Quote Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
I don't believe in currency. I think it's outdated.
All currency should be is a medium of exchange. Think about it, how else would you be able to obtain your needs without money? Say for example you were a shoe maker (cobbler), in order to find food in a society without a medium of exchange, you would have to find a shoe less baker, butcher, farmer, etc.... This is not necessarily a problem if you are the only cobbler, but you are going to have to facilitate trade on a large scale just to survive. Your overall efficiency would deteriorate as more and more cobblers emerged. This is known as the barter system. Look at the poorest African nations as a recent reference as to the effectiveness and the standard of living a barter system produces.

But, if you were able to trade your shoes for an accepted medium of exchange, say for instance gold, your efficiency instantly increases because your shoes can now be purchased by anyone who possesses the desired amount of gold. Much better than only providing shoes to those who have the resources you need wouldn't you say? In turn, you will then be able to take your gold coins and purchase the things you desire and need, spend less time finding trade partners, and produce more shoes! More shoes for peoples feet will improve the quality of their lives. I mean, wearing heavy boots in the summer, or sandals in the winter would really suck!

A lot of people think this naive, but I think people can be given everything they want and they'll still help their fellows out of compassion. The only question is "Do we have the resources?" and I strongly feel we have the resources to give every person what he or she wants and even, with time, eliminate the need for most labor through the use of technology.
Everyone in the world cannot possibly satisfy their every need because resources are in fact limited. Limited in scale (finite), and limited in terms of production possibilities.

The bigger issue is how do you motivate all people to basically work for the good of society, as opposed their own best interests? There becomes a time when the good of society conflicts with a particular persons best interest.

True, I think people may take advantage of it at first, but once people start being raised in that sort of society, it'll be less and less. Also, I think people would be bored with just lounging around all the bloody time. I know I'm fucking sick of it and it's only been a few months.
The question arises, why would a person with superior ability want to receive the same disbursements as everyone else, even though their presence alone provides greater levels of productivity? Who would want to spend years and years being a doctor if you are given the same necessities as someone who cleans bathrooms? Either doctors or careers that require much sacrifice would be extremely scare (in the case of a MD, it would reduce the overall health availability), or these people in demanding fields would need to receive greater compensation than the average. This alone creates a class system.

That's the end goal of what I'd like in our society so that we're free to create what we want and spend our time making people happy instead of having to look over our shoulders for someone who wants what you have.
You are describing a society free of desire. How can society prosper in such a case, and how would we go about creating a non-desiring society that can produce everything needed?

As a transition, I think all the necessities should be nationalized. Farmers should be government employees and the food we grow and catch within the US should be either dirt cheap or paid for by the government. If someone wants a house, they should have one that's not going to put them in debt for 30 years. Water, natural gas, and electricity should be free or have their prices tuned only to pay for the operating expenses an extremely modest gain in case of unforseen circumstances.
There is a serious flaw in this statement. Nationalization of an industry will reduce its overall output capability. Reason be, what is the incentive to the managers, and workers to produce more? It is not like the increased production would necessarily benefit them. A situation such as this would lead to massive inefficiency, and therefore reduce the overall standard of living within that society.

Also, price caps do much more harm than good, and tend to lead to extreme shortages. For example, if a specific good is affected by nature (drought, flood, earthquake, etc...) of which its overall supply has been strictly reduced, the people who buy the said good at an artificially low price before the good diminished would then have a direct advantage over those who were unable to purchase the good. They would then be able to trade the good for something more valuable than the price cap specified.

So, yeah, I'm an open socialist. Not a communist.
Why? Do you not believe that a society that embraces competition will have a higher standard of living than one that does not?

Oh, and how can free market competition reduce inflation? I thought inflation came out of the fractional reserve banking system and from the federal reserve printing money to pay off the interest on the money already in the system.
Inflation is too many dollars (insert any currency) chasing too few goods. The biggest indicator of inflation is the increase in prices. For example, a piece of land holds the same intrinsic value for a developer as it did ten years ago. So the question is, why does it "cost more" than it did 10 years ago? Similarily, a long distance phone call now cost on average less than 3 cents per minute. From memory, i remember seeing a long distance phone call would be equivalent to $9 per minute in 1910. Why does it cost less than it did 98 years ago, even though it provides the same intrinsic value (communicating vast distances)?

While the generic term that categorizes inflation is correct, much more is needed to determine why more or less dollars are chasing too few/many goods. Price stability is the key in any economy. Not the stability of one particular good or ten, but the price stability of all goods.

That's why I say we should have a free currency if we're going to have one at all...with the money supply inflated according to the increase in goods and services.
The question remains, how else can you achieve this without open competition between banks and their preferred mediums of exchange?