Would society be better without money? - Page 4

Anyone who says society would be better without money is thinking illogically.

A major rule of economics, trade makes everyone better off. If it did not make you better off why would you trade?

Having money makes this much more convenient. I can trade you something for money and then I can use it to buy something else. If I had to trade commodities for commodities it would be so much harder. This would be why money was invented.

If you think money is a bad thing take a look at how hyper inflation has taken countries into severe poverty. Hyper inflation is when the government keeps printing massive amounts of currency until the point where it is worth nothing. In fact this is a reason why many countries are in poverty and there economy is in ruins.

When economies are in ruins people die in that they starve to death. Take a look at Brazil. When they experienced periods of hyper inflation and their currency was useless they had what they called death squads. They would go around in the middle of the night and shoot the homeless.

Well said Jacker, society cannot exist without money, since money is a more effective method of trade. For anyone who doubts this, try to imagine a society where nobody trades. This would manifest itself in two ways:
1. A society where everything is free.
2. A society where nothing is free.
I'll address each.

A society in which anyone can have anything they want can only exist if everyone takes only what they need, and provides all they can. Since such a society has no way of regulating goods, consumption can quickly escalate out of control and exceed production. For goods like food and fuel, whose consumption rate must never exceed the production rate, this can have disastrous consequences.

A society in which nothing is free forces every individual/family to fend for themselves. Each individual or family must provide their own fuel, food, shelter, etc... This prevents progress as every individual's time is completely consumed with providing the goods which are essential to their survival. Such a society would quickly destroy itself, as the two ways to obtain food, fuel, and shelter are to grow/collect it yourself, or steal from someone else.

Here are a few spins on the old idea...

We did not always have a money/barter system, and have still managed to get to where we are today...

Other life-forms appear to be able to go through life without money and barter, and do okay...

When people receive a gift, they often say it is the thought that counts...

As part of society, especially families, there are certain roles, like a parent, where you look out for others, and would not let anything happen to them...

People in undeveloped countries pretty much work for nothing anyway, and make up a huge part of the workforce...

On the other side:-
- Has money and barter made things even better?
- Have we been able to develop better in respect to other life-forms due to involvement with money and barter?
- Gifts, well it really is the thought that counts...
- Is family strong enough, and society strong enough for everyone to work together for a common goal? Especially considering religion and prejudice? (eg. consider the world of the future.... We decide to send off our first earth-to-outerspace-men, like Star Trek or something... Who do we choose to represent us? And, what rules would they go by? And, if you send a muslim person, how would they go about facing East in a spacecraft?) If you take this kind of thing into account, if we do manage to get to the stage where everything and everybody works together fine, it would be an amazing achievement for us all...
- Perhaps people in third world countries don't just work to get by, but do dream of more, and more can be made possible by the money and barter systems...

What do you think now, could it work? And, why?

(personally I think there's a statistical chance it could work... not sure on the odds yet...)

If society abandoned money it would ultimately fall down only to re-invent it. History teaches us that. What is more important is how money is circulated - i.e. what people want and what people want to do - its leaders that will shape this.

The Essenes lived without money. It was their belief that you owned nothing. All was to be shared.

The answer to your point okcitykid is the word 'lived' or 'was'.

Dude, that would be chaos with no money. That's kinda like anarchism.......no laws, no economy, no money............

I would much rather have it be that way. So much more could be accomplished if everyone in the world completely converted their mindset to working for the greater good solely for the purpose of advancing. Because money puts a limit on how well we do things. If you're doing the simplest of tasks it's a matter of "well how much will I get paid " instead of reaping the satisfaction that you helped in some way shape or form.

That actually sounds really familiar to how I think. I personally have no connection or have any sort of fondness of money. I would not change my mind about how good I want to do something no matter what the action is.


you know what would be really fun too... even though it's not an option in this thread, but if the bartering system was as advanced and accepted as much as our monetary currency. Just a thought though.

Aloha

Well these are some truly good ideas you have here. I can see that the label words like "communism and socialism" are still deeply feared, due to the constant brainwashing of the American education system called "television". The Planet is socialism, communism, and cohabitation. The life on the earth exists without the need for money or trade. Mother nature leads this example that the humans haven't evolved far enough to live without yet.

