Money - on mars

soph · 2003-01-15 20:55:48

Say what you will, in the early stages, at least, of mars, there will be currency. But I think it will be in the form of cards...not credit so much as debit. Because you cant send a wad of cash to earth, i think that most earth-mars transactions will be done via computer, through a computerized economy. It will be like a bank account, but without cash.

You could still use the dollar, or euro, most likely the dollar as the unit of currency. A sale would see the transfer of "dollars" to your account. This would be the dollar value of your good-but it would be purely numbers...our economy runs on this concept even today. If everybody were to cash out their net worth, there wouldnt be enough cash. If there were, it would be so devalued by inflation, that it would be useless.

The same goes for earth. When goods are received, computerized currency is transferred to mars accounts, which is used to buy goods from earth. Think of it as interplanetary paypal. Banks would be super-secure computer servers with a few technicians, and a few staff operating online, taking loan requests, deposits, etc.

A lot of paperwork would be gone.

On a similar note, i think mars may be our real chance to see a "paperless office."

Adrian · 2003-01-16 08:09:20

Shouldn't this post be in the Civ Culture forum?

soph · 2003-01-16 13:54:32

I thought this falls under cost, logistics, and funding. Your choice though.

Adrian · 2003-01-16 14:20:48

Well, it does, but not in the context of manned missions to Mars (insofar as *everything* is somehow related to manned mission to Mars). But I can see where the misunderstanding comes from. The tag line for this forum is really referring to the costs of a mission, e.g. the launchers, construction, design, workers, not the costs of goods in a civilization on Mars. Anyway, moving it now.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-12 21:10:14

Bringing this over from the Paperless Mars thread. Though one could rightly argue that money belongs in such a category, it's clear that that thread isn't exclusive to money. Just trying to form a habit of not going too off topic.

I wonder if we'd even use physical cash on Mars. We might use an electronic debit type system for registering transactions. I think if we do setup a system of currency on Mars though we should follow the Japanese system of having only one base unit, the yen, and no other sub-categories to confuse unaccustomed travellers. It'll certainly be easier on Shaun when he comes to Mars to sell his cows. Hmm, what we be a good name for the primary unit of money of Mars? The Olympus? "That'll be four olympians"

I don't like debit type systems, because they can be circumvented easier than cash which one possesses. I think at first things would be written down and trade and so on would be done via simple written contracts or receipts.

?I trade you this ton of processed iron for some organic processing equipment.?

I don't see how yen being a base unit means much, though. You could aruge that the US has a base unit called the penny... but when you buy goods, do you go about saying ?I'll take 2000 cents worth of gas please?? That's practically what you do in Japan!

soph · 2003-03-12 21:18:38

Debit is good. It allows an easy means of carrying money, without nasty credit spending. It's easy to recover stolen money, too-just call your card company.

I think that eventually, especially with the development of multiplanetary economies, we'll see electronic money transfer become more prevalent, and perhaps even the norm.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-12 21:27:21

What Bank of Mars is going to have insurance over a lost or stolen transaction? Or is the bank going to be on Earth, where the minimal transaction takes 30 minutes?

soph · 2003-03-13 19:39:42

Bank of Mars? Why only one bank? Private enterprise allows many competing banks, as long as there is demand.

A branch on Mars could be affiliated with an Earth bank chain, which can backup transactions. Really, there's no reason to believe it can't or won't be done.

It's like putting cash in the bank. Lost or stolen? They cancel the payment-nothing is lost. The same way a check can be voided, stop payment.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-13 20:27:34

I didn't suggest one bank, I was just asking who would have the incentive to set up a bank if people went around using their own technology to handle transactions. I suspect colonies themselves would set up public banks, and would trade via either individual transactions, or through the bank itself.

Earth-Mars branches wouldn't have a place until you had Earth-Mars trade, and that won't exist until you have some basic infrastructure there. So I think they are a long way off, at least, further off than the colonies themselves, and by that time Earth-Mars banks would be doing business with the public banks more than the individuals.

