A world without money.

[justaguy]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

Most people have covered what I was going to say ("if there wasn't money, something would take its place") but there's one other thing I'd like to add:

People do not always do things for strict monetary compensation. Sometimes the 'compensation' is more indirect. On the internet, for example, recognition goes a long way. In fact, the entire open source community runs on recognition. Community service runs on the feeling that you've accomplished something good and made someone's life better. Though, calling this 'compensation' is really stretching the term.

sure, yeah. it's an implicit benefit of working or performing any task free of charge. ie making stepfiles and graphics gets you KNOWN in this community. but it is implicit, so there's no way of quantifying the benefits across multiple individuals... which is why having explicit benefits quantifiable to everyone works well.

also hey arch0wl how u been

edit: chances of me ever making a post that long again on this site = Slim2None Because The Implicit Benefit Reaped From Spending However Long Typing Posts Of That Length Ceased To Exist Years Ago.

[McLaReN212]

To the OP, this is a ridiculous notion. People have pretty much covered it already; people need resources, and without interacting with other people, it will be impossible to attain all of the resources you need. People will resort to some sort of barter system in the end; it only makes sense to institute a standard medium in order to increase efficiency.

I do want to point out one thing that Hayden and various people have said that I don't agree with though; that being the "incentive" argument. Of course, I agree that incentive is an important aspect of work. However, I think you all are really overstating things... are you really telling me without compensational incentive people won't work at all? No... what will happen is that they'll institute an incentive. However, if there was no such way to do this, you can't tell me that human would let everything go to **** because there was no compensational incentive to fix things... that contradicts the very evolutionary imperatives that drive us.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by McLaReN212

I do want to point out one thing that Hayden and various people have said that I don't agree with though; that being the "incentive" argument. Of course, I agree that incentive is an important aspect of work. However, I think you all are really overstating things... are you really telling me without compensational incentive people won't work at all? No... what will happen is that they'll institute an incentive. However, if there was no such way to do this, you can't tell me that human would let everything go to **** because there was no compensational incentive to fix things... that contradicts the very evolutionary imperatives that drive us.

Of course people work towards some sort of incentive. You brought up evolutionary imperatives, so we'll work from that framework.

You have an incentive to live, right? To live, you need resources. To acquire those resources, you need to earn money. To earn money, you need to work. Therefore money is usually a pretty damn good incentive to do things.

People work because they have to -- it's the fundamental thrust of economics: scarcity. We have seemingly unlimited human desires but only so many resources to go around. We wouldn't NEED an economy with money if we could just walk outside and get everything we wanted/needed without any skill or effort.

But our life doesn't work that way. We aren't able to provide everything we want for ourselves -- we don't want to design our own shoes, invent our own technology, make our own movies, grow our own food, make our own living residences, generate our own electricity, gather our own information, etc. We have services that specialize in these various functions and we pay for them. We can pay for them through money, which we acquire in exchange for our OWN specializations.

In an ideal world, everyone is compensated by fair value. If I am able to provide a service that generates more value, I get more money for it. If I work longer or smarter or give up more of something, I am compensated for it. That's why money is perfectly fine as an incentive -- it represents the ability to acquire more resources and services.

The problem is that you have no way to standardize anything without money. It's not that people wouldn't work -- it's that people wouldn't have incentive to bust their asses for no return. If money is somehow forbidden in my society, I'm not going to work hard if my services are going to be free. I'm going to sit on my ass and do what I want all day. But so will everyone else. It's not a very stable sort of society. At some point, everyone needs each other's skills and resources to perpetuate. So people WILL work -- but luckily, we have something called intelligence. This intelligence lets us know that it's better to create money as a compensation metric, because it's no fun living in a society where you aren't rewarded much for your labor. It all ultimately comes down to what is fair. It's an unsolvable problem that is always swinging in equilibrium.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

Most people have covered what I was going to say ("if there wasn't money, something would take its place") but there's one other thing I'd like to add:

People do not always do things for strict monetary compensation. Sometimes the 'compensation' is more indirect. On the internet, for example, recognition goes a long way. In fact, the entire open source community runs on recognition. Community service runs on the feeling that you've accomplished something good and made someone's life better. Though, calling this 'compensation' is really stretching the term.

