chem1st Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I don't think, and indeed I hope, what will happen is a gradual shift away from state currencies to international digital currencies. I think of bitcoin as a proof of concept, and there's much to learn from it, but like napster I doubt it will come to dominate, even though it has opened the idea up to 'we the masses'. Gold is fine as a base for your currency until some black swan comes along, like China discovering a 24 carat asteroid - or somoene finding out that half the gold ingots held in banking reserves aren't gold but actually plated tungsten ingots. But if all this obsession with heavy metal is simply to limit and curtail inflation/deflation of a currency, then that simple function can be executed cryptographically, ably demonstrated by bitcoin. I'm so far from financial expertise that I can't even see it, but this idea of state issue bio-survival tickets is dead as far as I'm concerned. It's just the bits are going to keep twitching for a few decades yet. I fail to see how these types of currency can gain trust. Far better is cash in hand, or loan in hand labour and hawala. You work for x hours, x hours gains you x respect, x respect can be traded for x hours, commodities can be measured in terms of x. Complex barter based upon recorded work done. Similar to bitcoin, but theft proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 FIAT currency, the way I understand it, is money that has a value attached to it. The paper itself is of no real worth, it is rather the ink and official looking pigments that grant it its value, according to the law. On to the point of moving to a gold standard, if you are even remotely thinking of doing so, you would be inadvertently forbidding the charging of interest. Since gold is a finite resource, it is impossible for banking institutions to perpetually charge interest on loans, for the amount of gold required to pay back the loan would be more than the gold that actually exists in the physical world. That is basically why money today is backed by nothing. It allows debt fuelled economies, which is basically every country in the world, to provide for their populace. Despite the fact that it collapses in the process, as we can observe today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 On to the point of moving to a gold standard, if you are even remotely thinking of doing so, you would be inadvertently forbidding the charging of interest. Since gold is a finite resource, it is impossible for banking institutions to perpetually charge interest on loans, for the amount of gold required to pay back the loan would be more than the gold that actually exists in the physical world. By the same token wouldn't a gold standard mean that the total money supply would be restricted to prevent any monetary expansion and prevent eg the development of countries in Asia, Africa and South America - or would this just mean constant upward re-valuation of the price of gold to the benefit of no-one except people who hold gold reserves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 By the same token wouldn't a gold standard mean that the total money supply would be restricted to prevent any monetary expansion and prevent eg the development of countries in Asia, Africa and South America - or would this just mean constant upward re-valuation of the price of gold to the benefit of no-one except people who hold gold reserves? Basically, it would magnify the existing problems manyfold. The only purpose a gold standard might serve is to make it more apparent how completely unsustainable and utterly idiotic it is to have an economic system that is utterly decoupled from the natural world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Basically, it would magnify the existing problems manyfold. The only purpose a gold standard might serve is to make it more apparent how completely unsustainable and utterly idiotic it is to have an economic system that is utterly decoupled from the natural world. What is this "natural world"? Please enlighten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 What is this "natural world"? Please enlighten. The planet we live on and the laws that govern it i.e. finiteness of resources, limited resource regeneration, a non-impervious ecosystem etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The planet we live on and the laws that govern it i.e. finiteness of resources, limited resource regeneration, a non-impervious ecosystem etc. Has anyone said we have infinite resources? We don't always have to "regenerate" - we've been recycling for as long as I can remember - it used to be called scrap merchants and rag and bone men when I was a kid. Human ingenuity has got us a long way bar the odd hiccup - hell, we'll probably be able to get a chinese takeaway on the moon in a 100 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Has anyone said we have infinite resources? The system certainly is working on that premise, seeing as it requires infinite growth in order to sustain itself. We don't always have to "regenerate" - we've been recycling for as long as I can remember - it used to be called scrap merchants and rag and bone men when I was a kid. I don't think fossil fuels and forests are recyclable and we certainly can't afford to wait for them to regenerate. Recycling is seldom 100% efficient, meaning resources will eventually be depleted. Not to forget that whole industries and jobs depend on the extraction of fossil fuels, minerals and deforestation. Sustainability simply doesn't exist in this system's lexicon. Human ingenuity has got us a long way bar the odd hiccup - hell, we'll probably be able to get a chinese takeaway on the moon in a 100 years or so. I doubt the old "technology will save us" cop out is going to last forever. Technology will soon render the majority of the human workforce obsolete, especially in the service sector. The chinese takeway on the moon will be completely automated and since you'll most likely have lost your job to a machine, you won't be able to pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The new technology will continue to make things though, so it's in the interests of the manufacturers that the general public can still afford to buy them. Therefore there needs to be a way of sharing wealth and resources more equitably to keep the wheels turning. Employment is no longer going to be the means by which we can do this if the majority of people have no work. There's enough money sloshing around it's just being hoovered up by the 1%. It needs to be redistributed more evenly. How, is the question. In Australia I believe they gave the entire population an amount of money, on the understanding that they use it to buy things, not to pay off debt or to save. It revitalised their economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The new technology will continue to make things though, so it's in the interests of the manufacturers that the general public can still afford to buy them. Therefore there needs to be a way of sharing wealth and resources more equitably to keep the wheels turning. Employment is no longer going to be the means by which we can do this if the majority of people have no work. There's enough money sloshing around it's just being hoovered up by the 1%. It needs to be redistributed more evenly. How, is the question. In Australia I believe they gave the entire population an amount of money, on the understanding that they use it to buy things, not to pay off debt or to save. It revitalised their economy. Indeed this is what it would have to come down to for this system to maintain itself. But one has to beg the question; what is the point of having money at all? If you don't have to work to earn money and it's just given to you, why not save a step and just provide access to whatever it is that people need to survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.