Before anyone goes off calling me a socialist or communist, let me say that this thread is strictly philosophical in nature and has nothing to do with practicality or political ideology. I would like to see if anyone can name one thing that money does to help mankind. Well, let me change that to say "commodities". Money is just green stuff. Commodities cover it better. Nothing could be traded and no one could be poor. Goods and services would be given away. No competition. Let's say that everyone agreed with this philosophy. Would the world be a better place? If you don't think so, elaborate. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Do you think a world with no money would give me a better shot at dating Tyra Banks? [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited August 07, 2000).]
Jeff, That's one of the main problems with such a philosophy. ------------------ Nederland 2002 Qualifying Campaign (Damn those penalties!!!) Houston Rockets Space Center- Not just another ClutchCity.NET clone. We're that and more!
Money or tradeable commodities, because by their very nature have a "standard" of value, facilitate trade. I may have an abundance of "A" that you need, but you may only have "B"--something I have no need for. Brian Kagy may have an abundance of "C" of which I do need, but he has no need for "A"--instead, he needs "B" We could do a three-way trade, but that complicates matters--especially if we don't see eye to eye. Money or tradeable commodities make this whole process much easier. Not only do they maintain a standard of value and help to facilitate this trade, but through competition and the dynamics of supply and demand, they force all of us who have "A" to trade to reach a competitive price for our product. My first instinct to your next question is to say, "Hell Yes!--bring it on! Give me, Give, Give me." I'll eat cheetoes all day, get fat(ter), drink beer, and do nothing." But eventually I'd get bored. I guess I could try to make music or write poetry, but I don't possess much talent. Besides, competition breeds innovation. The pursuit of wealth breeds hard work. Outside of humans, the earth's creatures spend their life either hunting or being hunted. What do I think would happen if everything was given to us? Without any needs, there would be no desires. We'd have nothing to strive for, and therefore, nothing to live for. We'd eventually lose interest in even sex. We'd wither and die. We'd become extinct. Maybe that would make the world a better place. ------------------ stop posting my damn signature
Heypartner I think Tyra would slap u after what u did to her ------------------ Fun Police Says: 1. Posting in stupid threads is not FUN! 2. Spelling, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure are not FUN! 3. Stupid BBS names are not FUN! 4. Annoying Mango can be really FUN! 5. Conduct yourself in a FUN way! The Fun Police are Watching. Eat MANGOES & Have FUN or be Assimilated.
Nothing could be traded and no one could be poor. Goods and services would be given away. No competition. No one would do any work if that were the case. Hence, no goods or services. ------------------ My dream job is to be a Houston Rockets towel-boy.
Fadeaway: you assume no one wants to work. Work doesn't just imply commerce. Some people work just because they want to. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com [This message has been edited by Jeff (edited August 07, 2000).]
Like Clutch ------------------ "The day after tomorrow is the third day of the rest of your life." ---George Carlin
Jeff, you need to stop doing this. I once wrote a philosophical essay entitled, "The Abolition of Money." I first established that I did not mean, "There will be no more money." It was mostly the abolition of the modern concept of money. I'll try to give a little of my take. 1. Money is not real. Money is now numbers in a computer. It is as tangible as this is a tangible bulletin board. Except money is worse. A great deal of the world's money is not even used - never seen. It just resides in digital form in computers. 2. Despite this, the world is controlled by money. What is the meaning of life - to make money. Even if someone is not actively persuing it, they are after money because otherwise the will have a hard time with survival. Survival has gone from hunting-gathering to making-hording money. 3. Money is placed over human lives. See the Ford Pinto fiasco as one of many examples. 4. A lot of people do not earn their money. When you have a multi-millionaire or billionaire with all of the fake money, what can this person do? It is impossible to spend it all (even assuming that someone makes just 2 million a year for about 20-30 years). This person will see maybe 1/100th of it in cash, and spend another small percentage with credit cards, or whatever. The money accumulates, it is invested, it grows. The person dies. There is so much left over that the offspring can live the remainder of their adult lives on it. Now, the first person did not "earn" the money because I just do not feel anyone does anything that important to earn more than they (or any human) could possibly need. If you cannot spend it all in your lifetime, without buying countries, then you do not deserve it. The offspring really did not earn it. This is modern day royalty/aristocracy. Ensuring that the wealthy families stay wealthy. The death tax is irrelevant. If you have that much money, you can hire lawyers to shelter it. I have seen an estate go from huge percentage taxed (I think 50%) to 6% of the entire money left over. In my line of work, I have seen this often. People living off of money (and very well, I might add) that they did not earn. They have never worked a day in their lives. "What does your husband do for a living?" "Well, he likes to fish." True encounter. 5. Goods can still be exchanged without money. This was the system of early civilizations. 6. People would still work. But they would not need to be as tied to work. More time for real human interaction, self-improvement, etc. Now, I do not beleive in the abolition of money. As I said in another thread, I am more concerned with the means than I am the end. That is, I am more interested in scaling back this concept of money that has gotten so out of hand and has turned itself into an imaginary drug. The abolition of money is not feasable. It has been turned into a human necessity from which today's person cannot be severed. The world, however, would do well to reverse itself, even if slightly. But what the hell do I know, right? I need to dig up that essay and see what I said. ------------------ Play the Piano Drunk Like a Percussion Instrument Until the Fingers Begin to Bleed a Bit
I think greed would surface its ugly head one way or another. Money and the effects it produces on people show how evil man can be. You don't see other species killing their own over stupid "commodities". hmmm ... was that pessimistic? ------------------ I am so exasperated that I could expectorate.
