This is not the utopia of Wells “the shape of things to come” or Heinlein “For us the living”. It is those utopias both taken to the absurd limit.

What would be the global consequences of unlimited credit without any interest or need for repayment?

Suppose you had no limit on what you could buy. A beachfront mansion, no problem. A nuclear missile, no problem. All you would need to do would be to find a seller who was willing to sell it to you.

Before you cheer, an immediate consequence would be that there is no financial incentive to work, all work is voluntary. You work because you enjoy your job, not for financial benefit.

There would be no need for savings, or banks, or the stock market.

Instead of billboards advertising goods for sale, billboards would advertise work.

Trying to foresee the consequences of this is frying my little brain. Would the result be a heaven, or a hell, or somewhere in between?

mollwollfumble said:

This is not the utopia of Wells “the shape of things to come” or Heinlein “For us the living”. It is those utopias both taken to the absurd limit.

What would be the global consequences of unlimited credit without any interest or need for repayment?

Suppose you had no limit on what you could buy. A beachfront mansion, no problem. A nuclear missile, no problem. All you would need to do would be to find a seller who was willing to sell it to you.

Before you cheer, an immediate consequence would be that there is no financial incentive to work, all work is voluntary. You work because you enjoy your job, not for financial benefit.

There would be no need for savings, or banks, or the stock market.

Instead of billboards advertising goods for sale, billboards would advertise work.

Trying to foresee the consequences of this is frying my little brain. Would the result be a heaven, or a hell, or somewhere in between?

No need to foresee.

Just look into the recent past, at the outcome when countries finance government spending by printing money, rather than collecting taxes and/or borrowing with a requirement to repay.

mollwollfumble said:

This is not the utopia of Wells “the shape of things to come” or Heinlein “For us the living”. It is those utopias both taken to the absurd limit.

What would be the global consequences of unlimited credit without any interest or need for repayment?

Suppose you had no limit on what you could buy. A beachfront mansion, no problem. A nuclear missile, no problem. All you would need to do would be to find a seller who was willing to sell it to you.

Before you cheer, an immediate consequence would be that there is no financial incentive to work, all work is voluntary. You work because you enjoy your job, not for financial benefit.

There would be no need for savings, or banks, or the stock market.

Instead of billboards advertising goods for sale, billboards would advertise work.

Trying to foresee the consequences of this is frying my little brain. Would the result be a heaven, or a hell, or somewhere in between?

Complete societal collapse.

Nbody would have any need to work, so nothing would get done.

It would be the collapse of money. Money only works because it is scarce. For example gum leaves make useless currency because any old fool could go out into the bush and obtain some. Unlimited credit with no limit just means lots and lots of zeros added to bank accounts.

Dark Orange said:

mollwollfumble said:

This is not the utopia of Wells “the shape of things to come” or Heinlein “For us the living”. It is those utopias both taken to the absurd limit.

What would be the global consequences of unlimited credit without any interest or need for repayment?

Suppose you had no limit on what you could buy. A beachfront mansion, no problem. A nuclear missile, no problem. All you would need to do would be to find a seller who was willing to sell it to you.

Before you cheer, an immediate consequence would be that there is no financial incentive to work, all work is voluntary. You work because you enjoy your job, not for financial benefit.

There would be no need for savings, or banks, or the stock market.

Instead of billboards advertising goods for sale, billboards would advertise work.

Trying to foresee the consequences of this is frying my little brain. Would the result be a heaven, or a hell, or somewhere in between?

Complete societal collapse.

Nbody would have any need to work, so nothing would get done.

…then we would run out of things to buy.

;-)

party_pants said:

It would be the collapse of money. Money only works because it is scarce. For example gum leaves make useless currency because any old fool could go out into the bush and obtain some. Unlimited credit with no limit just means lots and lots of zeros added to bank accounts.

Banks are unnecessary. Cash money is unnecessary. Savings are unnecessary. With unlimited credit on your credit card there is no need for any. There are no bank accounts.

