> I wish there was more than that baby-sitting co-op to support those ideas
There are people who dedicate their careers to studying this stuff... and they have better examples. That's just a simplified example used to communicate the idea.
> why don't they just exchange services and products
What money makes possible is more complex exchanges. Say, I make a web site for some guy, who gives a book to some other guy, who gives some steaks to another guy, who gives some pasta sauce to another guy, who gives some milk to me.
Without money, complex interactions necessary for a modern economy wouldn't be possible.
> Of course, it is always appealing to blame everything on some rich elite.
Actual economists generally don't do that. I wish if people wanted to post economics articles, they'd 1) do so on reddit, but if they really can't contain themselves, that at least they'd 2) post actual papers by real economists (and not just their opinion pieces) or something more than politicized handwaving.
"There are people who dedicate their careers to studying this stuff... and they have better examples."
Yeah, but last I heard, not all of them agree with Keynes. Also, please point to some examples. I have heard Krugman repeat that baby-co-op several times now. You'd think he'd provide some other examples occasionally if they are so abundant.
I know that money is a very useful tool, but it still seems to me that if only money was the problem, people could find workarounds. They could create their own money, if the state did not provide enough. The baby co-op did just that, it seems.
It just takes a little more than one baby co-op to convince me that availability of money is the only factor that makes an economy work.
It is however a very appealing theory to governments, because it justifies them printing more money. And as we see, it appeals to conspiracy theoreticians, too.
My own view (without academic seal of approval) is that efficiency is the main factor that determines our well-being.
> My own view (without academic seal of approval) is that efficiency is the main factor that determines our well-being.
Well, "productivity" for efficiency, but yes, you're essentially correct. I wasn't trying to defend Aaron's post, and indeed, economists do differ, widely, on various things. It's a relatively recent field, one where there are lots of messy human factors, and of course it's difficult to do many experiments.
I'd rather not see it here, though, as it usually rapidly devolves into essentially political discussions.
Comments
> I wish there was more than that baby-sitting co-op to support those ideas
There are people who dedicate their careers to studying this stuff... and they have better examples. That's just a simplified example used to communicate the idea.
> why don't they just exchange services and products
What money makes possible is more complex exchanges. Say, I make a web site for some guy, who gives a book to some other guy, who gives some steaks to another guy, who gives some pasta sauce to another guy, who gives some milk to me.
Without money, complex interactions necessary for a modern economy wouldn't be possible.
> Of course, it is always appealing to blame everything on some rich elite.
Actual economists generally don't do that. I wish if people wanted to post economics articles, they'd 1) do so on reddit, but if they really can't contain themselves, that at least they'd 2) post actual papers by real economists (and not just their opinion pieces) or something more than politicized handwaving.
"There are people who dedicate their careers to studying this stuff... and they have better examples."
Yeah, but last I heard, not all of them agree with Keynes. Also, please point to some examples. I have heard Krugman repeat that baby-co-op several times now. You'd think he'd provide some other examples occasionally if they are so abundant.
I know that money is a very useful tool, but it still seems to me that if only money was the problem, people could find workarounds. They could create their own money, if the state did not provide enough. The baby co-op did just that, it seems.
It just takes a little more than one baby co-op to convince me that availability of money is the only factor that makes an economy work.
It is however a very appealing theory to governments, because it justifies them printing more money. And as we see, it appeals to conspiracy theoreticians, too.
My own view (without academic seal of approval) is that efficiency is the main factor that determines our well-being.
> My own view (without academic seal of approval) is that efficiency is the main factor that determines our well-being.
Well, "productivity" for efficiency, but yes, you're essentially correct. I wasn't trying to defend Aaron's post, and indeed, economists do differ, widely, on various things. It's a relatively recent field, one where there are lots of messy human factors, and of course it's difficult to do many experiments.
I'd rather not see it here, though, as it usually rapidly devolves into essentially political discussions.