Oh, and if someone steals your credit card, depending on the service you've bought, you may wind up having to suck it up or whatever. Stealing a credit card is the same as stealing cash, in this case. You always can't get back what you've lost. I believe all major credit cards have stolen card insurance, though.

soph · 2003-03-13 20:36:18

Oh, and if someone steals your credit card, depending on the service you've bought, you may wind up having to suck it up or whatever. Stealing a credit card is the same as stealing cash, in this case. You always can't get back what you've lost. I believe all major credit cards have stolen card insurance, though.

Unless you mistated (Meaning "You can't always, etc"), I believe most major cards have ways of preventing loss. If you can prove that you didn't spend the money, the court will reimburse you/credit card company.

But a debit card is much different from a credit card!

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-14 00:12:49

A debit card, is, in effect, a prepaid credit card. If someone buys something with either, that money is deducted. Most credit card companies don't help you out if the deduction is more than a certain ammount, unless you have insurance. I think $50 is the ammount mandated by law, but ammounts more than that can vary by credit company.

clark · 2003-03-14 11:47:17

There won't be money on Mars, or in any space colony for that matter. If money does exsist, it will not be understood, or experienced in the way we now experience it.

If you introduce the concept of individual moneyholders, then you also introduce things like bankruptcy, loan defaults, starvation, etc.

All basic neccessities for life will be provided for in any space situation. You can't have people starving on Mars. You can't have unemployment in space.

I have been thinking through some form of democratic feudilism as a means to balance community requirements, and individiual incentive, but I need to work it through some more.

soph · 2003-03-14 13:07:59

A debit card, is, in effect, a prepaid credit card. If someone buys something with either, that money is deducted. Most credit card companies don't help you out if the deduction is more than a certain ammount, unless you have insurance. I think $50 is the ammount mandated by law, but ammounts more than that can vary by credit company.

Wrong. A debit card is backed up by the money from a bank account. You can only spend what you put onto it, and you don't make payments on what you spend. You are spending what you have, and you don't get penalized for spending it.

Your description of a debit card is completely wrong.

And clark, I couldn't disagree more. Sure, unemployment may be at a minimum, but after the initial society is developed, you can have a capitalist system. No need for feudalism. Food can be grown in greenhouses by people paid for their work. Unemployment can be taken care of by working for government unemployment programs (not welfare-you would work to get the money).

clark · 2003-03-14 13:22:26

And clark, I couldn't disagree more. Sure, unemployment may be at a minimum, but after the initial society is developed, you can have a capitalist system. No need for feudalism. Food can be grown in greenhouses by people paid for their work. Unemployment can be taken care of by working for government unemployment programs (not welfare-you would work to get the money).

What do you do with people who won't, or cannot pay their utility bill? Turn off their power? What will you do if someone cannot or will not pay their rent or morgatge? Space them?
What will you do with the unemployed? Have them milling about in a setting where most jobs are highly specialized and require years of training?

Money might work in space, but the associated problems it generates simply WILL NOT.

Which is why I have been kicking around this idea- probably been done before, don't know, but here it is:

Think of it as a Co-Op, perhaps that might help.

The Community provides all basic necessities, including food, water, energy, shelter, basic safety supplies, general education, and health care.

The Community does not provide for free any luxuries unrelated to survival.

Individuals of a Community are all employee's of the community. Within the community, there are two forms of employee's, Contracting employee's, and Internal employee's.

Contracting employee's are those individuals within the community that provide a service or product outside the Community. Contracting employee's develop a work credit value for their service with the Community. The Community in exchange offers all basic necessities to live on Mars. The Community then sells the service of this individual to outside Communities (or organizations).

Internal employee's are exactly the same as Contracting employee's, except they are contracted to work for the Community. In essence, the Community is charging itself for the work that the internal employee's do for the Community.

The Community then uses the revenue or resources it receives in exchange for the service of individual members of the Community to provide luxuries and other products it is unable to produce on it's own.

