[SolarCross]

Going back to barter of course is hopeless, I could elaborate on why but I think the reasons you gave for not going back to barter is enough so I'll save myself the effort.

The next advance in trade mechanisms after barter was to exchange reciepts for quanties of some real commodity like silver or gold. It was an advance but it had its problems too. The people who physically held the gold or silver would issue more recipets for the commodity than they actually possessed knowing that most people never cash in the reciepts for actual gold or silver.

Fiat currency is an utter sham and is unraveling very fast. I don't see that as a problem it should fail and when it does people will realise the gift economy is not only the most egalitarian but also peerlessly efficient at delivering goods and services to where it is wanted most.

Sometimes people think trade is about producing wealth but it is not. Producing wealth is a technical exercise of time, effort and intelligence. The rational purpose of trade is only to distribute produced wealth to where it is needed. Only a gift economy can do this efficiently. If I make a surplus of wealth then I give it away to whoever wants it. They in turn give away their surplus created wealth some of which I may want. Everyone benefits. If it becomes apparent a particular type of wealth is not being produced in sufficient quantities to satisfy all those who want it then those who want it and have the time to spare can join in helping to create more of it. Failing that the producers of that wealth can ration out their production according to need. For example if the baker's production of cakes is not meeting the needs of all that want cake he can say he won't be giving any cakes to fat people.

If it becomes apparent that over production is occurring in some commodity then some of those producing it can redeploy their time and effort into doing something else or just have a holiday.

[mikema63]

How do you determine how much different people need a certain good and how do you determine how much of a good exists in totally in a gift economy? First come first serve is just an opportunity for the greedy to gain or even just someone who doesn't absolutely need something getting it at the expense of someone who needs it more. How are those two pieces of vital information required for the rationing of limited goods signaled in a gift economy?

[SolarCross]

First off the methods for determining demand is much the same as with a fiat currency system. The people who want stuff will tell those producing it if they are not getting enough also those producing can see if the stuff they are producing is being claimed faster than they are making it or if it is sitting on the shelf unclaimed. They can also ask those who might want it whether they want it and can thereby gauge interest and plan their production accordingly. If producers need help to increase production they can ask for it through the relevant media just as they do in a fiat currency system.

Prices don't predict demand they distort it. A person might want or need a haircut or a holiday but if he percieves he can't afford the price his demand is diminished. Oppositely prices which are set low (perhaps through special offer type inducements) create demand where otherwise there wasn't any. This is inherently wasteful.

In an economy distorted by fiat currency there are many other serious tendancies to waste and inefficiency. I already mentioned the vast amount of human time and attention that is wasted counting, moving, guarding and stealing intrinically worthless money. How about all the junk stuff that is produced, often at the detriment of the environment to sell to people whom don't really want or need it but who are effectively brainwashed into buying just so the producers (really the owners of the producers) can get bundles of intrinsically worthless money? In a gift economy there is simply no point in this kind of waste.

In a gift economy huge amounts of human energy would be liberated from these kinds of intrinically wasteful activity.

Greed like theft is meaningless in a gift economy only a few people with serious mental problems would do it, a minor nuisance that can be managed.

A gift economy is the real free market, free as in freedom as well as free as in without price.

[mikema63]

Prices don't predict demand they distort it.

This is the point actually, human demand when not faced with costs is essentially infinite, prices force demand to meet supply and stimulates supply to increase until the price approaches costs. This doesn't exist in a gift economy.

Now its not that I really hate the idea of a gift economy, if it worked then that's great I just don't think it would, so in an anarchy context its more of each of us just trying our systems and whatever works works, so I'm content to wait and see on this as well. Having everyone try out all of their grand ideas and seeing what worked is really one of the very attractive parts of anarchy.

[SolarCross]

human demand when not faced with costs is only infinite for cretins and sociopaths. The 99% plus have working consciences and the ability to recognise their own interests in the interests of the community of which they are part. In addition even in a gift economy there are costs to abusing the trust; social disgrace and for the most serious cases banishment. Do you really believe that each and every one of the people who go to our baker to get their cakes is going to demand every single cake in the shop even it there were thousands of them and weren't even that hungry? Do really think the baker would just robotically obey such an imbecile request?

I think capitalists have such a low opinion of people because they spend so much time looking in the mirror.

I understand now why you didn't answer my question as to whether an-caps could be trusted with community funds. You can't be trusted with the till anymore than Bob Diamond, Bernie Madoff and the rest.

[Jackal]

I hate opening threads that sound moderately interesting and discovering that the OP is a one-liner telling me to go read a book.

[J Oswald]

It's even worse when the one-liner that opens the thread displays a knowledge of grammar below that of a middle-schooler.

[mikema63]

human demand when not faced with costs is only infinite for cretins and sociopaths.

Yes they are generally the main problem and the people who would take the most advantage, they will still exist in an anarchist system. That doesn't mean that people wouldn't always want a little bit more than they already have, they just care about other things more, if everything was in unlimited supply they would certainly take much more than they currently have.

