Moneyless society : Would it benefit society?

[Qfwfq]

True point.

 

Although money, not being anymore based on the intrinsic value of something real, still continues to favour speculation as it can become worth more and less.

[nkt]

What is interesting is that money tends to stay at the same value, and everything else is perceived as moving up or down relative to it.

 

Of course, the US dollar has become the de facto standard for world trade, and everything gets pegged off that, including other currencies, but in a normal situation, prices of goods are said to have risen, rather than the value of the money dropped!

[Qfwfq]

What is interesting is that money tends to stay at the same value

In the sense that that's the way people think of it, yes!

 

Actually, that is the whole problem of the modern currency system, it's what makes it hard to distinguish between inflation and an actual, real increase in value of an investment, often creating a false perception of economic gain. Of course, an asset that remains of exactly constant value is a better bet than cash under the matress at no interest, but one musn't mistake it for an actual profit only because the price is higher than it was.

[TheBigDog]

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 :rainbow:

Yes it is a good thing. It is the natural order of things. The reason why a few people have most of the money is because they make better decisions about money, and focus their energy on the accumulation of wealth. They are precisely the people who make an economy successful, because they know how to successful financially. If you redistributed all the wealth of the world evenly, in a short time it would work its way right back to where it was before.

 

Bill

[lindagarrette]

Yes it is a good thing. It is the natural order of things. The reason why a few people have most of the money is because they make better decisions about money, and focus their energy on the accumulation of wealth. They are precisely the people who make an economy successful, because they know how to successful financially. If you redistributed all the wealth of the world evenly, in a short time it would work its way right back to where it was before.

 

Bill

The reason the powerful are able to victimize the weak is because power corrupts. Redistribution of the wealth would give everyone a level playing field, but you are right, greed is the driving factor in human nature that leads us into this situation of inequality. Capitalism feeds on greed. The powerful would be back in charge, not because they are necessarily smarter or more capable, but because they are more ruthless.

[TheBigDog]

The reason the powerful are able to victimize the weak is because power corrupts. Redistribution of the wealth would give everyone a level playing field, but you are right, greed is the driving factor in human nature that leads us into this situation of inequality. Capitalism feeds on greed. The powerful would be back in charge, not because they are necessarily smarter or more capable, but because they are more ruthless.

"Money doesn't corrupt you, it makes you more of what you already are." - my dad.

 

The reason the powerful are able to victimize the weak is because the powerful are powerful, and the weak are weak. It is the same reason that the powerful are able to help the weak, but I guess altruism and philanthropy doesn't exist? Redistribution of wealth removes the meaning of success. It doesn't level the playing field, it cancels the game. Greed is not what leads to inequity, AMBITION is the cause of the gap. Ambition would bring those who did before to do it again. Ambition has brought us everything good that we enjoy in this world.

 

Bill

[lindagarrette]

"Money doesn't corrupt you, it makes you more of what you already are." - my dad.

 

The reason the powerful are able to victimize the weak is because the powerful are powerful, and the weak are weak. It is the same reason that the powerful are able to help the weak, but I guess altruism and philanthropy doesn't exist? Redistribution of wealth removes the meaning of success. It doesn't level the playing field, it cancels the game. Greed is not what leads to inequity, AMBITION is the cause of the gap. Ambition would bring those who did before to do it again. Ambition has brought us everything good that we enjoy in this world.

 

Bill

You do have a point. Without ambition, we would all be slugs. Only, ambition is not restricted to amassing wealth. For that, greed is the motivator.

 

Friends of mine who participate in the Special Olympics are ambitious but not greedy.

 

Napoleon had a method of dealing with people in his army. He said, there are basically four personality traits: smart, stupid, lazy, ambitious. The ambitious smart men were his staff since they could get things done. The stupid ambitious men were the officers who were driven but needed the stupid, lazy men, the soldiers, to succeed. When asked about the smart, lazy men, he said "I take them out and shoot them."

[InfiniteNow]

What is interesting is that money tends to stay at the same value, and everything else is perceived as moving up or down relative to it.

 

Of course, the US dollar has become the de facto standard for world trade, and everything gets pegged off that, including other currencies, but in a normal situation, prices of goods are said to have risen, rather than the value of the money dropped!

Does anyone here have any interesting thoughts on currency in China becoming a bigger player in the relatively near future?

 

What is the currency in China called, anyway?

How does that relate (currently) to the dollar/pound/euro, etc.?

