I was writing an small essay on the abolition of money for a SF group. What would be the probable consequences of abolishing money? I'm interested in your opinions.
Note: Yes, I know in 'Star Trek' future society the Federation supposedly doesn't use money but in many occasions the plot seems to contradict this assertion, and I know it's a very polemic question in Trekkie forums, etc, but no, this thread hasn't been inspired by 'Star Trek'. Actually I have never watched regularly any 'Star Trek' series, and only 4 or 5 movies.
First, societies use money as a tool to allocate production and resources trough market prices. The alternatives are rationing and mixed systems combining both markets and rationing in a number of ways. Without money the only way to allocate resources would be rationing literally everything, from iron ore to sport cars, using something similar to the old Soviet Production Plans (but as far as I know the Soviets never went so far as to consider abolishing money). And, while future technology could make those rations luxurious seen from our 21th century perspective, not everyone will possibly enjoy the equivalent of a Versailles Palace and a 1,000,000 acres park with monumental fountains, pheasants, peacocks and deers... No matter how rich the future is resources will be limited, some severely so, there is no way out of this basic problem.
Second, the abolition of money would cause an incredible amount of problems and limitations, ranging from small daily chores to big curtails of personal freedom.
Money usually is considered to serve three or four purposes
1. Universal medium of exchange, used to avoid the inefficiencies of barter, above all the 'double coincidence of wants' problem (A sells books and wants food, B has food but doesn't want so many books... using money that's no problem, without money they need to find several persons, C, D, E, F... wanting books A has and possessing things B wants) Free interchange of goods and services would become almost impossible, limited to very small scale deals between individuals, and the more specialized the service/merchandise offered the more difficult would be for the provider to find customers.
2. Unit of account. Even in a 100% communist economy, how would state officials decide between building 1,000 small ships or a big spaceship, or between 1,000 3D TV sets or 5,000 HiFi players, or between a new big opera house and two smaller ones if money doesn't exist? This use doesn't need physical coins or notes, but without the concept of money comparing costs becomes nightmarish, if not impossible. The only half serious alternative I know of is the use of energy-money, i.e. using kilowatts instead of money. That would serve some purposes as well as money or even better, but not all: how would energy-money calculate the cost of using scarce items like highly qualified engineers or very rare materials?
3. Store of value. At least at first sight this one doesn't seem so serious, but without money saving for future investments is impossible, like credit/debts. That would have a very deep negative impact on the economy and the society. If everything is rationed saving and credit could be meaningless for individuals, but what about states, towns, businesses...?
4. The fourth (but many economists think this one really is a subset of the others) would be to serve as a 'standard of deferred payment'. But without savings or debts to settle, there would be no need for such a standard.
In short, abolishing money seems on the whole clearly undesirable and probably impossible. Even abolishing money from the average citizen's life would entail very severe social and economic limitations... how would portrait painters, for example, live in such a society unless they were supported by the state? And how would their work be allocated without money? By huge waiting lists perhaps, but that would obliterate the painter's freedom... And collective long term ventures like movies? Professional sportsmen, writers, sculptors? Etc, etc, etc... Unless everyone's basic needs are covered from cradle to grave without a job (or with a job imposed by the state or its equivalent) the system seems barely viable and certainly not enjoyable.
Besides, no money would in all probability mean equality, enforced equality because accumulation would be impossible, but bettering one's condition trough work and saving would become impossible too unless some form of meritocratic society allowed the best to get bigger shares, things like sport cars, bigger houses or luxurious holidays... but then the risk would be mere apparatchiks receiving bigger shares of everything for them, their families and their cronies and that would really be the crowning irony of the concept.
On top of that police would have to watch night and day to avoid alternative forms of money appearing, and the experience of prisons, prisoner camps, etc, etc, seems to teach they would certainly appear, and swiftly, things like cigarettes, matches, transport tickets, gas coupons, etc, etc being uniform, relatively durable and in ample demand being obvious alternatives used in the past. And did I mention the black market? Perhaps a black market wouldn't appear because without money or some other way to store value being a black marketeer could be pointless, but I wouldn't count on it. There is always influence and... ahem... personal services, shall we say.
Well, these are my ideas. What do you think?
A lot of your conclusions follow from the assumption of state/communal ownership of production, not specifically from a cashless society. They're not necessarily linked.
QuoteNo matter how rich the future is resources will be limited, some severely so, there is no way out of this basic problem.
How do you come to this?
In Star Trek yes.
But in reality?...space is big.
Assuming a future world where robotics have completely replaced labour and we have spread out into the galaxy then we do have infinite (as far as we're concerned) resources.
Quote from: Tyr on November 25, 2009, 08:45:23 AM
QuoteNo matter how rich the future is resources will be limited, some severely so, there is no way out of this basic problem.
How do you come to this?
In Star Trek yes.
But in reality?...space is big.
Assuming a future world where robotics have completely replaced labour and we have spread out into the galaxy then we do have infinite (as far as we're concerned) resources.
They can be very ample, but always finite. It doesn't matter if they have 1.000.000 planets per capita, they would still to decide if everyone will have the same amount or some deserve more than others... and a method to make the allocation.
@Yi
Ah, but I'd like to hear how a cashless, technologically advanced society could work without money and without state/communal ownership of production. Any idea?
Quote from: Alatriste on November 25, 2009, 09:04:16 AM
@Yi
Ah, but I'd like to hear how a cashless, technologically advanced society could work without money and without state/communal ownership of production. Any idea?
You'd end up with cash eventually. Start with barter, then you start using some commodity as the common denominator (how many bushels of wheat will you give me for this house?), then you replace the physical bushels of wheat with book entries or paper scripts. Voila, money.
Quote from: Tyr on November 25, 2009, 08:45:23 AM
Assuming a future world where robotics have completely replaced labour and we have spread out into the galaxy then we do have infinite (as far as we're concerned) resources.
But not the ability to transport the resources in infinite quantities. Allocation becomes an issue.
