|
On May 05 2012 03:48 DeepElemBlues wrote:Without money you have the problem of how to assign value both to both goods and services and more importantly to labor, both physical and mental. The future is not going to be the Jetsons where automation can provide all the amenities of middle-class life while people only have to work 9 hours a week pushing buttons that make sprockets. Show nested quote +I'd like to elaborate on this; There should be an obligation to do your share of the work. Yes, there should be some accounting for disabilities and such, but if you declare a policy of giving everyone a basic living stipend, to borrow a term, you risk ending up with a community of deadbeats with a few bitter dutiful members carrying the load. That's the problem of a society where everything is free. You can't obligate people to work with any kind of scheme except the one called money.
Not necessarily. The part that would stick in your average capitalist's craw about a moneyless society would probably be the fact that one could get jail time or forced labor for being a deadbeat. Another method that's harder to portray as totalitarianism would be to give people a higher standard of living for good work.
|
Sounds like communism. Sounds like the society in Fahrenheit 451. This has a lot of problems:
1. People are greedy. Money isn't the cause of greed, It's just an outlet. You can be equally greedy over any other object. Getting rid of money isn't going to change human nature.
2. This is extreme socialism. Every item would have to be generic. Nobody would have anything that would set them appart from everyone else. People would begin bartering for whatever unique item they found, like a trading card game. Eventually currency will develop again and our generic world would go obsolete as human materialism kicks in. Once again this is human nature.
3. I don't believe we would advance technologically. There would be no inovation. No competition. In this world, who cares about making a technological inovation. It brings nothing in return to the creator or company. It brings nothing to the company who makes the newest, fastest, safest car. After all, everything is generic anyway and there can only be 1 car company.
And if there were say 2 car companies, why would a company waste it's time developing a better car? Even if people chose to have their car provided by the other company, is car company 1 negatively effected by that? No. Car company 1 does less work now and it's actually an easier job for them. I guess they could do it for fame, but there is no fortune.
The only thing I see spurring technological advancement is the now unhindered human curiosity. But even then there still will be very little INOVATION.
This may be plausible in a distant future. But it's going to take a bloody revolution to overthrow all the banks and the wealthy. And what happens when we have bloody revolutions against rich people?... history.
|
Not necessarily. The part that would stick in your average capitalist's craw about a moneyless society would probably be the fact that one could get jail time or forced labor for being a deadbeat. Another method that's harder to portray as totalitarianism would be to give people a higher standard of living for good work.
Capitalism got rid of debtor's prisons because if you're in debtor's prison you can't possibly make enough money to pay back what you owe.
The only way to get put into prison for owing people money in a modern capitalist country is if the state itself forces you to pay something and you don't: restitution, child support, etc. The state, not capitalists.
Also, giving people a higher standard of living for "good work" is a classic characteristic of Communist societies, it's inherently totalitarian. The State, rather than individuals, determines the value of all work and doles out the goodies. You don't like it, tough shit. What you're describing is Communism's clumsy attempt to replicate the incentives of capitalism.
And surprise surprise, in every tountry that has attempted it, the majority of the goodies go to the people on top in the State hierarchy, and the minions of the State who are the best at the corruption game, and the common worker that is apparently so shafted in capitalism (all the comments about inequality in this thread are breathtaking for their ignorance of the material wealth of the common worker in the capitalist West) gets shafted ten times harder.
|
Social Stratification makes this idea inherently impossible.
That's right, IMPOSSIBLE. It would crash.
|
Unconditionally providing everyone with everything needed for a simple life - that's a good thing.
Abolishing money completely - probably a bad thing.
All we really need is a decent system of taxing and basic support for everyone that doesn't let anyone suffer, but also lets people earn more wealth by "hard work". You have to allow people to "be greedy" in an acceptable way, and money is a way that can be controlled decently and isn't very harmful.
|
A thing such as this, a "eutopia" will never happen because to many people are so ignorant of the fact as humans we can actually live in a world where it isn't based on who was born in what family but its a world based on equality... Good luck though, perhaps one day logic will prevail.
|
Unconditionally providing everyone with everything needed for a simple life - that's a good thing.
It's an impossible dream.
All we really need is a decent system of taxing and basic support for everyone that doesn't let anyone suffer, but also lets people earn more wealth by "hard work".
We have something that has worked better at reaching this goal of not letting anyone suffer, it's worked better than any other system ever used, it's called "capitalism."
The more taxing you do, the less wealth overall you create, it's been 'proven' in theory and actually proven by results over and over again.
|
Any idea that promises equality for all is a dangerous one.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
If only someone had thought of this idea before, like a century ago, and tried it out after violently overthrowing the current regime.
|
On May 05 2012 04:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Not necessarily. The part that would stick in your average capitalist's craw about a moneyless society would probably be the fact that one could get jail time or forced labor for being a deadbeat. Another method that's harder to portray as totalitarianism would be to give people a higher standard of living for good work. Capitalism got rid of debtor's prisons because if you're in debtor's prison you can't possibly make enough money to pay back what you owe. The only way to get put into prison for owing people money in a modern capitalist country is if the state itself forces you to pay something and you don't: restitution, child support, etc. The state, not capitalists. Also, giving people a higher standard of living for "good work" is a classic characteristic of Communist societies, it's inherently totalitarian. The State, rather than individuals, determines the value of all work and doles out the goodies. You don't like it, tough shit. What you're describing is Communism's clumsy attempt to replicate the incentives of capitalism.