Has the strength of Chinese money been growing recently?

 

 

Also, there has been some fantastic discussion in this thread. I personally suggest reading it all, and not just responding to this post.

 

 

Cheers. :) :) :lol:

[InfiniteNow]

They had a moneyless society in Star Trek: Next Generation (I so cannot believe that I just associated myself with that program in such a public arena...)

 

 

I think a lot of their ability to get past money was the "Replicator" device. If you needed something, you could have it.

 

Tea, Earl Grey, Hot.

 

However, people still engaged in basic trade, but in very different ways that we may not realize.

Respect

Affection

Friendship

Love

Teaching

Those things may never go away, even if the "resource" side of it does.

[TheBigDog]

They had a moneyless society in Star Trek: Next Generation (I so cannot believe that I just associated myself with that program in such a public arena...)

Infinite, that is why it was a fantasy series and not just science fiction. Note that when Deep Space 9 premiered and you became exposed to the world outside of federation ships and crews they introduced "gold latnium" as precious coins with value, and "credits" for the purchase of goods and services. Moneyless just cannot work even in fictional utoia. (and don't feel bad, I still have a Federation Uniform, complete with rank insignia and communicator in my closet, and I wore it on days that didn't involve trick-or-treating)

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

Infinite, that is why it was a fantasy series and not just science fiction. Note that when Deep Space 9 premiered and you became exposed to the world outside of federation ships and crews they introduced "gold latnium" as precious coins with value, and "credits" for the purchase of goods and services. Moneyless just cannot work even in fictional utoia.

So it sounds as if you feel the utopian ideal will not work regardless of the parameters. Perhaps it would work, but only work inside a closed system? If it would, please note that we are already a closed system... stuck on this sphere in the middle of the galaxy, in the middle of a super cluster of galaxies. I would like to hear others view on this as well. Please, chime in!

 

 

(and don't feel bad, I still have a Federation Uniform, complete with rank insignia and communicator in my closet, and I wore it on days that didn't involve trick-or-treating)

Okay... moneyless society or not... I'd pay to see that! Thanks for the support.

 

 

:lol:

[CraigD]

... Moneyless just cannot work even in fictional utoia. ...

I think it’s premature, and unsupported by both theory and evidence, to conclude that a moneyless society is impossible, or even unlikely under reasonable circumstances.

 

For money to exist, and be popular enough that people know what it is and use it, it must play a role in a social process that most people believe valuable. Historically and currently, this role is in the process of allocating scarce, in-demand resources – the famous “supply and demand” economic paradigm.

 

Resources – meaning both raw, processed, and manufactured goods – that are scarce and in-demand include everything from original art to collectables to luxury homes and cars to enough rice to keep a person alive, depending on social circumstances. To obtain these goods usually requires money.

 

A resource that is in-demand but not scarce is air. It can be had for free.

 

A resource that is scarce but not in-demand is a 4-leaf clover with a bird dropping in its exact center. Though difficult to find, and wanted by practically no one, it costs nothing.

 

[1] When nearly everything in-demand is not scarce, a society will tend to be moneyless. The fictional society of Star Trek, with its type-1+ civilization abundance of energy and ubiquitous matter replicators, is an example of such a society, as have been a few atypical human cultures in “tropical paradises”, etc.

 

[2] It’s also possible to have a moneyless society because a powerful institution prohibits the process in which money would play a role. Middle ages Europe, in which an entrenched feudal class prohibited – or at least marginalized - trade is an example of such a society.

 

[3] A moneyless society can occur because the process in which money would play a role is not known to any or many people. Most of human pre-history is presumed to have been an example of this type of moneyless society.

 

[4] Just as powerful institutions can cause and maintain a moneyless society, they can also prevent one from occurring. Some argue that this is happening now, or may in the near future, as old-style capitalism fights to maintain a grip on a growing, “out of control” “abundance economy” resembling Star Trek’s.

 

The real question, I believe, is not if a moneyless society is possible, but if a money-based society such as our own can pass thought the likely inevitable scenario [4] that would result if the circumstances of scenario [1] were to come into being – whether by supernatural manna from heaven or futuristic, scarcity-abolishing Star Trek-ian technology, or any other means - and if so, how?

[TheBigDog]

You can suppress money in particular circumstances, but once a society reaches a certain level of commerce and professional services money becomes inevitable as a fundamental medium of trade. Once money is established it cannot be removed without destroying the standard of living.

