what would the world look like without money

[fallian]

i know the idea is very utopian, but picture this : we dont need money for exchange because everything belongs to everyone. And then i hear you say " but what if two people want the same thing at the same time", answer : were not kids anymore there are many solutions for this , like having multiple x's or making a time schedule of who can use it when he wants.

for example if someone had 5 cows and 3 chickens because he likes to farm , but he wants to ride a rollercoaster, the technicians will love to do that for him because they like doing that. Then i hear you say but what about the "****" jobs that noone likes to do like putting out the garbage. I believe the solution to that is a bit futuristic , but robots would do it for us. Feel free to spam this post with ideas


oww and btw im gonna make use of the fact that a lot of people read this by commercialising myself i have this youtube account where i make remixes of famous songs. if you like music you could check it out

link to youtube channel : ik1ik1ik1's Channel - YouTube

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by fallian

i know the idea is very utopian, but picture this : we dont need money for exchange because everything belongs to everyone. And then i hear you say " but what if two people want the same thing at the same time", answer : were not kids anymore there are many solutions for this , like having multiple x's or making a time schedule of who can use it when he wants.

for example if someone had 5 cows and 3 chickens because he likes to farm , but he wants to ride a rollercoaster, the technicians will love to do that for him because they like doing that. Then i hear you say but what about the "****" jobs that noone likes to do like putting out the garbage. I believe the solution to that is a bit futuristic , but robots would do it for us. Feel free to spam this post with ideas


oww and btw im gonna make use of the fact that a lot of people read this by commercialising myself i have this youtube account where i make remixes of famous songs. if you like music you could check it out

link to youtube channel : ik1ik1ik1's Channel - YouTube

The major thing no-money utopians refuse to see is human nature........ What aspect of human nature you may ask?

Just as people do their best work when they are doing what they love, and they work best and longer when working for people who they love...,. People will always work best.... Significantly better when working for themselves. All the countries that have tried to decrease the motivation of individual riches have failed miserably.

Human nature 101: there are lot of lazy people who would let others produce while they sponge

You assume people will work equally as hard if not uniquely compensated which history shows not to be the case. Technology will not have come as far as it has with no money.

Why?

What incentive does the clever inventor have to work 17 hour days for 20 years? Goods?

If you are a better worker than your colleague would you be ok with the same compensation?

How would you feel if educational institutes around the world decided to do away with grades and pass everyone regardless of standards, even if you drew trees on your test papers?

[fallian]

intresting, i overlooked that part.. human nature.

maybe in my utopian world, goods and money and having cool stuff doesnt intrest people anymore because they can have everything they want , and people would work 17 hour days if they would love what they made just for the sake off evolution,

you say : people will get lazy and do nothing and just take food, but eventually they will get bored and start doing something produtcive

[Ender22]

Originally Posted by fallian

Iv just got this genius idea that i should start some sort of new religion that would completely revise how the world works. Like a new fresh start with the experience of all the flaws we had in the previous world system. First of all i would get rid of money because it makes people do things they dont wanna do. Second of all i would get rid of all the useles things people do, for example banks who are actually wasting a lot of peoples time and are completely useless if u think about it, what do u think about that?

You sir, need to check out the Zeitgeist Movement.
It may be exactly the new ideas you are looking for.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by fallian

intresting, i overlooked that part.. human nature.

maybe in my utopian world, goods and money and having cool stuff doesnt intrest people anymore because they can have everything they want , and people would work 17 hour days if they would love what they made just for the sake off evolution,

you say : people will get lazy and do nothing and just take food, but eventually they will get bored and start doing something produtcive

I'm from the former soviet union. It might as well have been a world without money. Rich people who can have anything they want, are STILL interested in cool stuff. Overlooking human nature in your equation, is like overlooking flower, while making bread, or tires when making a car. Maybe one day there will be flying cars, but till then, we got wheels to worry about. There is no such thing as a world without money. Someone will always have something of value, and someone will always be in charge, and someone will always have more then another, and one person will always do less work then someone else.

And to your second part.. People ALREADY are lazy and do nothing and just take food, and they are evolving into MORE people who are lazy and do nothing and just take food. You are expecting some type of spark, that would change an entire culture of people from one way of living, into another. Welfare IS your no money world, where people don't have to do anything, and get what ever they want. Are they bored? What incentive do/would they have for actually getting a job? Now multiply that by a few billion.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Ender22

You sir, need to check out the Zeitgeist Movement.
It may be exactly the new ideas you are looking for.

