Zachary Turner6 said:The law of supply and demand is essentially the bedrock upon which all market laws are built—which, let’s be honest, is the single most important concept in capitalist economics. I get where you're coming from, really, but I have to add a bit of nuance here: there is no exchange of goods—whether we're talking barter, traditional trade, the stock market, or anything else—without the relationship between supply and demand. Period. It doesn't matter what system you run.
Quincy: but capitalism features:
1. money
2. price formation through production adjustments (up or down) |
That second point is indeed one of the levers used to manipulate prices—true enough—but if there’s actual competition in the market (meaning, no monopolies), that shouldn't be an issue. Unless, of course, every single manufacturer decides to collude, which is wildly illegal, and frankly, it's the government's job to stop that—you know, via the FTC or some similar antitrust legislation. Look, there are plenty of theoretical solutions out there; anarchism, communism, and the rest are just the more "extreme" flavors on the menu.
Quincy:| My proposal avoids all that. Especially since the word "barter" implies a direct swap of goods (something for something, rather than money for something). |
Hmm... your suggestion isn't bad, per se, but even setting aside the fact that it's practically impossible to pull off, there are a few holes in it. Direct "item-for-item" barter is just too impractical today because of how much we need to overcome geographical distance quickly. If the technology exists to make it work (and it does) and there's a genuine NEED for it (and thank God there is, given the global population), then it seems absurd to suggest abandoning a system that clearly works for people just to regress a thousand years by forcing a return to pure bartering. That's the biggest flaw, anyway, though there are others.
Money is becoming a virtual, almost imaginary concept anyway—essentially just a unit of measurement for the value of goods and services. In a few years, the Western world won't even be touching paper cash or physical equivalents; we'll be moving entirely through digital credits (we already do this with credit cards, after all), which would be earned based on merit or the sale of goods and services (in a perfect, theoretical world, at least).
It's human nature to accumulate resources. If people stockpile just enough to live comfortably, there’s no real issue—today, we actually have the capacity to produce massive amounts of food, clothing, and so on. The real problem lies with those who try to grab a million or a billion times more than they could ever need, which inherently creates a massive imbalance on both a local and global scale. We need to put a stop to that kind of behavior, and whether you look at anarchism, socialism, or various other schools of thought, they all seem to agree on that point.
Well, obviously there isn't. But if you have all your basic needs met—a warm roof over your head, a full stomach, and actual freedom—then everything else becomes an absolute luxury, and commerce starts to take a backseat. To be honest, I’ve never quite understood people who take out loans just to buy a fancy car or a new phone when they aren't actually necessary for survival. So, if everyone had their essentials covered, trading would naturally become less of a priority...
Zachary Turner6 said:The law of supply and demand is essentially the bedrock upon which all market laws are built—which, let’s be honest, is the single most important concept in capitalist economics. I get where you're coming from, really, but I have to add a bit of nuance here: there is no exchange of goods—whether we're talking barter, traditional trade, the stock market, or anything else—without the relationship between supply and demand. Period. It doesn't matter what system you run.
Quincy: but capitalism features:
1. money
2. price formation through production adjustments (up or down) |
That second point is indeed one of the levers used to manipulate prices—true enough—but if there’s actual competition in the market (meaning, no monopolies), that shouldn't be an issue. Unless, of course, every single manufacturer decides to collude, which is wildly illegal, and frankly, it's the government's job to stop that—you know, via the FTC or some similar antitrust legislation. Look, there are plenty of theoretical solutions out there; anarchism, communism, and the rest are just the more "extreme" flavors on the menu.
Quincy:| My proposal avoids all that. Especially since the word "barter" implies a direct swap of goods (something for something, rather than money for something). |
Hmm... your suggestion isn't bad, per se, but even setting aside the fact that it's practically impossible to pull off, there are a few holes in it. Direct "item-for-item" barter is just too impractical today because of how much we need to overcome geographical distance quickly. If the technology exists to make it work (and it does) and there's a genuine NEED for it (and thank God there is, given the global population), then it seems absurd to suggest abandoning a system that clearly works for people just to regress a thousand years by forcing a return to pure bartering. That's the biggest flaw, anyway, though there are others.
Money is becoming a virtual, almost imaginary concept anyway—essentially just a unit of measurement for the value of goods and services. In a few years, the Western world won't even be touching paper cash or physical equivalents; we'll be moving entirely through digital credits (we already do this with credit cards, after all), which would be earned based on merit or the sale of goods and services (in a perfect, theoretical world, at least).