All compensation is ultimately utility (happiness). Whether it's for recognition or food on the table, we contribute skills because they ultimately net us something we want or need. Those things can be valued in terms of money -- which is what market forces are all about.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by DossarLX ODI

If money is abolished, demand for nearly everything would skyrocket. As the demand goes up, there would be a near frantic need to increase supply to keep up with the ever-rising demand. In order to increase supplies, every industry would have to drastically increase their workforce, which is not a problem since it costs nothing to do so. With all the unemployed people out there, they can be trained and they can all be employed.

I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or just woefully misinformed about how finance and economics work.

Yeah, if you set p=0, demand is nuts. Nobody's going to pass up free utility. Setting something to no price means more supply will be needed to sustain the demand. But this means more resources are required. That is a real cost. You can't just say "it'll cost nothing" by removing money. You're still using resources. If every single supply curve got shocked to maximum value, we'd be short all-around. We don't have enough resources to provide every single person access to everything. If we could do this, we wouldn't need an economy.

[dragonmegaXX]

Originally Posted by DossarLX ODI

This is something I've been thinking about for some time now. What would happen if money didn't exist? If the absence of money caused problems, what do you think could be done to rectify the situation (without bringing money back)? Do you think the world would be better without money?

A few things I can see about having no money is that insurance won't be needed, surgery would be free, nobody needs funding for medical research, and everyone has a chance at attending a higher level of education (college). To prevent the laziness, there could be some law passed that makes it so every person is required to have some type of job. And there would be limit to what you can have too - even though things would be free, you can't and don't need 500 cars unless you wanted to loan out or sell them (which isn't really necessary since you're not selling for currency).

Kind of sounds like Anthem.

Without money, people would just start bartering and it wouldnt really do anything major. People would just start trading their stuff for other peoples stuff.
If you took away everyone's stuff and had them start from scratch, society would probably collapse because people wouldn't be motivated to try to learn important skills like medicine or surgery. That is unless you assign everyone jobs.(Again, Anthem, which didnt turn out well for that civilization)

[WaterMan90]

Why do people make money? They put their heart and effort in the hopes that they will achieve some form of return. It's like conversation, really. Money is just one of many ways to concretize this sort of return. Of course, some may do jobs because they desire to help others, they wish to fulfill a "duty", or they think it's "fun" - but the act is never selfless . There is no selfless act, or one would never perform the act at all. Now, we know that if people work toward a common purpose, they feel more unified. A strong currency strengthens an economy, and thus a nation and culture can be strengthened. Money is such a grand thing that almost every human being is involved in, and in a way it brings us together - unless there are those who try to take advantage of it, criminals and misers who hoard/manipulate with it. Without money, people really won't be as motivated to strive for goals or desires - the key idea people have mentioned here - thus collapsing society into more or less chaos. I should make a point here, though: First society, then money, not the other way around. Technically, you can't have a world without money or there would be no "world".

Without money, people would just start bartering and it wouldnt really do anything major. People would just start trading their stuff for other peoples stuff.

Bartering is fine, but you're right, it won't do "major" things. Back in the day when people were not so unified as today with its technology and Internet culture, bartering was an efficient way of fulfilling your needs and those of others as well. But to have a set standard for the grand abstract idea we call "value" ( ), money makes such trading more convenient in the fast-paced society.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by justaguy

are you kidding me? if unknown student left their steaming feces in the middle of a high school bathroom, you're telling me the simple satisfaction of cleaning it up is enough of an incentive?

I clean because I don't like things dirty, same goes for **** as for anything else. I never said that work was its own reward. (Although hard-work can be valued for itself.) People do work so that something good happens because of it, like not having **** of the floor. I don't know why you'd WANT to have **** on the floor. On another note, perhaps you'd be more inclined to find the perpetrator and make sure they wouldn't do it again if you weren't paid to clean the **** up. Besides which, if you got paid to be a ****-scooper your entire life, you might in fact get upset if people started to become more decent and stopped ****ting everywhere, because you'd then have no work. Such situations DO happen in real life. They're called luddites. They're largely a by-product of money.