Ideas are all they have. I've never seen one of them explain just how to achieve everything they want. He should probably read Karl Marx books too while he's at it. Great ideas for a perfect world, and like the OP, also doesn't include human nature into the equation.

[Ender22]

Originally Posted by Orecle

The major thing no-money utopians refuse to see is human nature........ What aspect of human nature you may ask?

Just as people do their best work when they are doing what they love, and they work best and longer when working for people who they love...,. People will always work best.... Significantly better when working for themselves. All the countries that have tried to decrease the motivation of individual riches have failed miserably.

Human nature 101: there are lot of lazy people who would let others produce while they sponge

You assume people will work equally as hard if not uniquely compensated which history shows not to be the case. Technology will not have come as far as it has with no money.

Why?

What incentive does the clever inventor have to work 17 hour days for 20 years? Goods?

If you are a better worker than your colleague would you be ok with the same compensation?

How would you feel if educational institutes around the world decided to do away with grades and pass everyone regardless of standards, even if you drew trees on your test papers?

The common understanding of 'human nature' is actually quite flawed.
The idea that there is all these negative behaviour 'greed, corruption, violence' ect, is scientifically invalid.
Science shows us that nearly all of our behaviour (besides minor genetic influences which can be overcome through education) comes from our environment.

We live in a system that reinforced and rewards greed, corruption, manipulation, and so on. and thus this system generates this type of behaviour within people.

What about incentives? Check out this video for starters
RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us - YouTube
science shows us that money actually is a deterrent to innovation and creativity and more rather than a motivating factor.
Look at all of the wonderful open source projects like wikipedia and linux and so on and how successful they are as well.

There really is no human nature, and if you change the environment human behaviour will change with it. Perhaps without the profit motive we can even change our behaviour from that of taking from the planet and others, to instead sustaining the world.

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by Ender22

The common understanding of 'human nature' is actually quite flawed.
The idea that there is all these negative behaviour 'greed, corruption, violence' ect, is scientifically invalid.
Science shows us that nearly all of our behaviour (besides minor genetic influences which can be overcome through education) comes from our environment.

We live in a system that reinforced and rewards greed, corruption, manipulation, and so on. and thus this system generates this type of behaviour within people.

What about incentives? Check out this video for starters
RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us - YouTube
science shows us that money actually is a deterrent to innovation and creativity and more rather than a motivating factor.
Look at all of the wonderful open source projects like wikipedia and linux and so on and how successful they are as well.

There really is no human nature, and if you change the environment human behaviour will change with it. Perhaps without the profit motive we can even change our behaviour from that of taking from the planet and others, to instead sustaining the world.

Not to be rude but

WTF

Are you serious? There is so much obvious untruth in your post i don't know where to start

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by fallian

intresting, i overlooked that part.. human nature.

,

you say : people will get lazy and do nothing and just take food, but eventually they will get bored and start doing something produtcive

Hahaha cos that has worked already. Take a look at the Greeks or the welfare problems of Britain and tell me people will get off welfare by choice.

Good luck with your utopia, but it will never be.

Russian rockets post was spot on

[Vibration]

Originally Posted by fallian

do you think this is achievable in real life? i would love to have some more posts on this "idea"

I have to say, I feel a bit foolish trading trinkets like coins and pretty paper bills for food and stuff. It feels a little like being a kid and playing some kind of store game with beads, shells, pretty rocks or some other stuff.

Just because no one has come up with a brilliant alternative doesn't mean there isn't one. There's got to be something better than what we're doing. It feels like only one step removed from using stone tools, to me. Is currency (token or object) trading really the best we can come up with for distributing goods and services around? Just because people are smart in one aspect doesn't mean they're not stupid in another, and this is one aspect of civilization that defiantly seems stupid to me.

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by Vibration

I have to say, I feel a bit foolish trading trinkets like coins and pretty paper bills for food and stuff. It feels a little like being a kid and playing some kind of store game with beads, shells, pretty rocks or some other stuff.

Just because no one has come up with a brilliant alternative doesn't mean there isn't one. There's got to be something better than what we're doing. It feels like only one step removed from using stone tools, to me. Is currency (token or object) trading really the best we can come up with for distributing goods and services around? Just because people are smart in one aspect doesn't mean they're not stupid in another, and this is one aspect of civilization that defiantly seems stupid to me.

