My problem with your analogy of barter is when I soend three weeks fixing someones windows/door...whatever and they spend one hour (an example) doing something for me.
Or conversely I know tricks with windows and have them back working within 1 hour and they spend 3 weeks doing something for me.
It's between the people involved. If you're both satisfied, then it's fair. It can be difficult to predetermine, sometimes. But that's not unlike bidding a job. Sometimes you come out ahead, sometimes behind. Reasonable people find a way to balance things out. And I try not to have any sort of relationship, business or professional, with unreasonable people.
And don't undervalue your skill and knowledge. It took a lot of your time to develop that skill and knowledge. It should count for something.
Nice try, but...ANYTHING is only "worth" what someone will exchange for it.
You want a book cover; she wants a porch. You decide on the exchange. Great. Next time you want something she can create in a few minutes—another book cover—and she wants a new house that would take you three months. You decide on the exchange. But the grocery store she goes to won't take either the porch or the house for a bag of groceries. You have two book covers you will sell for money and she starves.
The difference is there's no standardization of exchange except an agreement between two friends. The best thing about money is that it's like screws and screwdrivers. You use this kind of screwdriver on this kind of screw, and if both were made in the past century in a half, they work. Buy 'em at a hardware store. Don't need to negotiate anything. And you move your screws.
What always strikes me as funny about those who "believe in gold" is their naivete about human nature and the true nature of human exchange. You've got a skid-load of gold and the grocery store only takes cash. You're "rich" but you starve.
Money, any kind of currency, is a standard of exchange. It may be impersonal, it may have coarsened society. But we don't starve because the grocers don't take it.
Until the value of money *doesn't* keep you alive because it has been devalued so much, it is better to use it as fire kindling than to buy groceries with.
One could have money in a mostly local village/tribal economy to the benefit of that economy. The main problem would occur if someone has so much money that they don't produce anything anymore, only consume, hurting their relationships with others in the community. Conversely, a global economy that has destroyed villages, tribes and families is not going to get much better (will probably get worse) without money.
But where did that rich person get their money? If they worked really hard early in life and could then retire with the money they have, I see no problem. If they inherited it, I have somewhat of a problem, but it's still their money (or their parent's money), so who am I to say?
But in our 'global economy' we have people who control the money supply. They can make themselves rich while contributing nothing, and largely control the economy, picking winners and losers. That, I DON'T like.
I Agree. Old people in traditional local economies continued to contribute even if they had accumulated much money, at least as far as taking care of/teaching their grandkids. And even if young people inherited much money, they would still usually want to contribute, though sometimes you would get psychopath rulers/kings. There is both a "contribution instinct", and a "contribution market" in a local economy, whereas in our global economy both of these are disincentivized.
I'm also a woodworker involved in restoration.
My problem with your analogy of barter is when I soend three weeks fixing someones windows/door...whatever and they spend one hour (an example) doing something for me.
Or conversely I know tricks with windows and have them back working within 1 hour and they spend 3 weeks doing something for me.
How do equivalents work?
It's between the people involved. If you're both satisfied, then it's fair. It can be difficult to predetermine, sometimes. But that's not unlike bidding a job. Sometimes you come out ahead, sometimes behind. Reasonable people find a way to balance things out. And I try not to have any sort of relationship, business or professional, with unreasonable people.
And don't undervalue your skill and knowledge. It took a lot of your time to develop that skill and knowledge. It should count for something.
I remember a friend asked me to do a job for him
He asked for a discount.
Never again.
I thought about it afterwards and figured he wasn't there helping ne fo my craft.
He didn't take a cut in wages.
But he expected me to.
Nice try, but...ANYTHING is only "worth" what someone will exchange for it.
You want a book cover; she wants a porch. You decide on the exchange. Great. Next time you want something she can create in a few minutes—another book cover—and she wants a new house that would take you three months. You decide on the exchange. But the grocery store she goes to won't take either the porch or the house for a bag of groceries. You have two book covers you will sell for money and she starves.
The difference is there's no standardization of exchange except an agreement between two friends. The best thing about money is that it's like screws and screwdrivers. You use this kind of screwdriver on this kind of screw, and if both were made in the past century in a half, they work. Buy 'em at a hardware store. Don't need to negotiate anything. And you move your screws.
What always strikes me as funny about those who "believe in gold" is their naivete about human nature and the true nature of human exchange. You've got a skid-load of gold and the grocery store only takes cash. You're "rich" but you starve.
Money, any kind of currency, is a standard of exchange. It may be impersonal, it may have coarsened society. But we don't starve because the grocers don't take it.
You've been quite accurate, and at the same time you have entirely missed my point.
Yes, I am quite aware of money. But it is just for paying bills. It adds no value to my life.
It keeps you alive. THAT has value.
Until the value of money *doesn't* keep you alive because it has been devalued so much, it is better to use it as fire kindling than to buy groceries with.
They used to value money in the Weimer Republic, until it had no value. They used to value the currency in Venezuela, until it had no value.
Fiat currency is not real. Not even a little bit. That should scare the hell out of everybody.
One could have money in a mostly local village/tribal economy to the benefit of that economy. The main problem would occur if someone has so much money that they don't produce anything anymore, only consume, hurting their relationships with others in the community. Conversely, a global economy that has destroyed villages, tribes and families is not going to get much better (will probably get worse) without money.
But where did that rich person get their money? If they worked really hard early in life and could then retire with the money they have, I see no problem. If they inherited it, I have somewhat of a problem, but it's still their money (or their parent's money), so who am I to say?
But in our 'global economy' we have people who control the money supply. They can make themselves rich while contributing nothing, and largely control the economy, picking winners and losers. That, I DON'T like.
I Agree. Old people in traditional local economies continued to contribute even if they had accumulated much money, at least as far as taking care of/teaching their grandkids. And even if young people inherited much money, they would still usually want to contribute, though sometimes you would get psychopath rulers/kings. There is both a "contribution instinct", and a "contribution market" in a local economy, whereas in our global economy both of these are disincentivized.