A world with out money ?

df001i6876

money the root off all evil>.were would we all be if there was no such thing as money / what do you think we would do work for food . Help each other more to survive share thing ? would there be more wars ?the third world and place like that would there more poor + sickness.?The old saying is / money can not buy love + happyness ? Would it work for mankind ?

ixoy

I can't see how you can get rid of money. Let's try and think about this shall we?

We remove money, right? Now I work in my office... how do I get rewarded for my work? Do I get a lump of salt? A chicken to slaughter for my dinner? Say I want a CD? Do I then exchange my chicken/salt for a CD in the music shop? Money is useful because it replaces the antiquated barter system, by using a common currency for the exchange of goods and services. If someone works longer hours or works in a more demanding role, should they get more salt than me? A larger chicken? It's no use decrying one system without suggesting an alternative method.

As to the Third World, removing money would not remove their problems really. OK, so it may remove their debt, but they'll still be left with critically under-developed infrastructures. How are they supposed to attain new ones? Send lots of ore up in exchange for metal tools, etc. etc.

Relying on people's innate goodness to replace financial greed is admirable but naive. It's a system that doesn't seem supportable (and a certain McCarthy would, if he saw this, be currently hunting you down...). Money is not the root of all evil - people are.

dr_manhattan

Depends though, doesn't it, on how money behaves mathematically...

The rebuttal you just ised, ixoy, is a very common one, and not tremendously constructive: every time the abolition of cash is discussed, items like chickens and blacks of salt are mentioned, it's wierd.

I don't personally yhink anyone *really* wants to return to a barter society: it's very nice and twee but it cuts us off from doing anything really except basic subsistence tasks (not that many unreasonable people don't seem to want to return to some kind of glorified agrarian past... but they can leave me out of that one ;-))

But there are options: for example, altering the nature of money. Cash currently works on the basis that one unit is always one unit, which means that you can amass pretty much as much cash as you want. If we were to alter the way that cash behaves, acknowledge that it's a promissary note and has no value of itself (unless you consider 3in x 8in of paper to have value), then strictly speaking we wouldn't be using 'money' as we know it now.

After all, economics uses very simple math. And we know that money causes *serious* problems by enforcing cultural divides, etc. - any other system that creates as much trouble and chaos would have been adapted years ago, but not cash - because it suits the people on top (who have amassed huge amounts) to allow everybody to amass huge amounts. Unfortunately, you got to have some money to make some, so the whole thing becomes self-perpetuating.

Now, if we used a set of sliding scales for amassing cash - decided what 'wealthy' is relative to a given society, and then make the numbers behave differently at any higher amounts, for example, we may be able to make a fair version of money.

i'm being vague here, cos my grasp of economics is slim, and my math is terrible, BUT: if you look for a system called the LETS system (I think it stands for limited economic trade system) divised (I think) by a man called richard douthwaite, then you might see an example of this - it was a pet subject of an activist group I used to help out, and the idea seemed sound to me.

So that's my 2 cents. Certainly I agree that people, not cash, are the problem - but that applies to, for example, booze as well: but we still know it's sensible to limit trade and access to booze, no? Guns too... obviously we are the problem, but like a 6 year old, if we put up barriers to prevent us damaging ourselves, then that's good, right?

df001i6876

Originally posted by ixoy
I can't see how you can get rid of money. Let's try and think about this shall we?

We remove money, right? Now I work in my office... how do I get rewarded for my work? Do I get a lump of salt? A chicken to slaughter for my dinner? Say I want a CD? Do I then exchange my chicken/salt for a CD in the music shop? Money is useful because it replaces the antiquated barter system, by using a common currency for the exchange of goods and services. If someone works longer hours or works in a more demanding role, should they get more salt than me? A larger chicken? It's no use decrying one system without suggesting an alternative method.

As to the Third World, removing money would not remove their problems really. OK, so it may remove their debt, but they'll still be left with critically under-developed infrastructures. How are they supposed to attain new ones? Send lots of ore up in exchange for metal tools, etc. etc.