It's human nature to accumulate resources. If people stockpile just enough to live comfortably, there’s no real issue—today, we actually have the capacity to produce massive amounts of food, clothing, and so on. The real problem lies with those who try to grab a million or a billion times more than they could ever need, which inherently creates a massive imbalance on both a local and global scale. We need to put a stop to that kind of behavior, and whether you look at anarchism, socialism, or various other schools of thought, they all seem to agree on that point.
As I mentioned:
Where I see the real issue lies within people themselves—a human being remains a human being whether they are being crushed by a boot or given every ounce of freedom they could ever want.
So,
the problem isn't necessarily found in different systems, or even in capitalism itself, provided that people don't eventually decide to show their darker side at some point.Zachary Turner6 said:The law of supply and demand is essentially the bedrock upon which all market laws are built—which, let’s be honest, is the single most important concept in capitalist economics. I get where you're coming from, really, but I have to add a bit of nuance here: there is no exchange of goods—whether we're talking barter, traditional trade, the stock market, or anything else—without the relationship between supply and demand. Period. It doesn't matter what system you run.
Quincy: but capitalism features:
1. money
2. price formation through production adjustments (up or down) |
That second point is indeed one of the levers used to manipulate prices—true enough—but if there’s actual competition in the market (meaning, no monopolies), that shouldn't be an issue. Unless, of course, every single manufacturer decides to collude, which is wildly illegal, and frankly, it's the government's job to stop that—you know, via the FTC or some similar antitrust legislation. Look, there are plenty of theoretical solutions out there; anarchism, communism, and the rest are just the more "extreme" flavors on the menu.
Quincy:| My proposal avoids all that. Especially since the word "barter" implies a direct swap of goods (something for something, rather than money for something). |
Hmm... your suggestion isn't bad, per se, but even setting aside the fact that it's practically impossible to pull off, there are a few holes in it. Direct "item-for-item" barter is just too impractical today because of how much we need to overcome geographical distance quickly. If the technology exists to make it work (and it does) and there's a genuine NEED for it (and thank God there is, given the global population), then it seems absurd to suggest abandoning a system that clearly works for people just to regress a thousand years by forcing a return to pure bartering. That's the biggest flaw, anyway, though there are others.
Money is becoming a virtual, almost imaginary concept anyway—essentially just a unit of measurement for the value of goods and services. In a few years, the Western world won't even be touching paper cash or physical equivalents; we'll be moving entirely through digital credits (we already do this with credit cards, after all), which would be earned based on merit or the sale of goods and services (in a perfect, theoretical world, at least).
It's human nature to accumulate resources. If people stockpile just enough to live comfortably, there’s no real issue—today, we actually have the capacity to produce massive amounts of food, clothing, and so on. The real problem lies with those who try to grab a million or a billion times more than they could ever need, which inherently creates a massive imbalance on both a local and global scale. We need to put a stop to that kind of behavior, and whether you look at anarchism, socialism, or various other schools of thought, they all seem to agree on that point.
In the standard way most people think, money will always exist, and there really isn't a difference whether it's in a physical form or in the form of "credit." It's the same thing with the same flaws, just in different packaging...
Zachary Turner6 said:The law of supply and demand is essentially the bedrock upon which all market laws are built—which, let’s be honest, is the single most important concept in capitalist economics. I get where you're coming from, really, but I have to add a bit of nuance here: there is no exchange of goods—whether we're talking barter, traditional trade, the stock market, or anything else—without the relationship between supply and demand. Period. It doesn't matter what system you run.
Quincy: but capitalism features:
1. money
2. price formation through production adjustments (up or down) |
That second point is indeed one of the levers used to manipulate prices—true enough—but if there’s actual competition in the market (meaning, no monopolies), that shouldn't be an issue. Unless, of course, every single manufacturer decides to collude, which is wildly illegal, and frankly, it's the government's job to stop that—you know, via the FTC or some similar antitrust legislation. Look, there are plenty of theoretical solutions out there; anarchism, communism, and the rest are just the more "extreme" flavors on the menu.
Quincy:| My proposal avoids all that. Especially since the word "barter" implies a direct swap of goods (something for something, rather than money for something). |
Hmm... your suggestion isn't bad, per se, but even setting aside the fact that it's practically impossible to pull off, there are a few holes in it. Direct "item-for-item" barter is just too impractical today because of how much we need to overcome geographical distance quickly. If the technology exists to make it work (and it does) and there's a genuine NEED for it (and thank God there is, given the global population), then it seems absurd to suggest abandoning a system that clearly works for people just to regress a thousand years by forcing a return to pure bartering. That's the biggest flaw, anyway, though there are others.