Originally Posted by justaguy

and uh, what gives you that impression? you're implying that satisfaction of performing work should be an individual's only incentive and suddenly they'll be shifted into gear once they've realized their "drive." why are you presupposing something like drive within the context of work? they are not coupled entities.

Driven people do things, most of the things people do is work. We could get into a discussion about what defines work, but I'd rather not do that. I'm not saying anyone will suddenly be shifted into doing anything, either. I'm saying that doing nothing is boring, and that to assume that everyone would stop doing their job because they suddenly stopped getting paid for it is as equally assanine as saying rainbows and bunnies are what exists when money is removed.

Originally Posted by justaguy

really, you're implying those driven by money are less productive than those driven by their "true drive"?

No. I specifically tried to NOT imply that. I'm trying to say that I don't give a **** if society's productive if society isn't happy. I am also saying that I believe we have enough 'product', to live comfortably, (thanks to technology) even if people produce a lot less.

Originally Posted by justaguy

i think your short run analysis is incredibly naive. place more weight on honor? and why would they do that? why would they place any more weight on friendship than they had already? at what point does removing money from the societal equation suddenly motivate people to "do the right thing" (i won't even start the right vs. wrong debate)? i think you're under the impression that underneath the evil that is money there exists the bunnies and rainbows of passion and community.

People would place more weight on non-monetary incentives because we'd all start to become like disillusioned teenagers. If you take away someone's prime reason for doing things, they'll become lost for a short period of time before other things fill that void. That is my theory. You've already said that you agree in part with it, but you apparently don't agree that it would also work in non-critical (ie: nothing to live for) situations. Perhaps that is valid, but you've got to give me more than 'I don't see that working'. You say that most of my previous post doesn't address the right thing at all, but yet you obviously do understand how relevant it is, judging from your your response here.

Originally Posted by justaguy

you're using FFR as an example to rationalize your reasoning...? here's a sizable anecdote that maybe makes sense to you: for example, most people that work late do it because they need the money. this may come as a surprise to you, but golly gee, why is overtime sometimes pay and a half? is it because employers have modeled human behavior and realized employees need a greater incentive to work more hours than they originally preferred? or because they really feel like people should be rewarded for staying around late and helping the short staffed?

But why should we add extra incentive for working more hours at all? I've already said, I don't care about being more productive, I care about being happy.

Originally Posted by justaguy

woah woah pump the brakes, i thought you were riding the satisfaction wave? suddenly everyone is doing things for themselves and not for the good of other people? supply and demand falls apart without money? lol.

Supply and demand have been studied under a society that revolves around money, and which uses money as an integral measure of them. If you remove the money, the validity of the models of supply and demand would at the very least be questionable. I also never said people would be doing things for the good of other people. In fact, some would say that if we produced less stuff means we'd by definition be doing worse as a society.

Originally Posted by justaguy

uh, how is money shallow? money appeals to my emotions because it relieves my stress and permits a comfortable lifestyle, does this make me shallow? money is a means to an end, not an end in itself. for the few that consider money an end, shouldn't they be more passionate and productive than anyone else? they aren't confined to any specific means of employment, they just simply want money, so would they be diligent in any context?

If we have enough products and goods such that your stress would largely be non-existant for things like food and shelter and other comforts, money IS shallow. Besides which, if you want to bandy words and meanings, money DOESN'T make you comfortable. A soft bed does. (Furthermore, if money is not shallow, then please tell me what is...its like your saying shallowness doesn't exist really.) People who do consider money an end ARE more productive. They choose to run giant corporations which they choose to be tax exempt, and which often pay workers minimum wage, or who use slave labor, and who will do all types of not nice things in order just to get more money. I dunno if they'd work as hard in any other context, it would depend on the person and if they could find something else to take over what money gave them.

Originally Posted by justaguy

ah, here we go, it's that darn projecting thing. stop projecting this promising image you have of humanity on realistic situations.

Religious fanatical gangs is promising? I'm under no pretense that all non-monetary values are good. I just have a very negative image of humanity right now, and a lot of it seems to stem from capitalism.