The idea of no money is to remove the need to gather more of it over the next human. Think about this:

1 Humans have water, food, shelter = Earth
2 All is available to all humans
3 Human invention has made easy the chores to feed large groups
4 Focus of efforts is all that is left to explore.

What direction does the human race wish to chart?

In the past we can see where other social societies have went. Today we see where social societies are, but Where if given the chance could the path lead into the Future?

I submit - If all survival needs were met for all humans without interference of influence of money and religion, What could the humans of planet earth achieve? What will they produce to help continue their existence forever?

Up to and including this point in time and set on this current path, we as humans are effective killers of other humans, animals, and the poisoning of our environment. Sure that's a specialty, but if we snuff out ourselves due to our own shortsightedness we wont have any future following or legacy except our own fossils. That's pretty pathetic for such a highly evolved being.

The focus is blurred and the humans with the power to correct the vision are idiots, led by blind greed and their actions and decisions will affect the life's of all other humans who are smarter and more evolved.

Just because they're rich doesn't make them smart by a long shot. Retards with fortunes deciding the fate of millions is ludicrous, I for one don't want to be extinct at the mistakes of those who are dumber and richer than I. Phuck that. I'll die trying to correct this imbalance before I become an idiots casualty.

But many others are fine with their role as slave, and just settle for what is left, like the buzzard and hyenas of the African plains.

Humans have to evolve past the scraps of existence, and think on the larger scale if they're going to move forward. Money-less is the first step in that direction. There are many examples of humans trying to battle the monetary system and they are making progress but its a very strong and established system to combat, but its destiny is to fall apart very soon actually. But the tipping point is more a mental battle against ingrained patterns of behavior in the human brain. The final weight to balance this out is the enlightenment of the masses to come to grips with allowing the chance of looking at life with a different perspective of focus away from money and reinforced just as powerful as it was implanted for so many centuries. Once this happens it will turn over overnight.

This is the answer to oppression, and separation of all humans, and the healing can begin. It's up to the humans of the present to alleviate the past in order to free the future.

mahalo..... fearlessnotcareless.com

help me help you... smile!

I've thought of one way we could progress towards a society without money...
If you standardised all prices and income, such that everyone earns the same amount, and all goods cost the same, even seasonal goods, then there would be a level playing field.
Here people may be inclined to shift from that system, to one without money at all...
The main problem here may be assets. But one way around that, would be that the government inherits the estate of those who die (except for perhaps family heirlooms)...
Would you be prepared to live in a society like this? And, do you think the idea of standardising could work?

black gold, im sorry, but i think this is a horrendous idea. i support you on the belief that society would be better without money, but the idea of the government having the ability to take estates (which they are doing already) is just insane. My grandmother just had all of her things taken by the government and she hasn't even died yet. She's living in a state owned nursing home. There are poor people sleeping in the room next to her who had to give up nothing (they had nothing) so my grandmother has to pick up the slack and give up all of her belongings. (500 acre farm, house, 2 cars, all furniture) Now some may call this compassion, but it isn't compassion when it's mandatory!!! My father got a lawyer, trying to get around this but yet they still took everything.

to me, this situation implies a huge government, it seems very close to communism as well. The idea of standardizing wouldn't work, it would cause a revolution. both the right wing and the left wing would be insanely angry. it would be the end of the free market.

quote:

---

The Planet is socialism, communism, and cohabitation. The life on the earth exists without the need for money or trade. Mother nature leads this example that the humans haven't evolved far enough to live without yet.

The idea of no money is to remove the need to gather more of it over the next human. Think about this:

1 Humans have water, food, shelter = Earth
2 All is available to all humans
3 Human invention has made easy the chores to feed large groups
4 Focus of efforts is all that is left to explore.

What direction does the human race wish to chart?