Quote from: Alatriste on November 25, 2009, 09:04:16 AM
Ah, but I'd like to hear how a cashless, technologically advanced society could work without money and without state/communal ownership of production. Any idea?
It couldn't. At least not with humans.
Quote from: Alatriste on November 25, 2009, 09:04:16 AM
They can be very ample, but always finite. It doesn't matter if they have 1.000.000 planets per capita, they would still to decide if everyone will have the same amount or some deserve more than others... and a method to make the allocation.
I said infinite as far as we're concerned.
Not literally infinite. But infinite enough for our needs. There's no way anyone could ever make use of 1 million planet, the resources have outstripped the need.
QuoteBut not the ability to transport the resources in infinite quantities. Allocation becomes an issue.
How?
Robots could handle that too.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 25, 2009, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on November 25, 2009, 09:04:16 AM
Ah, but I'd like to hear how a cashless, technologically advanced society could work without money and without state/communal ownership of production. Any idea?
It couldn't. At least not with humans.
The Borg scenario remains the only one where we can overcome our selfish destructive animalistic nature. Thus we would no longer be burdened by emotions such as greed, avarice and lust for power that underpin all human systems of governance and resource management.
G.
A hell of a lot of allocation of resources is about social status rather than need. The simple provision of vast numbers of consumer goods does not meet this need for status.
Quote from: Tyr on November 25, 2009, 08:45:23 AM
But in reality?...space is big.
Assuming a future world where robotics have completely replaced labour and we have spread out into the galaxy then we do have infinite (as far as we're concerned) resources.
Space is big, but I want a nice seaside villa on a certain beach on Earth. Let's say a million more people want exactly that villa. It becomes a scarce good. I don't care that I could have a much bigger villa with a much nicer beach that happens to be a gazillion lightyears away on some strange planet.
Quote from: Tyr on November 25, 2009, 08:45:23 AM
QuoteNo matter how rich the future is resources will be limited, some severely so, there is no way out of this basic problem.
How do you come to this?
In Star Trek yes.
But in reality?...space is big.
Assuming a future world where robotics have completely replaced labour and we have spread out into the galaxy then we do have infinite (as far as we're concerned) resources.
Indeed. I think it's more likely that technological advancement will create a situation where materials and commodities are so abundant and the means of attaining and/or producing them so personal that money could become obsolete simply by not being necessary.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 25, 2009, 11:12:30 AM
A hell of a lot of allocation of resources is about social status rather than need. The simple provision of vast numbers of consumer goods does not meet this need for status.
I think this is one of the main reasons western-educated third worlders tend to return to their home countries.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 25, 2009, 11:58:51 AM
I think this is one of the main reasons western-educated third worlders tend to return to their home countries.
This reminds me of a guy I had a few classes with in University. He was the son of some african backwater minister - rolling in the wealth stolen from that country's citizens of course - and abysmally stupid; you know the vacant look kind of stupid? I swear he couldn't articulate a 200 words essay if his life depended on it.
Yet he had been accepted and no doubt graduated, after a generous donation from his bandit of a father. And afterwards he went back to his shithole and could boast he had been educated in a 'prestigious' western university. *shakes head*
G.
Quote from: Tyr on November 25, 2009, 10:33:28 AM
How?
Robots could handle that too.
Ships and robots will need to be built, and have ships have finite transport capacities. Someone will need to decide how many to build, how and where.
At any rate, what good is giving everyone the resources of a million planets when there are only a small handful of worlds that can actually be reached and exploited?
An economy of abundance. Check out Iain Banks Culture novels.
Quote from: Alatriste on November 25, 2009, 08:19:48 AM
I was writing an small essay on the abolition of money for a SF group. What would be the probable consequences of abolishing money?
In an fictive setting? Whatever you want it to be.
Quote from: Neil on November 25, 2009, 12:12:24 PM
Ships and robots will need to be built, and have ships have finite transport capacities. Someone will need to decide how many to build, how and where.
The robots will build them. There'll be more than enough
Quote
At any rate, what good is giving everyone the resources of a million planets when there are only a small handful of worlds that can actually be reached and exploited?
Obviously this wouldn't be the case.
QuoteSpace is big, but I want a nice seaside villa on a certain beach on Earth. Let's say a million more people want exactly that villa. It becomes a scarce good. I don't care that I could have a much bigger villa with a much nicer beach that happens to be a gazillion lightyears away on some strange planet.
One offs like that and for instance original works of art are the only things where there wouldn't be 'infinite resources'. But then even today for the very rich this holds true. No matter how much he wants it a billionare isn't going to be putting up the mona lisa in his living room
Quote from: Tyr on November 25, 2009, 01:04:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 25, 2009, 12:12:24 PM
Ships and robots will need to be built, and have ships have finite transport capacities. Someone will need to decide how many to build, how and where.
The robots will build them. There'll be more than enough
Quote
At any rate, what good is giving everyone the resources of a million planets when there are only a small handful of worlds that can actually be reached and exploited?
Obviously this wouldn't be the case.
It'd never happen.
Quote from: Neil on November 25, 2009, 01:12:41 PM
It'd never happen.
That however is a question of whether we'll ever get out into space or not.
The initial question here seems to be built upon the assumption that this has passed by default (talk of big/small spaceships).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 25, 2009, 09:11:04 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on November 25, 2009, 09:04:16 AM
@Yi
Ah, but I'd like to hear how a cashless, technologically advanced society could work without money and without state/communal ownership of production. Any idea?
You'd end up with cash eventually. Start with barter, then you start using some commodity as the common denominator (how many bushels of wheat will you give me for this house?), then you replace the physical bushels of wheat with book entries or paper scripts. Voila, money.
Actually I agree with you wholeheartedly.
That's the reason I think a society without money would necessarily be collectivist, and probably undemocratic. If it were democratic, then the average citizen would have to be so radically egalitarian that his ideas would seem incredibly exotic and alien to us. The Future is a foreign country, they say, but...