Money is a complete con anyway. What we call “money” has no significant intrinsic value, only a Ponzi-type value of a promise of goods in return in the future.

Much work done is already voluntarily. Comminuty radio and TV, charity, DIY, wikipedia, citizen science, gardening and entertainment for starters. Exercise, dance and singing. And, well, why leave a job that you’re enjoying? Can’t you think of anywhere you would like to work or any job you would like to do. Working for Google perhaps? Satre said “to be is to do”. And “if you want something done right, do it yourself”.

The first thing I would see would be a rise in the number of sales brokers, people who broker deals on behalf of buyers rather than sellers. It’s up to the sellers to decide who to sell to, and brokers acting on behalf of buyers would be needed to close the deal. Also rapidly in place would be the advertisement of jobs each advertised as the best job in the world.

Take tourism for example. Tourism would boom with unlimited credit, and the most determined tourists would become flight attendants and pilots, and smugglers.

The quality of life at work would have to improve enormously. Especially for “dirty jobs”.

That’s on the plus side. On the minus side:

Goods transport might be the first first essential indistry to fail. Without goods transport the whole economy would fall apart. But some people enjoy driving, so could be co-opted for goods transport driving.

With the loss of value of money, the lack of goods to buy would tend to lead to a return to a barter economy. Barter is untenable as a general exchange mechanism. So specific goods would be needed to become money. We’ve seen goods used as money many times in the past – farm products, nails, precious metals, art works.

Perhaps with unlimited credit, we would head for a state resembling the curse from Narnia: “shall find their heart’s desire and find despair”.

mollwollfumble said:

This is not the utopia of Wells “the shape of things to come” or Heinlein “For us the living”. It is those utopias both taken to the absurd limit.

What would be the global consequences of unlimited credit without any interest or need for repayment?

Suppose you had no limit on what you could buy. A beachfront mansion, no problem. A nuclear missile, no problem. All you would need to do would be to find a seller who was willing to sell it to you.

Before you cheer, an immediate consequence would be that there is no financial incentive to work, all work is voluntary. You work because you enjoy your job, not for financial benefit.

There would be no need for savings, or banks, or the stock market.

Instead of billboards advertising goods for sale, billboards would advertise work.

Trying to foresee the consequences of this is frying my little brain. Would the result be a heaven, or a hell, or somewhere in between?

I see ads for superannuation investing showing that all you want or need is a set of golf clubs and your own private links.
The people who volunteer today, do that because they care and also want to fill their time up with giving.
Would they have more time to give if their bank was always full, yes. However, those who dream of never working are probably more like the bulk of us.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

This is not the utopia of Wells “the shape of things to come” or Heinlein “For us the living”. It is those utopias both taken to the absurd limit.

What would be the global consequences of unlimited credit without any interest or need for repayment?

Suppose you had no limit on what you could buy. A beachfront mansion, no problem. A nuclear missile, no problem. All you would need to do would be to find a seller who was willing to sell it to you.

Before you cheer, an immediate consequence would be that there is no financial incentive to work, all work is voluntary. You work because you enjoy your job, not for financial benefit.

There would be no need for savings, or banks, or the stock market.

Instead of billboards advertising goods for sale, billboards would advertise work.

Trying to foresee the consequences of this is frying my little brain. Would the result be a heaven, or a hell, or somewhere in between?

I see ads for superannuation investing showing that all you want or need is a set of golf clubs and your own private links.
The people who volunteer today, do that because they care and also want to fill their time up with giving.
Would they have more time to give if their bank was always full, yes. However, those who dream of never working are probably more like the bulk of us.

> those who dream of never working are probably more like the bulk of us.

Thanks, that’s what I wanted to know.
I, personally, am bored out of my skull by retirement. Except when I’m working on the house.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

This is not the utopia of Wells “the shape of things to come” or Heinlein “For us the living”. It is those utopias both taken to the absurd limit.

What would be the global consequences of unlimited credit without any interest or need for repayment?

