what would the world look like without money

[Agota]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

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

Finally some common sense!

People, hello, we're not living in middle ages, everyone who wants to become rich can do so, at least in Western Countries, so maybe we can stop whining about the rich people who made more intelligent decisions than majority of people, who put in more hard work in their businesses than majority of people, and surprise surprise, now earn more than majority of people while sipping coctails in Thailand?

RR, maybe we don't agree on vegetarianism and veganism, but we clearly agree on this topic

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by Agota

who put in more hard work in their businesses than majority of people, and surprise surprise, now earn more than majority of people while sipping coctails in Thailand?

I know what you're getting at, but just thought I'd say I met people in Thailand who worked entry level temp jobs for 6 months a year, then with the mere few grand they saved up went to live in Thailand for 6 months. And repeat. Cocktails are very cheap there.

I know what you mean of course, I just think it's cool that people do that.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Orecle

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

Where did I say that? You're reading way too much into what I'm saying sorry to say. I'm not saying rich people are lazy. That makes no sense. I'm saying poor people aren't necessarily lazy. Feels like it's a crime in this society to be poor to be honest. Many people are working two jobs and still they can't make ends meet. Not to mention all those unemployed. There just aren't any jobs for them. At all. Are you going to blame them for that?

As that study shows, getting ''A'' grades doesn't necessarily mean putting in more study hours. I can tell you from my personal experience, I barely studied through high school yet my grades were better than most of my classmates who studied a lot more than I did. I just happened to be good at memorization and paying attention in class. If you have a special skill for something, naturally, working with that special skill will mean that you will need to work less than others to achieve the same results. I'm not saying hard work should be avoided or that it's bad by any means. I'm saying that the old saying ''working hard = success'' is a very gross oversimplification.
I think being rich more often than not means working intelligently, not hard. I remember Steve mentioning something about that in one of his blogs. And more often than not, it means having a loose set of ethics.

To answer the question in the OP...Who knows? I think it all depends on how we get there if we do want to go there. Could be total chaos could be peaceful. Personally, I think we would flourish if we didn't have to fight daily for mere survival, which is the position of a vast majority of the planet's population today. And the acquisition of materials for personal possession (the essence of Capitalism) seems like a vapid, pointless endeavour to me.

If money didn't exist we wouldn't be having these silly conversations about class and power. I dream of a world without money or borders to be honest. Call me naive, call me a silly idealist, I don't care. I care about the fate of our species as well as the natural balance we're completely destroying. And the ones who have changed the world started out with big ''naive'' ambitions too. Darwin was a total nutcase to the Church at the time, which influenced a vast majority of people at the time.

On a personal level, I think getting there requires the promotion of the understanding of the benefits of giving without expecting anything in return. Since it's such a rare thing in most western societies, most people have no clue what I mean by this. This is where it starts. This is what's important.

[Vaganova]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

What you described is sort of idealistic Communism. Everyone contributing for the greater good.

In reality, no it is not possible. All life forms are selfish first and rarely do they evolve to the point of genuinely wanting to help and give to others.

There was a study done on how many people one person can 'care' about before it becomes too much for their brain to handle. The upper limit is 150.

That's the amount of people you can mentally handle as friends. Everyone after that becomes a statistic. That's why 1 person dying is a tragedy, 20 people dying is horrific, 1 million people is a sad-ish statistic, and 20 million people is completely irrelevant to your life.

That's why Communism doesn't work. If you lived on an island with 150 people or less, Communism would work great. After that, you have to split into groups that are smaller than that.

[Agota]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

I know what you're getting at, but just thought I'd say I met people in Thailand who worked entry level temp jobs for 6 months a year, then with the mere few grand they saved up went to live in Thailand for 6 months. And repeat. Cocktails are very cheap there.

I know what you mean of course, I just think it's cool that people do that.

I'm so happy I'll be in Thailand soon

[pjhaggerty]

There are people and societies in the world today who live without money.

If you think that way of life is truly better, you should join them.

I personally prefer to use money.

Since myself and many other people seem to like to use money, I don't think it is realistic to rid it from the world. Us money users would just bring it back.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by pjhaggerty

There are people and societies in the world today who live without money.

If you think that way of life is truly better, you should join them.

I personally prefer to use money.

Since myself and many other people seem to like to use money, I don't think it is realistic to rid it from the world. Us money users would just bring it back.

