You're viewing part of a thread.
The person I replied to literally said "the rest by bartering or agreement". I guess you could stir money is an agreement but that's not what I took from their message
Also how are you going to solve the scenario I provided?
Collective ownership of Capital. You don't need money in every system.
I don't understand how that's going to solve the scenario I described.
There's stuff I can do but don't want to. There's stuff I would do in exchange for something. But once that "something" isn't what you have, the reasons for currency become apparent.
In Capitalism, sure. In Socialism, no.
I'm not trying to be obtuse but I'm not following.
In the example I gave, is the guy going to repair the window out of the goodness of his heart?
No, they will do it because it's their job, and they work a certain number of hours per week.
So if someone asks me to do a thing for them, I can only do it when working in an official professional capacity, or through unofficial favor exchanges?
Sure. You can help your neighbor for free, a favor, whatever you want. You could also put in an order officially.
That "whatever you want" is immediately going to turn into tokens, which are currency. That's almost certainly how it happened originally.
"I'll do this for you if you give me some shiny rocks, then I can go to the city and trade them for a cool hat" or whatever.
Why would you need to tokenize things with a large unofficial market of sole proprietors? Is that how you get your services done today?
Because I don't want anything you have, but trying to build a whole barter chain where we trade everything in sequence until everyone gets something they want is wildly impractical. As described in my first example.
And yes, today I pay a dude money and he does the thing. I don't have to clean his gutters so he'll agree to knit me a sweater.
Why do you think money came to be originally?