Originally Posted by justaguy

woop woop. in other words, even if people do what they want that doesn't necessarily mean they're contributing anything worthwhile to society.

Now you're on the trolly. Except that people are social, and they will overwhelmingly contribute to other people regardless. Whether or not you consider helping your kids or spouse or friends helps society; or whether people would adopt a strong sense of wanting to help society as a whole; that's in question. Keep in mind that if any sort of social reform were to happen, everything that's in place right now won't magically disappear. It might fall away, but we will still have organization.

Originally Posted by justaguy

i don't even know the relevance of this at all. this doesn't have anything to do with the social impact of removing money it just kind of says that youth with no direction are impressionable. thanks though.

right, that's it, you got it dogg. where the hell did pride come from? we just made that **** up. nobody knew how to be proud of themselves before i made it glaringly obvious to everyone that it was something they could feel.

Pride is made up because of society. I strongly disagree that pride is an innate feeling. Most feelings we have are a result of being socialized. That we innately possess the biology to get these emotions I will agree with, but the interpretation of what all these mean are most definitely not innate. No one has to make something glaringly obvious for something to be 'made up'. Most people going into gangs don't think to themselves 'I need something to live for' before they join.

Originally Posted by justaguy

you soooo disagree? you're saying that the majority of jobs could be worked without a reward? uhhhh? you wrote a wall of text about one line of his post that didn't even showcase the point being made (that i made earlier also) which was that people aren't going to work without a valid incentive. and... they aren't.

And if you don't see the connection between adopting incentive and most of my previous post, you're dumber than you seem, because most of your post strongly implied that you did. Just because you didn't agree with what I was saying or you didn't understand it for whatever reason, doesn't mean I wasn't addressing it.

Originally Posted by justaguy

and for future ref: if you're going to PM me about my (surprisingly relevant) two line post in a thread and then request a ban about at least be able to "critically think" so you don't **** out walls of useless text.

I'm sorry if I'm verbose and use paragraphs properly. Not all ideas can properly be expressed in a sentence. Also, I PMd you after bitching about you publicly, not before. Also, I requested a ban for more reasons than just 1 post. Your siggy was representative of that. Although I do hope your ban isn't forever, because you've finally started talking.

[Stewie7Griffin]

Maybe instead of implementing the idea of abolishing money completely, we should find a solution to prevent people from using the system to their advantage. For instance, I see this A LOT, people get WIC, Food Stamps, TANF, and Medicaid, not because they can't afford the stuff they need, but only because they can't afford the stuff they want.

I find it kind of dumb that the top paid CEO of a company makes as much money as the 7th top paid NBA player. What is the NBA player getting paid to do really? Entertain? People loot and steal because they don't have the money. If they only stepped back and actually thought, if they don't loot or steal, they wouldn't have to loot or steal in the first place. People don't think this way, it's called ignorance and stupidity.

*EDIT*
The only way to change this is by an evolutionary change to the human mind.

[devonin]

I'm amused by the idea that if you abolished currency you'd be "left" with the barter system. You do realise that money -is- the barter system still, we've just allowed a way for two people who don't actually have something the other one wants to deal by providing a universal intermediate step they can trade to anybody.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by devonin

I'm amused by the idea that if you abolished currency you'd be "left" with the barter system. You do realise that money -is- the barter system still, we've just allowed a way for two people who don't actually have something the other one wants to deal by providing a universal intermediate step they can trade to anybody.

Yup yup -- which is why this discussion is just silly. Removing money doesn't suddenly make everything "free." Completely stupid way to look at it.

Removing money doesn't improve squat -- you're just removing liquidity, which comes at a cost. Money saves us money (there is a value to our monetary system) and lowers transaction costs by its very existence.

The only caveat is that we operate under a fiat system where we "accept" that the dollar is worth its value, backed by the faith and credit of the government.

[devonin]

Yup, trading goods in hand for goods in hand is the only way to make sure that you're actually getting what you think you're getting, but the opportunity cost to trade my eggs for your wheat when you don't want eggs is ridiculously high.