Where? Show us a people or society that lives without money. It must be more then 1000 people.

[pjhaggerty]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Where? Show us a people or society that lives without money. It must be more then 1000 people.

If you define "a people" or "society" as more than 1000 people, then none comes to mind easily, although certain regions in 3rd world countries could potentially qualify.

However, there are people and societies that live without money. They just tend to be small groups of people. They would still qualify as legitimate lifestyle options for the OP if she wished to live in a society without money. For example, there are hippie communes designed specifically to live without money

I like money, precisely because it makes coexisting in large groups of people easier.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by pjhaggerty

If you define "a people" or "society" as more than 1000 people, then none comes to mind easily, although certain regions in 3rd world countries could potentially qualify.

However, there are people and societies that live without money. They just tend to be small groups of people. They would still qualify as legitimate lifestyle options for the OP if she wished to live in a society without money. For example, there are hippie communes designed specifically to live without money

I like money, precisely because it makes coexisting in large groups of people easier.

to quote someone else on this forum.

There was a study done on how many people one person can 'care' about before it becomes too much for their brain to handle. The upper limit is 150.

That's the amount of people you can mentally handle as friends. Everyone after that becomes a statistic. That's why 1 person dying is a tragedy, 20 people dying is horrific, 1 million people is a sad-ish statistic, and 20 million people is completely irrelevant to your life
this is why communism can't, and will never work. If you lived on an island with 150 people or less, Communism would work great. After that, you have to split into groups that are smaller than that.

The funny thing is, all those no money communes, would be no where without money. Unless they built everything from nearby trees, and walked to the commune naked. But, they'd also need tools, to start building stuff.

It doesn't make coexisting in large groups easier, it makes it POSSIBLE.

It's pointless to say " oh , there are a few 100 people living without money". How few people do you consider a "people" or "society"? If I moved out into the woods with my family, then would you consider my new society with out money, as effective?

You are just talking about people who chose a different lifestyle. They cut themselves off from the rest of the modern world. And if they haven't cut off from modern world, then they had to BUY the things for their commune. And if stuff breaks, they need parts for those things, which they can't make, because they are just a small little group of people.

You can think of any possible scenario, and you can find a small group of people who are managing to survive. That in no way makes their idea sustainable or effective.

[pjhaggerty]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

to quote someone else on this forum.



The funny thing is, all those no money communes, would be no where without money. Unless they built everything from nearby trees, and walked to the commune naked. But, they'd also need tools, to start building stuff.

It doesn't make coexisting in large groups easier, it makes it POSSIBLE.

It's pointless to say " oh , there are a few 100 people living without money". How few people do you consider a "people" or "society"? If I moved out into the woods with my family, then would you consider my new society with out money, as effective?

You are just talking about people who chose a different lifestyle. They cut themselves off from the rest of the modern world. And if they haven't cut off from modern world, then they had to BUY the things for their commune. And if stuff breaks, they need parts for those things, which they can't make, because they are just a small little group of people.

You can think of any possible scenario, and you can find a small group of people who are managing to survive. That in no way makes their idea sustainable or effective.

There are also tribalistic societies that lived without a great deal of money. For example, herders in rural mongolia or people in rural africa etc. They can have a 'society' of 1,000 people split into tribes of 20-50 people.

When the tribes meet they exchange on a barter basis, not with money, in general (although some may use the currency of the nation they live within, it's not necessary).

I'm not saying that such a society is as effective as possible, although it is sustainable- there are societies that have lived this way that have lasted thousands of years.

The main problem, as you have pointed out or alluded to, is the inability of such a society to really support specialization of labor. Everybody has to be able, generally, to make the tools they need because without money it's hard for someone to specialize as a 'tool maker'- there's no way for them to exchange their tools for value consistently.

This naturally limits people to using tools that can be easily gathered from the surrounding environment. Such tools aren't the most efficient available.

however, living in such a society is still a viable option to this day. There are people who do so every day, millions all over the world. They eat, sleep, and generally survive. They just do so with a very low standard of living in terms of most lifestyle metrics you could look at, from life expectancy to annual income (obviously) to standard of living etc. which is why I don't want to live in such a society

I just don't think it's a particularly good option as far as lifestyle choices go. But if the OP was interested in living in such a society, it is an option- a bad option, but an option. They wouldn't even have to transform the world to do so.