Individuals within the Community may "purchase" luxuries by working more hours beyond their contract, or through credit bonuses by jobs well done. Internal employee's can receive as well. Contracting and Internal employee's can receive bonuses from the Community for being valuable to the Community, or from companies and organizations that want to give them a bonus for jobs well done (this last part doesn't really apply to Internal employees). The Community sets the price-conversion of outside money to work credits.

The Community has an incentive to meet the desires of the individuals by providing as many luxuries as possible, as efficiently as possible, because it will maximize the value of the individuals and lead to greater productivity, which in turn leads to more value for the Community to exploit for everyone's benefit.

Individuals have an incentive to do a good job, or work harder, because this will allow them to get any luxuries they may want. Individuals are held accountable to a minimum requirement of work for the benefit of the Community, but they are not required to do anything beyond that. This is justified since the Community provides all basic neccessities.

This is just a rough sketch of what I am thinking- it needs to be fleshed out, a few problems need to be thought out a bit more, but I am sure the *constructuve* critisicm of some should help this along.

The overall guiding principle is that no one is ever unemployed, and their basic needs are always provided for. It's the extra's in life you have to work for.

This plan also incorporates individual incentives and community incentives. Your success really does becomes everyone elses success, yet you are able to realize this individual success alone in a meaningful way.

Give me your opinions.

soph · 2003-03-14 18:04:59

The problem I see is that humans generally want a direct reward (i.e. higher wages, rewards), and don't see the community as an incentive to be more productive. Take the Soviet Union, for example.

I think the idea might work from a strictly theoretical point of view, but to put it into practice may be tougher.

On a small scale, it would work. But I think, on a larger scale, as Mars grows in population, the economy will become more capitalized, as government control is no longer needed. By this I mean, we have a huge agricultural infrastructure, power, etc. The government could create jobs by opening new facilities that would produce goods for export only (i.e. trying not to interfere with the competition of the economy-which would be regulated in other ways, like the laws we have today).

In the early stages, this would probably be a better idea.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-15 07:06:38

Hey clark, you said that you don't think there would be moneyholders on Mars because of things like ?bankruptcy, loan defaults, starvation, etc.? People in Cuba don't experience any of that. The point is just to not let anyone have a monopoly over natural resources. Since we'd be in a colony (in most cases anyway) there wouldn't be a monopoly over the colony in any democratic system; the colony is public.

But seeing from your later post, I can see you know that already...

Good post, BTW, no real criticisms, there. I would actually see something along those lines. Why couldn't you think of something despotic to make things more interesting for me?

Ahh, soph, you are such a gem.

You can only spend what you put onto [a debit card], and you don't make payments on what you spend.

Yes, that's what prepaid means. I have a prepaid phone card, I only spend what I put onto it, and I don't make payments on what I spend. Of course, some banks charge for transactions and so on... but that's digressing.

What kind of money system do you forsee, soph? (An answer like; ?something capitalistic? isn't an answer.)

soph · 2003-03-15 09:13:50

What stage of the economy are we talking about? A mature one, where Mars is at least partially terraformed, or the early base/colonization phase?

You can add money to your debit card. You have to pay to extend your credit limit on a credit card. A credit card costs money. A debit card doesn't. The only similarity is the material and shape.

People in Cuba don't experience any of that. The point is just to not let anyone have a monopoly over natural resources. Since we'd be in a colony (in most cases anyway) there wouldn't be a monopoly over the colony in any democratic system; the colony is public.

Ah, but people in Cuba do experience poverty, starvation, and so on. Although the social programs are, in some cases, very good. But it's easier to provide these programs with a smaller population than it is with a large one. That's why I say, on a small scale, communal or socialist economics might work, but as a whole, the system would be ineffective.

clark · 2003-03-17 11:22:03

Interesting...

I got you both to agree to the same thing.

