Barter -v- Cash

[JacquesMagique]

Can I ask why? Such policies are often the 'safe bet,' they're similiar to the policies of the Nazi party, which I personally view as the most successful economic turnaround in history, racial exploitation aside.

They won't provide the huge benefits that can come from free trade, but they do come with minimal risk.

You might want to check out the development of Russia in the same period, their growth figures put Nazi germany into the shade. Much of this growth was driven by exports, although admittedly it was a command ecnomy so the same doesnt neccesarily apply to modern Britain. They are not really a 'safe bet' as both of these measures would rseult in a horrific rise in prices of most goods bought by British consumers.

[Neo2012]

Can I ask why? Such policies are often the 'safe bet,' they're similiar to the policies of the Nazi party, which I personally view as the most successful economic turnaround in history, racial exploitation aside.

They won't provide the huge benefits that can come from free trade, but they do come with minimal risk.

At one point [about 37ish] the isolationism meant that the German economy was reduced to a barter economy, only able to achieve foreign trade through barter rather than cash. invasions overcame this problem.

It's one of the things that scares me about fascism, it seems to have a kind of twisted logic, that guides along familiar paths.

[DC]

I don't understand the problem with a barter economy at an international level, even if it's combined with the use of money, for example one country trades iron to another for oil, while one country trades wheat for oil, as well as money to cover the uneven cost.

[DC]

You might want to check out the development of Russia in the same period, their growth figures put Nazi germany into the shade. Much of this growth was driven by exports, although admittedly it was a command ecnomy so the same doesnt neccesarily apply to modern Britain. They are not really a 'safe bet' as both of these measures would rseult in a horrific rise in prices of most goods bought by British consumers.

True, but Russia was actually rising out of what was virtually medieval practices in the 20s, it was essentially having its industrial revolution at the time. So while it did grow exponentially percentage wise, it grew from essentially nothing, to having something.

True about prices, but if it was instituted slowly, then perhaps the rise in costs wouldn't be so sharp. Furthermore in long term it would mean less money leaving the country.

[Midas]

I don't understand the problem with a barter economy at an international level, even if it's combined with the use of money, for example one country trades iron to another for oil, while one country trades wheat for oil, as well as money to cover the uneven cost.

But money was originally introduced to make the early forms of barter trading so much easier, as well to facilitate transactions with third parties who mightn't want either your iron or oil. To remove it from the equation adds a whole new level of complexity, not to mention the element of trust that you're going to get your oil in exchange for your iron, a not inconsiderable factor these days.

[JacquesMagique]

True, but Russia was actually rising out of what was virtually medieval practices in the 20s, it was essentially having its industrial revolution at the time. So while it did grow exponentially percentage wise, it grew from essentially nothing, to having something.

Exactly..

True about prices, but if it was instituted slowly, then perhaps the rise in costs wouldn't be so sharp. Furthermore in long term it would mean less money leaving the country.

Less money would leave the country in the from of imports, but much less money would enter the country than does currently in the form of investment.

[Neo2012]

I don't understand the problem with a barter economy at an international level, even if it's combined with the use of money, for example one country trades iron to another for oil, while one country trades wheat for oil, as well as money to cover the uneven cost.

Well I am sorry, and with all due respect, but you know nothing about economics if you cannot see the advantages of a cash economy over a barter economy. Sorry to be blunt, but it's true.

[DC]

I didn't say get rid of money from the equation, merely I believe that it's confused the system. What we have is essentially a barter economy now, it's merely more complex with the use of money. How is Britain trading iron for oil different from Britain exporting Iron for money, and then using that money to buy oil? Both parties end up with exactly the same resources. And nothing would stop a country that was rich with money but not resources from just buying resources with money like now.

My problem is that it's companies that control a country's resources, not the Government of that country.

[Midas]

I didn't say get rid of money from the equation, merely I believe that it's confused the system. What we have is essentially a barter economy now, it's merely more complex with the use of money. How is Britain trading iron for oil different from Britain exporting Iron for money, and then using that money to buy oil? Both parties end up with exactly the same resources. And nothing would stop a country that was rich with money but not resources from just buying resources with money like now.

I really do have to disagree with you! Just imagine the complexities of even national trading, let alone international, if there wasn't a commonly accepted medium of exchange with a defined value in the middle of everything. OK, with computers it might be possible to keep track of everything, assuming every single person or company had access to one that is, but our, everyone's, economy would be in ruins. Small scale localised bartering can work quite well, but even that can involve some heavy record keeping to ensure that credits from various people who never actually exchange goods or services directly, eventually balance. If you knew more than perhaps you do about finance and economics you'd see the issues involved.

My problem is that it's companies that control a country's resources, not the Government of that country.

And why should it be the government, a transiently elected group of people often not even representing the views of a majority of people?

[DC]

I really do have to disagree with you! Just imagine the complexities of even national trading, let alone international, if there wasn't a commonly accepted medium of exchange with a defined value in the middle of everything. OK, with computers it might be possible to keep track of everything, assuming every single person or company had access to one that is, but our, everyone's, economy would be in ruins. Small scale localised bartering can work quite well, but even that can involve some heavy record keeping to ensure that credits from various people who never actually exchange goods or services directly, eventually balance. If you knew more than perhaps you do about finance and economics you'd see the issues involved.

I still don't understand why this complexity is needed, in the end, import/export is just supply and demand, if a country needs oil, then it imports it, to cover the cost of that, it exports. Why doesn't it talk to the countries directly about setting up an trade exchange, Iron for oil, rather than go through the companies. I'm hardly saying get rid of money, as money can cover uneven costs (like oil to wheat), or allow a country with few resources to still import. My question is simply why is it so complicated? Unnecessarily IMO.

And why should it be the government, a transiently elected group of people often not even representing the views of a majority of people?

Not a supporter of Democracy anyway. But anyhow, it'll still be companies doing the business, just under Government control, I've covered this somewhere else. And it's not as if a company cares more about the people or even the country it's mining from. Most are just out to make a buck.