A different world for the betterment of humanity maybe?

Okay Holla Forums legit question. I'm naive to the world of economics, but I'll say this from the outside looking in, it "appears" that governmental ideologies have been made to work inside the world banking system. Unless I'm totally wrong, but like I said I know nothing of economics. Back to it, from my belief and perspective, these ideologies have been made to work in the world banking system, I don't even know how long theres been one either. And theres only a couple ideologies that predate the banking system that remain rather simple like capitalism. One of my questions is that, why doesn't everybody's currency hold the same value? Like wouldn't it make sense that if I have one American dollar and go to Canada it should be worth one Canadian dollar, and that it constantly holds thats value, and we simply use that to trade for goods. Another question is that if I am right and ideologies are made to coheir to the world economy, why not just develop a style of government that is objectively true, in the sense that it is cookie cuttered to human psychology and what not. But if it can't work within the economy and thats all that is holding it back, why not scrap the economy?

I am aware of the idea, that the currency would be worthless in the sense that there is no inflated mathimatics behind it anymore prop it up. Also I do understand what I'm suggesting when I say scrap the economy, before people start saying that will cause complete economic collapse and everything will be destoried world war three style, I'm suggesting this under the idea that people are realitively sane enough to live completely without capital for a couple days while this "idea" is sorted out with the powers that be.

I guess another question I have is that do we even need money? And why is it something that is so important to people that it hinders development also. I know all of this is completely philosophical, but I just have been sitting back doing some thinking and wondered what everybody else thinks. Maybe someone can shed some unbiased light on the situation.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=dGT-hygPqUM&list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I originally posted this in Holla Forums on 4 chan but not that many replies so I came here. Which is why it says in the beginning okay Holla Forums.

this is Holla Forums not /elementary school economics/

Hi Holla Forums

What does capitalism mean to you user?

Don't be like that gomrade

Other way around, bud. Banking existed before capitalism though it didn't work quite the same as it does now.

what do you mean? this kid needs to go somewhere else if he wants to know how currency works. they teach you this shit before you graduate, and I'm an American.

Don't shit on people who come to argue in good faith.

That people in a sense get to do whatever they like, it's a free market, and everything is deregulated, seems more simple then most things I hear about from others ideologies.

I see, what I'm trying to say in a sense also is that economics feels so fake, in the sense that its propped up as it's truth. Like if I have 20 dollars, what makes it 20 dollars? Certainly not the paper it's made out of, and that means that it's only the power hungry economists that give that currency it's value. So in that sense anything can be valuable trade wise right? So why not scrap the economy and worry about human interactions, a government that work best around social issues and adapt to human pressures?

Capitalism isn't that. Arguably, a free market has never really existed since currency has almost always been the product of states, with the exception of modern cryptocurrencies. The laissez faire "capitalism" of ayn rand has never existed and arguably could not exist. Private property, which we mean as property that is owned not by the people that use it but that essentially "rent" it to people that do, can only ever exist with the help of a state. Otherwise, what's stopping people from simply seizing it?

Okay, well I am just throwing ideas out here like I said over never studied economics or government systems in general these are just my opinions I'm throwing out here to exchange idea and learn a little

The value of fiat currency is based on A) It's legitimization by the government and B) It's scarcity. To give an example of point B, the reason the USD has constantly lost it's buying power over the decades is because more of it is constantly being created, making it less scarce and therefore less valuable.

That's fine, it wasn't meant as a reproach. Capitalism has a lot of problems inherent to it. Production for exchange necessitates exploitation, coercion, and is fundamentally unsustainable. Here's a good introduction to why that is youtube.com/watch?v=dGT-hygPqUM&list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7
Have some titties

Because you can invest in government bonds. The more that's invested in a government, the more it's worth. Central banks and national debts and all that stuff.
Not quite sure what you mean by this, but communism would mean abolishing all institutions and instituting direct democratic planning and production according to what people need by spontaneous organizations of people themselves. I have a book which I think you might like.
No, we really don't. Here's a quote from the book:
(cont)

...

Nope. The abolition of money and exchange value altogether, and providing of goods on the basis of need, is a necessary part of a free society. Google Bookchin.

Muh Nigga

Thanks I guess lol

Okay, but isn't there falsified mathematics behind what makes a currency valuable also or am I thinking of something else?

What I was talking about here

Is that like I said I don't know anything about economics, but from what I know Communism has never worked, now I'm going to use that as a example, so to let you guys know I'm not on nobodies side so don't jump on me saying it wasn't real Communism or how I'm a Holla Forumstard. Now seeing that Communism has never worked, what is the reason for it not working, I always hear about the economy of socialist countries ends up stagnating and declining into depression. So my question is, is it the world economy that ruins Communism? Is it other economies that upset the balance of this so called utopian idea? Or does it just never work because of human psychology. Because if the idea perfectly reflects the human soul, and the only thing thats holding it back is money in a sense, why not just scrap the world economy and implement this idea? Why be strangled my made up numbers?

...

...