---

The future doesn't punch you in the face; the present can. And a chain is as strong as its weakest link. I agree that basic things are the best; however, whilst one man likes natural things another likes man-made things so the first man had better wake up to the fact that man-made things are real - even if it they are in the farsight inferior! Evolution will occur slowly towards this point (4) unless people of such conviction wipe out the rest.

quote:

---

I've thought of one way we could progress towards a society without money...
If you standardised all prices and income, such that everyone earns the same amount, and all goods cost the same, even seasonal goods, then there would be a level playing field.
Here people may be inclined to shift from that system, to one without money at all...
The main problem here may be assets. But one way around that, would be that the government inherits the estate of those who die (except for perhaps family heirlooms)...
Would you be prepared to live in a society like this? And, do you think the idea of standardising could work?

---

I'm not picking at your conscience here; I'm slamming it with a hammer. This is absurd; wiping out competition is the prime motivation towards stagnation. If a society is merited by what it produces then this method would give no incentive to do anything. We live in a system of order and ridicule and idolisation provide the platforms fo diversity and therefore the basis of all flourshing life. The Greeks looked for truth but those that were successful were the rich who had time to sit and ponder; think on this. The nations without money lived more akin to animals.

I liken this mode of thinking to a rainbow with many colours. What you're suggesting is to takes all the blues and reds and greens and make them all beige .

We need to positively whack some things into life like building the empire state building because we can; like building a space station because we can; liuke building a rocket to the centre of the earth; because we can

Rather than try and make everyone equal - we were never born equal! I like the fact someone has a bicycle and someone else has a frerrari.

There's no defending the idea I had, and that some people, who had a lot more to lose than others, would be upset, that was not the aim of the idea... I guess I was trying to think of a way to make things more equal. But, from what we've heard from Jimbobby and Doom123, it seems that part of equality is equal opportunity...
I won't stand behind the saying, but merely mention it as something to consider. I'm not sure the exact phrasing, but "you can't take what you have with you when you die..."
I like Rainbows, but if one colour was for abject poverty, and another colour was richness beyond means to spend, I would understand if I did not see the whole spectrum, and I think you'd agree on that.
The idea also was pretty much only that, an idea...
One way to implement the idea would be to do it gradually over time.
Does someone who cleans floors for a living work any less harder than a doctor (hour for hour)? I think the hard work should be recognised, but unfortunately am not sure if the idea of equal pay is an option at the moment...
I believe there are upsides of many ways of governing. For example with democracy comes public consensus. I think a power of communism (depending on how it run) comes financial equality.
On the topic of competition... It would be nice to go to one shop and pick out what you want without going to two or three more just to compare prices... It just seems time-consuming...
Anyway, thanks for the replies, and please indicate if you have anything to add to this reply.

No, it wouldn't and here's why:
Money is not the problem. Getting rid of money would not make everyone good and altruistic. This question is akin to asking whether the world would be a better place without religion. What is at fault here is the human nature. Some people don't care about other people, and these people will not care about other people whether money exists or not, whether religion exists or not. It is who they are and how they act, not what they have, that makes the world what it is.
The only real way to move the world toward the utopia envisioned in a world without money is to set the example, personally, that you want other people to follow. Teach your kids the right way to live and let them provide yet another example. Talk to friends and family about life and living; the bottom line is how do you want to live? And if you live the right way then rest assured that you are making a difference however small it may seem to you. Because ultimately, we can only do what we can do; but we can do that completely.
Thinking about ways to make society better is all well and good, but there comes a point when we have to wake up and start living such that the world would be a better place.

quote:

---

Would society be better without money?

---

This question is made irrelevant by the unprovided definition of what a good society is.

And since this answer lies in personal preference it is unattainable as a definitive.

Though a rough generalization can be given through common themes of aggreement.

This can be decsribed loosely by the notions that basic needs need to be accessible to all, not necessarily provided, but accessable.

What many communistic idealists often lose sight of is the efforts needed by them to keep these accessable, not the efforts needed to obtain them, but to keep them accessable.

Where they tend to fall flat is in giving away their rights and responsibilities to watch over their rights and care for their needs, ergo their responsibility to keep themselves alive, not to expect others to do it for them and not resent this burden or take advantage of it.

What so many capitalists fail to understand is that to have excess at some point means to take from others. And that "free markets" are actually less free when unregulated (unbalanced), because someone other than a force for balance for the good of all then has the "freedom" to take over and always does. But they are too blinded by their own greed and delusions of grandure to see that's already the case.