 

In StarTrek they didn't need money on the starships because the federation supplied eveyone with everything they needed. They were isolated in space after all, with what was essentially an engineered society. I remember trekkies talking about why the replicators could not make gold or money. Why make a cup of tea when you could make cup of gold latnium? It is ideological nonsense to me. And further, the notion of reverting to a moneyless society to me represents inherent evil, despite the noble intentions of the act.

 

Bill

[TheBigDog]

So it sounds as if you feel the utopian ideal will not work regardless of the parameters. Perhaps it would work, but only work inside a closed system? If it would, please note that we are already a closed system... stuck on this sphere in the middle of the galaxy, in the middle of a super cluster of galaxies. I would like to hear others view on this as well. Please, chime in!

Calling our world economy a closed system is like calling the oceans an aquarium. And studying one fish to summarize all marine life. But I guess it is a matter of perspective.

 

Bill

[CraigD]

Once money is established it cannot be removed without destroying the standard of living.

Can you explain?

 

Certainly, taking money away from an individual in a money-using society is likely to reduce their standard of living. Taking money away from everyone is likely to cause deflation – the same price of goods, along with incomes, falls. Giving money to everyone is likely to cause inflation – the price of goods, and incomes rises. However, the effect of decreasing the role of money in a society is likely to have an uneven effect – the standard of living of people with a lot of it (eg: Cuban plantation owners) will fall, while the standard of living of those without a lot of it (eg: Cuban peasants) will rise.

In StarTrek they didn't need money on the starships because the federation supplied eveyone with everything they needed. They were isolated in space after all, with what was essentially an engineered society.

While I’m loathe to sully the pages of Hypography with Trekiebabble, (and wary of debating fictional “history”) this outrage cannot be permitted to go unchallenged!

 

(According to much in-depth analysis which I’d rather not admit how I aquired) the great majority of citizens of the United Federation of Planets do not live, or ever set foot on, a starship. Starship travel is less common, per capita, than nearly any form of 20-21st century travel. Yet planet-bound society is as moneyless as shipboard (this is established in at least 2 TOS, and, surprisingly 1 Voyager, episode, but I refuse to show the depths of my Trekish depravity by naming them). All UFP society is essentially engineered.

 

While it’s true that later-season NG and all DS9 episodes, with their “gold-plated latnium” make lie of the idea of the UFP as a moneyless society, this is, I believe, less revision than a reflection of the difference in zeitgeist from the 1960s to the 1990s, which is paralleled in the difference in personal socioeconomic philosophies of Gene Roddenberry and later writer/producers such as Rick Berman. Roddenberry was the epitome of the leftist ‘60s, Berman the triumphal rightist ‘80s and beyond. Berman, and entertainment produces of his generation, can no more accept the idea of the demise of capitalism than Roddenberry than Roddenberry and those of his could accept the idea of its persistence.

 

Who, if either, is more correct in their prognosis of the future, or even how seriously either is attempting to predict or shape the future, is moot. By all legitimate accounts (eg: Yvonne Fern authorized biography, “Gene Roddenberry: The Last Conversation”) Roddenberry was earnest in his optimistic vision, while Berman considers himself more a vender of an entertainment product. Sincerity, however, is no guarantee of correctness, though it does make a person like Roddenberry more charismatic, likeable, and, I think, influential, than one like Berman.

 

TheBigDog accurately notes that much of the Trekie subculture is ideology bound and nonsensical. Given the absence of a rigorous, formal Science of predictive Sociology and Economics, however, I feel that most opinions concerning future society, including the absence or presence of greed, money, altruism, crime, terrorism, etc., are at best speculation, and at worst ideological dogma. Do human beings want to be free, or prefer a safe, if serf-like, existence? Does money liberate or enslave? While some empirical theories, such as scarcity vs. abundance economics, appear promising as a means of answering such questions, they are at present far from convincing. Hence, threads like this one are nearly certain to remain inconclusive, and reflect personal belief, not scientific rationalism.

[Qfwfq]

Why make a cup of tea when you could make cup of gold latnium?

I've just made a machine that can change other atoms into gold, in quantity, at a negligible cost.

 

Question: what should you do, now that I've let the cat out of the bag?

[TheBigDog]

I've just made a machine that can change other atoms into gold, in quantity, at a negligible cost.

 

Question: what should you do, now that I've let the cat out of the bag?

Get out of the gold market.