«

[Mighty Midget]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(plix @ Jun 5 2006, 10:30 PM) [snapback]234586[/snapback]</div>

I said nothing of ownership beyond commenting on the differences in it between two economic systems. What I did say is that labor is only part of the equation and that land and capital are also integral to production. Contradicting this is contradicting the core of economics -- something I think you're a bit unqualified to do (I'm not also entirely sure you were trying to do so).

Brief aside: capital != money. Money is only a type of capital. At least learn what the term actually means before telling me I'm wrong.

Now, what I did say is that labor alone is useless in a wholistic view of production. Land is required as you noted yourself. In a capitalistic society land ownership is privitized whereas in a communistic society it's not. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that land is a required factor of production. You can yell and scream all you want but you change that simple fact. The same is true for capital.
[/b]

I didn't yell and scream , it's my way of pointing things out when I write, that's all. Maybe I'm a bit too sarcasticly inclined for my own good... or maybe I use too many 'images'

My point was: Money is a completly pointless type of capital. Nature itself doesn't 'know' there's such a concept. You only have to want it and work for it (with any tools required). That itself doesn't require money, seen from a nature-point-of-view, only a social (today's version) POV. But the social game rules can change.

As for economics, I still think nature doesn't give a toss. We do, but only because we have decided that it's important, not because it actually is.

As for pivate/public ownership of land and land itself. They have everything to do with each other as it stands now. With today's laws ownership dictates who can use the resources, and even more importantly, who can't.
For that reason, I read between the lines in you post the word ownership.

But challenge yourself: Ask what would nature do to us if we abolished economics and money? Would we die? Would we be in danger? If yes, then why? Would we forget what we have learned so far? Would science be impossible? If so, why?

[rlbell]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ Jun 2 2006, 04:56 PM) [snapback]233865[/snapback]</div>

Basically: Yes, but you're still talking about investments, capital and economy. The risk you mention is purely a financial risk.

While finance is not the 'trademark', so to speak, of capitalism alone, it is an integrated part of capitalism.

I get the feeling you propose that 'money was always there', but that simply isn't true. Currency came along with early civilizations, sure, but it did not come first. Anyway, the existence of 'trading vouches'/money by itself is irrelevant. It's the distribution of the power and the fact that money (in our society) allow piling-up of power that is the question here, I think.

As I pointed out in one of the previous posts, a 'local' outside-capitalism society is a utopia, because you will, as you also point out, need goods and services not provided in your neighbourhood. You can certainly survive, but you cannot have the society evolve technologically. For this, you need a similar society everywhere those needed goods and services are produced -> internationalism.

(digression: ) Chronologically: Civilization rose when agriculture became efficient enough to support non-farmers. Then, and only then, could the specialization begin.

To swap occurences' place in time leads to the absurd.

How could humans evolve technologically when advanced agriculture happened in 'the wrong time'? They did evolve, that's for sure.

Social evolution does not move in a steady pace or in leaps and bounds. It moves in both ways, alternating then simultanously, backwards and forward. It's a mess.

But it is a fact that humans had evolved socially and tecnologically before anyone thought of classes/power/money.

And they did great, too.
(/digression)

You're right. We cannot go back, neither do we want to. But that was never an issue. Points are:
1. There is land. Check.
2. Nature has no concience, thus is unable to demand a sacrifice for us using the land. Check.
3. There are resources. Check
4. See 2 applied to resources. .....Check
5. There is knowledge. Check
6. We are physically capable of harvesting/providing both goods and services. Check
7. We know how to get what we need. Check
8. Our numbers exploded when we got together and worked together to reach our goals. Check.
9. No out-of-this-world/divine obstacle to prevent us from getting what we want. Check

I don't see why we would cease to exist as a technologically advanced species if we abolished money as a means of power and a means to get more money (see the pointless circle here).
[/b]

No, it was capital that always existed. The new idea, which took a long time to develope, was that several individuals could pool their capital for a venture that was impossible by themselves. Specialists arose because the farmers had more food than they, or their families, could eat. The farmers could also spend time not being farmers. Some of them found that making tools for other farmers was easier than growing their own food (their being nothing else for the farmers to exchange for services). Once you had a large number of specialists, you could build a city. Without cities, there is no civilization, by definition. You can have culture, society, traditions, or art, without cities, but not civilization. Civilization is defined by the existence of large permenent settlements of people who do not farm, supported by people who do.