Then get a credit card makes no difference. There is no other way to trade unless you don't believe we should trade at all?

Why do we have to think of a better method for trade? People have tried since the Dawn of time. It's barter or currency or commune style all eggs in the community basket.

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by Ender22

The common understanding of 'human nature' is actually quite flawed.
The idea that there is all these negative behaviour 'greed, corruption, violence' ect, is scientifically invalid.
Science shows us that nearly all of our behaviour (besides minor genetic influences which can be overcome through education)

Wrong!!! science does not invalidate greed, corruption, violence. Where did you get this stuff? sciences does not show that these behaivours can be overcome, personal development does. The only science that looks at behaivours are psychology and social sciences. Sometimes politics and to a small degree biology and economics.

Originally Posted by Ender22

We live in a system that reinforced and rewards greed, corruption, manipulation, and so on. and thus this system generates this type of behaviour within people..

And guess who invented this system? Guess who maintains this system?

Yep us pesky humans, with the our human nature you claim doesn't exist. Every despot who tried to go against that core human natural instinct called greed, ended up using plenty of violence to enforce it. Stalin, pol pot, chairman Mao just to name a few.

Originally Posted by Ender22

What about incentives? Check out this video for starters
RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us - YouTube
science shows us that money actually is a deterrent to innovation and creativity and more rather than a motivating factor.
Look at all of the wonderful open source projects like wikipedia and linux and so on and how successful they are as well

That's the flaw in your thinking. Science does not show us what motivates us. Science study's what motivates us. In other-words we show science what motivates us.

Do humans like porn? Yep

How do we know that? Well it's everywhere. It's routinely in the top ten most viewed searches on any search engine. Did we choose or did science.

Linux and wikepedia were the products of individuals who had learnt their stuff from for profit organisations like microsoft, apple, sun microsystems. Using Linux as an example is like using the bill and melinda gates foundation as an example of wealth creation since it has 20 billion in assets. Let's overlook the fact that every penny was donated from the excess of for-profits.

Money is a tool of exchange. Money is the only efficient way to trade for your desires
Wish for a new shiny laptop? You can go to the computer store and work 90 hrs if the owner requires! Wait, no you can't. All those other individuals wanting computers have offered that.

So what do you have to trade? Wait, what if he doesn't want that?

Oh, yes money? That tool you demonise? That tool that is a representation of incentives that he can store for later use to purchase desires or he can go
and purchase these desires right now

All the goods and services you tend to use for the week, how could you without money trade for them?

[fallian]

i know, .. my statemet was way too surealistic, u are indeed right that we need money , maybe someone knows another system that works even better, feel free to post, but i doubt that you convinced me

but what do you guys think about my statement that we should bannish all "lost" activities in the world ( i mean activities who are kinda useless of you think them through) like commercials, insurance, drugs,... porn ( just kidding )

[sunbeam]

I've thought about this often. I like the idea of Capitalism becuase it causes people to strive to be better, develop their skills, and have a better business. On the other hand, I like the idea of Communism (it's not as bad as everyone thinks, what happened in Russia and other communist countries was NOT communism. It was the bourgeoisie (elite) and proletariat (peasant) system taken to a terrible extreme, that was not communism even though they called it that) because it would make sure that there are no people on the streets begging for food and having nothing to live on.

The middle ground between Capitalism and Communism would be to CAP the top on Capitalism. This is really the best way to handle this. People would still have incentive to make a great product, biz, succeed, have some luxury material things, but not to the point of excess where they can't even use all the money they have in one lifetime, or hold half the world's wealth like the Rothchild's do (or Rockefellers, don't remember which, doesn't matter, they both hold most of the world's wealth and couldn't spend it all in a million lifetimes, it's ridiculous).

It would work something like this: Everyone would get a livable amount per month, like the dole, whether they worked or not. After all, we do need the poets, the artists, even the surfers, and if they can just live in a humble situation, but not poverty, that would be supported by the global community "pot" so to speak. Eventually they will tire of not having thier own house and might want to raise a family and kids, so for that they're going to have to work a little more, maybe not to the point of exhaustion we have to do now just to make ends meet, but enough to change their "being on the dole" situtation.

The people who do make the big bucks, like $40 million a year and such, they only get to keep $5 million a year, and the rest goes into the global community pot. That way, they still get to experience a rich lifestyle, but they aren't harming the world by hoarding all that money and taking it out of circulation. It goes back to the greater good.