Suppose you had no limit on what you could buy. A beachfront mansion, no problem. A nuclear missile, no problem. All you would need to do would be to find a seller who was willing to sell it to you.

Before you cheer, an immediate consequence would be that there is no financial incentive to work, all work is voluntary. You work because you enjoy your job, not for financial benefit.

There would be no need for savings, or banks, or the stock market.

Instead of billboards advertising goods for sale, billboards would advertise work.

Trying to foresee the consequences of this is frying my little brain. Would the result be a heaven, or a hell, or somewhere in between?

I see ads for superannuation investing showing that all you want or need is a set of golf clubs and your own private links.
The people who volunteer today, do that because they care and also want to fill their time up with giving.
Would they have more time to give if their bank was always full, yes. However, those who dream of never working are probably more like the bulk of us.

> those who dream of never working are probably more like the bulk of us.

Thanks, that’s what I wanted to know.
I, personally, am bored out of my skull by retirement. Except when I’m working on the house.

They could also be bored out of their skull when they get there but they’ve spent their whole life dreaming of it, so they believe they deserve it.
If you suddenly gave unlimited credit, most would simply skive off.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

I see ads for superannuation investing showing that all you want or need is a set of golf clubs and your own private links.
The people who volunteer today, do that because they care and also want to fill their time up with giving.
Would they have more time to give if their bank was always full, yes. However, those who dream of never working are probably more like the bulk of us.

> those who dream of never working are probably more like the bulk of us.

Thanks, that’s what I wanted to know.
I, personally, am bored out of my skull by retirement. Except when I’m working on the house.

They could also be bored out of their skull when they get there but they’ve spent their whole life dreaming of it, so they believe they deserve it.
If you suddenly gave unlimited credit, most would simply skive off.

So, just to be absolutely clear. If you were suddenly given unlimitied credit, you would abandon your farm.
Is that correct?

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

> those who dream of never working are probably more like the bulk of us.

Thanks, that’s what I wanted to know.
I, personally, am bored out of my skull by retirement. Except when I’m working on the house.

They could also be bored out of their skull when they get there but they’ve spent their whole life dreaming of it, so they believe they deserve it.
If you suddenly gave unlimited credit, most would simply skive off.

So, just to be absolutely clear. If you were suddenly given unlimitied credit, you would abandon your farm.
Is that correct?

If I had a farm, no. I might put in a tennis court and a golf links if I had a cleared farm.
More likely I would spend it on filling the majority of the farm up with the original inhabitants and learn to share with them rather than oppress and decimate, in order to have this stuff they call money.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

They could also be bored out of their skull when they get there but they’ve spent their whole life dreaming of it, so they believe they deserve it.
If you suddenly gave unlimited credit, most would simply skive off.

So, just to be absolutely clear. If you were suddenly given unlimitied credit, you would abandon your farm.
Is that correct?

If I had a farm, no. I might put in a tennis court and a golf links if I had a cleared farm.
More likely I would spend it on filling the majority of the farm up with the original inhabitants and learn to share with them rather than oppress and decimate, in order to have this stuff they call money.

But then, that is what I have done with the bit of land I purchased with money and the crown land all around me.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

They could also be bored out of their skull when they get there but they’ve spent their whole life dreaming of it, so they believe they deserve it.
If you suddenly gave unlimited credit, most would simply skive off.

So, just to be absolutely clear. If you were suddenly given unlimitied credit, you would abandon your farm.
Is that correct?

If I had a farm, no. I might put in a tennis court and a golf links if I had a cleared farm.
More likely I would spend it on filling the majority of the farm up with the original inhabitants and learn to share with them rather than oppress and decimate, in order to have this stuff they call money.

Who would install the tennis court? Labourers would be the first to make use of the unlimited credit and not turn up to work.

Dark Orange said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

So, just to be absolutely clear. If you were suddenly given unlimitied credit, you would abandon your farm.
Is that correct?

