[K-Dog]

Can fiat money work in a steady state economy?

Well, first off, the economy isn't steady state since the resources the economy depends on are depleting.  At the same time, the population that depends on those resources is still increasing.  So there is a constant negative change of less per capita available.

As you know, I'm no fan of any money at all, but under these conditions I think demurrage money probably reflects the reality the best.  A demurrage charge of perhaps 3%  would increase the velocity of money through the economy and encourage the liquidation of assets and price discovery, which is a really big problem right now.  Mispriced assets are everywhere, from real estate to stocks, bonds and commodities.

Doubtful you could get a demmurrage currency issued by any current goobermint though, so it's a moot point.

RE

Demurrage, I had to look it up.  In a sense this is how money has been in America for about 15 years. We had 0.015 % bank interest as the norm.  Now because inflation returned banks had to start paying 5% which is what it should be for an average Joe trying to save money.

In those 15 years the rich made out big.  They are richer.  In the same period average savings went nowhere.  Even at a paltry 3% in that much time savings would have doubled.  Demurrage would only be used to screw the average guy harder.

Nobody is getting rich at 5%, but it does reward savings.  In demurrage wouldn't everybody just run their credit cards to the max?  The average American would be in deep debt, yet those with the big money will find ways to keep what they have.  Big money did not have to lie dead at 0.015% for over a decade like average Joe money (mine) did.  Now my reward for having my savings pays for a meal or two a day.  Whoopie!

Taxes provide the advantage of demurrage, but the funny thing about that is rich people are very successful at avoiding taxes.  In America rich people have re-written our tax laws to screw the poor and average Joe.  The legacy of Ronald Ray-Gun.  Changing taxes to the way they were 1n 1950 would provide the same advantages.

Ideally my savings would be loaned out and the economic activity generated generates the interest.  I know the economy does not actually work that way any more.

But it is time the government take control of the money supply away from bankers.  Bankers have put way too much money into the world, making the value of what a normal person has next to worthless.

Clarify the American details for me, but in Great Britain if a person borrows from a bank, the bank simply creates the money loaned out of nothing, and as the money is paid back an equal amount of real money is destroyed EXCEPT FOR THE INTREST PAID.  Which the bank keeps.  The extra interest amounts to new money in circulation degrading the value of all the rest of the money in circulation.



Causing this.

Resulting in a new Royalty, with the old one doing just fine too.  The regular guy, who should really have a large part of the money in the system, is screwed.



The American equivalent.

And exactly how many years did Amazon get buy without paying ANY SALES TAXes?  Supplying the government with full access to all Amazon Web Servers in the world sure had it's advantages.

[K-Dog]

As you know, I'm no fan of any money at all,

The current system in the Seattle Area is experimenting with this.  People are walking into stores and walking out with what they need.  There is no law enforcement to stop them.

This will lead to a bad end.  People who actually have jobs and see this do not like it.  Can you wonder why?

Planning a life to get to work on time.  Taking care of the business of an * ordinary life.  This requires focus for which there should be reward.  Watching adult children who live extraordinary lives steal does not sit well with a normal commitment.

A lot of people are walking around confused.  Eliminate all money and one of them is going to walk into my grocery store and take all the chocolate.  The roaches who visit our store do take more than they need.  I see it every day.  All the chocolate would soon be gone.

Leaving none for me.  I work so I can buy some.  I am not working just for my health.  Though after a professional career, and reaching the generation of wisdom, and where work is somewhat optional for me.  Working in a warehouse does make me a bad-ass motherfucker.


* An ordinary life is not to be despised.  An ordinary life simply has social obligations like children and care of the infirm and elderly.  An exceptional life is that of a young man who is paid as well, or almost as well as an ordinary man, but who does not have the normal financial obligations of an ordinary man.  With young men this often leads to enough free time and excess cash that the infirm in the head easily find trouble.

[K-Dog]

American Indians were migrating out of Western Canada and headed down ultimately to the American Southwest

Do you know which tribes?

FYI I do not idolize or denigrate the character of the indigenous.  Some are wise and good in their own way.  And some like the horsemen on the steppes of Asia through the ages have been nothing less than satanic. 

I have roots that settled in no mans land between the Sioux and the Ojibwe.  Nobody from either tribe was allowed to kill anybody in this bit of land and my ancestor was also left alone under their rules.  He trapped, started a sawmill, and of course had a homestead.  He trapped extra game leaving it in in his traps for local Indians to eat as he made his rounds.  They could not afford steel traps of their own.