Relying on people's innate goodness to replace financial greed is admirable but naive. It's a system that doesn't seem supportable (and a certain McCarthy would, if he saw this, be currently hunting you down...). Money is not the root of all evil - people are.

A good point salt was once worth more than gold and was once used.] lets say as a payment to people to exchange for food.? i agree /?Do you mean [Mcarthy] Joseph senator who led <1950-1954] the notorious investigation off alleged communist ? in USA.

Kambika

Whats wrong with money ? I mean, I get the point saying that money doesnt buy love. But what would change if we wouldnt have any money ?! Lets say we replace it with salt. Some people will still have more salt than others which will cause greed, jealousy etc and people will continue stealing, I dont think it solves anything, its just another name for the same thing

Beruthiel

This could only work if we all had replicators like in star trek

Captain Trips

Money is the root of all evil
Women are time and money, more exponentially for more women

Therefore:

MOney = [square root]evil
--> Money*Money = Evil

...and

Women = Time * Money (not + because you always need more and more!)

...now we all know that:
Time IS money,

so

Women = Money * Money

...but above we have ...

EVIL = Money * Money

Therefore,


Women = Evil.


That said, I think that limiting personal income or corporate income to say, 10 million euros and link a maximum like that to an economic model and then you could happily live on 40 grand a year if you want, or become a millionaire, but after a million you have to donate the excess to charity. Problem solved.

Moriarty

As long as there aren't enough resources to go around to give everyone everything they want a monetary system will be needed if we want to continue in any sort of structured society. Expecting otherwise is naïve.

Specky

Bartering systems work great except that the value of something is dependant upon the relative viewpoints of the person who has it and the person who wants it. That's how the free market economy works.

Bartering also relies on everyone having something that someone else needs and everyone wanting what someone else has. If there's only one person in the village with a cow and everyone wants milk, that guy is going to find himself with more "stuff" than he needs very rapidly...then what does he do with the surplus? It is of no use to him unless he can convert it into something with long term value that he can save for a day when his cow drys up.....oh look, money!

A system I believe "can" work is the collective, where a group of people with complementary skills/materials work together, pooling resources for the common good. I'd love to work in something like this, but I've found people a bit too greedy to make it work well.

I think the problem with all of these quaint sort of ideas is that the value of certain commodities varies depending on demand and varying trends and this tilts the balance away from some members of the group and towards others. People don't like it when this happens. The human being is a selfish and competitive animal.

DadaKopf

Maybe people shouldn't be getting to het up about whether we use salt or bank notes as symbols of value. Maybe we should be thinking about how value and money functions to make some people better off and most people much worse off.

You can substitute any sign for what 'money' does but it may not get you closer to an answer unless you seriously consider alternate systems of exchange. Barter is one. Communal ownership of property may be another. Or negative interest on certain kinds of assets or savings may be another mechanism within the present system.

The world capitalist system is unlikely to last much longer anyway. Very soon, we're going to have to think seriously about alternative fundamentals if we're to survive.

The human being is a selfish and competitive animal.

Have you conclusive proof of this?

Moriarty

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Barter is one.

Barter is just a poor man's capitalism, if you'll excuse the pun.

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Communal ownership of property may be another.

Pretty much impossible to keep everyone honest if everything was owned communaly. You'll end up with more and more small groups that control smaller and smaller amounts of (supplies/equipment/food/(x)). They will then end up bartering between each other when somone needs (x) and the other party wants (y).

Originally posted by DadaKopf
The world capitalist system is unlikely to last much longer anyway.

Why do you say that?

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Very soon, we're going to have to think seriously about alternative fundamentals if we're to survive.

Why?

df001i6876

Originally posted by Captain Trips
Money is the root of all evil
Women are time and money, more exponentially for more women

Therefore:

MOney = [square root]evil
--> Money*Money = Evil

...and

Women = Time * Money (not + because you always need more and more!)

...now we all know that:
Time IS money,

so

Women = Money * Money

...but above we have ...

EVIL = Money * Money

Therefore,


Women = Evil.