If I had a farm, no. I might put in a tennis court and a golf links if I had a cleared farm.
More likely I would spend it on filling the majority of the farm up with the original inhabitants and learn to share with them rather than oppress and decimate, in order to have this stuff they call money.

Who would install the tennis court? Labourers would be the first to make use of the unlimited credit and not turn up to work.

:) They have their own tennis courts. We all have unlimited credit. Life would be a big party. Anyone for tennis?

roughbarked said:

Dark Orange said:

roughbarked said:

If I had a farm, no. I might put in a tennis court and a golf links if I had a cleared farm.
More likely I would spend it on filling the majority of the farm up with the original inhabitants and learn to share with them rather than oppress and decimate, in order to have this stuff they call money.

Who would install the tennis court? Labourers would be the first to make use of the unlimited credit and not turn up to work.

:) They have their own tennis courts. We all have unlimited credit. Life would be a big party. Anyone for tennis?

Sorry, too busy buying all the bitcoins.

mollwollfumble said:

Money is a complete con anyway. What we call “money” has no significant intrinsic value, only a Ponzi-type value of a promise of goods in return in the future.

No, that’s Butt-coin.

The whole point of money is that its value is controlled and stable. Whilst it is true that the actual coin has little intrinsic value, and notes or bank deposits even less, what they do have is an implied record that the holder has provided goods or services to that value at some time in the past, or that they have undertaken to do so in the future, and those goods or services did have an intrinsic value to the person who paid the money.

Butt-coin is different because:
1) whilst “mining” the coin requires work, that work has zero intrinsic value to anyone
2) it purports to be both a unit of currency and an item that will increase in value over time, which is inherently contradictory.

So Butt-coin and imitators are Ponzi schemes, but properly controlled money isn’t.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Money is a complete con anyway. What we call “money” has no significant intrinsic value, only a Ponzi-type value of a promise of goods in return in the future.

No, that’s Butt-coin.

The whole point of money is that its value is controlled and stable. Whilst it is true that the actual coin has little intrinsic value, and notes or bank deposits even less, what they do have is an implied record that the holder has provided goods or services to that value at some time in the past, or that they have undertaken to do so in the future, and those goods or services did have an intrinsic value to the person who paid the money.

Butt-coin is different because:
1) whilst “mining” the coin requires work, that work has zero intrinsic value to anyone
2) it purports to be both a unit of currency and an item that will increase in value over time, which is inherently contradictory.

So Butt-coin and imitators are Ponzi schemes, but properly controlled money isn’t.

Famous YouTube clip, Charlie bit my finger, to be taken down and sold as an NFT
By Michael Doyle on ABC justin.
One of YouTube’s most famous uploads will be taken down and sold as an NFT to the highest bidder, “memorialising them in internet history forever”.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Money is a complete con anyway. What we call “money” has no significant intrinsic value, only a Ponzi-type value of a promise of goods in return in the future.

No, that’s Butt-coin.

The whole point of money is that its value is controlled and stable. Whilst it is true that the actual coin has little intrinsic value, and notes or bank deposits even less, what they do have is an implied record that the holder has provided goods or services to that value at some time in the past, or that they have undertaken to do so in the future, and those goods or services did have an intrinsic value to the person who paid the money.

Butt-coin is different because:
1) whilst “mining” the coin requires work, that work has zero intrinsic value to anyone
2) it purports to be both a unit of currency and an item that will increase in value over time, which is inherently contradictory.

So Butt-coin and imitators are Ponzi schemes, but properly controlled money isn’t.

Famous YouTube clip, Charlie bit my finger, to be taken down and sold as an NFT
By Michael Doyle on ABC justin.
One of YouTube’s most famous uploads will be taken down and sold as an NFT to the highest bidder, “memorialising them in internet history forever”.

Sigh.

Well I hope they make lots of money, and whoever provides that money is happy with what they got for it.

But I thought these NFT things didn’t require the item to be removed from the public domain anyway.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No, that’s Butt-coin.