So to understand this better, im going to make a an assumption. Suppose for a moment that countries chose not to print or destroy their money. The amount of money in their economy is set, no amount of money is made or lost. Every country has its own currency. Ok?
Now, the simplest, kind of cop-out answer to your question would simply be:
Of course, it is not that simple. What creates differences in wealth of two countries is the technology they have. Farmers in uganda have to work the field by hand, shoemakers have to make shoes by hand. A farmer in america has machines and so does the shoemaker in america. So lets assume that the american worker, on avarage, can produce 100x as many items per hour worked than a ugandan worker. This means america is 100x richer than uganda. If uganda wanted to sell their beans in america, their one hour of work would only be worth 1/100th of an american hour of work. This means that they can only buy 1/100th of an american hour of work with one hour of their own work. This means that if both countries have the same amount of money per person, so that every american has 1000 dollars and every ugandese has 1000 shillings, then logically, one dollar, which can be exchanged for goods in america, can be exchanged for 100 times as many goods in uganda.

Now, you might think "wont they just buy everything in uganda", but that is a common mistake to make. If an american paid a ugandan with dollars, the ugandan would have sold his 100 hours of uganda work for the equivalent of one hour of american work. It can then buy 1 american hour back. That one hour is worth 100 ugandan hours. Overall he is no better or worse off than if he had just bought ugandan stuff, except that now they have to ship it, which costs money. So no trade will occur in this scenario.
This difference in level of technological (aka productive capacity) leads directly to the different values of the currencies. Trade logically only occurs when both countries have different specialities. If uganda can grow bananas with half the effort of america, and america can grow wood with half the effort, then they will trade bananas and wood. Why?
Remember the exchange rate of shillings to dollars is 100. Ugandans have to work 100 times as much for the same wealth as americans. But for bananas, ugandans work half the normal rate. They only have to work 50 hours of bananas for every american hour. So if they make 50 hours of bananas, they can trade it for one american hour, which they can trade for the equivalent of 100 ugandan hours. The same applies to america, where half an hour of wood can buy you 100 ugandan hours, or the equivalent of 1 american hour. This will lead american to make wood for uganda, and ugandans to make bananas for americans. This causes trade. It is a net gain for both countries involved, because it saves labouring.
Lastly, in real life there are some other factors that make things complicated. Our model assumes that all the money made by the farmers and woodcutters stays in those countries. In real life, bussinesses in richer countries open factories in poorer areas, where they pay the workers less than the amount they worked (this is what marx calls exploitation), and the remainder (the profit) goes back to the original country (such as america). This creates a flow of money back to america without anything real backing it, making it richer and allowing it to import more goods than they would normally (our scenario) could have done. This leads to the undercutting of the native industry by lower priced goods, which leads to job loss and poverty. At the same time, american companies also just move production overseas and do the same trick as described above. This moving of production overseas directly destroys the technology, the factories, the means of production, that made america (or any nation) richer to begin with. This is capital flight, this is what caused Detroit to fall into ruins, the rustbelt, etc.

Will answer your other questions below.

Two possible answers to this question:
1. We do not know what human nature/phychology is, therefore you cant make a system fitted perfectly to it.
2. The interests of those currently in power do not allign with a "perfect" system, because this system itself gives them this power, and is at odds with human nature. They will do anything to prevent a new system from being constructed because it directly goes against their interests.

We do not, really. It is just how society developed. At first, people traded in natura. People truly put labour into making things for use, and then traded a bit to the side when they had left over. As trade became more important, we switched to some form of natural currency, an expensive commodity, such as gold. Up until the late medieval age, people waged wars, commited genocide and employed slavery, to get gold. A useless, heavy, pissyellow metal. People dedicated their life around it, they worshipped it. The aztecs used cocao beans as money, they had plenty of gold but to them it was just some shiny stupid metal, not a form of currency. They threw tons of it in the pits as offerings to their gods. Some weird island nation build massive stone coins (3 meters tall) and didnt even move them, they just kept track of who owned which one. One of them was on the seafloor. It was basically old timey bitcoins. All that effort wasted for useless shit, just to legitimise currency. A gold backed currency is just the same, it just makes it easier to trade since you dont have to move masses of gold, its still backed by gold and still demanded gold for it to work.
Fiat currencies are marginally better, because there isnt much money wasted to "create money". The gold was sold off to be used for actual uses, such as industry or jewellery. But the persuit of money and money alone still exists. People speculate, gamble, spend their whole lives pushing paper around, creating nothing, to get money. So much work is still wasted on creating money, all those people doing useless work leech of the rest of society.
We can use another system. Use labour vouchers. It is not exactly money, it is more of a rationing system. You get money from the government when you work. One hour of work, usefull work, gets you one hours worth of credits. This can then be spend on one hours worth of products. This means no people mining for gold, or stone circles, or bitcoins, or pushing stocks around, but people doing actual work. And these credits can only be spend on products and services, they cant be given away and so cannot be used to hire people to make stuff that you sell for profit, you cant use money to make money.
What you need in addition to that is a system in which you can comprehensively plan the economy in a democratic manner, and a method to measure the demand of things. To measure the demand, you simply set the prices to clear the shelves, so that everything that is produced is sold without oversupply or shortage. You then compare it with how much went into making it. If the price in labour credits is higher than its cost, make more of it, if its lower, make less of it.

This system is laid out in great extend in towards a new socialism. Its a bit heavy on math sometimes, since its written by a computer scientist. I highly recommend you read it if you like the idea of this. You can skip the chapter on feminism and the chapter on communes if you want, but the chapter on democracy is pretty fucking great. PDF provided.