Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Is there an alternative to money Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    It's not antiquated, having watched the video it fails to take into account the fact that if we better skill the next generation to create more scientists then they can perform more research and innovate (also as Asia and Africa develop technological development will speed up) and also it fails to take into account the fact that this debt is manifested by a fractional reserve banking system, if we enforce higher reserves then growth in the supply of credit (debt) will decline. Not to mention the fact that even now we could let a bank fail.

    All it tells me is that the government is interfering in the agricultural market and thus the free market should be able to take over and also that a change in attitude towards more people being scientists is required.

    The current profit motive has produced profound invention and is even spurring us to reach out into space for resources, it does not need replacing at this time.
    Profit motive is only possible to benefit from by those with the resources and ability to make use of the system. It is based on competition, which means there are winners, but more importantly there are losers. At the moment the losers heavily outnumber the winners.
    The money system is also extremely labour intensive, using 50% (and mainly the more educated) of the entire 'western' working population. Just moving money around producing nothing.
    Yes we are making advances, but in spite of, not because of the system.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Profit motive is only possible to benefit from by those with the resources and ability to make use of the system. It is based on competition, which means there are winners, but more importantly there are losers. At the moment the losers heavily outnumber the winners.
    The money system is also extremely labour intensive, using 50% (and mainly the more educated) of the entire 'western' working population. Just moving money around producing nothing.
    Yes we are making advances, but in spite of, not because of the system.
    Yes, competition is great. I for one was born into a family on benefits (a loser of the system) but i most certainly will die a winner.

    I accept the system is not perfect but i do not believe that monetary abolition is the answer, rather what we need is a change in attitude and superior education so that a physicist is quite rightly better rewarded than an entertainer.

    I'm not so sure given a large number of people may choose to do nothing but enjoy themselves fishing ect..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Psyk;41956857]
    (Original post by Aliccam)

    What do you mean be 'free' exactly? Free as in you do not have to do any work to be entitled to basic necessities?

    I'm sure that's not what you said earlier. But I'll disregard anything I thought you said earlier if you can give a clear and coherent answer now.
    I mean free in that you will not have to pay for any of your normal requirements. You just go to work for a certain number of hours, or work for yourself and provide goods and services to a set and not arduous amount.

    With today's highly mechanised food and production environment, the number of manhours required to produce our normal requirements is minimal. As we lift the financial restriction from developing technology, this will go down even more. All people would have to do are these hours, plus a bit more to cover amenities, health, and education, spread as evenly as possible over the population.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    I mean free in that you will not have to pay for any of your normal requirements. You just go to work for a certain number of hours, or work for yourself and provide goods and services to a set and not arduous amount.
    I don't understand in what sense it is free in that case. You need it, you have to work for it. Even if it's a small amount of work, it's still work.

    Do you mean that there would be like a threshold? So once you've worked the minimum amount of "hours" (or whatever your unit of value is, I'm still not clear on that) you can take as much food as you want? But if you haven't done any work at all, you can't have any. I'm guessing that's what you mean, but I still wouldn't call that free. You're still exchanging your time for it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Yes, competition is great. I for one was born into a family on benefits (a loser of the system) but i most certainly will die a winner.
    So you're all right Jack
    I accept the system is not perfect but i do not believe that monetary abolition is the answer, rather what we need is a change in attitude and superior education so that a physicist is quite rightly better rewarded than an entertainer.
    With this system everyone will eventually have everything they need. The physicist will not necessarily need any more than the entertainer. It would just be their own personal preference.

    I'm not so sure given a large number of people may choose to do nothing but enjoy themselves fishing ect..
    Initially everyone who can will need to work a minimal amount, but have plenty of time for fishing. If you want more stuff and less leisure, you just work more. The angler leads his life happily, you lead yours happily. No losers, only winners.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thomas2)
    I don't think so in the near term. Supposedly, to veer off into the realms of fiction, they dispensed with money as we know it in the world of Star Trek although they don't go into a lot of detail as to how.