Josh, my suggestion IS despotic. The Community, i.e. The State, OWNS the individuals within the group. Words shape perception.

Needless to say, I am not envisoning a despotic form of this, just as when someone speaks of capitalism, they are not advocating exploitation.

So, where does this leave me:

On a small scale, it would work. But I think, on a larger scale, as Mars grows in population, the economy will become more capitalized, as government control is no longer needed.

But the beauty of this system is that it should work on a larger scale, and indeed, it encourages growth.

The larger the population, the greater the aggregate amount of resources the Community has at its disposal. If a Community has 10 people, then it has the value of those 10 people with which to secure luxaries. This presents a limited amount of resources though becuase 10 people will have different wants- one may wish to watch movies, another music, another a book. Now, imagine a community with 100 people- they will have 100 peoples aggregate resources to work with to buy in bulk (warehouse style ordering reduces cost by units), or to buy a greater variety of luxaries.

Individuals will have an incentive to work harder because they receive bonuses and extra credits (through etra work) to buy personal possesions. Things like fancy clothes, a personaly designed hab suit (not the stiff community issued one), vacations, Earth imported food stuff, etc.

It dosen't matter what you do within the colony, because you are paid in "work hour credits". One hour of work is equal to one hour of work for anyone else in terms of purchasing luxary items. Think of it as all peopkle are equal members in the company- yet each does something different within the company.

So now Communities have an incentive to expand and grow- to add more people- not only people, but quality individuals who will contribute to the overall Community.

Established Communities could even eventually set up a system whereby prospectiove Terran immigrants are selected and their trip is financed by the Community- in exchange for a guareentee of work within the Community.

These Communities could even be set up on Earth.

What this also allows is for individual Communities (or even groups of Communities) to focus on a few key industries to export to other Communities. So Community A builds rovers, which they trade for goods and services from other Communities that specialize in suit manufacture, or agriculture. The Community receives the value of the exported product, to be used to run the economies. The individual use the work hour credits to buy from the Community the things that they want.

People will only work harder when they have something to spend those work credits on. So the Community (ie, the Government) has a direct incentive to secure as many choices to spend your work credits on.

Now, there are some trade offs with this syste, and becuase of the reality that is Mars:

Population control is a neccessity. I've gone over this before, but there are a lot of reasons why this will need to be managed. In this system I am discussing though, the Community- each individual has an equal say on wether someone should be added or subtracted from the Community. When people are added to the Community, it is for the benefit of the entire Community. That means there needs to be an agreement. Births are controlled and managed by the Community. The total number of allowable births is set for each M year. Everyone is allowed to have at least ONE child, as a right. However, you may not exercise that right until you are 10 M years old (about 20 terran years). All parents will be required to stay in the Community for 10 M years, the child cannot leave the Community until it is 10 M years old, which can only be changed at the agreement of all three parties (community, Child, and Parent). Children are a three way commitment between the Community, the Parents, and the Child. This helps foster key elements of living on Mars- Security, Trust, and Community. You need to know the people whom you depend on for your life.

Since the Parents, Community, and Child are engaging ina long term contract for 10 M years, it is in everyones interest that supplies, facilities, etc are available in the neccessary amounts to support everyone within the Community. The number of births must be managed. All individuals within the Community receive free birth control, which they may discontinue when they are allowed to conceive. Accidental pregnancy are expected, and these numbers will be managed as best as can be. My current suggestion is to reduce the number of permits for the next year by the total number of accidental births. A requirement of extra work hours can be a punishment for those who get pregnant through incompentance or laziness- which results in the Community benefiting and recouping the loss.

Byron · 2003-03-17 13:07:59

Clark, I'm certainly going to nominate you for President in the new Martian community... It seems as if you've put some serious thought into how a community on Mars could not only survive, but actually thrive over the long haul.

It dosen't matter what you do within the colony, because you are paid in "work hour credits". One hour of work is equal to one hour of work for anyone else in terms of purchasing luxary items. Think of it as all peopkle are equal members in the company- yet each does something different within the company.