Money is so useful that keeping it abolished would demand a constant official effort... and very probably an strong law enforcement effort too. And such a system would collapse swiftly unless some collective entity provided for the basic needs of the citizens.
Quote
An economy of abundance. Check out Iain Banks Culture novels.
I have never read Banks. I will check them, PRC.
Quote
A hell of a lot of allocation of resources is about social status rather than need. The simple provision of vast numbers of consumer goods does not meet this need for status.
Richard, that's exactly the kind of consequence I'm interested in. Society could be egalitarian in economic means, but status seems a basic human aspiration... how would people acquire and display publicly a higher social status in an egalitarian environment? Perhaps smart uniforms and medals would be popular, for example... 'Look, the neighbor has got the Teaching Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves' :P
I'm sure you have heard of them but this is a good place to remind you of sumptuary laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law
It's possible to imagine a society where consumption of various types was cashfree but "earned" by one's social rank. The rank being determined by one's perceived contribution to society.
That would still be inefficient compared to cash though. eg for services renedered they might give me an upmarket car (not interested) whereas with cash I could stay at more upmarket hotels (increasingly interested as I get older).
Alariste, I tho=ink that you could have a society without currency, but not one without money. There will always be some good (or basket of goods) that is fairly imperishable and whose supply is less than demand. This good will become the means of storing value and of reducing transaction costs. If the government abolishes currency, this might be tulip bulbs, slivers of the True Cross, rare metals, or something else, but you can be sure that it will arise, because even in an economy of plenty, people will want to store value "just in case."
What you would see in the economy of plenty is that the "price" of many goods (and some services) would be zero, much like the price of air is for our economy.
It would I suppose be possible to have an economy based on personal influence and celebrity. The "scarce resource" could be, for example, being seated at a good restaurant; only available if the guy at the door recognizes who you are; and he's working the door, in turn, because that would be his claim to fame ...
In such a society, fame would be of course all-important. If it's a utopia, fame would be achieved through great accoplishments in the arts and sciences. more realisticly, there would be a race to the bottom and society would be dominated by people who make Paris Hilton look like an exemplar of good taste. :D
Abolition of money? Just keep voting Republican, they'll make sure Wall Street makes as much of it disappear as possible.
Quote from: grumbler on November 26, 2009, 08:54:45 AM
Alariste, I tho=ink that you could have a society without currency, but not one without money. There will always be some good (or basket of goods) that is fairly imperishable and whose supply is less than demand. This good will become the means of storing value and of reducing transaction costs. If the government abolishes currency, this might be tulip bulbs, slivers of the True Cross, rare metals, or something else, but you can be sure that it will arise, because even in an economy of plenty, people will want to store value "just in case."
What you would see in the economy of plenty is that the "price" of many goods (and some services) would be zero, much like the price of air is for our economy.
The part about services is pretty much crucial, imo. While it is possible to imagine an economy where most goods would be so plentiful, they would be pretty much worthless (and free), it would be a different story with services. Unless a service can be performed by a robot or some other entity that is also not an actor in the economy (an animal, a slave, a specially bred creature that does not think economically etc.), then anyone performing the service would obviously demand something for it, since otherwise they would have no incentive to perform it (since "free time" is a commodity with inelastic supply).
Quote from: PRC on November 25, 2009, 12:16:52 PM
An economy of abundance. Check out Iain Banks Culture novels.
The Culture only works because the humans in it are not free. They are ruled by extremely powerful AIs.
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2009, 09:39:40 AM
It would I suppose be possible to have an economy based on personal influence and celebrity. The "scarce resource" could be, for example, being seated at a good restaurant; only available if the guy at the door recognizes who you are; and he's working the door, in turn, because that would be his claim to fame ...
In such a society, fame would be of course all-important. If it's a utopia, fame would be achieved through great accoplishments in the arts and sciences. more realisticly, there would be a race to the bottom and society would be dominated by people who make Paris Hilton look like an exemplar of good taste. :D
See, but then you get into the issue of valuing fame and trading it around.
@Zanza: They're as free as you and I are.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 26, 2009, 11:18:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2009, 09:39:40 AM
It would I suppose be possible to have an economy based on personal influence and celebrity. The "scarce resource" could be, for example, being seated at a good restaurant; only available if the guy at the door recognizes who you are; and he's working the door, in turn, because that would be his claim to fame ...
In such a society, fame would be of course all-important. If it's a utopia, fame would be achieved through great accoplishments in the arts and sciences. more realisticly, there would be a race to the bottom and society would be dominated by people who make Paris Hilton look like an exemplar of good taste. :D
See, but then you get into the issue of valuing fame and trading it around.
@Zanza: They're as free as you and I are.
In many cases, it will simply be a matter of comparison: I have a scarce opportunity or commodity, so who shall it go to - A, B or C? The higher status person getting it.
The assumption being that this society is so wealthy that all possible "needs" of a routine and subsistance level are as free as air.
The more I think about it, the more I think that a society with everything being plentiful would simply be impossible. That's because human progress and human needs are not finite.
I mean, from a perspective of a 17th century human, a modern society like say Sweden, would be pretty much providing for all human needs for free - I bet you could live from welfare and socialized medicine at a level that is at least as good if not better as that of a 17th century person. But since then we have developed new goods and services that need to be paid for. There is no way to assume that even if our society reaches a level when all our modern needs are satisfied for free, we won't have to spend money to, say, glide on the rings of Saturn or prolong our life to live 500 years, and so on.
How do you tell differences in status? If the status is based on "fame" then the vast majority of people will be equal at zero.
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2009, 09:54:57 AM
The part about services is pretty much crucial, imo. While it is possible to imagine an economy where most goods would be so plentiful, they would be pretty much worthless (and free), it would be a different story with services. Unless a service can be performed by a robot or some other entity that is also not an actor in the economy (an animal, a slave, a specially bred creature that does not think economically etc.), then anyone performing the service would obviously demand something for it, since otherwise they would have no incentive to perform it (since "free time" is a commodity with inelastic supply).
