afterzir Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 Hello, I think I came up with a mathematical proof that everyone in an anarcho-cap. society will be rich. The question that popped into my mind afterwards was: if everyone's rich, do we even need money? (I doubt Bill Gates looks at price tags). I thought this bowling pin would be easy to strike down, but surprisingly it isn't. I looked up some Mises Institute videos about the existence of money, but they create a straw-man by saying that without money you need 'double coincidence' to occur however it's possible to have something akin to accounts receivable/payable. I favor money because I feel that it would be a logistical nightmare without it, but is there any other reasons why money is preferable to no money? (I'm currently fascinated by a moneyless society, although I'd probably choose to live in one with money)
dsayers Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 I argue that money is a technology. We use vehicles to travel beyond our limitations. We use the internet to communicate beyond our limitations. We use money to trade beyond our limitations. Without money, trade would require that person A has X and wants Y, person B has Y and wants X, persons A and B value X and Y identically, and both happen to meet with X and Y in tow. That is enormously inefficient. As such, I don't see money as a value arbiter ever being separated from human interaction.
WorBlux Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Hello, I think I came up with a mathematical proof that everyone in an anarcho-cap. society will be rich. The question that popped into my mind afterwards was: if everyone's rich, do we even need money? (I doubt Bill Gates looks at price tags). I thought this bowling pin would be easy to strike down, but surprisingly it isn't. I looked up some Mises Institute videos about the existence of money, but they create a straw-man by saying that without money you need 'double coincidence' to occur however it's possible to have something akin to accounts receivable/payable. I favor money because I feel that it would be a logistical nightmare without it, but is there any other reasons why money is preferable to no money? (I'm currently fascinated by a moneyless society, although I'd probably choose to live in one with money) Double entry accounting (which may be the greatest achievement of mankind after the written language). Money is very useful as a unit of account. If everyone traded entries in a giant clearing house ledger, you'd still want to pick out a common and somewhat stable unit out of it so you can figure out your loss and profit. Even though bill gates doesn't care what an oyster costs (to cheap to ration) he does care what his return on his investments are.
Prairie Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 afterzir, do you mean a situation where there is no scarcity at all (infinite everything created by Star-Trek-like replicator), including human-like beings to do one's bidding like slaves? Outside that, with scarcity, tradeoffs must be made. To maximize wealth, some way is needed to predict which tradeoffs are best. Money is a system for making these choices. This is often referred to as the calculation problem.
Alan C. Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 I looked up some Mises Institute videos about the existence of money, but they create a straw-man by saying that without money you need 'double coincidence' to occur however it's possible to have something akin to accounts receivable/payable. . . is there any other reasons why money is preferable to no money? Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean by straw man. Another reason why money is preferable to no money is that it permits the division of labor to extend beyond direct observation.
Recommended Posts