Both end in tyranny.

The above question is also irrelevant because of all the little things hinted at but never fully articulated or expanded upon throughout this entire thread.

Which is why is the question asked to begin with. Which is why society doesn't seem to be better.

Money is not the issue. Money is but a tool.

How it is used is the issue that concerns money.

Money is not the root of all evil, evil is. But as has been thuroughly discussed, what is evil. Other than a term mired is mysticism and ambiguity.

I suggest another term, I feel the common and more easily definable ailment of both money and society is corruption.

Corruption of individuals and systems, of any natural balance that allows anything to sustain.

Balance is kept by regulation between freedom and common law, basic rules that are general enough to extend to all as a whole and flexible enough to cater to all individually.

But regulation has to be regulated by these individuals as well.

That is why America was beautiful, in theory.

It was a democratic republic. A constitutionally based society with freedom that was regulated as simplistically as possible and governed not by a few, but by the masses, but not the masses over the few either, hence inalienable rights.

But all of that has changed, and in fact, barely, if ever, actually was.

What was brought up but not fully articulated and definitely not likely absorbed or understood was what Trippy and GM1258, and while I was typing KGB, and briefly fearless, or bluntly by Decius were mentionings of corruption in one sense or another.

It comes down to fucked up people doing fucked up things and the rest of us either greedily or ignorantly helping or cowardly or ignorantly doing nothing to stop it.

Those who think that "the system" of money and the governing bodies over it and other systems aren't corrupt and manipulated are wrong.

Money and government are not evil. Evil is.

Trippy was trying to explain how money is wrongfully used. Which is what is needed to know in order to correct it as others have suggested.

And you can't just teach your kids to live right then throw them into a corrupt system. They will be persecuted untill conforming to corruption.

Let me elaborate on trippy's point.

Our money, and this covers most of us in all our varying countries through two main methods, is lent to us at instant debt, interest.

As he mentioned, it was once backed by something with a more consistent value, gold. It was more consistent because of its stability of physical existance. It could not be generated at will. And when exchanged responsibly without rediculous accumulations of interest it retained it value as well.

The initial key is still the fact that today money is lent to our governments/us at interest. With debt instantly attached. This includes the once mighty America.

For those who don't know, the "Federal Reserve" is not Federal at all. It is owned by private banks, banks designed for profit.

There is a lot to be explained in the details of its creation and supposed oversight but it is all a sham. They have never been audited. It is not even public record as to all of which banks own the Fed.

The second key comes in the form of Fractional Reserve Banking.

This is where, once debt and the need to borrow to pay it has exceeded physical resources backing the currency, gold, it is generated out of thin air based on fractions of the worth of the initial resource, at debted interest of course.

Once the gold was taken off as the standard so this could continue indefinitely, it did.

Then those lending the money lend us more money that they don't have any backing for, yet still charge interest on, by typing numbers into a computer, usually deemed as fraud if you and I were to do it.

Why does this matter if it helps us grow right? Well, you would only be asking that if the debt portion hadn't sunk in yet.

But if you need a little more, here's another tidbit. These are the people who determine how much money is in circulation and how much various interest rates are, and when to call in outstanding loans and debts.

What that equals is total control.

Ever wonder where our unconstitutional, unratified, supreme court reiterrated unauthorized, unaportioned income tax goes to pay?

Those who believe the system isn't a corrupt scam haven't seemed to watch how over and over these banking interests have generated all this debt, called in loans and debts and then bought or confiscated resources, land, property, businesses etc. at pennies on the dollar or for nothing but through force of "law".

There is a reason why approximately 1-10% of the population controls some 90% of the world's wealth.

And it isn't capitalism.

These are the same people and entities that have funded communists, fascists, and capitalists alike, as well as funded and fomented their wars, at debt and interest.

It all equals a concentration of wealth and power for them.

And it is only possible due to the greed, ignorance, and cowardice of the rest of us.

I'll direct you to a link to help make the point should you choose to bother.

http://www.captaincynic.com/thread/36405/conspiracy-confessions.htm