This is the part I like the best of your ideas...from a personal standpoint, the idea that some people get paid 10, 20 or even 100 times than the "base level" worker is one of the most degrading aspects of this modern <capitalistic> society. I used to work in an office where the *overpaid* director had a habit of taking naps during the day, and the rest of the time, he would putter around the office and peer over everyone else's shoulders...lol...there were very few times he actually did any "work." This, of course, simply will not fly on Mars. Anyone who thinks they can sit in a plush office with their feet propped on the desk while drawing an exorbitant salary deserves to be pushed out of the airlock without a space suit. Before some of you start shouting "exceptional case," I would like to add that I've worked at quite a few jobs in my lifetime, and I've come across very few truly effective managers who were actually worth what they were paid...in almost all cases, it's about politics, backstabbing and smoozing with the right people to get into the executive chair...rarely has it about actually increasing one's level of production.

Of course, there would have to be some methods implemented to ensure everyone actually performs their "hour of work." Perhaps this could be accomplished through the use of impartial algorithms and other artificial (and therefore unbaised) measures that could determine whether each worker is performing up to "snuff" or not..if you leave this task up to incompetant managers and bosses, forget it... To stimulate incentive and higher levels of production, there should be contests and democratic "elections" of who has performed above their call of duty, which would confer extra benefits and the like - again, this cannot be left up to the whims and desires of individual people that have control over other workers.

In short, on Mars, there woud be no "manager" class...everyone would indeed be a "base level" worker, contributing towards the common good of the community. What a wonderous place that would be.... :;):

B

clark · 2003-03-17 13:37:56

Clark, I'm certainly going to nominate you for President in the new Martian community...

One mans president is anothers despot. Thanks Byron.

This is the part I like the best of your ideas...from a personal standpoint, the idea that some people get paid 10, 20 or even 100 times than the "base level" worker is one of the most degrading aspects of this modern <capitalistic> society.

The problem with what you are talking about is that it results in resource distribution disparity, which leads to social instability. This is a key factor to understand, and plan for in any space colonization vision. The simple fact of the matter is that space colonization is a fragile thing, and it will not tolerate the level of social instability we currently deal with the industrialized nations.

Riots for instance could have a serious consquence. Violent crime, and violent outbursts are an instinctual response mechanism that will have to be suppresed through social programs, effort, and mutual agreement. At all points, economic, political, and cultural, steps will have to be taken to ensure that flashpoints for violence are minimized.

So, from basic environmental constraints, we can hypothesisze the best strategies for dealing with expected problems. All of this has to be developed with key learnings that we know will still exsist on mars. Case in point, motivation of positive behavior.

Like it or not, greed is a major motivator for positive behavior, it should also be noted that itis a major motivator for negative behavior as well. So, a system that rewards the postive aspect of greed as a motivator, and reduces greed as a negative motivator is ideal.

Of course, there would have to be some methods implemented to ensure everyone actually performs their "hour of work."

There are several ways to achieve this goal. There can be a screening period where everyone must go through a residency period. This allows the Community and the Individual to decide if they are both mutually compatible. Think of it as a short term contract- this may be ideal becuase this allows floating personel, or "nomads" of professionals. Think Scientists for hire. You could also imagine it as a second class citizen since ideally, only full members of a Community can have birthing rights and voting rights within the Community.

What i imagine with this scenerio are Communites that rasie children, who then spend a period of time at different Communities (after age 10M years). By creating a tiered system we once again encourage settlement and growth in one place. This builds Community and provides the stability a Community needs, and leads to more practical saftey. Being a floater also allows people to try various Communities out without a major commitment. No one is trapped, and no one is forced (save the Children, but I can't solve everything).

