BF2S Forums Entire World System is Flawed

Seriously?

We need to money to ascribe a value to services and goods to determine their relative worth to things we want/need to have. Otherwise how would I know if my desk job is enough to exchange for a bowl of rice?

That is as simple as I can make it.

FM, Communism still calls for the use of money despite wealth redistribution and supposed equality. It would still be needed to determine the amount of goods you are entitled to (haha communism and beveridgean universality makes me laugh) and the amount of work you need to do to contribute.

Pochsy wrote:

FM, Communism still calls for the use of money despite wealth redistribution and supposed equality. It would still be needed to determine the amount of goods you are entitled to (haha communism and beveridgean universality makes me laugh) and the amount of work you need to do to contribute.

You can have Communism with money, but you can't have anything but Communism or anarchy without money. At least off the top of my head I can't think of any society that can work with nothing more complex than a barter system.

Money and currency are two related, yet slightly different concepts.

Money is this "stuff" - coins, notes, whatever - which has an agreed value, and which we give and receive in exchange for goods and services.  We are not forced to trade our money as soon as we receive it, and we can store for future use.  Money is a form of currency.

In a barter system, we trade goods and services without the exchange of money.  As with money, we we can store goods for future use/trade, but we can not do this with services.  Tradeable goods and services, in effect, become the currency.

Scenario A:
If Bob's computer breaks under a barter society, he is faced with two options - trade for a new computer, or trade to have the computer fixed.  Jane is the computer person in Bob's village - she trades for computers, and can fix them.  Bob approaches Jane, offering her either a sack of rice or a goat in exchange for either a new computer or the repair of his present one.  Jane already has too much rice and too many goats, so she declines, but says that if Bob can find a sack of Beans then they can do business.  Problem: There are no bean growers within 50km of Bob's village.  Bob travels to the nearest bean village and attempts to trade for beans.  Nobody wants to trade, but Flynn tells Bob that Janine the blacksmith in the neighbouring village has a box of horse shoes which Flynn wants, and that Janine is looking for a goat.  Bob has to take the goat to Janine, take the horse shoes to Flynn to trade for the sack of beans, and take the beans 50km back to his village to trade with Jane.  All the while he has been needlessly lugging a sack of rice.

Scenario B:
If Bob's computer breaks down under a money society, he goes to Jane's computer shop and has it repaired.  As payment, he hands over some of the money he gained by selling rice and goats a month earlier.

Note: This is not a defense of the present banking system, I'd be a fool to defend that, its just a defense of the idea of money as a form of currency.

Money, while it causes a great many headaches for a great many people, has its benefits.  One of them is that it saves time, and thus increases productivity.

Last edited by Pubic (2009-04-29 23:12:33)

I agree, the entire world system is flawed.
There is plenty of Youtube videos to document that.

Money doesn't really exist anymore, not in any meaningful sense at least.

It might take a total collapse and a run on the banks before most people realise this though. All the Republicans out there who continually attack the much-maligned bail-out plan might have realised this if the banks weren't in fact guaranteed and everyone had rushed to empty their accounts leaving them standing at the ATM scratching their heads as to why they can't withdraw money from their imaginary balances.

I did read somewhere the value of derivatives being traded was greater than the entire world money supply.
Once that point is reached the system is doomed.

Then at least this:

Instead of making pointless coins that you actually loose money making (pennies for instance) when the value of that 1000s of tons of mental could be used elsewhere more efficiently, and instead of having money rule our own existence, how about you expand the ways you can invest in others' products/services/etc. Such as trading equal things/services/etc. This is my main point. It is drastic to say we shouldn't have money, because it has existed in some form or another for as long as there's been trade, but, why not a world currency? Why should self-defined pieces of paper and numbers be of different value between geographical locations?

Diesel: I agree, it started out as an easier means for world trade, but now it's turned into a variable that controls modern society and worth.

Flaming: In my OP it essentially is the same thing as communism, in the sense that it'd work perfectly             theoretically. In my head I can see many small details that would mean it would work, but in reality and when factoring human nature, I'm sure it wouldn't. But the people here are taking my post to literally. This essentially was intended to discuss plausible ways of reforming the world economy/monetary system as a whole. Which, apparently, most of you didn't get; hence this post.

Pubic: I see your point obviously, but, you can't deny there are different, if not better, way to do things (which, again, is the point of this thread).

xBlackPantherx wrote:

Now, this may just be me, but I think the whole system of money is flawed. I mean, I can see why it exists because people used to trade for services/good etc. But, it's gone from trading things of actual equivalent items (goat for barrel of corn etc) to us trading self-defined digital numbers and worthless papers/plastics/cloths what ever. It's pointless and is probably the biggest world issue out there; people having lack/greed etc of money.

Theoretically, it would be simple enough to implement (the absence of money) with the help of something like the UN. If most major countries agreed to, it would be very easy. Those who didn't comply, their money would be useless everywhere including the global economy and they would certainly loose money from lack of tourists/foreign/world business that they would eventually be forced to. There's more I can write down, but for now, debate.

GTFO YOU NWO SHILL!

<3

Money itself isn't bad...

Fiat money is the problem.

Ioan92 wrote:

I personally think that when people will realize they are being ripped off WW3 will start I'm sure 100%. The winners of this war will dictate our future.

We need something like the Venus Project. Something that manages resources in an intelligent manner, introduces automation, thus removing the need for work and thus, of money.

I have often cited the Star Trek reality as the ultimate goal for our future.

Your point is radical, but bears consideration. If there was a unified goal of getting off a turbulent and doomed planet and the majority of our citizens were all joined in this case humans might survive afterall.

If there was no money. Interesting concept.
What if robots did harvest our food, and intelligent computers made sure water and irrigation systems were sustainable? Instead of saying everybody would starve, could it be possible that everybody would simply work together for space exploration?

What if all the money spent on bombs and ballots got spent on spaceships and mining robots? What if all the scientist started working on better propulsion systems and all the things related to spacelife and stopped inventing new ways to kill each other?

There would be a possible rebirth of humanity. Rank and advancement could be a merit and social service based thing instead of a race of corruption.

As it is, there will always be a majority of people who live in a lessor standard. There will always be a corrupt hierarchy. Take away money and the very concept of nations and demand a concerted effort to survive as a species apart from this planet.

Do it.

ATG wrote:

Ioan92 wrote:

I personally think that when people will realize they are being ripped off WW3 will start I'm sure 100%. The winners of this war will dictate our future.

We need something like the Venus Project. Something that manages resources in an intelligent manner, introduces automation, thus removing the need for work and thus, of money.

I have often cited the Star Trek reality as the ultimate goal for our future.

Your point is radical, but bears consideration. If there was a unified goal of getting off a turbulent and doomed planet and the majority of our citizens were all joined in this case humans might survive afterall.

If there was no money. Interesting concept.
What if robots did harvest our food, and intelligent computers made sure water and irrigation systems were sustainable? Instead of saying everybody would starve, could it be possible that everybody would simply work together for space exploration?

What if all the money spent on bombs and ballots got spent on spaceships and mining robots? What if all the scientist started working on better propulsion systems and all the things related to spacelife and stopped inventing new ways to kill each other?

There would be a possible rebirth of humanity. Rank and advancement could be a merit and social service based thing instead of a race of corruption.

As it is, there will always be a majority of people who live in a lessor standard. There will always be a corrupt hierarchy. Take away money and the very concept of nations and demand a concerted effort to survive as a species apart from this planet.

Do it.

And I was watching the Star Trek trailer... Coincidence? LOL