The whole point of money is that its value is controlled and stable. Whilst it is true that the actual coin has little intrinsic value, and notes or bank deposits even less, what they do have is an implied record that the holder has provided goods or services to that value at some time in the past, or that they have undertaken to do so in the future, and those goods or services did have an intrinsic value to the person who paid the money.

Butt-coin is different because:
1) whilst “mining” the coin requires work, that work has zero intrinsic value to anyone
2) it purports to be both a unit of currency and an item that will increase in value over time, which is inherently contradictory.

So Butt-coin and imitators are Ponzi schemes, but properly controlled money isn’t.

Famous YouTube clip, Charlie bit my finger, to be taken down and sold as an NFT
By Michael Doyle on ABC justin.
One of YouTube’s most famous uploads will be taken down and sold as an NFT to the highest bidder, “memorialising them in internet history forever”.

Sigh.

Well I hope they make lots of money, and whoever provides that money is happy with what they got for it.

But I thought these NFT things didn’t require the item to be removed from the public domain anyway.

It all boggles me.

roughbarked said:

Famous YouTube clip, Charlie bit my finger, to be taken down and sold as an NFT
By Michael Doyle on ABC justin.
One of YouTube’s most famous uploads will be taken down and sold as an NFT to the highest bidder, “memorialising them in internet history forever”.

Taken down, you say?

So, one less tired piece of video shite on Youtube.

No loss there, except to the eejut who forks over the dough and who will eventually find the he/she ‘owns’ bugger all out of the transaction.

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Famous YouTube clip, Charlie bit my finger, to be taken down and sold as an NFT
By Michael Doyle on ABC justin.
One of YouTube’s most famous uploads will be taken down and sold as an NFT to the highest bidder, “memorialising them in internet history forever”.

Taken down, you say?

So, one less tired piece of video shite on Youtube.

No loss there, except to the eejut who forks over the dough and who will eventually find the he/she ‘owns’ bugger all out of the transaction.

From the ABC report on this important news:

“The family said they made the decision because they were not being supported by YouTube to get the views they were a decade ago.”

!

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Famous YouTube clip, Charlie bit my finger, to be taken down and sold as an NFT
By Michael Doyle on ABC justin.
One of YouTube’s most famous uploads will be taken down and sold as an NFT to the highest bidder, “memorialising them in internet history forever”.

Taken down, you say?

So, one less tired piece of video shite on Youtube.

No loss there, except to the eejut who forks over the dough and who will eventually find the he/she ‘owns’ bugger all out of the transaction.

From the ABC report on this important news:

“The family said they made the decision because they were not being supported by YouTube to get the views they were a decade ago.”

!

Wonder how many zillions of quid they’ve made out of those few minutes of footage.

gum leaves make useless currency because any old fool could go out into the bush and obtain some

—
And gum leaves burn, maaan :/

Selling a video as ‘NFT’ and taking it down from the internet reminds me of the South Sea Bubble of the early 18th century, where one company that ‘went public’ advertised itself in its prospectus as ‘‘a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is’”.

Assigning a value to something which no-one else is allowed to see and evaluate for themselves is the same thing.

If it were e.g. a work by a famous artist that was being sold as a ‘NFT’ (or would it be a ‘fungible’ token?), and the purchaser hides it away, then eventually, all those who’ve had a chance to see it beforehand pass away or just forget what it was like.

Its artistic qualities and its appeal would exist only in the descriptions of it issued by its owner. No-one else can see it to judge for themselves. Indeed, its very existence is a matter of the owner’s word.

Eventually, it becomes an object which no-one recognises, or has any prior opinion about, and about which they can’t form an opinion until they buy it, sight unseen.

People are stupid, but you’re going to have to expend a lot of time and effort to find one stupid enough to spend a fortune to buy an item they’ve never set eyes on. Until you find such a person, your NFT/FT is effectively worthless.

Or else you’ve got to show it to the world, so why ‘take it down’ in the first place? Why buy it?