Just how did you get to debtors' prison from what I wrote? The point wasn't as much having to pay back what you owe to society, but that you'd be punished if you acted in a way that would contribute to society collapsing. The same way you'd punish a thief or an insider trader.
In any system, the people in power can fuck you over and if you don't like it, tough shit.
|
This will never, ever, ever work. This assumes a utopian society in which everyone will be OK with elimination of social classes. I'm all for equality and helping those less fortunate, but I don't think that this would solve very much...and perhaps worsen a lot of current countries' statuses. As a Political Science major, I think this is sort of a step in the right direction, but it is so far from any realm of possibility in the near future that it is almost laughable.
|
Ok, I just watched the video, and lol'd. Whoever made this thing is woefully ignorant of human nature. "It means better and bigger hospitals that are free to everyone!" Yeah, ok... and who's going to be the doctor who works there? Sure as hell won't be me if everything I want is free...
|
A thing such as this, a "eutopia" will never happen because to many people are so ignorant of the fact as humans we can actually live in a world where it isn't based on who was born in what family but its a world based on equality... Good luck though, perhaps one day logic will prevail.
A world based on equality of outcome is not based on logic. It also doesn't achieve equality.
|
Capitalism is the worse type of economic system, besides all the others.
|
When people stop trading trough money, they find other currencies, such as guns.
Something I've always wondered; even if this COULD work, would you really like it? Like if everyone was being provided for everything at a decent level (think house, car internet, some cash) but stuck? Would you really live without having to do anything, not being able to aspire to greater things ? Like you could never ever get a fucking ferrari. Or travel more than once every three years, etc (I can't do those yet, but I aspire to them). Cause I wouldn't like it tbh, that would suck so badly. I'm on the top of the ladder though I guess, maybe if I was starving my opinion would be different.
Clarification: A society without money would suck even more and that is obvious to anyone who understands the basics of economics/social sciences/political sciene, just wondering if it didn't.
|
On May 05 2012 04:02 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
3. I don't believe we would advance technologically. There would be no inovation. No competition. In this world, who cares about making a technological inovation. It brings nothing in return to the creator or company. It brings nothing to the company who makes the newest, fastest, safest car. After all, everything is generic anyway and there can only be 1 car company.
There's very little innovation being done in our current system. Mostly just new iphone apps.
|
On May 05 2012 04:02 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
Sounds like communism. Sounds like the society in Fahrenheit 451. This has a lot of problems:
1. People are greedy. Money isn't the cause of greed, It's just an outlet. You can be equally greedy over any other object. Getting rid of money isn't going to change human nature.
2. This is extreme socialism. Every item would have to be generic. Nobody would have anything that would set them appart from everyone else. People would begin bartering for whatever unique item they found, like a trading card game. Eventually currency will develop again and our generic world would go obsolete as human materialism kicks in. Once again this is human nature.
3. I don't believe we would advance technologically. There would be no inovation. No competition. In this world, who cares about making a technological inovation. It brings nothing in return to the creator or company. It brings nothing to the company who makes the newest, fastest, safest car. After all, everything is generic anyway and there can only be 1 car company.
And if there were say 2 car companies, why would a company waste it's time developing a better car? Even if people chose to have their car provided by the other company, is car company 1 negatively effected by that? No. Car company 1 does less work now and it's actually an easier job for them. I guess they could do it for fame, but there is no fortune.
The only thing I see spurring technological advancement is the now unhindered human curiosity. But even then there still will be very little INOVATION.
This may be plausible in a distant future. But it's going to take a bloody revolution to overthrow all the banks and the wealthy. And what happens when we have bloody revolutions against rich people?... history.
Yes, people are greedy, a shift in the fundamental way we function would have to occur before a moneyless society is viable. But I cannot agree on the innovation point. Most of the scientific breakthroughs are made by government funded non-profit organizations (think NASA), the corporate world doesn't innovate because it's too expensive, they just take something that already exists and do it better. For example, processor architecture hasn't advanced for what, almost 20 years now? Yes, transistors are smaller, clock speeds are faster, memory chips are getting larger and denser, we have more cpu cores, but that's not innovation, that's improvement of an existing technology, that's like saying a 600bhp engine is a new invention, no, it's still an internal combustion engine, the same it was when it was invented. More efficient, yes, something new? No.
Tl;dr: technological innovation already comes from establishments that don't have profit as a motive.
|
What the .. I mean how can .. I mean is this guy serious ?
I don't think its possible to come up with a worse thought out theory, there a so many flaws I can't even start to explain. Where do these people get these ideas ? How could you possibly think that this is a good, conceivable, and desirable way to run the world ?
It would collapse after day two, its beyond ridiculous.
|
On May 05 2012 04:28 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 04:02 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
3. I don't believe we would advance technologically. There would be no inovation. No competition. In this world, who cares about making a technological inovation. It brings nothing in return to the creator or company. It brings nothing to the company who makes the newest, fastest, safest car. After all, everything is generic anyway and there can only be 1 car company. There's very little innovation being done in our current system. Mostly just new iphone apps.
If by "little innovation" you mean the most rapid advancement of technology and science in human history, then yes.
|
I was waiting for the practicality part of this idea but it didn't come. But the concept of working for money has always bothered me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