I agree with this, but would point out that sometimes compensation is intangible. A person who dives into a freezing river to save a child is obviously performing a "service," but the primary compensation is probably merely that one doesn't have to live with the knowledge that one let a child die without attempting to save it.
We can imagine a fair number of other "psychic income" kinds of scenarios that would get a fair amount of services accomplished without overt compensation, but I am doubtful that this would be successfully carried very far. "Make grandma happy and bring me a sandwich" will work only so many times.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 26, 2009, 12:58:21 PM
How do you tell differences in status? If the status is based on "fame" then the vast majority of people will be equal at zero.
Not exactly - you are thinking of *public* "fame". Think also of personal influence - who your friends and family are, and whether they would, if given a choice, cut you slack; nepotism and the like.
Say two people wanted a prime seat at a restaurant. One was some sort of minor celebrity and the other was the head waiter's brother in law. The b-in-law may have zero public fame but his influence over the headwater may be non trivial and may outweigh the minor celebrity the other guy enjoys.
Certainly if both were competing for something from a stranger, the celeb would always win.
So the answer pretty much is that such society is possible if we modify human nature - which is pretty much a non-starter in this kind of debates.
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2009, 01:03:56 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 26, 2009, 12:58:21 PM
How do you tell differences in status? If the status is based on "fame" then the vast majority of people will be equal at zero.
Not exactly - you are thinking of *public* "fame". Think also of personal influence - who your friends and family are, and whether they would, if given a choice, cut you slack; nepotism and the like.
Say two people wanted a prime seat at a restaurant. One was some sort of minor celebrity and the other was the head waiter's brother in law. The b-in-law may have zero public fame but his influence over the headwater may be non trivial and may outweigh the minor celebrity the other guy enjoys.
Certainly if both were competing for something from a stranger, the celeb would always win.
Why would anyone be a head waiter in a cash-less society with all resources aplenty?
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2009, 01:07:22 PM
Why would anyone be a head waiter in a cash-less society with all resources aplenty?
If they were artists and serving people in a restaurant was their form of art. They're only in it for the experience.
Quote from: PRC on November 26, 2009, 01:14:55 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2009, 01:07:22 PM
Why would anyone be a head waiter in a cash-less society with all resources aplenty?
If they were artists and serving people in a restaurant was their form of art. They're only in it for the experience.
Even if people like this existed, surely their numbers wouldn't be big enough to meet the demand for restaurant services. Ergo, the economy would not be plentiful.
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2009, 01:07:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2009, 01:03:56 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 26, 2009, 12:58:21 PM
How do you tell differences in status? If the status is based on "fame" then the vast majority of people will be equal at zero.
Not exactly - you are thinking of *public* "fame". Think also of personal influence - who your friends and family are, and whether they would, if given a choice, cut you slack; nepotism and the like.
Say two people wanted a prime seat at a restaurant. One was some sort of minor celebrity and the other was the head waiter's brother in law. The b-in-law may have zero public fame but his influence over the headwater may be non trivial and may outweigh the minor celebrity the other guy enjoys.
Certainly if both were competing for something from a stranger, the celeb would always win.
Why would anyone be a head waiter in a cash-less society with all resources aplenty?
Because that's their way of getting some leverage and notice. If you are a head water able to dispense seats (or not) that people want, you are a "someone".
If you sit at home playing video games all day or the equivalent (perfectly possible and no doubt what most would do in such a society), you will not have any leverage (of course you might not need it).
People want some sort of status though. This would be a society in which status would matter more than anything else, so (say) if you were chatting someone up at a party, if you could say "I'm head waiter at a fancyb restaurant, I can get you seats", you'd instantly have the advantage over some slacker who has no claim to fame at all.
Edit: the obvious conclusion is that a job which conveyed no status would not have a person doing it. Presumably, human services would all be very valuable and sought after luxury items - routine stuff would all be done by robots.
Heh, that's an interesting concept. And not unlike living under communism in Poland. :lol:
Would people care enough about this minor advantage of being able to give tables to friends that they suffer through having to work? Especially since they'd have to toil away as a waiter for years before becoming head waiter.
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2009, 01:07:22 PM
Why would anyone be a head waiter in a cash-less society with all resources aplenty?
Socialization? Opportunities for favoritism?
Imagine a restaurant where people could show off their cooking abilities, but every person had to put in time doing the unsavory tasks.
Quote from: Tyr on November 26, 2009, 01:39:42 PM
Would people care enough about this minor advantage of being able to give tables to friends that they suffer through having to work? Especially since they'd have to toil away as a waiter for years before becoming head waiter.
Presumably, the job would not actually entail much in the way of physical toil, nor would predecessor jobs.
Simply possessing a job may well be reasonably high status, even if the favours you can bestow are small.
People will do a lot for the possession of status.
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2009, 01:31:09 PM
Heh, that's an interesting concept. And not unlike living under communism in Poland. :lol:
The difference is having a society of abundance rather than scarsity. ;)
Actually, I was thinking of another model - the "economy" of being a hunter-gatherer (also a society of scarsity of course).
Hunter-gatherers lack money and, more significantly, any ability to store posessions above what they can carry. They nonetheless have an economy of sorts - based on "storing" favours.
Favours are not "banked" in the same way as cash, with an exact accounting. Rather, they are "banked" in the form of
status. It is all based on sharing food and other goods. If I have food to share, and I hand it out to everyone, I am in essence putting everyone under an obligation; if I do so more often than other people, my status goes up. A free rider, who always gets but does not give - their status goes down.
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2009, 02:36:11 PM
Favours are not "banked" in the same way as cash, with an exact accounting. Rather, they are "banked" in the form of status. It is all based on sharing food and other goods. If I have food to share, and I hand it out to everyone, I am in essence putting everyone under an obligation; if I do so more often than other people, my status goes up. A free rider, who always gets but does not give - their status goes down.
