The World Need A New International Income Wage Index Based On Price Of Silver, Gold

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Ibdm,

The failure of most of those banks coincides with the brief period of deflation in fall 2008 thru winter 2009.

Because the banks making stupid loans caused the failures, which caused the deflation

Spongy Iris wrote:
Without inflation, banking is not a viable business.

Irrelevant. Makes no difference.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Inequality causes inflation.

WRONG. Printing money faster then the wealth being created causes inflation

Spongy Iris wrote:
Inflation will eventually cause most people to default on their debt.

WRONG. Inflation make is easier to pay a debt. You are paying it with empty dollars.

Spongy Iris wrote:
When inflation reaches a maximum peak, then there becomes deflation.

WRONG. One does not cause the other.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Money is created when banks issue loans to businesses and individuals.

That's why they call it a fractional reserve system.

Inequality is the root cause of inflation. Denying this is wrong.

Nope. Printing money faster than the rate that wealth is being created causes inflation. Nothing else.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Most people cannot continually to take on more debt, to pay off their existing debts.

True of the government also.

Spongy Iris wrote:
They will max out.

Also true of the government. A bad way to run things.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The US Treasury does that.

No. The U.S. government, many States, and many private individuals do that.

Spongy Iris wrote:
But eventually they will repudiate their debt or default too

Duplication. Repudiating their debt IS defaulting on it.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Let me spell out for you.
...deleted contrivance...
After so many years of this, when the loans cannot be repaid, more loans can be made to cover the shortfall, or loans can default, or the debt can be repudiated.

No. Loans cannot cover a default. You can't get loans when you are bankrupt.

Spongy Iris wrote:
For deflation to occur, loans can default, or debt can be repudiated.

Same thing. Duplication.

Spongy Iris wrote:
This is a simplified abstract explanation to show what happens in reality.

No, it's a contrivance that does not show anything.

Printing money faster than wealth is created is the result of inequality.

Spongy Iris wrote:
You are skipping over the root cause.

Spongy Iris wrote:
You may as well just say inflation causes inflation.

Spongy Iris wrote:
That is how useless your comment is.

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

In what F'd up world do you live in where all goods and services are equal?

The discussion has been about wage inequality and how that is the root cause of inflation.

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
In your example, goods were being sold for income. That is called wages, where I live.
Another way to get wages is by work. That is called a service, where I live.

Again, what F'd up world do you live in where all goods and services are equal?

No such world.

I believe whole barter would be a better world, but I don't believe that is going to happen anytime soon. Let's see...

keepit wrote:
It seems to me barter would be ineffcient.

Into the Night wrote:

The federal government printing money faster than the wealth being created is the cause of inflation.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Harvey and Gas,

Why do we need to assign a price to every single item?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Is it not sufficient enough to know this following data?

1. Supply quantity of all items
2. Demand quantity of all items
3. How much of these quantities each company supplies each other

Spongy Iris wrote:
Why do we need money to figure this out?

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Harvey and Gas,

Why do we need to assign a price to every single item?

Is it not sufficient enough to know this following data?

1. Supply quantity of all items
2. Demand quantity of all items
3. How much of these quantities each company supplies each other

Why do we need money to figure this out?

Perhaps you can help me understand...

I can't believe I'm even wasting time entertaining this shit show...

Scenario 1. The grocery store wants to buy computers. How many tomatoes does Hewlett Packard need to accept as payment in full for 3 laptops?

Scenario 2. The florist needs to buy ammunition for a fun company outing at the rifle range. How many rose bushes are fair trade for 8,000 rounds of .223?

Scenario 3. The school needs to pay for their dumpster service. How many students should they leave in the dumpster as fair trade for services?

Dude, what the phuk am I missing??!!

It seems to me you're missing the whole point.

If people are giving their skills to the production or maintenance of an economy, why don't they have the freedom to take what they need in return, for themselves and their families, without the medium of money?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

The federal government printing money faster than the wealth being created is the cause of inflation.

The federal government needs to print money faster than wealth is being created, otherwise too many people wouldn't be able to cover their expenses needed to live.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Harvey and Gas,

Why do we need to assign a price to every single item?

Is it not sufficient enough to know this following data?

1. Supply quantity of all items
2. Demand quantity of all items
3. How much of these quantities each company supplies each other

Why do we need money to figure this out?

