At least future generations will know that not all of us were self-destructive, shortsighted fools. Knowing folks like this exist gives me hope.
💕
@aral say this were adopted globally and it was only demand ↔ supply (but no prices).
- how can we use scarce goods efficiently without a price mechanism?
- why would people produce goods that aren't fun to make?
- what would stop drug users from consuming but not producing?
If the world relied on purely gifts, with no prices or trade, it’d be almost impossible to organise specialised labour to produce goods.
Gifts are produced through cooperation and a larger process. For a tribe built on love/trust in a tiny area with primitive goods, it’d be doable.
Without markets, nothing exists. Markets don't necessarily have to involve monetary exchange, but they do involve exchange.
Maybe we have a completely different understanding on what the market is.
The law of marginal utility is a good starter.
As for organising to produce, you might be interested to know the massive complexity in the production of a simple pencil ✏
https://fee.org/articles/i-pencil/
And that's just for a pencil.
Our society is far more advanced than this example ↑.
Prices are the signal for the scarcity of the item you’re buyingNot entire true, ofc. Prices fluctuate depending on how valuable we think that item is. How popular, and so forth. Paintings, NTFs, and so forth....
Either way, the laws of human behaviour would still apply.What are the laws of human behavior?
Almost all the charities linked in that directory pay massive amounts in direct salaries.
Look at their reports for direct salary info:
St Jude — $600m/year
Red Cross — $972m/year
RNLI — £83m/year
Heart — $392m/year
For RNLI specifically, 68% of all their costs are salaries.
Almost all the non-charity examples there are for nonscarce items — software, where there's no additional cost for each additional item produced.
Scarcity is the physical barrier.
Good question — the point is clearly laid out in the RNLI report, and applies to all large and complex charities:
"There are a number of specific skills needed to keep such an organisation running as safely as possible and at peak efficiency." — and these are paid staff.
Volunteers mainly carry out the unskilled tasks — fundraising.
No force should ever be involved. When you hire someone, you enter a voluntary agreement to trade money for services,
Charities are not corruption-free — particularly at global scale, where corruption and waste naturally ensues.
Even UNICEF (mentioned in the Trade-Free directory) have a team dedicated to investigating their own corruption, fraud and wrongdoing.
https://www.unicef.org/auditandinvestigation/
This is an issue regardless of trade, markets and prices.
Volunteers mainly carry out the unskilled tasks — fundraising.No. The volunteers are saving the lives of humans there. Same as Doctors Without Borders. Same as White Helmets. Same as so many programmers doing complex software. Same as millions around the world. In, again, a society where the opposite is enforced.
No force should ever be involved. When you hire someone, you enter a voluntary agreement to trade money for services,Not at all. When I am born on this planet I have to enter the trade-system else I cannot survive. This makes me no voluntarily do that, but forcefully. And you do not trade money for services. You trade your skills, energy, time - basically yourself - , for goods/services. Money is just a way to measure these trades.
While I appreciate you believe that Doctors without Borders, White Helmet personnel and RNLI crew aren't paid — however this is sadly factually incorrect.
They all pay salaries to their specialised workers. You can find salaries on Glassdoor or their websites.
e.g. https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/careers/work-field/pay-benefits
On being forced into trade — we are born into a world of scarcity. We work and contribute in order to get value from others in return. If we don't work, we don't live.
Civilised societies will never let those who are disabled/unable-to-work to die — but for those who can work, they should. It's how we contribute to advancement of the species.
We can't sit around, not work, and allow others to keep us alive. It makes us reliant on them.
And that's slavery.
On being forced into trade — we are born into a world of scarcity.Where is the scarcity? More homes than homeless people; more cars than people can drive, more food than people can eat, more clothes than people can wear. We throw every year 350 cruise-ships full of electronics and 500 of textiles. We throw 40-50% of all edible food. Supermarkets are full of stuff. Where is the scarcity?
We work and contribute in order to get value from others in returnNot necessary anymore. We have so much stuff we create mountains of waste out of it. We should share the stuff rather than trade for it and create so much waste.
those who can work, they shouldWhy? Why should we be forced to work in order to live in this society? In order to access the abundant stuff we already have?
It's how we contribute to advancement of the species.It is how we contribute to the destruction of our lives, keeping ourselves busy with nonsense and repetitive jobs. It is how we destroy the planet, create a lot of waste, idiotic and unnecessary jobs and products. Just to keep the religion of trade alive.
We can't sit around, not work, and allow others to keep us alive.Oh we do worse than that. We create useless jobs and useless lives, and waste, while just a tiny few keep us alive with necessary "jobs" and inventions. The rest do useless stuff. I would rather see humans sit around doing nothing than consume and consume and waste and destroy.
Where is the scarcity? Everywhere.
Everything we need to reach a goal is scarce.
Time. Goods.
There is a finite amount, and this is a limitation of the physical universe — unfair as that may seem.
There isn't enough space for everyone to have a beachfront house.
There aren't enough semiconductors for us all to have an Xbox. (there's a shortage at the moment)
The idea that we have abundance does not stand up to logic or basic reason.
Abundance is an illusion.
"Why should we be forced to work"?
If we can't agree on the same physical reality of scarcity, this is going to be difficult.
In a world of scarcity, we must produce in order to create more goods/services (the "means" which help others reach their goals).
If you're not a producer, you're reliant on the production work of others.
This is why (while charity is noble) we should encourage people to be self sufficient and not reliant on charity.
This leads to growth 💹
You're misinterpreting mass production for some items with abundance.
The beachfront example is a simple way to explain that there is a limited quantity of goods/services/time.
Today, because of the free market, we live better than the kings of old.
The solution to improving these issues is to minimise/eliminate the state, and encourage free, undistorted markets, which are the source of many of the challenges you've identified.