Though remember, in foraging societies, those who can and provide more (a better hunter, forager, maker of nets, whatever) are often ritually and communally ridiculed and their efforts are belittled in order to keep these who can provide more closer in status than might happen.
Such leveling mechanism are an important part of small group dynamics.
Quote from: PDH on November 26, 2009, 03:53:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2009, 02:36:11 PM
Favours are not "banked" in the same way as cash, with an exact accounting. Rather, they are "banked" in the form of status. It is all based on sharing food and other goods. If I have food to share, and I hand it out to everyone, I am in essence putting everyone under an obligation; if I do so more often than other people, my status goes up. A free rider, who always gets but does not give - their status goes down.
Though remember, in foraging societies, those who can and provide more (a better hunter, forager, maker of nets, whatever) are often ritually and communally ridiculed and their efforts are belittled in order to keep these who can provide more closer in status than might happen.
Such leveling mechanism are an important part of small group dynamics.
I guess much the same function as the tabloid press re: celebrities. :D
Quote from: PDH on November 26, 2009, 03:53:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2009, 02:36:11 PM
Favours are not "banked" in the same way as cash, with an exact accounting. Rather, they are "banked" in the form of status. It is all based on sharing food and other goods. If I have food to share, and I hand it out to everyone, I am in essence putting everyone under an obligation; if I do so more often than other people, my status goes up. A free rider, who always gets but does not give - their status goes down.
Though remember, in foraging societies, those who can and provide more (a better hunter, forager, maker of nets, whatever) are often ritually and communally ridiculed and their efforts are belittled in order to keep these who can provide more closer in status than might happen.
Such leveling mechanism are an important part of small group dynamics.
on a related note, in some societies, rich men and big men, and wannabee rich men and big men, gave away their wealth in an ceremonial effort to elevate and/or maintain their status. Potlatches are one example of this redistribution.
Quote from: saskganesh on November 26, 2009, 04:26:12 PM
on a related note, in some societies, rich men and big men, and wannabee rich men and big men, gave away their wealth in an ceremonial effort to elevate and/or maintain their status. Potlatches are one example of this redistribution.
Good point: the sort of behaviour that makes sense in a society where status and not money is the "currency".
Part of the point of a potlatch or a New Guinean pig feast is that the property given away was not solely the property of the one guy - it was that guy's ability to command resources from others (to breed the pigs for the feast or to make the goods) which was tested and demonstrated.
Obviously in a future society of abundance a literal potlatch would make no sense, since goods would be essentially free. Rather, it would be the person's ability to organize or inspire others to some sort of communal effort, such as arranging an elaborate party, which would be analogous.
I think the size of the society matters. Things like status and prestige work in small communities where everybody knows each other. But the human mind can only "know" so many people. As soon as you start dealing with strangers on a regular basis, you need something else as a store of value.
The internet, globalization and other advances make sure that we cannot go back to ancient communal ways, and thank hod for that.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 26, 2009, 07:11:51 PM
I think the size of the society matters. Things like status and prestige work in small communities where everybody knows each other. But the human mind can only "know" so many people. As soon as you start dealing with strangers on a regular basis, you need something else as a store of value.
In general I agree, but I'm wondering about a Yelp for other people. A lot of ways for that to be abused, though.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 26, 2009, 07:11:51 PM
I think the size of the society matters. Things like status and prestige work in small communities where everybody knows each other. But the human mind can only "know" so many people. As soon as you start dealing with strangers on a regular basis, you need something else as a store of value.
Perhaps, or perhaps in can be scaled up.
I can rely on ten dudes to do shit for me. I have status. The guy who can rely on me and ten guys like me will have even more status. The guy who can call on ten guys who can call on ten guys who can each call on a hundred has even more status, and so on.
Even when relating to strangers you may be able to tell where they stand locally and how many people owe them favour, through the judgement of various mutually collected peers and outside status symbols.
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2009, 02:36:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2009, 01:31:09 PM
Heh, that's an interesting concept. And not unlike living under communism in Poland. :lol:
The difference is having a society of abundance rather than scarsity. ;)
Actually, I was thinking of another model - the "economy" of being a hunter-gatherer (also a society of scarsity of course).
Hunter-gatherers lack money and, more significantly, any ability to store posessions above what they can carry. They nonetheless have an economy of sorts - based on "storing" favours.
Favours are not "banked" in the same way as cash, with an exact accounting. Rather, they are "banked" in the form of status. It is all based on sharing food and other goods. If I have food to share, and I hand it out to everyone, I am in essence putting everyone under an obligation; if I do so more often than other people, my status goes up. A free rider, who always gets but does not give - their status goes down.
I don't believe in the "society of abundance" - once your basic needs are satisfied, need is based on perception. Assuming the society would not stop all progress, there will be constantly new goods and services developed, and no society could make these available to everybody immediately upon their emergence.
In that sense, the communist Poland was a society of "abundance" as much as it was a society of "scarcity". Sure, people lacked stuff like Coca Cola and prettier clothes, but people were fed, clothed, had free access to higher education and full health care coverage, and probably a better access to higher culture than they have today (theatres and Polish movie making were thriving and despite censorship making much better productions than they do today, and popular access to art was subsidized by the government). The scarcity was only relative, in comparison to the capitalistic societies of the West - and I assume any society based on the concept of "abundance" would suffer from such relative scarcity in one form or another.
And yeah, the society worked a lot based on exchange of favors and status, with "bribes" very rarely taking a pecuniary form.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2009, 08:23:00 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on November 26, 2009, 07:11:51 PM
I think the size of the society matters. Things like status and prestige work in small communities where everybody knows each other. But the human mind can only "know" so many people. As soon as you start dealing with strangers on a regular basis, you need something else as a store of value.
Perhaps, or perhaps in can be scaled up.
I can rely on ten dudes to do shit for me. I have status. The guy who can rely on me and ten guys like me will have even more status. The guy who can call on ten guys who can call on ten guys who can each call on a hundred has even more status, and so on.
Even when relating to strangers you may be able to tell where they stand locally and how many people owe them favour, through the judgement of various mutually collected peers and outside status symbols.