Perhaps you can help me understand...

I can't believe I'm even wasting time entertaining this shit show...

Scenario 1. The grocery store wants to buy computers. How many tomatoes does Hewlett Packard need to accept as payment in full for 3 laptops?

Scenario 2. The florist needs to buy ammunition for a fun company outing at the rifle range. How many rose bushes are fair trade for 8,000 rounds of .223?

Scenario 3. The school needs to pay for their dumpster service. How many students should they leave in the dumpster as fair trade for services?

Dude, what the phuk am I missing??!!

It seems to me you're missing the whole point.

If people are giving their skills to the production or maintenance of an economy, why don't they have the freedom to take what they need in return, for themselves and their families, without the medium of money?

Nothing has outlawed barter without money. If you want to conduct business that way, feel free.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
Harvey and Gas,

Why do we need to assign a price to every single item?

Is it not sufficient enough to know this following data?

1. Supply quantity of all items
2. Demand quantity of all items
3. How much of these quantities each company supplies each other

Why do we need money to figure this out?

Perhaps you can help me understand...

I can't believe I'm even wasting time entertaining this shit show...

Scenario 1. The grocery store wants to buy computers. How many tomatoes does Hewlett Packard need to accept as payment in full for 3 laptops?

Scenario 2. The florist needs to buy ammunition for a fun company outing at the rifle range. How many rose bushes are fair trade for 8,000 rounds of .223?

Scenario 3. The school needs to pay for their dumpster service. How many students should they leave in the dumpster as fair trade for services?

Dude, what the phuk am I missing??!!

It seems to me you're missing the whole point.

If people are giving their skills to the production or maintenance of an economy, why don't they have the freedom to take what they need in return, for themselves and their families, without the medium of money?

Nothing has outlawed barter without money. If you want to conduct business that way, feel free.

Mmmm.....interesting. How do you suppose the DMV will calculate the taxes on a vehicle if the purchase amount is 1/2 a cow and 28 chickens.

Think I'll do that next time just to screw with them.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Harvey and Gas,

Money does not accurately measure how much work each person contributes to the production or maintenance of an economy.

That seems about as difficult or impossible to accurately measure as assessing the temperature of the entire globe.

Spongy Iris wrote: Money does not accurately measure how much work each person contributes to the production or maintenance of an economy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Harvey and Gas,

Money does not accurately measure how much work each person contributes to the production or maintenance of an economy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
That seems about as difficult or impossible to accurately measure as assessing the temperature of the entire globe.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Price is determined by market forces.

SI: A major example, the price of commodities, is determined by futures contracts.

Spongy Iris wrote:
As far as I know: these prices are set by market makers, who keep an inventory of futures contracts, and move the prices of contracts in their inventory up and down.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Buyers and sellers of these contracts then speculate based on the market makers' asserted fluctuations of prices, when the best times are to buy contracts at a lower price, so they can be sold for a higher price at a later time (or when the best times are to sell contracts at a higher price, so they can be bought at a lower price at a later time).

Spongy Iris wrote:
The buyer pays slightly more than the seller gets and the market maker gets the difference.

Spongy Iris wrote:
A market maker must move prices in a manner that makes a market,

Spongy Iris wrote:
so they can find the right amount of buyers and sellers to accumulate,

Spongy Iris wrote:
and then clear, the inventory of stocks which they hold.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Please feel free to elaborate or correct if I've made any errors.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: They do have that freedom. Money just makes things easier. You can represent what you buy and sell in a more flexible unit of account, and money can be traded for something else besides the immediate barter opportunities available.

SI: Money adds complexity. It doesn't make things easier.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Who says if there wasn't money you would have to trade bread for cars??? Straw man argument. Or rigid mental disorder.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: The federal government is not the people. It is an organization that has the power to print money. People create wealth to cover their expenses needed to live. If they don't create enough wealth, that's their own problem. They need to get out and work.

SI: You don't seem to understand the concept of a zero sum game.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Whatever one spends another gains, and vice versa.

Spongy Iris wrote:
If a few people take a lot more gains than most people, most people will come up a bit short. They will need to go into debt to cover their expenses.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Socialism (which is what you are describing as a solution) does not create wealth. Printing money does not create wealth. Socialism is theft of wealth. Only capitalism creates wealth.