Currency came much later and solves the barter problem. Which can be simply described as follows: Suppose that I have a lot of gasoline, but my local farmer uses diesel tractors. He has food, but cannot use my gasoline. In order to feed myself, I have to find someone who will trade diesel oil for gasoline, so that I can trade the diesel oil for food. Things get really involved if the guy with the diesel oil already has more gasoline than he can use. I now have to determine what he needs, but does not have, so I can try to trade my gasoline for a good that I can trade or diesel oil, with the goal of getting food. Currency solves the barter problem by using a preferred trade good. Suddenly, I no longer have to know what the farmer wants or needs. I am paid in currency for whatever it is that I do, and I give the currency to the farmer in exchange for food, and he uses the currency for seed grain, fertilizer, fuel oil, or whatever else that he needs or wants.

Barter is still possible, as the guy in Montreal who is well on his way for trading his toothbrush for a house has shown (through an impressive number of intermediate trades).

Money cannot be abolished, as abolishing money makes some things that we take for granted impossible-- grocery stores and anything made possible by large economies of scale. Workers would have be recompensed in some way that would allow them collect the necessities of life, while still leaving them with enough time to work. Money is such a useful concept that is was independantly invented nearly everywhere they evolved past agrarian societies.

Money is not capital, but it is a handy way of trading capital. My capital is my labour. My employer accepts my capital and gives me money. I use money to trade for the fruits of other peoples' capital.

[Mighty Midget]

No, it was capital that always existed.

You're disregarding evolution or the true meaning of the word always or both. Capital came with intelligence and awareness of such capital. That took quite a while to surface.

The new idea, which took a long time to develope, was that several individuals could pool their capital for a venture that was impossible by themselves.

True, as long as you remember that this idea came long before any civilization. It was this idea that got us into this tribal stuff. Actually, idea is the wrong word. People got together before they could reason on a 'reliable' level. A bunch is stronger than individuals, at least for big mammals such as ourselves. In fact, it was partly this sticking-together that made us a successful species and capable of later forming settlements.

Specialists arose because the farmers had more food than they, or their families, could eat. The farmers could also spend time not being farmers. Some of them found that making tools for other farmers was easier than growing their own food (their being nothing else for the farmers to exchange for services).

Obviously, there must have been a social, cultural and technological evolution prior to this or else there couldn't have been an agriculture efficient enough. Proves that we do evolve socially and all that even without a 'modern' structure.

Once you had a large number of specialists, you could build a city.

True.

Without cities, there is no civilization, by definition. You can have culture, society, traditions, or art, without cities, but not civilization. Civilization is defined by the existence of large permenent settlements of people who do not farm, supported by people who do.

Wrong, according to my Oxford Compact Dictionary 2nd ed. 2000 and
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=civilization,
they both say the same thing, and permanent settlement is not mentioned.

Currency came much later and solves the barter problem.

One out of how many possible solutions? Do any of us know? NO! It also created a whole new range of problems, such as poverty and starvation due to poverty.

Which can be simply described as follows: Suppose that I have a lot of gasoline, but my local farmer uses diesel tractors. He has food, but cannot use my gasoline. In order to feed myself, I have to find someone who will trade diesel oil for gasoline, so that I can trade the diesel oil for food. Things get really involved if the guy with the diesel oil already has more gasoline than he can use. I now have to determine what he needs, but does not have, so I can try to trade my gasoline for a good that I can trade or diesel oil, with the goal of getting food. Currency solves the barter problem by using a preferred trade good. Suddenly, I no longer have to know what the farmer wants or needs. I am paid in currency for whatever it is that I do, and I give the currency to the farmer in exchange for food, and he uses the currency for seed grain, fertilizer, fuel oil, or whatever else that he needs or wants.

What about pooling? Free access does not equal waste when there's nothing to gain personally. Ok, the baker or whatever clings to his loafs and collects all the loafs he can get his hands on. Big deal. He'll end up with a pile of moulded loafs, no respect, a diagnose of insanity of some kind and most likely a future life as an outcast. There'll still be bakers around that will feed us.

Barter is still possible, as the guy in Montreal who is well on his way for trading his toothbrush for a house has shown (through an impressive number of intermediate trades).

That's one way of doing it. Another way is explained above.

Money cannot be abolished, as abolishing money makes some things that we take for granted impossible--

Now you're just going all mystic about it. There is no such thing as non-physical-entity-like barriers between us and those things, as long as we want it and are physically equipped to get it.

grocery stores and anything made possible by large economies of scale.