Also, I might add that personal reviews of work can still apply. People get rewarded with bonuses or work longer hours to get extra credits. This can all be quantified, graded, etc. This set up even allows for private enterprise in some fashion. Consider "Gina" belongs to the Nova Community and she has developed a recipe for the best Martian cookies. Gina can trade the cookies to anyone for anything, or she can sell the cookies to the Nova Community, which in turn sells it to the people of Nova Community. The Nova Community pays her in "work credits" which she can use to buy other things she may want (like a movie). Nova residents buy the cookies from Nova Community, paying in work credits. This brings in thw work credits which the Nova Community can reissue (circulation of resources). Nova Community can also trade the cookies to other Communities for other resources, which it can use to aquire more goods, or improve the overall wealth of the Community. Gina gets rewarded for her individual work (imagine a few Nova residents were all involved in the project, lo and behold, a private company) and the Community gets rewarded overall because now people are working harder and longer to get credits for the cookies, plus Nova has more to trade with, to aquire more, etc.

What we are doing is using the Community as the distribution system for all products. It is the only middle man. It is the Company that sells everything to everyone. Each individual works for the company, and sells to the company either their labor, or a product (or both).

In short, on Mars, there woud be no "manager" class...everyone would indeed be a "base level" worker, contributing towards the common good of the community.

Good analogy, but I like to think of it more as a law firm- everyone is equal partners (except the juniors- they're the 'nomads')

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-17 14:19:38

soph,

A credit card costs money. A debit card doesn't.

You lose money in either case if you can't show that you weren't the one who made the tranaction. And that was what we were talking about.

It's easier to provide these programs with a smaller population than it is with a large one.

Nah... decentralization can scale endlessly. From what I've learnt, Cuba is quite decentralized. I keep planning a Cuban trip, but I never have the money.

clark,

Josh, my suggestion IS despotic. The Community, i.e. The State, OWNS the individuals within the group.

Hmm, this is true, you do have a potential for depotism! But I'm afraid you don't want me to invoke higher level technologies to show this.

But without really invoking it (though it would be so easy), let me point something out about “luxury items.” You said that the public suits would be ‘stiff’ and just basically implied that they would be lacking some subjective “luxury value.” Now, we know why you did this, because no one would be buying ‘luxurious’ suits unless the publicly available ones were “lacking something.”

Personally, I don't see why The Community wouldn't strive for comfortable suits, or ‘luxurious’ anything, for that matter, unless there was some invisible force doing so. Say the space suit making guy knew some people in The Community Resource Commission or something, and they had an underhanded deal that The Communities suits should be slightly stiff. A likely scenario? Certainly.

This is the problem with “luxury.” For something to be “luxurious,” it must be contrasted with something “less luxurious.” And you know, a hab or colony where you need all these redundent systems for people to survive is going to be quite luxurious, there really isn't much better you can get when you think about it (any better and we start invoking high level technology!).

Personally, I don't see money going very far on Mars. But I have a very very different vision of how colonies and general habs will function in the distant future. At the very least, though, trade will occur, especially initally (either between individuals, or colonies), and there must be some form of transaction history so it can be enforced.

soph · 2003-03-17 18:03:11

Josh, Cuba is tiny. Come on, now.

It's called a signature, Josh. You have to sign everything you buy with a debit card. If somebody buys something online, and you track it, you can call the company and say, "Hey, I never bought that."

But now you are grasping at straws. Because you made a bad comparison, you are trying to find a way to salvage it. With cash, if it's gone, it's gone.

soph · 2003-03-17 18:18:07

The larger the population, the greater the aggregate amount of resources the Community has at its disposal. If a Community has 10 people, then it has the value of those 10 people with which to secure luxaries. This presents a limited amount of resources though becuase 10 people will have different wants- one may wish to watch movies, another music, another a book. Now, imagine a community with 100 people- they will have 100 peoples aggregate resources to work with to buy in bulk (warehouse style ordering reduces cost by units), or to buy a greater variety of luxaries.

Watch TV. Is the government always the best decision making body? No. That's why elections are necessary. And capitalism directly allows people to satisfy their wants and needs. In a mature economy, communism, anarchy, and pure socialism are no more valid on Mars than on Earth.

