Then I'd say civ is already collapsing.
The other night I hunted down a parking space at the grocery store, then gathered a bag of chips.
Thats my point. What is yours?
That we should prepare for when the collapse gets worse.
I think you should prepare for when you realise that everything you believe in is actually false.
How is it false? History has shown that every other civ has inevitably collapsed. Ours is no different.
Right now your seeing authoritarian governments, drying up natural resources (due to state monopoly), a HUGE number of people diagnosed w/ mental illness, poison in the food and water (fluoride, HFCS, nitrates), out-of-control population, increased wars and other indicators of civ collapse.
I can use evidence to prove my case. All you can do is call me crazy w/ no real evidence.
F4M,
Any ecological disaster that's going to happen has already started. While it may be quick on a geological scale, it probably won't be noticeable in a human's lifetime. If you're expecting a hollywoodesque 24-hours where NYC floods, the icecaps melt, and the plants dry up then you should seriously consider taking a geology or ecology class.
That said, if you're really concerned with collapse you should look at how people who have lived off the Earth pull it off.
1) Gold: I've gone over this. No modern day hunter/gatherer or sedentary permaculture society trades with gold.
2) Hording: you horde when there will be no supply at all. If the collapse you're expecting is going to be so bad that plant life won't grow, then hording will only save you for as long as you have food for, that is if the air is even breathable without vegetation.
3) Kick back and let it happen. If you're going to try to live in the woods with a buttload of gold and ammo trying to declare yourself king of the future, don't be surprised when no one else is very receptive and decides to trade with something more abundant (or, gasp!, act like some kind of communist). Anyway, enjoy the collapse. Drink some more beer. Learn to homebrew. That's a surefire way of having something people will want.
What makes you think a MoE won't be established naturally after civ's collapse?
I won't be growing seeing as to how ag lead to the creation of a new state. I plan on living in the woods in New Hampshire where I'll eat nothing but raw feral plants. Thats what humans were designed to eat anyway.
If you're going to try to live in the woods with a buttload of gold and ammo trying to declare yourself king of the future, don't be surprised when no one else is very receptive and decides to trade with something more abundant
After a civ collapse there will be a huge demand for gold. People love shiny things and will trade for them. Gold has always been the natural currency choice.
"What makes you think a MoE won't be established naturally after civ's collapse?"
I'm saying gold. Please tell me which h/g society trades with gold and we'll have a discussion. Otherwise, you're just asserting something that, as gar as I know, has no backing.
"I won't be growing seeing as to how ag lead to the creation of a new state. I plan on living in the woods in New Hampshire where I'll eat nothing but raw feral plants. Thats what humans were designed to eat anyway."
Permaculture. Look it up.
"After a civ collapse there will be a huge demand for gold. People love shiny things and will trade for them. Gold has always been the natural currency choice."
No. No it has not. That is a quantifiably false statement.
Why should I care if a H/G society which uses gold has never existed? That doesn't mean one can't exist now or won't exist after collapse of civ. In times of currency collapse ppl always gravitate towards gold or silver since its the most sound and the one thing EVERYONE will value.
How?
Freedom4Me73986: Thats my point. What is yours? That we should prepare for when the collapse gets worse.
Worse than what? Its a collapse. Its collapsing. Bam! Thereyago.
I'm already preparing. Before the collapse I'm sure the state will become its most tyrannical. Better learn the skills now and escape civ all together before massive tyranny kicks into gear.
"How?"
...because throughout human history people have traded with a lot more than gold, especially societies that don't have kings or empires. When societies have currencies that collapse and they do resort to gold it's usually against the failing currency of their old state, but in cases where there's not mining, gold processing, or preist/kings gold is irrelevant. That's how it's quantifiably false. You state that gold is always the go-to currency, and that's simply not true if you look at even the most superficial overviews of failed states and H/G societies.
But suit yourself. You can tire yourself out running through the woods with gold on your back while I'm chilling on my permaculture farm drinking a homebrew.
but in cases where there's not mining, gold processing, or preist/kings gold is irrelevant.
What do priests and kings have to do w/ gold as currency? you sound like a socialist.
You state that gold is always the go-to currency, and that's simply not true if you look at even the most superficial overviews of failed states and H/G societies.