SI: I'm talking about inflation and deflation (not socialism and capitalism)!

Spongy Iris wrote:
If you don't issue more debt "print money" for most people to cover their revenue shortfall, there would be revolts.

Spongy Iris wrote:
As you. "print money" for this reason, it grows faster than wealth and causes inflation.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Eventually most people will max out their debt (default) or governments will repudiate their debt (same thing). When that happens there is deflation.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: It is not the government's job to rob someone else to pay for your living expense

SI: It is the job of the IRS to tax people earning above average amounts to help the government pay for welfare programs like the military, social security, and medicare.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: If you do not want to accept U.S. currency, that's your decision. No government can force it upon you. If you want to limit yourself to direct barter, feel free.

SI: I have no choice but to accept U.S. currency.

Spongy Iris wrote:
This conversation is about the future.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you not think people's faith in the almighty dollar will wane when the world suffers deflation?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Any Norwegian can be taught to gut fish... Work sucks, but has perks, doesn't pay much though, because the can get any drunken-gutter-bum to do it all night, for a pint bottle of Thunderbird wine. Do you think the average fish-gutter would be qualified to Captain the fishing boat, and deserve the same pay, for gutting fish? Guess anything is possible in democrat-world. They took a New York City bar-slut, and gave here a seat in the House of Representatives...

SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present. I have barely talked about wealth, except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth: If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car. That is a straw man argument. They are both part of a larger economy. They don't directly deal with each other, but they both give their goods into the economy. There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.

HarveyH55 wrote:

SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present. I have barely talked about wealth, except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth: If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car. That is a straw man argument. They are both part of a larger economy. They don't directly deal with each other, but they both give their goods into the economy. There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.

How does the economy work then? The baker needs a car, has to go where someone is selling cars, to pick one out, and negotiate the deal. The baker, would of course have other stuff to trade, besides bread, from his bread baking business. The car dealer would need to look through a long list, maybe visit where the baker keeps his trade goods, to see what would be acceptable. Money just makes the exchange so much simpler, since it's less likely to spoil, or be damaged, while waiting to be exchanged for other goods and services, a person might want or need. Your model also depends on the baker even having the trade goods, a car dealer might want or need. The value of a dollar, is how much work you had to put into earning it, and how badly a seller needs to part with his product or service.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Reversal fallacy. Contracts do not set the price of commodities. They are unrelated to the price of commodities. They are speculations of future prices of commodities. Nothing more.

SI: If the price of pig bellies trading on exchanges with futures contracts triples in price, I'm pretty sure the pig bellies being sold in meat markets will also increase by similar amount. I think the prices on exchanges will lead the way, not follow

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: A commodity is not a stock. Commodity brokers do not hold commodities. Stock brokers do not hold stocks. They do not keep an inventory either.

SI: It seems you are confusing Brokers with Market Makers. To facilitate trading of stocks between buyers and sellers, a Market Maker keeps an inventory of stocks. Market Makers pay Brokers to get access to information of which buyers and sellers are placing orders. Brokers take the orders. Market Makers match the orders. By keeping an inventory of stocks, Market Makers can quickly match orders between buyers and sellers and facilitate smooth liquid trading.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Prices are not set by commodity broker houses. They do not keep an inventory of futures contracts. They do not set the price of any contract.

SI: I never said Brokers set prices I said Market Makers set prices.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: There isn't one. The 'zero sum game' is a myth. Capitalism creates wealth.

SI: I have been saying money is a zero sum game. I have not been saying wealth is a zero sum game. Just because wealth is created, while money is used, are you saying it is possible for an economy to have more cash than debt?

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Creating wealth is far better than stealing it.

SI: Are you saying the IRS is stealing wealth by taxing those who earn above average money wages?

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: WRONG. You can gain without spending. One example is a farmer growing a crop. Once the field is plowed and sown, little else is needed except to watch the plants grow....maybe water them if they need it. You do not buy the harvested crop at market prices for that commodity. You buy the seed, plant, water them, and harvest the result at the end. You have created wealth. All you are buying is the time to plow and plant, fertilizer, a bit of pest control, and any additional water for irrigating (rain and sunlight is free).

