Moneyless society : Would it benefit society?

[Kizzi]

What are the pro's and con's of a society based on Money compared to a society not based on money?

 

KiZzI :eek2:

[alxian]

no

 

frankly money is power, as with sex it is a prime motivater in the capitalist society (so far the most powerful and succesful functioning human society... to some and purely IMO)

 

even without money you need to calculate a persons worth. BS about equality is settled this way. some people simply are worth more than others and money is the best incentive to bring those people to the surface. (they may not be the best out there but the system keeps the world turning).

 

a society not based on money?

 

example?

[Fishteacher73]

A pure barter system (one w/o money...ie one cow for 2 acres of land) can only really be useful in local agricultural societies. Would you work for sony if they only gave you TV's? They guy growing corn may already have one and not want what you have to trade..

 

Money although technically worthless represents value. It is accepted because we all have agreed to use it. But only in a limited scope... I doubt your NYC taxi driver will take Euros..

 

A currecny has been in place for many years (around 1000 BCE Iron coins have been found).

It is just easier.

[Buffy]

Its not only *what* you want, but also *when* you might want it. If I'm building a business, I may need lots of goods and labor long before I have a product for people to start trading with. How do I get the goods and the labor when I don't have anything to give them. Investment and growth demand the liquidity that money provides, and the ability to create a banking system that provides capital when none exists by charging interest greases the wheels even more.

 

Without money, we just wouldn't be civilized!

 

Capitalistically,

Buffy

[Aki]

People living in a society without money would have no motivation, and thus would just be sitting around all day and partying all night.

[Boerseun]

People living in a society without money would have no motivation, and thus would just be sitting around all day and partying all night.

...and the problem will be? Where do I sign up?

[Chacmool]

...and the problem will be? Where do I sign up?

The problem is that you will have to pay membership fees - in the form of taxes.

[alxian]

its a shame people don't get banned (exiled) from societies, birthrates not being high enough, dispite our best efforts.. :eek2:

 

criminals should be forced to work on farms.. doing all the menial labour.. wide sardonic grin.

 

if a person commits a crime against me he and is properly convicted he should become my indentured servant until he is redeemed.

 

to avoid "cruel and unusual punishment" silliness my punishment would have to be approved by a jury of sorts.

 

it might not erradicate crime but it surely would make punishment more fun... :)

[Boerseun]

Alxian, that's a bit off-topic.

 

But to add to what you say, I'd say the worst, and probably most effective punishment for the most heinous crimes imaginable would be to tie the perpetrators down on a sofa in front of the biggest screen TV you can find and loop 'Days of our Lives' continuously at top volume.

 

That'll teach the bastards.

[alxian]

its so incoherent and meaningless, they would scream on and on.

 

double the amount of commercials.

[CraigD]

What are the pro's and con's of a society based on Money compared to a society not based on money?

 

KiZzI :eek2:

That’s a very serious question, one that some pretty clever people think human society may need to come to grips within the next few decades.

 

The literature on the subject, fictional and nonfictional, mainstream and fringe, is vast. If I may try to condense its conclusions into a few hundred words, here they are:

 

There are 2 fundamental kinds of economies:

• scarcity
• abundance.

 

In a scarcity economy, things needed and desired by people are so scarce that not everyone who wants a particular thing can have it. In an abundance economy, things needed and desired by people are so abundant that everyone who wants a particular thing can have it.

 

Money, barter, whatever – some system of fair exchange – is useful in a scarcity economy – it provides a (usually) peaceful and (hopefully) orderly way to determine which people get scarce things. In an abundance economy, money is not useful – there’s no need to determine who gets a particular thing, when everybody gets it.

 

Human society has had, probably since its prehistory, and continues to have, predominantly a scarcity economy – too many people, not enough things.

 

Technological progress tends to reduce scarcity. What only a few wealthy people could afford when it was made by hand by a few skilled artisans, can be had by practically everyone when it made by an efficient, automated factory. Jewelry, books, and computers are all examples of this tendency.

 

Members of a class of people, “the wealthy”, tend to be aware of the importance of scarcity in preserving the comfort and enjoyment of their lives relative to “the poor”. People in this class tend to try to prevent things from becoming too abundant. Due to the influence their wealth give them, they are frequently successful. The restricted production of crops, energy, and consumer electronics are examples of this tendency.

 

IMHO, an abundance economy in which everyone has what they need and desire is to be preferred to a scarcity economy, in which they do not.

 

To change our current society from having a scarcity economy to having an abundance economy, however, is not a simple matter of choosing not to have money. In a scarcity economy, money is needed. Eliminating it by law, etc. won’t work – out of practical need, people will seek to and succeed in finding replacements for any kind of money that is banned. The failure of pure socialist governments in many nations is an example of this.

 

To change from a scarcity to an abundance economy, I believe scarcity itself must be reduced nearly to the point of being eliminated. 2 main obstacles to this exist:

• Technical challenges – some scarce but useful things (such as solar cells and hydrogen fuel cells) are hard to make in large quantities
  
• The will of the wealthy – as described above, wealthy people directly oppose reducing the scarcity of many things.

 

A couple of common objection to the viability of an abundance economy are:

• If people can get everything they need and want without spending money, they will have no incentive to work, nothing will get done or manufactured, and there will be scarcities
  
• If the amount of a thing a person wants is not limited by the amount of money they have, many people will take extravagant quantities of things (eg: hundreds of cars, thousands of guitars and stereos), and there will be scarcities.

 

The common answers to these 2 objections are:

• Many people work because they enjoy it, not because it is necessary. Although, in an abundance economy, the percentage of people who work will likely be smaller than in a scarcity economy, sufficiently efficient and advance technology (automation) will allow them to produce more than is needed by the total population;
  
• Most people are not extravagant, and will not take more than they need. Those who do will need to be prevented from doing so – that is, even an abundance society must police itself.

 

There are many other objections and rebuttals to this subject, but, IMHO, the pros for an abundance economy outweigh the cons.

[Kizzi]

A couple of years ago I used to attend Socialist Workers Party meetings. My memory is a bit hazy but I think they said 10% of the people own 90% of the wealth!!!!! Is this a good thing?

 

KiZzI :eek2:

[alxian]

i'd rather say they control 90% of the wealth.

 

the scarcity that CraigD is talking about is created and controlled by that top 10%

 

as long as they don't engage in battles with the other 10% and don't pinch resources too strongly in their pursuit of more power then the rest of us are fine.

[Kizzi]

I think one of the slogans of the Socialist Workers Party was/is "People before Profit".

This implies capitalism is "Profit before People".

Surely "People before Profit" is better than "Profit before People".

Afterall it is the people who are making the profit.

 

KiZzI :eek2:

[Kizzi]

I'm for a society that works for the benefit of all.

I'm not to sure if I'm in such a society though.

Globally the picture isn't looking to good.

Is this because it's early days for capitalism,

or is this because capitalism caused it.

 

Maybe capitalism is an intemediary stage for the next world order.

 

KiZzI :eek2:

[infamous]

 

Maybe capitalism is an intemediary stage for the next world order.

 

KiZzI :eek2:

Social developement has it's own evolutionary process just like living organisms. Capitalism or Socialism, for that matter, which ever form presently exists will eventually change. The history books are full of proof in support of this statement.

[Kizzi]

It's interesting to see what happens to New Orleans.....it looks like it's been totally destroyed apart from the skyscrapers. It's interesting because this is what it takes to build a city in the poorest area of the globe or in New Orleans. The people are in a similar situation! Somehow this relates to society because all being equal everybody would have a nice city to live in!

 

KiZzI :eek2: