Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Could a money free society work?

Announcements Posted on
TSR wants you: get involved with Power Hour. 10-04-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dandarsford)
    Humans can be cruel, this is why we do "evil". the phrase "money is the root of all evil" is something people with access to modern knowledge shouldn't believe.

    Money is an efficient medium of exchange.
    The phrase is actually "the love for money is the root of all evil"
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No. I read a good analogy the other day hopefully no one's mentioned it yet

    An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

    The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class." All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail. (substituting grades for money).

    After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

    The second test average was a D. No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, all failed and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Belowski)
    Feudalism worked good because of religion and tradition, two things shunned in today's culture. Communism failed after a few decades because the powerful took money from everyone until everyone was poor or incorporated money and became more capitalistic. All monetary systems fail because of greed.

    As for a world without money, we would still be farming and being nomads, but would this really be such a bad thing? Native Americans for example. Unfortunately, money killed many of them off (the Europeans came seeking gold and other traded materials, but spread disease in the process) another example of how greed is detrimental to humans.
    You need a history lesson, that is not why it failed.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Insanity514)
    No. I read a good analogy the other day hopefully no one's mentioned it yet

    An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

    The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class." All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail. (substituting grades for money).

    After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

    The second test average was a D. No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, all failed and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
    No, it's an irrelevant analogy because socialism means worker control of the means of production, not anything mentioned there.

    Also, why the automatic assumption that socialism is necessarily without money?
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    No, it's an irrelevant analogy because socialism means worker control of the means of production, not anything mentioned there.

    Also, why the automatic assumption that socialism is necessarily without money?
    This thread is titled "Could a money free society work?", that's the context I meant to keep the analogy in even though that analogy mentions socialism.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drummer)
    Who's going to work?
    Your mum as a prostitute cos she is a dirty little sket and a hoe bag who needs teaching a lesson or three in sex.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    There's too different kinds of greed in the world: good and bad. Watch "Wall Street". There's the kind greedy people who helps make jobs and donates. And there's the greedy "give me" ones. However, I see your point.
    Without money, we would be back to farming, hunting, and making our own stuff. Naturally, there would be bardering. We would go right back to the Native American days. It's more rewarding than it sounds; think of how close to nature people would be once more.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by For)
    Your mum as a prostitute cos she is a dirty little sket and a hoe bag who needs teaching a lesson or three in sex.
    Hahaha keep going i can take it
    • 142 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ras90)
    You need a history lesson, that is not why it failed.
    I know, let's wrongly attack someone's post and then fail to explain why they're incorrect and stupid, shall we? Sounds like a plan. :top:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoGo HoPz)
    I know, let's wrongly attack someone's post and then fail to explain why they're incorrect and stupid, shall we? Sounds like a plan. :top:
    First of all what I said is not wrong, second, i CBA type why.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Insanity514)
    No. I read a good analogy the other day hopefully no one's mentioned it yet

    An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

    The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class." All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail. (substituting grades for money).

    After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

    The second test average was a D. No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, all failed and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
    How does that even begin to approach an analogy for a money free society? The absence of money doesn't mean hard-egalitarian distribution irrespective of personal effort - indeed, it says near absolutely nothing about the particulars of distribution
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    INcidentally the phrase is 'The love of money is the root of many evils'
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Architecture-er)
    Of course not, just take benefits now and then multiply that complaining by 1000.

    A money-free society would only work if everyone was of comparable intellect and skill (though in specific professional areas). But that's not the case, since there's idiots in every society. Imagine if you were incredibly smart and good at improving your company's earnings. Now take away your deserved salary, and put you on the same income as the knuckle-dragger emptying your bins every morning.

    Plus you remove competitiveness, and so the need for innovation. All communist states have failed miserably.
    soviets had competition....there were often 2 or more state owned companies run by people with different approaches to the goal and thats how they used to compete. eg.: Sukhoi/KnAAPO vs Mikoyan-and-Gurevich Design Bureau and so on....But this was mostly in weapons technologies...although there were many automotive companies, the competition was not good enough.

    Also, democracies have failed equally miserably.....just look at USA, Europe and other democratic countries today , many of which are on the brink on bankruptcy and then look at communist China.

    The thing is not wat system a country uses, its how well its used. The russians only failed cuz they fought wars they shouldnt have...The west is also failing today cuz of the very same reason pretty much. China is going strong, cuz it didnt get into all of that...
    • 35 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zedeneye1)
    soviets had competition....there were often 2 or more state owned companies run by people with different approaches to the goal and thats how they used to compete. eg.: Sukhoi/KnAAPO vs Mikoyan-and-Gurevich Design Bureau and so on....But this was mostly in weapons technologies...although there were many automotive companies, the competition was not good enough.

