The flaws of capitalism and currency-based societies.

a reply to: intrptr

The family ground is the fall back. We have rural roots that are still there for the foreseeable future. That will likely end with my parents, but for the next decade (I hope) that plan is solid.

a reply to: ketsuko
Used to be for our family too. Good arable high ground backed by mountains with a solid homestead. I grew up there.

All my life I looked forward to inheriting that… after 44 years of marriage they got divorced, cashed out, split the money and split.

a reply to: ketsuko

You, sir (or madam), have obviously mistaken me for a statist.

And I cannot for the life of me figure out why.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: TheCentristPhilosopher

I think the original currency was goods and services. A barter this for that kind of mutual (inter) dependancy. In cases the goods couldn't be delivered right away a promise was made to deliver at some later date. In lieu of just the promise it was also agreed upon to have collateral to guarantee payment. Soemthing tangible (held in the hand) and valuable everywhere (intrinsic value). Something that won't decay or rust over time (enter gold).

Everyone was happy, every thing worked.

Then enter the scammers that 'held' your gold for you and gave you a receipt. Over time they had all the gold and everyone else had only receipts. Enter the promissory note and Golden Rule.

From what I remember, it wasn't "scammers" but the same merchants who preferred to use bank notes because it was too dangerous and difficult to bring around large bags of gold.

Also, trade began to outstrip availability of precious metals.

The irony is that that's the case even today. Divide total amount of gold and silver worldwide by the number of people, and each one gets only a few ounces.

originally posted by: ketsuko
You do understand that what we call capitalism today has been around for far longer than anyone had the innovative idea to label it? All it actually is is the free exchange of goods, services, ideas, etc., between people in such a way that each party benefits.

If I have two pens and you have paper, and I trade you a pen for some paper, we have engaged in trade the base of capitalism.

All money actually is is a means of reducing and standardizing value so that individuals can trade their individual goods and services more readily. In other words, if I am a scribe and you have a chicken I need but don't need my services, I can trade you money which represents the value of my skills. I received the money when I was paid for using them to write documents for someone else. You can take the money and give me the chicken, and in that way, the value of my service transfers to you and you can then use it for your own needs elsewhere.

Otherwise, I would have to search until I found someone who both had something you needed for the chicken and needed my skills as a scribe.

Money simplified those transactions by allowing the storage of value.

It's more than just free exchange. That is, capital and profit. There's also in several cases competition.

originally posted by: TheCentristPhilosopher
a reply to: ketsuko

My apologies - I am talking about the current state of things, rather than the actual dictionary definition of capitalism.

I correct myself to mean corporatism.

The problem is, our money is not worth anything literal. Being backed by gold and silver was an amazing way to do it, in my opinion - Now we have money that's worthless in all but the reputation we give it.

Capitalism has different types, and it includes corporatism. If any, corporatism is the result of free trade.

Also, money, even in the form of gold and silver, never had any practical value except as a medium of exchange, which should be the case because that's the use of money.

The implication is that it was used because there is a surplus of resources. But the latter won't last given increasing economic growth in a world with physical limits.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: TheCentristPhilosopher


Yes, but more no...LOL.

The points you raise are valid.

What I believe you miss the factor of base survival. What I mean by that is capitalism has produced base survival for 100's of millions. Frankly, no other system is even close to it. For the intuitive, the creative to flourish base survival must not be the predominant issue in their lives. The more attention on base necessities the less attention is available for higher creativity.

The founding fathers where, one and all, were well educated men. One could say elitists.

To this day, capitalism is improving the lot of man-kind world-wide by producing a higher base survival for 100s of millions.

Without doubt some tweaking is required, A return of balance to a degree. Capitalism doesn't demand prayer to the 'almighty dollar'. It affords opportunity to those that choose to....

The rest are free to pursue other avenues of purpose and millions do.

Most of all, it is an individual issue....far more than systemic.


As valid as your points, are the premise is incorrect/incomplete.