We've all seen episodes of sitcoms where someone has to do the absurd chain of trades to get the one thing you wanted at the beginning. Hell, we've all done fetch quests in video and computer games, and we know how annoying it is.

The entirety of what money represents economically is the abilty to a) acquire goods when you don't have goods the other person wants and values equally and b) to stockpile resources in order to acquire something you couldn't ordinarily get in one transaction. Beyond that, it's not -like- bartering, it -is- bartering

[mhss1992]

What bothers me about money is that it's not directly proportional to the true value of things. As I see it, it creates lots of stupid and unnecessary limitations.

I think that things could still work better without an exchange system but with a different credit system. Like this: as a normal citizen, you would have access to basic stuff like food, water, school, etc. But with limitations. In order to gain more privileges, you'd have to work and, depending on the utility of your work (which would have to be debated) gain a certain ammount of credit that would be recorded in some database. However, this credit would not be exchangeable. It would lower if you committed crimes or stopped working for a long time, but would only increase if you kept working (since you wouldn't really exchange it for anything).

Everyone would be given the same opportunities. No one would be born rich or poor. The government would have to provide stuff for people until a certain age, before they needed to start working.

The only problem is that something like this would only work if a large enough independent group of countries decided to do the same.

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

Money saves us money

I do know what you mean, but, still...

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

What bothers me about money is that it's not directly proportional to the true value of things. As I see it, it creates lots of stupid and unnecessary limitations.

I think that things could still work better without an exchange system but with a different credit system. Like this: as a normal citizen, you would have access to basic stuff like food, water, school, etc. But with limitations. In order to gain more privileges, you'd have to work and, depending on the utility of your work (which would have to be debated) gain a certain ammount of credit that would be recorded in some database. However, this credit would not be exchangeable. It would lower if you committed crimes or stopped working for a long time, but would only increase if you kept working (since you wouldn't really exchange it for anything).

Everyone would be given the same opportunities. No one would be born rich or poor. The government would have to provide stuff for people until a certain age, before they needed to start working.

The only problem is that something like this would only work if a large enough independent group of countries decided to do the same.



I do know what you mean, but, still...

It's not a perfect system -- utility is a personalized concept, and prices reflect willingness/demand and its interplay with supply. The problem isn't with money though -- it's, differentiation of consumer demand profiles. I might be willing to exchange with you ten apples for your ten oranges, but someone else may want eleven or twelve -- others may not want anything from you at all. Therefore, the "value" of something is dependent on the market. Also throw into the mix the idea that identifying true value is not always easy. Our perception of value is oftentimes not perfect -- we don't always have all the information (and even when we do, it's hard to calculate), and our desires for additional profits pushes things further up the chain whenever we can get away with it.

Again though, this isn't a problem with money in itself, although problems CAN occur when you start ****ing with monetary policy (for instance, messing with the money supply over the long run and causing undesirable levels of inflation). Paying off your debts by simply printing more money doesn't necessarily SOLVE the underlying problem. It just buys you time.

[foilman8805]

Originally Posted by Stewie7Griffin

I find it kind of dumb that the top paid CEO of a company makes as much money as the 7th top paid NBA player. What is the NBA player getting paid to do really? Entertain? People loot and steal because they don't have the money. If they only stepped back and actually thought, if they don't loot or steal, they wouldn't have to loot or steal in the first place. People don't think this way, it's called ignorance and stupidity

Sure, the NBA player is pretty heavily overpaid, but when you made this analogy you definitely didn't realize how much CEOs are overpaid as well, especially in the United States.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

It's not a perfect system -- utility is a personalized concept, and prices reflect willingness/demand and its interplay with supply. The problem isn't with money though -- it's, differentiation of consumer demand profiles. I might be willing to exchange with you ten apples for your ten oranges, but someone else may want eleven or twelve -- others may not want anything from you at all. Therefore, the "value" of something is dependent on the market. Also throw into the mix the idea that identifying true value is not always easy. Our perception of value is oftentimes not perfect -- we don't always have all the information (and even when we do, it's hard to calculate), and our desires for additional profits pushes things further up the chain whenever we can get away with it.

