all 3 comments

[–]Intuit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You mention eliminating currency, but currency is also a means of calculation, to allow the market to determine what things to produce when there is a trade-off (see "the calculation problem").

Also, I've heard distinction between currency (the thing that moves around in the short-term) and money (a long-term store of value). In the early 1900s the USA's dollar was backed (and redeemable) in gold, so the gold was the money, and the paper notes (claims) were the currency.

Scarce materials are good for money because of the difficulty in creating more at far less cost than they are worth. Fiat currency is destructive because it can be created at little to no cost, giving the creator the equivalent ability to steal from others as a counterfeiter.

Debt-based currency is fine as long as the market can decide on currency and devalue ones based on excessive risk and inflation. When it's all forced to be treated the same and the costs forced on people via taxes, and competition literally confiscated/imprisoned, then you have a problem. Banks making risky decisions would also be fine if nobody stepped in to insure them if they failed; people depositing would be picky about which bank they used.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

no he says eliminate usury from currency

[–]Timmy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

'sup Hans.