Six Degrees of Separation. :contract:
Quote from: Monoriu on November 26, 2009, 07:11:51 PM
I think the size of the society matters. Things like status and prestige work in small communities where everybody knows each other. But the human mind can only "know" so many people. As soon as you start dealing with strangers on a regular basis, you need something else as a store of value.
The internet, globalization and other advances make sure that we cannot go back to ancient communal ways, and thank hod for that.
I disagree, in part - the Internet extends the reach of those you "know" or who "know" of you exponentially. Just look at what we're doing here ... ;)
In a society of abundance, I suspect that self-chosen social circles will play a greater role in production and securing of truly scarce things (I suspect mostly services, as presumably robots will make all sorts of goods free - other than say works of art).
Most transactions in this society would take the form of "I'll give you my new holograph instillation painting as a gift, on the unspoken assumption that you will display it at your costume party - to which you will invite me - enhancing the status of both of us; I'm expecting the other invitees to be important and interesting (i.e. persons with high-prestige goods and services to bestow in turn, whom I'd like to know)".
Money would simply not be required in such a world, which in part already exists - or at least, in some situations people like to *pretend* or *act* as if it does.
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2009, 03:17:48 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2009, 02:36:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2009, 01:31:09 PM
Heh, that's an interesting concept. And not unlike living under communism in Poland. :lol:
The difference is having a society of abundance rather than scarsity. ;)
Actually, I was thinking of another model - the "economy" of being a hunter-gatherer (also a society of scarsity of course).
Hunter-gatherers lack money and, more significantly, any ability to store posessions above what they can carry. They nonetheless have an economy of sorts - based on "storing" favours.
Favours are not "banked" in the same way as cash, with an exact accounting. Rather, they are "banked" in the form of status. It is all based on sharing food and other goods. If I have food to share, and I hand it out to everyone, I am in essence putting everyone under an obligation; if I do so more often than other people, my status goes up. A free rider, who always gets but does not give - their status goes down.
I don't believe in the "society of abundance" - once your basic needs are satisfied, need is based on perception. Assuming the society would not stop all progress, there will be constantly new goods and services developed, and no society could make these available to everybody immediately upon their emergence.
In that sense, the communist Poland was a society of "abundance" as much as it was a society of "scarcity". Sure, people lacked stuff like Coca Cola and prettier clothes, but people were fed, clothed, had free access to higher education and full health care coverage, and probably a better access to higher culture than they have today (theatres and Polish movie making were thriving and despite censorship making much better productions than they do today, and popular access to art was subsidized by the government). The scarcity was only relative, in comparison to the capitalistic societies of the West - and I assume any society based on the concept of "abundance" would suffer from such relative scarcity in one form or another.
And yeah, the society worked a lot based on exchange of favors and status, with "bribes" very rarely taking a pecuniary form.
Oh I agree that there will never be an end of new things - only the things people value will be different. If you like, higher up on the so called "hierarchy of needs":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_needs
In our purely hypothetical future, where we as a species have at last solved our internal problems, presumably materal goods required for the lower eschelons of the hierarchy would be as free as air - no-one would have to work to live; there may be some sort of accounting used for allocation of resources for the purpose of keeping the system running, but it would not be "money" as we know it, since it would be largely invisible to the citizens. That will not end striving of course, as people would now strive for status, self-articulation, etc.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 26, 2009, 07:11:51 PM
The internet, globalization and other advances make sure that we cannot go back to ancient communal ways, and thank hod for that.
While I agree that there can be no going back to ways that work in small scale foraging groups (not ancient, by the way, just practiced less and less until later last century [at least]), I would argue that the triumphal idea that we know what cannot happen to human society in the future is a bit much...
Quote from: Malthus on November 27, 2009, 09:43:23 AM
In our purely hypothetical future, where we as a species have at last solved our internal problems, presumably materal goods required for the lower eschelons of the hierarchy would be as free as air - no-one would have to work to live; there may be some sort of accounting used for allocation of resources for the purpose of keeping the system running, but it would not be "money" as we know it, since it would be largely invisible to the citizens. That will not end striving of course, as people would now strive for status, self-articulation, etc.
Keynes wrote an essay about this in the 30s; he foresaw this happening in the not-so-distant future. In fact, in terms of production capabilities, most of the OECD world has reached this stage already; yet the pursuit for status and positional goods is so fierce that there is no feasible way to abandon the traditional monetary economy without massive social changes.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2009, 06:33:04 PM
Keynes wrote an essay about this in the 30s; he foresaw this happening in the not-so-distant future. In fact, in terms of production capabilities, most of the OECD world has reached this stage already; yet the pursuit for status and positional goods is so fierce that there is no feasible way to abandon the traditional monetary economy without massive social changes.
I hope the real Keynes didn't engage in the absurd and, frankly, embarrassingly erroneous speculation that the poster by that name did, back in the day.
Quote from: Malthus on November 27, 2009, 09:36:40 AM
I disagree, in part - the Internet extends the reach of those you "know" or who "know" of you exponentially. Just look at what we're doing here ... ;)
In a society of abundance, I suspect that self-chosen social circles will play a greater role in production and securing of truly scarce things (I suspect mostly services, as presumably robots will make all sorts of goods free - other than say works of art).
Most transactions in this society would take the form of "I'll give you my new holograph instillation painting as a gift, on the unspoken assumption that you will display it at your costume party - to which you will invite me - enhancing the status of both of us; I'm expecting the other invitees to be important and interesting (i.e. persons with high-prestige goods and services to bestow in turn, whom I'd like to know)".
Money would simply not be required in such a world, which in part already exists - or at least, in some situations people like to *pretend* or *act* as if it does.
I think the internet forces us to deal with strangers much more regularly than before, further removing the human element from transactions. Take banking for example. In the past, people needed to visit branches, and bank staff would at least meet them personally. Nowadays everybody gets an internet connection. Instead of catering to individual needs of clients, banks will need to standardize their services over the internet.