    Perhaps there ought to be some sort of cap on the amount of private wealth any one individual can hold or bequeath to their children.
    It never seemed to be consistent or to work properly in Star Trek. For example, they played poker for chips - why?? They paid for things in 'gold pressed latinum' when trading with other cultures - and seemed concerned about the cost of things.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    I don't understand in what sense it is free in that case. You need it, you have to work for it. Even if it's a small amount of work, it's still work.

    Do you mean that there would be like a threshold? So once you've worked the minimum amount of "hours" (or whatever your unit of value is, I'm still not clear on that) you can take as much food as you want? But if you haven't done any work at all, you can't have any. I'm guessing that's what you mean, but I still wouldn't call that free. You're still exchanging your time for it.
    Yes, but a lot less time working. Never have a problem getting work. Your normal requirements are guaranteed. You don't have to waste time deciding what's the best value or queuing up to pay, or thinking have I got enough money to pay my bills, or how can I afford a home or who's going to steal my stuff, or am I going to get any leisure time etc etc.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    So you're all right Jack

    With this system everyone will eventually have everything they need. The physicist will not necessarily need any more than the entertainer. It would just be their own personal preference.

    Initially everyone who can will need to work a minimal amount, but have plenty of time for fishing. If you want more stuff and less leisure, you just work more. The angler leads his life happily, you lead yours happily. No losers, only winners.
    The last point you make is my point though, happiness is great but such a lax attitude will not push development to the degree it does now. People sometimes need a push and money does this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The last point you make is my point though, happiness is great but such a lax attitude will not push development to the degree it does now. People sometimes need a push and money does this.
    The only things that will really need pushing once we get properly organised, will be the on button on the machines. They will be doing ALL the hard work. People will be motivated by self worth, not greed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Bottle caps?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It never seemed to be consistent or to work properly in Star Trek. For example, they played poker for chips - why?? They paid for things in 'gold pressed latinum' when trading with other cultures - and seemed concerned about the cost of things.
    For poker that's just a game, you can use anything. That's because whilst you can go out with some friends and create a communist community today when you need extra tampons and come into my shop, i'm not accepting anything other than hard cash. These concepts only work if everybody agrees.

    (Original post by Aliccam)
    The only things that will really need pushing once we get properly organised, will be the on button on the machines. They will be doing ALL the hard work. People will be motivated by self worth, not greed.
    I'm afraid that you will never eradicate greed. Also, these machines can't come up with new inventions and do anti-matter research ect.. for that you need to push people into science even if some people would be happier sat on a chair fishing.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    The business would not be owned it would simply be run by the people working there. Man hours would be based on the number of people required. skill level, popularity of the jobs and productivity. An individual would work the necessary number to meet their chosen requirements.


    You would not need to make any exchange with the university. You would simply have the entitlement to goods/services relating to your chosen manhours.
    The people at the university would be putting in their man hours. This removes the need for any exchange.


    We currently have prices for absolutely everything based on profit, which change frequently.
    The calculation of value of things would be used to adjust man hours, and to best use resources. Each item would be calculated exactly on - manhours required, availability and use of resources, environmental impact and durability. Once calculated this would only need to be changed (no inflation) if their was an improvement in any of these factors.
    Production and services would be adjusted to meet demand.
    How does this differ from money? Assuming that man-hours are transferable, without which I don't see how the system would work at all.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It never seemed to be consistent or to work properly in Star Trek. For example, they played poker for chips - why?? They paid for things in 'gold pressed latinum' when trading with other cultures - and seemed concerned about the cost of things.
    And Capt. Kirk "sold" his house. Weren't the chips for the replicator machines?
    Money was still very important in some cultures like the Ferenghi.

    I think part of the idea was that because things like energy, health care and food etc. were so much more readily available, people's attitudes to material wealth had changed a lot...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Yes, but a lot less time working. Never have a problem getting work. Your normal requirements are guaranteed. You don't have to waste time deciding what's the best value or queuing up to pay, or thinking have I got enough money to pay my bills, or how can I afford a home or who's going to steal my stuff, or am I going to get any leisure time etc etc.
    Ok, so it wouldn't really be free, it would just be very cheap.