My family let indians hunt on 'their' land when other settlers were trying to starve them out.  They were Christian people who knew the natives were here first and that the only way for them to eat was to hunt.  Live and let live.  In their minds they had no right to stop this hunting.  When the Minnesota Indian wars started one of my ancestors had to be taken from his farm by force because he said he had nothing to fear from the Indians and that he was their friend.  A posse from town rode out to fetch him.

Turned out everybody was right.  The Sioux warriors who rode in were not local.  They killed every white man they met.  They did not ask the local Sioux who should be left alone.

[RE]

What you describe in Seattle is a Theft Economy at the retail level, which is the result of the Theft done at the wholesale level by the banks and the corporations that sell the goods in the stores.  Neither works because everybody on both sides is trying to take as much for themselves as they can get away with.  Gift economies work by giving people as much as they need.  Since you Googled demurrage, you can now Google potlach.

Where do banks get the money to loan people?  They borrow it.  So the carrying cost makes lending money a bad business.  Thus the reason no current goobermint would issue such money, goobermints are set up so banks can make money by lending it out.

It's a pay as you go economy, the money has to keep moving around it can't sit around too long or it becomes worthless.  Inflation does this also, but in inflation banks just keep borrowing money and adjust their interest rates to cover the projected inflation.  As long as they can borrow at a lower rate than they charge to loan it out + inflation, they make money on the spread.

You want a pile of money you can keep in the bank and earn interest on to pay you an annuity.  This is what you can't have.  Because the reality is that the stuff the money is supposed to buy is disappearing.  To be a true proxy for the available resources, the money has to disappeaar right along with them.  You can't get something for nothing.

RE

[K-Dog]

You want a pile of money you can keep in the bank and earn interest on to pay you an annuity.  This is what you can't have.  Because the reality is that the stuff the money is supposed to buy is disappearing.  To be a true proxy for the available resources, the money has to disappear right along with them.  You can't get something for nothing.

Not exactly true.  The graphs I showed earlier document that the amount I or any ordinary Joe has is degraded by the financialized economy of new money taking away value.  It is not that things are disappearing, things are not disappearing.  At least not yet.  The slice of the pie an average worker has is worth ever less.  This is because the big pieces of pie get bigger making the other pieces smaller.

If I work for a chocolate bar today, but decide to buy it tomorrow I should not be penalized.  Money does not have to degrade with time.  The purpose of money is be to a constant storehouse of value, and I contend that capitalism is contradictory to maintaining a constant storehouse of value.  Most people who have heard about boom and bust cycles likely agree with me.

The problem is people always want something for nothing.  To work correctly capitalism would reward all stakeholders equitably with profit.  Equitable is not the same as equal but they are related.  Greed prevents equitable behavior.  The art of the deal, the art of the steal.  All socially sanctioned.  This results in exploitation that denies a fair share of profits to all.  Exploitation would not exist if equanimity were maintained, but then it would not be capitalism.  Correctly implemented capitalism evolves to socialism.  But not without taxing away lizard people.  Who unfortunately run the show.

[RE]

The purpose of money is be to a constant storehouse of value, and I contend that capitalism is contradictory to maintaining a constant storehouse of value.

People WISH money could be a constant store of value, but it can never be that because what it buys is not constant in its supply or in the demand for it.  Even Gold is not a constant source of value.  If there is plenty of food around, 1 oz of gold will buy a whole lot of it.  If there is little food available and you have nothing to eat, it could take your whole oz of gold to buy a Twinkie.  If there are lots of empty houses like in Legrad in Croatia, you can buy one for a dollar.  If there are none around in Islip  Long Island, same house goes for $600K.  Conditions change, and the value of money changes with them.

The total money supply also cchanges its value.  Gold was very valued in Spain in 1500, then they took tons of it from Montezuma.  When the ships brought it back to Spain, it took a whole lot more gold to buy a title from the King.  You might have been saving your gold your whole life to buy your   title, but  now the King didn't need your gold anymore.  Its value had changed due to the new supply.