Today, because of the free market, we live better than the kings of old.In some regards. We also destroy more than anyone else in history, destabilizing the climate and biodiversity, and creating mountains of waste. Don't leave that aside.
encourage free, undistorted marketsYou mean let google, facebook and the like compete without disturbing them? This seems more of a disaster than what we have today.
We are not forced to work. It is a voluntary choice.
Our human nature (we are not immortal) means we need food and drink. That is not a fault of trade or markets.
Destruction is primarily a result of the state. Largest polluter on the planet is the US military. And pollution is enabled within frameworks created the state.
I'd love to invite you to take this free 30 minute video course in economics.
It's trade-free (from a charity).
https://mises.org/economics-beginners
It's very difficult to debate topics on economics without both having a fundamental framework to work on.
We are not forced to work. It is a voluntary choice.You cannot make this argument, I am sorry. I have no choice other than trade in this system. If there are other ways let me know.
Our human nature (we are not immortal) means we need food and drink. That is not a fault of trade or markets.It is the fault of markets (trade) that these basic needs are only provided to us if we trade, in a society in which we throw mountains of these resources.
Destruction is primarily a result of the state.And why do states pollute?
Largest polluter on the planet is the US military.Transportation, livestock industry, textile industry, and so forth. These are the largest polluters and destroyers. In the name of trade.
Nobody is forced to work, unless they're slaves.
The reality of human existence is that we cannot live without food, water and shelter.
These things are scarce, and the only way to reduce scarcity is to produce.
And to do this, each person should focus on doing what they do better than others. In economics, it's the law of association / law of comparative advantage.
This way, the entire of society benefits.
If nobody works, we will suffer, starve and die out.
Nobody is forced to work, unless they're slaves.Do we have a choice? I create a lot of work since 2010. Books, videos, documentaries, online tools. I give them to others. Thousands upon thousands benefit from them. And yet if a few friends didn't help me financially out of their kindness, I would die. Have nothing to eat. How am I not forced to trade in this society in order to live? Do I have any other option?
These things are scarce, and the only way to reduce scarcity is to produce.It is hard to argue that they are scarce when we throw every year some 40-50% of all edible food.
And to do this, each person should focus on doing what they do better than others. In economics, it's the law of association / law of comparative advantage.
This way, the entire of society benefits.
If nobody works, we will suffer, starve and die out.And this is why we should decouple "work" from having access to at least our basic needs. Else we will always force ourselves to work in order to survive. And this is insanity in an abundant world.
If you provide value to others, and they provide value in return, that's great.
But if you're reliant on donations or charity, you're dependant on others... which is fundamentally unhealthy.
The food problem is a mixture of reality (if you buy brocolli and don't cook it in time, you'll throw it out) — as well as a lack of free trade infrastructure to distribute it in other countries.
The best way is to promote economic freedom in those countries.
It's 2am where I am, so I've got to bail. Thanks for the conversation.
It clearly needs a longer form discussion, as we're in two separate realities of understanding, and short posts can't cover it.
Really recommend investing time in that video course. It'd help strengthen the fundamental concepts of the Trade-Free project.
Thanks for the invite — will definitely think about it. I'm in Australia and have a full workload at the moment.
Because I'm not an expert, I wouldn't be the best advocate for Austrian economics, but I could certainly give it a try. A Tom Woods-type person might be a more informative and well rounded guest.
Do you have a link to the podcast so I can check it out? Had a search in my podcast app but nothing showed :(
I'd be interested in that. I will endeavour to read the book you mentioned about money in the meantime.
But if you're reliant on donations or charity, you're dependant on others... which is fundamentally unhealthy.Why am I reliant on these? Because I have no other choice, correct?
The best way is to promote economic freedom in those countries.Economic freedom is as good as prison housing. The best way to feed the poor, is to feed the poor.
"we are talking about trade-free goods/services no matter how they are created"
This is the crux. Trade was a critical component in making these things.
The paid RNLI lifeboat crew willingly trade their time (and lives) in exchange for money.
And this goes the entire way through the complex charitable organisational structure. And this is a relatively small charity.
Trade was a critical component in making these things.Trade may be necessary in some aspects of these orgs. You make it look as if it is all about trade. It is an inconvenience at best.
The paid RNLI lifeboat crew willingly trade their time (and lives) in exchange for money.Unless I am wrong, they do not paid most of their staff. Like 95% of them are not paid. So they do not trade. And RNLI is a big org not a small one. Operates throught the UK.
Volunteers trade their time — and it's a transfer of economic benefit. It precisely fits the definition of trade.
They absolutely receive something of value, which is why they do it.
Nobody carries out any action unless they believe it helps them achieve their goals, whatever they may be.
As Mises said in his great book, "The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness"
So whether it's a sense of goodwill, or a desire to give back after being rescued at sea — they do it for some personal benefit, and non-monetary reward is what we get for most actions we take.
They absolutely receive something of value, which is why they do it.Not from the others. That would be a trade. If you get value out of helping others, then that's not a trade. It is like saying peeing is a trade because you get relief out of it. This is, of course, cartoonish.
Nobody carries out any action unless they believe it helps them achieve their goals, whatever they may be.That is an absolute statement and I cannot take it seriously. I do a lot of free work for many years now, simply because I enjoy doing it, or enjoy helping others.
@msavoritias @aral
But on a planetary scale with complex goods that involve long supply chains, research, rare minerals & intricate processes all working in conjunction — productivity would plummet, and scarcity would rise.
Prices are the signal for the scarcity of the item you’re buying. Remove them, and the laws of human behaviour will still apply.
And scarcity will rise because a key signal in the market process would be removed.
Either way, the laws of human behaviour would still apply.