Jeff when you get to Heaven, there won't be any money. Seriously, it's sounds good, but after about a week of some people busting their ass (because the "like" to work????) and some people lounging around eating cheetos, drinking beer, and doing nothing, there would be some serious tension and problems. Money is a measure (albeit not a perfect one) of what you have "done", "earned", "accomplished", etc. As Pole said, with money you are able to get goods you would otherwise not have the opportunity to attain. Money itself is not a problem. Just like guns and religion by themselves are not the problem. It's the people, the greed, the power, that is the problem. Taking away all money seems like a good idea on paper, but it's like Communism. I think Communism is a very honorable idea. But, it just doesn't work in the real world. Mainly, because people screw it up.
Am I greedy to want to be the only person dating Tyra Banks? YO! in case you haven't noticed...this is a Socractic argument I'm giving. Ignore it if you want, but Pole and I seem to agree that hormones will end up ruling. The simple primal instints always (re)surface before such complex things as invisible hands. To answer you question Jeff...what do commidities do for mankind? commodities make us different. simpler put,,,belongings make us different. You seem to be asking would the world be better without excess belongings, but you come off sounding like you don't really want people to have belongings, at all...we just all share. On that note, there is no way I'm sharing Tyra Banks.
Imagine. What do I win? There are cultures that still refrain from the usage of money. In these cultures individuals switch off labor at various points out of some sort of duty. Obviously, there are some that try to take advantage of the situation and get away w/ as little work as possible. In basketball we call these people 'Big Countrys'. In my opinion, the most important thing for humanity... is survival. In this view, I believe that it is important to harvest greed. "Greed is good". Greed will allow the species to propulgate. As capitalism controls the masses and COPS keeps my obese mother from wasting her little time reading anything of merit... greed also makes the world go 'round. Greed and respect keep scientists plotting ways in which to get out of this solar system. Greed and respect will someday teach biologists to keep my telomerase viable so that individuals can live 300+ years (do it now, damnit!). Our primitive cultures have taught us alot about ourselves and have encouraged us, as self cognizant organisms, to question our values. When we're self-actualized perhaps we can debate the value of 'want'. For now, monetary exchange/greed is like a cheap lease in a deprived neighborhood, merely a means to a much bigger end. Where's Mulder? ------------------ "At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived." --Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush. (Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00) Dubyah Speaks
Fadeaway: you assume no one wants to work. Work doesn't just imply commerce. Some people work just because they want to. Okay, not enough people would work, especially at the crappy labour jobs in factories, which is the most important type of work. ------------------ My dream job is to be a Houston Rockets towel-boy.
I think it is a very interesting proposition, Jeff. I have no idea how it would work out. It may lead to problems we cannot imagine. Or it could lead to lawlessness and more corruption. I don't know. But it might be worth a try... ------------------ Bring It!!
If everyone agreed on that, then yes, the world would be a MUCH better place. If everyone agreed on that philosophy than everyone would be willing to work for the good of the people. Money inspires evil. ------------------ WE WILL WATCH THEM FALL... Next year
I have a theory: I'm betting that, of the people who responded that people won't work, a solid majority are republicans/conservatives. As for the question: I think trade cannot be taken out of human society. If you instituted such a utopian system, it would not take long before people were breaking the rules for personal gain. It is in human nature to do so. Can you make anything illegal? If you were to say everything was free, but heroin cannot be manufactured, how do you keep people from trading their heroin for, say, LSD? What about sex? This is also a tradeable commodity. Do you give it away to anyone who wants it? How do you define possession? If commodities are freely given and taken, do people have property? houses? children? wives? What is an individual's command over his own body, as that is a commodity as well. Is this system a form of slavery? Because if individuals do still have possession of things like their body, their wife, their children, their house, etc., how do you keep them from trading it for someone else's wife or children? But if they don't have possession of such things as their body or their children, are they not enslaved and disenfranchised by the community? That may still be viable, but it is sufficiently contrary to human nature that it won't work without enforcement. Then such enforcement would create a commodity (power) that would not be freely given and taken. ------------------ Rockets Draft Obligations Summary http://www.gaffordstudios.cjb.net/ [This message has been edited by JuanValdez (edited August 08, 2000).]