    Also, democracies have failed equally miserably.....just look at USA, Europe and other democratic countries today , many of which are on the brink on bankruptcy and then look at communist China.

    The thing is not wat system a country uses, its how well its used. The russians only failed cuz they fought wars they shouldnt have...The west is also failing today cuz of the very same reason pretty much. China is going strong, cuz it didnt get into all of that...
    But China isn't a money-free society. When it was fully communist it had all manner of disasters and hundreds of thousands died from starvation.

    Communism doesn't work because the only thing driving the success of businesses is fear of failing the government, or trying to outdo a rival (for the praise of the government). However figures can be faked to disguise failings in productivity and quality (see china's attempt to industrialise and produce pig iron as recently as 100 years ago) - but when your quality of life hinges on the company doing well, you have no choice but to try your hardest. You can't fake food onto your table.

    China is only doing well at the moment because it sits on gargantuan coal fields, reducing it's energy imports, whilst having a huge export-driven secondary sector that brings in huge revenues. Whereas the modern west has shifted to high-tech goods (which have survived relatively unscathed) and finance, which is high-risk high reward. If the crash hadn't happened (which is independant of communism arguments) then the west would still be far ahead of china's economy, though countries that work in the secondary sector will always have the potential to become profit powerhouses, because of today's rampant consumerism
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yes, of course a money-free society could work, but it would be monumentally inefficient. Currency has "currency" with everyone, everyone agrees to accept it because everyone else has also agreed to accept it. This is what liquidity is.

    (By the way, cash is credit. "I promise to pay the bearer on demand...")

    Debit and credit cards are in fact much more liquid than even cash notes because cash has to be taken out in particular denominations. Ever gone to the cash machine and found you had under £10 in your bank account? Suddenly the economy loses out on that spurious purchase you were going to make. And you can't print money/lend cash to yourself either, so with cash you have to wait to save up enough, note by note, for that new car. Hence the credit card is more liquid.

    However cash will probably not die because people need to give each other off-the-record bribes, and this helps the world go round even when things like the above are taken into account.

    Occasionally, barter is more efficient than cash. If you have a friend who makes really good bows and you make really good arrows it's a total no-brainer. Unfortunately such serendipity is too rare to compete with other forms of exchange.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I genuinely believe we can become a world free of money but not any time soon.

    Why do we work and who will work without money? For the most part, we work for the money to buy things we want and need. Many of these are tangible things like food which is obviously a necessity.

    When we advance to the point where we have almost unlimited energy be it by nuclear fusion or some future technology, then for one we can keep ourselves powered. The next revolution would come with fabrication, a device that can make anything using atoms as building blocks. You imagine diamond, an expensive gem today will be made by a device that just sticks carbon atoms in the right layout. When you have the technology to make any physical object like this then their value goes down. Diamond will be worthless if anyone can generate it with the device.

    You're talking about an 'oh ****' moment in society and it will look nothing like what we have today.

    I think the last issue is with land, earth itself won't sustain a evergrowing abundant society. Colonizing other planets would be the solution, sounds sci fi today but millions of years down the line who knows.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    it would work but we'd have to go back to primitive lifestyles. The world of employment these days especially in the more developed world aren't based on simply fulfilling that person and his families basic needs e.g food, water, but on the extra, materialistic things. These jobs are allowed to take place as farming techniques have improved to such a point where we don't need everyone to farm, just a few (aided with machinery) leaving the rest to focus on other things like making as much money as possible.

    If we were to have a money free society, societies would have to be smaller. They can not exist on such a large scale. They would have to be small tightly knit communities, where everyone pretty much knows everyone. The focus upon each member would be to provide in their respective job/skill for the rest of the village. E.g. Farming, fishing, etc. All for the benefit of the village. Food would then be shared equally between people (perhaps varying slightly depending on age, babies might need more/less/different things for example). Each person would be required to provide and perform their job to an acceptable standard, which would be decided as a whole by the village (and people would be employed to monitor how the village is doing and what it's doing well/lacking, e.g. food, health). People as a whole would be encouraged to work together for the increasing benefit of the village over time. A rota system might be used in terms of jobs to keep people happy, for example one year someone may sign up for fishing, another for farming etc. and within that take turns for example one day a farmer may have to sew the crops, another organising his fellow coworkers. There would be no real managerial positions, the level of work each person undertakes will be kept the same. And each person would be respected equally, there would be no real hierarchy. And people would be a lot more family orientated.

