Flaws in a barter society

[Sociobiology]

money is just a universal unit of barter, I idea used to cover the barter systems biggest flaw, "I grow corn, and I need a new plow, the guy that makes plows doesn't want anymore corn." which can quite easily lead to either no trade or an epic game of round robin.

[Meryuma]

Oh sure, and why don't we move into the forests next, go nude, have sex with trees, procreate with the local animals, smoke pot, and burn an effigy to our pagan deities?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism

Nothing about sex with animals and trees, but generally pretty close.

BTW I'm not a primitivist.

Anyways, the problem with a barter-only society is having to lug around your stuff everywhere.

[Mercator Terra]

Oh sure, and why don't we move into the forests next, go nude, have sex with trees, procreate with the local animals, smoke pot, and burn an effigy to our pagan deities?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism

Nothing about sex with animals and trees, but generally pretty close.

BTW I'm not a primitivist.

Anyways, the problem with a barter-only society is having to lug around your stuff everywhere.

I'll trade you two cows and a goat for that tree prostitute.

[Caninope]

2. Banks do better in an economic recession? Is that why so many banks failed during the first few years of the Great Depression in America? Or why Uncle Sam had to become the banker's banker? Or why JP Morgan had to lend money to banks through his entire lifetime, including the Panic of 1907? Or why Banks suffered the most in the Panic of 1837?

Whenever the economy goes bad the banks do profit from hard working peoples losses. Maybe not every single last bank that has ever existed, but that is a ludicrous point to begin with...
Person A gets laid off, can't find work, misses a couple of house payments, bank repossess home, kicks person A along with family into streets.
At that point - whether the bank holds onto the property or sells it they have not lost any money, while person A is out years of mortgage payments and homeless.
If they hold onto the property and wait for prices to rise - Well, they make a tidy profit for ruining a families lives...

The scary part of this is that the people that own the big banks also have a major role in creating the economic collapse that put person A out on the streets in the first place...

Money is only as valuable as we choose to make it -
If someone were to create an item that everyone had to have, but they only accepted live cows for payment - Your money would be basically worthless in obtaining that item...

By the way - How can anyone think it is a good thing when the American people (Uncle Sam) have to bail out the same banks that help to create the problem in the first place?

Except that banks only foreclose on homes when they need the money. They make more money through a mortgage than foreclosing and selling the home at a depressed price.

[Cosmopoles]

No I haven't, because that isn't what I am arguing.

You are arguing that barter will somehow bring an end to fractional reserve banking and money creation by banks. How do you work that out?

[Natapoc]

I often "barter" and get a much better deal out of it then if I were to spend money. But I don't think that a society would be best that used barter fully. Gift economy/common store would be good.

[Canadian Intellectuals]

No I haven't, because that isn't what I am arguing.

You are arguing that barter will somehow bring an end to fractional reserve banking and money creation by banks. How do you work that out?

No, that isn't what I am arguing either.
I said that the power to create money is in the hands of private corporations, and it shouldn't be if we are talking about what is best for the majority of people. I have not argued for or against a barter system.
Actually, I agree with other posts on here, that money is essentially a barter system anyways.

[Prixtonia]

I think barter is too inconvenient, but currency in its traditional use is impractical. I mean, imagine going to the store with a wallet full of yaks! But currency doesn't work either. What I recommend is assigning each citizen a "point value" which reflects their contributions to the country (probably in the form of labor). Their value will then go down when they use up resources in the country. Citizens would have to make up for negative values.

[Socklund]

What I recommend is assigning each citizen a "point value" which reflects their contributions to the country (probably in the form of labor). Their value will then go down when they use up resources in the country. Citizens would have to make up for negative values.

Ability to obtain food and shelter would (presumably) be based on "worth"
"Worth" of a person would be defined strictly in economic terms

Not dehumanizing in the slightest!

Arguably, though, t'would be to no greater degree than wages are dehumanizing.

[Mercator Terra]

I think barter is too inconvenient, but currency in its traditional use is impractical. I mean, imagine going to the store with a wallet full of yaks! But currency doesn't work either. What I recommend is assigning each citizen a "point value" which reflects their contributions to the country (probably in the form of labor). Their value will then go down when they use up resources in the country. Citizens would have to make up for negative values.