The 99% plus have working consciences and the ability to recognise their own interests in the interests of the community of which they are part.

The general interests yes, but the knowing the specific needs and interests of every single other person? If I'm in a bakery as you say and I get two loaves someone else will go without a loaf, what if they are hungrier than I am? Its not that I'm a sociopath and don't care about them, its just that I can't be expected to know that they could have used the bread more. That's the main problem tackled by limiting demand.

In addition even in a gift economy there are costs to abusing the trust; social disgrace and for the most serious cases banishment.

Which would help with outright abuse of the system yes, but what about my example from earlier, what if it was a lot more than 1 person and a lot more than 1 good, not a malicious and callous act but simply accidental?

Do you really believe that each and every one of the people who go to our baker to get their cakes is going to demand every single cake in the shop even it there were thousands of them and weren't even that hungry? Do really think the baker would just robotically obey such an imbecile request?

Thousands no of course not, but just a little bit more than otherwise? Very likely.

I think capitalists have such a low opinion of people because they spend so much time looking in the mirror.

Its a knowledge problem, not an everybody is evil problem, no need to be nasty or judge me as a bad person because I disagree with you.

I understand now why you didn't answer my question as to whether an-caps could be trusted with community funds. You can't be trusted with the till anymore than Bob Diamond, Bernie Madoff and the rest.

Just because I don't think a gift economy, which I earlier agreed would be nice if it could work, wouldn't work doesn't make me a bad person or an untrustworthy one.

[SolarCross]

The under 1% of people who are sociapathic and or cretins may also be present in an anarchist society but they don't get to be king, prime minister, general, ceo or chairman of a central bank so the harm they can do is but a mere nuisance that can be managed.

Given the vast efficiency savings gained in a gift economy (that I have already mentioned and remain unrefuted) there is no problem with people taking a little more than they might otherwise because overall they will be producing more real wealth. Where there are shortages the producer can ration his production according to need. It may not work perfectly in all instances but clearly it will be better than a fiat system. Have any clue just how wasteful, inefficient, unjust and dishonest the fiat system is?

It may happen that some people take two cakes not thinking any harm in it but then by the end of the day someone turns up for cake and is disappointed. But then this being a gift economy someone will probably give one of their spare cakes once they are aware someone missed out. This is a trivial 'problem' compared to the extreme problems of the other methods of facilitating distribution. It is nonsense to say that a gift economy couldn't work when it already does and has done for thousands of years. The friends and family network is substantially a gift economy. It even works on a global scale amongst thousands even millions of participants that don't know each other personally and likely will never meet, as with gnu / linux, wikipedia etc. The gift ecomomy so far proven robust, egalitarian and peerlessly efficient. In contrast barter is hopelessly clumsy, single commodity exchange tokens are prone to upsets from radical changes in the supply of the commodity used a referance as when the spanish stole a thousand years of accumulated gold from south america and dumped it in gold scarce europe causing the percieved value of gold to plummet. Exchanging reciepts for a single commodity (like gold) has the additional disadvantage that the minority of people who are charged with actually holding the real commodity will just issue more reciepts than they should for their own fraudulent gain.

The fiat currency system is prone to fraud and inequality on a scale far beyond any rational tolerance much worse than the others. It isn't even all that efficient even when it does work.

How would you organise distribution? It seems you want a currency of some sort but how would you design the system such that extreme wealth disparities don't occur? How would you keep the sociopaths like Bob Diamond, Bernie Madoff and the rest from raiding the till so that people don't go homeless when there are homes for them, don't hungry even when there is food for them, or uneducated even when there are people who could teach them?

What would you have that could possibly be better than a gift economy? Who would it be better for? the 1% of sociopaths or the 99% with working consciences?

[mikema63]

Given the vast efficiency savings gained in a gift economy (that I have already mentioned and remain unrefuted)

I missed it and can't find it but I would love to hear how its more efficient.

Have any clue just how wasteful, inefficient, unjust and dishonest the fiat system is?

Yes I happen to be familiar with the evils of government enforced money.

But then this being a gift economy someone will probably give one of their spare cakes once they are aware someone missed out.

It was an example to illustrate the knowledge problem, its also a problem of balancing production vs overproduction, making more cakes than people want for example, and not making as much bread because you used your flour in cakes. The point is that prices co-ordinate resources to their most efficient places, I have yet to see the mechanism by which knowledge of what is most needed is transmitted in a gift economy.

It is nonsense to say that a gift economy couldn't work when it already does and has done for thousands of years. The friends and family network is substantially a gift economy.

I agreed that it certainly does work in a family, where people have substantial knowledge of the needs and wants of all other members, my allegation is that you simply cant have that level of knowledge in a large group.

It even works on a global scale amongst thousands even millions of participants that don't know each other personally and likely will never meet, as with gnu / linux, wikipedia etc. The gift ecomomy so far proven robust, egalitarian and peerlessly efficient.