    It's probably be a very nice, peaceful life. Unlikely to work though obviously. But theoretically there are ways it could happen.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Architecture-er)
    But China isn't a money-free society. When it was fully communist it had all manner of disasters and hundreds of thousands died from starvation.

    Communism doesn't work because the only thing driving the success of businesses is fear of failing the government, or trying to outdo a rival (for the praise of the government). However figures can be faked to disguise failings in productivity and quality (see china's attempt to industrialise and produce pig iron as recently as 100 years ago) - but when your quality of life hinges on the company doing well, you have no choice but to try your hardest. You can't fake food onto your table.

    China is only doing well at the moment because it sits on gargantuan coal fields, reducing it's energy imports, whilst having a huge export-driven secondary sector that brings in huge revenues. Whereas the modern west has shifted to high-tech goods (which have survived relatively unscathed) and finance, which is high-risk high reward. If the crash hadn't happened (which is independant of communism arguments) then the west would still be far ahead of china's economy, though countries that work in the secondary sector will always have the potential to become profit powerhouses, because of today's rampant consumerism
    The argument which I had was not of money-free society...I was just telling how communism is not a failed type of government, rather it is a very successful one.

    And your forgetting that USA sits on top of almost twice as much coal....
    And USA has far lesser population, giving it a resourceeople ratio advantage.
    And im not talking about what happened 100 years ago. I'm comparing economic progress from the 70s to date. And you can clearly see how china had made communism work for it.

    Like I said, its not what system the country uses, its how well its used....

    Although this picture has been probably posted many many times, but it makes a point very clear, that china is not just growth on paper:




    And you see very similar results all over china. Also China is not exactly ignoring technology, its getting very good at technology and research etc...It is able to produce complex machinery. Also, the quality of life has increased or atleast has been stable considering that the country is heavily populated and there's so much that could go wrong in managing such a large, diverse population....
    Also, China still IS communist. Most major industries are owned by state. If not, the government reserves the right to nationalize everything, any day....
    • 35 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zedeneye1)
    The argument which I had was not of money-free society...I was just telling how communism is not a failed type of government, rather it is a very successful one.

    And your forgetting that USA sits on top of almost twice as much coal....
    And USA has far lesser population, giving it a resourceeople ratio advantage.
    And im not talking about what happened 100 years ago. I'm comparing economic progress from the 70s to date. And you can clearly see how china had made communism work for it.

    Like I said, its not what system the country uses, its how well its used....

    Although this picture has been probably posted many many times, but it makes a point very clear, that china is not just growth on paper:




    And you see very similar results all over china. Also China is not exactly ignoring technology, its getting very good at technology and research etc...It is able to produce complex machinery. Also, the quality of life has increased or atleast has been stable considering that the country is heavily populated and there's so much that could go wrong in managing such a large, diverse population....
    Also, China still IS communist. Most major industries are owned by state. If not, the government reserves the right to nationalize everything, any day....
    But..butbutbutbut china's economy structure isn't communist.. Your entire argument about China growing despite being communist is pretty flawed, since the country has only experienced growth as a result of encouraging foreign investment and opening it's borders to the international market.. "Since economic liberalization began in 1978, China's investment- and export-led[205] economy has grown almost a hundredfold[206] and is the fastest-growing major economy in the world"

    Other quotes from the wiki article: "The state still dominates in strategic "pillar" industries (such as energy and heavy industries), but private enterprise (composed of around 30 million private businesses)[225] has expanded enormously; in 2005, it accounted for anywhere between 33%[226] to 70%[227] of national GDP"

    "Although a middle-income country by Western standards, China's rapid growth has pulled hundreds of millions of its people out of poverty since 1978 (the date of economic reform)"

    China isn't really communist anymore, it's arguably authoritarian / totalitarian.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Belowski)
    Feudalism worked good because of religion and tradition, two things shunned in today's culture. Communism failed after a few decades because the powerful took money from everyone until everyone was poor or incorporated money and became more capitalistic. All monetary systems fail because of greed.

    As for a world without money, we would still be farming and being nomads, but would this really be such a bad thing? Native Americans for example. Unfortunately, money killed many of them off (the Europeans came seeking gold and other traded materials, but spread disease in the process) another example of how greed is detrimental to humans.
    Communism failed before it even started.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: May 24, 2012
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.