I didn't read all of the posts. Sorry if this is a repeat. Some people are not willing to work even with the incentive of financial gain. I seriously doubt that doing away with "money" would help our situation at all. There are those who like to work, but how many people truly fit that category? Who's volunteering for the job at McDonald's when you can get a car, computer, stereo, or anything else without doing so? Something else would take over as the controlling factor. I think it would likely be prestige. People would be willing to do the jobs that are prestigious, and you couldn't find anyone to do the others. By the way, no "money" would mean that music too was free. We'd have to fight Lars Ulrich to make that happen. ------------------
I have a theory: I'm betting that, of the people who responded that people won't work, a solid majority are republicans/conservatives. Actually, no. I'm a Liberal. The only way a society without money would work is if we had 'replicators' like on Star Trek, which would make food, etc.. at the touch of a button. Then, no one would need to work and the focus of our society would shift away from material gain and toward self-improvement (education, etc..). ------------------ My dream job is to be a Houston Rockets towel-boy. [This message has been edited by fadeaway (edited August 08, 2000).]
Give the liberals some credit. Jeff is speaking philosophically here, and the responses to his initial question should be taken philosophically. No one, short of college kid Marxist wannabe's, would waste time trying to think of a feasible way to eliminate commerce. We are probably tens of thousands of years away from anything like that-- if it's even possible at all.
"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." Dammit Pole you sound just like my dad! My sentiments exactly. __________________ PHILOSOPHY "Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: 'mankind'. Basically, it's made up of two separate words -- 'mank' and 'ind'. What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind."
BK: Thanks for trying to bring this conversation back to where it started. I had a feeling this would happen. I was just curious. Once people started getting into the "liberal vs. conservative" thing, I pretty much stopped reading this thread. Like you said, I don't believe the "no money" concept is realistic. I'm not an idiot, just idealistic or is that the same thing? ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Forget about getting anything for free and everyone getting on peacefully. A world without money would revert to complete anarchy - I have no doubt about that. My textbook defines Economics as "the study of how society decides what, how, and for whom to produce". Money is purely the vehicle for trading different scarce resources, and allows people of vastly different skillsets to exchange their services and goods for other ones. We have had society without money - thousands of years ago. But evolution and humankind's inexorable drive to improve and develop lead to the use of a commodity that allowed more efficent trading, and hence greater specialization and production - MONEY. Without money people, whose inherent nature is to look after their own interests, would fight for those scarce commodities. ------------------ Current Rocket's Salary & Contract Info