Anyway, that's my view on it, to find the happy meeting between the extremes. That would be one way to solve it. Money is so hard for most of us to get enough of, and those who have enough still don't feel like they have enough, so this is a deeper sickness in humanity.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by sunbeam

I've thought about this often. I like the idea of Capitalism becuase it causes people to strive to be better, develop their skills, and have a better business. On the other hand, I like the idea of Communism (it's not as bad as everyone thinks, what happened in Russia and other communist countries was NOT communism. It was the bourgeoisie (elite) and proletariat (peasant) system taken to a terrible extreme, that was not communism even though they called it that) because it would make sure that there are no people on the streets begging for food and having nothing to live on.

The middle ground between Capitalism and Communism would be to CAP the top on Capitalism. This is really the best way to handle this. People would still have incentive to make a great product, biz, succeed, have some luxury material things, but not to the point of excess where they can't even use all the money they have in one lifetime, or hold half the world's wealth like the Rothchild's do (or Rockefellers, don't remember which, doesn't matter, they both hold most of the world's wealth and couldn't spend it all in a million lifetimes, it's ridiculous).

It would work something like this: Everyone would get a livable amount per month, like the dole, whether they worked or not. After all, we do need the poets, the artists, even the surfers, and if they can just live in a humble situation, but not poverty, that would be supported by the global community "pot" so to speak. Eventually they will tire of not having thier own house and might want to raise a family and kids, so for that they're going to have to work a little more, maybe not to the point of exhaustion we have to do now just to make ends meet, but enough to change their "being on the dole" situtation.

The people who do make the big bucks, like $40 million a year and such, they only get to keep $5 million a year, and the rest goes into the global community pot. That way, they still get to experience a rich lifestyle, but they aren't harming the world by hoarding all that money and taking it out of circulation. It goes back to the greater good.

Anyway, that's my view on it, to find the happy meeting between the extremes. That would be one way to solve it. Money is so hard for most of us to get enough of, and those who have enough still don't feel like they have enough, so this is a deeper sickness in humanity.

No person would be willing to give up 85% of their income. That is just ridiculous. They aren't harming the world by keeping their money, that they EARNED. And no, people making money for doing NOTHING, will continue doing NOTHING, and making money. There isn't a single situation on this planet in the history of commerce that shows the opposite.

[JSB]

Originally Posted by Ender22

There really is no human nature, and if you change the environment human behaviour will change with it. Perhaps without the profit motive we can even change our behaviour from that of taking from the planet and others, to instead sustaining the world.

This idea, while perhaps coming from a well meaning place, is responsible for some of the greatest examples of oppression, mass murder, and tyrannical government in history. There absolutely ARE inherent elements of human nature, and the only way to create a society that can ignore them while maintaining its own stability, is to crush the individual into dust.

[sunbeam]

Do you honestly think that someone who's making $40 million a year is EARNING that money? No. They are doing nothing, everyone else is working, and they are jut reaping all the profits.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by sunbeam

Do you honestly think that someone who's making $40 million a year is EARNING that money? No. They are doing nothing, everyone else is working, and they are jut reaping all the profits.

jealous much? There you go, changing my words around. I use specific words, for specific purposes, and changing one word, can change the meaning of the entire sentence. I said EARNED. Not EARNING. It might seem like the same thing to you, but I assure you, it's not. Most of them, did something in their lives, that got them to that point. Something that workers did not do. That is what EARNED them the 40 mil, which they now can make much easier then when they initially started. Everyone has an opportunity to become rich, if they put in enough effort. Every single type of person has become rich. People who were dirt poor their whole lives, beaten, in bad families, no education, etc etc. Sure, some are born into it, and some win the lotto. Who are you to discount a persons effort, no matter how small, and who are you to decide the worth of that individuals effort?

I started a business, and put a lot of time and effort into it. Now, I sit around on my ass for most of the day, and make good money for the little time that I do put in. While I don't work by the hour, I'd say I make somewhere between $100-300 for every actual hour that I put into it. I do FAR less work, then the people who actually make the products that I sell, and I make 10 times as them. Is that unfair, and should I give up 90% of my income to those people earning 10% of my income, so that we could be... even?