Money is a physical representation of an accounting system.  The amount of it in circulation can change under many circumstances, particularly if the token used to represent the numbers is easy to produce, like paper money or digibits.  In a rapidly growing economy with a high velocity of money moving around in transactions, you need a lot of money in circulation.  A shortage of money in this situation makes the value of the monney increase.  People hoarding money in savings accounts will reduce the supply available and raise its value.   Banks making more loans will lower the value of money.

The system is always in a dynamic state of flux no matter what token is used to represent the accounting.  In theory, trading bourses establish the value of money and all other commodities at any given point in time, but these can be and are manipulated by people who either have large amounts of money or have access to large lines of credit.  They can push the value of anything money will buy up or down, so the money you have will buy more or less of it.

Because money changes all the time in what it will buy, really rich people don't keep all that much of it around.  They use the money to buy assets which they think will grow in value, or at least hold value.  Real Estate has been a traditional asset to hold, but it can crash in value also when the velocity of money decreases enough and people who have large holdings need to liquidate them.

This is the reality, wishing money would be a constant doesn't make it so.

RE

[K-Dog]

People WISH money could be a constant store of value, but it can never be that because what it buys is not constant in its supply or in the demand for it.

You 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.

I live in Seattle and am married to a woman with Haida in her family tree.  I would not know what a potlatch is how?  Her people started it.

The status of any given family is raised not by who has the most resources, but by who distributes the most resources. The hosts demonstrate their wealth and prominence through giving away goods.

Destroying more wealth than your competitor also works. 

It is notable that Argentina with one of the most screwed economies in the world has a nutball Libertarian in charge who rants about the evils of Socialism while he destroys his country by kicking all regulation to the curb.  He has inflation up to 211.4% so far.

[K-Dog]

How can anyone call it shock therapy.  There is nothing therapeutic about it at all.

• The nationwide strike comes just 45 days after President Javier Milei took office, making it the fastest action of its kind into the term of a new Argentina government.
• Thousands of workers took to the streets after a mobilization called by the opposition aligned Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT), the largest and most influential union in the country, and other union forces.
• Analysts warned that the potential for the labor union's movement to grow in both size and potency could become a serious disruptor of economic activity.

'could become a serious disruptor of economic activity'  <=  Really?  I think dumfuck MSN author, that is the point.  Change will come no other way.

Apparently since the current system is capitalism 211.4% inflation must be OK with the MSN article.  211.4%  being a minor problem in an economy that now is suffering the indignity of people walking the streets demanding a fair deal.  The horror mass of civil disobedience by people who should be working and making the rich richer.  People who should not be disrupting the status-quo of 211.4% inflation.

'Analysts warned'  - The hatred of unions is so strong by MSN management that a strike is defined as a disruptor regardless of reason.  The mandate to say nothing good about unions at MSN is crystal clear.

I wish people could feel the manipulation.

[RE]

You 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. .

RE

[K-Dog]

No, your point was that money is a constant source of value.

No I know what my point was.  Money is supposed to be a constant reservoir of value.  That is the intention and only the intention.  Reality is different.

To claim that money is a constant source of value is something an idealist would claim.  I claim to keep money as a reasonable facsimile of constant value in the real world is something capitalism can't do.  Since I claim that capitalism can't make money stable your claim that I say that money is a constand source of value is without merit.

Capitalists claim money is a constant source of value, not me.  I know better.  The abstraction of money has no real essence and is man made.  Money like god will die when the last human is gone.

Claiming money is a constant source of value is not consistent with dialectical materialism.  Such a claim is Hegalian, and not Marxist.

[Knarf]

Challenging the idealist view:

Inflation: Over time, inflation erodes the purchasing power of money, negating its long-term stability.
Volatility: Currency exchange rates and market fluctuations can introduce significant short-term uncertainty in the value of money.
Unequal distribution: The uneven distribution of wealth across individuals and societies undermines the claim of money as a universal source of value.
Alternative value systems: Other forms of value beyond money, such as social capital, skills, or access to resources, can be crucial in individual and community well-being.
Therefore, claiming that money is a constant source of value can be seen as idealistic in the sense that it overlooks its limitations and vulnerabilities. However, it's not entirely untrue either, as money does offer significant advantages in modern economies.

Ultimately, the statement becomes more nuanced when considering different contexts and perspectives. Someone in a hyper-inflated economy would likely hold a different view than someone living in a financially stable community. Additionally, focusing solely on financial value disregards other forms of value that contribute to individual and societal well-being.