How do you decide how people get scarce resources? (basically everything)

[Cosmopoles]

No, that isn't what I am arguing either.
I said that the power to create money is in the hands of private corporations, and it shouldn't be if we are talking about what is best for the majority of people. I have not argued for or against a barter system.
Actually, I agree with other posts on here, that money is essentially a barter system anyways.

You said: "I'd rather lug around coffee in a society where bankers didn't get to constantly skim off a percentage of EVERYTHING." Implying that by engaging in barter you would somehow be impairing the activities of banks. You haven't come close to explaining how that works.

[Futurephilosostan]

An acquaintance was telling me the other day how money is evil and the cause for many social problems. He suggested that we go back to a barter society. Trading services and goods for other services and goods. I see how this could work on a small scale, but I don't think it's a sustainable thing in the long run. What do you think?

It is actually working on small scale, in families or in small communities (you can often see examples in shared flats). I agree to your statement adding that it also works only on small scale. In generally while this process works, it is of course, very inefficient, and that becomes somehow obvious in larger scale

E.g., I am strategy consultant, i would go offer my highly valuable and useful advise to the company that it would be willing to use, and it could offer some of its products. Let's say 150 thousand eggs. I would be overwhelmed (trying to organize their transportation, storage and panickly trying to find someone who would offer something valuable for big pile of eggs

[Great Nepal]

1. Dont try to fix something that isn't broken. - Monetary system works just fine so why change it?
2. It is way too inconvenient for ex. I need 10 kg of flour, now today I will pick up £10, go to a shop and buy one. In barter system, I will have to take few goats, few chickens, 10 kg of potato, 10 kg of tomato etc so I can exchange it for flour. Not all of stuff I took will be used but how do I know what the person with flour wants?
3. It is wide open to abuse. I have 8kg of tomato, I can value it what ever I want. I value it at 1 goat; Person B values same 8kg tomato at 20 kg potato: who is giving you the best deal?

[Ashmoria]

There was a time when everyone could afford a house. They simply walked up to an area. Dug out a foundation, cut down a few trees and built the house they needed.

The problem being, of course, that said house was the dwelling for some eight-to-ten people, most of whom wouldn't past the age of fifteen. And let's not talk about the mother's life expectancy--a new definition of short and awful.

Of course, those ten kids were needed to work the hardscrabble farm. Produce just enough corn to feed the kids, and maybe some chickens, goats, pigs--and for the lucky, a cow for milk, and then hamburgs when she got too old.

and they all lived in the 10x10 cabin they built. even the animals in winter.

[Ashmoria]

You still haven't explained how barter invalidates the existence of banks.

No I haven't, because that isn't what I am arguing.

you probably ought to restate what you are arguing.

[Horsefish]

Oh sure, and why don't we move into the forests next, go nude, have sex with trees, procreate with the local animals, smoke pot, and burn an effigy to our pagan deities?

Sounds like fun. Maybe not the fuckign trees and animals, but whatever floats your boat dude.

[Ashmoria]

I think barter is too inconvenient, but currency in its traditional use is impractical. I mean, imagine going to the store with a wallet full of yaks! But currency doesn't work either. What I recommend is assigning each citizen a "point value" which reflects their contributions to the country (probably in the form of labor). Their value will then go down when they use up resources in the country. Citizens would have to make up for negative values.

imagine the zoning problems the "yak bank" would cause!

[The Floridian Coast]

Well, as someone on the left, I see abolishing currency in favor of a simpler system that is still capitalistic to be counter-productive. If the world really could be made of sustainable communities that trade resources, then the trade itself shouldn't exist, and everything should be given "to each according to their need".

If you can sustain a barter society, which I'm not sure you can, you may as well just make it a community of mutual aid where people trade out of need and not profit.

[The Floridian Coast]

Oh sure, and why don't we move into the forests next, go nude, have sex with trees, procreate with the local animals, smoke pot, and burn an effigy to our pagan deities?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism

Nothing about sex with animals and trees, but generally pretty close.

BTW I'm not a primitivist.

Anyways, the problem with a barter-only society is having to lug around your stuff everywhere.

Anarcho-primitivism is the most ridiculous idea ever. The entire problem of capitalism and economies in general is scarcity. There has to be scarcity for it to work, and when there isn't, scarcity is engineered.

The one answer to abolishing scarcity is increased technology, anarcho-primitivism therefore is against capitalism and yet wants to increase the one thing that allows capitalism to live.

[Sibirsky]

An acquaintance was telling me the other day how money is evil and the cause for many social problems. He suggested that we go back to a barter society. Trading services and goods for other services and goods. I see how this could work on a small scale, but I don't think it's a sustainable thing in the long run. What do you think?