I meant to say ‘a new work by a famous artist’.

captain_spalding said:

Selling a video as ‘NFT’ and taking it down from the internet reminds me of the South Sea Bubble of the early 18th century, where one company that ‘went public’ advertised itself in its prospectus as ‘‘a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is’”.

I can’t wait till Elon sees that and decides to emulate this worthy enterprise.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

Selling a video as ‘NFT’ and taking it down from the internet reminds me of the South Sea Bubble of the early 18th century, where one company that ‘went public’ advertised itself in its prospectus as ‘‘a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is’”.

I can’t wait till Elon sees that and decides to emulate this worthy enterprise.

like how we can’t wait for something, a vaccine perhaps, or a community strategy, that could eliminate eradicate SARS-CoV-2 or similar disease

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Famous YouTube clip, Charlie bit my finger, to be taken down and sold as an NFT
By Michael Doyle on ABC justin.
One of YouTube’s most famous uploads will be taken down and sold as an NFT to the highest bidder, “memorialising them in internet history forever”.

Taken down, you say?

So, one less tired piece of video shite on Youtube.

No loss there, except to the eejut who forks over the dough and who will eventually find the he/she ‘owns’ bugger all out of the transaction.

Nods.

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

Famous YouTube clip, Charlie bit my finger, to be taken down and sold as an NFT
By Michael Doyle on ABC justin.
One of YouTube’s most famous uploads will be taken down and sold as an NFT to the highest bidder, “memorialising them in internet history forever”.

Taken down, you say?

So, one less tired piece of video shite on Youtube.

No loss there, except to the eejut who forks over the dough and who will eventually find the he/she ‘owns’ bugger all out of the transaction.

From the ABC report on this important news:

“The family said they made the decision because they were not being supported by YouTube to get the views they were a decade ago.”

!

Maybe their kid is old enough to hold down a job by now?

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

captain_spalding said:

Taken down, you say?

So, one less tired piece of video shite on Youtube.

No loss there, except to the eejut who forks over the dough and who will eventually find the he/she ‘owns’ bugger all out of the transaction.

From the ABC report on this important news:

“The family said they made the decision because they were not being supported by YouTube to get the views they were a decade ago.”

!

Wonder how many zillions of quid they’ve made out of those few minutes of footage.

tThey expected to be able to retire on it.

mollwollfumble said:

What would be the global consequences of unlimited credit without any interest or need for repayment?

Am I missing something?

Why use the term Credit if there’s no need nor expectation of repayment.
just cut to the chase and muse about everything being free
question: would everything lose all Value?

barter only works when you exchange things of equal value
good luck exchanging a cow for a loaf of bread

“Pardon me, but does anyone have change of a goat?”

I propose an agreed upon system of exchange
and agreeing upon a trustworthy entity to hold large amounts of it
so you needn’t either carry large amounts of it, or stay home in order to guard it.

jest musing

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

No, that’s Butt-coin.

The whole point of money is that its value is controlled and stable. Whilst it is true that the actual coin has little intrinsic value, and notes or bank deposits even less, what they do have is an implied record that the holder has provided goods or services to that value at some time in the past, or that they have undertaken to do so in the future, and those goods or services did have an intrinsic value to the person who paid the money.

Butt-coin is different because:
1) whilst “mining” the coin requires work, that work has zero intrinsic value to anyone
2) it purports to be both a unit of currency and an item that will increase in value over time, which is inherently contradictory.

So Butt-coin and imitators are Ponzi schemes, but properly controlled money isn’t.

Famous YouTube clip, Charlie bit my finger, to be taken down and sold as an NFT
By Michael Doyle on ABC justin.
One of YouTube’s most famous uploads will be taken down and sold as an NFT to the highest bidder, “memorialising them in internet history forever”.

Sigh.

Well I hope they make lots of money, and whoever provides that money is happy with what they got for it.

But I thought these NFT things didn’t require the item to be removed from the public domain anyway.

Technically, it doesn’t.