It's important to understand the complex relationship between money, value, and various social and economic factors before making absolute claims about its constancy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're absolutely right. Claiming that money is a constant source of value is indeed inconsistent with the principles of dialectical materialism and would more closely align with Hegelian idealism. Let's break down why:

Dialectical Materialism Perspective:

Emphasis on Contradiction and Change: Dialectical materialism posits that everything is in constant flux and driven by internal contradictions. Money, as a social construct, cannot escape this process. Its value inherently fluctuates based on various factors like supply, demand, and power dynamics within society.
Rejection of Absolutes: Unlike Hegel's idealist philosophy, which often viewed concepts like "value" as eternal and absolute, dialectical materialism considers them historically and socially contingent. The notion of money as a "constant source of value" ignores its evolution and transformation throughout history.
Focus on Material Conditions: For Marxists, true value originates in the material world, created through human labor. Money represents this value but is not inherently valuable itself. Its importance comes from its role as a social construct facilitating exchange and distribution within a specific economic system.
Hegelian Influence:

Hegel's dialectics did influence Marx and Engels, but their application differed significantly. While Hegel saw concepts like "Spirit" or "Reason" as driving forces of history, Marx and Engels placed material conditions and class struggle at the center of their analysis. In this context, claiming that money has a constant, absolute value could be seen as akin to Hegel's emphasis on fixed, unchanging ideals.

Conclusion:

Therefore, stating that money is a constant source of value contradicts the core principles of dialectical materialism. Such a claim aligns more closely with the idealist perspective of Hegel, where concepts like "value" are viewed as timeless and independent of material conditions.

It's important to carefully distinguish between these different philosophical frameworks and avoid conflating them. Understanding the nuances of how Marxists and other materialists view concepts like money is crucial for accurate interpretation and productive discussions about economics and society.

[RE]

Claiming money is a constant source of value is not consistent with dialectical materialism.  Such a claim is Hegalian, and not Marxist.

AFAIK, neither Marx or Hegel invented a form of money that was constant in value either, nor have you given any example of such money or even proposed what it would be or how it would work.  My conclusion is this is a fantasy solution right up there with colonies on Mars.  Like Fusion Power, I'll reconsider my conclusion when I see a working model.

RE

[TDoS]

Do you make these ridiculous arguments because you are bored or something?
RE

Ridiculous argument? Did you intuit that your audience would automatically know that you really didn't mean it when you said money instead of economics? I have to ask...YOU know they aren't synonmous, right?

I was taught to write with a specific philosophy in mind. I thought my mentors had invented the idea, but apparently not. Once you start, it becomes easy to think the same way as you write. Makes it difficult to then contradict one's statements by things like definitions, facts, logic, history, etc etc, in a matter of seconds. Sorry to have thought about your statement the way I learned to write, but hey, give it a try, it does make one's writing and thinking of higher quality.

Turns out, my mentors were themselves plagarists of the idea.

[RE]

Did you intuit that your audience would automatically know that you really didn't mean it when you said money instead of economics?

Can you specify where I substituted the word "money" for "economics"?  I read back my replies to you, and they are quite clear.  I don't think anyone here besides you had any problem understanding the meaning.  I don't think you had any trouble either, you're just putting up a strawman argument.  If you really didn't understand the meaning, this is your problem with reading comprehension, not my problem with writing to the point I want to convey.  If you continue to have trouble understanding me, I suggest you find someone whose writing appeals to you more.  I'm not going to change it to suit you.

RE

[Knarf]

Do you make these ridiculous arguments because you are bored or something?
RE

Ridiculous argument? Did you intuit that your audience would automatically know that you really didn't mean it when you said money instead of economics? I have to ask...YOU know they aren't synonmous, right?

I was taught to write with a specific philosophy in mind. I thought my mentors had invented the idea, but apparently not. Once you start, it becomes easy to think the same way as you write. Makes it difficult to then contradict one's statements by things like definitions, facts, logic, history, etc etc, in a matter of seconds. Sorry to have thought about your statement the way I learned to write, but hey, give it a try, it does make one's writing and thinking of higher quality.

Turns out, my mentors were themselves plagarists of the idea.

I'm genuinely curious about the writing philosophy you mentioned. If you're comfortable, I'd love to hear more about it and understand how it has shaped your approach to writing and thinking. Perhaps there's more I can learn from your perspective to become a better communicator.