states and divide up the continents into individual self-sufficient regions that each operated their own rationing system for essential goods.  Cross border trade between regions only for luxury goods thru barter systems which could establish trade value through an international bourse, which again would be an application for AI.

So, no, I am not negative, I am a realist and I have alternatives to money.  It's Groucho Marxist. :P .

RE