At least future generations will know that not all of us were self-destructive, shortsighted fools. Knowing folks like this exist gives me hope.
https://www.trade-free.org/
💕
#TradeFree
https://www.trade-free.org/
💕
#TradeFree
like this
reshared this
Björn ⚡
in reply to Aral Balkan • • •- how can we use scarce goods efficiently without a price mechanism?
- why would people produce goods that aren't fun to make?
- what would stop drug users from consuming but not producing?
Aaron
in reply to Björn ⚡ • • •like this
Alexio and Tio like this.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Aaron • • •But it seems like there's a fatal flaw in the logic.
All the proposed tech would require massive use of already-scarce goods — cobalt, lithium, silver, etc.
On top of this, they propose eliminating money, prices and trade.
The total effects of this lead to scarcity (see Bastiat https://mises.org/library/abundance-vs-scarcity), and the Trade-Free vision would be a non-starter.
For any chance of success, they need to thoroughly address this.
Abundance vs. Scarcity | Claude Frédéric Bastiat
Mises InstituteAlexio likes this.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Björn ⚡ • • •The technologies proposed are here and exciting, but I feel like the problem has been misdiagnosed as trade/money, and I can't overlook it — it's the achilles heel of an otherwise powerful idea.
Am I missing something? Appreciate the engagement.
Aaron
in reply to Björn ⚡ • • •And since money is just one form of trade (and there are many other harmful trades out there), we should stop thinking in terms of money. We should start thinking in terms of real things, like how many people have trade-free access to clean water, shelter, healthcare, education etc.
The more people have trade-free access to these things they need and want, the less they are dependent on trade and we will probably see better behaviors. Of course they need to be educated about that... show more
And since money is just one form of trade (and there are many other harmful trades out there), we should stop thinking in terms of money. We should start thinking in terms of real things, like how many people have trade-free access to clean water, shelter, healthcare, education etc.
The more people have trade-free access to these things they need and want, the less they are dependent on trade and we will probably see better behaviors. Of course they need to be educated about that to "see" the bad influence of trade and to start letting go of that notion of wanting more and more, since we have already an abundance of pretty much everything on this planet.
The TROM project is one educational project to make people aware about this trade problem and with the trade-free directory we want to take down that barrier between people and the things they need/want. In "The Money Game and Beyond" we explain this train of tought in detail (the history of trade + different ideas to organize societies + beyond the trade game that we play) and I can highly recommend it: https://www.tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-df_6616/1/
like this
Alexio and Tio like this.
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •If you do not seek to trade, then you won't seek to destroy and overuse. Because there are consequences to this and you have more to lose than gain. Why would an organization overuse some resources unless there is an extreme need for that? It is a better incentive to not trade these resources, than to trade them.
Marinus Savoritias
in reply to Björn ⚡ • • •And no its not human nature anything.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Marinus Savoritias • • •Gifts are produced through cooperation and a larger process. For a tribe built on love/trust in a tiny area with primitive goods, it’d be doable.
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •You can have specialized labor based on volunteers. Even in today's very competitive and trade-based society.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •Look at their reports for direct salary info:
St Jude — $600m/year
Red Cross — $972m/year
RNLI — £83m/year
Heart — $392m/year
For RNLI specifically, 68% of all their costs are salaries.
Almost all the non-charity examples there are for nonscarce items — software, where there's no additional cost for each additional item produced.
Scarcity is the physical barrier.
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •I am not sure what point you are trying to get across? That we can't have specialized work unless we force those people to do those things?
Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •"There are a number of specific skills needed to keep such an organisation running as safely as possible and at peak efficiency." — and these are paid staff.
Volunteers mainly carry out the unskilled tasks — fundraising.
No force should ever be involved. When you hire someone, you enter a voluntary agreement to trade money for services,
Björn ⚡
in reply to Björn ⚡ • • •Even UNICEF (mentioned in the Trade-Free directory) have a team dedicated to investigating their own corruption, fraud and wrongdoing.
https://www.unicef.org/auditandinvestigation/
This is an issue regardless of trade, markets and prices.
