No Money

Originally Posted by Septimus

Well, I do.

People would take advantage over it, just imagine if barter system is back.

If you are desparade to get cellphone and you have notebook in your hand, I would probably trade my cellphone worth $90 for your notebook worth $3000.

I wouldn't be worried about a cellphone, I'd be more worried about food and shelter. Most technology would probably break because people wouldn't give up stuff for such trivial things.

Originally Posted by Japut3h

Why give the chicken you don't need for free, when you can trade it for the firewood you do need? There's bound to be someone who will offer you something useful for it.

Because there are people with excess firewood. I know a few.

Originally Posted by Gilles

It's a deeper question than I originally thought.

=D

Originally Posted by Gilles

That's why I think communism fails.

No money is kinda the goal of communism isn't it? I think communism is the faulty way someone who doesn't want money in the world deals with it.

Originally Posted by Gilles

I doubt CEOs would do well. :P

They'd have time to wonder what they're doing with 5 houses. :p

Originally Posted by Septimus

If you are desparade to get cellphone and you have notebook in your hand, I would probably trade my cellphone worth $90 for your notebook worth $3000.

"Hey, can I borrow your phone for a second?"

Originally Posted by Hakeem

Would it work? Can we live in a world without money? Do we need something in return in order to provide a good or service?

I seem to think that we probably don't actually have to have money to function in our lives.

Looking forward to some serious logic here.

Well just about that part of Can we live in a world without money? Well personally I would just say thats stupid.

I seem to think that we probably don't actually have to have money to function in our lives.
Well we always want more, but we people buy to much junk. You don't really need cellphones, computers, paper, education, etc... Just food basically. [I'm just speaking in real terms... No funny stuff]

The money system was developed to make bartering obsolete, as many other people have already mentioned. An Agalmic society might be the answer, but only for non-scarce goods.

Personally, however, I believe that free markets [though not necessarily full-blown capitalism] are very effective. Alas, I speak from a position of bias, I can afford to own a computer and I live in a rich nation, perhaps things look worse from someone with less money.

It would be lots of anarchy and Molotov cocktails at first, which would be interesting ^.^

Mankind gives a value to all objects in his mind. Including people.

Even if typical currency was abolished it would simply resurface in a few mere centuries.

Originally Posted by NinjasDontFight

Well we always want more, but we people buy to much junk. You don't really need cellphones, computers, paper, education, etc... Just food basically.

When everything is free, people would be more willing to give stuff away. If you keep getting new stuff, the old stuff has to go somewhere (read: be given away), or waste space.

Originally Posted by DrazharLn

An Agalmic society might be the answer, but only for non-scarce goods.

I like the word. It alliterates with anarchy and this concept needed a label other than "gift economics". Henceforth, this is the word.

Also, I see no reason it should not work for scarce goods as well.

Originally Posted by ~Void~

It would be lots of anarchy and Molotov cocktails at first, which would be interesting ^.^

:D

No, but seriously, as with anarchy, sudden change is bad.

Originally Posted by Elenai

Mankind gives a value to all objects in his mind. Including people.

Attach all the value you want, just not the imaginary concept of money.

Originally Posted by Elenai

Even if typical currency was abolished it would simply resurface in a few mere centuries.

If such is the case, then money is worth having.

Originally Posted by Hakeem

No money is kinda the goal of communism isn't it? I think communism is the faulty way someone who doesn't want money in the world deals with it.

I merely meant that Communism doesn't look at the fact that some people will always be richer than others. It was a really off-topic comment that popped into my head while writing.

To Gilles : Ooopss... I should have use a example of food instead of sophicated device.

To NinjasDontFight : Wrong, food is just part of it. We still need clothes to keep ourselves warm while living place such as home to protect ourself from mother nature.

Clothes - Need money, unless you are trying to be tarzan by wearing leaf.
Home - Live at cave.

To live entirely upon the combined goodwill of a society would require enormous organization as there would not be the motivation of money to grease the wheels.

Why would people bother making new innovations if they have no guaranteed reward?

The answer is that they want to, however, I don't think that a society built on the backs of people who might change their tastes any time is going to be very stable.

its not like you would work if it doesn't gets you any money..

Originally Posted by DrazharLn

To live entirely upon the combined goodwill of a society would require enormous organization as there would not be the motivation of money to grease the wheels.

How is money a factor in motivation? Go ahead. Answer. :)

Originally Posted by DrazharLn

Why would people bother making new innovations if they have no guaranteed reward?

I'd say the innovation is itself a reward.

Originally Posted by Mor)L(unE

its not like you would work if it doesn't gets you any money..

Something like... "If you find a job you like, you'll never have to work a day in your life."

If the reason you are doing your job is because you want or need the money, then you've got the wrong job to begin with.

The innovation will be enough of a reward for some. But faced with the option of staying home and sleeping or going to the lab [or whatever] and doing some work for no physical reward...

I think that unless some kind of pressure was exerted upon people to get them to work, they'd just doss about.

• I'm pretty sure most people are not lazy.
• Pressure comes in many forms. Survival anyone?

Money is only a tool. It is not the source of motivation. If you have a family to feed, your concern is not making money, it is feeding your family. One common way to feed your family is to buy food via money. Another common way is to grow or hunt it yourself.

---

I don't think this thread is going quite where I want it to go.

Basically, what modern day things, if any, would not exist in an agalmic world?

My hypothesis is that the things removed with money, are things related to money, such as banks and the motivation to maximize profits via quality degradation.

My hypothesis is that the things removed with money, are things related to money, such as banks and the motivation to maximize profits via quality degradation.

I disagree.

Currency is but a tool, and a very useful one at that. You are asking what the world would be like without batteries, and I say laser pointers would take an awful lot more time to conceive. What I mean is that money is a means of convenience, so that you won't have to go through complex trading sequences à la Zelda to trade that chicken for firewood, and that, as a means of convenience, it would have just that influence on society---more inconvenience, bringing less innovation.

If, from that, you mean how October of 2008 would be like without possession as a whole, I would say the most obvious point, that I believe your view is too idealistic. Money doesn't directly bring forth innovation and prosperity, but it acts as a strong catalyst for it. What someone wants to be is not always what he is good at. And it is also not always what will contribute to society. Therefore, I doubt modern day technology and organization would be the same.

If you're just going for the hedonistic view on life, that our freedom in our pursuit of happiness is more important than innovation and prosperity, I'd say that would be true. We don't really need anything to be happy besides our bare necessities. Hence the life of the hunter-gatherer, back in the far past, when women had equal roles as men, wars never happened, and, because hunting rarely took up much of their time, they had the freedom to do whatever they want, as "oblivious" as they were. However, I find that such a life would be rather boring. It is because you have the opportunity to "make it big" that life is fun. Colorful mythology and details of the afterlife cement this idea, in my opinion. We imagine the extraordinary because we want to be the extraordinary. It is human nature to want more than thought possible, and to exceed expectations. This kind of inherent greed made agriculture and, by extention, property not only possible, but inevitable.