An intelligent person, will setup a business, where they no longer have to work to make money. That's called intelligence, which you seem to be saying is a bad thing, and deserves punishment. What makes a 9-5 worker earning $10 an hour, better then someone else?

and considering that you think people doing NOTHING to earn money, should make money, it doesn't seem like you have an issue with people getting something for nothing. After all, we need rich people, just like we need poets and artists and surfers. So why does it bother you, when that something, is a higher number? It's called liberal hypocrisy.

oh it felt so good getting that all out

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by sunbeam

It would work something like this: Everyone would get a livable amount per month, like the dole, whether they worked or not. After all, we do need the poets, the artists, even the surfers, and if they can just live in a humble situation, but not poverty, that would be supported by the global community "pot" so to speak. Eventually they will tire of not having thier own house and might want to raise a family and kids, so for that they're going to have to work a little more, maybe not to the point of exhaustion we have to do now just to make ends meet, but enough to change their "being on the dole" situtation.

What I don't get is why you think they shouldn't have to contribute at all. Why can't they work, say, 20 hours a week, and do their creative pursuits or their surfing the rest of the time? This is common now . . . aspiring actors and artists, for instance, often have part-time jobs to pay the rent while they pursue their dreams.

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by sunbeam

Do you honestly think that someone who's making $40 million a year is EARNING that money? No. They are doing nothing, everyone else is working, and they are jut reaping all the profits.

You don't get it
Wow
Take a look at pc. It runs on a piece of software made by a company called Microsoft. Your pc was made by a certain company. Now I can confidently guess that the founder and chairman of Microsoft who has definitely made more than 40 million a year for several years has done more work than you and your closest 10 friends combined.

If you are running a mac or have an iPod, I can confidently tell you Steve jobs who recently retired has personally done more work and added more value than you and your 20 closest friends.

Please prove me wrong if you can

You really need to research the world before making broad statements like that

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Orecle

You don't get it
Wow
Take a look at pc. It runs on a piece of software made by a company called Microsoft. Your pc was made by a certain company. Now I can confidently guess that the founder and chairman of Microsoft who has definitely made more than 40 million a year for several years has done more work than you and your closest 10 friends combined.

If you are running a mac or have an iPod, I can confidently tell you Steve jobs who recently retired has personally done more work and added more value than you and your 20 closest friends.

Please prove me wrong if you can

You really need to research the world before making broad statements like that

You're the one making these claims. The onus of proof is on your shoulders. I have no idea how you're going to prove that Bill Gates works more than 11 people combined though. I think providing value isn't directly related to working more hours. And I happen to think providing value is more important than making money.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

You're the one making these claims. The onus of proof is on your shoulders. I have no idea how you're going to prove that Bill Gates works more than 11 people combined though. I think providing value isn't directly related to working more hours. And I happen to think providing value is more important than making money.

I don't see you asking the other poster to prove that millionaires do nothing.

[MariconesUnited]

That's because I don't see him making that claim.

EDIT: Maybe I should look more?

Yeah. It's a baseless claim. I believe it's hyperbole. I suppose what triggered my response is "prove me wrong if you can". It's a fallacy and I'm allergic lol.

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

That's because I don't see him making that claim.

EDIT: Maybe I should look more?

Yeah. It's a baseless claim. I believe it's hyperbole. I suppose what triggered my response is "prove me wrong if you can". It's a fallacy and I'm allergic lol.

And if I said students who consistently get A GRADES study more hours on average than students who consistently fail a majority of their classes you won't believe me right?

Would I have to get studies out to prove that to you?

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

You're the one making these claims. The onus of proof is on your shoulders. I have no idea how you're going to prove that Bill Gates works more than 11 people combined though. I think providing value isn't directly related to working more hours. And I happen to think providing value is more important than making money.

Really the person who designs your car, airplane, the next wonder drug or all the other PHYSICALLY TANGIBLE VALUEABLE PRODUCTS doesn't need many hours to do it, no?

The professor study's a degree, masters then a doctorate then goes on to shape tomorrows minds didn't take years in the form of hours to get where they are, no?

So then by your logic since adding value doesn't require a long time, then neither does being near the top of any profession since all the bet people at anything have put in many hours to get there

[Orecle]

Originally Posted by sunbeam

It would work something like this: Everyone would get a livable amount per month, like the dole, whether they worked or not. After all, we do need the poets, the artists, even the surfers, and if they can just live in a humble situation, but not poverty, that would be supported by the global community "pot" so to speak. Eventually they will tire of not having thier own house and might want to raise a family and kids, so for that they're going to have to work a little more, maybe not to the point of exhaustion we have to do now just to make ends meet, but enough to change their "being on the dole" situtation.