SI: YOU are talking about wealth instead of money.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And you seem to be saying, if an economy gains wealth, it gains money.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Is that what you are saying?

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: Printing money doesn't cover anyone's revenue shortfall.

SI: Most people can't afford to cover all their expenses without going into debt.

Spongy Iris wrote:
You do realize what a mortgage is don't you?

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: You are now locked in paradox. First you say wealth does not increase, now you say it does. Which is it, dude?

SI: No you maliciously manipulative jackass. I'm saying the net amount of cash and debt in an economy is always zero.

Spongy Iris wrote:
ITN: You are talking about socialism as a solution. You are wrong. Capitalism is the solution. Creating wealth is far better than stealing it. You are also conflating wealth with money. Not a straw man. Not a mental disorder. If you do not use money, direct barter is the only way to trade

SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present.

Spongy Iris wrote:
I have barely talked about wealth,

Spongy Iris wrote:
except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth:

Spongy Iris wrote:
If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car.

Spongy Iris wrote:
That is a straw man argument.

Spongy Iris wrote:
They are both part of a larger economy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
They don't directly deal with each other,

Spongy Iris wrote:
but they both give their goods into the economy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present. I have barely talked about wealth, except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth: If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car. That is a straw man argument. They are both part of a larger economy. They don't directly deal with each other, but they both give their goods into the economy. There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.

How does the economy work then? The baker needs a car, has to go where someone is selling cars, to pick one out, and negotiate the deal. The baker, would of course have other stuff to trade, besides bread, from his bread baking business. The car dealer would need to look through a long list, maybe visit where the baker keeps his trade goods, to see what would be acceptable. Money just makes the exchange so much simpler, since it's less likely to spoil, or be damaged, while waiting to be exchanged for other goods and services, a person might want or need. Your model also depends on the baker even having the trade goods, a car dealer might want or need. The value of a dollar, is how much work you had to put into earning it, and how badly a seller needs to part with his product or service.

As long as all the businesses which are connected to each other in an economy have a good sense of what demand they need to supply, and they do the needed work to provide supply to demand, then nothing you described about trading loaves and baked goods for cars is necessary, is it?

Into the Night wrote:

There is no such thing as a 'Market Maker'

Into the Night wrote:

Everyone can cover all of their expenses without going into debt, if they choose to.

Into the Night wrote:

Cash is not debt. There is no such thing as a 'net' between apples and oranges.

Into the Night wrote:

You are attempting to use 'economy' as money. Redefinition fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present. I have barely talked about wealth, except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth: If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car. That is a straw man argument. They are both part of a larger economy. They don't directly deal with each other, but they both give their goods into the economy. There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.

How does the economy work then? The baker needs a car, has to go where someone is selling cars, to pick one out, and negotiate the deal. The baker, would of course have other stuff to trade, besides bread, from his bread baking business. The car dealer would need to look through a long list, maybe visit where the baker keeps his trade goods, to see what would be acceptable. Money just makes the exchange so much simpler, since it's less likely to spoil, or be damaged, while waiting to be exchanged for other goods and services, a person might want or need. Your model also depends on the baker even having the trade goods, a car dealer might want or need. The value of a dollar, is how much work you had to put into earning it, and how badly a seller needs to part with his product or service.

As long as all the businesses which are connected to each other in an economy have a good sense of what demand they need to supply, and they do the needed work to provide supply to demand, then nothing you described about trading loaves and baked goods for cars is necessary, is it?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

There is no such thing as a 'Market Maker'

You are unbelievable! Get your friends to put your above quote in their signatures.

Go look up the company Citadel. They provide market making services.

Check out this interview with a market maker https://youtu.be/KRz259u6A6w and see if you can learn the distinction between a market maker and a broker.

You double down on your lies even when they become obvious.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Everyone can cover all of their expenses without going into debt, if they choose to.

Really? How so?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Cash is not debt. There is no such thing as a 'net' between apples and oranges.

Cash is positive, Debt is negative, and the net is the sum of them both. Got it?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

You are attempting to use 'economy' as money. Redefinition fallacy.

No I'm not.