Dead wrong. Groceries are made possible due to wood, concrete, rocks, sand, electricity, food and labour... and us wanting them in the first place. The fact that they happened to pop up along with economics is totally irrelevant. It only means that their design was to make money as well as providing goods. The money bit makes sense when you rely on money, but is nonsense when you don't. Whether we do or not is only a choise. We chose to rely on money, but we didn't have to, and there's no such thing as a one-way street in this matter.

Workers would have be recompensed in some way that would allow them collect the necessities of life, while still leaving them with enough time to work.

Very true indeed. Keywords: in some way. It doesn't have to be shiny coins. For Pete's sake, we're not magpies! Give me food, shelter, clothes, water, entertainment, safety, medicines and such, and I'll be fine. Now that's compensation for my labour!

Money is such a useful concept that is was independantly invented nearly everywhere they evolved past agrarian societies.

Useful for who? Please remember that democracy was not in the rulers' minds for one fraction of a second.

Money is not capital, but it is a handy way of trading capital.

Money is capital, by being 'trading vouches'.

My capital is my labour.
Along with your intelligence, your presence, your opposing thumbs and assorted digits. Capital is everything you got that can get you what you need/want.

My employer accepts my capital and gives me money. I use money to trade for the fruits of other peoples' capital.
Today, yes. Tomorrow, who knows. I can't see the future, and neither can anyone else.

[plix]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ Jun 6 2006, 12:43 AM) [snapback]234668[/snapback]</div>

My point was: Money is a completly pointless type of capital. Nature itself doesn't 'know' there's such a concept. You only have to want it and work for it (with any tools required). That itself doesn't require money, seen from a nature-point-of-view, only a social (today's version) POV. But the social game rules can change.

...

But challenge yourself: Ask what would nature do to us if we abolished economics and money? Would we die? Would we be in danger? If yes, then why? Would we forget what we have learned so far? Would science be impossible? If so, why?
[/b]

Money is a requisite form of production in any sufficiently advanced economy because barter doesn't scale. When you have such a vast variety of producers and consumers it becomes "impossible" (that is to say, sufficiently difficult) to base an economy on barter. Lets say I'm a baker (as was suggested in another post) and you're an electronics merchant such as Best Buy. Lets then say you're not a fan of bread (or, at least, not a fan of the type I make). However, I wish to barter for a television. How do I go about this? Without currency chances are that I'd have to find someone else in need of bread with whom I could trade for something you're in need of. While this "slight" inconvienance may seem achievable, scaling it up to an entire lifestyle becomes ridiculous. Imagine trying to overcome this issue to barter for things such as food, gas, electricity, online services, etc on a daily basis.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ Jun 6 2006, 12:43 AM) [snapback]234668[/snapback]</div>

As for pivate/public ownership of land and land itself. They have everything to do with each other as it stands now. With today's laws ownership dictates who can use the resources, and even more importantly, who can't.
For that reason, I read between the lines in you post the word ownership.[/b]

That wasn't my point, nor was it what I was saying. My comment was on the differences in ownership of land between two separate economic systems (capitalism and communism). Another, separate point was that land is a required factor of production in essentially all processes. I wasn't drawing a relationship between the two points.

[Mighty Midget]

On barter. You don't have to have a system based on 'my whatnots for your whatevers'. As long as it's being produced (goods/services), it's there. It exists. What exist can be used/consumed. Enter pooling. Let's draw a quick, scetchy picture here. You work. That fact grants you access to that pool. You refuse to work. Your access is denied.

[rlbell]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ Jun 7 2006, 05:00 AM) [snapback]234930[/snapback]</div>

On barter. You don't have to have a system based on 'my whatnots for your whatevers'. As long as it's being produced (goods/services), it's there. It exists. What exist can be used/consumed. Enter pooling. Let's draw a quick, scetchy picture here. You work. That fact grants you access to that pool. You refuse to work. Your access is denied.
[/b]

The problem is that as soon as you introduce any scheme that makes a member's access proportional to that member's contributions, you have created a system of money. If you contribute to the pool and are given a slip of paper that says you are entitled to a specified amount of supplies, and that slip of paper is transferable, it is money. Unless the collective is willing to support the freeloaders that only contribute the minimum amount to not get kicked out, or there is no desire to reward members who contribute above and beyond the minimum, some form of money will arise.

Factories are hard to build without money. In your pooled economic theory, for all the lead time between turning the the first shovel full of sod to the initial startup, none of the workers are contributing anything to the pool, yet they must be allowed to continue drawing from the pool, or the factory cannot be built. Even worse, if the factory produces more than can be used locally, there must be some uberpool that all communities can contribute to and draw from, but that extends the freeloader problem.

