This is an extremely important point you just made! Pure socialism is impossible for humanity due to the individuals that are so easily corruptible. We need a system similar to socialism, capitalism, AND communism, that takes the best of all of them, abandones the worst, and compensates properly for human nature. Human nature is why everything fails, not the theoretical systems themselves. Theoretically they work.
I would actually argue that money – and not human nature – is the point of failure. To be more specific, money’s capacity for growth.
The second you have the growth associated with a store of value (the ability to spend $100 and get back $110), you have the capacity for different piles of value to grow at different rates (depending on things like luck, ruthlessness, and cleverness) without being limited by a single human’s ability to labor.
And when you have different piles of money growing at different rates with no upper limit, you have some growing so fast that they become cancerous, sucking the resources out of the entire system.
It’s both better and worse having this problem than having one of human nature. Worse because growth is an even more universal part of nature than greed. (So we can’t get rid of it.) Better because it’s something we are intimately familiar with trying to contain. We have surgeries for rapid cellular growths. We have antibiotics for rapid bacterial growths. We have entire forestry organizations that release hunting licenses dedicated to containing rapid deer population growth.
Growth is an incredibly simple, two-dimensional graph, and it’s easy to tell when we’re controlling a growth vs succumbing to it.
The second you have the growth associated with a store of value (the ability to spend $100 and get back $110), you have the capacity for different piles of value to grow at different rates (depending on things like luck, ruthlessness, and cleverness) without being limited by a single human’s ability to labor.
My goal with that whole comment was to describe money’s tendency to grow without limit. And I was under the impression, even as I posted, that I need a lot more practice before I can deliver a simple paragraph that can capture and convey the dangers I see in growth.
To answer your question, no. Money is not material value. Money is an abstract representation of value. Not a “store” of it (as I called it). It’s separated from the material and labor value it represents. And in fact, it’s probably that separation that makes it capable of the dangerous, cancerous growth that I am so wary of.
Oh! That is a good point. I shouldn’t say the problem is money, (especially since I call this mini-monologue I’m trying to develop “The Problem is Growth”)
This is an extremely important point you just made! Pure socialism is impossible for humanity due to the individuals that are so easily corruptible. We need a system similar to socialism, capitalism, AND communism, that takes the best of all of them, abandones the worst, and compensates properly for human nature. Human nature is why everything fails, not the theoretical systems themselves. Theoretically they work.
Colloquial definitions of socialism, capitalism, and communism differ strongly from the proper usage of the terms.
I would actually argue that money – and not human nature – is the point of failure. To be more specific, money’s capacity for growth.
The second you have the growth associated with a store of value (the ability to spend $100 and get back $110), you have the capacity for different piles of value to grow at different rates (depending on things like luck, ruthlessness, and cleverness) without being limited by a single human’s ability to labor.
And when you have different piles of money growing at different rates with no upper limit, you have some growing so fast that they become cancerous, sucking the resources out of the entire system.
It’s both better and worse having this problem than having one of human nature. Worse because growth is an even more universal part of nature than greed. (So we can’t get rid of it.) Better because it’s something we are intimately familiar with trying to contain. We have surgeries for rapid cellular growths. We have antibiotics for rapid bacterial growths. We have entire forestry organizations that release hunting licenses dedicated to containing rapid deer population growth.
Growth is an incredibly simple, two-dimensional graph, and it’s easy to tell when we’re controlling a growth vs succumbing to it.
That’s all material value, though?
My goal with that whole comment was to describe money’s tendency to grow without limit. And I was under the impression, even as I posted, that I need a lot more practice before I can deliver a simple paragraph that can capture and convey the dangers I see in growth.
To answer your question, no. Money is not material value. Money is an abstract representation of value. Not a “store” of it (as I called it). It’s separated from the material and labor value it represents. And in fact, it’s probably that separation that makes it capable of the dangerous, cancerous growth that I am so wary of.
What I mean is all material value can be multiplied like that which you described.
Oh! That is a good point. I shouldn’t say the problem is money, (especially since I call this mini-monologue I’m trying to develop “The Problem is Growth”)