    But you wouldn't just be able to walk into a shop and walk out with the stuff you need. There would still have to be a check that you've got the minimum amount of "credits" to be entitled to it.

    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    How does this differ from money? Assuming that man-hours are transferable, without which I don't see how the system would work at all.
    I think what she means is they wouldn't be directly transferable. Yes if you use a service, you will pay for it as in it will be taken off your entitlement. And the people providing that service will be given a similar amount of "credits" for doing the work. But you're not directly giving them yours. They couldn't just decide to up the price and take more off you, the amount you pay and the amount they receive is set by the government.

    That's how I understand it, but she's very hard to understand so I might be wrong.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Ok, so it wouldn't really be free, it would just be very cheap.

    But you wouldn't just be able to walk into a shop and walk out with the stuff you need. There would still have to be a check that you've got the minimum amount of "credits" to be entitled to it.
    Most people would order on line and have stuff delivered. Their eligabilty would be automatically checked then. If people wanted to 'shop' there could be a 'turnstile' type entry system. Until people got used to the fact that they didn't need to take more than necessary, you would probably need someone on the out door to make sure people weren't being stupid.
    'Shops' would be separated into 'Basic' and 'Optional'. The optional shops would work on a similar basis to using you debit card. Over time anything which had high demand in the options could be moved to the basics.

    I think what she means is they wouldn't be directly transferable. Yes if you use a service, you will pay for it as in it will be taken off your entitlement. And the people providing that service will be given a similar amount of "credits" for doing the work. But you're not directly giving them yours. They couldn't just decide to up the price and take more off you, the amount you pay and the amount they receive is set by the government.

    That's how I understand it, but she's very hard to understand so I might be wrong.
    Sorry it is difficult to grasp, but because some of it is at odds with entrenched perception, it is sometime difficult to get across.
    You do seem to have more or less got it. Yes they are not transferable.
    There would be no direct accounting between what you get and what is made other than monitoring supply and demand to keep them matched.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    How does this differ from money? Assuming that man-hours are transferable, without which I don't see how the system would work at all.
    I have replied to this in reply to Psyks post
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thomas2)
    And Capt. Kirk "sold" his house. Weren't the chips for the replicator machines?
    Money was still very important in some cultures like the Ferenghi.

    I think part of the idea was that because things like energy, health care and food etc. were so much more readily available, people's attitudes to material wealth had changed a lot...
    If the chips were for replicators, Captain Picard was apparently exempt from having to use them. "Tea. Earl Grey. Hot".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    Sorry it is difficult to grasp, but because some of it is at odds with entrenched perception, it is sometime difficult to get across.
    You do seem to have more or less got it. Yes they are not transferable.
    There would be no direct accounting between what you get and what is made other than monitoring supply and demand to keep them matched.
    It's not as difficult to grasp as you're making it. You're avoiding using terms which make it sound like money when actually, aspects of it are very similar. It's the same as money in the sense that when you do work you get given something with a numerical value that you can exchange for goods and services.

    All the stuff about "man hours" is misleading and overcomplicating it. It's even similar to money in that sense because the amount you get for your work is a product of the amount of time you work and the value of your work. The difference is that the "value" of every job decided by the government rather than by a free market.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    There's always going to need to be some sort of currency.
    I mean in prison they use cigarettes (and other things) and in places like Romania (I think) chewing gum is used as currency.

    You could invest all your money in anything really.
    Gold? Land? Stocks? Lottery tickets?

    Some investments are more secure than others.
    Property is probably best at the moment since prices are so low.
    Gold is at an all time high so investment in that is a little more risky.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    All schemes intended to replace money inevitably involving replacing it with something that operates the same way money does. There are some bizarre digital schemes people have dreamed up, like Bitcoin, which pretend to offer 'democratic money', but they either don't and quickly return to another form of money, or else they contain hidden traps which lead to the control of the money being vested secretly.

    Money is one of the greatest of all social inventions and so far, nobody has come up with a better idea for placing value on all goods, services, work and utilities.

    That doesn't mean however that everything should be valued in monetary terms, or that it always works perfectly and fairly.
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.