Cashless Society

Post Reply New Topic

Then we agree completely.

Yes. We have to eat, so we are slaves to our nutritional needs. Plants, those lucky organisms can make their own food from elements abundant in nature and sunlight.

ruveyn

Ah, but they are slaves to the sun. Which is a slave to its hydrogen fuel and the laws of nuclear physics. And I can't think of anything that they are a slave to. We probably need a much better understanding of physics for that, if we can ever know...

I think this group Democratic Socialists of America (<--link) has some good ideas (on paper).

Now I want to think about the negatives and objections, because no economic system is going to be perfect.
Big problem: US economy is tied to US government of rampant corruption.


I also agree with what AstroGeek wrote about the Earth's finite resources.


I don't remember seeing suggestions here yet for these questions regarding a "Cashless Society". Sorry if I'm repeating them:
What entity would create the "credits" / virtual money? Who has oversight and would regulate that entity?

the problem as i see it with democratic socialism is that it simply seeks to reform the current system, and it would do nothing to address the main issue, which is the corrupting influence of power.

i think libertarian socialism would be the more egalitarian way to structure society. http://libcom.org/thought/libertarian-c ... troduction



yes. another problem in equating economic growth with progress is inherent in the way in which gdp is calculated. as an example, if i have a job, and i work with 100 colleagues who all live close by and cycle to work, but let's say for some reason we all have to relocate to the other end of the city and buy a car each and drive to work, this would not be a good outcome in terms of sustainability. it would, however, be considered as economic growth. there are many examples that could be applied along these lines.




i wouldn't really support the idea of a "cashless society" on many of the grounds that have been outlined my other posters. a moneyless society, on the other hand, i believe would represent real progress.

It does seem that a cashless society might be more and more in our future. I recall something called bitcoins growing in popularity.
I wouldn't be surprised if we saw more of this in our future due to its convenience.

"Digital Currency -- The Libertarian Future?"

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stoss ... n-future-0


Along similar lines, last week John Stossel had a very interesting idea on his show, should people or businesses be able to print their own currency? At first to me the idea sounded crazy to allow this. But the interview of the former Federal Reserve Economist David Barker makes excellent points. Basically, why do we give government such power to print currency, especially when they abuse the printing press, debasing our wealth?

"Stossel’s Currency Conundrum - Former Federal Reserve Economist David Barker discusses whether Americans should be able to print their own currency."

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/index.html

They can coast if it is ensured they won't starve.

I'd hardy call the meager existence of those living on welfare "coasting." Not to say that I like it that some people seem to live their whole life on welfare, but it can hardly be compared to the life of the leisure class.

^I don't like to make insinuations about poor people lacking character or being morally defective. Every society has its share of people who are unemployable - physically disabled, learning disabled, addicts, etc. Many of us at WP even fall into this category. In my opinion, it is more cost effective (& certainly more humane) for the government just to give people a small monthly check than to crack a whip on them or warehouse them in prisons. Nobody is getting rich off welfare, but MILLIONS of lives are being wasted in prisons. But it's an uphill fight to try to convince people of this. Incarceration is the American way.

Compared to the leisure class it's a sucky life. It's not necessarily that bad compared to those in the middle. It's not bad at all if you have low standards.

this is one of the flaws of our current system. those experiencing varied difficulties that make it hard to function as a productive unit under capitalism are either given a handout or left to flounder. this gives ammunition to those of a right wing persuasion to consider them nothing more than a drain on resources (a good example being the current situation in the uk relating to benefit reforms and the attitudes expressed by the tabloid media) which can ultimately lead to the slippery slope towards fascist tendencies.

given a whole different social structure, such people might be treated equally and with respect and the adoption of a more flexible approach might enable them to fulfill some potential in contributing towards society and the community.

Wow, there's a lot of misinfo going on here. I think there is some confusion over some economic terminology.

Growth, under a sound money system, would occur even without financial profits. Also, there is nothing inherently unsustainable about it. If you can make a laptop twice as fast with half the resources, how is that unsustainable?

What IS unsustainable is the illusion of growth of net production (GDP) created by monetary inflation and fractional reserves. However, real production increases don't happen at the expense of some exhaustible supply. Farmland in this country has for decades been going fallow because we get more production out of other farmland, for example. That frees up resources to be used for other purposes.

As for the cashless society; if you live in one it's time to get off the plantation! The cashless society is the dream of the private federal reserve bank and the treasury because it would force everyone to use the banking system. There have long been murmurings of taxing money not inside the system like money market accounts, or even cash. We already tax real money by imposing capital and sales taxes on gold, silver, and foreign currencies.

Main difference between Apple - Microsoft and national socialism is that their fascist happens inside the computer.

Petroleum is exhaustible, isn't it? And natural gas, coal? What about iron? I believe there is a lot, but not an infinite amount. Could we mine iron for another hundred thousand years? Gold? Aluminum? Copper? Or is it created by fractionnal reserves too?

So you're supposing we will always be using these elements, and in the same quantity, completely ignoring my simple example.

The 'supply' of these goods isn't their physical quantity. Indeed, they don't even exist in the economy until they are extracted. If natural goods were limiting growth, then this would be reflected in the price relative to capital goods. Even today where commodities are in a huge boom this is not the case.

Your lament is like that of the man wondering how we could possibly kill enough whales to sustain growth. If growth was truly limited by the scarcity of, say, iron ore, the price would increase and the economy would adjust. Alternatives would be used in greater amounts, more resources would be put toward mining iron ore on the margin, and yes, less iron would be consumed. That's the market mechanism to achieve sustainability. The problem is when prices are rigged, such as oil, steel, and more importantly, interest rates. That's how we end up in unsustainable situation which are more difficult to adjust from.

We will find a substitute for hydro-carbon fuels just about the time we run out of them.

Example: When did we find a substitute for Whale Oil (Kerosine from petroleum) ? Just about the time when the Whales had been hunted out.

ruveyn