The economy is all the goods and services being supplied and demanded.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Money is created when banks loan it to businesses so they can supply goods and services demanded.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The histories of money transactions can give an indication of supply and demand.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It may be hard to figure out supply and demand without the information extrapolated from money transactions. But these days with cool spreadsheet and supply chain programs such information may be easier to extrapolate.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present. I have barely talked about wealth, except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth: If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car. That is a straw man argument. They are both part of a larger economy. They don't directly deal with each other, but they both give their goods into the economy. There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.

How does the economy work then? The baker needs a car, has to go where someone is selling cars, to pick one out, and negotiate the deal. The baker, would of course have other stuff to trade, besides bread, from his bread baking business. The car dealer would need to look through a long list, maybe visit where the baker keeps his trade goods, to see what would be acceptable. Money just makes the exchange so much simpler, since it's less likely to spoil, or be damaged, while waiting to be exchanged for other goods and services, a person might want or need. Your model also depends on the baker even having the trade goods, a car dealer might want or need. The value of a dollar, is how much work you had to put into earning it, and how badly a seller needs to part with his product or service.

As long as all the businesses which are connected to each other in an economy have a good sense of what demand they need to supply, and they do the needed work to provide supply to demand, then nothing you described about trading loaves and baked goods for cars is necessary, is it?

What's the connection? How is one company's product or service connected to every other business, without money? Is it a credit system? All on paper? You still have a bunch of good and services available, that not everyone is going to want or need. It presumes that every business knows what each individual is entitled, at every other business. People tend to be a little greedy and dishonest as well. People move around too. Each community, has it's own economy. I'm just having trouble seeing how eliminating money is advantageous to anyone. When I go to work, I have a pretty good idea what is required, and how much compensation I'll need to make the required labor, worth the time and effort. I know the price of the goods and services in the area I live. If the job doesn't pay what I want or need, I don't have to accept working there, or I can take on additional jobs to make up the difference. When I'm buying stuff, there are often options of similar business, some willing to negotiate a little on prices. They charge too much, potential customers don't buy there. What they are selling, is only worth as much, as someone else is willing to pay. If the baker charges too much for a loaf of bread, people can always bake their own bread. The baker needs to lower his price, since his products need to move, limited shelf life. If I can bake bread myself, for a fraction of what the baker charges, I could also sell to my neighbors.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

You are attempting to use 'economy' as money. Redefinition fallacy.

No I'm not.

The economy is all the goods and services being supplied and demanded.

Paradox. Irrational. You are still locked in paradox. You must clear your paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Money is created when banks loan it to businesses so they can supply goods and services demanded.

No. Money is created when a government 'prints' it by expanding M1.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The histories of money transactions can give an indication of supply and demand.

No. Money is a trade medium, not an indicator of supply and demand.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It may be hard to figure out supply and demand without the information extrapolated from money transactions. But these days with cool spreadsheet and supply chain programs such information may be easier to extrapolate.

Magick Spreadsheets are not crystal balls. They cannot foretell the future.

The spread of a stock or commodity is determined by the broker, not anything like a 'market maker'. It is the price you pay for using the broker. It doesn't matter if it's a stock (popular or not), or a commodity like corn or gold.

Think of it as a markup price implemented by a broker. He is a merchant, like any other.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present. I have barely talked about wealth, except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth: If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car. That is a straw man argument. They are both part of a larger economy. They don't directly deal with each other, but they both give their goods into the economy. There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.

How does the economy work then? The baker needs a car, has to go where someone is selling cars, to pick one out, and negotiate the deal. The baker, would of course have other stuff to trade, besides bread, from his bread baking business. The car dealer would need to look through a long list, maybe visit where the baker keeps his trade goods, to see what would be acceptable. Money just makes the exchange so much simpler, since it's less likely to spoil, or be damaged, while waiting to be exchanged for other goods and services, a person might want or need. Your model also depends on the baker even having the trade goods, a car dealer might want or need. The value of a dollar, is how much work you had to put into earning it, and how badly a seller needs to part with his product or service.

As long as all the businesses which are connected to each other in an economy have a good sense of what demand they need to supply, and they do the needed work to provide supply to demand, then nothing you described about trading loaves and baked goods for cars is necessary, is it?

