I'm not arguing against money at all, I'm arguing against inefficient money.
You cite Lenin & Russia as a boundary case. Excellent. I agree that a moneyless society does have problems. Trade is difficult. But check the other boundary condition. How long does a society last that devotes 100% of its efforts to digging gold, and none to growing food? How much is the gold worth when the last two starving people face each other and one has a little food and the other a mountain of gold? A society that spends 100% of its efforts growing food and doing all the other non-money related activities of life, can at least survive.
The above are the two extremes, and of course, no modern society is going to hug either boundary. But in a less extreme case, what good does X tons of gold do stored in vaults when I retire, if the working society of that time is not productive? You use the example of tools, wheat, gas going bad as an argument for hard currency. Fine. Suppose a society saves prudently, stashes the yellow metal in the bank, then they all (or a large fraction) decide to take a years vacation. After all, they have all that wealth sitting in their banks. Will it be worth much do you think? I say zip, nada!
My welfare in the future is much more dependent on the productive status of society than it is on the accumulated yellow metal which that society posses. At least as far as I can tell. Hence I would like that future society to be as productive as possible. Which, oddly enough, depends somewhat on our own efficiency today. |