Again though, this isn't a problem with money in itself, although problems CAN occur when you start ****ing with monetary policy (for instance, messing with the money supply over the long run and causing undesirable levels of inflation). Paying off your debts by simply printing more money doesn't necessarily SOLVE the underlying problem. It just buys you time.

I guess someone could try to create a value system based on the ammount of work needed to produce things...

What about that suggestion, non-exchangeable credits?
It might still not reflect the true value of things, but it could be a more fair and safe system.

E.g: with 10000 credits, you can own a small house, a car and a computer. You'll gain 200 credits every month if you keep working. Does it seem possible?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by foilman8805

Sure, the NBA player is pretty heavily overpaid, but when you made this analogy you definitely didn't realize how much CEOs are overpaid as well, especially in the United States.

Though I certainly agree that professional athletes are overpaid in the absolute sense, they -do- have a perfectly valid justification to be paid more per year than would be maybe more proper for what they do.

Professional athletes start training for their career as young as 3 or 4 years old, and basically have to dedicate their entire upbringing to that sport. By the time they are 17-19 (depending on sport) and old enough to be drafted into a professional league, they've spent more years on their 'education' than Doctors, and have as few as 10 years of prime conditioning in which to live out their career.

In that 10 years they basically have to make 45 years worth of income, because once they can't cut it as a professional athlete anymore, the majority of them have no education in another field, and very few transferable skills. And at any time, the wrong kind of injury can invalidate the entire course of their life, leaving them with nothing.

Mostly they retire onto their profits, or just slowly work their way down the existing leagues for another 10 or 15 years making dramatically and progresively less money.

I mean, it's their free choice to get into a career where the training takes more years than the career does, but if we're going to incentivise professional athleticism, it makes sense that they've got to earn their entire life's salary over the ten or fifteen years they actually have proper earning power.

[Reincarnate]

Let me put it this way, guys: How many athletes do you know of are actually good enough to participate with the others in the NBA? And, after you answer that question, consider this: After all profits are acquired, how do you appropriately divide said profits?

Athletes are paid what they are because of the fans. Without so much fan appeal -- without so many people watching/getting tickets to the games and reading/writing/caring about the players -- they wouldn't get paid what they do. You might be busting your ass off at your 9-5, but consider how much revenue pro players bring in and just how many people are being entertained at the same time. Further consider the advertising revenue and the profits generated to sponsors, etc.

It's all the result of market forces and value addition. You might sit back and say "Gah! These CEOs are paid so much! These NBA players are paid so much!" but you also have to consider that these guys are adding lots of value. The problems come in when, say, a particular player isn't really leveraging the skill that got them there (someone getting paid a ****load for a game they didn't really do squat in) or when a player gets greedy and jacks up salary demands past what market equilibrium/reasonable thresholds would imply (a sort of moral hazard -- the salary is meant to be seen as an investment of your value addition. You shoudn't get lazy just because you know the reward is coming, but this is why so many firms get into variable compensations and bonuses based on value addition on top of a given base). It's easy for the average joe to get pissed off at some NBA player who puts in a matter of hours in and reaps millions... but hey, if you think you're good enough to play alongside these guys, feel free to try it.

Same goes for actors, hedge fund managers, etc. You can have relatively small groups with extreme profits -- you just have to benefit a LOT of people with your tentacles of influence.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

I guess someone could try to create a value system based on the ammount of work needed to produce things...

What about that suggestion, non-exchangeable credits?
It might still not reflect the true value of things, but it could be a more fair and safe system.

E.g: with 10000 credits, you can own a small house, a car and a computer. You'll gain 200 credits every month if you keep working. Does it seem possible?

Your system doesn't solve anything. How is saying "with 10,000 credits you can buy a house" any different from saying "with X dollars I can buy a house" -- only now you're limiting what people can buy as a way to keep resources at bay?

[Rubin0]

I don't think human beings can exist without some sort of barter system. Money is just a refined way people have treaded for goods and services since the beginning of our species. If it weren't dollars, it would be shells, or something shiny. Even other primates have primitive form of barter systems. I scratch your back if you scratch mine. I'll give you this banana if you pick out the bugs from my fur. It's just the way we intelligent mammals role.