The Office of Internal Audit and Investigations
www.unicef.orgTio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •Not at all. When I am born on this planet I have to enter the trade-system else I cannot survive. This makes me no voluntarily do that, but forcefully. And you do not trade money for services. You trade your skills, energy, time - basically yourself - , for goods/services. Money is just a way to measure these trades.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •They all pay salaries to their specialised workers. You can find salaries on Glassdoor or their websites.
e.g. https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/careers/work-field/pay-benefits
Career Opportunities & Benefits
Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)Björn ⚡
in reply to Björn ⚡ • • •Civilised societies will never let those who are disabled/unable-to-work to die — but for those who can work, they should. It's how we contribute to advancement of the species.
We can't sit around, not work, and allow others to keep us alive. It makes us reliant on them.
And that's slavery.
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •Not necessary anymore. We have so much stuff we create mountains of waste out of it. We should share the stuff rather than trade for it and create so much waste.
Why? Why should we be forced to work in order to live in this society? In order to access the abundant stuff we already have?
It is how we contribute to the destruction of our lives, keeping ourselves busy with nonsense and repetitive jobs. It is how we destroy the planet, create a... show more Where is the scarcity? More homes than homeless people; more cars than people can drive, more food than people can eat, more clothes than people can wear. We throw every year 350 cruise-ships full of electronics and 500 of textiles. We throw 40-50% of all edible food. Supermarkets are full of stuff. Where is the scarcity?
Not necessary anymore. We have so much stuff we create mountains of waste out of it. We should share the stuff rather than trade for it and create so much waste.
Why? Why should we be forced to work in order to live in this society? In order to access the abundant stuff we already have?
It is how we contribute to the destruction of our lives, keeping ourselves busy with nonsense and repetitive jobs. It is how we destroy the planet, create a lot of waste, idiotic and unnecessary jobs and products. Just to keep the religion of trade alive.
Oh we do worse than that. We create useless jobs and useless lives, and waste, while just a tiny few keep us alive with necessary "jobs" and inventions. The rest do useless stuff. I would rather see humans sit around doing nothing than consume and consume and waste and destroy.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •Everything we need to reach a goal is scarce.
Time. Goods.
There is a finite amount, and this is a limitation of the physical universe — unfair as that may seem.
There isn't enough space for everyone to have a beachfront house.
There aren't enough semiconductors for us all to have an Xbox. (there's a shortage at the moment)
The idea that we have abundance does not stand up to logic or basic reason.
Abundance is an illusion.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Björn ⚡ • • •If we can't agree on the same physical reality of scarcity, this is going to be difficult.
In a world of scarcity, we must produce in order to create more goods/services (the "means" which help others reach their goals).
If you're not a producer, you're reliant on the production work of others.
This is why (while charity is noble) we should encourage people to be self sufficient and not reliant on charity.
This leads to growth 💹
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •The beachfront example is a simple way to explain that there is a limited quantity of goods/services/time.
Today, because of the free market, we live better than the kings of old.
The solution to improving these issues is to minimise/eliminate the state, and encourage free, undistorted markets, which are the source of many of the challenges you've identified.
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •In some regards. We also destroy more than anyone else in history, destabilizing the climate and biodiversity, and creating mountains of waste. Don't leave that aside.
You mean let google, facebook and the like compete without disturbing them? This seems more of a disaster than what we have today.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •Our human nature (we are not immortal) means we need food and drink. That is not a fault of trade or markets.
Destruction is primarily a result of the state. Largest polluter on the planet is the US military. And pollution is enabled within frameworks created the state.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Björn ⚡ • • •It's trade-free (from a charity).
https://mises.org/economics-beginners
It's very difficult to debate topics on economics without both having a fundamental framework to work on.
Economics for Beginners
Mises InstituteTio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •It is the fault of markets (trade) that these basic needs are only provided to us if we trade, in a society in which we throw mountains of these resources.
And why do states pollute?
Transportation, livestock industry, textile industry, and so forth. These are the largest polluters and destroyers. In the name of trade.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •The reality of human existence is that we cannot live without food, water and shelter.
These things are scarce, and the only way to reduce scarcity is to produce.
And to do this, each person should focus on doing what they do better than others. In economics, it's the law of association / law of comparative advantage.
This way, the entire of society benefits.
If nobody works, we will suffer, starve and die out.
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •It is hard to argue that they are scarce when we throw every year some 40-50% of all edible food.
Society today is going downhill. Climate change, inequality, waste, pollution, biodiversity loss, monopolies, plastic. Endless. How is this society an advantage to anyone?