But what it does do is increase the number of views of the work as people race to see it before it goes, thus raising the value of it, as well as giving the purchaser some limited form of exclusivity.

Ogmog said:

mollwollfumble said:

What would be the global consequences of unlimited credit without any interest or need for repayment?

Am I missing something?

Why use the term Credit if there’s no need nor expectation of repayment.
just cut to the chase and muse about everything being free
question: would everything lose all Value?

barter only works when you exchange things of equal value
good luck exchanging a cow for a loaf of bread

“Pardon me, but does anyone have change of a goat?”

I propose an agreed upon system of exchange
and agreeing upon a trustworthy entity to hold large amounts of it
so you needn’t either carry large amounts of it, or stay home in order to guard it.

jest musing

You could probably set something up on the Internet these days.

People could use their phones to add to or deduct from their store of Non-monetary Financial Tokens.

Maybe people without smart phones could have some sort of special card with an ID chip on it.

I think this is quite relevant to the discussion:

“If,” said tersely, “we could for a moment move on to the subject of fiscal policy. . .”
“Fiscal policy!” whooped Ford Prefect. “Fiscal policy!”
The management consultant gave him a look that only a lungfish could have copied.
“Fiscal policy. . .” he repeated, “that is what I said.”
“How can you have money,” demanded Ford, “if none of you actually produces anything? It doesn’t grow on trees you know.”
“If you would allow me to continue.. .”
Ford nodded dejectedly.
“Thank you. Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt the leaf as legal tender, we have, of course, all become immensely rich.”
Ford stared in disbelief at the crowd who were murmuring appreciatively at this and greedily fingering the wads of leaves with which their track suits were stuffed.
“But we have also,” continued the management consultant, “run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability, which means that, I gather, the current going rate has something like three deciduous forests buying one ship’s peanut.”
Murmurs of alarm came from the crowd. The management consultant waved them down.
“So in order to obviate this problem,” he continued, “and effectively revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on a massive defoliation campaign, and. . .er, burn down all the forests. I think you’ll all agree that’s a sensible move under the circumstances.”
The crowd seemed a little uncertain about this for a second or two until someone pointed out how much this would increase the value of the leaves in their pockets whereupon they let out whoops of delight and gave the management consultant a standing ovation. The accountants among them looked forward to a profitable autumn aloft and it got an appreciative round from the crowd.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think this is quite relevant to the discussion:

“If,” said tersely, “we could for a moment move on to the subject of fiscal policy. . .”
“Fiscal policy!” whooped Ford Prefect. “Fiscal policy!”
The management consultant gave him a look that only a lungfish could have copied.
“Fiscal policy. . .” he repeated, “that is what I said.”
“How can you have money,” demanded Ford, “if none of you actually produces anything? It doesn’t grow on trees you know.”
“If you would allow me to continue.. .”
Ford nodded dejectedly.
“Thank you. Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt the leaf as legal tender, we have, of course, all become immensely rich.”
Ford stared in disbelief at the crowd who were murmuring appreciatively at this and greedily fingering the wads of leaves with which their track suits were stuffed.
“But we have also,” continued the management consultant, “run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability, which means that, I gather, the current going rate has something like three deciduous forests buying one ship’s peanut.”
Murmurs of alarm came from the crowd. The management consultant waved them down.
“So in order to obviate this problem,” he continued, “and effectively revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on a massive defoliation campaign, and. . .er, burn down all the forests. I think you’ll all agree that’s a sensible move under the circumstances.”
The crowd seemed a little uncertain about this for a second or two until someone pointed out how much this would increase the value of the leaves in their pockets whereupon they let out whoops of delight and gave the management consultant a standing ovation. The accountants among them looked forward to a profitable autumn aloft and it got an appreciative round from the crowd.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

I knew the concept was familiar…

just a hunch, but reckon money is meant as a form of exchange, and in that concept of exchange is the idea it’s tied to some physical reality, other things of value

Ogmog said:

mollwollfumble said:

What would be the global consequences of unlimited credit without any interest or need for repayment?