It's not so much capitalism that allows for such but availability of energy and resources. The latter are limited no matter how much credit is created.

originally posted by: stabstab
a reply to: FlyingFox

I'm sure you have seen those fabulous humanoid robots Darpa has been working on for some time now and I'd just assume they will eventually fix things one way or the other by eliminating most labor or eliminating most humans in a terminator scenario.

Make the robots do the work and don't pay them just pay the citizens is the way I would go but perhaps the folks running the show would choose the option of making a bunch of thug robots to cleanse the earth to guide-stone standard of 500,000 bodies.

To me that number is too low and frankly stupid as a strategic move unless your technology was so advanced as to not need tons of people producing it so who knows.

Pay citizens for what?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: redempsh

We're not the only ones who "need more education."

You are again talking about a system in which the government and the economy are hopelessly tangled up.

Economy takes place with or without government. Capitalism is simply a term coined to describe what takes place absent government intervention in the economy - free exchange of goods and services between individuals. Statists need such a term in order to demonize it, so they can advocate for the supposed bliss of a state controlled and centrally planned economy in which the state is the economy. We have been moving in that direction.

Corporatism is just one more step in that direction.

More control via the state ensures that only the very largest can survive which self-selects for multi-national corporations and clears the new growth (small business) out of the forest so that only the very oldest and largest growth survives. Once those larger entities get to a certain size, they have the money to lobby and manipulate states and the system starts to become circular.

Adding more power to the system at the level of the state only feeds the decline. In short, if you think corporations are the root of all evil, then you need to look at the governments who aid and abet them and stop feeding yourself the silly statist lie that if you just give the government more power, they'll bust those evil businesses' balls because that isn't what's happening. In fact, it's all marching toward that grand one world vision isn't it?

Actually, capitalism usually requires government, i.e., to legitimize private property, establish laws that economic competitors follow in order to maintain order, use a fiat currency for trade, etc.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ketsuko

Best to get out the cities now, find a small community, work to be recognized, accepted and trusted (thats a slow road), find that 'niche' and capitalize on it.

They do say buy local right? In the urban sprawl, that means farmers markets, flea markets and small, privately owned businesses.

The catch is that at some point Big Business might decide to take advantage of land on which those small communities lie and offer community members deals that they might not resist.

a reply to: monkeyluv

From what I remember, it wasn't "scammers" but the same merchants who preferred to use bank notes because it was too dangerous and difficult to bring around large bags of gold.

Yes 'precious' metals are such a bother. Let them hold it for you. Nowadays they even hold your fiat holdings for you, too.

After all its such a bother to own your ownings.

originally posted by: monkeyluv

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ketsuko

Best to get out the cities now, find a small community, work to be recognized, accepted and trusted (thats a slow road), find that 'niche' and capitalize on it.

They do say buy local right? In the urban sprawl, that means farmers markets, flea markets and small, privately owned businesses.

The catch is that at some point Big Business might decide to take advantage of land on which those small communities lie and offer community members deals that they might not resist.

Yah, BLM is dealing with private rural land owners.

a reply to: monkeyluv


I couldn't disagree more. If resources and energy are lacking, the movement
of those shortages to those areas resulted from pure capitalism.

The examples of south-east Asia's economic development and improved standards of living is directly due to the utilization of human energy and 'resource'.

One only has to look south to Mexico. It is resource rich. As far as energy goes, even that requires development and innovation....back to the high incentive capitalism engenders.


Sure, there are regions where it isn't 'profitable' to develop the same electrical grids, pipelines etc. and they suffer as a result, but the fact remains that without capitalism one is hard put to see Communism or barter , the only other potential systems out there, ever achieving similar results.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

I couldn't disagree more. If resources and energy are lacking, the movement
of those shortages to those areas resulted from pure capitalism.

The examples of south-east Asia's economic development and improved standards of living is directly due to the utilization of human energy and 'resource'.

One only has to look south to Mexico. It is resource rich. As far as energy goes, even that requires development and innovation....back to the high incentive capitalism engenders.