Give me REAL examples b/c all I know is that gold will be valued by everyone b/c of its shinyness and convenience as a MoE.
before the collapse
Better learn the skills now
Doesnt matter. Learn the skills now or else you'll be f***ed when civ's collapse starts kicking it into gear and becomes VERY noticeable. Just wait until the state enforces neo-feudalism after resource scarcity becomes way more apparent, or starts institutionalizing our kids, or reveals that 1 in 10 kids is mentally deficient due to vax/chems in the food.
Or when the state starts chipping you.
Civ is a prison. H/Gs were the only true anarcho-capitalist societies. Lets return.
"What do priests and kings have to do w/ gold as currency? you sound like a socialist."
That's how gold has been most commonly used: gifts to appease, adorn, or denote kings or high preists, and all of these are example of agricultural societies. H/Gs just don't use gold. Sorry.
"Give me REAL examples b/c all I know is that gold will be valued by everyone b/c of its shinyness and convenience as a MoE."
Neither the Navajo, Ojibwe, Appache, Arawak, Lakota, or Hopi used gold as a currency, and that's just North America. I defy you to find a culture that used gold as a currency and wasn't agricultural. As I've already said, a million times, gold is fucking heavy. It's really the least convenient thing you could use for exchange when you're busy rumaging through the woods for food.
Please, just think about it. So you and everyone on the planet are busy running through the woods searching for food. What would you value? Shiny things or tools that can help you catch food, tasty foods, tools for preparing and/or preserving food, warm clothes, and fancy drinks? Put some method to your madness.
Neither the Navajo, Ojibwe, Appache, Arawak, Lakota, or Hopi used gold as a currency, and that's just North America. I defy you to find a culture that used gold as a currency and wasn't agricultural. As I've already said, a million times, gold is fucking heavy. It's really the least convenient thing you could use for exchange when you're busy rumaging through the woods for food. Please, just think about it. So you and everyone on the planet are busy running through the woods searching for food. What would you value? Shiny things or tools that can help you catch food, tasty foods, tools for preparing and/or preserving food, warm clothes, and fancy drinks? Put some method to your madness.
So what? A MoE would develop naturally. Gold makes the best MoE b/c it's finite, malleable, shiny and ALWAYS maintains its value. ALWAYS. How else are goods and services supposed to be distributed w/o a MoE? Barter doesnt work and always leads to currency being developed.
Your making a false dichotomy between gold and other means of survival. What makes you think you can't take both with you?
Why would I have to wait? Literally everything you mentioned has already occurred.
I said not to wait. Learn primitive skills and stock up on gold and silver and tools now while you can.
See, the term "gold bug" is usually a slur, but you keep repeating this and it continues to be wrong.
[Gold] ALWAYS maintains its value. ALWAYS. See, the term "gold bug" is usually a slur, but you keep repeating this and it continues to be wrong.
So why are precious metals considered precious? Human beings love shiny things and will exchange foodstuffs for them. It's been demonstrated through history that humans turn to metals as MoE and gold is arguably the best for the reasons I mentioned.
This is how it goes:
I gather 30 berries. You give me a bit of gold for the berries. Then whenever you have something I want I give you the gold and you give me the food. What's the problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risks_to_civilization,_humans_and_planet_Earth
"How else are goods and services supposed to be distributed w/o a MoE? Barter doesnt work and always leads to currency being developed."
http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867
"How else are goods and services supposed to be distributed w/o a MoE? Barter doesnt work and always leads to currency being developed." http://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1933633867
That book's been debunked so many times now I can't keep track. Graeber advocates communism (force).
And BTW: gold was never a monopoly currency. Gold has always been real money divorced from state intervention.
That's quantifiably false. And I'd be willing to bet that you can't even outline the basic premises of Graeber's book. You probably read the angry blog post between him and someone here, where the blogger here admitted to not having read the book!
That doesn't disqualify my facts. Graeber advocates abolishing private property (the foundation of freedom) and establishing communism where no one has any rights. Menger proved how money came into existence. And if the state is what created money how come there were stateless societies in the past which used money like Medieval Iceland or Early Pennsylvania?
Money will always exist. Even after civ collapse a new MoE will evolve naturally since barter is inconvenient.
Since you're saying "quantifiably false" it makes me think that you and F4M are using different definitions of the word monopoly. F4M is saying monopoly as in "total barrier entry in the currency market" (I believe, forgive me if I'm being presumptuous), and you're saying, not incorrectly, that Gold has been the dominant currency historically.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
There's a number of statements 4FM made that are quantifiably false.