And I don't really understand how we can have a society of abundance. Humanity already possesses the technology and resources to provide for the basic needs (food, water, shelter, basic clothing etc) of everybody on earth easily. Yet we clearly do not have a society of abundance where most goods are free.
In order to qualify to receive the goods that meet my basic needs, I also need to take part in the production process - that's what earning money means. In an increasingly specialized and competitive world, that is not easy to do. In fact, it is getting harder. What's more, it is not enough to simply join. One also has to stay there, no easy feat.
I think you are wrong about the society removing human element - in fact, reality seems to point to the contrary. After the initial "enthusiasm" for internet anonymity, that marked the 1990s, the internet community has seen a remarkable renaissance of identity - from Facebook, to Twitter, to video blogging people are finding more ways to be recognized and known, to the point that is quite stunning to be honest. People seem to care about opinions of and share their personal lifes with other people, who they had not even known existed before.
Nb, one thing to consider is that in a future society based on status, group identity may become much more deliberate - rather than based on ethnicity or nationality, it will be based instead on ideology or a common interest - think "Diamond Age" or "Snowcrash." In fact, Internet offers a stark insight into such a possible future. Just think of Languish as a society. :bleeding: :P
Quote from: Martinus on November 27, 2009, 07:19:07 PM
Just think of Languish as a society. :bleeding: :P
I already do.
Quote from: grumbler on November 27, 2009, 06:45:36 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2009, 06:33:04 PM
Keynes wrote an essay about this in the 30s; he foresaw this happening in the not-so-distant future. In fact, in terms of production capabilities, most of the OECD world has reached this stage already; yet the pursuit for status and positional goods is so fierce that there is no feasible way to abandon the traditional monetary economy without massive social changes.
I hope the real Keynes didn't engage in the absurd and, frankly, embarrassingly erroneous speculation that the poster by that name did, back in the day.
Nah the real Keynes was a genius; that other guy was just some fool poser on Paradox.
Quote from: Monoriu on November 27, 2009, 06:58:04 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 27, 2009, 09:36:40 AM
I disagree, in part - the Internet extends the reach of those you "know" or who "know" of you exponentially. Just look at what we're doing here ... ;)
In a society of abundance, I suspect that self-chosen social circles will play a greater role in production and securing of truly scarce things (I suspect mostly services, as presumably robots will make all sorts of goods free - other than say works of art).
Most transactions in this society would take the form of "I'll give you my new holograph instillation painting as a gift, on the unspoken assumption that you will display it at your costume party - to which you will invite me - enhancing the status of both of us; I'm expecting the other invitees to be important and interesting (i.e. persons with high-prestige goods and services to bestow in turn, whom I'd like to know)".
Money would simply not be required in such a world, which in part already exists - or at least, in some situations people like to *pretend* or *act* as if it does.
I think the internet forces us to deal with strangers much more regularly than before, further removing the human element from transactions. Take banking for example. In the past, people needed to visit branches, and bank staff would at least meet them personally. Nowadays everybody gets an internet connection. Instead of catering to individual needs of clients, banks will need to standardize their services over the internet.
And I don't really understand how we can have a society of abundance. Humanity already possesses the technology and resources to provide for the basic needs (food, water, shelter, basic clothing etc) of everybody on earth easily. Yet we clearly do not have a society of abundance where most goods are free.
In order to qualify to receive the goods that meet my basic needs, I also need to take part in the production process - that's what earning money means. In an increasingly specialized and competitive world, that is not easy to do. In fact, it is getting harder. What's more, it is not enough to simply join. One also has to stay there, no easy feat.
I don't agree, at least not in much of the West: right now it is perfectly possible to live at a subsistance level and essentially do nothing at all other than fill out forms, and still get basic food, shelter, education and medical care paid for by the state. You may not live in any sort of comfort or luxury, but compared with (say) the life of a medieval peasant, it's a paradise - no-one starves or dies of easily cured diseases, everyone who seriously wants it and is willing to conform to a minimum of acceptable behaviour has shelter of sorts. It isn't totally beyond the realm of possibility that this trend will accellerate (barring global disasters of various sorts).
While our collective notions of what the necessary basics of life are have clearly increased substantially, I do not think that a society of abundance is impossible.
The fact that many services are now impersonal - because they are automated - is an example of how the mechanisms of such a society would work; occupations that used to require a human (say, bank teller) are now done by a machine, with a net increase in productivity (in now takes two minutes to do what used to require an hour or more of going to the bank and waiting in line, and a machine uses a fraction of a cent in energy and amortization/servicing of the machine, rather than say a couple of dollars of a human tellers' time).
As time goes on (the theory goes), the occupations that *require* humans will become fewer and fewer; more and more people will require support through various forms of subsidy and social services, which they will vote for; actual occupations will grow fewer and harder to obtain, and consequently have higher status.
Right now of course this status is still represented by money, and maybe it always will be. But it is possible at least to imagine a point when it is not.
Yeah, that's not inconceivable.
At least in Poland (and I suspect in many countries), politics has become that kind of status-based profession, for example. Politicians earn peanuts (for example I earn 2-3 times more than the President of Poland) and yet people flock to it, because it gives them status (again, in a democratic society the "power" they have is not as big as the status benefit). Similar situation exists in more sophisticated arts or at least some forms of media (like journalism) or academia.
One can imagine that as the society progresses and more and more of the "day-to-day" non-creative work is automated, such jobs will become more and more popular.
Quote from: Grallon on November 25, 2009, 10:38:01 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 25, 2009, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on November 25, 2009, 09:04:16 AM
Ah, but I'd like to hear how a cashless, technologically advanced society could work without money and without state/communal ownership of production. Any idea?
It couldn't. At least not with humans.
The Borg scenario remains the only one where we can overcome our selfish destructive animalistic nature. Thus we would no longer be burdened by emotions such as greed, avarice and lust for power that underpin all human systems of governance and resource management.
G.