So now you have 100 people. You also have to divide the resources among those 100 people. Which means either a) inefficiency with dealing with a larger population, or b) more costs to develop smaller scale distribution methods.

Individuals will have an incentive to work harder because they receive bonuses and extra credits (through etra work) to buy personal possesions. Things like fancy clothes, a personaly designed hab suit (not the stiff community issued one), vacations, Earth imported food stuff, etc.

So they work longer hours, but have no direct incentive to work harder hours? I see no great incentive here. Take the Soviet Union. It failed because the resources didn't exist, and workers were not motivated, because there was equal distribution no matter what. So I work a few more hours, but I don't work hard.

It dosen't matter what you do within the colony, because you are paid in "work hour credits". One hour of work is equal to one hour of work for anyone else in terms of purchasing luxary items. Think of it as all peopkle are equal members in the company- yet each does something different within the company.

So Albert Einstein's work is just as valuable as a freshly college-graduated physicist?

So now Communities have an incentive to expand and grow- to add more people- not only people, but quality individuals who will contribute to the overall Community.
Established Communities could even eventually set up a system whereby prospectiove Terran immigrants are selected and their trip is financed by the Community- in exchange for a guareentee of work within the Community.
These Communities could even be set up on Earth.
What this also allows is for individual Communities (or even groups of Communities) to focus on a few key industries to export to other Communities. So Community A builds rovers, which they trade for goods and services from other Communities that specialize in suit manufacture, or agriculture. The Community receives the value of the exported product, to be used to run the economies. The individual use the work hour credits to buy from the Community the things that they want.

Why would the world's brightest minds be attracted to these communities? They receive no bonus for being a higher level. Someone set up similar communities a hundred and fifty years ago, Fourier I believe. One of the Utopian Socialists. They failed.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-17 20:38:20

Cuba is tiny. Come on, now.

I didn't say it wasn't, I said that the basic logic of decentralization can scale endlessly. Look at most living organisms.

Come on, now.

If somebody buys something online, and you track it, you can call the company and say, "Hey, I never bought that."

Yes, with both credit cards and debit cards. And heck, money orders and checks, for that matter (though with the latter two you must stop the payment before it occurs).

[Y]ou made a bad comparison, you are trying to find a way to salvage it.

What was the bad comparasion? That debit cards are ?prepaid credit cards?? You've failed to show how they aren't (in the most laughable self-delusional way possible).

You can't even take a simple metaphor without going off in these endless tangents.

With cash, if it's gone, it's gone.

I wasn't disputing that at all.

In a mature economy, communism, anarchy, and pure socialism are no more valid on Mars than on Earth.

Wrong. Mars and space in general requires that humans have a relatively complex understanding and usage of technology. Earth does not require this, so when we think about society in space, we must consider this. In space, if we're going for personal freedom, we will have to do away with ridiculous restrictions put upon us by property laws, and so on. Otherwise you'll have people being thrown out airlocks or whatever.

So now you have 100 people. You also have to divide the resources among those 100 people.

Um, the assumption is that you already have more than enough resources for 100 people. ?This hab can hold 100 people comfortably.? Where is the issue? We're just talking about supporting everyone at the basic level (a level which would of course be far better than some of the best conditions here on Earth, of course).

Which means either a) inefficiency with dealing with a larger population

Um, no. There's no talk of inefficiency, in fact it's the exact opposite, since habs are going to be efficient whether you like it or not. But as populations grow, there is a resource strain in any system. There is absolutely no system completely immune to this problem (that's why clark talks of population control). But since we'd be using a much higher level of technology than we currently are, this is less of an issue (if even an issue at all), in any case.

or b) more costs to develop smaller scale distribution methods.

Well, I have no idea what this means, and I suspect you're just talking out of your butt. Decentralization doesn't ?cost more? than centralization. In fact, it's the opposite. Just look at how much centralization is costing Earth.