The people who do make the big bucks, like $40 million a year and such, they only get to keep $5 million a year, and the rest goes into the global community pot. That way, they still get to experience a rich lifestyle, but they aren't harming the world by hoarding all that money and taking it out of circulation. It goes back to the greater good.

Anyway, that's my view on it, to find the happy meeting between the extremes. That would be one way to solve it. Money is so hard for most of us to get enough of, and those who have enough still don't feel like they have enough, so this is a deeper sickness in humanity.

Your view shows your naivety of economics and politics.

Here's why.

What do you think will happen if you gave everyone in the world 5 million?
Now if you recognise that this will be ludicrous then surely you recognise the lunacy of putting a cap on the wealth of individuals who make money, and sharing the rest of what they make
What would happen if no car was allowed to be sold for more than 30000 dollars? Including bugatti veyron, bentleys, mercedes s class, BMW 7 series
Tell me how would you feel if there was a points cap on professional football, basketball or baseball games, so that points can be passed on to the losing team that did nothing to produce the goals. Can you imagine that?
'a winning team is only aloud to have 5 times the points of a losing team'.

So what about all the individuals who upon launch instantly become worth millions or even billions ala Facebook? Should we now devalue Facebook or shall we cap the value of private companies ( which is what makes individuals rich not annual salaries) shall we make the value of walmart just enough to make the family 5 million each a year?

Any billionaire that wants to sell their company, shall we now cap it so it only pays 5 mil a year and put the rest in the national kitty?


I shall now tell you one little error that ayn rand first identified in her master piece atlas shrugged. This same error that every single leader of a country has to face, and the real reason governments pander to the rich

WHAT IF ALL THE SMARTEST AND THE BEST WEALTH CREATORS SAY NO. YOU SEE GOVERNMENTS DON'T PRODUCE WEALTH ( PRINTING MONEY IS NOT THE SAME AS PRODUCING WEALTH AS THE AMERICAN DEBT CRISIS WILL TELL YOU)

DO YOU NOT REALISE THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS THAT PUT POLITICIANS IN POWER COMES FROM THESE SAME CREATORS?


Take western countries, after the American and British prime ministers and presidents finish their terms they become after dinner speakers..... Making more than 5 mil a year paid for by the very people you want them to cap

They also sit on boards as do most politicians of the companies of the very rich you want them to cap?

Have you seen what's happening in America with Obama trying to take taxes back to the level it was before George bush temporarily lowered it like was promised? You really think the bankers, car manufactures, aerospace, individuals, tech specialists, pharmaceutical owners and the heads of all the major companies will tolerate a wage cap?

Do you think you are smarter than all the other communists, socialists style individuals who have had a desire to put a cap on the wealth of the rich and distribute it? Do you not think your plan above did not occur to Karl Marx?

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Vibration

I have to say, I feel a bit foolish trading trinkets like coins and pretty paper bills for food and stuff. It feels a little like being a kid and playing some kind of store game with beads, shells, pretty rocks or some other stuff.

Just because no one has come up with a brilliant alternative doesn't mean there isn't one. There's got to be something better than what we're doing. It feels like only one step removed from using stone tools, to me. Is currency (token or object) trading really the best we can come up with for distributing goods and services around? Just because people are smart in one aspect doesn't mean they're not stupid in another, and this is one aspect of civilization that defiantly seems stupid to me.

Is this the price of progress or stupidity? I think the alternative could only occur when we stop taking surplus to our requirements and that may take generations. regards

[Lifechanyuan]

This requires the efforts of everyone in the world. I think you said, it's the communist society.

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by Orecle

And if I said students who consistently get A GRADES study more hours on average than students who consistently fail a majority of their classes you won't believe me right?

Would I have to get studies out to prove that to you?

Inverse correlation between grades and study-hours (or spurious at best):

An Analysis of the Study Time-Grade Association

[ChrisGinsburg]

Has anyone seen 'Fixing The Future'? It's currently on Netflix and the guy goes around the US stopping in various cities that are already noticing that money is not the most important part of a strong local economy. There's already places trading time dollars or whatever they want to call them where tons of people are within a local network. So say you go fix someone's refrigerator and spend an hour. You can then get a free hour with the doctor and so on. No service is deemed more important than another and it is completely legal and tax free.