Am I missing something?

Why use the term Credit if there’s no need nor expectation of repayment.
just cut to the chase and muse about everything being free
question: would everything lose all Value?

barter only works when you exchange things of equal value
good luck exchanging a cow for a loaf of bread

“Pardon me, but does anyone have change of a goat?”

I propose an agreed upon system of exchange
and agreeing upon a trustworthy entity to hold large amounts of it
so you needn’t either carry large amounts of it, or stay home in order to guard it.

jest musing

I was jest being cheeky ;-)

but it was a 3rd grade thought experiment from my youth concerning the value of currency

Ogmog said:

Ogmog said:

mollwollfumble said:

What would be the global consequences of unlimited credit without any interest or need for repayment?

Am I missing something?

Why use the term Credit if there’s no need nor expectation of repayment.
just cut to the chase and muse about everything being free
question: would everything lose all Value?

barter only works when you exchange things of equal value
good luck exchanging a cow for a loaf of bread

“Pardon me, but does anyone have change of a goat?”

I propose an agreed upon system of exchange
and agreeing upon a trustworthy entity to hold large amounts of it
so you needn’t either carry large amounts of it, or stay home in order to guard it.

jest musing

I was jest being cheeky ;-)

but it was a 3rd grade thought experiment from my youth concerning the value of currency

A worthy summary for a third-grader; Or an economist.

so as we can see the main effect of having people think they have unlimited financing, is that they lay bare what their dreams are

Ta for interesting replies from RB, DO, RD, OM, CS, BC, etc.

The quote from Douglas Adams, isn’t relevent because I’ve deliberately avoided it. In Douglas Adams everyone is wealthy because they have savings. In what I was proposing, nobody has savings.

I’m saying “unlimited credit” rather than “free” because you still need a contract between buyer and seller. It’s not buch of a difference, but consider the following case:

If there are more buyers than goods for sale then things get tricky. Is “first come first served” sufficient or does some sort of non-monetary bidding apply? Take the sale of a cat for instance, the seller may decide to see to the buyer who can best house the cat rather than the first person who wants it. The seller has the right to refuse to sell to a buyer, no matter how much credit the buyer has.

The whole purpoose of inventing this and similar schemes is the problem of laissez-fare overproduction. Pure capitalist competition tends to lead to overproduction and unemployment. Unemployed people can’t buy goods without independent wealth. So giving everyone independent wealth solves the joint problems of overproduction and unemployment …

… too well. The seesaw swings the other way. How far depends on whether a job structure can be devised in which society can survive on only jobs that people want to do.

mollwollfumble said:

Ta for interesting replies from RB, DO, RD, OM, CS, BC, etc.

The quote from Douglas Adams, isn’t relevent because I’ve deliberately avoided it. In Douglas Adams everyone is wealthy because they have savings. In what I was proposing, nobody has savings.

I’m saying “unlimited credit” rather than “free” because you still need a contract between buyer and seller. It’s not buch of a difference, but consider the following case:

If there are more buyers than goods for sale then things get tricky. Is “first come first served” sufficient or does some sort of non-monetary bidding apply? Take the sale of a cat for instance, the seller may decide to see to the buyer who can best house the cat rather than the first person who wants it. The seller has the right to refuse to sell to a buyer, no matter how much credit the buyer has.

The whole purpoose of inventing this and similar schemes is the problem of laissez-fare overproduction. Pure capitalist competition tends to lead to overproduction and unemployment. Unemployed people can’t buy goods without independent wealth. So giving everyone independent wealth solves the joint problems of overproduction and unemployment …

… too well. The seesaw swings the other way. How far depends on whether a job structure can be devised in which society can survive on only jobs that people want to do.

What is the difference between “unlimited credit” (with zero interest) and “unlimited savings”?

Either way, people have unlimited money, with no need to work for it.

Also:
“Pure capitalist competition tends to lead to overproduction and unemployment.”
is just wrong.

Pure capitalism does not do anything of the sort.