Oh, and since we'd have very little to no loss in the system, I don't even see an issue with costs related to distribution at all.

So Albert Einstein's work is just as valuable as a freshly college-graduated physicist?

Albert Einstein, like very many intellectuals, embraced socialism. So I would think that he felt that his work is.

soph · 2003-03-17 20:48:54

Josh, I proved the debit vs. credit card issue to a T.

Your posts increasingly show that you can't bear being wrong on anything dealing with economics. Your obsession with communism/socialism/anarchy is getting funnier by the post.

Wrong. Mars and space in general requires that humans have a relatively complex understanding and usage of technology. Earth does not require this, so when we think about society in space, we must consider this. In space, if we're going for personal freedom, we will have to do away with ridiculous restrictions put upon us by property laws, and so on. Otherwise you'll have people being thrown out airlocks or whatever.

You mean I have no right to own anything? I don't find property laws restricting, I actually find them beneficial, I wouldn't want my hard work to be wasted on someone who gets equal compensation for less work.

Um, no. There's no talk of inefficiency, in fact it's the exact opposite, since habs are going to be efficient whether you like it or not. But as populations grow, there is a resource strain in any system. There is absolutely no system completely immune to this problem (that's why clark talks of population control). But since we'd be using a much higher level of technology than we currently are, this is less of an issue (if even an issue at all), in any case.

You are going to tell me, in all seriousness, that a larger population is easier to manage than a small one? Oh dear. It's not like I have any desire for inefficiency, the fact is, that it will exist as the system gets larger. This is basic fact.

Well, I have no idea what this means, and I suspect you're just talking out of your butt. Decentralization doesn't ?cost more? than centralization. In fact, it's the opposite. Just look at how much centralization is costing Earth.
Oh, and since we'd have very little to no loss in the system, I don't even see an issue with costs related to distribution at all.

Well, since I don't see any big centralization hurting Earth, I actually see globalization helping Earth greatly, your comments are really off the mark once again.

It's the opposite? No, you need multiple distribution centers to ensure that everybody gets their rations, and so on. Bread lines, so to speak. These cost money that wouldn't be a factor in capitalism, where everybody gets paid through private organizations, buys things through private organizations, and so on.

Very little to no loss? Come on, Josh, there is nothing besides your fantasies and Proudhon to back this up.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-01-15 20:55:48

Re: Money - on mars

#2 2003-01-16 08:09:20

Re: Money - on mars

#3 2003-01-16 13:54:32

Re: Money - on mars

#4 2003-01-16 14:20:48

Re: Money - on mars

#5 2003-03-12 21:10:14

Re: Money - on mars

#6 2003-03-12 21:18:38

Re: Money - on mars

#7 2003-03-12 21:27:21

Re: Money - on mars

#8 2003-03-13 19:39:42

Re: Money - on mars

#9 2003-03-13 20:27:34

Re: Money - on mars

#10 2003-03-13 20:36:18

Re: Money - on mars

#11 2003-03-14 00:12:49

Re: Money - on mars

#12 2003-03-14 11:47:17

Re: Money - on mars

#13 2003-03-14 13:07:59

Re: Money - on mars

#14 2003-03-14 13:22:26

Re: Money - on mars

#15 2003-03-14 18:04:59

Re: Money - on mars

#16 2003-03-15 07:06:38

Re: Money - on mars

#17 2003-03-15 09:13:50

Re: Money - on mars

#18 2003-03-17 11:22:03

Re: Money - on mars

#19 2003-03-17 13:07:59

Re: Money - on mars

#20 2003-03-17 13:37:56

Re: Money - on mars

#21 2003-03-17 14:19:38

Re: Money - on mars

#22 2003-03-17 18:03:11

Re: Money - on mars

#23 2003-03-17 18:18:07

Re: Money - on mars

#24 2003-03-17 20:38:20

Re: Money - on mars

#25 2003-03-17 20:48:54

Re: Money - on mars

Board footer