Eliminate money and what is the outcome? (Page 3)

Comrade_: Haaha yes he's right a bill's life span is about 19 mths in circulation, more if the bill is higher value.
si, Coins it will be! Can just imagine paying for a car/house with all that! though it will be a good revenge to pay a loan in coins.

StuckInTheSixties: Well, it's a fairly silly, fantasy hypothesis, but that's what we're goin' with, right?

I would guess that not only would coins be hoarded, but because they would then become scarce, the "monetary" value would increase dramatically, particularly when compared to paper currency. No one would be willing to exchange 4 quarters for a Greenback.

There might even be counterfeiting of coins by clever, criminally inclined engravers.

younlee: What if you dont have such a card!!!???

And Lipton im insulted younlee<------...our queen will be very upset haha

StuckInTheSixties: Younlee beat me to it, Lipton.

There are MANY people that live in a purely CASH way, especially if they're young. I think most adults do both. I use cash for small purchases so that I don't wind up with a monthly bank statement with hundreds of purchases listed.

And there are many things that require cash. I stopped at a garage sale about a week ago. Cash only, of course. Laundromats require cash. Can you image buying a hotdog from a vendor in the stands at a ball game with your debit card? Start thinking about it, and the list is endless.

Don't you have any cash in your pocket?

LiptonCambell: If people really were going apeshit, I doubt coins would hold enough value to....you know....prevent us from using it as scrap....

I mean, Im pretty sure a pennys worth of copper is worth more than 1 cent, and a nickles worth of...um...nickle(?) is worth more than 5 cents....

And if you don't have a debit card? I guess you're SOL- I'll live a life of general comfort and no real changes, because we already have this system in place...

LiptonCambell: >>>And there are many things that require cash.

Well, the simpliest answer would be the banks would have to start making their own dollar notes to compensate for the ones that disappeared on them....

StuckInTheSixties: Lipton says:
"I mean, Im pretty sure a pennys worth of copper is worth more than 1 cent, and a nickles worth of...um...nickle(?) is worth more than 5 cents...."

No, that can't be true. If that was true, coins simply wouldn't exist. And surely, if that was the case, you could profit simply by going to the bank, purchasing coins, taking them to the scrap metal dealer, redeeming them for cash, returning to the bank, purchasing more coins, returning to the scrap metal dealer, etc. etc. in a never-ending, ever-more-profitable circle.

Coins are engraved. It's not easy to do, just like printing paper money in quantity with all of those tiny, fine details reproduced perfectly is also difficult. That's what makes a penny more valuable than a piece of scrap copper the same weight. And with "silver" coins, there's also that sandwiched slice of zinc in the middle. Again, it's not easy to do that. There's value inherent to the difficulty of manufacture. That makes a coin more valuable than the metal itself.

The metals used in coins are "diluted" (for lack of a better word). The silver, copper and nickel used in coins are alloys that are less valuable than the "monetary" worth of the coin.

Between the engraving, and the impurity of the metals involved, the scrap metal worth of the coin is less than the monetary worth. The obvious proof of this is the simple fact that coins exist as coins.

XFixYourBrainX: Gold investers are always trying to get someone to invest in their gold. I wonder if some people think if the government bankrupts if those peoples investments in gold will save them or not.

Malobear: Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men,
we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we had no delinquents.
Without a prison, there can be no delinquents.
We had no locks nor keys and therefore among us there were no thieves.
When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket,
he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift.
We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property.
We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being
was not determined by his wealth.
We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians,
therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another.
We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don't know
how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things
that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.

John (Fire) Lame Dee r
Sioux Lakota - *******76

Comrade_: That is a cool quote, there was a debate on something and this would've fit in there.

introspec: 9th grade Civics: Gresham's Law
Bad money drives out good...
Explanation: Paper money will be used, gold/silver money will be hoarded...
(People aren't totally stupid)

introspec: Swiss francs are valuable money....tho, now paper....

mtndrm: We can all live in tents and actually learn to cherish nature-- I like this idea Who needs money anyway? All of our true necessities were given to us right at the birth of this planet.

StuckInTheSixties: Gresham's Law isn't really applicable here.

Gresham's law is an economic principle "which states that when government compulsorily overvalues one money and undervalues another, the undervalued money will leave the country or disappear from circulation into hoards, while the overvalued money will flood into circulation. It is commonly stated as: "Bad money drives out good", but is more accurately stated: "Bad money drives out good if their exchange rate is set by law." (opening sentences of the wiki article)

The fantasy circumstance of this thread is that the government simply stops producing currency, not that the government "compulsorily overvalues one money and undervalues another."

StuckInTheSixties: "We can all live in tents and actually learn to cherish nature, etc."

... umm ... until you get hungry.

"All of our true necessities were given to us right at the birth of this planet."

How long do you think you could exist that way? Naked, no tools whatsoever, etc. My guess is that most people would be dead within two weeks, or maybe two days if it got cool at night.

Romantic comments, but not too realistic.

mtndrm: It's perfectly realistic. People were just fine living in the wilderness before currency was even thought of. It's a survival tactic that you come to know with experience. Hunting, crop cultivation, and modern science could definitely contribute to the food source. Knowledge is really the only requirement.

StuckInTheSixties: "People were just fine living in the wilderness before currency was even thought of."

That was THOSE people. You and I are not THOSE people. Here's just a few differences:

~ THOSE people would have been living in a completely different world, one with far more game to kill, fish to catch, etc.
~ THOSE people would have had the benefit of learning the skills of living that way from those that came before them. You and I don't have those skills.
~ THOSE people were physiologically different than you and I, far tougher.
~ THOSE people wouldn't number 6, 775, 235, 700

You can't really be making your comments seriously, can you?

StuckInTheSixties: This Tuesday and Wednesday, your low temperature is going to be 56F, and raining in Golden, Colorado. Try spending the night, stark naked, no tent, nothing but you and your fingernails and teeth, out there in the woods on one of those nights. You're not gonna die, but it'll give you a good indication of what you'd have to face if this was March, not July, and it was much cooler at night.

Needless to say, if it was January, you wouldn't last an hour, let alone the night.

mtndrm: Those are all very good points. I'm just saying, everything man has ever accomplished has been through change. We have had to learn all of our skills and knowledge by trial and error as far as science, medicine, politics, religion, etc. are concerned. So whose to say we wouldn't be able to throw that idea in reverse? I work in a greenhouse and we consider the growth of our plants to be judged solely on "survival of the fittest". Those who do not acclimate fall behind in development. But we all have equal potential to alter our lifestyles. So I'm simply saying that urbanization would come to an end and we would acquire more basic and primitive skills and ways of life.

StuckInTheSixties: Well, all that is fine, but isn't at all what you originally said, or said in your comment that followed that.

Welcome to Philosophy Forum, where it helps to choose words carefully, else suffer the inevitable argument!

XFixYourBrainX: Urbanization would not come to an end only simply put on hold and an evolutionized urban lifestyle would slowly take lead.

introspec: Musing.............And, not chained to computer by adipose tissue...

Does stucko ever succinctly state opinion?

Sheeeeeeeshh!!!!!!!!

Of course, attempt at erudition amusing...

introspec: Sorry, stucko, that was cruel........

XFixYourBrainX: In a sense you have to be specific in the words you choose. For example a few words can make a person sound like they are for something when they might actually be against it.

Sixties when discussing a topic. What would you consider yourself to stand in philosophical word choosing? Would it be not caring or extreme to described your standing?

XFixYourBrainX: I thought I would revive this. Especially since bit coin came out as a type of currency.