That said, I think that limiting personal income or corporate income to say, 10 million euros and link a maximum like that to an economic model and then you could happily live on 40 grand a year if you want, or become a millionaire, but after a million you have to donate the excess to charity. Problem solved.

ARRR THE lovely lady is not blame] .Its man /?i mean we would not be here today on this planet earth if it was not FOR lady mother girl and sweet hearts off /our?lives.Charity do good things with money +and all so waste money ?

Specky

Have you conclusive proof of this?

Proof?? This is boards, proof is surplus to requirement in any argument here. Only ranting bigots with inflated opinions need enter...

The Corinthian

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Maybe people shouldn't be getting to het up about whether we use salt or bank notes as symbols of value. Maybe we should be thinking about how value and money functions to make some people better off and most people much worse off.

You can substitute any sign for what 'money' does but it may not get you closer to an answer unless you seriously consider alternate systems of exchange. Barter is one. Communal ownership of property may be another. Or negative interest on certain kinds of assets or savings may be another mechanism within the present system.

Adam Smith discussed the invisible hand, one driven by private enterprise and profit as both engine and guide to economic activity. Of course, while the details and terms have changed over the millennia, the fundamentals of capitalism have been with us from day one. Even if you look at barter, one must judge the value of comparative goods or services, their scarcity and utility and consider an exchange rate. Is a cow worth ten or fifteen chickens? Would the owner of the only cow in a village have an asset worth holding onto? Better he just hold on to the cow and exchange the milk for chickens on an ongoing basis, no? That’s how the rich begin.

So discussing alternate systems is fairly pointless as barter, feudalism and capitalism were ultimately based upon the same principles of self-interest. As for the romantic notions of communal ownership and such, these have at best only worked in small primitive groupings (and even that is arguable) and have been spectacular failures everywhere else.

The world capitalist system is unlikely to last much longer anyway. Very soon, we're going to have to think seriously about alternative fundamentals if we're to survive.

Capitalism is amoral; it is neither good nor evil. Its only interest is in adapting and surviving and it’s very good at that.

The World Capitalist system may be unlikely to last much longer - although this is more wishful thinking upon your part (it’s demise was erroneously prophesied many times, including by Karl Marx) - but what will replace it will most likely be its next evolutionary step, much the same way as the economics of the classical World gave way to feudalism and in turn to Capitalism.

There will be no revolution, only evolution.

Have you conclusive proof of this?

Try an odd 6,000 years of recorded history. Circumstantial proof admittedly, but conclusive proof in a social science is a bit of an oxymoron and frankly more proof than one would find of the contrary position.

Walter Ego

I'm a married man with 2 kids.
I've lived in a world without money for 23 years now.
It's not to bad once you get used to it.:D

Sand

Maybe we should be thinking about how value and money functions to make some people better off and most people much worse off.

Only in relative terms. In absolute terms Person A is not poorer because Person B is earning on financial investents.

Or negative interest on certain kinds of assets or savings may be another mechanism within the present system.

If you mean a luxury tax then its been tried - the rich simply altered their spending patterns to buy other luxuries. As for negative interest on savings, you are aware that the existence of savings provides cash for entrepreneurs to borrow when they set up companies, employ people and provide goods and services? Remove the incentive to save by imposing negative interest and youll pretty handilly cut a swath through your economys investment in infrastructure and thus job creation.

That said, I think that limiting personal income or corporate income to say, 10 million euros and link a maximum like that to an economic model and then you could happily live on 40 grand a year if you want, or become a millionaire, but after a million you have to donate the excess to charity. Problem solved.

Then people would aspire to earn only the max and then quit working for the rest of the year until they werent simply wasting their time. And again, you wouldnt bother investing if it kicked your earnings over whatever the max is - again removing a source of funds for firms providing jobs, good and services.

Have you conclusive proof of this?

Have you conclusive proof world capitalism is suddenly going to croak anytime soon?


Money is simply a tool - a method of exchange. If it didnt exist, much like God, wed have to invent it.