I think your acquaintance is an idiot.

Money is not evil. It's a medium of exchange. A unit of account. A store of value.

A barter economy fails on all three counts. I export industrial goods. Motors, pulleys, antennas (very, very big antennas).

In a barter economy this is the crap that I would be paid with. How does your acquaintance suggest that I pay for things? Do I just put 300 pound motors in my pocket and exchange them for a cup of coffee on my way in to the office?

How many cups of coffee can I get for one motor? What kind of motor? How about the antennas? Pulleys?

Do I find a bank that will store motors for me and pay interest on my motor deposit? In what form? Smaller motors?

Fail, fail and fail.

[Sibirsky]

I think we should have a barter system where everybody trades things for money. I haven't thought of a name for it yet but when I do I'm going to write a book about it and try to get the world to follow my system.

You sound like the government.

[Sibirsky]

how are you going to barter with the thousands of workers who made your car?

how are you going to barter with the dozens who work at the dealership?

how are you going to get a "goat loan" to cover the 500 goats you are going to need to pay for your car?

you seem to have an irrational dislike of the bankers who make your lifestyle possible.

Wow, I wish you would actually read my posts.
I'm not arguing that a barter system is better than money, except that if we were on a barter system we wouldn't have to pay interest on money that is created out of nothing.
And if you think that bankers 'make' your lifestyle possible, you are sadly mistaken. These bankers you seem to have an irrational love for skim billions off the top year after year. No matter how bad the economy is for the average person, bankers prosper. In fact, they do better in economic downturns. If it weren't for these lovable bankers, we all would have a much higher standard of living, and we would live in a much more equal society. They are the parasites of society.

Banking is a vital and important service. They do not do better in downturns. They get hurt, like everyone else. Or did you forget the massive write downs American and European banks had to got through? They facilitate lending, allocate capital and create liquidity. Banks are conduits of capital between savers and investors.

As far as your claim that Ashmoria has an "irrational love of bankers" first, I'll disclose an assumption. Ashmoria is not a fat cat capitalist.

Now, what she has actually show is a rational understanding that without banks, and the credit they provide her college degree, house, car, college degrees for her kids, etc. would all be unattainable toys for the rich.

[Sibirsky]

I'm not arguing that a barter system is better than money, except that if we were on a barter system we wouldn't have to pay interest on money that is created out of nothing.
And if you think that bankers 'make' your lifestyle possible, you are sadly mistaken. These bankers you seem to have an irrational love for skim billions off the top year after year. No matter how bad the economy is for the average person, bankers prosper. In fact, they do better in economic downturns. If it weren't for these lovable bankers, we all would have a much higher standard of living, and we would live in a much more equal society. They are the parasites of society.

[Sibirsky]

2. Banks do better in an economic recession? Is that why so many banks failed during the first few years of the Great Depression in America? Or why Uncle Sam had to become the banker's banker? Or why JP Morgan had to lend money to banks through his entire lifetime, including the Panic of 1907? Or why Banks suffered the most in the Panic of 1837?

Whenever the economy goes bad the banks do profit from hard working peoples losses. Maybe not every single last bank that has ever existed, but that is a ludicrous point to begin with...
Person A gets laid off, can't find work, misses a couple of house payments, bank repossess home, kicks person A along with family into streets.
At that point - whether the bank holds onto the property or sells it they have not lost any money, while person A is out years of mortgage payments and homeless.
If they hold onto the property and wait for prices to rise - Well, they make a tidy profit for ruining a families lives...

The scary part of this is that the people that own the big banks also have a major role in creating the economic collapse that put person A out on the streets in the first place...

Money is only as valuable as we choose to make it -
If someone were to create an item that everyone had to have, but they only accepted live cows for payment - Your money would be basically worthless in obtaining that item...

By the way - How can anyone think it is a good thing when the American people (Uncle Sam) have to bail out the same banks that help to create the problem in the first place?

Foreclosure costs money. Lots of money. The value of the house declines. The bank losses money on foreclosures. Banks do not hold property waiting for prices to rise, they are not landlords or property managers.

I could still use money to buy cows.

[Sibirsky]

We already live in a barter system. I go to work in exchange for money. I use the money from my work to barter/buy food which the farmer grew to bring to market to trade for money. Enough said.

I love you

Watch out for Meiko