Money is becoming a virtual, almost imaginary concept anyway—essentially just a unit of measurement for the value of goods and services. In a few years, the Western world won't even be touching paper cash or physical equivalents; we'll be moving entirely through digital credits (we already do this with credit cards, after all), which would be earned based on merit or the sale of goods and services (in a perfect, theoretical world, at least).
It's human nature to accumulate resources. If people stockpile just enough to live comfortably, there’s no real issue—today, we actually have the capacity to produce massive amounts of food, clothing, and so on. The real problem lies with those who try to grab a million or a billion times more than they could ever need, which inherently creates a massive imbalance on both a local and global scale. We need to put a stop to that kind of behavior, and whether you look at anarchism, socialism, or various other schools of thought, they all seem to agree on that point.
That impulse might be a leftover from eras defined by scarcity and famine, but if we had truly self-sufficient economies, hunger wouldn't exist; everyone would have what they need for survival and produce it themselves.
The downside to that approach is a lack of daily "luxuries"—meaning you wouldn't have access to things like bananas unless you grew them yourself or lived near someone who did and was willing to trade.
But the reality is that people have lived quite well, and continue to live well, without those kinds of extras. It's just that we've become a bit too spoiled...
What actually needs changing is the people rather than the system, because if you change the people, the system will eventually follow suit. History shows that trying to force the reverse always results in either violence or intense resistance, and you never quite get the whole population to walk away satisfied with such shifts.
Zachary Turner6 said:The law of supply and demand is essentially the bedrock upon which all market laws are built—which, let’s be honest, is the single most important concept in capitalist economics. I get where you're coming from, really, but I have to add a bit of nuance here: there is no exchange of goods—whether we're talking barter, traditional trade, the stock market, or anything else—without the relationship between supply and demand. Period. It doesn't matter what system you run.
Quincy: but capitalism features:
1. money
2. price formation through production adjustments (up or down) |
That second point is indeed one of the levers used to manipulate prices—true enough—but if there’s actual competition in the market (meaning, no monopolies), that shouldn't be an issue. Unless, of course, every single manufacturer decides to collude, which is wildly illegal, and frankly, it's the government's job to stop that—you know, via the FTC or some similar antitrust legislation. Look, there are plenty of theoretical solutions out there; anarchism, communism, and the rest are just the more "extreme" flavors on the menu.
Quincy:| My proposal avoids all that. Especially since the word "barter" implies a direct swap of goods (something for something, rather than money for something). |
Hmm... your suggestion isn't bad, per se, but even setting aside the fact that it's practically impossible to pull off, there are a few holes in it. Direct "item-for-item" barter is just too impractical today because of how much we need to overcome geographical distance quickly. If the technology exists to make it work (and it does) and there's a genuine NEED for it (and thank God there is, given the global population), then it seems absurd to suggest abandoning a system that clearly works for people just to regress a thousand years by forcing a return to pure bartering. That's the biggest flaw, anyway, though there are others.
Money is becoming a virtual, almost imaginary concept anyway—essentially just a unit of measurement for the value of goods and services. In a few years, the Western world won't even be touching paper cash or physical equivalents; we'll be moving entirely through digital credits (we already do this with credit cards, after all), which would be earned based on merit or the sale of goods and services (in a perfect, theoretical world, at least).
It's human nature to accumulate resources. If people stockpile just enough to live comfortably, there’s no real issue—today, we actually have the capacity to produce massive amounts of food, clothing, and so on. The real problem lies with those who try to grab a million or a billion times more than they could ever need, which inherently creates a massive imbalance on both a local and global scale. We need to put a stop to that kind of behavior, and whether you look at anarchism, socialism, or various other schools of thought, they all seem to agree on that point.
Don't you see that the issue isn't with trading itself, but with this human obsession where "everyone has to have everything"? The way we satisfy our needs today is exactly what fuels the race to see who can accumulate more; if everyone were required to handle their own basics, that competitive drive would likely vanish...
The biggest drawback that anyone who considers themselves "socially acceptable" sees in my proposal is precisely that sense of renunciation. But the truth is, we aren't any smarter, better, or more advanced than we were 2,000 years ago during the days of Plato and Socrates... so I truly don't see why we must cater to such an endless craving for luxury, gourmet food, or trinkets.
My idea would essentially force people to gradually become capable of doing everything—to ensure everyone knows how to care for themselves so that the loss of one individual doesn't jeopardize the survival of the community. Only then would everyone finally be equal (which, of course, doesn't mean everyone becomes worthless just because they are replaceable).