... show more Do we have a choice? I create a lot of work since 2010. Books, videos, documentaries, online tools. I give them to others. Thousands upon thousands benefit from them. And yet if a few friends didn't help me financially out of their kindness, I would die. Have nothing to eat. How am I not forced to trade in this society in order to live? Do I have any other option?
It is hard to argue that they are scarce when we throw every year some 40-50% of all edible food.
Society today is going downhill. Climate change, inequality, waste, pollution, biodiversity loss, monopolies, plastic. Endless. How is this society an advantage to anyone?
And this is why we should decouple "work" from having access to at least our basic needs. Else we will always force ourselves to work in order to survive. And this is insanity in an abundant world.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •But if you're reliant on donations or charity, you're dependant on others... which is fundamentally unhealthy.
The food problem is a mixture of reality (if you buy brocolli and don't cook it in time, you'll throw it out) — as well as a lack of free trade infrastructure to distribute it in other countries.
The best way is to promote economic freedom in those countries.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Björn ⚡ • • •It clearly needs a longer form discussion, as we're in two separate realities of understanding, and short posts can't cover it.
Really recommend investing time in that video course. It'd help strengthen the fundamental concepts of the Trade-Free project.
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •Because I'm not an expert, I wouldn't be the best advocate for Austrian economics, but I could certainly give it a try. A Tom Woods-type person might be a more informative and well rounded guest.
Do you have a link to the podcast so I can check it out? Had a search in my podcast app but nothing showed :(
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •I wanted to start a series called "Trade is the origin of most problems. Change my mind." And invite anyone who disagrees with the statement. Maybe I will learn something new, maybe they will. It is good to challenge yourself and your views about the world.
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •Tio likes this.
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •Economic freedom is as good as prison housing. The best way to feed the poor, is to feed the poor.
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •Yes in today's trade-based society we are made to believe that a red car is different than a blue car, and so we have millions of types of similar products that have different colors, giving the illusion of diversity, and thus one may think that we need an abundance of this diversity too. And so humans' values are that of owning a mansion and a Lamborghini. In that regards sure, we can't have for all, but that's an insane society that is neither progressive, or productive for humans and the environment.
So human... show more
Yes in today's trade-based society we are made to believe that a red car is different than a blue car, and so we have millions of types of similar products that have different colors, giving the illusion of diversity, and thus one may think that we need an abundance of this diversity too. And so humans' values are that of owning a mansion and a Lamborghini. In that regards sure, we can't have for all, but that's an insane society that is neither progressive, or productive for humans and the environment.
So human values have to also change for a saner society. The eyes of small children in a candy shop, need to grow into adult and sane eyes where having access to an efficient and safe transportation system is better than owning a polluting and inefficient car. You know what I mean?
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •Regardless, we are talking about trade-free goods/services no matter how they are created. I am not convinced that humans cannot do large scale projects with specialized humans, without them being forced to do so. Some are paid today because it is difficult not to pay them.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •This is the crux. Trade was a critical component in making these things.
The paid RNLI lifeboat crew willingly trade their time (and lives) in exchange for money.
And this goes the entire way through the complex charitable organisational structure. And this is a relatively small charity.
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •Unless I am wrong, they do not paid most of their staff. Like 95% of them are not paid. So they do not trade. And RNLI is a big org not a small one. Operates throught the UK.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •Nobody carries out any action unless they believe it helps them achieve their goals, whatever they may be.
As Mises said in his great book, "The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness"
So whether it's a sense of goodwill, or a desire to give back after being rescued at sea — they do it for some personal benefit, and non-monetary reward is what we get for most actions we take.
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •If Mises helps me repair my bike and asks nothing from me, then that's trade-free (volunteering). If Mises gets pleasure out of it, this is still trade-free for me. I didn't give her pleasure unless she asks me to have sex with her in return for repairing my bike. That would be a trade.
That is an absolute statement and I cannot take it seriously. I do a lot of free work for many years now, simply because I enjoy doing it, or enjoy helping others.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Björn ⚡ • • •Prices are the signal for the scarcity of the item you’re buying. Remove them, and the laws of human behaviour will still apply.
And scarcity will rise because a key signal in the market process would be removed.
Either way, the laws of human behaviour would still apply.
Marinus Savoritias
in reply to Björn ⚡ • • •You dont need to organize anybody to produce anything.
People will organize themselves.
Tio likes this.
Marinus Savoritias
in reply to Marinus Savoritias • • •You dont need signals or anything like that.