What's the connection? How is one company's product or service connected to every other business, without money? Is it a credit system? All on paper? You still have a bunch of good and services available, that not everyone is going to want or need. It presumes that every business knows what each individual is entitled, at every other business. People tend to be a little greedy and dishonest as well. People move around too. Each community, has it's own economy. I'm just having trouble seeing how eliminating money is advantageous to anyone. When I go to work, I have a pretty good idea what is required, and how much compensation I'll need to make the required labor, worth the time and effort. I know the price of the goods and services in the area I live. If the job doesn't pay what I want or need, I don't have to accept working there, or I can take on additional jobs to make up the difference. When I'm buying stuff, there are often options of similar business, some willing to negotiate a little on prices. They charge too much, potential customers don't buy there. What they are selling, is only worth as much, as someone else is willing to pay. If the baker charges too much for a loaf of bread, people can always bake their own bread. The baker needs to lower his price, since his products need to move, limited shelf life. If I can bake bread myself, for a fraction of what the baker charges, I could also sell to my neighbors.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

You are attempting to use 'economy' as money. Redefinition fallacy.

No I'm not.

The economy is all the goods and services being supplied and demanded.

Paradox. Irrational. You are still locked in paradox. You must clear your paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Money is created when banks loan it to businesses so they can supply goods and services demanded.

No. Money is created when a government 'prints' it by expanding M1.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The histories of money transactions can give an indication of supply and demand.

No. Money is a trade medium, not an indicator of supply and demand.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It may be hard to figure out supply and demand without the information extrapolated from money transactions. But these days with cool spreadsheet and supply chain programs such information may be easier to extrapolate.

Magick Spreadsheets are not crystal balls. They cannot foretell the future.

The spread of a stock or commodity is determined by the broker, not anything like a 'market maker'. It is the price you pay for using the broker. It doesn't matter if it's a stock (popular or not), or a commodity like corn or gold.

Think of it as a markup price implemented by a broker. He is a merchant, like any other.

A stock broker is essentially a democrat... He get's rich off of using your wealth, passing on his own gambling losses onto you.

HarveyH55 wrote:A stock broker is essentially a democrat... He get's rich off of using your wealth, passing on his own gambling losses onto you.

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

SI: You are the one trying to confuse me into conflating wealth with money when no confusion is present. I have barely talked about wealth, except to imagine a world where you don't need money to create wealth: If there becomes no money, a baker would not need to directly give a car dealer 10,000 loafs of bread to buy a car. That is a straw man argument. They are both part of a larger economy. They don't directly deal with each other, but they both give their goods into the economy. There is no need for them to trade with each other directly.

How does the economy work then? The baker needs a car, has to go where someone is selling cars, to pick one out, and negotiate the deal. The baker, would of course have other stuff to trade, besides bread, from his bread baking business. The car dealer would need to look through a long list, maybe visit where the baker keeps his trade goods, to see what would be acceptable. Money just makes the exchange so much simpler, since it's less likely to spoil, or be damaged, while waiting to be exchanged for other goods and services, a person might want or need. Your model also depends on the baker even having the trade goods, a car dealer might want or need. The value of a dollar, is how much work you had to put into earning it, and how badly a seller needs to part with his product or service.

As long as all the businesses which are connected to each other in an economy have a good sense of what demand they need to supply, and they do the needed work to provide supply to demand, then nothing you described about trading loaves and baked goods for cars is necessary, is it?

What's the connection? How is one company's product or service connected to every other business, without money? Is it a credit system? All on paper? You still have a bunch of good and services available, that not everyone is going to want or need. It presumes that every business knows what each individual is entitled, at every other business. People tend to be a little greedy and dishonest as well. People move around too. Each community, has it's own economy. I'm just having trouble seeing how eliminating money is advantageous to anyone. When I go to work, I have a pretty good idea what is required, and how much compensation I'll need to make the required labor, worth the time and effort. I know the price of the goods and services in the area I live. If the job doesn't pay what I want or need, I don't have to accept working there, or I can take on additional jobs to make up the difference. When I'm buying stuff, there are often options of similar business, some willing to negotiate a little on prices. They charge too much, potential customers don't buy there. What they are selling, is only worth as much, as someone else is willing to pay. If the baker charges too much for a loaf of bread, people can always bake their own bread. The baker needs to lower his price, since his products need to move, limited shelf life. If I can bake bread myself, for a fraction of what the baker charges, I could also sell to my neighbors.

Honor system. Greater freedom.

If you give what others need and want, why can't you take what you need and want, without transacting with money?