First, his understanding of how currency arose and what types of "barter" occured without currency are not historically observable. At all.
Second, the idea that gold as a currency has always been completely independent of the state is not true. In fact, much gold was mined only because of state sponsored operations in South America.
Third, the assertion that gold has always been the dominant currency in every society is false.
Fourth, the idea that hunter/gatherers widely used currency at all is false.
Fifth, the implication that pre-cuurency barter is a system of numeric equivalencies (two chickens for a pair of shoes or something like that) is false.
I won't debate you on F4M's consistent attempts to bend reason towards his ideologically-painted notion of "bad civ". When he is refuted, he responds with youtube links. Anyways, I don't see how anything could be quantifiably false. If something is demonstrably false, then what good are a slew of examples to prove or disprove the assertion? Or am I misunderstanding? I also don't disagree that gold hasn't always been the dominant currency everywhere, but you can't deny that it is the historically dominant currency, for a number of reasons. It was such a convenience in ancient times, that a Spartan king (Lycurgus I think) actually banned gold coins and supplanted them with cumbersome iron blocks because they were too conducive to material gain. This proves your point, that gold is not the absolutely dominant currency, but it also does show that gold was certainly desired as a currency by the vast majority of civilizations, at least those ones that desired to foster material gain.
So what kinds of economies did H/Gs have? All voluntary actions are part of the market.
I never said that. I said that barter economies don't work so you need a currency, and because of gold's properties (malleable, shiny, always has value, finite) it only makes sense to use gold as a standard currency after collapse.
"So what kinds of economies did H/Gs have? All voluntary actions are part of the market."
Usually a barter system that would be more accurately described as "credit." You like my horse? Take it. Now you owe me one, eventually. You could give me twenty chickens and be considered a cheapskate, or you could give me a calf and I would owe you one. There was a hierarchy of values, but a greater amount of a commodity considered lower on the hierarchy didn't really add up to one commodity of higher value. What the hell am I supposed to do with twenty chickens? I only need two and they're easy to come by.
As far as H/Gs that weren't semi-sedentary, there was mostly gifts. Hey look, these people hunted 5 deer. Awesome. We're all going to eat now. In return we'll be sure to find some awesome wild grains and make cereal or something, or better yet turn the hides into clothes.
Part of a market? Sure. I'm willing to grant that. Was there a system of numeric equivalencies as defined by your understanding of barter or currency? No, not at all. It was more like a constant informal IOU. And now here's a shocker, the first paper currency around in really ancient China was basically a system of written IOUs that you could either sign over to someone else or call up your friend to fulfill. It had nothing to do with commodities.
"I never said that. I said that barter economies don't work so you need a currency, and because of gold's properties (malleable, shiny, always has value, finite) it only makes sense to use gold as a standard currency after collapse."
Yet you don't understand how barter has worked before the lame example of cigarettes in prison, something that was actually post currency (meaning that people already functioned on the idea of currency as equivalencies). I'm not arguing that people don't hedge gold as a currency against a failing state. What I am arguing is that gold will not be useful in a society where we no longer have the means to mine or process gold. The malleability of gold doesn't matter if we're all hunting and gathering.
The reality is, if you want to do anything close to responsible historical research
a) gold was NOT the standard ALWAYS - this doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't take a lot of research to figure this out . Hell you can probably even just speculate in your head the improbablity of this happening.
b) Birthday Pony is putting up, for the most part, acceptable academic theories
c) Studying this stuff is pretty interesting, and if you read any hard ancient history books that don't have some ideological axe to grind - your going to find that there are different theories out there to how a lot of this stuff worked (see gift economy for example) - it's not so clear cut
d) Studying this stuff is well and good and all, but it doesn't mean squat to how economy functions here and now it's just...history. I don't see what the hang ups are.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Note:
I said acceptable - I don't mean mainstream. I don't think gift economy is really the orthodox anthropolgy view - but it is a legit argument / theory
there was mostly gifts.
That's still a market. Anything voluntary is a market. I'm willing to bet that H/Gs were anarcho-capitalist and remained that way until ag lead to civ and civ lead to the state.
Was there a system of numeric equivalencies as defined by your understanding of barter or currency? No, not at all. It was more like a constant informal IOU. And now here's a shocker, the first paper currency around in really ancient China was basically a system of written IOUs that you could either sign over to someone else or call up your friend to fulfill. It had nothing to do with commodities.
Name me one book aside from Graebers which proves your claims.