If by complex goods you mean cars and alexa speakers then good. Thats the point. People will decide if they need them.
Tio likes this.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Marinus Savoritias • • •Maybe we have a completely different understanding on what the market is.
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •Björn ⚡
in reply to Marinus Savoritias • • •As for organising to produce, you might be interested to know the massive complexity in the production of a simple pencil ✏
https://fee.org/articles/i-pencil/
And that's just for a pencil.
Our society is far more advanced than this example ↑.
I, Pencil
Leonard E. Read (Foundation for Economic Education)Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •What are the laws of human behavior?
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •Need. Or the fact that the end result might be meaningful. I managed some 30-40 websites and at times there is no fun doing server backups and maintenance. Thousands of people use our services as trade-free and that makes me happy in the end. There are so many volunteers in the world doing all kinds of things that are not fum. They do it to save lives, to impro... show more Based on need. Take organ transplant. Scarce resource. If we trade it and put a price on it, it becomes a mess. Corruption, bad incentives, only the rich can get some, and so forth. But in more developed tribes/countries they are reinforcing the non-trade of such scarce resources and are distributing them based on who is closer to the donor, who is more compatible and so forth. Much saner. There are organizations that already have to deal with scarce resources without putting a price tag for them. We address such issues in The Money Game and Beyond book.
Need. Or the fact that the end result might be meaningful. I managed some 30-40 websites and at times there is no fun doing server backups and maintenance. Thousands of people use our services as trade-free and that makes me happy in the end. There are so many volunteers in the world doing all kinds of things that are not fum. They do it to save lives, to improve the society, to learn something new, etc..
I do not understand this one. Can you elaborate? :)
like this
Sean Tilley and Alexio like this.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •There's a reason charities pay salaries for key staff — specialised staff are scarce, and they enable these charities to be more productive.
To the end user, it's free, but the complex processes behind this aren't.
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •There are a lot who do not. Rely on volunteers 100%.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •Entrepreneurship and a marketplace to voluntarily exchange goods and services allows us to be self-reliant and develop an advanced society.
If everything was based on charity, innovation would be discouraged, and progress would slow dramatically.
Charity is of great benefit, and the welfare state should be returned to private charity.
Sadly, the state destroyed it.
It's fascinating:
https://mises.org/library/welfare-welfare-state
Welfare before the Welfare State | Joshua Fulton
Mises InstituteTio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •There is no such thing as "voluntarily exchange" in a society in which you can die if you do not exchange. And all players are unequal. Plus, look at today's society, it is anything but "advanced". It is a destroying society.
I do not understand what charity is but I am not talking about charity. I am talking about de-slaving humans from society. And let them get involved in whatever they want to without threatening them that if they do not, they may die. This can bread a lot of innovation. Look at the open source world, look at citizen scientists, and so forth.
Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •Their supply is their demand.
Relying purely on charity, the user does not need to produce in order to consume. And there is no incentive for the drug producer to supply vast quantities to the non-paying user.
It again comes back to price as a signal of scarcity.
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •Björn ⚡
in reply to Tio • • •Drugs (pharmaceutical or otherwise) come at a cost, and it's paid through charity or otherwise.
But someone has to pay. Check out the Mises article linked in the other reply for more background on medical costs before state welfare.
Scarcity is a major driver.
Tio
in reply to Björn ⚡ • •Scarce drugs are today scarce because of artificial scarcity where you can't produce the same medicine since someone else owns the patent for trade reasons. When the guy who invented the Polio vaccine gave it away for free, that's an example of how we should do it. And he saved countless lives.
sudonymouse
in reply to Aral Balkan • • •Tio
in reply to sudonymouse • •We say that we should not trade in the first place. To make trade obsolete.
sudonymouse
in reply to Tio • • •Rokosun
in reply to Aral Balkan • • •The first 2 books "origin of most problems" & "the money game and beyond" is a must read, everyone who question this system should at least read it once in their lifetime.
@tio is also working on a big documentary called TROM II. And I'm very excited for it 😀
Books
TROMlike this
Tio and Alexio like this.
reshared this
smallcircles (Humane Tech Now) and Alexio reshared this.
Tio
in reply to Aral Balkan • •It makes me so happy to see people sharing that project.
Alexio likes this.
miku86
in reply to Aral Balkan • •like this
Tio, Aral Balkan and Alexio like this.