Economists to me: abolition of money

[Eddie Teach]

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.

[grumbler]

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.

[Malthus]

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.

[Martinus]

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.

[Martinus]

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?

[PRC]

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.

[Martinus]

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.

[Malthus]

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.

[Martinus]

Heh, that's an interesting concept. And not unlike living under communism in Poland. 

[Josquius]

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.

[Faeelin]

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.

[Malthus]

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.

[Malthus]

Heh, that's an interesting concept. And not unlike living under communism in Poland. 

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.

[PDH]

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.

[Malthus]

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.