Those aren't really goods though, knowledge is a non-scarce resource, the supply of knowledge and programs is essentially infinite because you can copy it at little to no cost, my having linux doesn't prevent you from having the exact same thing, which is why it works so well. Knowledge of the relative supply and demand aren't necessary because supply is infinite and all demand can be met, the knowledge simply isn't necessary with goods that are non-scarce.

In contrast barter is hopelessly clumsy, single commodity exchange tokens are prone to upsets from radical changes in the supply of the commodity used a referance as when the spanish stole a thousand years of accumulated gold from south america and dumped it in gold scarce europe causing the percieved value of gold to plummet. Exchanging reciepts for a single commodity (like gold) has the additional disadvantage that the minority of people who are charged with actually holding the real commodity will just issue more reciepts than they should for their own fraudulent gain.

Government backed fraud and enforced single commodity exchange is not what I'm going for here, I just think that some forms of competing moneys will develop naturally, I don't want to create or enforce anything.

The fiat currency system is prone to fraud and inequality on a scale far beyond any rational tolerance much worse than the others. It isn't even all that efficient even when it does work

I'm not backing a fiat currency system.

How would you organise distribution? It seems you want a currency of some sort but how would you design the system such that extreme wealth disparities don't occur?

I'm not designing anything, I think some form of money would naturally arise. I also believe that the inequality created is through government manipulation of the currency system to better itself and its special interest friends.

What would you have that could possibly be better than a gift economy? Who would it be better for? the 1% of sociopaths or the 99% with working consciences?

I'm for whatever develop's naturally, I'm not looking to impose anything on you, I would just ask that you not impose anything on me either, whatever develops naturally is what I'm going to go with. I just think some system of competing monies is what that natural system would be, you are far to ready to fight me when I'm not actually for actively creating any particular economic system.

I'm not looking to impose my vision of the world on anyone who doesn't share my particular subjective vision of the world.

[SolarCross]

In an economy distorted by fiat currency there are many other serious tendancies to waste and inefficiency. I already mentioned the vast amount of human time and attention that is wasted counting, moving, guarding and stealing intrinically worthless money. How about all the junk stuff that is produced, often at the detriment of the environment to sell to people whom don't really want or need it but who are effectively brainwashed into buying just so the producers (really the owners of the producers) can get bundles of intrinsically worthless money? In a gift economy there is simply no point in this kind of waste.

In a gift economy huge amounts of human energy would be liberated from these kinds of intrinically wasteful activity.

This is one offering of how a gift economy is more efficient mentioned earlier. Essentially man-hours spent doing intrinsically worthless activities needed in a fiat or other money based economy are not needed in a gift economy and thus these man-hours can be re-deployed in more genuinely valuable activites.

Okay it seems your only remaining objection to a gift economy is that you don't see how a gift economy could match supply to demand for goods which are not infinite in supply. Actually I have already dealt with that but I guess I could give it another go.

Producers can assess demand through common sense and estimation. How many hammers should the tool maker make? A good place to start would be find out how many households there are and make an estimate of how many hammers each household would want and how long they last before needing to be replaced and an estimate of how many households already have hammers and do the math. To improve this estimate he can conduct surveys, simply ask a sample of households by means of an email or simiilar if they have a hammer, would they want another hammer etc. Now he has a ballpark figure he can aim to produce this number over a given time frame. He refine the exact amount produced by monitoring his inventory. This is quite how things are done currently actually except without the extra complication of having to determine the optimum price for making a profit.

From the consumer side people communicate their requirements by other means than their wallets. They place orders with the producers. From the number of orders placed the producers have a pretty direct estimation of demand.

There are probably many other ways that supply can be matched with demand that will naturally evolve.

If we had a money system who would issue the currency? If we could all issue our own currency I suppose that would prevent monopolism over the means of exchange. Do you have any ideas of how your currency system might work? I think my proposal for a gift economy is reasonably well presented. You say you don't want a fiat currency or barter. Would you want a commodity based money? What would be the commodity? How about some money somehow based on man-hours as a commodity? It is a universal commodity; everything of value is essentially created through labour one way or another.

Forgive me if I seem like I am being tough on you; it is just that I'd like you to be a little less vague about how you see an anarchist economy functioning if it is not to be a gift economy.

[mikema63]

I'm a bit ill so I'll have to argue the theoretical stuff about different economic systems later, sorry, but I will try to explain this part.

Forgive me if I seem like I am being tough on you; it is just that I'd like you to be a little less vague about how you see an anarchist economy functioning if it is not to be a gift economy.

I think that money is a natural occurrance, not fiat money mind, but commodity moneys are a natural development because they work the best. Now I may fully be wrong, and if I am any system I were to design would make it easy to switch to whatever economic system was working best, if its a gift economy then that's great. I think its an impossible task to really predict what economic system will really be the one that comes out, either of us could be right or someone else entirely, or even a system never before envisioned. I want to make very clear that I have no interest in determining what system or rules everyone is going to live by, and I am by no means planning on making it so a gift economy couldn't develop if it worked, I just don't think it will.

As the saying goes its difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.