Your pooled economic system cannot work outside of a centrally planned economy. Although, there is no conclusive evidence against it theoretically, no practical implementation has yet been achieved.

[Havell]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Jun 8 2006, 12:45 AM) [snapback]235098[/snapback]</div>

Factories are hard to build without money. In your pooled economic theory, for all the lead time between turning the the first shovel full of sod to the initial startup, none of the workers are contributing anything to the pool, yet they must be allowed to continue drawing from the pool, or the factory cannot be built. Even worse, if the factory produces more than can be used locally, there must be some uberpool that all communities can contribute to and draw from, but that extends the freeloader problem.[/b]

I think this is a fault with capitalism, not communism. In a communist system, as Midget is describing, the people building the factory will be working (and so will have access to the pool); whereas, in capitalism, there is no money to be made from building a factory so the people building the factory will either have to be already rich, or willing to go into major debt in order to build the factory.
This is a major problem with capitalism as it is a disincentive to invest in new fcotories (and other factors of production), in Communism, however, people get access to the pool whether they are making new factors of production or consumer goods, so more investment is likely.

And I'll state again; money is not a factor of production. It is not necessary for the building of a factory, what you need for that is bricks, mortar, builders, etc. You are confusing the common meaning of the word "capital", where it means "wealth in the form of money or property owned by a person or business and human resources of economic value", and the Economics definition: "Goods used in production that are not used up it the process of production, ie machinery". By this economic definition, money is not capital, nor is it any of the other three resources (land, labour and enterprise).

[Mighty Midget]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Jun 7 2006, 11:45 PM) [snapback]235098[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ Jun 7 2006, 05:00 AM) [snapback]234930[/snapback]

On barter. You don't have to have a system based on 'my whatnots for your whatevers'. As long as it's being produced (goods/services), it's there. It exists. What exist can be used/consumed. Enter pooling. Let's draw a quick, scetchy picture here. You work. That fact grants you access to that pool. You refuse to work. Your access is denied.
[/b]

The problem is that as soon as you introduce any scheme that makes a member's access proportional to that member's contributions, you have created a system of money. If you contribute to the pool and are given a slip of paper that says you are entitled to a specified amount of supplies, and that slip of paper is transferable, it is money. Unless the collective is willing to support the freeloaders that only contribute the minimum amount to not get kicked out, or there is no desire to reward members who contribute above and beyond the minimum, some form of money will arise.

Factories are hard to build without money. In your pooled economic theory, for all the lead time between turning the the first shovel full of sod to the initial startup, none of the workers are contributing anything to the pool, yet they must be allowed to continue drawing from the pool, or the factory cannot be built. Even worse, if the factory produces more than can be used locally, there must be some uberpool that all communities can contribute to and draw from, but that extends the freeloader problem.

Your pooled economic system cannot work outside of a centrally planned economy. Although, there is no conclusive evidence against it theoretically, no practical implementation has yet been achieved.
[/b][/quote]
Woah, you didn't get my point, did you? All you need is what you actually need. Give the concept of economy a rest, already. My ponts were:
You work. You contribute. That fact alone gives you access to the 'pool'.
I never mentioned 'proportional to'. What's important is that all that needs to be done, is done. By everyone collectively. Those products goes into the pool.
Noone asks you how many hours you worked, because it's not important, when some billion people work AND there's machines/technology that will work for us we'll get what we want. Hours would be the least of our worries.

The problem here is that you use today's way of organizing to describe a completly different system. It's like if "F1 racing cannot possibly work, because that would require curves that goes in any direction. But as we all know, Indy Car race tracks only have left turns. You cannot have a right turn on a left turn track. That proves that F1 racing is impossible'. Surely you see the faulty logic here, but I assure you, this is a very good 'picture' of this whole pro/anti-communism debate.

Stop using words and concepts that doesn't apply to communism to describe why communism is bound to fail. Please?

And Havell: That definition of capital does indeed allow for money to be some sort of capital. The money that isn't spent or otherwise tied up, can be injected into the project.

[Tulac]

Money isn't capital, money can be turned into capital if you invest it into buildings, machines etc. which is capital...

[Mighty Midget]

One thought on why money is capital: Since money can get you the tools, Money and the tools are, in one line of thought, the very same object. In fact, without money, you can't get the tool (as of today) unless you make it yourself.

For arguement's sake: Why isn't money capital? What differs between money and capital? What definition of capital rules out money? FTR: I'm serious.