No Money

+rep, to both of the last two posters.

MSBB, that was what I was getting at. I agree completely with what you say

Steel_Stallion, good summary

Originally Posted by MySpaceBarBroke

I disagree.

:D :D :D

Originally Posted by MySpaceBarBroke

more inconvenience, bringing less innovation.

Eh? I tend to think inconvenience causes a strong want to innovation.

Originally Posted by MySpaceBarBroke

If, from that, you mean how October of 2008 would be like without possession as a whole

Not possession, just the trade-for-everything concept. Since everything is free (if it is eligible for that as decreed by the owner) people are more willing to give stuff away. They don't need money in return for their good or service, because they don't need money to get goods and services.

Originally Posted by MySpaceBarBroke

I would say the most obvious point, that I believe your view is too idealistic.

I'd say communism is not idealistic enough. Being an ideal does not make something impossible or impractical.

Originally Posted by MySpaceBarBroke

Money doesn't directly bring forth innovation and prosperity, but it acts as a strong catalyst for it.

In some cases, I can see your point. From the perspective of an inventor, and from many other perspectives as well, I'm sure you can see how it can be an incredible damper for innovation.

Originally Posted by MySpaceBarBroke

What someone wants to be is not always what he is good at.

What someone wants to do very often varies greatly.

Originally Posted by MySpaceBarBroke

And it is also not always what will contribute to society.

As with crime in anarchy, this is not a problem unique to an agalmic economy. I could even go so far as to argue that money creates many jobs that contribute no real value, case in point: banks.

Originally Posted by MySpaceBarBroke

Therefore, I doubt modern day technology and organization would be the same.

I reach the same conclusion. I'd like to focus more on these differences, particularly, what are they?

Originally Posted by MySpaceBarBroke

It is because you have the opportunity to "make it big" that life is fun.

"The only difference between a rich man and a poor man is what they do in their free time."

Is not money but a tool? Is not "making it big" only a means to another purpose?

Originally Posted by Steel_Stallion

Modern society is too complicated to revert back to a simple trading method.

I'm not talking about a trade economy, because then money is useful. I'm talking about an agalmic economy, where people realize they have more stuff than they want or need, and just assume let someone who wants or needs it have it.

---

What I mostly want to know, is what differences between our current property distribution methods, and that of an agalmic economy, are not desirable?

The only way I can see society working correctly without a currency is with a reputation based economy.
We can already see the influence of data based reputation systems on real life. One needs to look no further than eBay to see that high reputation results in greater financial gain.
What we would be looking at, however, would be a system without any money at all, people would effectively give you stuff as a promise against your reputation, to preserve reputation you need to provide a service to that person or give them stuff to the value they put on the stuff they gave you.

Personally, I'm still sceptical as to whether this would work. I'm open to the concept though, if anyone can develop it such that it might work, I'll even add my ideas.

Some links:
fictional reputation based currency
Google search for the lazy
Accelerando --- a series of short stories by Charles Stross that features several economic systems, including a reputation based system

If someone wants what you have bad enough, they will likely offer you something so that they receive it over someone else who would have an otherwise equal chance of receiving whatever it is that you have. And so while everything is "free", there is still trade and bartering for priority of which individuals receive something that many individuals want.

We are going to trade our house for a loft in the harbor. It's amazing because even though property values have been practically chopped in half, we will still get something with the same original value.

Originally Posted by Teh_Ephy

If someone wants what you have

What is it that I have that they want, and how did I acquire it?

Originally Posted by Teh_Ephy

If someone wants what you have bad enough, they will likely offer you something so that they receive it over someone else who would have an otherwise equal chance of receiving whatever it is that you have. And so while everything is "free", there is still trade and bartering for priority of which individuals receive something that many individuals want.

If someone wants what you have bad enough, they would probably steal it from you if nobody could sue them.