|
Well, most of the rest of the world is capable of seeing the uselessness of money.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Well, most of the rest of the world is capable of
seeing the uselessness of money.
Ehr, since when?
Money has been the way of the world since recorded history. Show me a society without money, proof that it is useless.
I'll take the opposite stand, and claim that a complex society could not have emerged without it.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Show me a society without money
The society of Star Trek
Maybe you don't want society to go in that direction.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: The society of Star Trek
A non-existing society. Good example. I won't slap you with quotes where they reference using money. Even the original series.
Mark_Wallace wrote: Maybe you don't want society to go in that direction.
There is no society in that direction 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: I won't slap you with quotes where they reference using money. Even the original series.
The only time they use "currency" (not money) is when dealing with obviously inferior species of aliens.
So that equates to us, today. We are an obviously inferior species, because we need a system that uses money.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: The only time they use "currency" (not money) is when dealing with obviously
inferior species of aliens.
Ehr, no.
Enjoy[^] 
Mark_Wallace wrote: We are an obviously inferior species
Because some made up storie can do it (if you ignore the inconsistensies), it must be practically possible? Who would move muck for the philantropical reasons mentioned in star trek? Who would repair a sewer, if there's no reward? It is a brilliant example of how academics fail to see reality and why a global technocracy would be the doom of mankind.
Outside of that obvious problem; it would require the removal of competition, something a species which competes to pass its genes will not accept.
Sorry, I've been pondering a long time about it before you even brought it up
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Ehr, no.
Enjoy[^]
Er yeah.
Except where the guy goes off spouting his own opinions, it's exactly as I said: money is only used to deal with aliens.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Who would move muck for the philantropical reasons mentioned in star trek? Who would repair a sewer, if there's no reward?
Who would build pyramids? Ancient Egypt had no money, but they performed greater feats of co-operative labour than anyone else has ever manager -- and while the zillion guys were erecting the pyramids, a zillion other guys were cleaning their toilets, etc.
Money, in most societies, is a relatively new invention. It was not necessary for trade, because any kind of token could be (and was) used.
It was sheer stupidity that made money itself more important than the goods and services that are traded. It gave far too much power to people who produce nothing of real value.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: it's exactly as I said: money is only used to deal with aliens
It is not; there's a lot of quotes on money in the series. And even if the story would be perfect - do you reckon it is wise to trade an 6000 year proven concept for something that works in the story?
Mark_Wallace wrote: It was not necessary for trade, because any kind of token could be (and was)
used.
Because everything is a money! It may not be very handy to use something that can rot as a money (since it is hard to "save money"), but it is usable as a means of exchange. Still, wood is then more preferable then chicken-eggs. Aw, and the more people wants it, the more people you can trade with. So bacon is more popular than, say, carrots. Hence, bacon is preferable over carrots as a trading-thingy, and wood even better.
Here we come to Greenspans recent confession; only gold is money.
Mark_Wallace wrote: It was sheer stupidity that made money itself more important than the goods and
services that are traded
No, that was evolution. The more money you have, the more adaptible to change you will be. As a bonus, there's a better choice from the gene-pool.
Yes, there are expections. That's why we call them "exceptions".
Mark_Wallace wrote: It gave far too much power to people who produce nothing of real value.
Did money do that? Go back a few hundred years, and you'll find that money, like trust, is expensive. You did not finance an expedition into the middle of nowhere on low credit and without a backup-plan.
Nowadays money is cheap. That's one of the reasons why most people don't have any. Kapitalism requires capital. The world does not seem to have capital, there's more debt than wealth in existence. That means that there are more claims than there are resources. That implies that someone is going to be very dissapointed.
Mark_Wallace wrote: Who would build pyramids? Ancient Egypt had no money, but they performed
greater feats of co-operative labour than anyone else has ever manager
Co-operative labour?
Yeah, they beat Archimedes by a few centuries in discovering leverage.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
One that transfers your bank account to mine...
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: One that transfers your bank account to mine...
Yes, but also hands over your banking credentials to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Consider yourself proud new owner of a $50k debt!
plus $19.78 fees and happiness charge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is technically impossible to transfer a debt...There are good sides of the bank system too...
|
|
|
|
|
how is it impossible, it is after all just a number (however negative)
and as I have had a negative balance transferred between banks I would have to disagree
|
|
|
|
|
I'm working (from the code side) with bank transfers and the APIs I know of do not accept negative numbers...You are always pass in positive numbers, only the direction may change...
|
|
|
|
|
then it has changed as I used to work in finance and it used to accept negatives.
however I guess you could do it with a zero balance and then a withdrawal
|
|
|
|
|
I understand from Nagy that there still options of negative - I just weren't in that part of the town 
|
|
|
|
|
think of this way, if I owe £1 billion but pay off the interest on time then this is a big earner for the financial institution, so big that others will try and get me to move to them, this is why if I owe billions I can get a better interest rate than if I only owe a few 100
|
|
|
|
|
Technically right, but there's a $50,000 fee for that 
|
|
|
|
|
Not true in the least, if the creditor is in agreement, then it is very straight forward to transfer a liability. In the case of a creditor being unwilling to allow a third party to take on the debt there are still ways around it.
|
|
|
|
|
This is kind of thing I never met while working online - my work involves payments of students to school, school to student/teacher...You probably are talking about some more complicated business actions...
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all, even with simple retail banking you can have someone take on your debts. It is quite common in finance [and sneekily expensive] to consolidate all your debts. The new lender becomes the debtor for the original debt and takes on all the liabilities therein, you then get a liability to them.
In a much simpler scenario, kid goes FUBAR with the credit card and Dad steps in, again, and takes on the liability by paying it. In this scenario, there is no legal transfer of liability because the original debt has been cleared, however Dad may well hold a nominal liability to the child as in "Dad, can I get a new phone?", "Straight after you pay me the £5k you cost me!"
|
|
|
|
|
You are taking about something else...It isn't transferring an amount of money with a negative sign, but take over the responsibility of a debt - I wasn't talking of such complicated thing, I merely asked devenv.exe to pass the money to me - he does not understand it anyway...
|
|
|
|
|
Every transaction is transfer of liability. The money in your bank account is a debt [the bank owes you], so when you pay in money, you are giving them a debt [negative value] 
|
|
|
|
|
Err no it isn't. This is how debt collection companies work in a lot of cases.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