Sure, there are regions where it isn't 'profitable' to develop the same electrical grids, pipelines etc. and they suffer as a result, but the fact remains that without capitalism one is hard put to see Communism or barter , the only other potential systems out there, ever achieving similar results.

The catch is that global capitalism requires continuous growth, something that is not possible given a planet with physical limits.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: monkeyluv

From what I remember, it wasn't "scammers" but the same merchants who preferred to use bank notes because it was too dangerous and difficult to bring around large bags of gold.

Yes 'precious' metals are such a bother. Let them hold it for you. Nowadays they even hold your fiat holdings for you, too.

After all its such a bother to own your ownings.

They were "a bother" because merchants had to hire armed men to secure their gold, and many bags had to be moved through long trips. That's why they pooled their resources and hired one merchant to secure their gold.

Soon, rather than having to move gold around, they used bank notes for trade because more merchants were using banks, and the amounts of gold needed for trade were increasing readily.

From there, given a lack of gold, it was matter of time before more bank notes were created than there was gold, as there were no external audits of gold supplies, and very few merchants were willing to share with the public how much gold they had. It also helped when merchants realized that they could get a return on investment from their deposit rather than paying the bank to secure their assets.

The irony is that later it became inconvenient to use even paper. That's why much of credit today is digital, and that's used even for transactions involving brand-new cars and houses. Even smaller transactions involve credit cards.

a reply to: monkeyluv


I may agree with that. The catch word is 'global'. Any 'ism'
unbridled seems to have drawbacks. That drawback seems more accurately in the arena of publicly held companies and the demand for increasing returns on a quarterly basis.

A privately held restaurant, on the other hand, can be passed on for literally generations without 'growth', providing an above average income, life-style, etc. for the owners.


Some tweaking is required, to say the least. No system is without flaws....after all 'people' are involved.....

a reply to: monkeyluv

They were "a bother" because merchants had to hire armed men to secure their gold, and many bags had to be moved through long trips. That's why they pooled their resources and hired one merchant to secure their gold.

You're only addressing the wealthiest peoples problems. The little guy is content with his few ounces or pounds even. He needs it daily, trades it daily for goods and services precisely because its easier to transfer gold than a ton of beef or gaggle of geese.

Do tell.


Now the wealthiest have all the gold, all the beef and make all the worthless currency for you to hold onto.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: monkeyluv

They were "a bother" because merchants had to hire armed men to secure their gold, and many bags had to be moved through long trips. That's why they pooled their resources and hired one merchant to secure their gold.

You're only addressing the wealthiest peoples problems. The little guy is content with his few ounces or pounds even. He needs it daily, trades it daily for goods and services precisely because its easier to transfer gold than a ton of beef or gaggle of geese.

Do tell.


Now the wealthiest have all the gold, all the beef and make all the worthless currency for you to hold onto.

No, the "little guy" is not content. Not even close. That's why sales for cars, appliances, and other goods have been rising considerably in most of the world economy, with dozens of emerging markets growing.

Guess who relies on all of those sales and investments to make their own wealth grow?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: monkeyluv


I may agree with that. The catch word is 'global'. Any 'ism'
unbridled seems to have drawbacks. That drawback seems more accurately in the arena of publicly held companies and the demand for increasing returns on a quarterly basis.

A privately held restaurant, on the other hand, can be passed on for literally generations without 'growth', providing an above average income, life-style, etc. for the owners.


Some tweaking is required, to say the least. No system is without flaws....after all 'people' are involved.....

Such restaurants will do fine until the population of the towns or cities in which they are located starts growing, when new restaurants are created to compete with them, when people start graduating from schools and need jobs (which means more restaurants and other businesses created or growing to ensure more job openings), when the banks in the same towns or cities need more returns on investments (which means more people have to borrow more to spend more or create more businesses), etc., etc.

Which is what happens in reality.

a reply to: intrptr

One more point to consider: much of the wealth of the rich does not consist of gold or beef but digital money, in the form of money stored in computer accounts, stocks, bonds, etc.