Borg: You will be assimilated.
Picard: Been there; done that. We disbanded money, go away.
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2009, 11:03:14 AM
As time goes on (the theory goes), the occupations that *require* humans will become fewer and fewer; more and more people will require support through various forms of subsidy and social services, which they will vote for; actual occupations will grow fewer and harder to obtain, and consequently have higher status.
Right now of course this status is still represented by money, and maybe it always will be. But it is possible at least to imagine a point when it is not.
I'm with you until this point. The "player piano" theory that machines are going to lead to mass unemployement has been predicted for a very long time but unemployment now is much lower than at most other points after the industrial revolution. Those bank tellers that lost their jobs haven't been reduced to the dole--they have found new jobs.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2009, 04:49:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2009, 11:03:14 AM
As time goes on (the theory goes), the occupations that *require* humans will become fewer and fewer; more and more people will require support through various forms of subsidy and social services, which they will vote for; actual occupations will grow fewer and harder to obtain, and consequently have higher status.
Right now of course this status is still represented by money, and maybe it always will be. But it is possible at least to imagine a point when it is not.
I'm with you until this point. The "player piano" theory that machines are going to lead to mass unemployement has been predicted for a very long time but unemployment now is much lower than at most other points after the industrial revolution. Those bank tellers that lost their jobs haven't been reduced to the dole--they have found new jobs.
Malthus is right, though, that even now jobs are becoming more and more about status than sustenance. You do not get a job to survive - you get it to buy a wide screen TV or go to some nice place for holidays. And many of these new jobs are exactly about convincing people that they really *need* these status symbols - so this becoming a recurring loop.
Get rid of all the marketing people, sales people and people whose job it is to resolve conflicts over limited resources (as neither type will be needed in the economy of abundance) and you have huge unemployment.
Quote from: Martinus on November 29, 2009, 05:08:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 29, 2009, 04:49:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2009, 11:03:14 AM
As time goes on (the theory goes), the occupations that *require* humans will become fewer and fewer; more and more people will require support through various forms of subsidy and social services, which they will vote for; actual occupations will grow fewer and harder to obtain, and consequently have higher status.
Right now of course this status is still represented by money, and maybe it always will be. But it is possible at least to imagine a point when it is not.
I'm with you until this point. The "player piano" theory that machines are going to lead to mass unemployement has been predicted for a very long time but unemployment now is much lower than at most other points after the industrial revolution. Those bank tellers that lost their jobs haven't been reduced to the dole--they have found new jobs.
Malthus is right, though, that even now jobs are becoming more and more about status than sustenance. You do not get a job to survive - you get it to buy a wide screen TV or go to some nice place for holidays. And many of these new jobs are exactly about convincing people that they really *need* these status symbols - so this becoming a recurring loop.
Get rid of all the marketing people, sales people and people whose job it is to resolve conflicts over limited resources (as neither type will be needed in the economy of abundance) and you have huge unemployment.
I agree that we are no longer a subsistence level society, I just disagree that huge unemployment is around the corner.
It has been the case for some time that people can live a basic existence without much work, but for whatever reason most people are willing to work hard for that big screen TV.
I dunno, I still think there'd be a need (well...not need but a opening) for marketing and sales and all that sort of thing- the entire population can have a awesome mega TV, sure. But which TV will they choose to have? The Sony or the LG?
Even if there are no profits to actually be made I think that status could even extend here to having your designs being the most popular.
With products like TVs this is well out there but its pretty easy to imagine with artists; just think of all those people writing fiction on the web, they just want people to read it an give them respect. Even though authors, musicians, etc... won't be making money they still want their work out there and so there will be people who will offer to help them do that for the perks that come with being connected to the famous.
Quote from: Viking on November 29, 2009, 12:26:16 PM
Picard: Been there; done that. We disbanded money, go away.
If you think humans will let go of their need for status symbols willingly you are delusional.
G.
Quote from: Malthus on November 29, 2009, 11:03:14 AM
I don't agree, at least not in much of the West: right now it is perfectly possible to live at a subsistance level and essentially do nothing at all other than fill out forms, and still get basic food, shelter, education and medical care paid for by the state. You may not live in any sort of comfort or luxury, but compared with (say) the life of a medieval peasant, it's a paradise - no-one starves or dies of easily cured diseases, everyone who seriously wants it and is willing to conform to a minimum of acceptable behaviour has shelter of sorts. It isn't totally beyond the realm of possibility that this trend will accellerate (barring global disasters of various sorts).
While our collective notions of what the necessary basics of life are have clearly increased substantially, I do not think that a society of abundance is impossible.
The fact that many services are now impersonal - because they are automated - is an example of how the mechanisms of such a society would work; occupations that used to require a human (say, bank teller) are now done by a machine, with a net increase in productivity (in now takes two minutes to do what used to require an hour or more of going to the bank and waiting in line, and a machine uses a fraction of a cent in energy and amortization/servicing of the machine, rather than say a couple of dollars of a human tellers' time).
As time goes on (the theory goes), the occupations that *require* humans will become fewer and fewer; more and more people will require support through various forms of subsidy and social services, which they will vote for; actual occupations will grow fewer and harder to obtain, and consequently have higher status.
Right now of course this status is still represented by money, and maybe it always will be. But it is possible at least to imagine a point when it is not.
I think there are a lot of forces at work that may make the western welfare state unsustainable - mounting debt, unfavourable demographics, globalization and competition from developing countries, to name a few.
I don't buy that a society of abundance is possible, or even desirable. We are not one big happy family on earth. Humanity is deeply divided. If every worker in a particular trade form a union and demand better conditions, they'll probably get it. But if a sufficiently large chunk of the workers refuse to cooperate, the party will be over, and they'll engage in a race to the bottom. The welfare states of the west worked in the previous decades because there was a lack of competition from the developing world. This is beginning to change.
Our struggle for survival and the fight against scarcity will never end. Not until everyone is content with what they have. As long as some people are not content, they'll compete with the rest for limited resources.